In Chapters 2-4, Dawkins lays out the heart of his arguments against the “God Hypothesis”. Chapters 2-3 involve his refutation of the traditional arguments used to show the existence of God. He particularly takes aim at the 5 ways of Aquinas as well as the Ontological Argument. Chapter 4, by his own admission, is the most critical chapter in the book in which he attempts to conclusively refute the existence of God by arguing against “intelligent design” and showing how evolution by natural selection proves that any reference to God or divine intervention/creation is foolish.
In the later chapters of the book, Dawkins attempts to offer an evolutionary explanation of the development of religion among humans. He also seeks to show how a system of ethics can be worked out without reference to any divinity or religious system.
It’s Evolutionary! - No Argument from Me!
Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist – a noted expert in his field of study. He is more than able to discuss evolutionary theory. I will not be refuting evolutionary theory. I will not argue the relative merits and deficits of the theory. In fact, I have no problem personally, intellectually, or even religiously with evolutionary theory. Evolution by natural selection is quite clearly a fact of the natural world. The overall theory is valid even if the nuance of detail is open to debate. I won’t be entering that debate.
Who Needs a Brain? – Oh Yeah, That Man Made of Straw!
Additionally throughout the book, Dawkins repeatedly sets up “straw men” and then proceeds to engage in ad hominem attacks on the very straw men he has devised. Examples of this abound. However there are two that I find worth noting at this point. First, Dawkins lays out his understanding/definition/description of God especially as he understands (or more accurately misunderstands) the God revealed in the bible. He particularly has choice invectives for the “God of the Old Testament”. Second, Dawkins hurls malediction and invective at religion itself – identifying it and equating it to disease, corruption, and evil.
For the moment, I won’t be entering this debate either. I am certain that the highly provocative and aggressive language used by Dawkins in these ad hominem attacks is a true reflection of his core beliefs and values. The strength of his passion in these remarks is, at times, quite remarkable. But I view these remarks as incidental to the main points he is trying to make.
The simple fact is that his main premises are irrational, illogical, and erroneous. They do not meet the criteria of sound rational argumentation and it is the oldest trick in the book to use invective, personal attack, and highly charged emotional language to somehow compensate for poorly constructed argumentation.
Such language also sells more books.
So What’s Your Point(s)?
In the next few posts, I will address what I perceive to be the book’s major points. My basic premises are as follows:
- · The scientific method cannot conclusively prove that God does or does not exist;
- · From an experience of reality, I can logically arrive at the existence of God with a high degree of certainty (but not absolute).
- · The theory of evolution does not necessarily entail any particular atheistic, agnostic, or Christian understanding of the world.
- · Dawkins’ refutation of William Paley’s watchmaker analogy does not equate to a refutation of God’s existence because “intelligent design” itself does not hold water.
- · Dawkins’ proposal that ‘memes’ explain the evolutionary development of human culture is itself as illogical and unscientific as his description of religion is.
- · There is a very real part of the human being that transcends the physical and material.
- · Natural law provides the basis for all human ethical behavior.
Let’s Be Clear Here!
An important point needs to be made here.
All our knowledge, proper and improper, and all our beliefs need to be evaluated against reality. Einstein warned that even as coherent, clear, and attractive his theory of general relativity was, its true worth would only be determined by experiment and observation (i.e. the real world). There is a temptation to sacrifice reality for clarity or elegance of thought. We must recognize that reality is very complicated and accept that we are prone to error. Aquinas states that mathematics is much more connatural to us than philosophy and it is much harder for us to reach certainty in philosophy than in mathematics. Hence we must be careful to not require things to fall into a type of study that is easiest for us and thus most clear to us. In other words, thinking is hard work – there are no short cuts to the truth – and we must always be consistent with the reality in front of us. I can create the most elegant and eloquent systems of thought but if it is not the result of a consistent, logical chain of reasoning from the reality of the universe – it is only so much smoke and mirrors. If I start out by denying part or all of reality, I cannot reach the truth. This is the problem with many modern schools of philosophy and such denials are the basis of much of the error we find in the world today. But that’s for another post on another day.
What is meant by the term “God”?
To facilitate progress I will describe what I am referring to through the use of the term “God”. The attributes that I describe here can be arrived at through a chain of logical reasoning beginning with the reality of the universe around me. I will simply describe them here in an effort to facilitate progress towards filling out my arguments for the premises I stated above. I am describing the God of the philosophers not the God of revelation. This is what we can know from reason alone – not from scripture and/or religious teaching – although the two are mutually inclusive, the one represents a starting point, a foundation if you will – or as Aquinas states, “The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles”.
