The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis
From the preface: "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? If so, I hope Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Dawkins' sumgness increasingly belies his supposed desire to convince, and instead showcases an inability to resist insulting.
I find it difficult in this chapter to sort through the quagmire. Dawkins even lets his personal distaste for religion color his citations, wherein people who agree with him are "the great" or "the illustrious" and opposing views are taken from simply "the theologian" or "the preacher" (the book is rampant with that sort of idiotically simple bias).
That's all the presentation, though. My biggest intellectual beef with this chapter is that Dawkins' "God Hypothesis" is based entirely on his perception of the general "God Hypothesis." He dismisses the entire idea as silly before he even begins, while in the same breath criticizing mainstream Christianity for doing the same thing to atheism.
In fairness, plenty of religious thinkers espouse the same kind of hypocritical doctrine, but plenty do not, and seriously? I expect a more highbrow treatment (atheist and Christian both) from anyone proposing intelligent discussion. On the positive side, I guess, he does provide us with plenty of other authors who may do a better job at objective argument.
Well, do your best to ignore the presentation and focus on his arguments. Here is what I found most interesting:
1) I would like you to elaborate your problem with his definition of the God Hypothesis, Joe, because I found it very precise. He is emcompassing any potential religious idea of a personal God - no getting out of his definition just because you don't believe in a literal bearded man in the sky.
2) The linking of Catholicism's many orders of saints and angels with the ancient polytheist gods. I particularly enjoyed his attack on the Holy Trinity, which I have never understood, either, and it was good to hear that Thomas Jefferson thought the same of it. I particularly liked the line, "I cannot help remarking upon [] the overweening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor could have, any evidence." I heartily agree!
3) His discussion of deism and American's religiosity is somewhat of a tangent from the chapter's point, but the p. 40 quote from the Tripoli treaty delighted me. What a wonderful testament to the genius and progressive thinking of our dear FFs! And how sad that we're still having this stupid debate in our society to this day. (Obviously, I don't mean you guys)
4) The BEST part of this chapter is his point that agnostics/theists equate the inability to definitely prove the existence of God with the probability of his existence. I've always hated the argument that you can't disprove the existence of God. But the onus IS on the religious to prove God exists, and they just say, "well, prove he doesn't." He is absolutely right when he says that no one would believe someone who claims that an undetectable celestial teapot exists, but that if we were to discuss it every Sunday as sacred truth culled from ancient books then suddenly we have to respect its possibility. And he directly addresses McGrath's book! I tell you, Christopher, if McGrath's book is just a series of "you can't disprove God," then my comments about it are going to be mighty vulgar.
5) He gives what I think is a body blow to NOMA, in a section (p. 66) that was addressed more to me, and anyone else trying to shape the formation of their nascent religious beliefs into reconciliation with scientific rationalism: you can't really separate theology from science, because any intervening god's actions HAVE to have a scientifically measurable impact in the universe. And once religion steps into the natural world's laws, then religious doctrine is fair game for scientific analysis. Did Jesus have a father or not? The answer is yes or no, not "that's not for science to decide."
(I also agree with his point that religious people would throw NOMA out the window whenever a scientific discovery bolstered religious doctrine, and that NOMA is used by theists as a fall-back position whenever scientific discovery works against religious doctrine. The famous prayer study that Dawkins refers to is indeed a damning blow to the effect of prayer).
The Neville Chamberlain section was particularly interesting. I suppose that ultimately atheists and creationists do share the common ground that either God intervened in the origins of human life or he didn't, and to invoke NOMA is really just an indefensible fallback. Either scientific principles were violated or God had no hand in it - that's that.
This is precisely why I initially envisioned smaller chunks as discussion fodder. One week is simply not enough to graze upon 40 pages of content.
I guess my point is that Dawkins' take on the Hypothesis is one of resolute dismissal. His sarcastic reaction to the "definition" of the Trinity, balking at its ambiguity, takes absolutely no regard of the purpose of assigning a Trinity in the first place. It is not an explanation of who/what God is, but rather a description of the nature of God. This hearkens back to something Zhubin, Chris, and I have touched on before--just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.
Along the same line, his pre-defense about the old bearded man immediately fails to hold water, as he is not, in fact, "encompassing any potential religious idea"; almost every example is specific to the Judeo-Christian deity, and encompasses, if anything, a gross misunderstanding thereof.
For example, since you mention it, atheism's probability argument. I do agree that we should all stop trying to prove or disprove the existence of the divine. No one can, and the trump card is (and has always been) "No, YOU prove it!" However, what in the world has probability got to do with anything? Where does it factor into the equation? Seriously, I'm asking (although a weightier discussion of this question may be better served in the next chapter).
Personally, I'd like to read the context of these quotes from the Founding Fathers. I'm the last one to insist on the idyllic portrait of a pious, Bible-toting First Continental Congress opening the session with a chorus of "This is My Father's World" (never mind the anachronism), but passages like these hardly cinch a verdict. "If there be [a God] he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear"? Come on--I'm pretty sure even James Dobson, the fundamentalist's fundamentalist, would agree with that.
