TGD: Chapter Four - Simplicity and the Nineteenth Century

At last we reach the end of chapter four. The final section is entitled, "An Interlude at Cambridge," and in it Dawkins describes a conference he participated in. The conference was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, an organization which he has little fondness for. The Templeton Foundation awards a prize to individuals who, "Make an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension." Unsurprisingly, Dawkins was the only atheist speaker at this conference.

At this conference gave a version of his argument against God's existence, which I discussed earlier. Naturally his argument was not readily accepted by the other speakers. He describes a few of their main objections.

The major argument revolved on whether or not God is simple. The crux of Dawkins' argument is that God is incredibly complex. The people whom Dawkins was debating with argued that God is actually simple.

The people arguing that God is actually simple probably have a different understanding of God's nature and a different definition of the word simple. These differences of opinion are inevitable when people with different world views talk to each other about what they believe. These differences provide a real challenge for anyone who tries to talk someone out of their world view.

Besides claiming that God is actually simple, the other major response Dawkins received for his argument is that it is very "Nineteenth Century". If Dawkins' opponents explained what they meant by calling his argument "Nineteenth Century", Dawkins doesn't give it. He does, however, share his own opinion about what they meant by it.

According to Dawkins, saying that his argument is "Nineteenth Century" is simply a coded way of saying that Dawkins is being rude by making a direct attack on religion like that.

I have my own opinion about what they might have meant by the phrase "Nineteenth Century". The Nineteenth Century was the height of modernism and Dawkins' world view is very modernist. In particular, his belief that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is a distinctly modern idea.

This idea has, for the most part, fallen out of favor. The only people clinging to the belief that science and religion are incompatible are religious fundamentalists and men like Dawkins.

Having said that, this is an important conversation to have. I think most people understand that science and religion can coexist, but most people haven't given too much thought to how that compromise works in practice. Reading Dawkins' book has forced me to reevaluate my beliefs about how science and faith interact.

So I'm glad that Dawkins is making this argument. My only regret is that he didn't work harder to understand the people he was arguing with. I think he could have gained some valuable insights into how religious people view the world. So far what I've read from Dawkins indicates that he doesn't really grasp what makes a religious person's mind ticks.

TGD: Chapter Four - The Multiverse, Big Crunches, Black Holes and other Strangeness

Today I want to talk a little bit more about the anthropic principle and the question of why our universe is fit for life. It's an interesting question and it's not one that can be answered easily without appealing to God.

The simplest and most straightforward way to address this problem is to claim that our universe couldn't possibly have been any different from the way it is now. This argument is often made by theoretical physicists trying to put together a unified theory that can explain the entire universe. Once we finally have this theory, they argue, we will see that the universe has to be the way it is.

Surprisingly, Dawkins considers this argument unsatisfying. Even if there truly is only one way that the universe could have been, we can still wonder why that one way is so well set up for the eventual evolution of life.

Dawkins gets around this objection by arguing that there may be multiple universes with different physical laws, some of which allow intelligent life to develop. He argues that, as unlikely as this may seem, it is still more likely than the existence of God. This based on the dubious argument he made earlier that it is extremely unlikely that God exists.

I don't think Dawkins' argument here holds water.

People who oppose intelligent design theory rightfully point out that the God hypothesis doesn't actually address the problem. Simply saying, "God did it," might be a valid explanation, but it doesn't help us understand our universe any better. In the same way, "There are billions of alternate universes," might be a valid explanation, but it doesn't actually tell us anything about our universe.

Since neither hypothesis makes for a good scientific theory, the only thing we can argue about is which idea is simpler or more likely. The end result is that we end up arguing about what words like "Simple" really mean. From one perspective, a single universe-designing entity seems relatively simple. From another perspective such an entity is prohibitively complex; even more complex than a billion or more alternate universes. At the end of the day, the argument is almost purely subjective.

In this section Dawkins presents a couple of different variations on the multiverse hypothesis. I want to take a bit of time to comment on each of these.

Another form the hypothesis takes is the serial universe model. The idea here is that our universe is destined to collapse in a "big crunch" and when it does a new big bang will occur and a new universe will form. If we assume that this process has been going on for a long enough period of time, then there have might have been a billion universes already and we're living in one that happened to be fit for life.

The big problem with this theory is that not every universe is guaranteed to collapse. In fact, the most recent evidence indicates that our universe is destined to continue expanding indefinitely, so this theory has fallen out of favor.

Another theory that Dawkins brings up is that every time a black hole is formed a new universe is created inside the black hole. The theory is that the universe inside the black hole might "inherit" similar properties to the parent universe. This system creates a lot of universes where black holes can form and, as a side affect, quite a few universes where stars can form and life can evolve.

I don't know much about this theory, so I don't know how all the details are supposed to work out. What happens to he "baby universe" when the black hole evaporates? Or what happens if the parent universe collapses? Dawkins likes this theory because of its superficial resemblance to the theory of evolution, but it seems to me that this theory creates more problems than it solves.

Finally, in both of the above theories, you can't actually observe or interact with these hypothetical alternate universes. In one case the alternate universe exist either before the "big bang" or after a future "big crunch". In another case, the alternate universes hide behind the event horizon of a black hole.

This is important, because if we could interact with these other universes, they wouldn't really be alternate universes at all. They would just be another part of our universe.

This is the final clue that a multiverse hypothesis doesn't really solve the problem. If we suppose that there is more than one universe out there, then we need to consider the laws that govern their creation and existence, just as we do for objects in the universe. Ultimately we will need a new set of laws to explain objects in the multiverse. How likely is it that those laws will be any simpler, any less contrived, than the laws that govern our universe?

In the end, we'll just be asking the exact same questions about the laws of the multiverse that we now ask about the laws of the universe. Where do we go from there? Hopefully, scientists will have more sense than to propose a multi-multiverse.

TGD: Chapter Four - Deep Inside of a Parallel Universe

First I'd like to apologize for being late with this post. I was a little busy last week and didn't get around to writing a God Delusion post. Anyway, as promised I'm now going to talk about the anthropic principle and how it works as an argument.

