Saturday, September 06, 2008

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins eh? Who doesn’t have an opinion on him? Christians can’t stand him, because he attacks them, theologians can’t stand him, because he’s a lame theologian (being a biologist and all), scientists can’t stand him, because he twists scientific theories to try to disprove the existence of God and discredit any form of religion.

Actually, what I just said was a gross generalisation. It’s true that Christians do generally despise Dawkins, as do many theologians. However, while some scientists think he’s a complete idiot, others don’t have a problem with him. But the generalisation I just made is exactly the sort of think Dawkins does in his latest book, The God Delusion. This is the first of his books that, by his own admission, actively sets out to convert people from religion. And it is full of sweeping rhetoric, backed up by incomplete and often simply incorrect facts and logic. He seizes on any piece of evidence that supports his doctrine, and ignores anything else. Not a great scientific method really. A large proportion of the book is Dawkins citing various problems with certain religious beliefs or practices, which leads him to conclude that all religion is completely evil. Classic.

I could write for hours on the errors in the book, but it’ll be more interesting to highlight some of the things Dawkins does well. By the way, I’ll assume that if you’re religious, you’re not creationist. That’s a whole different blog, one I’m not inclined to write at the moment. So I’ll assume you might believe in God, but you are also happy with evolution is some form. So, the three things Dawkins does well in the book…

After the introduction, Dawkins spends a chapter critiquing the respect that society gives to religion. This is something that I think has been nudging away at my subconscious for a while, but it wasn’t till I read The God Delusion that my thoughts were clarified. Dawkins points out that religious faith is treated as if it is ‘especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect’. We feel happy to argue and debate heatedly about Labour vs Conservative, war in Iraq vs no war, Chelsea vs United, Windows vs Macinthosh, but as soon as we talk about religion or faith or even the origins of the universe, people seem very concerned to give a huge amount of ‘respect’ to others and are much less inclined to engage in intellectual debate.
You can’t defend uttering public statements such as ‘homosexuals will burn in hell’ by claiming freedom of speech (because that doesn’t include hate speech), or freedom of prejudice, but you could claim ‘freedom of religion’. Religion trumps all!
The bottom line is that religions, like any other theories, philosophies or schools of thought, should be (but generally aren’t) critiqueable and open to debate, and should, frankly, be able to defend themselves without whining ‘but you’re insulting my beliefs’. Can you imagine such a phrase carrying any weight in any other argument? But where religion is concerned, people seem to think we have to give beliefs an extra-wide berth, no matter how ludicrous or even evil they may be. Religion and faith must accept that they, like everything else, must be open to scrutiny.
This is Dawkins’ first point, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

The second of Dawkins’ ideas with which I agree is that many classic arguments for God’s existence are rubbish. Dawkins easily dismantles Aquinas’ five proofs, the argument from beauty, the argument from personal experience, and Pascal’s Wager. None of these hold water.
Unfortunately he also tries to tackle the argument from scripture, claiming that the New Testament is in all likelihood historically very inaccurate. Big error there. He doesn’t give any sources, so I couldn’t follow it up, but various pieces of evidence, summarised here, indicate that they are in fact accurate.
Because he skims over this issue, he manages to completely ignore the argument from Jesus, which is possibly the only argument that he could not defeat (more on this later).

The third, and last, thing Dawkins does well is the science. He is a very good evolutionary biologist, and in chapter 4 (idiotically titled ‘Why there is almost certainly no God’), he explains how the argument of irreducible complexity is flawed. Irreducible complexity is the idea that certain biological structures, such as the eye, could not have evolved bit by bit, because they require all their many parts to function – to remove just one would stop it working, i.e., it is irreducibly complex. Dawkins brilliantly explains the flaws in this argument, from an evolution point of view. It’s clear that when he’s talking about what he actually knows about, he is very, very good. By the way, he also explains that evolution is not based on ‘chance’, as is commonly thought, but is actually a highly systematic process. For this argument alone everyone should read this book. It will make you understand how evolution, a concept that in the scientific world carries as much weight as the existence of the atom, really works.
Incidentally, for anyone who goes on about how the theory of evolution is ‘only a theory – it hasn’t been proved’, I would like to point out that, in science, a theory is ‘a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena’ (Dictionary.com). This does not mean it hasn’t been proved. It’s just the way scientists talk. It’s like the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, particle theory, the theory of evolution. Just different bits of science.

