Skipping over the fact that argument by analogy is not thought to be the strongest of rational strategies, it is sufficient to note that Dawkins apparently accepts the ID theorists' notion of God as a designer. Not that he believes in it, but it evidently seems to him an adequate notion of deity. Only it isn't. A supreme being is one that would not need to design anything. And if Dawkins would go to the trouble of learning what theologians actually think, he would find that God is understood to be simple, not complex. I am not suggesting that he would - or should - be persuaded by any of it. But if you are going to insist upon discussing what people believe, you should at least go to the trouble of finding out what that actually is.
No comments:
Post a Comment