The God Delusion - Chapter 4

[otseng]

What arguments does Dawkins present that God does not exist?
Are they valid arguments?

McCulloch's questions:
Does evolution by natural selection demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong? He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain.

[jjg]

As bizzare as it is, his idea that God would be too complex beyond probability is very similar to the irreducible complexity argument of ID'rs which I'm totally against.

[Confused]

What arguments does Dawkins present that God does not exist?
Are they valid arguments?

McCulloch's questions:
Does evolution by natural selection demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong? He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain.

I think he presents many arguments that vary in soundness:
1) (pg 114) The argument from improbability states that many complex things could not have come about by chance. Most consider this the same as "in the absence of intelligent design". But Darwinian Natural Selection dispels this notion. Those who by chance have the best attributes to survive and procreate will do so, those who don't will become instinct. Fossil evidence of multiple extinct species gives credence to this
2) Though I am female, I dislike what the whole feminist movement has become, so equating it with natural selection isn't a strong point for me. However, it does illustrate the state of consciousness quite well.
3) Irreducible complexity:
Been rehashed at nauseum. But I did like how he demonstrated the probability vs improbability in this section.
4) The worship of Gaps:
As with #3, I think he is rehashing the ID concept and dispelling it. Though I am stunned to have something so simple and plain pointed out as if I missed it 100%. On pg 126, he states "Admissions of Ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creation propagandists is the negative....." The main thing that struck me here is the truth of the first few words, ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. So simple, yet so true. His point here is making the God of Gaps issue to fill in where science has yet to explain. Gaps in science seem to be things that most theists still thrive on. Such as the Pope accepting evolution (finally) but then saying that it isn't through natural selection, rather the gently guidance of God (ie: fine tuning). I think Dawkins went at nauseum to reiterate the problem with this.

[Confused]

This is as far as I have gotten in Chapt 4 so far. I will admit, he presents much old information, but I am not sure I can say that thus far, he has proven his assertion as to why there almost certainly is no God. Perhaps the rest of the chapter will yield more.

[otseng]

In any case, I'm impatiently awaiting your refutation of his improbability argument. It's going to have to be good, but then, your arguments usually are.

Thank you. I'll address Dawkins' argument in the next post.

Do you still think this after I put some more emphasis on "proving"? Proof typically means 100% certainty.

To prove in the strict sense, no, it is not possible to prove almost anything with 100% certainty.

Titling this chapter "Why there almost certainly is no God" is, I think, a reflection of the fact that Dawkins is aware of the problem facing all reactions to existentual claims.

Certainly.

Perhaps it might help to think of the multiverse concept for a moment: If it can be demonstrated that our universe is but one of many and the appearance of fine-tuning is a self-selection effect from a pool of infinite possibility, then we still haven't eliminated God from the picture, but we are forced to revise many of our preconceptions about God and his intentions etc.

True. But I think it would be almost impossible to reconcile Genesis 1 with a multiverse.

[otseng]

He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain.

My first issue is that this argument is philosophical in nature rather than scientific. One might balk at the requirement of applying science to demonstrate the non-existence of something. But, I'm simply holding Dawkins to the standard that he has set for himself. "Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question" (page 48) And if it is a scientific question, then evidence needs to be brought forth. If he has no evidence, then I do not see how his approach can be scientific.

Also, this argument is simply a restatement of "who (or what) designed the designer?" or "what caused God?". In the realm of science, the lack of a underlying cause does not invalidate an explanation. For example, the theory of evolution is linked to how did the first life come about. ToE would require an even greater explanation of abiogenesis. But, it is not necessary for abiogenesis to be explained in order for the ToE to be valid. Also nobody knows what caused the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is not dependent on having an explanation of its cause. Likewise, it is not necessary to explain what/who caused God in order for God to be valid.

Also, even if there exists a more complex explanation of God and that we don't understand it currently, it does not show that God could not exist.

Finally, to assign any probability of God's existence based on his "Ultimate 747" argument would be purely arbitrary. What would the probability be? 99%? 50%? 1%? There would be no way to assign a value, or even a possible range of values. If no possible value can be determined, then it's erroneous to claim there is little probability for God's existence with this argument.

[FinalEnigma]

He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain.

My first issue is that this argument is philosophical in nature rather than scientific. One might balk at the requirement of applying science to demonstrate the non-existence of something. But, I'm simply holding Dawkins to the standard that he has set for himself. "Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question" (page 48) And if it is a scientific question, then evidence needs to be brought forth. If he has no evidence, then I do not see how his approach can be scientific.

I assume you mean this is a philosophical argument because it's logic-based and not empirical? Yes, I suppose it is.

Also, this argument is simply a restatement of "who (or what) designed the designer?" or "what caused God?".

That's not really a weak point in the argument. That question has never really been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Or at least, anyone who is an atheist presumably.

In the realm of science, the lack of a underlying cause does not invalidate an explanation. For example, the theory of evolution is linked to how did the first life come about. ToE would require an even greater explanation of abiogenesis.

There is a difference. And here's what it is: With the example of the theory of evolution you started with two questions. (where did life come from? and why is it so varied?) ToE answered one of them, with a very simple(occam's razor), elegent solution. And a solution which actually answered all the questions it tried to adress, without raising bigger ones ToE doesnt claim to be the entire answer to the entire puzzle. ToE is a part of the puzzle that tries to explain life. The origin of life is another part, one to which we dont have the answer yet. But once we do have it, the puzzle will be done. We wont just have another bigger puzzle to start on.

God tries to be the entire puzzle, but when your entire puzzle is completed, and suddenly, you just have a bigger puzzle than you started with, that is not a valid answer.