As to regarding Catholic sainthood as cloaked polytheism, I'm right there with Dawkins (and Zhubin, apparently), as well as the rest of Evangelical, Protestant Christendom. We pretty much all feel this practice isn't Biblical, and wish the Pope would get the memo.
Joe: Fair enough if you don't like Dawkins' "sumgness" (sorry). Honestly, I tend to agree that his arguments would be better served if his approach were less confrontational. But I think much of that stems from the fact that he wishes to put a light-hearted humorous edge to everything. I believe he admits to this in chapter one (I'm too lazy to go quote searching at this point). The problem here is that he's not a very good humorist. He clearly has great admiration for Douglas Adams (who doesn't?) but he should worry less about amusing us, rather than explaining his ideas.
That said, I'd like to hear your thoughts on those ideas, Joe. I'd be disappointed if you spent the debate critiquing his style, rather than the actual topics. I know you're an English teacher. It's in your blood.
Zhubin's done a pretty good job of dissecting the chapter. What are your thoughts on these points? And of course, that goes for everyone taking part in this conversation.
2) I found the Catholicism/polytheism comparison very interesting, in no small part because I was raised Catholic. I struggled with my faith from a very early age, and it was because of things like this. I completely agree with Dawkins' assessment here, though I was never consciously aware of it.
I see no difference between the order of saints and angels and the old Roman gods. If you're Catholic and you wish to have success in business, there's a saint you can pray to, just as there was once a god set aside for that specific purpose. The only difference is that Catholics decided to stop calling these periphery characters "gods".
The thing I find interesting about this historically is that the Catholic church was the first mass organized version of Christianity. If they didn't get it right, what are the odds that any of the hundreds of churches that have since split off from it did? Modern churches crop up to fit the needs of modern people, and they grow farther and farther away from their roots. Either God loves us all like his precious children (as most modern Christians ascertain from the New Testament) or he was an emotional, wrathful old cuss (the Christian God of choice for many up through the Puritan age). Or he was first one, then the other, which doesn't say much for God as a constant, unchanging entity.
If everyone just picks their God of choice at any given time it doesn't say much for the solid "truth" factor that many Christians cling to in times of argument.
Only a crazy person or an idiot would argue that the sky wasn't blue, because a blue sky is common knowledge. But the nature of God and the historical facts in all religions are often so hazy that you can get very different opinions even within a single church.
Yet some people make religious statements with the same certainty that they do when they say the sky is blue.
Maybe this loosely ties into point 4, about the burden of proof. As a nonbeliever, I look at the various religions of the world like an open marketplace. Everyone wants me to buy their wares, but it's their responsibility to convince me that I should. If a car salesman said to me, "Give me one good reason why you shouldn't buy my car," I'd probably laugh at him and walk away. Personally, I've seen nothing in my life to convince me that one religion is better than another. Or that any religion is better than none.
Well, in the time it took me to write my lengthy argument Joe beat me to the punch.
Actually, I think Dawkins' probability argument is so critical to his whole book, I'd like to discuss it in this chapter, Joe.
The typical "prove it" argument between an atheist and a theist goes along the lines that you said: "Prove it!" "No, YOU prove it!" Dawkins breaks this deadlock, by pointing out that the atheist's response should be: "I don't have to prove it. The onus is on YOU, theist, to prove that your God Hypothesis is correct."
And, indeed, Dawkins says we should treat the proposition that God exists like a scientific hypothesis, because if He DOES exist, then his influence and effect upon the natural world should be testable scientifically (unless, of course, you believe in a miracle-less God who does nothing, which Dawkins dismisses as being unpalatable to theists). The counter-argument to this is NOMA, which posits that God's influence is above scientific understanding, and Dawkins attacks it with the argument I posted previously as number 5.
So this is where probability plays in: if we're going to treat the God Hypothesis scientifically, then we can use probability as a consideration in determining the existence of God. Much like someone claiming that an undetectable teapot is orbiting the Earth, we can acknowledge that we can never really know that God exists, but we can make a confident decision based on the probability of his existence, deduced from the evidence we can (or can't) see of his existence.
This becomes the crux of later chapters, because not only can we assess the probability of his existence based on the evidence gathered by theists, but we can assess it based on the evidence AGAINST his existence, which Dawkins then spends the rest of the book discussing.
The whole "probability" thing isn't that complex of a point. All Dawkins is saying is that the God Hypothesis is like any other scientific hypothesis, such as the existence of dinosaurs: we gather the evidence for both sides and balance them. We balance ambiguities (no one has seen a dinosaur) with evidence that proves one explanation is the most probable (all these fossils!).
And the God Hypothesis gets no special treatment. You can't just throw up your hands and say that because you can't prove definitively that dinosaurs existed, it's equiprobable that they did or didn't. And you can't say that just because you can't prove that God definitely doesn't exist, that it's equiprobable he does/doesn't.