Now we come to the central theme of the book. Dawkins’ writing goes something like this:

Anything that has been created is less complex than its creator. A creator cannot make something more complex than itself.

So far so good. As Dawkins says, the horseshoe doesn’t make the blacksmith. Next…

The universe is incredibly complex. Some people try to explain its existence in terms of a creator (God). But this God would have to have been created by something even more complex. And this God-creator would have had to be created by something even more complex. Where does it end? The problem of complex existence just escalates and is never answered.

Yep, that’s it. Dawkins’ proof that God doesn’t exist is the classic seven-year-old playground line ‘so who made God then?’
I have to admit that my flabber what slightly ghasted. The might of one of England’s greatest scientific minds can come up with nothing better that ‘so who made God?’
Of course, the problem is that Dawkins approaches the problem from a completely scientific point of view, and doesn’t allow for the idea that there could be things that are not physical and material. He makes no allowances for the supernatural or for an eternal God. The discourse continues…

Darwinian evolution by natural selection, however, provides a mechanism whereby more complex things evolve from less complex things. Evolution, not God, is the explanation for the universe.

This is very interesting. As a sincere scientist and a sincere Christian, I completely agree with Dawkins that evolution explains the diversity of life in the universe. I agree with him that, even though physics has not yet produced evidence of how the universe itself started, and chemistry has not yet produced evidence of how the first lifeform came about, this does not discredit the fact that the production of the universe and everything in it could one day be explained by scientific theory.
However, this does not prevent the possibility of a supernatural world, angels, demons, or God. The best evidence for the existence of God is not that the world exists. The best evidence is Jesus (I told you we’d come back to him – now we’re here).

It has been said that the historical figure of Jesus as recounted in the (historically accurate) gospels and other ancient sources, could either truly be God, or else insane or a con man. Not strictly true. He could also be genuinely mistaken (though this might come under a mild form of insane). But he certainly wasn’t just a good man or a wise teacher. He certainly was both those things, but not just them.
The sheer volume of crazy miracles that happened around him, the revolutionaryness of his teaching, the number of prophecies, over which he had no control, that were fulfilled in him, the fairly weighty evidence pointing towards his resurrection, the way he treated both his friends and enemies, all add up to a lot of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed God on earth.
This can’t be scientifically proven, like the fact that there is a sun, but I reckon it’s a lot of evidence. Enough to stop anyone conclusively saying ‘there is no God’. Jesus provided enough evidence to at least make a question of it.

In the end, when Dawkins sticks to what he knows about, he’s great. But he really doesn’t know enough about religion, or maybe he just ignores vast amounts of it. If you’re not religious, The God Delusion is worth reading for the science, but not for the attacks on religion. I’m sure you can some up with better evidence against God if you wanted to. If you are religious, it’s worth reading, again for the science, but don’t get too frustrated or offended by the rest of it. It’s better to laugh at Dawkins than take him too seriously.

6 comments:

Joe 50 said...

Good article Ben, although I do have a few comments to make.

1. 'By the way, I'll assume that if you're religious, you're not creationist.' I shall respect your wish of not wanting to open this particular debate here, but you are excluding a lot- probably the majority in fact- of Christians by this assumption.

2. 'The second of Dawkins’ ideas with which I agree is that many classic arguments for God’s existence are rubbish. Dawkins easily dismantles Aquinas’ five proofs, the argument from beauty, the argument from personal experience, and Pascal’s Wager. None of these hold water.' With the exception of Pascal's Wager, I would highly contest that the other three arguments are 'rubbish'. In the case of Aquinas I agree that the use of the term 'proofs' is unmerited as a conclusive and provable existence can't be ascertained from his five points. However, human reason, as a God-given resource, is a perfectly legitimate means by which to contend for the existence of God. Indeed, as the chief end of man is to 'Know, glorify and enjoy God', then it is reasonable to assume that God has given us all our faculties in order to further this end. This holds for arguments from beauty (music and the natural evironment being the supreme exrpession in my opinion) and personal experience. They are not proofs of God, but they are all very reasonable EVIDENCES of God. I think they have great value for the practising Christian and also in evangelism, and so shouldn't be dismissed as 'rubbish'.

3. 'Because he skims over this issue, he manages to completely evolve the argument from Jesus'- I don't understand the use of the word evolve in this sentence, please explain!

