Joined: Sep. 2009
| Kevin: To me, something like The God Delusion †is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So itís nonsensical.|
A problem with this argument (among a few I might add), Kevin, is that it assumes that tools have qualities requiring trust as opposed to parameters in which they can be validly operated. Why would you assume such? Does a hammer or a saw require trust? No, they require training and skill to use and some idea of why the tool would be useful for a given task. Reasoning/logic is no different - it is a tool for determining whether a given person's thought process or concept accurately holds to a given set of rules. The problem many creationists have with the concept of reason is they presume reason defines the rules. It doesn't. Repeatability, consistency, and predictability define the rules and those rules we refer to as "reality".
So in essence, your problem with Dawkin's argument is that you don't think that his tool can be used reliably to assess the rules that make up your reality. Basically that's like arguing that hammers aren't valid tools because you believe that milk should make a good nail. †
Hate to break it to you, Kevin, but that would be your problem, not his.
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis