The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit

The Ultimate 747 Boeing Gambit is an argument put forth by Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, which is allegedly a counter-argument to the Argument from Design and an allusion to Holye's Fallacy.

Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a Darwinist, atheist and anti-theist, reportedly stated that the "probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."

The basic argument against the idea of empirical theism goes back to David Hume, who's argument ccan be summed up in the popular phrase, "Who designed the designer?"

Dawkins writes that Evolution by natural selection is the only workable solution to the question of life's origin on Earth, and since it requires fewer assumptions than the God Hypothesis, Occam's Razor demands that we accept evolution over God.

This argument forms the central argument of The God Delusion and can be read here.

There are a few problems with this.

First is that evolution by natural selection is not a workable solution for the origin of life on Earth. Evolution does adequately explain how that life moved from simplicity to complexity, but it does not explain how it began to exist in the first place. Richard Dawkins admits this.

The fact that evolution does not explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that we must therefore accept God as the answer. It only means that evolution, by itself, is not sufficient reason to reject God as the answer.

This leads to the second problem. Even if evolution by natural selection is a reality, which I believe that it is, it does not mean that we must reject God as a reality. There is nothing in evolution which disproves God, or even affects His probability of existence. At best, it disproves Young-Earth Creationism, but it actually strengthens Old-Earth Creationism.

Even Charles Darwin said that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."

Third, Dawkins argues that God is the ultimate Boeing 747 because if He created something as complex as the universe, then he must be even more complex. Therefore, the designer needs a designer. If the universe could not have arisen by chance, then neither could God.

However, Dawkins argues that the universe did arise by chance and that there is almost certainly no designer. Therefore, Dawkins argues that complexity does not require design. However, complexity could be designed, it is simply not required.

For example, it very well could be the case that the universe was designed, since it is possible that complexity would come about by design, but it is also possible that the universe's designer was not designed, since design is not required for complexity.

Not only is Dawkins' argument self-refuting, since he does not believe that complexity requires design, but it also completely fails to even address the issue of God's existence for the same reason.

Dawkins Gets Nailed, So To Speak

"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. Flowers are for the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading 'copy - me' programmes about, written in DNA language.

That is EXACTLY what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self sustaining process. It is every living objects' sole reason for living..." - Richard Dawkins

"You are merely handing on to him a problem you dare not settle yourself. It is as if a man were asked, "What is the use of a hammer?" and answered, "To make hammers"; and when asked, "And of those hammers, what is the use?" answered, "To make hammers again". Just as such a man would be perpetually putting off the question of the ultimate use of carpentry, so... all the rest of us are by these phrases successfully putting off the question of the ultimate value of the human life." - G. K. Chesterton

The Courtier's Reply

PZ Meyers

The Courtier's Reply is a sort of antithesis to the Argument from Authority. The main point of the Courtier's Reply is that a person does not have to be an authority on a topic to make a valid point.

This concept is very old, allegedly going back to Sir Isaac Newton, who supposedly said to a skeptical Edmund Halley regarding astrology - "I, sir, have studied it; you have not." It was popularized under its current name by biologist/blogger PZ Meyers.

Meyers says:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

In other words, Richard Dawkins is like the boy at the end of the story who points out that the emperor is naked, but the courtier replies that hes not naked. The boy is simply uneducated in "Imaginary Fabrics."

This post by Meyers was later reposted on Richarddawkins.net where Dawkins was the first to comment:

 Congratulations to P Z Myers on this brilliant piece of satire. It applies not just to Allen Orr's review in NYRB, but to all those many reviews of TGD that complain of my lack of reading in theology. My own stock reply ("How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?") is far less witty.
Richard

On another occasion, Dawkins commented on his lack of scholarship, saying,

 "Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology."

Ironically, I'm actually grateful for Meyer's argument. It allows sites like this to exist. However, even though I  agree with the principle, I also think that whenever one presents an argument on any topic, that argument has to be based on an accurate understanding of that subject.

For example, I could not say that Richard Dawkins is not a human because he has a tail and no human has a tail...

By the way, I'm counting this as a tail...

...because that argument is not based on an accurate understanding of the human anatomy, what a tail is as opposed to a coccyx, or even what a human is. A doctor or biologist who hears this argument may be inclined to ask, in exasperation, whether I've ever read Grey's Anatomy, Aristotle's Biology, or even a more rudimentary book on human anatomy. For crying out loud, even Eyewitness Books will do. Would I be able to cite the Courtier's Reply and go on asserting that Richard Dawkins is not a human? No. It's an ignorant argument.