As I mentioned last time, the next two sections of chapter four both deal with the anthropic principle. The first section talks about how the anthropic principle applies to the planet earth.

We now know that not all planets are able to support life. In fact there are a number of factors that make our planet and our solar system especially suited for the evolution of complex life. At first this might seem like an odd coincidence, except that if our planet didn't have just the right conditions then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. We'd be on some other planet that is well suited for the evolution of complex life having the same discussion.

Dawkins uses the argument to address the problem of how life appeared on earth in the first place. He argues that even if we discover that it is extremely unlikely that life could have emerged from nonliving matter, say one in a billion, then life still would have appeared because there are almost probably more than a billion habitable planets in the universe.

Here the argument works very well, because we know that there are billions of galaxies containing billions of stars. Of course, we still don't know all of the probabilities. We don't know how likely it is that a given star has an earth-like planet with all the right conditions to support life. We don't know how likely it is that life emerged from nonliving organic compounds. So we can't be certain that life emerging from nonliving organic matter on an earth-like planet is a sure thing, but it does seem reasonable*.

In the next section Dawkins talks about how the anthropic principle applies to the universe as a whole. He mentions the fact that, from the standpoint of contemporary physics, several of the fundamental constants of the universe seem to be "just right" for life, much like our planet and our solar system.

Obviously the same trick won't work here. After all, we can see that the universe is large and it contains a vast quantity of stars, any one of which could contain a life-friendly planetary system. Our universe, on the other hand, is the only one we've got. If this universe wasn't fit for life, then we wouldn't exist. There isn't any other universe for us to evolve in.

Unless we hypothesize, as Mr. Dawkins does, that there are many different universes each with different fundamental constants. Then we could use the same argument to show that the fact that our universe is fit for life is unremarkable.

The fact that Mr. Dawkins is credulous enough to think that a multiverse theory is plausible, after all the incredulity he's shown towards religious beliefs, is shocking. What evidence could anyone provide, either experimentally or observationally, to prove that these alternate universes exist? They aren't a part of our universe at all and they may not be connected with our universe in any way. They are as undetectable as Russell's Celestial Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Back in Chapter Two, in the section on Monotheism, Dawkins wrote this to describe the Abrahamic God, "He not only created the universe; he is a personal God, dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that may mean)." Notice the incredulity Dawkins shows at the idea that anything could exist "outside" the universe. But where do these alternate universes exist? Certainly they must be "outside" our universe(whatever that may mean). Interestingly the same idea, which seemed absurd coming from a theologian, suddenly seems completely reasonable coming from a theoretical physicist.

So we see that Dawkins is not really a true skeptic. He is a selective skeptic. He is highly skeptical of religious ideas and beliefs, but much less skeptical of scientific-sounding ideas. Even when those ideas have the same amount of evidence, in fact even when it's the exact same idea, the sciencey sounding one is deemed "plausible" while its religious equivalent is considered preposterous.

I have some more thoughts I would like to share on this topic, but I'll save them for next week. I've also discovered, after reviewing chapter four, that I still have one more section to cover. So I hope you're enjoying my coverage of chapter four, because it's going to continue for a couple more weeks.

* Advocates of intelligent design theory disagree. They argue that the appearance of life from non-living matter is so improbable that it is basically impossible. I personally disagree, but I'm not an expert on the subject. If you want to learn more I found a website that provides a rebuttal to the intelligent design argument.

TGD: Chapter Four - The Anthropic Principle and Faith

The next two sections of chapter four both deal with different versions of the anthropic principle. Simply put, the anthropic principle states that any universe (or world) in which intelligent life exists must have the right conditions to allow intelligent life to exist. Therefore the fact that our world and our universe have the right conditions for intelligent life is unremarkable.

On the one hand, it is hard to argue against the anthropic principle, because it is self evidently true (ie it is a tautology). Obviously if the conditions on the earth or in the universe were different, such that intelligent life could not exist, then there wouldn't be any scientists to study it. From this, we can safely conclude that no scientists will ever be able to demonstrate that it is impossible for intelligent life to exist in our universe.

So, in a sense, it is completely unremarkable that our planet and our universe are "just right" for us. Indeed, they could not possibly be anything else. Of course, it is only unremarkable that our universe allows intelligent life to form if intelligent life itself is unremarkable. I do not believe that to be true. Instead I think our existence is very remarkable.

Now, the funny thing about the anthropic principle is that there are a couple of different versions of it. Different people use this principle to make different conclusions. Some people use it to argue for the existence of God, while others use it to argue for the existence of multiple universes.

Dawkins uses the anthropic principle to support the idea that there must be a complete scientific explanation for the emergence of intelligent life. He interprets the anthropic principle as, "Intelligent life exists, therefore there must be a scientific explanation for how intelligent life came to exist." This is only true if we assume that the origin of intelligent life has a scientific explanation.

Dawkins holds the assumption, along with many scientists, that anything that exists (or has existed) has a scientific explanation for its existence. This belief is not based on evidence, or at least not direct evidence. It is a kind of faith, although it is rarely acknowledged as such.

All too often this faith gets a free pass. People who believe in God, or in the resurrection of Jesus, are often ridiculed for believing in something that can't be proven. On the other hand, people who believe that everything that exists has a scientific explanation rarely face ridicule, even though their own beliefs are just as unprovable.

Many scientists, including Dawkins, operate under the assumption that there is ultimately a scientific explanation for everything. The problem (at least in Dawkins' case) is that they seem to think that their own beliefs are indisputably true. That simply isn't the case. There is no guarantee that every problem that scientists attempt to solve has a scientific solution. The scientists believe that a solution exists but until they find it, they can't be sure.

Before I finish this post I want to make something clear. I don't have a problem with scientists who believe that what they're studying has a scientific explanation. In fact, I think it's a good thing. Science wouldn't advance if scientists didn't believe in what they were doing. I just want to point out that the scientist's belief is an act of faith, in much the same way that a religious person's belief in God is an act of faith.

