For yet another demolition of Richard Dawkins tirade in "The God Delusion" see what Richard Kirk has to say in The American Spectator.
Showing posts with label Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dawkins. Show all posts
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Nagel on Dawkins
Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York State University in a review (In The New Republic) of Richard Dawkins latest tirade against religion and faith:
"The reason that we are led to the hypothesis of a designer by considering both the watch and the eye is that these are complex physical structures that carry out a complex function, and we cannot see how they could have come into existence out of unorganized matter purely on the basis of the purposeless laws of physics. For the elements of which they are composed to have come together in just this finely tuned way purely as a result of physical and chemical laws would have been such an improbable fluke that we can regard it in effect as impossible: the hypothesis of chance can be ruled out. But God, whatever he may be, is not a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world. The explanation of his existence as a chance concatenation of atoms is not a possibility for which we must find an alternative, because that is not what anybody means by God. If the God hypothesis makes sense at all, it offers a different kind of explanation from those of physical science: purpose or intention of a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world. The point of the hypothesis is to claim that not all explanation is physical, and that there is a mental, purposive, or intentional explanation more fundamental than the basic laws of physics, because it explains even them."
"The reason that we are led to the hypothesis of a designer by considering both the watch and the eye is that these are complex physical structures that carry out a complex function, and we cannot see how they could have come into existence out of unorganized matter purely on the basis of the purposeless laws of physics. For the elements of which they are composed to have come together in just this finely tuned way purely as a result of physical and chemical laws would have been such an improbable fluke that we can regard it in effect as impossible: the hypothesis of chance can be ruled out. But God, whatever he may be, is not a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world. The explanation of his existence as a chance concatenation of atoms is not a possibility for which we must find an alternative, because that is not what anybody means by God. If the God hypothesis makes sense at all, it offers a different kind of explanation from those of physical science: purpose or intention of a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world. The point of the hypothesis is to claim that not all explanation is physical, and that there is a mental, purposive, or intentional explanation more fundamental than the basic laws of physics, because it explains even them."
Friday, January 20, 2006
Religion the root of all evil
Oxford Professor, Richard Dawkins, has produced a two-part television program in which he attempts to demonstrate that religion is the root of all evil. This is an old argument and I haven't seen the series but just a few observations on the basic argument itself:
1. The use of the term "evil" in a naturalistic, Darwinian, argument seems out of place. If a dragonfly kills and eats a mosquito is the dragonfly evil? If a weasel kills a whole hen house full of chickens and leaves them to die in their own blood is the weasel evil? If a lion kills and eats a man is the lion evil? If a man kills another man is the man evil? At what point in the food chain does killing become evil? What place do moral judgments have in a purely naturalistic world? Is the evolutionary process of struggle and survival a moral process? Does Dawkins reserve the moral argument for homo sapiens alone? What dramatic change has taken place in the history of evolution that suddenly the whole story has taken on deeply moral tones? Is it possible that even the evolutionists cannot live with the logic of a purely naturalistic world? If humans are simply fancy containers for genes, as Dawkins believes, then how can any moral judgments be made against anyone?
2. The phrase "religion is the root of all evil" can be defended using the same methodology that Dawkins uses by substituting for the word "religion" any ideology, culture, or subculture that you wish to insert, including science. It would not be difficult to insert "atheism" in the place of religion and come up with a compelling argument in support of the case. The most "successful" application of Marxist ideology has been communism. With its intention to eliminate all forms of religion and to eliminate all of its ideological opponents this form of atheism has been responsible for the deaths of between 85 and 100 million people worldwide. What Dawkins fails to see is that it is people (theologically speaking, sin) that are the root of all evil, if it is possible to believe in evil at all in a naturalistic universe. Evil people will use any tool to promote their evil including religion, science, marxism, etc.
3. I can take the phrase "religion is the root of all evil" and test its veracity in terms of my own life. I can certainly say that I have committed evils in my live, and continue to do so. As a Christian I have been continually confronted by my own evil through my reading of the Bible. The Sermon on the Mount alone provides a powerful counterforce against the inclinations of the human heart. In my own case religion has acted as a restraint on evil and has presented a challenge to me to live in love, mercy, and forgiveness, even towards those that I might be inclined to view as my enemies. Have I ever used my religion as an excuse to do evil? Yes. But this does not make religion the root of my evil. It only shows how the human heart is inclined to take even the good and use it for evil. Although religion might present me with yet another tool with which to do harm it is also the most powerful tool I have for confronting and overcoming the evil that is in me. Beyond that it is a wellspring of grace and mercy and forgiveness that gives me the freedom to pursue the life of the gospel.
