Friday, October 29, 2010

TGD: The Story So Far...

At the end of chapter four, Dawkins takes some time to summarize his argument against the existence of God. I think I'm going to do something similar.

Unlike Dawkins, I haven't been advancing one single argument. Instead I've been responding to various points that Dawkins has been making. However, in the process I have been advancing a kind of counter-argument. I think it's time to tie the pieces together and take a look at the argument I've been making (At the beginning of each point, I'll place a link to a previous post where I discuss the issue in detail).

Here is a quick summary of my argument for the existence of God:

First of all, based on the cosmological argument, we know that our universe was created by an external force. We don't know if this first cause is an abstract force or an eternal, divine being, but we know that the cause for the physical universe does not lie inside the physical universe.

Second, we know that our universe is special, because it is able to support intelligent life. This most likely did not happen by chance. From this we can infer that whatever created our universe did so intentionally, with the purpose of one day making intelligent life. From this we can infer that the cause of our universe is both intelligent, and able to make decisions.

Third, Dawkins' argument that such intelligent beings are ruled out by their improbability doesn't apply in this case. Dawkins' argument addresses the improbability of intelligent beings appearing spontaneously within the physical universe. As I said in step one, the cause of our physical universe exists outside the physical universe.

Fourth, when we take a second look at Dawkins' argument, we see that he is merely making the claim that the cause of the physical universe should be simple. This claim is merely a matter of preference or, to be more precise, faith*. There is no reason to believe that the cause of the physical universe actually is simple. Instead, it seems more likely that the cause of our physical universe is complex, for the reason given in step two.

Fifth, a being of such supernatural power and intelligence would theoretically be able to perform miracles. If such miracles occurred, we would expect to find evidence of them. In fact, there are many accounts of miracles throughout history, from ancient times up until the present day. There are even some (relatively) recent accounts of miracles that were witnessed by thousands of people.

Sixth, Dawkins argues that human perceptions are flawed. That every account of a miracle is the result of either some kind of deception, or it was invented in the mind of the person experiencing it. Given the very high number of people who claim to have experienced miracles, it is likely that at least some of them are genuine. Since Dawkins is arguing that miracles never happen, if even one of those accounts represents a genuine miracle, it is enough to refute Dawkins' argument.

The above argument makes the case that there is an intelligent being who created the universe and works miracles. I've avoided using the term God, but clearly the being described matches God's description on several counts.

Of course, I don't believe in just any God; I believe in the Christian God. My belief in the Christian God is partly a result of my own, unique experiences and partly a result of my belief that the New Testament contains a fairly reliable account of a miracle-working Rabbi who lived in the first century.

That is (more or less) the argument I've been advancing throughout the first four chapters. Starting with chapter five though, the book takes a different direction. Dawkins spends less time arguing against God's existence, and more time arguing about how religion is a bad influence.

By the same token, for the remainder of this series I will spend less time arguing for God's existence, and more time focusing on the role of faith. This should be interesting, because in this area I agree with Dawkins on more than a few points. So it should make for some interesting posts as I read the book and discuss the nature of religion and the role it should play both in our private and public lives.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy the posts to come.

* Ultimately any belief about the origin of the universe must be a matter of faith. Science can only tell us so much about the early universe. At some point, something happened that no one can really explain. This is a point that Dawkins doesn't quite seem to grasp.

5 comments:

  1. For someone with no evidence whatsoever and a very weak understanding of science, you sure use the phrases "we know" and "we can infer" too much. Science fail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "First of all, based on the cosmological argument, we know that our universe was created by an external force."

    That's really not true. Saying "we do not know what happened before the beginning of time" is not at all the same as saying "we know that our universe was created by an external force."

    "Second, we know that our universe is special, because it is able to support intelligent life. This most likely did not happen by chance."

    This is what is known as the argument from incredulity - "This seems inconceivable to me personally, therefore it is impossible". It is a logical fallacy; we may not be able to fathom something, but that does not license us to invent explanations in the absence of evidence.

    Your third argument, built on the first two, is similarly logically unsupported.

    This claim is merely a matter of preference or, to be more precise, faith*.

    The statement that science is the same as faith is simple semantic trickery, as I outline here. Science is perfectly willing to point out and explore its lack of certitude about some topics - religious faith calls them "mysteries" and invents stories to "explain" them.

    "If such miracles occurred, we would expect to find evidence of them. In fact, there are many accounts of miracles throughout history, from ancient times up until the present day."

    This is simply a misunderstanding of what constitutes "evidence". The testimony of people, either living or dead, is the lowest form of evidence. People are flawed data processors - that's why we've invented the scientific method. It allows us to control for and remove the influence of other explanations for phenomena, rather than just calling them 'miracles'. Apologists and nonbelievers alike have sought scientific evidence of miracles, and have always come up short.

    "Given the very high number of people who claim to have experienced miracles, it is likely that at least some of them are genuine."

    "Given the very high number of people who claim to have seen Elvis after his death, it is likely that he is still alive." "Given the large number of people who have claimed to be the messiah, it is likely that one of them is." "Given the large number of people who profess Scientology, it is likely that it is true." Surely you can see how this type of reasoning is flawed.

    There may be legitimate criticisms of Dawkins' line of reasoning, but this post doesn't provide them. I wish you luck in your search for understanding, but I would suggest you take some time to research the types of logical fallacies that are often used in apologia. It will help clarify your thinking, and leave you less exposed to criticism from randoms on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There was no 'before'. Time was created at the moment of the big bang.

    Even if we allow for 'something' outside the universe, e.g. GOD, that started it all, what then started GOD? The same argument applies to GOD that applies to the universe. From whence did GOD arise?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think that God succeeds as an explanation.

    Before God can choose anything, the choices (possibilities) must first exist.
    Before God can choose anything, he must first exist.

    So, the fact of reality and all its possibilities has nothing to do with God. (Saying that God creates the possibilities doesn't help, because this possibility along with all the ensuing possibilities would still be logically anterior to God - a contradiction).

    Therefore, reality is logically anterior to God.

    "Reality" is just a word meaning "the set of every possible state of affairs" or "the set of all possible worlds". And we've just seen that this set and all its members is logically anterior to God.

    Of course, this actual world is a member of the aforementioned set and so cannot be a consequence of God's or anyone's supernatural will.

    You should be able to see from this that there's no reason to view reality as anything other than natural and spontaneous and that concepts of the supernatural and contra-causal or libertarian free will (a supernaturalist idea) are a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks everyone for the responses. There are some very well thought out points here and it will take me some time to consider each one.

    I just want to respond quickly to clarify a few things. I didn't mean to suggest that believing in scientific theories requires faith. I was arguing that the belief that the ultimate cause of our universe (whatever it is) must be simple. I see that as being a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But if that claim is scientific, what evidence is there to support it?

    @Veridicus - I'm not quite sure I understand your argument correctly. Specifically, I'm not sure what it means to say that the possibility of something exists. I know what it means to say, "It is possible that x exists," but when you say, "The possibility that x exists exists," it sounds like nonsense. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant?

    ReplyDelete