Dawkins is continuing his tour across the US, and recently landed on Alan Colmes’ radio show.

A few notes here.

I really appreciated (seriously) Dick talking about the religious pandering of our politicians. Of course McCain doesn’t care about religion. Hillary a Christian? Well, people certainly think so. It’s good to see Richard call Americans out on that bullshit (yes, that is two nice things I’ve said about Dick in a row. Don’t read into it.)

According to Dawkins, the argument from design is the only argument people take seriously. I don’t think this is true at all. In the philosophical world other arguments take precedence over the design argument. Perhaps a minority of “scientifically-minded” evangelical Christians use the design argument as the knockout punch, but that is about it. Even then, Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument or C.S. Lewis’s Moral Argument would probably get more airtime than the design argument. We just don’t hear about it as much because no one is trying to get those arguments placed in school curriculum.

“How does it help to postulate a Creator?” in response to the question of the origins of the universe. This is not very useful, Dick. I am thinking or writing something a little longer on this particular question, but in the meantime I’d check out Plantinga’s response to him here:

[S]uppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument, that God is complex. Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is; God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. Perhaps so; still, why does Dawkins think it follows that God would be improbable? Given materialism and the idea that the ultimate objects in our universe are the elementary particles of physics, perhaps a being that knew a great deal would be improbable—how could those particles get arranged in such a way as to constitute a being with all that knowledge? Of course we aren’t given materialism. Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

Beautiful as usual, St. Al.

Wow, Dawkins does have the patience of a saint. Those callers are absolutely retarded. He is right, they do “bleet like sheep” , and Dawkins was right about the bullshit thing.