Next week I'll take a closer look at these final sections of chapter four. I'll talk more about how well the anthropic principle works on the planetary and universal scale.

Science and Faith: Explanation vs. Justification

Since I've been reviewing The God Delusion I have been thinking quite a lot about the role of science and religion and how the two relate. It isn't always easy to separate scientific and religious truth claims. There isn't a simple bright line that neatly divides the two fields. Still, it is important to understand what divides the two fields, and how to reasonably draw a line between them.

The best way to do that is to look at the goals of science and religion. Although at times they both tackle the same subjects, both fields have very different goals. Simply put, the goal of science is to provide an explanation, and the goal of religion is to provide a justification.

What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, an explanation is a descriptive model. The goal of an explanation is to provide an understanding of what is happening in a given situation. If our understanding is very good, we should even be able to predict what will happen in certain situations.

Scientific explanations also tend to be reductionist in nature. They explain complex phenomena in relatively simple terms. For explanations, the goal is always to make things as simple as possible, so they can be more easily understood. If the explanation is more complex than the thing you're trying to explain, then it's not a very good explanation.

Justification, on the other hand, works differently. Instead of trying to understand the universe in terms of simpler things like particles and forces, a justification seeks to understand how the universe relates to more complex things, typically God. A justification is able to explain, not just how the universe operates, but how it came to exist, why it is the way it is, and what purpose it has.

Unsurprisingly, most atheists don't think the universe needs any justification. The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said, "The universe is just there." To put it another way, the atheist position is that the universe is self justifying. I have my issues with this, which I've been over many times before. For now I will just conclude with one of my favorite xkcd quotes, "If the question of what it all means doesn't mean anything, then why do I keep coming back to it?"

In any case, I hope this helps you to understand the difference between scientific and religious theories. It may also shed light on many of the conflicts between science and religion. I think it's also helpful for anyone who wants to try to separate out scientific ideas from religious ones. This is useful for anyone who struggles to see how scientific and religious ideas can operate together without one trampling all over the other.

TGD: Chapter Four - In Which I Agree With Richard Dawkins Wholeheartedly

The next two sections of Dawkins' book, Irreducible Complexity and The Worship of Gaps, are mostly devoted to explaining the theory of evolution and pointing out the flaws in the so-called theory of intelligent design. As you may have gathered from what I've written so far, I don't have any problems with evolution and I'm not a big fan of intelligent design. As such, I don't have much to write about these sections.

His basic argument is that the success of evolution and the failure of intelligent design should make us suspicious of any attempt to explain the universe in terms of design. I've already discussed the problems with that argument last week and the week before, so I'm not going to do that again. Instead, I'll take the opportunity to point out some of the things Dawkins and I can agree on.

First and foremost, we can agree that the Intelligent Design theory isn't science. It doesn't provide any useful explanations or make any testable predictions. It doesn't give scientists a framework to help them organize their findings or suggest new areas of research.

This is because intelligent design isn't trying to be science. The theory wasn't created by scientists interested in discovering how the natural world works. It was created by religious people interested in controlling what textbooks said about how the natural world works.

It is unfortunate, for many reasons, that so many Christians are so heavily invested in controlling science education in the United States. The most obvious reason is that a large number of people are actively trying to sabotage science education. Every success the movement wins makes our children more ignorant about the biological sciences.

The second problem is that this kind of polarization has a chilling effect on scientific research. Researchers normally seek out problems and potential challenges to a theory. They do this so that they can conduct further research and see if the problem or challenge can be resolved. When you have a group like the ID movement latching on to such problem areas as "proof" that evolution doesn't work it makes it difficult for researchers to do their job.

The last problem I'm going to talk about is one that Dawkins isn't concerned with. The biggest problem I have with the intelligent design movement is that it directly harms Christianity's reputation. It creates the false impression that Christianity and evolution are mutually incompatible, an impression that Dawkins seems to think is correct.

Moreover, it creates the impression, among educated people, that Christians are either backwards, uneducated, or simply unconcerned with the truth. This creates an obvious credibility problem for Christians everywhere.

There, I've now written an entire post about something Dawkins and I agree on. I apologize if your pet pig sprouts wings and flies away, but I'm afraid it couldn't be helped.

Science and the Miraculous

About a month ago I talked about miracles. I explained that miracles don't have to be big, flashy displays that defy the laws of science. As I explained a miracle is anything that reveals God's character to us.

This is why many bizarre phenomena, such as ball lightning, that defy scientific explanation aren't considered miraculous. They don't reveal anything about God's character.

Of course, there are some miracles that illustrate God's character as well as his power over nature. Things that seem impossible, or at least very improbable. Many people struggle to believe in Christianity because of the accounts miracles in scripture. They aren't sure how to reconcile a belief in supernatural miracles with a scientific worldview.

It is a problem. If we believe that scientific knowledge provides a complete and accurate understanding of the universe, then we have to concede that these kinds of miracles are impossible. Of course, our present scientific understanding is far from complete. More to the point, I don't believe that the scientific method can ever give us a complete understanding of the universe in which we live.

First and foremost, scientists can only study phenomena and events that are repeatable. Repeatable, in this case, meaning that the events can be reproduced in some sort of predictable fashion. If there are any events or phenomena that cannot be reproduced in this fashion, then science is unable to explain them. Supernatural miracles fall into this category, because God causes them when and where he choses. Since we cannot reproduce the event, we are unable to study it scientifically.

Some people might argue that, if supernatural miracles do occur, we should see more evidence of them. Specifically, one might argue that if such miracles were commonplace, then it would be difficult for scientists to produce such elegant theories that explain so much about our universe.

This only shows us that such miracles are rare, and that God prefers to work through natural laws, rather than against them. The only way we can conclude that supernatural miracles never occur is if we assume that the laws of nature are absolutely true at all times. We can accept scientific knowledge without coming to this conclusion.

TGD: Chapter Four - When All You Have is a Hammer

I have a confession to make. I think Dawkins is probably quite a bit smarter than I am. I know he is much more well educated than I am. So why don't I defer to his superior intellect and expertise?