Finally, to assign any probability of God's existence based on his "Ultimate 747" argument would be purely arbitrary. What would the probability be? 99%? 50%? 1%? There would be no way to assign a value, or even a possible range of values. If no possible value can be determined, then it's erroneous to claim there is little probability for God's existence with this argument.

Dawkins isn't assigning an arbitrary value to the probability. he is actually using this argument to disprove the intelligent design argument.

Intelligent design says "the universe is too complex to have come about by itself, it must be designed" But the problem is, the christian God is even more improbable than the universe itself, because the attributes given him require even greater arbitrary complexity than the universe itself would. The ID argument is bunk because it sets up an improbability then answers it with a greater improbability and expects to have won something.

It's equivalent to going to a bank robbery scene where the vault door was broken open and nobody can figure out how(except in some way that would require an enormous amount of skill at something), then deciding, because its unlikely that anyone in town at the time had the necessary skill, that it was done by invisible space aliens that are 3 inches tall and as strong as superman.

[otseng]

My first issue is that this argument is philosophical in nature rather than scientific.

I assume you mean this is a philosophical argument because it's logic-based and not empirical? Yes, I suppose it is.

Since the "Ultimate 747" is the only argument he presents in his book against God and that it is a philosophical argument, then he never does scientifically show that God is improbable in the entire book. This is my main reason I consider it to be a disappointing book. Further, as a scientist, Dawkins should know better and be able to recognize a philosophical argument versus a scientific argument.

Also, this argument is simply a restatement of "who (or what) designed the designer?" or "what caused God?".

That's not really a weak point in the argument. That question has never really been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Or at least, anyone who is an atheist presumably.

No Christian I know of tries to answer this question because the question is meaningless. That is, all Christians (that I know of) believe God is uncaused.

But once we do have it, the puzzle will be done. We wont just have another bigger puzzle to start on.

For the ToE that is true, but not for the origin of the universe. Or another example, in the subatomic world, we are down at the level of quarks. But, what are quarks made of? And what is that made of? Just because we do not understand the cause of something is not a good reason to dismiss it.

God tries to be the entire puzzle, but when your entire puzzle is completed, and suddenly, you just have a bigger puzzle than you started with, that is not a valid answer.

We're only trying to solve the God puzzle here. We don't need to try to solve the "bigger" puzzle. That is, the question is simply does God exist or not? If God does not exist, then asking what caused God would be meaningless. If God does exist, then there are other issues that are more important than what caused God.

Dawkins isn't assigning an arbitrary value to the probability. he is actually using this argument to disprove the intelligent design argument.

The chapter is titled, "Why there almost certainly is no God". This implies that some low probability is assigned to God's existence. The question is how did he derive this low probability estimate?

If he is using the Ultimate 747 argument to "disprove" ID, then it would also be fallacious. As we've noted, his argument is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. To disprove it, it would require empirical evidence. (And as a note, the book God - The Failed Hypothesis does attempt to approach it scientifically. And in my opinion it is a superior book to TGD.)

The ID argument is bunk because it sets up an improbability then answers it with a greater improbability and expects to have won something.

I've already addressed this above. But I'll ask an additional question, how do you know that it has a "greater improbability"?

It's equivalent to going to a bank robbery scene where the vault door was broken open and nobody can figure out how(except in some way that would require an enormous amount of skill at something), then deciding, because its unlikely that anyone in town at the time had the necessary skill, that it was done by invisible space aliens that are 3 inches tall and as strong as superman.

Actually, this is a good analogy. The only thing ID says is that someone from out of town did it. It says nothing about the color, height, nationality, or planetality of the person.

[otseng]

Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist' might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it... Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries... We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.'

If ID theorists are saying this, then I would agree that it is not productive to prevent any scientist from pursuing any scientific endeavor.

But, exactly who is saying this? I think it is only Dawkins himself putting words into others. He even quotes his source as an "imaginary ID theorist". If he doesn't have a real source, are we expected to take his argument seriously? If nobody is saying this, then it is fallacious, and even irresponsible, to say this. I might as well make up quotes from imaginary evolutionists and use that as evidence against evolution.

If anything seems to be the case, it would be evolutionists that try to stop the work of IDers. Take for example the case of Guillermo Gonzalez. He is an accomplished astrobiologist, but denied tenure at Iowa State simply because he is pro-ID. It has nothing to do with lack of tenure requirements, but simply because he believes in a designer.

[Confused]

Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist' might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it... Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries... We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.'

If ID theorists are saying this, then I would agree that it is not productive to prevent any scientist from pursuing any scientific endeavor.

But, exactly who is saying this? I think it is only Dawkins himself putting words into others. He even quotes his source as an "imaginary ID theorist". If he doesn't have a real source, are we expected to take his argument seriously? If nobody is saying this, then it is fallacious, and even irresponsible, to say this. I might as well make up quotes from imaginary evolutionists and use that as evidence against evolution.

If anything seems to be the case, it would be evolutionists that try to stop the work of IDers. Take for example the case of Guillermo Gonzalez. He is an accomplished astrobiologist, but denied tenure at Iowa State simply because he is pro-ID. It has nothing to do with lack of tenure requirements, but simply because he believes in a designer.

I think it is in sync with the analogy Dawkins gives further down the page in regards to a quote by St Augustine:

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not with to learn" (quoted Freeman 2002)

[Confused]

What has had me stumped occurs on page 136:

"It is a strange fact, incidentally, that religious apologists love the anthropic principle. For some reason that makes no sense at all, they think it supports their case. Precisely the opposite is true. The anthropic principle, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It provides a rational, design free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situational propitious to our existence. I think the confusion arises in the religious mind because the anthropic principle is only ever mentioned in the context of the problem that it solves, namely the fact that we live in a life-friendly place. What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic principle is the other. The are alternatives"