An example of this sort of thing in Dawkins works occurs in the central argument of The God Delusion, in which he implies that Christianity should not be accepted because Evolution is a much more "ingenious" explanation of life. However, evolution does not conflict with Christianity or anything in the Bible. It may be the opinion of many Christians that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc, but this is not a part of the dogma.

As Charles Darwin said, a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."

Dawkins argument seems to based on the understanding that Young-Earth Creationism is an inherent part of Christianity, but it is not. This, among other things, causes the argument to fall apart.

In addition, just as I am not free to interpret a coccyx as a tail, Dawkins is not free to interpret Christianity in any way he likes, either. His understanding of a topic must be in accord with the current, accepted, mainstream interpretation. The understanding of those he hopes to convince that his argument is valid. This does not require that he read a bunch of esoteric texts on deep, mystical spiritualism, but he must work with the mainstream interpretation, not his own, or else he is just calling a coccyx a tail, and he is simply wrong.

For example, Dawkins would ask us, "How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?" I would say that I have never read any. Nevertheless, I do have a correct understanding of what is meant by "Fairy" and a correct understanding of why it is impossible. In addition, my understanding of a "Fairy" is in accordance with that of those I would like to convince, presumably the general public. I would not write a book saying "Fairies are hover-cars and hover-cars do not exist for these reasons, therefore fairies do not exist," because even if fairies are fictional, that's not how they are portrayed, so it's a faulty argument.

Another example of why this is important is in the writings of Plato, in which Socrates goes around questioning individuals who paint themselves as experts in various fields and showing them to be false. He does this by asking questions, then using the answers given to him by the experts as the basis for further interrogation until an inconsistency is revealed. He worked with the understanding of the individual he hoped to convince.

Dawkins, however, asks questions, but does not allow us to answer. He provides his own answers, then points out the inconsistencies.

In other words, while it is true that he does not have to personally go out and read some ancient texts on various religions throughout history, it is still required that his arguments be based on an accurate understanding of what is meant by "God," or whatever the topic may be, and that understanding must be the one held by whoever it is he hopes to convince that his argument is valid.

This is not the case when dealing with empirical evidence, such as the effect of religion on society, etc. These observations fall within the domain of science and necessarily require interpretation as part of the scientific method, but take the following quote,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

He is not working with anything empirical here. No data, just his interpretation, but this interpretation holds no weight with well-read believers, because they simply assert that his interpretation is false because there were reasons for Old Testament events which Dawkins is not taking into account. They would not be able to do that if Dawkins had attempted to show the inconsistencies of a God who was infinitely loving, rather than a bully.

John Adams' Hell

In yet another baffling display of poor scholarship, Richard Dawkins offers the following quote by John Adams, on page 43 of The God Delusion:

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Adams did actually write these words in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson, but here is the full context:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."

In other words, the history of religion may sometimes disturb us  greatly, but we need it. This world would be hell without it.

Incidentally, Dawkins uses this misquotation immediately after another false quote, allegedly from Benjamin Franklin. The full context of the Adams quote shows us quite a different view than what Dawkins would have us believe. In addition, Adams had this to say in response to Thomas Paine's criticisms of Christianity in his Deist book The Age of Reason:

"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."

Gregg L. Frazer, in The Political Theology of the American Founding, notes that, while Adams shared many perspectives with deists, "Adams clearly was not a deist. Deism rejected any and all supernatural activity and intervention by God; consequently, deists did not believe in miracles or God's providence....Adams, however, did believe in miracles, providence, and, to a certain extent, the Bible as revelation." Fraser argues that Adams's "theistic rationalism, like that of the other Founders, was a sort of middle ground between Protestantism and deism."

Dawkins Central Argument

In Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he offers the following as his "central argument" of the book, which attempted to show that evolution is a viable argument against design in the universe and against the existence of God. Here is the argument:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. 
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. 
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. 
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 
5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics. 
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. 

          Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

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.

Ben Stein Interviews Richard Dawkins

I'm mostly posting this so that it can be linked in another post, but some of the things Dawkins says are interesting. Usually, I don't really enjoy watching Dawkins' interviews or lectures, not because I'm a theist, but because I'm skeptical of anyone who makes money off their opinions, regardless of ideology. However, in this interview it seems reversed. Dawkins conducts himself pretty well and Ben Stein spends most of the interview seemingly screwing around.

To be fair, though, I haven't seen the whole documentary that this is a part of, so maybe Ben Stein had a purpose that was explained earlier or later in the film.

Dawkins, What If You're Wrong?

"One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all." - Richard Dawkins

This is one point on which I actually agree, in part, with Richard Dawkins. I say "in part" because I don't believe this is a problem common to all of religion, but, unfortunately, I do see the tendency in many theists, when they are confronted with  a difficult question, to simply bury their heads in the sand.

To be fair, though, many atheists do this, too. I don't think this is a quality that we derive from religion. I think it is just human nature, regardless of ideology. I've mentioned elsewhere that many who sit and listen to Dawkins are satisfied with answers that are not really answers, but here is another example...

Here's a summary of that exchange:

Audience Member: What if you're wrong?
Dawkins: Oh yeah? What if you're wrong?
Audience: *applause*

I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins. It is a big problem when we are encouraged to accept answers that are not really answers. This is includes a lot of mainstream Christianity and they're going to have to deal with this problem if they are to maintain some semblance of credibility or validity in an increasingly secular world. Unfortunately, this also includes Dawkins.

Dawkins Doesn't Answer Question on Morality

In this video, an audience member asks Dawkins if atheists, who typically reject notions of absolute morality, are taking a leap of faith when they call something good or evil. Dawkins gives an answer and the crowd applauds. However, Dawkins's answer does not address the question at all. Not even a little.

The entire video can be summarized like this:

Audience Member: "Does an atheist's rejection of absolute morality prevent him from intelligibly making moral judgements?"
Dawkins: "I don't agree with religion's morality and would like a new, secular one."
Audience: *Applause*

I have to wonder what this says about the applauding audience. Are they really the product of an Age of Reason, listening intently to understand points and counter-points, thinking critically and assessing presented arguments? Are they really interested in truth and reason? Do they really care about the relationship between atheism and morality? Or are they just there to be fashionably atheist, mindlessly applauding an eloquently incoherent Dawkins?

I also wonder what this says about Dawkins. He is very intelligent, well educated and highly literate. I find it very difficult to believe that he did not understand the question. It is a fairly common issue in the philosophy of religion. He must have known that his answer was wildly irrelevant.

Even more disturbing is this: If he (rightly) thought he could get away with this, how must he view his audience? Does he see us as educated, rational, critical thinkers who would catch on if he dodged a question? Or does he know we're not even really listening? Does he think he can play us? Is he right?

Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate With William Lane Craig

When I first heard that Dawkins refused to debate with Craig, I wasn't at all surprised. Dawkins has said in the past that we is very reluctant to publicly debate with creationists because it would give credibility to their cause, even if they lost the debate. In addition, Craig has been a pretty obnoxious thorn in Dawkins side for a while, hounding him and publicly trying to lure him into debate. However, his refusal of Craig's most recent invitation has caused such an uproar from Craig's followers and accusations of cowardice that Dawkins release an explanation. Dawkins says that the main reason he refuses to debate with Craig is because he is an apologist for genocide. Response to Dawkins’ article has been varied, from atheists praising his refusal to debate Craig to others criticizing him for his flawed reasoning.

He has such a moral aversion to some of Craig's explanations of the biblical God's edicts that he refuses to share a stage with him. I think this explanation is odd, though, because his absolute rejection of genocide seems to be contrary to his rejection of absolute morality in The God Delusion.

Furthermore, while I do think genocide is indescribably immoral, wouldn't an evolutionary biologist see one group of organisms wiping out another as Survival of the Fittest? Isn't that the basis of evolution? Adapt or die out?

Considering Craig's acceptance, and Dawkins's rejection, of absolute moral values, and Dawkins's background as an evolutionary biologist, I would expect Dawkins to be more accepting of genocide than Craig. Wouldn't Dawkins see it as no more evil than a male lion killing the cubs of a vanquished rival?

And this practice is not unique to the Bible or religion. For much of human history victorious conquerors would kill women and children in order to prevent them from rising up later to avenge the conquered. Wouldn't Dawkins recognize this as a normal behavior during pre-modern warfare?

In addition, I have trouble accepting Dawkins's explanation because the idea of Old Testament warfare is so common to all Christian (and Jewish) faith that Dawkins should refuse to debate any christian (or Jew), which is clearly not the case.

I don't think Dawkins is being honest about his reasons for refusing the debate. Do I think he's afraid? No. He has shown in the past that he can substantiate his views, and I do not believe that Craig is an exceptionally amazing apologist. In addition, other noteworthy atheists have debated with Craig, such as Bart Ehrman, Richard Taylor, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens without taking exceptional issue with Craig's view of the Old Testament God.

However, I don't think it's necessarily true that he's afraid of Craig. There's nothing exceptional about him. It may just be that he finds Craig annoying.