The simple answer is that I do, when it comes to evolutionary biology. The man knows a lot more than I do about that subject, having studied it for most of his adult life, and I trust his opinions in that field.

The problem is that even when he's discussing radically different fields of knowledge, he still thinks like an evolutionary biologist. He has this strange idea that the understanding he's gained in his field, the knowledge and information he's acquired through many long hours of studying, can be just as easily applied in any other discipline.

Or at least, I assume that's what's going on. It's the only way I can explain the content of this next section. He writes that the theory of natural selection should make us suspicious of any sort of design hypothesis. He says that it should raise our awareness to the fact that there may be other possible explanations whenever a design explanation seems necessary.

The problem with this approach is that it fails to consider how other scientific disciplines differ from biology. A biologist can rely on the laws of physics and chemistry to explain how DNA and RNA works, how mutations happen, how environments change, and how creatures survive and reproduce, all of which goes into explaining how complex life evolved.

A physicist or cosmologist trying to come up with an explanation for the origin of the universe doesn't have that advantage. As I discussed last week, such discussions really fall outside the realm of pure science and into philosophy and metaphysics.

Still, let us suppose for a moment that the complex and wonderful universe we find ourselves isn't the result of design, but instead is the result of some kind of emergent complexity. Emergent complexity happens when a simple initial state, governed by simple rules, is able to produce complex, interesting results.

As an example, let us look at Conway's Game of Life. The rules to the Game of Life are very simple, and given certain initial conditions it can produce complex, interesting results. It is a tool meant to illustrate the power of emergent complexity.

If we assume that the universe works like a more sophisticated version of the Game of Life, then we have to consider the fact that the rules for the Game of Life weren't arbitrarily selected. Those rules were chosen specifically to allow for emergent complexity. Additionally, not every initial state in the Game of Life produces emergent complexity. Most of them fizzle out or fall into a stable, repeating pattern after a few generations.

If anything, the Game of Life illustrates the problem of trying to use emergent complexity to explain the universe's origins without appealing to some cosmic designer. Emergent complexity only works under very specific conditions. It's extremely unlikely that those conditions would come about by pure chance.

So emergent complexity, as an explanation, doesn't eliminate the need for a designer. It just gives the designer a new job description.

Coming back to the point I made earlier, the reason Dawkins doesn't see this flaw is because he studies evolutionary biology. He's used to studying emergent complexity. He doesn't give much thought to the conditions that make emergent complexity possible.

He takes those conditions for granted. The conditions that make life possible in the universe, and specifically on earth, aren't of much interest to biologists. The laws that govern the formation of complex matter, that govern the formation of stars and planets, that describe the orbit of a planet around a star, all fall outside of Dawkins' area of expertise.

As a biologist, he takes it for granted that our universe, and the earth, are able to support life, as well he should. However, as someone seeking to understand the nature of the universe, he needs to think about these issues. Otherwise he might miss out on the answer to one of mankind's most important questions, "Does God exist and if so what is he like?"

If Dawkins is going to convince people that God doesn't exist, he's going to have to learn to take this question a little more seriously.

TGD: Chapter Four - The Probability of the Necessity of the Impossibility of God’s Existence

Today we begin chapter four and, at long last, we finally come to Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.

He begins by sharing an old argument that may be familiar to some of you. It is the argument that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the odds that a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard would, by sheer luck, put together a working Boeing 747. Dawkins makes the point that, however unlikely it is that life first appeared on earth without divine intervention, it is even more unlikely that such a divine being would exist in order to intervene in the first place. In his words, God is the ultimate Boeing 747.

The problem with the argument is that there is a big difference between God and living creatures. Simple organisms are made up of tiny pieces that can be taken apart and put together. In this sense theories of how the first life form emerged are similar to explanations of how a jet airplane might be put together out of a random collection of parts.

This argument only works as an argument against God's existence if we assume that God is made up of tiny pieces that were, at some point in time, randomly assembled. This is very different from the traditional Christian view that God consists of one substance and has always existed.

Comparing the existence of God to the emergence of life is a poor analogy. It is more appropriate to compare the existence of God to the existence of the universe itself. To that end, let us talk about the existence of the universe.

We don't know how the universe came to exist, but we can safely say that there are three possibilities.

First of all, the universe may have always existed. As I've already mentioned, what we know from science makes this unlikely, if not impossible. According to the big bang theory, the universe has a discrete beginning in time. Also, if the universe were eternally old, then the entropy of the universe would have maxed out a long time ago.

Second, the universe may have created itself. The universe may have simply blinked into existence without any assistance from an outside force. It seems absurd to me that anything should be able to create itself, let alone a universe which has no mental faculties or decision making abilities, but some people consider it a possibility.

Finally, the universe may have been created by something else. Whether that something else is God or a prior universe or some kind of universe factory. Of course, whatever created the universe will need a similar account of it's own existence. It either has always existed, created itself, or was created by something else. (This leads to a potential infinite regress, which also seems absurd.)

Given the possibilities, I think that the most likely one, by far, is the claim that the universe was created by something else. Furthermore I consider it most likely that that something else, unlike the universe, does not suffer from entropy and is therefore able to exist eternally.

I realize that some people, like Dawkins, consider the existence of a creator God absurd, but is it any less absurd than the claim that the universe created itself, or that our universe was created by something that was created by something that was created by something, going back forever?

In any case, probabilistic arguments rooted in science can't weigh in on the issue. Scientific arguments have no place in this debate. Scientifically speaking, each of these ideas is impossible. It is impossible for something to create itself, it is impossible for something to exist forever, and it is impossible that the universe was created by something else, that was created by something else, ad infinitum. Each of these things is impossible, and yet one of them must have occurred.

Dawkins claims that the existence of God is extremely unlikely. Even if that's the case, I would argue that it isn't any less likely than the alternatives. Besides, Dawkins' whole argument that God's existence is extremely unlikely hinges on the assumption that God is similar to an amoeba.

If there is any similarity between God and an amoeba, it is that they both exist. Aside from that, they don't have very much in common.