4. '[evolution is] a concept that in the scientific world carries as much weight as the existence of the atom'. I would say this is a misplaced hyperbole. Accepting that 'theory' doesn't mean 'proof', many (and increasing numbers of) serious scientists contest the soundness of the components of evolution theory. It is not at all scientifically unreasonable to reject evolution. Again though I sharn't open the debate here, but wanted to highlight that evolution is a falsely perceived hegemony within the scientific community.

Unknown said...

I thought you might have a few comments! In response:

1. You reckon? By creationist, I mean world made in 6 days of 24 hours (incidentally, days which were 24 hours long before the sun or planets, the things we use to define 'days', existed).
When I say I'll assume you're happy with evolution in some form, I don't mean I expect you to accept speciation or the evolution of humans, just that you're not a creationist.
By the way Joe, are you a creationist? I don't think we've ever had that particular conversation - one for the future!

2. Personally, I agree that the argument from personal experience does contribute evidence towards God's existence. But it is weak, because some people believe they are Julius Caesar and claim to have experience of leading Roman armies!
As you say, the word 'proof' is unmerited, because none of these theories (or even all of them together) prove God's existence.
The first three of the five 'proofs', the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, and the cosmological argument, essentially have God as a first cause. But from a neutral, philosophical point of view, there is no reason to assume such should exist.
The fourth proof says that there are degrees of greatness, so there must be an absolute greatness (God). As Dawkins says, you may as well say there are degrees of smelliness, so there must be an ultimate stinker.
The fifth proof, the argument from design, can be argued theologically, but not scientifically from an evolutionists point of view.
I agree that some of these things have value personally and in evangelism. But not in an academic debate about the existence of God.

3. Sorry, the word should have been ignore, not evolve! Evolution on the brain...

4. I think I follow what you're saying, so I'll go with the following (correct me if I've mis-interpreted you!):
I admit that evolution hasn't explained everything yet. Many things are still to be worked out. But this doesn't limit its credibility of a scientific theory. Science works by saying what we think is true based on the available evidence, and then adapting our ideas if new evidence appears. Currently, all the paleontological, biological, anatomical and genetic evidence, points to evolution by natural selection. Evolution hasn't explained everything yet, but until evidence appears that contradicts the theory, it's as solid science as anything else.

Joe 50 said...

Sorry for the slow response. To begin with, our definition of a creationist differs. By a creationist I mean someone who believes a) God created the universe out of nothing b) He created it to glorify Himself and so it was originally very good c) Everything in the creation is according to his design. I think there are four tenable positions you can take with regards to creation theology, three of which I would describe as ‘creationist’ according to the definition I have given.

1. ‘The Literal New Earth Non-Evolutionist’. The six days in Genesis represent literal days where God bought about his design for the Earth, and the Earth is no more than 20000 years old according to the timeline we find in Scripture. Whilst allowing for micro-evolution within species the creation has not undergone a macro-evolution of species. This is a position held by many Christians, and one I would describe as creationist.

2. ‘The Literal Old Earth Non-Evolutionist’. The six days in Genesis represent literal days where God bought about his design for the Earth, but the Earth is as old as current scientific dating suggests it is. Whilst allowing for micro-evolution within species the creation has not undergone a macro-evolution of species. This is perhaps a less common position but one that appeals to those who don’t want to negate the temporal descriptions of Genesis 1 (‘and there was evening, and there was morning, and that was the first day’) yet who accept that our current scientific belief in an old Earth has been obtained using methods of reason given to us by God as should be accepted. It is a tenable position to hold, and I would describe this as a creationist position also.

3. ‘The Representative Old Earth Non-Evolutionist’. The six days in Genesis represent eras of millions of years, and the Earth is as old as current scientific dating methods suggest it is. Whilst allowing for micro-evolution within species the creation has not undergone a macro-evolution of species. This allows that the six days aren’t a literal six days and that God created over longer period of time in light of scientific dating of the Earth, but doesn’t accept the macro-evolution of species. Whilst tenable I find this less convincing than other hybrids, for reasons I’ll explain later, but again it is essentially creationist.

