Uncommon Dissent

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Machines That Can Deny Their Maker (0 comments)

A corny little play by a professed former atheist, who has written elsewhere,
I remember being annoyed when I learned that my atheism was also a "religion," and that there is really no such thing as not being religious, unless perhaps you're inanimate or turn off your brain totally when it comes to the great questions in life. Take the question of God's existence. How could I flatly deny it, say God couldn't exist, unless somehow I was omniscient? But omniscience is an attribute only of the God I denied. The non-existence of God could not be proven, and science and logic both fail when one looks closely at these issues. This left either agnosticism or belief in God.
Coming from someone with advanced degrees and a host of publications, this dubious "reasoning" is more than a little disappointing.

(Her evangelistic "talk" isn't much better.)


(added)

DaveScot thinks the play is "above my head" because I didn't deign to offer a point-by-point refutation. If I thought the play were really worth your (or anyone's) time, I might, but I point out the stupidity of its reasoning by citing a typical passage.
Random evolution works in theory, but in practice it is impossibly slow. This is not to say that I cannot shape it to be useful for generating minor variations on my designs.
Picard doesn't only dismiss every bit of genetic and developmental and paleontological research from the last century, and repeat a common creationist canard (micro- versus macro-evolution), but also offers two falsehoods: 1. that evolution is random, and 2. that it isn't fast enough to account for life's variety. The whole play is like this--oversimplification, false analogy, misrepresentation. Blech.




Filed under: Theists of a feather

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home