TGD: Chapter Three - Science, Gambling, and the Odds

In the last three sections Dawkins deals with arguments for God's existence that, in my opinion, aren't terribly convincing. In this post I'll try to go over all three sections so we can be done with chapter three and move on to the heart of Dawkins' argument.

In the first of these three sections Dawkins writes about the "appeal to respected scientists". The gist of this argument is that many well respected scientists have believed in God, therefore you should as well.

The argument is a kind of appeal to authority, and not a very good one. Scientists aren't in a better position to know whether or not God exists than anyone else.

In any case, Dawkins points out that these days very few notable scientists are religious in the traditional sense. Quite a few are religious in the 'Einsteinian' sense, which Dawkins decided to lump in with atheism back in chapter one.

This argument seems more relevant to the question of whether or not religion and science are compatible, but I'm not going to bring up that subject again. For now let me just say that the belief, or lack thereof, of scientists has no bearing on the question of whether or not God exists.

In the next section Dawkins discuses Pascal's wager. This isn't an argument for God's existence so much as an argument for why you should believe he exists.

The wager works like this. If God doesn't exist then it doesn't matter one way or the other if you believe in him or not. On the other hand if God does exist then you'll be better off if you believe in him than if you don't. So you should believe in God, in case he does exist.

Dawkins points out to problems with the argument. First, the argument assumes that there is only one possible God that might exist. The argument doesn't deal with the possibility that you might choose the wrong God to believe in.

Second, Dawkins points out that deciding to believe something is not simply a matter of choice, at least, not for him. In order to believe something you need to have some evidence for it. Otherwise you're just paying lip service.

I hate to pile on old Pascal, but I have a few additional problems with the argument. First, it assumes you have a traditional view of heaven and hell, which is not a belief I'm committed to (and it's certainly not a belief I want to promote for the sake of a bad argument).

Finally, the wager only works if you assume that believing in God doesn't cost anything. If, on the other hand, believing in God is something that could potentially cost you your life or your freedom, then the argument doesn't work so well. The argument certainly doesn't convince us to obey Jesus when he tells us to give up everything we have and follow him.

The final argument that Dawkins brings up is one that I've never heard of before. The argument comes from a book called, "The Probability of God". In it, the author uses Bayesian methods to determine the odds that God exists.

I am fond of Bayes' theorem, but this argument doesn't sound like a very good one. Based on Dawkins' description it seems like the man took a very informal argument for God's existence, assigned numbers to various factors that make it more or less likely that God exists, and then used Bayes' theorem to come up with a final probability.

Since I'm not familiar with the argument, I have no way of knowing if Dawkins misrepresented it, but it didn't sound very convincing to me. If you're curious, you can always buy the book. If nothing else, you'll learn how to use Bayes' theorem, which is worthwhile enough.

In any case, we're now finished with chapter three. In a few weeks I will return with chapter four.

TGD: Chapter Two - Science, Religion and Little Green Men

Today I'm going to finish chapter two of "The God Delusion". Most of the rest of the chapter talks about the idea that theology and science represent two separate areas of study. Dawkins refers to this idea by the acronym NOMA, and that is the title of the next section.

NOMA stands for non-overlapping magisteria. The idea behind NOMA is that religion cannot speak on scientific matters and science cannot speak on religious matters. Dawkins rightly points out that this is a poorly thought out compromise that simply does not work in practice.

If you don't agree, consider this question, "Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?" This is the central truth claim of Christianity. It is a question about our physical universe. It is a question that, in principle at least, science should be able to answer. And Christianity isn't the only religion that makes such claims.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you might be surprised that I agree with Dawkins on this point. After all, I don't believe, as Dawkins does, that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. I do believe that we can have a compromise between science and religion, I just don't think that NOMA is the way to go.

The reason I don't like NOMA is, ultimately, because I'm a monotheist and not a deist. If you're a deist, if you believe that God merely created the universe and doesn't interfere in its operation, then NOMA might seem like a good idea. However, as I said earlier, monotheists believe that God is actively in control of the whole universe. If God has control over everything, then every area of study is, in some sense, theological.

So why do I believe science works? Why do I allow scientific truths to influence theological beliefs? Why don't I insist that every scientific principle be related in theological terms?

The simple answer is, because science works. Science provides many useful explanations that help us make sense of the world around us. It provides truths that can be empirically verified.

So, even though science and religion clearly do overlap, religious people should respect science's ability to discover truths about nature. I would argue, as many theologians throughout history have argued, that if our theological opinions contradict observable facts about nature, then it is our theological opinions that are in error.

In the next section Dawkins talks about a study on the affects of prayer on patient health. Long story short, a recent double blind study on the affects of intercessory prayer on patient health and recovery found no connection. I will admit to being disappointed by the results of the study, but I'm not going to stop praying for people. I've seen a lot of good things happen in the course of prayer*.

In the next section, Dawkins suggests that the main reason why scientists espouse NOMA is to convince religious moderates that science isn't a threat to their faith. These religious moderates are valuable allies in the fight to teach evolution in public schools. Dawkins is very critical of this tactic. In his view, science's real enemy isn't creationism; it's religion.

It is unfortunate that Dawkins holds this view. There is a need, now more than ever, for a positive dialogue between scientists and theologians. I'm enjoying reading Dawkins' scathing critique of religion, but I'd prefer to read a book with fewer rhetorical attacks and more constructive criticisms.

The final section of chapter two is about extra-terrestrials, about the difference between super advanced aliens and gods, and about why he thinks the aliens are at least theoretically possible, whereas God is not. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until chapter four to discover why Dawkins thinks God can't possibly exist.

* This touches on the issue of the validity of personal experience vs. scientific fact. I'm not going to ignore this issue. I will address it when it comes up again in chapter three. For now I will just say that this is only a single study, which addressed a specific kind of prayer and looked for a particular affect. From this one study, we can't draw the conclusion that prayer never works.

Intelligence and Acceptance

I recently read something on internetMonk that really upset me. The post is entitled, "Are Liberals and Atheists Smarter?" and it upsets me for a few different reasons.