That's why I think this probability is so critical to the book - it sets the foundation for the majority of the book, which is debunking theists' arguments for God's existence and offering arguments against God, i.e., the origins of humanity, and biological reasons why we erroneously believe in God. This chapter pre-emptively cuts down the obvious theist counter-argument, "Well, you can't definitely prove it either way, so it's all up in the air." God is now brought down to the level of scientific analysis.
I had hoped to chime in earlier, but I have been preparing for a big physics exam. Just to let you all know, I plan on joining this discussion within the next day (after my exam).
Oh, and regarding the other points you raised, Joe: I'm going to keep my points numbered by subject, so people responding to them can preface them with the numbers, like Scott did.
4) Consider my previous probability post item 4.
2) Trinity: I think Dawkins was attacking the Trinity as part of the quote I mentioned in my first post, point 2. It's the fact that religious authorities throughout time have stated with absolute confidence that the nature of God is a Trinity, despite the complete lack of evidence for their point. Similarly, Muslims consider this completely stupid, and believe in a Unity God. Neither side has any actual evidence aside from their own religious texts, and yet both sides have killed hundreds of thousands of "heretics" for positing alternative God-natures (also without any evidence!). It's not the attempt to consider what God is like, it's the absolute belief, without any proof, that God is a certain way. That's where the "arrogance" of theists comes into play, in Dawkins' view.
1) Old Bearded Man: I agree that Dawkins attacks Christianity more than other religions, but his definition of the God Hypothesis certainly encompasses all monotheistic gods. Likewise, his analysis of the God Hypo, while certainly using mostly Christian examples, applies to any posited monotheistic God. Put it this way: his definition of the God Hypo is broad enough that no Christian, Jew, Muslim could possibly claim that their God does not fall under it. You can't wiggle out of it - you have to refute his points.
Response soon enough. Like Bobak, I'm a bit short-handed at the moment, but I will add that every time you abbreviate it to "the God Hypo", I am going to assume you mean the God Hypodermic Needle, and dismiss whatever point you're making as irrelevant to this book.
I did mean the God Hypodermic Needle, which is practically what this whole chapter is about. Read between the lines, Joe!
And where are the Brothers Ragland here?
Seriously. Joe's outnumbered, abandoned by his supposed brothers in Christ.
I'm here and Joe has support...from me and from Jesus. Will respond when I get a free moment. Love how the club's going...keep up the good (albeit Godless) work!
Sorry guys, I've had a busy week. I've barely had time to read the chapter.
I'll begin each of my rants with a number so that they can be addressed by you guys more easily.
I don't have time to write the dissertation I feel like writing on all the things I think he's missing, not to mention I still hope he addresses a number of these issues in later chapters.
1)However, he's making the same assumption that I find is typical in this type of discussion - that atheism is a view free of presupposition. Each person has his own presuppositions that form his worldview and forms how he interprets information. The beginning of the first chapter starts with this - that is, how two people can have the same experience and come to entirely different conclusions.
I use this to criticize his comments about if NOMA is not true, then we should be able to scientifically observe God.
When a "miracle" occurs (by that, I mean something that appears to be a violation of natural law), the religious person perceives it as an act of God. The atheist (so I would imagine) assumes that it was either a natural anomaly that randomly occured or that is a result of a natural process that we simply have not yet observed and understood.
Both of these require faith in something - one in science and natural law, the other in God and his omnipotence. The mistake he makes is that he ignores the fact that he has faith in natural law.
The bottom line is that for Dawkins, anything that cannot currently be explained scientifically is simply due to the fact that we don't currently have enough scientific evidence to explain it.
His assumption is that this presupposition is perfect and infallible and if something cannot be proven under that presupposition, then it cannot be true.
Another issue of presupposition is that it can be refined by experience and observation, but it cannot be proven. It can only be formed by inductive reasoning, not deductive.
To attempt to assume a position free from presupposition is folly and fairly laughable.
2) I still think in a lot of his proofs to attack religious people, he attempts to use one example to apply to the whole. For example, he seems to try to apply the Catholic "polytheism" to all Christians. Furthermore, he fails to distinguish between organized and personal religion.
He uses corrupt organizations and people to decry the purpose of churches. He uses examples like Oral Roberts to claim that all churches suck the finances from gullible churchgoers. This is far from the truth. I could go into the many great uses that these finances go to, but I figure it is fairly pointless because I hope that everyone here sees beyond our worst representatives. This is one reason I've always disliked televangelists - they give the rest of us a bad name.
His whole chapter seems to be one sweeping generalization after another based upon a few examples from small sects of "religious" people.
3) He makes a crucial mistake in not distinguishing between nature and science. Science is a method of interpreting nature, it is not nature. The importance of distinguishing the two is in my opinion very significant. I would further explain this, but it is late and I'm watching the Vols destroy the Buckeyes, so I don't feel like expounding at the moment.
