Yuku free message boards

Niall earlier made a point that the arguments Dawkins provides in this book are weak and one doesn't have to go far to find an example. Page 31 provides a definition of the God hypothesis referred to in the book's preface on page 2:

Quote:

---

'the God hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other.

---

Here is how the hypothesis is defined on page 31:

Quote:

---

there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us

---

I'm going to overlook the deliberately designed redundancy -- is it possible to "accidentally" design anything? (I guess I didn't overlook it.)

Why super-human? Could anything about the putative creator of our universe be human?

Consider the definition of theist provided on page 18:

Quote:

---

A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation.

---

When I reread this section, the latter part of the definition, the part about God still influencing his (its?) creation startled me. I recognized that I have been defining a theist as someone who only asserts the existence of God. I checked the definition of "theist" in my dictionary (an American Heritage), and found that RD's paraphrase is surprisingly accurate -- I guess the difference between a theist and a deist, subsequently defined by RD in the same paragraph on page 18. So, a question: why doesn't the God hypothesis include the second part of the theist definition -- that God is still influencing our universe?

Here is the next part of the argument on page 31:

Quote:

---

This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

---

Of course, that assertion is based on causal observations of the natural world: that the same causal relationships apply to a supernatural realm is presumed by RD with no proof. I'll let that go because the next statement is the real howler.

Quote:

---

Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.

---

What in the heck does this statement have to do with God? God, being supernatural, would not be part of the universe. If he did create the universe, he must have existed before it did. If it was necessary for God to evolve, why is it that the evolution could not have taken place before our universe was created? Of course, there is no empirical way to test or observe any of this but so what? The underlying assumption here (MadArchitect is laughing already, I'm sure) is that if we don't have empirical proof of something it couldn't have happened. Really? And how would one prove that? This isn't a rational argument. In fact, it's not an argument at all.

The final assertion, that "God, in the sense defined, is a delusion" is meaningless because an argument concerning the recent development of creative intelligence in the natural world cannot be meaningfully applied to a supernatural creator. So, in fact, the title of this book rests on a meaningless argument. Impressive.

Fiske

Dear Saint:

Quote:

---

Let's say that I assert that A=A and A cannot equal ~A ever. Someone responds to me arguing that this assertion is only based upon my being part of a "logical" world--I assume without reason that the same logical relationships would apply even to an "alogical" world.

---

The first observation I would make about this argument is you are comparing an analytic statement (A=A etc.) with a synthetic statement about a hypothetical supernatural world. You next invoke "logic" which is fundamental to analytical statements. In fact, you couldn't have an analytical statement without logic. But logic is not fundamental to synthetic statements (only to the analysis of synthetic statements). In other words, natural laws are alogical. Supernatural laws can be assumed to be equally alogical.

Although I may not have made this clear, my intent was to suggest that a supernatural realm might reasonably be supposed to operate by other laws than our natural universe. In fact, this argument is no different than arguments about alternative universes posited by string theorists which operate according to laws totally different from those governing our own universe.

Quote:

---

What reason do you even have to bring up such a realm of existence? Does it even make sense? Can one conceive of an "illogical" existence or a "supernatural" existence?

---

Let's turn this around. Why is it more reasonable to assume the Big Bang was uncaused than caused? Either position rests on foundational assumptions which cannot be proved.

Can one conceive of an "illogical" existence? Sure. Dissident Heart...

Can one conceive of a "supernatural" existence. Well, er, yes. We have about a zillion religions demonstrating that fact. Not to mention a whole raft of horror stories (RD doubtless includes the Bible among their number), fantasy stories, supernatural tales, etc.

Quote:

---

I think that the point Richard is making is one that is frequently made in debates concerning contingency and necessity in regards to existence. The question asked is, "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" And the answer is supposed to be that God explains this. But then we are left with the question, "Why does God exist rather than nothing?" and the stock response is that this question does not apply to God, it would only apply to contingent matter and energy.

---

The debate over contingency and necessity is an interesting and vexing problem for theists and non-theists alike, but since Dawkins does not reference the problem in his argument on page 31, I see no reason to include it in a critique of that argument.

Quote:

---

In terms of Richard's point, the question is, "Why does complexity exist", and the answer critiqued is "God creates complexity." Richard is essentially arguing that this doesn't really answer that question, because God himself must be pretty complex.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Instead of answering the question, the theist is essentially saying, "Complexity doesn't need to be explained, I can posit a being that lives in a realm that dodges these explanations".

---

Some theists make this argument, which I agree is illogical. However, the argument isn't necessary to theism per se. Here's what I mean:

Quote:

---

"Complexity exists because it is the end product of selective pressures and random changes"

---

That is only partially correct because "selective pressures and random changes" must occur within a framework of natural laws to operate. Science is well equipped, in fact perfectly equipped, to understand natural laws. But science cannot offer an explanation for why there should be natural laws in the first place. Ignoring the question because science can't answer it is metaphysical naturalism, pure and simple. It is not an unreasonable position, but it is also not the ONLY reasonable position. Asserting that a question must be ignored because an empirical answer is not possible is a philosophical position, not a fundamental truth.

Finally, you haven't responded to the real show stopper in Dawkins' argument, which is that he confuses natural creative intelligences that evolved in the natural world with a hypothetical supernatural intelligence which, by definition, could not have evolved in the natural world. That's what makes the argument meaningless. I don't object that other arguments can be made, but RD didn't make them on page 31, which is where he explicitly concludes that God is a delusion.

The problem I have with that whole idea, and, in fact, the title of the book, is that belief in God cannot shown to be false.

Ultimately, what RD is trying to do on page 31 (what he promised to do on page 2) is demonstrate that belief in God is a scientific hypothesis. I would say his demonstration fails. Utterly.

Fiske

Hi Mad!

Thanks for lending a hand. I think I did mention that but it probably wasn't emphasized as much as it should have been. Of course, the reason why RD wants to cast God as a scientific hypothesis is to put himself in the position of disproving it.

What the argument in this book really comes down to, is the idea that in the absence of any empirical evidence, people who don't agree with RD are delusional.

Fiske

PS: You know, you could save me a lot of work by reading the book and participating in the discussion -- I wouldn't have to be making all these arguments...

Quote:

---

Take a look at some of the threads in the "Breaking the Spell" forum. Dawkins is probably more egregious, but I definitely made the argument that Dennett was disingenuous in his intentions for the book.

---

Dennett bores me to tears...

Fiske

Dear Mad:

I take it you HAVE read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God? If not, make haste to the bookstore...

Fiske

PS: I think it should be required reading for anyone who reads The God Delusion.