"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th
century.

How does that relate to my point about preferring a natural explanation
to a supernatural explanation?

Of course every rational person should prefer a "natural" explanation. It
seems clear, however, that the further back we go the less likely that
"natural" explanation will fall into some neat category that we now
recognize as scientific. Quantum physics would not have appeared "natural"
to a 19th century physicist. String theory would have been dismissed as
mysticism as well. To me the delusional aspects of theism are assumptions
that we know what this creator or creating force is ("heavenly father"),
what it wants us to do (ten commandments), how it disposes of its creations
(heaven, hell), and how it reveals itself to humankind (sacred texts). These
notions are quite separate from the notion that a creating entity exists.