God:
1. Is Eternal
2. Has no potentiality – is complete actuality
3. Has no composition – Is Undivided Unity - simplicity
4. Is incorporeal – immaterial
5. Is pure being – existence and essence are the same
6. Has no accidents (no nonessential attributes) – includes no changeable or perishable attributes
7. Cannot be categorized into any genus or species
8. Is universal perfection
9. Is infinite
10. Is omnipresent
11. Is immutable
12. Is omnipotent
13. Is omniscient
14. Is truth itself
15. Is all good
The proposition “God exists” is not Self Evident.
Obviously, the existence of God is not at all self evident.
A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject. An example would be “Man is an animal”. “Animal-ness” is contained in the essence of “man”.
If the essences of the predicate and subject are known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all. If everyone understands the meaning of “man” and the meaning of “animal”, then the statement that “man is an animal” is self-evident.
If a proposition is truly self-evident, no one can mentally admit its opposite (e.g., Man is not an animal).
The opposite of “God is” can be admitted. In fact, many do admit that “God is not”. Therefore, the existence of God is not self-evident.
God is not a hypothesis because God cannot be tested experimentally
God is infinite. Because of this, I can prove God’s existence through formal logic, but I cannot empirically prove it.
I am finite, as our all humans by definition. This means that my senses are finite. The power of my observation is finite. Because of my finitude, I would be unable to observe the infinite even if it were presented to me.
I may be able to verify the infinite through formal logical analysis – for example I may be able to verify Cantor’s theory of infinite sets logically – but I cannot empirically prove such a thing. Infinity is not graspable, even in principle, by the senses.
The physical universe itself is not infinite so I have no example in the physical universe for my senses to operate on. And even if the physical universe were infinite, I still would not be able to observe its infinity – my finite senses would be incapable of taking in such infinity.
Indeed, the universe may very well be infinite, but if it is, I wouldn't be able to tell. Only my mind is able to accept the idea of infinity. My senses are unable to accept its reality. Infinity is not subject to empiricism.
Because God is infinite, this conclusion would also apply to God. God could be standing right in front of me, but I wouldn't be able to empirically observe God because my senses are finite.
Indeed, the universe may very well be infinite, but if it is, I wouldn't be able to tell. Only my mind is able to accept the idea of infinity. My senses are unable to accept its reality. Infinity is not subject to empiricism.
Because God is infinite, this conclusion would also apply to God. God could be standing right in front of me, but I wouldn't be able to empirically observe God because my senses are finite.
The scientific method cannot conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. There is no scientific apparatus, no computer model, no point of observation from which I can empirically observe or test the infinite.
Other Arguments Against the Existence of God
At this point, the reader may say along with Dawkins,
“Of course God’s existence cannot be proven by science. Because the existence of God is a matter of faith and faith or belief is an assent to a proposition based on an authority. Believers were raised by parents who believed in God or were part of churches that believed in God. They were indoctrinated and because of the authority of parents, priests, rabbis, ministers, etc. they “believe” in God. But as you say – no one can see God; no one can observe God; no one can empirically prove God – so this faith is in an unseen, invisible something. You might as well be talking about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Even belief – if it is believing a truth – must be based in reality. But we cannot be sure that God exists or not.”
“And besides almost everything we experience in the universe can be explained by science. The physical universe operates according to scientific laws and principles. And human events can be explained by human psychology, sociology, anthropology and medicine. We don’t need to suppose there is a God to make sense of the world or to make sense of human life. God is irrelevant – doesn’t matter if God exists or not.”
“Finally, believers always say that God is all good and all powerful. But there is a great deal of evil and suffering in the world. Innocent children develop deadly diseases. Natural disasters kill thousands of innocent people. So if God exists, either God is not good because God allows evil in the world. Or God is not all powerful because God cannot stop the evil. Couldn’t an all powerful and all good God create a world where there is no suffering or evil? Since there is evil and suffering in the world, there must not be a God – at least the kind of God believers talk about. Besides all this, much of the evil and suffering in the world has been done in the name of God and religion. People have been killing each other for centuries because of religion. In fact, religion is the number one cause of evil, violence, and suffering in the world.”
Ever Ancient, Ever New
My initial response to this hypothetical reader is to congratulate him or her on recapitulating the three most powerful arguments against the existence of God. They are also ancient, having roots in the philosophies of ancient Greece, and indeed restated in the 13th century by Aquinas – some 400 years prior to the birth of modern science and 700 years prior to the appearance of Dawkins!
There really is nothing new under the sun!
No comments:
Post a Comment