- One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
- The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
- The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
- The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
- We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
- We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
There are a few problems with this argument, though. The biggest is simply that the conclusion does not follow the premises. It does not follow by necessity. It does not follow by probability. It just does not follow. Even if the premises were true, the argument only attacks the Teleological Argument, or the Argument From Design. There are many other arguments for the existence of God, so the conclusion that follows such specific premises could not be so general as "God almost certainly doesn't exist."
The fifth and sixth premises are completely irrelevant to the issue of God's existence and do not lead to the conclusion.
The fourth premise is also irrelevant because Darwinian evolution does nothing to disprove the existence of God. At best, it disproves Young-Earth Creationism. Old-Earth Creationism is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution.
The first two premises only serve to set up the third, which is the only one that says anything meaningful about God's existence.
Unfortunately, while the third premise is the only meaningful one, it is also the most problematic.
Dawkins' first mistake is a technical one. When one offers an explanation for a given phenomenon, they are not required to offer an explanation for the explanation. This is because it would set up an infinite regress and make it impossible to know anything. One would be required to offer an explanation for the explanation for the explanation, and an explanation for the explanation for the explanation for the explanation, etc.
By this, I do not mean to say that one should accept God as an explanation even though we cannot explain God. I only mean to say that, logically, God's lack of explanation is not a valid reason to eliminate Him as a possibility.
A second problem with this premise lies with Dawkins’ assumption that God is complex, and therefore cannot be invoked to explain the design in the universe. Although he constantly claims throughout his book that God is extraordinarily complex, he never actually defends this assertion. In fact, many theologians and philosophers have plausibly argued that God is actually very simple. This argument fails to address any of these arguments (or any besides the Argument from Design), so once again, it cannot draw the conclusion it claims to draw.
Finally, even if God were complex, it does not follow that He would require a creator that is more complex and improbable. For example, despite the vast complexity of the universe, Dawkins argues that the existence of such complexity does not require design. Complexity, Dawkins argues, does not require design.
The main argument of this book is then self-refuting. The only meaningful part of it is the question, "Who designed the Designer?" Dawkins gives the answer himself: Nobody, because complexity doesn't need a designer.
14 comments:
APPARANTLY EINSTEIN THOUGH BEING LED TO BELEIVE IN A GOD VIA HIS RESEARCH ,FAILED TO RECOGNIZE JEHOVAH AS THE ONLY TRUE GOD REVEALED TO MANKIND THROUGH THE PROPHETS OF OLD!
That's true, he did fail to recognize that, but in his defense, it was likely because there is no good empirical evidence for it. At least, not by scientific standards.
So what I'm understanding is that even if Dawkin's used extras sentences that weren't particularly necessary (or maybe we simply don't understand what he meant). He is still right on the basis of asking "who created the designer?"
Although it does raise the question who created the designer's designer, and so on as an infinite regress.
Which is why I don't think that this theory is the best one to prove God's existence or the possibility of God's existence.
I’m going to assume we do know what he meant, because if he can elaborate on this central argument for several hundred pages and still not get his point across, then we come to a whole other host of problems.
But either way, he is not right to ask, “Who designed the designer?” because he argues that the universe, despite its complexity, does not require a designer. Dawkins’ position is that complexity does not require design. Therefore, a complex God does not necessarily require a designer.
And even if God did have a designer, etc, it would not necessarily lead to an infinite regress.
More on the here:
http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/02/logical-proof-that-mormonism-is-false.html
"I’m going to assume we do know what he meant, because if he can elaborate on this central argument for several hundred pages and still not get his point across, then we come to a whole other host of problems."
Have you even read the book?
"But either way, he is not right to ask, “Who designed the designer?” because he argues that the universe, despite its complexity, does not require a designer. Dawkins’ position is that complexity does not require design. Therefore, a complex God does not necessarily require a designer."
You're attributing to Dawkins the very position that he refutes.
Those who adhere to Abrahamic religions often use the argument from complexity: the universe is complex, so it must have been designed. Dawkins points out that anything that could have designed a universe that is complex must itself be complex.
He does not, however, argue that that is evidence against the existence of the Abrahamic deity. He simply points out that it is *not* evidence *for* the existence of the Abrahamic deity. In other words, while the complexity of the universe does not rule out the possibility of a deity, it doesn't lend any support to that possibility, either.
I wouldn't say this is the "central argument" of the book, he's simply countering the argument that creation needs a designer.
"The main argument of this book is then self-refuting. The only meaningful part of it is the question, "Who designed the Designer?" Dawkins gives the answer himself: Nobody, because complexity doesn't need a designer."
So his argument that shows God doesn't need a designer also highlights that we don't need God at all. So Dawkins has achieved his objective here.
Chris I believe you have missed the question entirely, my friend.
>Dawkins’ position is that complexity does not require design. Therefore, a complex God does not necessarily require a designer.
This is a variation of a straw-man argument because the premise of a 'creator' is unnecessary if you can show that complexity does not require design in the first place. Either complexity requires a designer or it does not. You cannot have it both ways. You are mixing the models.
"Who designed the designer" is a completely proper question to ask if you are dealing with the I.D.'s model (which is what Dawkins was doing). It shows that the model is flawed in its supposition that all sufficiently complex things require design.