4) I think it's humorous how he continually makes reference to "scientific fact" because facts are natural not scientific and are the basis (generally) on which science is performed. However, every time it seems he wants to extoll the greatness of science, he refers to facts (which is a sufficient term) as "scientific fact." I don't have anything else to say about this, I just think it's funny how he adds the word scientific the way most people use italics.
"The bottom line is that for Dawkins, anything that cannot currently be explained scientifically is simply due to the fact that we don't currently have enough scientific evidence to explain it."
Well, history kind of backs him up on this. The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around (despite scriptural evidence to the contrary) is one example.
Also, the fact that we no longer believe in witches, or that demons in our skulls make us mentally ill.
I would argue that the very reason we traditionally believe in the supernatural (or the religious) is to fill in the gaps of our understanding. The more science explains about our universe the less these stories remain necessary.
Evolution will someday be understood as common knowledge, just as we now understand the earth isn't the center of the universe. It just happens to be going through the awkward stage because it's a relatively new idea, in the grand timeline. Fortunately for Darwin he lived in a time when the Pope no longer had the power to lock these dangerous thinkers away.
Tim1) Dawkins does address this later in the next chapter, in the "Worship of Gaps" section (which also backs up Scott's point), so we can discuss it more fully then.
I will point out, however, that I think you've misread Dawkins, Tim: he AGREES with you. On pages 50-51, he clearly points out that "absolute" atheists employ just as much "faith" in their denial of God's existence as "absolute" theists use in their assertion of it.
Nor does Dawkins say that, in the absence of knowledge about a natural phenomenon, the proper response is "faith in natural law." Dawkins says the proper response is Temporary Agnosticism in Principle (TAP) (p. 51). You admit that there's not enough evidence now to provide an answer, and hope that one day there will be. Anyone wishing to provide an answer, whether it's "God did it" or "gravitons did it," has the burden of proof.
That is to say, Tim, you're making the exact logical fallacy that Dawkins points out in this very chapter: because we cannot explain X right now, you claim that it is not incumbent upon you to provide evidence that God caused it. But ANY explanation must provide some evidence that can be assessed scientifically. If none exists, TAP is the only appropriate position.
Tim2) Yeah, I agree, he does.
Tim3) Perhaps, in the future, you could wait to raise a point until you feel like expounding on it.
Tim4) I think that when Dawkins uses "scientific" as an adjective for "fact," he means "a fact as proven through the scientific method." That appears to be his meaning the two or three times I saw it used in the chapter, but I didn't look too hard - I might have missed some.
On another note, I think that a close reading of this chapter provides irrefutable evidence that Joe is a robot programmed to teach high schoolers about the importance of retirement savings. I would further explain this, but it is late and I'm somewhat depressed about the Vols losing to the Buckeyes, so I don't feel like expounding at the moment.
As I was writing this, I refreshed the comment page to see Zhubin's comment before mine. I am going to post this anyway, despite my fatigue at the moment.
Timothy, the problem with your argument is your definition of faith. Defined by atheists, faith requires not a single shred of evidence. Acceptance of a natural law is not tantamount to “faith” by any means. Natural laws are reasonable observations based on an enormous body of evidence. Our “faith” in natural law is the result of this evidence. If you were to run an experiment disproving the law of gravity, science would abandon the law overnight. Whatever the evidence shows we accept as a theory or law. There is no room for presumption in science simply because we only accept what is supported by data.
“Another issue of presupposition is that it can be refined by experience and observation, but it cannot be proven. It can only be formed by inductive reasoning, not deductive.”
Again, let’s be clear of your definition of “proven.” By your definition of “proven,” nothing can ever be proven. The idea that Tennessee just lost to Ohio State can not be proven, because as you say things can only be “formed by inductive reasoning.” I can form and reason in my mind that Tennessee did just play because I watched them on TV. Also, I talked to people throughout the game who were watching it as well. But according to your definition, those are only experiences forming my notion that Tennessee just played. I can never really prove that those teams just played. You and I can sit here and argue about philosophical definitions all day.
But most of the world’s definition of “proof” is based on common sense. I can assume that Tennessee just played basketball because I watched them play on TV, read online articles about the game, and talked to other who watched the game. Therefore, I can assume and reasonably feel confident in proving the game took place. Evidence is what forms assumptions about natural law. Reasonable, repeatable tests all pointing at a common description of natural behavior are what lead to science proving natural laws.
2) I think his whole point is: Sure, religious institutions fund charitable programs and help the community, but many other non-religious organizations have done the same type of charitable work. Why does one have to be justified through religion to do a good deed? Furthermore, just because religion helps the community does not make it true. So while churches, mosques, etc. provide community services, other non-affiliated organizations provide the same services. On the other hand, you don’t see other organizations with the potential to persuade and convince its members to do atrocious acts, such as the ones Dawkins’ mentions.
Can we not have one intelligent conversation without bringing sports into it?
