Indeed, when an argument was clearly refuted by Scottish philosopher David Hume as long ago as 1779 in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and more recently by scientist Richard Dawkins in his The Blind Watchmaker then ridicule and satire become appropriate responses.

The last attempt to insert this god in the gap argument was defeated in Dover, Pennsylvania and one only hopes that the United States will catch up with the remainder of the Western world and live in the 21 century instead of continuing a pre-Enlightenment way thinking. But I won't hold my breath.

Sent by Michael Hollifield | 3:06 PM ET | 11-16-2007

Dawkins is a weenie

Also, Trent Reznor clearly illustrates in his album "The Downward Spiral" that our self destruction of god has only sunk us into a moral and intellectual morass.

Sent by Jody Sol | 4:02 PM ET | 11-16-2007

Trent Reznor is a boring and way overrated godhead. The truth is very simple, so listen up all you progressive, intellectual modern western scientific thinkers. God exists, and long ago took the form of a comedian playing for an audience that refuses to laugh. Cheers.

Sent by John R. Otten | 5:28 PM ET | 11-16-2007

It's Pastafarianism, not FSM-ism!

The FSM exists and that's a fact.

May you all be touched by his noodlely appendage.

Sent by Peter Venkman | 5:48 PM ET | 11-16-2007

John Otten- Tell me where you live and I'll mail you one of those Jesus talking dolls for sure.

Sent by Kozi | 5:53 PM ET | 11-16-2007

As I said I won't hold my breath and an example of why is immediately provided in the post by Jody Sol. An Oxford professor whose excellent book The Blind Watchmaker which finished the job started by David Hume is dismissed as a "weenie" while a college dropout musician is quoted as if his views carry some weight.

Sol, read Hume's argument and the Dawkins and explain where they go awry in their critiques of the teleological argument which is being spoofed here.

Sent by Michael Hollifield | 6:19 PM ET | 11-16-2007

What's a godhead?

Sent by Jody Sol | 7:06 PM ET | 11-16-2007

As a Buddhist (and everyone knows that Buddhists are merely part of the illusion and we don't exist)...

Wait! Being that I'm defining what I'm not....Being am Existentialist Buddhist who grew up under the influence of the Catholic confession booth.....and I tell my Kaballah connected friends that if they really, really want to experience a singluarly genuine mystical religious experience, try the confession booth out, just once in your magical lifetime..........

I came to the conclusion about the confession booth (particularly those of the Jesuits) that the individual confessor priest should hang a more encompassing definition on his confession booth door.

Philospher of Confessions. Psychologist of Confessions. Political Authority of confessions. And then, maybe subtitles, such as Post Modern Philosopher of Confessions. Jungian or Freudian Psychologist of Confessions. Capitalistic of Socialistic Political Authority of Confessions.

In this way, as a prospective confessant approaches the confessional booth, at least he or she has the option of having their sins inspected and dissected in a way that is more personally attuned.

Rather than that same old mass produced secularist type of experience within the confession booth.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:49 AM ET | 11-17-2007

What I find really ironic here is that the idea of religious scholars getting together and discussing details about something that's completely made-up and obviously not real is news, somehow. What else have they been doing since, well, ever?

Sent by hiwattage | 11:18 AM ET | 11-17-2007

To Jody Sol, see specifically definition 2, subsection b.:

American Heritage Dictionary - god??head (g??d'h??d')
n.
1. Divinity; godhood.
Godhead
2. a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.

To Fred Call: I think you're really onto something there. The confession booth is a potential gold mine if it could be brought out of the dark ages and into the post-modern or New Age world. Of course, you'd have to talk the Pope into it. I suggest you stress the profit potential to get his full attention. Possible catch phrases would go something like "customized salvation" or "individually-wrapped morality". Perhaps a trap door could be installed that drops extreme cases down a shoot and directly into a rehab center when direct intervention is diagnosed by the priest. My finincial advisors assure me, despite the recent rumor mongering by the followers of this Dawkins dude, that spirituality and god are still sound investments. So if you could come up with a decent business model and marketing campaign, I might be interested as a silent investor.

To Michael Hollifield: I wonder if anyone will remember Dawkins or Hume 2,000 years from now.

Sent by John R. Otten | 3:51 PM ET | 11-19-2007

Sent by John R. Otten: I think you're really onto something there. The confession booth is a potential gold mine if it could be brought out of the dark ages and into the post-modern or New Age world.....So if you could come up with a decent business model and marketing campaign, I might be interested as a silent investor.

John, I am not convinced that Latin is really dead in the Catholic Mass. The Latin liturgy is being brought back slowly but surely. The Pope has no intention of going post modern.

As for investing in Catholicism, remember that the Vatican controls much of the flow of gold commodities throughout the world. Last I heard, gold was over $800 an ounce.

If you hear the Pope selling gold shares, then sell.

Then, again, if you are that close to the Pope when he's telephoning Wall Street, you need to let me know what's going on.

Besides, the Pontiffs were never known to be the money handlers in the Vatican. The Pope may be Polish or German, but the accountants are still Italians from the old school.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 5:19 PM ET | 11-19-2007