First of all, it's unclear what, if anything, IQ tests actually measure. Studies involving IQ tests and social science have a long and dubious history.

Secondly, the post goes with the assumption that Christianity and conservative politics belong together. This is unfortunate, but I've gotten used to it.

The thing that upset me the most was the way he wrapped it up. After making some very solid points about how we need to engage the broader culture academically, he falls back. He says that he supports this kind of engagement only up to a point. He concludes that we must be willing to be fools for Christ.

I have a problem with his use of scripture here, but for now I won't go into that. Instead I'm going to talk about why this post bothers me, personally.

For me this is about acceptance. It is about the kind of people who we think are welcome in church and the kind of people who, in our opinion, don't really belong.

The message that conservative evangelicals have been sending is clear. If you believe in evolution, you don't belong here. If you believe that the earth is more than a million years old, you don't belong here. If you vote democrat, you don't belong here. If you're gay, or your friends are gay, you don't belong here. If you ask the wrong questions, you don't belong here. I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you get the point.

Recently, Bruce Waltke, a renowned Old Testament scholar, had to resign from Reform Theological Seminary. The reason: he said, in an interview, that if evangelicals continue to deny evolution, we risk becoming a cult.

I think fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals should be more open to theological views that allow for an evolutionary model, but not because we might become a cult. I have family members who already think I'm in a cult. That's doesn't upset me.

What upsets me is the message it sends to outsiders. The message is, if you believe in evolution, you don't belong here.

I think churches often do a similar thing, not just with evolution, but with intelligence. People who ask difficult questions, people who think critically about their beliefs, people who can poke holes in the pastor's sermon, are made to feel unwelcome. They are told, either implicitly or explicitly, that they don't belong.

The question that I have had to ask, the question I have to keep asking myself is, does God accept me as I am? Would I be a better Christian if I were just a little stupider? If I didn't ask as many questions? If I learned to accept things as true without thought or critical examination?

When I ask these questions, the following words come to mind: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without affect." There I am reminded, again, that it is God who made me who I am. If God had wanted me to be stupid or thoughtless, he could have made me that way.

Going back to the scripture that was used on internetMonk, I will say that I have no problem being "a fool for Christ". I have no problem with appearing foolish in the eyes of others. As a geek, I've kind of gotten used to it.

However, if we equate being "a fool for Christ" with actual stupidity. If we equate it with not pursuing higher education, not asking hard questions, and ignoring any evidence that might contradict our understanding of the Bible, that I have a problem with. I have a problem with it, partly because it's obviously a bad idea, but mostly because it's going to force a lot of people out of the church, and prevent a lot of new people from joining the church.

TGD: Let's Get Started

This is my first post going through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. This series is going to be a long one. I don't want to interrupt my usual Monday post until I'm finished, so I'll be posting these later in the week, typically on Thursday or Friday. For those f you following along at home, I'm using the 2008 paperback edition. I'm going to skip the preface to the paperback edition for now. That preface contains Dawkins' response to common objections to the book. I'll refer back to it if/when I make those objections myself.

The God Delusion opens with a preface in which Mr. Dawkins describes his four main goals in writing the book. His first goal is to raise awareness about the viability of atheism as a belief system. "You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." This message is aimed primarily at people who were raised with religious belief, but have become dissatisfied with that belief.

I don't object to this statement, although there is a flip side to this coin. Just as many people grow up religious and don't know that atheism is a realistic possibility, many people who lack religious beliefs don't know that faith is a realistic possibility. They don't know that you can be religious without turning off your brain. To paraphrase Mr. Dawkins, "You can be a person of faith who is intelligent, rational, balanced, and intellectually fulfilled."

Dawkins' second goal is to raise awareness about the power of science to provide explanatory "cranes" that help us understand the universe and our place in it. I'm not exactly sure what kinds of explanations Mr. Dawkins believes that science is capable of providing, but I don't expect to see eye to eye with him on this point. Many scientists overestimate science's reach and its explanatory powers.

He cites the example of natural selection as a "crane" that provides an explanation for the origins of life. Natural selection has the advantage of being firmly rooted in the physical sciences. Explanations that try to address more fundamental questions, such as the origins of the physical universe, wouldn't have that advantage. I look forward to seeing how Mr. Dawkins addresses this issue.

Dawkins' third goal is to raise awareness about how we refer to children of religious parents. For example, he says that we shouldn't talk about Catholic children, but rather, children of Catholic parents. I think this is a reasonable goal, especially in the case of young children, who can't possibly share their parents beliefs.

Dawkins' fourth goal is to encourage atheists to be proud of their beliefs. He talks about the stigma attached to the word "atheist" and about the discrimination that atheists face, particularly in the US. He believes that atheists need to be more open about their beliefs if things are going to change.

I'm actually supportive of his efforts here. I'm obviously not an atheist myself, but I don't think that atheists should be forced to hide their beliefs. Nor do I think they should be discriminated against.

Beside these four goals Dawkins also makes it clear that he intends to show that religious belief is a dangerous delusion. This is the central message of this book, and it's the point that I disagree with most strongly. As this series continues, we will go through this book together and I will respond to this argument as it develops.

I hope you're looking forward to it. I know I am.

Science and the Supernatural

Today's essay is going to be about scientific knowledge and how it relates to God. First I'm going to talk about how scientific knowledge works. Then I'm going to talk about how that relates to God. I'm going to conclude by talking about knowledge that depends on faith.

Science seeks to make sense of the complex universe we live in. Science explains staggeringly complex natural phenomena in terms of relatively simple theories. The behavior of light and of electrons is explained in terms of quantum theory. The behavior of planets is explained in terms of Einstein's theory of relativity. These theories might not seem simple, but they are much simpler than the events that they seek to explain.

Because the goal of science is to simplify matters, scientific theories never explain natural events in terms of divine causes. Planetary motion is complex, but it is much simpler to understand planetary motion than it is to understand the mind of God. The Bible tells us that God's wisdom is unsearchable. For this reason, explaining something natural, like planetary motion, in terms of God's will is counterproductive. We end up with a theory that is more complex than the events that the theory explains.

