= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Let Them Debate College Students - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
If you define "creationism" so broadly that it encompasses all theistic religion then I will readily agree that yes, one of the things Dennett's book is about is "creationism". Congratulations. On the other hand, that fact is then of little relevance to the question of whether Dawkins and Dennett and others like them should, or do, "refuse to debate creationists" since (everybody, I suggest, knows) the word as used in that phrase is not meant to be equivalent to "theists".
Whaat?!? Creationism is about a supernatural creator of the universe and man. Theism is about the existence of god - sometimes an interventionist god. They are different concepts. Theism is typically a broader concept than creationism - since you can believe in a god that answers prayers without also believing that she created the universe.
The inaccurate conclusion that I have these concepts muddled together seems to be without a basis in anything I have said. I do not know where you are getting it from :-(
I'm getting it from the fact that (as I said earlier) you've taken a statement about "creationists" and disputed it on the basis that the corresponding statement with "theists" in place of "creationists" is false.
Right - well, leaving aside the whole issue that I did no such thing, that appears to be some faulty logic you have there - creationists are theists (if you believe that god created the universe and man, you at least believe in god) - but not all theists are creationists.