The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Dawkins: God is Highly Plausible:
Replies: 7   Last Post: Feb 10, 2013 7:29 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jim Burns

Posts: 1,200
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: William Hughes, care to comment? Re: Dawkins: God is Highly Plausible:
Posted: Feb 10, 2013 7:29 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/10/2013 2:58 PM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> William Hughes <> writes:
>> On Feb 10, 5:45 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <> wrote:

>>> Hey, William.
>>> You recently suggested that BroilJAB's stupid (and often racist) posts
>>> usually have some (admittedly very tenuous) connection to reality.
>>> That really surprised me.
>>> Is the following made-up quote a counterexample to what you claimed?
>>> Or is there some tenuous connection I don't see?
>>> Just curious.
>>> BroilJAB <> writes:

>>>> "The specified complexity of Life and the Cosmos
>>>> render the existence of God highly plausible."
>>>> -Dr Dawkins.

>> Actually, this was one of the examples I was thinking
>> of. The "quote" is made up, but there is
>> a tenuous connection to the truth. Dr Dawkins is on
>> record as saying that the existence of godlike
>> creatures is plausible. (Nothing to do with
>> complexity, specified or otherwise).

> Okay, thanks. I don't suppose I know the Dawkins comment
> you refer to.
A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy (page 4)

The quote which has some people reaching for their smelling
salts is:
> Doesn?t that description sound an awful lot like God?
> ?Certainly,? Professor Dawkins replies. ?It?s highly plausible
> that in the universe there are God-like creatures.?

And then the article goes on:
> He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he?s
> gone around a religious bend. ?It?s very important to understand
> that these Gods came into being by an explicable
> scientific progression of incremental evolution.?

It seems to me that, beyond some blurry but real point on the
more-tenuous/less-tenuous spectrum, the so-tenuous connection
is irrelevant, as far as communication is concerned. In my
judgment, BroilJAB passed that point a ways back.

Everything has a connection to everything. I don't think that
means that it doesn't matter what I say because anything
I say will be true -- in some tenuous sense.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.