If I may piggyback on Bobak's point, I think that Tim is also conflating natural laws with some abstract principle of "natural law," which he then says the atheist worships the same way he worships God. This allows Tim to say that belief in either "natural law" or God is all based on faith, and no one can really prove the truth or falsity of either one.
But, as Dawkins said, TAP is the only appropriate position when faced with a lack of evidence, not faith in anything. If I wish to propose a natural law to explain X, then I need to provide evidence, and if Tim wishes to propose God to explain X, then HE needs to provide evidence. And the evidence is gathered on both sides, probability is considered, yadda yadda, etc., etc., see previous post.
Again, this chapter is all about cutting out Tim's "Well, we ALL have faith in SOMETHING!" argument.
I don't know if this will even go through, because twice in the past 24 hours I've spent upwards of 30 minutes apeice on responses, once to Timothy and once to Zhubin.
Neither one of them shows up here, so I assume none of you saw them.
I'm extremely frustrated by this, and now I have to go back to work. I'll be out of town this weekend, too. You'll hear from me on Monday, hopefully.
To answer the flurry of conversation that apparently happened between 3 and 4 am this morning, albeit in simpler and quicker terms than I would like: The disconnect in the two sides is quite plainly that Christians--and most religious thinkers, I'd imagine--do not agree that the God Hypothesis can or should be addressed scientifically. That is to say, we reject Dawkins' premise from the outset. This should not be surprising (though for some reason it sounds like it is, from your comments), because I was pretty sure that's why we were reading the book.
Sure, sure, of course you disagree, but how do you dispute Dawkins' arguments that the God Hypo - that is, the existence of an interventionist God - MUST be addressed scientifically? Unless you believe in a God that doesn't interact with the universe whatsoever, and you don't, then you must accept that God's actions, as Dawkins says, have an impact on the universe that can be measured scientifically (like, again, Jesus's DNA lacking a biological father). How do you respond to this?
THAT is what I want to hear from you three. That's the ultimate point of this whole chapter: if an interventionist God exists, he MUST have a scientifically measurable impact on the natural world, and thus the question of his existence is an issue that can be addressed scientifically, with all the evidence-balancing and probability-considering that it implies.
What do you think about this? If you reject it, as Joe says, why? Where is the weakness in Dawkins' argument? If you accept it, what evidence do you have for God's actions, and will they hold up to Dawkins' arguments, in the next few chapters, against God's existence?
I believe I have somewhat addressed your God Hypothesis question already Zhubin, but I'll clarify. (I should note that I am aware I am not the clearest writer)
1) My response is that the divine intervention is in theory scientifically observable. However, there are 2 things that keep it as being understood as such.
a) evidence in the most significant documented cases (that is, those in the Bible) cannot currently be scientifically discovered (and may never be able to be discovered due to the 2000 years of seperation). These are those examples such as the idea of analyzing Jesus' DNA to see if he has a father. We likely will never have the evidence to be able to scientifically prove those miracles.
b) The miracles are treated as a scientific anomaly. This is where Dawkins attempts to use his TAP argument. He assumes that we simply don't know yet what caused it. My biggest question here is that suppose this scientific anomaly were actually an act of God. How could this be scientifically proven? God does not necessarily act on a scientifically consistent basis, so these anomalies may never have a scientific connection other than the fact that they are "temporarily" scientifically inexplicable. The TAP argument suggests that in the future, such a miracle may be able to be proven to be so through scientific means. I am arguing that this idea is intrinsically impossible to do, because you can't scientifically prove the absence of a scientific explanation.I hope I am explaining my point here clearly.
2) Another clarification I'd like to make is that there is a significant difference between what I have suggested under 1b and the "God of the Gaps" idea. The God of the Gaps argument (at least as I understand it - I haven't yet read the chapter) is that the areas where science cannot yet currently reach is the area where God acts. I am not saying that a scientifically inexplicable subject is by default a miracle (which I am defining as a violation of natural law). There are many areas where science simply has not explored enough to develop laws yet. However, I suggest that observed scientific anomalies, if they were miracles, could never extend beyond the PAP stage, because an absence of scientific evidence cannot be proven.
3) Have we officially decided that we are reading both chapters 3 and 4 for next week?
4) Joe, you should start doing what I'm doing. I copy any post I'm going to make into wordpad first, so that if it doesn't submit my post, I can just copy it back.
Ok, I guess I'll say something since I started this whole conflagration.
I will admit to you guys that I am cheating. Since I can get it, I am reading McGrath's response to this book in tandem with the book itself so I will unabashedly steal some of his arguments...I'm just telling you in advance.
Before I address any points, I would like to make a couple of observations. First, one of the major vilifications of Dawkins towards the faith community is the indoctrination of the young into their ideals. I think Timothy, Joe, and myself are all a wonderful example of his idea. However, I think Zhubin and Bobak are an example of the other end of the spectrum. To have a parent who is greatly revered (as I know your father is to both of you) who espouses the same view point that you both ascribe to makes Dawkins point true, but equally damnable for the theist and the atheist. To believe that you and Bobak both came to the same conclusion without indoctrination from your upbringing is sheer fallacy and should be put in the same boat with those brought up in a faith community.