What these three positions have in common is that they assert that God is the effective power in bringing about a God-designed Earth. How He does this there is room to debate, and even if some macro-evolution is granted then it is all purposes by God rather than biological process, so isn’t evolution at all. So all creationist positions are incompatible with a full-blown acceptance of the Darwinian evolution process. On to the fourth position-

4. ‘The Representative Old Earth Evolutionist’. The six days in Genesis aren’t literal and the Earth is as old as scientific dating suggests it is. The process of Darwinian evolution is instigated by God as His means of bringing about the world that He wants, and species do evolve from one species to another through millions of mutations. The process of natural selection is responsible for the diversity we have in the Earth today. This view appeals to those who believe God did indeed instigate the world but that his creation had its own ‘intelligence’ in built in the guise of macro-evolution, so affirming contemporary scientific theory as well as Scripture. I think this is the position you hold, please correct me if I’m wrong. I would not describe this position as creationist, as the impetus for shaping the diversity of the world has been taken from God and given to a biological process.

I have excluded other combinations of the three ‘factors’ as being untenable positions for being contradictions in themselves, as they generally end up stating that the process of Darwinian evolution did take place, but in a six day period!

So, the point of this was whether I thought the majority of Christians were ‘creationists’. Taking your definition (which is position one listed above), then probably not. I don’t really know. Taking my definition of a creationist, I would say definitely yes- a large majority of Christians do hold to this view. My personal view hovers somewhere between three and two, without discounting the possibility of one.

Moving on, I’m sure we agree that ‘when all the facts are rightly understood, there will be no final conflict between scripture and natural science’ (Grudem). I’m not sceptical towards science, but I do believe that God’s revelation in scripture is more reliable than our scientific knowledge, and so I refuse to hold scripture ransom to current scientific thought. However, neither do I simply try and bend science to a literal interpretation of scripture. There will be a final agreement; this side of Jesus’ return, well-thought and scripturally faithful syntheses are the best we can hope for.

In light of all that, I have a number of comments on your final response:

“Science works by saying what we think is true based on the available evidence, and then adapting our ideas if new evidence appears.” I agree absolutely, and I understand that that is the basis on which the term ‘theory’ is employed in science.

“Currently, all the paleontological, biological, anatomical and genetic evidence, points to evolution by natural selection.” I disagree absolutely. Whilst I am not trained as a scientist, I can appreciate scientific argument, and all paleontological, biological, anatomical and genetic evidence points far more convincingly to a designed universe implemented by a Designer than to evolution by natural selection.

“Evolution hasn't explained everything yet, but until evidence appears that contradicts the theory, it's as solid science as anything else.” Unsurprising that I disagree with this in light of the previous comment, but my point here is that even if I did have more sympathy towards a natural selection process then I would disagree that it is ‘as solid science as anything else’. Whilst I accept it may be just as solid as a theory, certain scientific theories obtain ‘proofs’, which generally mean they became ‘laws’. Rightly, no-one talks about the ‘laws of evolution’ simply because the proofs aren’t yet there.

Without launching into a wholesale apologetic of my position, I offer two reasons why I find intelligent design so much more convincing the natural selection as a creation theory. Natural selection, which believes that millions of mutations were necessary to end up with the species we have today, is contradictory to the character of God as revealed in the Bible. God is a God of purpose, action and perfection. The account of God in creation doesn’t say “‘Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind’ and after 387,492,871 attempts He finally perfected the mouse” (Grudem). There are other aspects of macro-evolution (the extinguishing of millions of created species) that simply don’t reflect the character of God, and God is more real than any theory man may hold, even if it is scientifically ‘solid’ (not that I think Darwinian evolution is). Secondly, not one intermediate fossil type has been discovered by archaeologists, i.e. a fossil of a creature that represents some characteristics of one species type but a few of the next species type which it is developing into. After over a century of archaeological searching, this is pretty embarrassing for a theory that relies on such intermediate creatures.

Joe.

Unknown said...

Firstly, I love you Joe.

Secondly, I’ll reply to your latest comment.

It does indeed seem that our definition differs. My definition is option 1, the Literal New Earth Non-Evolutionist. And as far as I can tell, the majority of Christians do not hold this position. Taking your definition of options 1, 2 and 3, then yes, most Christians would subscribe to one of these, and would not agree with full-blown Darwinism.
Also, I agree with both “a) God created the universe out of nothing” and “b) He created it to glorify Himself and so it was originally very good”, but not “c) Everything in the creation is according to his design”. I think there is much in the creation that is not in God’s design.