Therefore God must necessarily be left out of any purely scientific explanation of the universe. This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It means that no scientific theory can accommodate an unsearchable being such as God. This is because science is only concerned with things that can be fully understood.

Since science is limited in this way, there are some things that can't be scientifically understood. Scientists study the universe and learn about it's history and about the laws that govern it. In the lab scientists can recreate the conditions of the early universe. But there's no way for scientists to study the creation of a new universe.

We can observe and study the universe as it currently exists, but we can't study the first steps of the process that formed it. We know a lot about our universe, but we don't know how it came about. In other words, what is known was formed by that which is unknown.

This makes it difficult for scientists to answer some basic questions about the nature of our universe. For example, why do the laws of the universe allow complex matter to form? Why was the universe initially in a low entropy state? These questions both deal with the same concern. If the universe had been significantly different from what it is now, then we would never have existed.

These facts give me confidence that God exists. The fact that the universe was formed in such a way that life could evolve suggests that it was not some random or arbitrary process. It also suggests that the universe itself is not arbitrary or meaningless, but that it has a purpose. Or, to put it another way, that God had a purpose in making it.

I think we have good reason to believe in an eternal being that created everything. Unfortunately, we can't study this being the way we study black holes or supernovas. As I said above, what is known was made by that which is unknown. Even the bible tells us that no one has seen God and that God is unknown to us.

God is unlike the rest of creation, in that he cannot be directly studied. Indeed, we would not know anything about God, except possibly that He must exist, if God had not revealed Himself to us. We cannot begin to know God unless he first reveals Himself to us. This is why I encourage people to ask God to reveal Himself to them.

I would like to conclude by clarifying the nature of faith. Some people think that faith is merely belief without evidence. I would argue that faith in God is a belief in something for which there can be no direct evidence. God is beyond our ability to understand or comprehend. Whatever we believe about God we have no choice but to believe without evidence, because there is no evidence to consider. That is what it means to have faith.

Evolution and the Beginning

Today I'm going to be talking about the first three chapters of Genesis. I'll be talking about what it means and why I don't think it contradicts the theory of evolution.

The first three chapters of Genesis are about God and his relationship with nature and his relationship with humanity. The core message of these chapters is that there is only one God who created everything. He created everything that we perceive with our senses. He made people to rule the earth and they lived with God in paradise. But a deceiver tricked humanity into rebelling against God. As punishment, humanity was banished from paradise, but God promised that humanity would one day have victory over the deceiver.

The rest of the scripture follows from here. It is the story of God working through humanity to give us victory over evil and brings us back into paradise and back into relationship with Him. I know I'm only talking about Genesis 1-3, but I want to emphasize that this scripture is a vital part of God's message for humanity.

People who read this scripture often get hung up on the many details that seem implausible to us. Some people use them as an excuse to disregard the message of the bible altogether. Others insist that we must believe that creation unfolded exactly as Genesis describes, no matter how unlikely it seems. I believe that so long as we understand the core message of scripture, whether we believe that creation took seven days or several billion years isn't terribly important.

A lot of Christians will insist that it's important that we read these early chapters of Genesis literally. What most people don't realize is that ever since the beginning Christians have been interpreting these passages figuratively. For example, most Christians agree that the serpent in Genesis 3 is actually Satan in disguise (hence the reference in Revelation to "That ancient serpent".) A merely literal reading of Genesis 1-3 provides no evidence for that conclusion, yet it is a pivotal element of Christian theology. To give another example, the opening verses in the Gospel of John are a figurative reinterpretation of Genesis 1. John equates the "light" in Genesis 1 with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Having said that, I'd like to address the question I posed at the beginning. Can Genesis 1-3 be reconciled with the theory of evolution? The main issue, as I see it, is the claim that people, plants and animals were made by God. However, this claim is not a problem if we believe that God worked through natural means, like evolution, to form each of these things. This idea isn't contrary to scripture in any way. Indeed God tells Jeshurun that He made him and formed him in his mothers womb. Here we see that God can work through completely natural means to bring about His desired end and I personally believe that that is what he did when he made Adam and Eve.

Why do I interpret the Bible this way? There are two reasons. The first reason is because I believe that God is not a deceiver. When we try to understand the natural world we should go where the evidence takes us. If it appears as though all life has a common ancestor, then either all life has a common ancestor or God is playing a practical joke on us. I chose to believe the former.

The second reason has to do with my view on the nature of scripture. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but I also believe that that divinely inspired message was written for people of a particular time and place. As such it was written in terms that they would understand and accept. All of the strange details of early Genesis that confuse us are things that made perfect sense to the people that the book was originally written for. God was gracious to give them the message in terms that they could understand, and I believe that we have the right to interpret the scriptures and apply its message in terms that we can understand.

I hope you found my explanation satisfying or at least interesting. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think. I welcome any criticism or compliments you may have.

Science, Christianity and the Sovereignty of God

As an evangelical Christian I sometimes feel like a bit of an oddity because, unlike many other evangelical Christians, I have no problem with science. I like science. I think science is useful for understanding our universe. I don't believe that any scientific theory threatens my belief system in any way.

I think most Christians, even a lot of evangelical Christians, feel the same way. The problem is that we don't express our beliefs as often or as forcefully as Christians who oppose science. Today I'm going to begin to explain my position and why I feel that it's well justified by both scripture and by experience.

The obvious thing to do would be to talk about evolution and the book of Genesis, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do it, first of all, because that's a topic that deserves its own post. The second reason I'm not going to do it is because, while that's the hot button issue in our culture right now, that's not really what this debate is about.

At its heart this debate is really about the sovereignty of God.

For a Christian that's the only question that matters in this debate. Is God still in control or not? For some reason people seem to believe that every time scientists invent some new theory to explain how the universe works, God looses some of his power. As though scientists are somehow gaining mastery over the universe merely by understanding it.

The first thing we need to understand is that God is in charge of completely natural processes. The Bible says that he created everything and that he sustains everything. If the universe behaves in an orderly fashion according to scientific principles, it's because God made it that way. In fact, it shouldn't be surprising that it works that way because God is a God of order.