Secondly, one of McGrath's points that he uses (and I will steal) is the psychologically proven point of cognitive bias. We all come to any argument with a cognitive bias that makes us grab on to ideas that fit with what we believe to be true and reject that which does not fit into the bias. This is a natural and scientifically (if you will agree that the social sciences can be construed as so) proven fact in order to preserve the status quo and limit the amount of painful disruption to one's life and world view. I bring this up because many of Dawkins arguments are outdated, proved wrong by many atheists in the scientific community, or are misrepresentations based on fundamentalist ideas in which the majority do not ascribe. I find it hard to respond to a lot of what he says because I don't know if I can trust the accuracy of his quotes or the context he puts them in. Similarly, if we read a Christian author, Zhubin, Scott, and Bobak would be as incredulous to any "facts" that contradict a cognitive bias.
It is really late and I have three shows tomorrow but I wanted to throw this into the mix so that we could all try and see if we can identify our own cognitive biases and then try (whether it be us not discounting an argument because it doesn't agree with our Christian viewpoint or others looking at what Dawkins says and truly deciding if there is merit or if it is a factoid taken out to prove a point the author wants to make.) In reading other sources (Christian and not) many of the allusions that Dawkins makes are to works that are discredited by many in the academic community (again I will give examples if needed) and even his idea of a "meme" is interesting but not seen as useful in most any scientific circle.
I know I haven't responded to any specific response but just wanted to try and pull back a bit and see if we could all grow in this club by recognizing our social shortcomings.
"I bring this up because many of Dawkins arguments are outdated, proved wrong by many atheists in the scientific community, or are misrepresentations based on fundamentalist ideas in which the majority do not ascribe."
Like what? Do you have anything to back this up or are you just quoting McGrath?
Also, nobody likes a cheater.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen. What is with these generalities? Christopher, I couldn't care less about learning our "cognitive biases." We are all well aware of our cognitive biases from a decade of late-night talks. I know your precise answer to any argument. I know what words you will use. I can probably predict with good accuracy the cadence you'll use with those words.
The point of this whole exercise is to delve into the specifics of each chapter and get into the gritty issues, with the chapter as our guide, so this doesn't become yet another aimless ramble. Please, let's not "pull back." Let's find out how our respective cognitive biases deal with each and every one of these chapters.
None of the McGrath points you raised address the present chapter, Chris. I would very much like to delay our discussion of the next chapter, or of ANY of the points you raised, Christopher, until we discuss this one more. Tim has been the only one to provide any response to the God Hypo argument, which is the lynchpin of the entire book. I would LOVE to hear a thought-out response from Joe and Chris on it. We can always address McGrath when we get to him.
Timothy, regarding your specific responses:
First, it looks like you and Joe split with regards to the God Hypo being scientifically observable. Again, I would love to hear Joe's response.
Second, regarding your statement: "The TAP argument suggests that in the future, such a miracle may be able to be proven to be so through scientific means. I am arguing that this idea is intrinsically impossible to do, because you can't scientifically prove the absence of a scientific explanation."
Don't confuse "scientific" with "naturalistic" - that is, explainable through natural causes. Scientific just means observable and verifiable through the scientific method. If, for example, Jesus's DNA had no biological father's chromosomes, that would be discovered scientifically, but it would have no possible naturalistic explanation. I suppose someone could argue that eventually we could think of one, but until then all the evidence would point toward supernatural intervention.
Similarly, if all the stars were to suddenly rearrange themselves to spell out "I AM THE LORD THY GOD" in the sky, that would have absolutely no conceivable natural cause.
Is that too extreme? Well, what about the prayer study? If God answers prayers, shouldn't we see that have some sort of effect? But no study has shown it. And the recent study Dawkins points to shows the exact opposite.
The TAP argument does not suggest anything at all about any event being possibly proven through naturalistic means in the future (where did you get that idea?). The TAP position just waits for enough evidence to provide an answer. If the stars in the sky spelled out "LORD THY GOD," that would be far more than enough evidence to believe in supernatural intervention. Perhaps some stubborn atheist would tell me to just wait until a naturalistic explanation could be figured out, but until then, the only scientific evidence is for God, and the onus would be on the one positing the naturalistic explanation to prove otherwise.
Zhubin: It's true, that if miracles were happening in the world they would be scientifically observable.
Your example of the stars realigning themselves is interesting. It sounds like the kind of question some atheists have asked in the past. Why doesn't God just provide some irrefutable proof that he exists, such as writing his name in the stars?
The religious response to this is that God works in mysterious ways and doesn't provide easy answers.
Unfortunately, the world of the Bible is completely the opposite. Incredible miracles happen constantly that have no reasonable explanation, other than divine presence. People are turned to salt, cities are engulfed in flame, seas are parted, pillars of fire fall from the sky...
