Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: Jack <>
Date: Sun May 06 2007 - 23:30:10 EDT

The evidence of your brainwashing is that you never refute arguments against
your position, other than to say that there are those on this list that have
misread Dawkins.

You have not addressed your lack of understanding of Plantiga's argument
first of all. Secondly, you have never shown any signs of defending the
Christian faith against one who is clearly an enemy of that faith. You have
not addressed many questions that have been asked of you. For example you
never answered this: "Pim, you seem very fond of disparaging arguments made
by Christians, including Francis Collins, it seems. It would be
interesting to know what are your reasons for being a Christian? " or this:
"And, if you're a Christian, where is it that you disagree with Dawkins?
You seem at pains to educate us about where you think he is right. Where
has he gone wrong, according to you?" or this:
"However, I have already posted a very clear argument that shows that there
is a basic fallacy in Dawkins' syllogism, and that his syllogism is
therefore completely undone. I don't think there is any response to my

So Pim, you insult all of us on this list that disagree with you by claiming
we have not read enough Dawkins and dont understand him. And you also say
that a philosopher like Plantiga, doesnt understand logic as well as you do,
and that prominent Christian scientists like Collins are confused by the
same scientific data that Dawkins understands, and that Collins obviously
cant interpret it as clearly as Dawkins can. So Pim, tell us, where do YOU
stand on this issue? If you dont answer that question, and those above, I
see no point in continuing the discussion.

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <>
To: "Jack" <>
Cc: "Rich Blinne" <>; "Iain Strachan"
<>; "David Campbell" <>;
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

> You seem to be misunderstanding what I (and Dawkins) are saying. I am
> more than willing to acknowledge that Dawkins has a hostility against
> religion, what I was pointing out is that this does not mean that
> Dawkins hates religious people. I am also not saying that I am the
> only one who understands Dawkins, but rather that some on this group
> seem to be making assertions which are not just not supported by what
> Dawkins has said but even contradicted.
> Your brainwashing accusation seems uncalled for. What I am pointing
> out is just because some 'great writers in Christian tradition' have
> called God to be simple, that this is an argument from authority,
> especially when the argument seems to be so flawed.
> Great tradition or not, the arguments why God is simple seem to be so
> far mostly assertions and running contrary to common sense and
> certainly contrary to ID's own thesis.
> On 5/6/07, Jack <> wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned this discussion has nothing to do with ID, it
>> has
>> to do with Dawkins arguments against theism, and his hostility towards
>> all
>> religion which you refuse to acknowledge, your sole argument seems to be
>> that you are the only one that understands Dawkins.
>> As I have said before, the complexity/simplicity of God is an ancient
>> discussion, and again, I suggest you spend more time reading the great
>> writers in the Christian tradition, and less of Dawkins et al. They have
>> apparently brainwashed you.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "PvM" <>
>> To: "Jack" <>
>> Cc: "Rich Blinne" <>; "Iain Strachan"
>> <>; "David Campbell" <>;
>> <>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
>> > As I pointed out one may of course define God to be simple but that
>> > does not solve the problem raised by ID that complexity requires a
>> > more complex entity.
>> > Calling God simple is just a simplistic way of defining away the
>> > problem of explanation.
>> > How is the complexity/simplificity of God determined? And how does it
>> > rely on materialism?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/1/07, Jack <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I agree with you. But the point is that Dawkins argues that God is
>> >> highly
>> >> improbable because he must be complex. But as Plantiga points out,
>> >> God
>> >> only must be complex if materialism is a given.
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Rich Blinne
>> >> To:
>> >> Cc: PvM ; Iain Strachan ; David Campbell ;
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:27 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 5/1/07, <> wrote:
>> >> > This is what Plantiga has to say about Dawkins
>> >> > improbablity argument:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "...suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument,
>> >> > that God is complex. ..
>> >>
>> >> I'm not willing to concede that. The Athenasian Creed has God as
>> >> simple
>> >> and
>> >> not complex, viz. without parts. This is not just a Catholic or
>> >> Orthodox
>> >> thing. Many of the Protestant creeds pick up on this same concept. For
>> >> example from the Westminster Confession:
>> >>
>> >> "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
>> >> and
>> >> perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or
>> >> passions,
>> >> immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible," etc.
>> >>
>> >> For a more detailed discussion on divine simplicity and how Plantinga
>> >> interacts with that see here:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 6 23:31:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 06 2007 - 23:31:27 EDT