1. The use of the term "evil" in a naturalistic, Darwinian, argument seems out of place. If a dragonfly kills and eats a mosquito is the dragonfly evil? If a weasel kills a whole hen house full of chickens and leaves them to die in their own blood is the weasel evil? If a lion kills and eats a man is the lion evil? If a man kills another man is the man evil? At what point in the food chain does killing become evil? What place do moral judgments have in a purely naturalistic world? Is the evolutionary process of struggle and survival a moral process? Does Dawkins reserve the moral argument for homo sapiens alone? What dramatic change has taken place in the history of evolution that suddenly the whole story has taken on deeply moral tones? Is it possible that even the evolutionists cannot live with the logic of a purely naturalistic world? If humans are simply fancy containers for genes, as Dawkins believes, then how can any moral judgments be made against anyone?
2. The phrase "religion is the root of all evil" can be defended using the same methodology that Dawkins uses by substituting for the word "religion" any ideology, culture, or subculture that you wish to insert, including science. It would not be difficult to insert "atheism" in the place of religion and come up with a compelling argument in support of the case. The most "successful" application of Marxist ideology has been communism. With its intention to eliminate all forms of religion and to eliminate all of its ideological opponents this form of atheism has been responsible for the deaths of between 85 and 100 million people worldwide. What Dawkins fails to see is that it is people (theologically speaking, sin) that are the root of all evil, if it is possible to believe in evil at all in a naturalistic universe. Evil people will use any tool to promote their evil including religion, science, marxism, etc.
3. I can take the phrase "religion is the root of all evil" and test its veracity in terms of my own life. I can certainly say that I have committed evils in my live, and continue to do so. As a Christian I have been continually confronted by my own evil through my reading of the Bible. The Sermon on the Mount alone provides a powerful counterforce against the inclinations of the human heart. In my own case religion has acted as a restraint on evil and has presented a challenge to me to live in love, mercy, and forgiveness, even towards those that I might be inclined to view as my enemies. Have I ever used my religion as an excuse to do evil? Yes. But this does not make religion the root of my evil. It only shows how the human heart is inclined to take even the good and use it for evil. Although religion might present me with yet another tool with which to do harm it is also the most powerful tool I have for confronting and overcoming the evil that is in me. Beyond that it is a wellspring of grace and mercy and forgiveness that gives me the freedom to pursue the life of the gospel.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Rhetorical tools
I was not able to find much by way of a science of evolution in Dawkin's two books, "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable." What I did find was a whole array of thought experiments each supporting other thought experiments. Certain rhetorical tools were employed to make these thought experiments more palatable. The two primary tools were these:
1. Imagine ever smaller increments of change.
2. Imagine ever larger amounts of time.
These two tools when applied rigorously and frequently have the effect of making the whole process appear natural, simple, and eminently reasonable. Since Dawkins has not engaged in anything that has required the use of the scientific method these tools only need to be applied to imaginative ideas.
If we are having trouble conceiving of any particular change we are told simply to imagine a smaller change, and if this is too difficult then to imagine an even smaller change. Eventually we will arrive at a change that is small enough that no one could reasonably object to it. Two immediate problems arise with this:
1. What if the change I imagine is so small as to make no difference to the survivability of the organism? Then no affirmative selection is likely to occur and our thought experiment fails. Dawkins wants us to imagine a change small enough that we can be comfortable with but requires that that imaginative change is large enough to prove his point.
2. What if the problem is not with small increments but with the mechanism of change itself? I might decide that I can jump across the Grand Canyon. Perhaps you have trouble believing my claim. But what if I tell you that I will train and aim to jump one inch more each week than the week before and in this way eventually leap the grand canyon. Perhaps if you have some experience with athletics you will think that increasing by an inch a week is to ambitious a goal to be reasonable. Well than imagine that I jump a half inch, a quarter of an inch, or one micrometer more each week. The flaw in this is that there may be certain limiting factors that cannot be transcended in reality by this thought experiment, even though it might seem reasonable to the mind. In the case of evolution it may well be that the problem of irreducible complexity is such a limiting factor. Some gaps can simply never be jumped no matter how many little steps we try to take toward overcoming the limitations or how long we have to try. Dawkins would like to use his rhetorical tools to steer us away from such objections.
The second tool, that of ever larger amounts of time, fails for the same reason. If something is not possible in principle then it is not possible in the moment or in eternity. I cannot conceive of the law of non-contradiction failing just because I imagine ever larger amounts of time in which it might have an opportunity to fail. What must be shown is that the mechanism of change is sound.