Yet outside of religious texts, no miracles of this scale have ever happened in recorded history. Today, believing that they live in a world where God is an active presence, most religious people have just redefined what a miracle is.
Now if you recover from a serious illness or survive a major car wreck, it must have been an act of God. (Never mind that it is a statistical given that some people are going to survive these things, and let's not forget advances in medical science that make lots of things more survivable.)
Having to justify that you live in a world where miracles happen, but undeniable proof of God does not exist, you have to make certain assumptions. Like the assumption that God leaves no trace of his work.
Your example of the stars realigning is ultimately moot because everybody knows we live in a world where things like that don't happen. You have to look to modern miracles:
Why did Bob survive the car wreck? Well, by the grace of God. The result, Zhubin, is observable by science - Bob survived. But the miracle is that God manipulated the crash in such a way that Bob's very vital points were not utterly destroyed. He now has patches of foggy memory, sometimes forgetting his children's faces, but it's a miracle that he survived at all. The problem is, you can't scientifically prove that God manipulated the car's steering wheel so that it crushed his lung instead of his heart. Therefore, God works in mysterious ways like the most masterful of ninjas.
I'm playing Devil's advocate of course. But I think this might be why you and Timothy are looking at the problem differently.
But here's the thing, Scott: how did God manipulate the car crash to save Bob's vital organs? Did he stop or redirect the flow of kinetic energy that would have otherwise driven the steering wheel through his heart? Did he forcibly jerk the other driver's hands on the wheel so that the cars hit at a life-saving angle?
God HAS to leave traces of his work. Admittedly, they will be difficult to detect, but they will nonetheless be observable failures of natural laws, unexplainable through naturalistic means.
The alternative is that God works THROUGH natural laws, but obviously that is totally unsatisfying, especially to the Christian and Jew, who need to believe that God parts seas and raises the dead. But even more so, it's a worthless argument, because if the only evidence for God you can muster are events that can be easily explained naturalistically, God is superfluous.
I think the real reason why people say that God works "mysteriously" is the one you hinted at: there really IS no evidence of God's interventions, and thus his existence, so they have to redefine "miracle" to be good thing or lucky avoidances of disaster.
(Oh, and no one try to avoid the point by saying that God's traces are undetectable. That's like me saying that all the dinosaurs had hearty moustaches. No evidence means no reason to accept the truth of my assertions.)
That's the point I was trying to make, Zhubin. If God did intervene in the car accident it would be detectable. Unfortunately, the only way to do this would be to carefully study every aspect of the car accident as it was happening. How convenient.
Zhubin, Bobak: Christopher called you out about being indoctrinated into atheism. Are you not going to respond?
I'm curious to hear your thoughts since I'm apparently the only one in the atheist set who hasn't been for most of his life.
No no! No responses from Bobak or me! Let's discuss the chapter material first - I want some sort of discussion about the God Hypo from Ragland the Elder and Caldwell the Only.
I am going to agree with Zhubin, Scott. I would be more than willing to discuss the fallacy in claiming atheists are just as indoctrinated as Christians. But the real focus of this part of the book, as my brother pointed out, is the God Hypothesis.
I believe Dawkins brings up the indoctrination discussion much later in the book and in much more depth, so let's plan for a discussion then. For now, though, I'd like to hear from Chris, Timothy, and Joe on the God Hypo.
What the heck? I’m gone for three days and suddenly we can’t even keep to the schedule?
Alright, this is going to take a while. Settle in, gang, and make sure your coffee mug is full. First, a few tardy responses to several comments hopefully addressed to the appropriate participant:
Timothy:
I liked your observation that we all have faith in something, but I would have to clarify a bit. Scientific law does not actually require “faith” by our definition. The faith they DO have, though, is that the phenomena they label as TAP will someday move into PAP. This is the danger in putting too much trust in the reverse of Clarke’s Third Law. Yes, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but that doesn’t mean that that which appears to be magic now will eventually reveal natural (as opposed to supernatural) origins.
When you ranted about presupposition, I was “all upons,” but Bobak’s right. (Hm. Seems to be some sort of bad taste in my mouth…kidding.) However, to assume that religion is purely presupposition isn’t fair either.
Chris:
I would really recommend avoiding any reference to or use of McGrath’s ideas, as it kind of would ruin the whole experiment (everybody reading both books). If you can, try to hold it in; or if you must, just make the point as your own. Lord knows that’s what the rest of us do—our thoughts all came from somewhere.
To everyone else, concerning the concept of indoctrination slash cognitive bias, I believe Chris was merely trying to explain our disconnect, not refute Dawkins. Just like Scott with his Bob crash example. Even though Zhubin wants nothing to do with it, it’s well worth remembering that nobody’s out to convince anybody else—we’re “well aware” of how everyone already feels—but rather to better explain our relative perspectives specifically about the points Dawkins raises.
