By George, I think I got it!

Will Rogers almost said, "I never metaphor I didn't like."

George,

It is well know (particularly amongst those interested in counter-apologetics) that quantum physics is only ever brought-up in discussion by theists to support a belief in God. You're not the only one on OLO who does this... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#221043

Simply Google any religious term and "quantum physics" together to see the plethora of apologetics grasping at a justification for religious belief and you'll see what I mean.

<<If this refers to my article, please give an exact quote of where I am doing the shoehorning.>>

Given what I've highlighted above, the simple fact that you mention quantum physics (not to speak of your frequent mentioning of it in various other discussions on OLO) is enough of an example of the shoehorning. Could you really sit there with a straight face and say that your frequent "name-dropping" of quantum physics, in so many discussions, is just an unfortunate co-incidence?

The degrees of subtly may vary but theists only ever insert quantum physics into a discussion as either an analogy to the mysteriousness of their god, or to suggest that he too may be hiding in its weirdness. Your last quote was a good example of the latter.

<<I do not see where I claim [the weirdness of quantum physics makes religious belief more rational].>>

You didn't have to. See below...

<<As far as I can understand what you wrote, you seem to suggest that only theists - physicists or not - are perplexed by the possible implications for the nature of physical reality.>>

No. How did you get that from what I said?

More to the point, though, are you honestly suggesting that this "perplexedness" is all you were talking about? That you - a person often accused of obfuscation, mental gymnastics and unnecessarily convoluted arguments - were not defending your theology when you said "Hence the need “to tie ourselves up in knots with complexity” when wanting to understand reality"?

C'mon george. If you're going to be that dishonest with me then there's not much point in me continuing here.

AJ Philips,

Well, I don’t see why I should feel guilty about mentioning quantum physics (or, for that matter, any other topic) in my OLO contributions.

>>If you're going to be that dishonest with me then there's not much point in me continuing here.<<

As I mentioned many times before, I am not going to reciprocate in a similar tone, however I wholeheartedly agree that there is no point in continuing.

George,

<<Well, I don’t see why I should feel guilty about mentioning quantum physics (or, for that matter, any other topic) in my OLO contributions.>>

The fact that you add “or, for that matter, any other topic” shows that you’re still missing my point. In fact, at this point, it seems you are taking great pains to not understand what I’ve been saying. Why would I suggest that you should feel guilty for just mentioning quantum physics?

<<As I mentioned many times before, I am not going to reciprocate in a similar tone…>>

You seem to be insinuating that there is something negative about my tone, or implying that one cannot say any of what I have said in a constructive way, using a positive tone. Why would you do that in the complete absence of any nastiness on my behalf if you’re not feeling guilty?

<<…however I wholeheartedly agree that there is no point in continuing.>>

The problem, however, is that you agree with me for such different reasons that it renders our agreement meaningless to the point where mentioning it just looks like an out; I don’t appreciate disingenuousness, while you just seem to be hitting the eject button frantically.

There’s nothing wrong with “killing two birds with one stone” by defending your theology at the same time as talking about the perplexity of quantum physics (the problem was that in doing so, you were committing the false analogy fallacy). Except that you’ve now denied it when it is very apparent that that’s precisely what you were doing.

You seem to be feeling VERY guilty here. And you should be. But not for the reasons you thought I was suggesting.

AJ Philips,

OK, so let us agree that there is no point to continue, for whatever reasons you prefer.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15341&page=0

its about word use
or rather language

oh well
pollute the well
best know now..we dwell in hell