Is Richard Dawkins still evolving? (He now says a case could be made for a deistic God.)

The Spectator ^ | October 23, 2008 | Melanie Phillips

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

If we pray for healing, does God go back in time and change our DNA at conception? Did He make a volcano erupt to cause the plagues of Exodus? Did He make use of evolution to produce the diversity of life on the planet? Should we assume a superimposed Copernican Principle over Christianity in order to perform the task of science? I think many people do.

God created time. Therefore he exists independent of time.

Think about your questions with this as your starting assumption.

[dan1123]

God created time. Therefore he exists independent of time.

It's not a question of can God do it. It's a question of how much nature does God use? And is there any way to know since God doesn't go to great lengths to explain how He does things in the miracles recorded in the Bible.

All this doesn't matter for two reasons. First of all, big miracles are rare events. Secondly, since miracles are not repeating and consistent by definition, it is outside the realm of scientific investigation. Third, since science has been wildly successful with natural physical and chemical laws, consistency in a sense has been "proven" enough to warrant dependence on it for future investigation.

All that being said, there is something to our location in the universe being unique enough to mark our curiosity over and above a plausible anthropic principle dismissal.

[rdb3]

Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic?

He didn't know if dog existed.

I have to use that one!

[hinckley buzzard]

Dawkins has been disregarded by most as an anti-Christian hiding behind the figleaf of "science," more than a principled atheist. His book is less about the existence of God and more about an attack on organized religion. He obviously has personal issues of some sort, like most oppositionalists.

[Infidel Puppy]

Brilliant summation of the situation Jane!

This is quite a fascinating article, as I have several atheist friends (coming out of the atheist tradition myself) who grovel and lick the boot of Dawkins. I tried to explain that he completely over-reached his domain of expertise. Being a great biologist does not qualify your philosophical assertions, and in his case, he positively embarassed himself with them.

It is, indeed, difficult for the human mind to really wrap itself around probabilities of conditions which are not limited by our 4 dimensional perceptions of experience.

It is hard for a dog to write a symphony, but he knows when he experiences one.

[D-fendr]

The real crux is that Dawkins is way out of his league in discussions above the level of strict empiricism.

This level of debate requires great familiarity with the, at the minimum, basic history and principles of philosophy.

And Dawkins is a rank amateur in this sphere. He makes a fool of himself each go ‘round.

It would be much better for the debate if there were a better philosopher of science on his side.