What has really happened with the use of these rhetorical tools is that we have moved away from Paley's watch to the watch of the hypnotist. The tools have a hypnotic effect but the use of them is fundamentally flawed because they beg the question of the soundness of the mechanism. We are frequently subjected to rhetorical enchantments. At times you can almost hear the hpnotist say: "Look at my watch, you're getting sleepy, you're getting very sleepy..." At times you can almost hear the organ music in the background.
1. Imagine ever smaller increments of change.
2. Imagine ever larger amounts of time.
These two tools when applied rigorously and frequently have the effect of making the whole process appear natural, simple, and eminently reasonable. Since Dawkins has not engaged in anything that has required the use of the scientific method these tools only need to be applied to imaginative ideas.
If we are having trouble conceiving of any particular change we are told simply to imagine a smaller change, and if this is too difficult then to imagine an even smaller change. Eventually we will arrive at a change that is small enough that no one could reasonably object to it. Two immediate problems arise with this:
1. What if the change I imagine is so small as to make no difference to the survivability of the organism? Then no affirmative selection is likely to occur and our thought experiment fails. Dawkins wants us to imagine a change small enough that we can be comfortable with but requires that that imaginative change is large enough to prove his point.
2. What if the problem is not with small increments but with the mechanism of change itself? I might decide that I can jump across the Grand Canyon. Perhaps you have trouble believing my claim. But what if I tell you that I will train and aim to jump one inch more each week than the week before and in this way eventually leap the grand canyon. Perhaps if you have some experience with athletics you will think that increasing by an inch a week is to ambitious a goal to be reasonable. Well than imagine that I jump a half inch, a quarter of an inch, or one micrometer more each week. The flaw in this is that there may be certain limiting factors that cannot be transcended in reality by this thought experiment, even though it might seem reasonable to the mind. In the case of evolution it may well be that the problem of irreducible complexity is such a limiting factor. Some gaps can simply never be jumped no matter how many little steps we try to take toward overcoming the limitations or how long we have to try. Dawkins would like to use his rhetorical tools to steer us away from such objections.
The second tool, that of ever larger amounts of time, fails for the same reason. If something is not possible in principle then it is not possible in the moment or in eternity. I cannot conceive of the law of non-contradiction failing just because I imagine ever larger amounts of time in which it might have an opportunity to fail. What must be shown is that the mechanism of change is sound.
What has really happened with the use of these rhetorical tools is that we have moved away from Paley's watch to the watch of the hypnotist. The tools have a hypnotic effect but the use of them is fundamentally flawed because they beg the question of the soundness of the mechanism. We are frequently subjected to rhetorical enchantments. At times you can almost hear the hpnotist say: "Look at my watch, you're getting sleepy, you're getting very sleepy..." At times you can almost hear the organ music in the background.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
A mystery solved
The opening strain of the Dawkins symphony to evolution, in "The Blind Watchmaker," begins with this statement:
"This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved." P. ix
Two important claims are presented here:
1. The mystery of our existence has been solved by the theory of evolution.
2. Before Darwin there was no solution (or no credible solution) to this problem.
With regard to the first claim we might begin by noting its comprehensive sweep. Evolution does not simply explain how life developed from simple progenitors to complex life forms. Evolution explains the whole mystery of our existence. The "fact" of evolution establishes the philosophy of philosophical naturalism. I think that what Dawkins is saying is that with respect to the physical origin and history of life on earth a clear understanding of evolution makes God unnecessary. However, the question of the necessity of God for our existence is not aided or hindered by any understanding of nature or its mechanisms. As useful as the scientific method has been to the realm of science it is beyond itself with respect to metaphysical questions (such as "the mystery of our existence") in particular and philosophical questions in general. Darwinism has done nothing to make atheism more "intellectually fulfilling." Scientific fact is fodder for both the theist and the atheist, accessible to both and amenable to both. The mystery of our existence will never be solved by pointing to some scientific fact.
With regard to the second claim, that Darwin has solved "the greatest of all mysteries", this is just a little bit of grandstanding on the part of Dawkins. This would be analogous to Kraft inventing a new food spread and saying: "we finally solved the mystery of what to spread on toast." This line of reasoning attempts to make peanut butter, Cheez Whiz, jam, etc. merely provisional solutions awaiting the latest, final, and definitive solution to the problem of food spreads. The fact is that philosophical naturalism (we can't simply say Darwinism because it is not necessarily incompatible with previous solutions to the mystery of our existence) is just another, alternative, explanation for this "mystery." Dawkins seeks to prove too much. It is interesting that scientists sometimes complain about religion making pronouncements on science but these same scientists don't mind making pronouncements on religion and philosophy. The sword of Damacles cuts both ways.
