In The God Delusion Dawkins argues that God is complex, he does this my making an analogy in assuming that God is a biological organism. The upshot of that is that complex things are less likely to come about by random chance than simple things The problem is of course God doesn't "come about" and if he did it wouldn't be by random chance. Since God is eternal he doesn't' "come about." There are several reasons why this kind of thinknig is wrong.
(1) God is the foundation of all that is. Before God's creates there is nothing but God.
What does one compare God to if God is all there is? Do you all remember the idea that we can't speak of "before the big bang" because there's no time there and if no time you can't use words like "before?"
this is the same kind of thing. With nothing to compare to you can't say if it's simple are complex. It's just there.
(2) Can't use analogy to biology: We have no scientific knowledge of things beyond the physical.
Skeptics who echo Dawkin's idiocy try to speak as though God works like a big biological organism with a physical brain. Some try to justify that analogy by instituting that information works this way for us, so therefore, it just work this way all the time. one person on this board says "information is complex, it would be complex even if it's not physical it's still information."
That is an assumption not in evidence. They are trying to assert that the unknown has to work like the known because that's what we know. These same people also want us to confine our thinking to scientific thinking only. there is no scientific evidence for the great unknown I don't see why we should assert that all reality functions like the bits we know about.
(3) The idea that you can't go from simple to complex is contradicted by several physical aspects of reality.
a. planetary formation: move from singularity, to solar systems and galaxies.
b. evolution: single cell orgnaisms, even more simple things than that, to man.
Unfied feild: gravity is all we need to get everything going.
there are other examples too.
(4) The analogy they draw is to man. If we drew one bewteen God and the laws of physic simple to complex would be easy to understand.
(5) God is eternal, the probability arguments assume something coming to be rather than an eternal existent.
Dawkin's whole point point complexity is to say complex things are less probable. That assumes an amalgam of smaller parts that combine to make a larger amalgam. It has no application to something that is eternal and doesn't' come to be.
There is no probability to be calculated when something does come to be but always is. The probability of its' coming to be is 0. The probability of it's ceasing is 0. The probability of it's not being is 0. The probability that it is is 100%, obviously, something that has always been is!
(6) Dawkins assumes God is analogous to a man, so the arguments don't apply to being itself.
HRG recites the mantra "we have shown that there can't be an eternal entity" his logic is circular because his "showing it" is partly based upon this and other arguments disproved by the eternal nature, and it's also based upon assuming God is a big man rather than being itself.
2 comments:
Towards the end of (2) you say "they are trying to assert that the unknown works like the known because that is what we know . . . I don't see why we should assert that all reality functions like the bits we know"
As I read it this extends from a critique of simple materialism (epistemologically valid conclusions are those based on observable material reality). Assuming that is a fair analysis, what would be your primary objection to that materialist epistemology?
I don't think (3) is really in opposition to Dawkins' argument. As I read it, his argument was that observed complexity in the universe increased with time and that an interventionist God would have to be fairly complex. His conclusion from the evidence observed and the assumption of required complexity is that an interventionist God is unlikely to occur early in the universe.
Towards the end of (2) you say "they are trying to assert that the unknown works like the known because that is what we know . . . I don't see why we should assert that all reality functions like the bits we know"
I don't either but that's what they are saying.
As I read it this extends from a critique of simple materialism (epistemologically valid conclusions are those based on observable material reality). Assuming that is a fair analysis, what would be your primary objection to that materialist epistemology?
we have a limited sample and we are no dealing with matter when we deal with God. God is not a biological organism.
It's reasonable to assume what we know becuase we can't assume what we don't know. It's not reasonable to assume everything is like what we know. For example take minds.
It's reasonable to assume all biological minds require brains. It's not reaosnable to assume that the only kinds of minds are biological. There may be stuff we don't know about.
I don't think (3) is really in opposition to Dawkins' argument. As I read it, his argument was that observed complexity in the universe increased with time and that an interventionist God would have to be fairly complex. His conclusion from the evidence observed and the assumption of required complexity is that an interventionist God is unlikely to occur early in the universe.
2:10 PM
that can't be used as an argument against the existence of God.
(1) it assumes God is a biological organism which he is not.
(2) it's meaningless to speak of complexity in dealing with the foundation of reality.
Dawkins is treating God like a big man in the sky, or like another aspect of creation. God is the basis of reality.
(3) the consequences of God being complex would be much different form the consequences of a biological organism being complex.
(4) there's a school of Christianity (scholasticism) that asserts that God is simple not complex.
(5) Dawkins contrasts his own assumptions he states point blank that survivle of the fittest doesn't quire complexity and that evolution goes from simple to more complex. Thus even if you put God under the rules of caliphs life it would not be necessary for him to be complex to create the universe. he wouldn't have to create a fuly formed universe but one just the principle of survivable of the fittest.
Post a Comment