The article here states that "When one offers an explanation for a given phenomenon, they are not required to offer an explanation for the explanation." This is patently false. It is an example of 'special pleading'. You cannot simply argue away the problem of infinite regression by saying that the argument proposed resulting in infinite regression is invalid because it results in infinite regression. Do you see what I did there? The fact that the argument ends with infinite regression does not mean that you are approaching the model incorrectly, and should create a special exception for God, it simply means that the model is invalid. You cannot create a special exception for God. It is improper to propose a model that includes in itself a functional exception (God) for its PRIMARY point.
First of all, Benjamin, thank you very much for commenting. Easily the best part of running a blog is the interaction with readers, especially when they know what they're talking about, which I get the sense that you do.
You bring up a good point. I have read The God Delusion, but I admit that I could have let my biases keep me from interpretting Dawkins' argument correctly. My potentially flawed understanding of his argument is that if complexity requires design, then God would need a designer (for reasons you correctly state). Most theists would rail against this notion. They would say, "God may be complex, but he does not require a designer." Well, then what makes us think the universe does? So the universe, despite being complex, does not need a designer.
The reason I attributed to Dawkins the argument he refutes is because just as the theists argument can be turned back on the theists, the atheists argument can be turned around, too.
As I said above, I don't believe that complexity requires design. Complex things are perfectly capable of existing with design. I agree with any atheist on that point. Nevertheless, some complex things are designed. Pocket watches, internal combustion engines, particle accelarators. These things do actually require design. You will never go out hiking and stumble across a naturally occuring flatscreen plasma television. It's not black and white, as Dawkins' seems to imply. Some complex things are designed, some are not.
So if, hypothetically, against all odds, the universe just happens to be one of those designed things, and there is a God, that doesn't necessitate that God absolutely requires a designer. He could be one of those undesigned things.
So Dawkins' argument doesn't really do anything to show that God cannot exist. But you say that that wasn't his point, and I admit I could be wrong. I totally agree with you that the argument from complexity is not a good argument *for* the existence of God.
Anonymous - Thank for the comment! I used the term "central argument" because it's the term that Dawkins uses. At the end of Chapter 4, Why god Almost Certainly Does Not Exist, he says something to the effect of, "This chapter contains the central argument of this book," and this argument follows immediately afterward.
I still don't think that Dawkins acheived his objective, only because showing that God is not required to explain something doesn't mean that he "almost certainly" isn't there. On that point, we can agree to disagree, but I will agree with you (and Dawkins) that the Argument from Complexity is a crappy reason to believe in the abrahamic God.
Anonymous - "Either complexity requires a designer or it does not. You cannot have it both ways. You are mixing the models."
I'm not sure I can't have it both ways. After all, an atheist would say that the universe, our bodies, and natural phenomena are not designed. I think the same atheist would agree that pocket watches and eyeglasses are designed. I think it's pretty demonstrable that we are not dealing with absolutes here. Some things are designed. Some are not.
Now, I agree that the Argument from Complexity is a crappy argument. However, if, hypothetically, the universe was designed, I dont see any reason why God, therefore, must also be designed.
"This is patently false. It is an example of 'special pleading'."
So then you must admit that science has never, ever, not even once, successfully explains anything because we have not explored all the way back up the infinite causal chain. I'm sure I'd agree.
And I'm not sure I'm making a special exception for God.Afetr all, I think that the Argument from Complexity is a crappy argument. There is nothing showing that the universe needs a designer. I just also happen to think that Dawkins argument fails to show that God "almost certainly does not exist", because some things are designed, some are not, and it is, at least, vaguely conceivable that the universe just happens to be designed and that would not necessitate that God would therefore also require a designer.
"Well, then what makes us think the universe does? So the universe, despite being complex, does not need a designer."
Which neatly destroys the "The universe is complex, therefore it needed a designer, therefore God" argument. Quod erat demonstrandum.
OK, for the last time. I totally believe that the Argument from Complexity is a crappy argument. My point is that even if the universe did require a designer, it would not be necessarily true that that designer would require a designer.
"My point is that even if the universe did require a designer, it would not be necessarily true that that designer would require a designer."
This, my friend, is a textbook example of special pleading. Why would the universe need a designer, while the even-more-complex creator of the universe would not?
I'm not sure it's a double standard because, like I said above, I think it's pretty demonstrably true that some things are not designed, and some things are.
And i think you're confused because you think I'm arguing from complexity. I think I said above that the Argument from Complexity is a crappy argument. Athests argue, for example, that mankind is not the product of any intelligent design, but humans are extremely complex. If a human builds a pocketwatch, that thing is designed. The fact that a pocketwatch is the product of intelligent design does not necessarily mean that humans are the product of intelligent design, despite the fact that human beings possess many magnitudes of complexity above pocketwatches.
So whether or not something requires design has nothing to do with how complex it is. The Argument from Complexty sucks. Nevertheless, some things, like pocketwatches, simply do not exist unless they are designed.
Is the universe one of these things? I don't know. I need to brush up on my pre-Big Bang physics. All I'm saying is that even if it did turn out, by some crazy chance, that the universe is one of those things that requires design, it would not mean that it's designer requires design, even if the designer possess many orders of magnitude above the creation.
If all designers required more complex designers, than that would actually be a great argument for the exstence of God. I'd call it the Argument from Pocketwatches. But seriously, if we hold that some things require design (pocketwatches) and some don't (humans), and we also assert that God requires a designer, then that would lead to a real double standard.
Post a Comment
Is there something here you like (or dislike)? Let me know! Your opinion matters!