"This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved." P. ix
Two important claims are presented here:
1. The mystery of our existence has been solved by the theory of evolution.
2. Before Darwin there was no solution (or no credible solution) to this problem.
With regard to the first claim we might begin by noting its comprehensive sweep. Evolution does not simply explain how life developed from simple progenitors to complex life forms. Evolution explains the whole mystery of our existence. The "fact" of evolution establishes the philosophy of philosophical naturalism. I think that what Dawkins is saying is that with respect to the physical origin and history of life on earth a clear understanding of evolution makes God unnecessary. However, the question of the necessity of God for our existence is not aided or hindered by any understanding of nature or its mechanisms. As useful as the scientific method has been to the realm of science it is beyond itself with respect to metaphysical questions (such as "the mystery of our existence") in particular and philosophical questions in general. Darwinism has done nothing to make atheism more "intellectually fulfilling." Scientific fact is fodder for both the theist and the atheist, accessible to both and amenable to both. The mystery of our existence will never be solved by pointing to some scientific fact.
With regard to the second claim, that Darwin has solved "the greatest of all mysteries", this is just a little bit of grandstanding on the part of Dawkins. This would be analogous to Kraft inventing a new food spread and saying: "we finally solved the mystery of what to spread on toast." This line of reasoning attempts to make peanut butter, Cheez Whiz, jam, etc. merely provisional solutions awaiting the latest, final, and definitive solution to the problem of food spreads. The fact is that philosophical naturalism (we can't simply say Darwinism because it is not necessarily incompatible with previous solutions to the mystery of our existence) is just another, alternative, explanation for this "mystery." Dawkins seeks to prove too much. It is interesting that scientists sometimes complain about religion making pronouncements on science but these same scientists don't mind making pronouncements on religion and philosophy. The sword of Damacles cuts both ways.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Why the world appears to be designed
In the book, "The Blind Watchmaker," Dawkins ponders why it took so long for the idea of evolution to arise, why so many brilliant scientists and thinkers in various disciplines missed it, and why so many people today will not accept it. Dawkins makes the following statement: "It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe." P. xi
Dawkins, of course, was not the first to make this observation:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessess and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be know about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - has been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans 1:18-21
Where Dawkins tries to explain why people reject a naturalistic explanation for the world, the apostle Paul explains why people reject a theistic explanation.
Dawkins, of course, was not the first to make this observation:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessess and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be know about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - has been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans 1:18-21
Where Dawkins tries to explain why people reject a naturalistic explanation for the world, the apostle Paul explains why people reject a theistic explanation.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
How to dismiss an opponent
In "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins makes the following two statements:
1. "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened..." P. 287
Now complete the syllogism:
X biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened
Therefore X biologist is not a serious biologist
Result: I don't have to give any weight to X biologist's arguments because he really isn't a serious biologist. He is dismissed.
2. "Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation." P. 316
Now complete the syllogism:
X theologian believes in instantaneous creation
Therefore X theologian is not a sophisticated theologian
Result: I don't have to give any weight to X theologians arguments because he really isn't a sophisticated theologian. He is dismissed.
Presumably the argument would continue:
3. No serious physicist ...
4. No serious chemist ...
5. No sophisticated philosopher ...
6. No serious geologist ...
7. No self-respecting dentist ...
What is wrong with this line of reasoning?:
False premise.
It is not possible to evaluate the seriousness or sophistication of someone's thinking based on one simple litmus test. The universe in which we live is just a little bit more complicated than that.
1. "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened..." P. 287
Now complete the syllogism:
X biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened
Therefore X biologist is not a serious biologist
Result: I don't have to give any weight to X biologist's arguments because he really isn't a serious biologist. He is dismissed.
2. "Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation." P. 316
Now complete the syllogism:
X theologian believes in instantaneous creation
Therefore X theologian is not a sophisticated theologian
Result: I don't have to give any weight to X theologians arguments because he really isn't a sophisticated theologian. He is dismissed.
Presumably the argument would continue:
3. No serious physicist ...
4. No serious chemist ...
5. No sophisticated philosopher ...
6. No serious geologist ...
7. No self-respecting dentist ...
What is wrong with this line of reasoning?:
False premise.
It is not possible to evaluate the seriousness or sophistication of someone's thinking based on one simple litmus test. The universe in which we live is just a little bit more complicated than that.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
An exercise in the literature of evolution
I have recently read two books by Richard Dawkins: "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable." Here is an exercise that you can try at home. Read through these two books with pen and two pieces of paper. On one piece of paper write down every piece of clear evidence that Dawkins offers in support of evolution. On the other sheet of paper write down every place where Dawkins asks you to engage in a thought experiment to imagine how evolution might have ocurred. When you are finished ask yourself whether, based on these two books alone, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the theory of evolution is anything more than the ultimate thought experiment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