“What these three positions have in common is that they assert that God is the effective power in bringing about a God-designed Earth.” This implies that option four, my personal preference, does not assert God as the effective power in bringing about a God-designed Earth. I think it is possible to believe both that God is this effective power and that Darwinian evolution was (one of) the means God used in the creation of the world.
“The impetus for shaping the diversity of the world has been taken from God and given to a biological process.” I think this implies that those who hold view four look at science to answer our questions and then use God to fill in the gaps. This is not what I believe. I believe God is fully involved in everything. I can’t understand the world through science alone, nor through theology alone – I need both sides of the coin, and I believe that God has been present in creation since the beginning, is present and at work in it now (in him all things hold together, Col 1:17b), and will re-create at the end.

“all paleontological, biological, anatomical and genetic evidence points far more convincingly to a designed universe implemented by a Designer than to evolution by natural selection”. Here we clearly have a big disagreement in this whole debate. I’m not sure exactly what to say, except that, relating to my previous point, I think that while scientifically all the evidence points towards natural selection, this doesn’t diminish God’s role at all. I think the evidence points to God, and I can see him in creation, but not as the designer proposed in views 1, 2 and 3.
One small example: we have an appendix, which we do not use. It is thought that the appendix is a vestigial organ which had a role in digestion in the past. If we reject natural selection, the conclusion is that God created us with something that has no purpose. That seems to go against God’s character of “purpose, action and perfection”.

My bad on the ‘solid science’ thing. I exaggerated. You are quite right about laws versus theories. I meant that evolution is as solid as other science in general; it’s not out on its own as ‘the bit scientists aren’t sure about’. It’s up there with the other theories of gravity, relativity and particles as the best explanation of the evidence we have. I revise my statement (until I come up with something better) to ‘until evidence appears that contradicts the theory, it remains the only scientific theory that adequately explains the evidence we have’.

I think Grudem’s quote reveals a misunderstanding of evolution. The ancestors of the mouse were not mistakes. They were wonderful successes, well adapted to survive in their particular environment. When that environment changed, they evolved to survive in the new environment. The mouse-ancestor was a different and prior species to a mouse, but no less well evolved. Humans are no more evolved than any other creature. We are just evolved in a different way to survive in our environment to the way that, for example, dogs have evolved to survive in the same environment. But put us underwater and you’d find that fish are far better adapted to survive. We and fish are not more or less evolved, just differently evolved for different environments. Natural selection is a very, very purposeful mechanism.
As Dawkins repeatedly says, it’s not intelligent design versus chance, it’s intelligent design versus natural selection. His point is that natural selection is not about chance, despite what the public think. It is very systematic and purposeful.

I agree that the extinguishing of millions of species does not reflect the character of God. Equally, the fact that lions rip apart the flesh of antelopes does not reflect the character of God. This is not a perfect world. Not everything in the current creation is according to God’s ‘design’ (I would prefer the word ‘will’ instead of ‘design’ here).
I think the gap theory might come into play here. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, so basically the gap theory of Genesis 1 states that there was a large gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This is when Satan’s rebellion occurred. The world (i.e. universe) had been created already, and was spoiled by this rebellion. This is a theory I am toying with and think I might hold to.
Because of the spoiling of the world bacteria, plants, animals, humans etc. came into being by methods that are partially contrary to God’s will. However, as we know, God is very into bringing good out of bad, so he could proclaim the creation good, if not perfectly aligned to his will.

You say that not one intermediate fossil has been discovered by scientists. Yes they have! That’s what all fossils are! Every organism has evolved from something and is evolving into something else. I’ll take the humanoid example because it’s the one I’m most familiar with. Please check out the following link, which shows the 'family tree' of human evolution.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_5_files/image017.jpg

As you can see, the evolutionists suggestion is that a variety of species evolved from a common ancestor, A. afarensis. Fossils have been found of each of these species, all of which are species in their own right and show some features of A. afarensis and progressively more of H. sapiens, modern humans.
As a side note, it is thought that some ancestor of A. afarensis was the ‘missing link’, the common ancestor between humans and other primates.
But all of these fossils, and every other fossil ever found, all show features of ancestral organisms and of yet-to evolve descendant species.
Every single fossil – not so embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

Well, I would like to see an explanation as to how you do your hermeneutics when interpreting the book of Genesis as I would assume you consider it as revelation.

I would greatly appreciate some dialogue on this issue.

Otherwise, I felt the evaluation was thought provoking and well written.


My email is Yakypo@gmail.com if you should want to reply.

cfg said...

Scientist and theologian John Polkinghorne has some interesting things to say on the subject of 'necessary chaos' in a fruitful creation.
http://mustardseedkingdom.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/polkinghorne-edge-of-chaos/