Ok. Hold on, everybody. Let me get all meta-threadical on you, and then I'll leave this to y'all to work out.
I don't think Purry is stupid. At all. I think his intelligence is undiscliplined, which, as a disciple of hard sciences, he'll probably take as an insult, but allow me to explain.
Whether you find Purry's exigeses entertaining or not, I do not find them to be "responses" in the sense that they're only tangentally "responsive" to what has been said. Usually (and this is over the course of a coupla' years now) rather than respond to the thrust of a post, he'll pick one or two
obiter dicta from a post and go off on a world-according-to-Purry tangent. Often, it's a "gotcha" type "look at the inconsistency" banality. Yawn.
If you want to be entertained, I'll stipulate there's some value and, often, humor in that. However, if you're trying to carry on a dialog, it amounts to his, consciously or subconsciously, acknowledging that he cannot reply to the argument you're making, so he re-characterizes or just plain invents your argument for you in a meme convenient to him, and "responds" to that. Hence, the strawman reference.
The novelty of such an approach, from the receiving end, does not last long. So, I get bored, and I'm not going to make anybody's case other than my own. EDIT -- and to be clear, I'm not trying to convince him, or anybody, that there is a God. Most of Purry's thrust has been about how other, smart, people don't believe (more on that below) and therefore either (1) if I'm smart I shouldn't, or (2) because I do believe God exists, I'm dumb. Not exactly a foundation for a compelling dialog.
He and I are going to disagree on this, and I don't need to keep fixing his mischaracterizations and questioning his hyperbole. I believe in his first post he started with this little gem:
Most "intellectuals", and certainly almost the totality of the scientific community (including those geniuses who might fall somewhat short of a passing grade in their spelling ability) takes exception to the very existence of God,..."
Having studied some history, and knowing quite a few scientists and other intellectuals, I expressed my skepticism and asked where he got that data from. His response: " ".
Essentially, ignore being called on ridiculous hyperbole, used as the cornerstone of a position and move on. If you think that's a great approach, I'm not going to be giving you voice lessons either.
I hadn't read Purry's ... response ... until this thread was started; and, frankly, a reply seems superfluous. There's no "there" there. I can't tell if he's requiring dogma (can't "slice and dice" religions and choose your own
a la carte) or railing against it. Could it be entertaining? Sure, I suppose. Some people like Carrottop and Bob Saget.
The one piece of interest (to me) is another unsubstantiated position using the gravitas of others' opinions: IQ vs. belief in God.
Then again, the rate of athiesm may in fact increase in proportion to IQ. If so, evidently we're to infer, as Purry does, that "smart" people know God doesn't (or is it can't) exist. Personally, I don't buy into IQ as being terribly informative, and I don't believe athiesm is sophisticated. I think it's a dodge.
The rate of high-functioning mental disorders may increase in proportion to IQ as well (I have as much proof at hand for that as Purry put forth for his own, but it
is fun just to make ***** up as you go along, so I can understand the temptation). So, what would you infer from such a circumstance? That athiests are mental? You can be wicked smart and wicked freaking unstable... and history is replete with examples of that.
Finally (and I do mean finally) I thought that Jeff, Z and the others with whom I was discussing matters had come to a point where we understood and appreciated each others' views; and frequently that's about as much as you can possibly expect. There can be no such point with Purry, IMHO, b/c it's substance
and style on which we clash. I'm probably even in the bottom decile of "religiousness" of people on this board anyhoo, and I don't enjoy having to answer (atone?) for all of their supposed mendacities, tenacities and beliefs.
It's like putting me in a position to argue anything positive about Notre Dame. My heart's just not in it. "At least it's not any larger" is about the most positive thing I could say about it.
As always, best.
JP out.