The other reason that people might think that science impinges on God's sovereignty is because scientific theories define what is and isn't possible. This is a more serious concern, especially if you believe that God can work miracles, which I do.

It's this second consideration that prompted me to write the post, Science as a Worldview. In that post I make the claim that, while science is a reliable source of knowledge, it isn't the only source of knowledge. Along with that I would also say that, while the universe usually conforms with known scientific theories, it doesn't always.

Some might argue that because I don't believe that science is always true I don't really believe in the scientific method. It's true that I don't hold scientific claims to be absolutely true under every circumstance. But I do believe that science does provide an explanation for how the universe typically works. I think this knowledge is still invaluable, even if it's not true in every single circumstance.

In any case, scientific knowledge doesn't require absolute belief. In fact, science wouldn't be able to progress if scientists weren't allowed to question accepted scientific theories. The fact that people are allowed to question science is possibly its greatest strength.

There is, of course, much more to be said about this topic. In future posts I'll be talking more about science and miracles. I'll also talk about evolution and the book of Genesis. Please leave a comment if you'd like to hear more about either of those two topics, or if you want to respond to what I've written so far.

Science as a Worldview

Today I'm going to talk about metaphysical naturalism. Simply put, metaphysical naturalism is the belief that everything that exists is natural. Natural, in this instance, refers to anything that can be studied scientifically. The assumption here is that everything that exists can be studied scientifically. In other words, this is science as a world view.

I bring this up in the hopes of clarifying some of the issues that come up whenever people discuss conflicts between scientific and religious truth. Many religious people feel the need to reject or ignore the conclusions of science because of their faith, while many atheists claim that a scientific understanding of the world rules out a traditional understanding of God. Both of these beliefs are rooted in the same fallacy.

That fallacy is the assumption that if science is a source of knowledge then it must be the only source of knowledge. The important thing to realize is that this isn't a scientific claim. Even if we believe that everything that science teaches us is true, we can still believe that their are other truths available that are beyond the grasp of science.

In fact, most people accept that other kinds of knowledge can exist along with scientific knowledge. The clearest example I can think of is mathematical knowledge. Mathematical proofs are arrived at using a completely different method than scientific theories. Most people accept that scientific and mathematical truth can exist side by side, even though they represent two radically different approaches to uncovering truth.

When people start to consider religious truths; however, it's a different story. There are probably several reasons why this is so, but the simplest explanation is that, as a rule, religious truth doesn't play nice. Religious truth is almost always the most controversial kind of truth. Moreover, unlike science or math or any other discipline you might care to name, religious truth always defines a person's world view.

This is a good reason not to try and teach religion in a public setting, but it's a poor reason to give up on religious truth altogether. Too many people look at the many different religions of the world, and at the controversy surrounding religious beliefs, and they decide it's not worth trying to figure out.

The reason why religious debates are so controversial is because people's world views are at stake. Since a person's world view informs all of their other beliefs these arguments can become very passionate. And because world views define a person's basic assumptions about reality it is incredibly difficult to find common ground.

The thing to understand if you adopt metaphysical naturalism as a world view is that, at the end of the day, it's just another belief system. The choice isn't inherently more rational just because you chose to look to science as the only source of truth. In fact, the only choice you're making is to ignore every other source of truth that might be out there.

Hopefully reading this will help to clarify some of the debates concerning science and religion. Feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think.

The Omnipotent Deceiver

In this post I will begin to touch on the difficult subject of how to reconcile faith and science, and I'd like to begin by talking about 17th century philosophy. I know it seems a bit strange, but please bear with me.

Specifically I would like to talk about the concept of an omnipotent deceiver as it is presented in Rene Descartes' famous work, Meditations on First Philosophy, written in 1641. Even if you've never read anything by Descartes I'm guessing you are probably familiar with the concept. The omnipotent deceiver is a hypothetical person who is supremely powerful and intelligent. They are able to confuse a person's senses and thoughts so that that person can no longer be certain of anything. Anyone who has seen the film, “The Matrix” has a good idea of how that might work.

When Descartes tells the tale, however, the deception is perfect. There is no Morpheus to tell you you're dreaming and no blue pill to wake you up. There is no way for the subject to know that what he experiences isn't actually real. It is an intriguing idea and it forms the basis of Descartes' arguments in “Meditations.”

I want to talk about where I believe Descartes may have gotten this strange idea, assuming that he didn't have access to twentieth century science-fiction blockbusters of course. In “Meditations” he brings up this concept as a device to push skepticism as far as it will go. It might just be a contrived thought experiment used to advance the argument, but I believe that this concept is drawn from the life experience of Descartes himself.

Before “Meditations” was published Descartes had been working on a scientific text that, among other things, argued that the earth revolves around the sun. Descartes decided not to publish this text when, in 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church for publishing a work that argued that the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun.

At the time of Galileo's trial, Descartes was a Catholic living in a protestant country. He had enough faith in Catholicism not to convert despite the persecution he faced. At the same time he was intelligent enough to know that the evidence supported the idea that the earth goes around the sun. Given that the ruling caused Descartes to set aside four years worth of work I think it's fair to say that it had some affect on him.

What if Descartes had stopped to consider the possibility that the church was right, that despite all evidence to the contrary the earth holds still and the sun revolves around it? Descartes might have considered that God was actually a mighty deceiver who is able to provide false visions that lead men to false conclusions, not only about the heavens, but also about the very ground they stand upon.

In “Meditations” Descartes struggles with the idea that God Himself might be an evil deceiver. When we read the book in this light, the omnipotent deceiver is more than just an unusual thought experiment. It illustrates the core problem of believing that God conceals the truth from us instead of revealing it to us. The problem is that no knowledge is certain, so it is impossible to truly believe anything.

Descartes argues that because God is good we can trust that he will not deceive us. For Descartes belief in God forms the basis for a rational, scientific investigation of the universe instead of acting as an obstacle to such investigations. I, for one, think it's a belief that the church should embrace. You can let me know what you think in the comments below.