Scott:
You complain that Christians proclaim an unchanging God in spite of the various (and seemingly incompatible) characteristics we have ascribed him through the ages. I hear this a lot, but the mistake is to assume we should have completely understood Him from the beginning. In reality, he was never the wrathful cuss OR the precious sweetheart. Scientifically-minded folks once “knew” the earth was composed of four elements, but I don’t criticize them because I understand they were still trying to figure things out. Religious believers of all stripes, from the very start, have been trying to figure things out, and although we certainly must answer for our/their mistakes, we ought not be held in disdain for working through the process.
Also, I’m not sure scripture says anything about the earth’s orbit. Then again, you may have been talking about one of these other nameless religions we’re supposedly encompassing, so nevermind.
Zhubin:
The prayer experiment only proves something, for good or for ill, if you think it's not the most ridiculous thing ever attempted. This is just another example of Dawkins choosing dumb people to represent all of us. If God answered every prayer there would be utter chaos. Why did the people who planned this endeavor neglect the personality of God? Plotting the statistic probability of God's responses is no more than plotting the statistic probability that I will eat breakfast. The result is subject to my whim.
Furthermore, You and Scott both have suggested that unmistakably miraculous occurrences do not happen. Scott even went as far as to say that in the Bible miracles happen constantly, and while (to play devil’s advocate) many of them do actually have possible natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations, the word “constantly” applies only to the text, not the story, which is comfortably spread out over roughly a thousand years (also, the illusion of saturation may have something to do with the fact that the entire Bible covers a geographic area a few hundred miles from end to end).
Even without that semantic correction, though, the argument is still mostly toothless because of its anecdotal basis. Wildly supernatural (if you’re uncomfortable with the presumed superiority of the term, may I suggest “paranatural”) things happen in our modern world with regularity. There are even documented cases of people literally being raised from the dead as recently as the last few decades (consider the ministry of Reinhard Bonnke). I’ve said it before—just because you’ve not seen it, that doesn’t make it nonsense.
Now then, onto a more general discussion of the Dermic Needle (as I am now calling the God Hypo). Several folks have expressed an eagerness to hear my take on Dawkins' proposal, but really, I've already given it. The scientific approach to theism neatly and completely ignores the possibility of a spiritual aspect to the universe. Therefore, I do not accept it as a comprehensive description of things as they are. I realize this makes little sense to the nonbeliever, so let me see if I can elaborate.
The religious interpretation of knowledge unapologetically requires experience. The ancient Hebrew verb "to know" used in the Bible actually means "to experience" (hence its use in sexual context as well). You see, TAP is only the appropriate response if you don't already have other insight. Imagine, for a moment, that one day you see a real life fairy magically appear, and you, yourself, witness her keep a red light red when no cars are coming, point at you, and laugh--much to the chagrin and disbelief of you, the waiting driver. You might doubt yourself, but for the rest of your life, every time you got stuck at an over-long traffic signal, you better believe you'd keep an eye out for fairies, and when other annoying coincidences occur, you'd start to question whether they were really a coincidence. (You might even have to read a book about the poverty of fairy-nosticism.)
Likewise, once you have stood before the holy; once you have witnessed the miraculous; once you have interacted with the divine; then you start to wonder if everything you know in life isn't touched by its influence.
The need for proof, as such, is not of utmost importance to religion--NOT because "the Bible says so, and that's enough," but because of the emphasis placed on revelation. The more you really mine the depths of religion, you find there is an element to faith that hearkens back to its primitive, mystic origins, wherein simple observation and experiment were not the ultimate ways to understand the world around us. To say "Oh, we're more refined than that now" is to miss a big part of the picture. There's nothing wrong with pursuing a scientific understanding of things, but the case is not that we have risen above the spiritual--just forgotten it. To use Dawkins' evolutionary language, memes that do not contribute to survival pass away, even if they are correct. (Yes, this implies the elusive absolute truth--sorry.)
Naturally, you do not like this argument, because it implies you are missing something; that you are incomplete.
And if you are incomplete, and you accept that, welcome to the doorstep of religion.
"I hear this a lot, but the mistake is to assume we should have completely understood Him from the beginning."
Are you implying that the nature of God isn't accurately portrayed in the Bible? That the illusion of an inconstant God is just the changing views of the people who wrote the Bible, who didn't see the big picture?
If that's true, then how can any part of the Bible be taken as anything more than the assumptions of its various authors, rather than the literal truth that so many claim it to be?
This was supposed to go with the last comment but I was called away...
"Also, I’m not sure scripture says anything about the earth’s orbit."
I was referring to the fact that scripture was used to back up the church's claim. I don't remember the specific passage because it's been a while since I heard it. The passage isn't really the point anyway.
The point I was trying to make is that religious texts can be used to justify any ideology, which makes them unreliable as a source of truth.
But this is really for a later chapter, so forget it.
"And if you are incomplete, and you accept that, welcome to the doorstep of religion."
Or science, depending on your point of view. Science and religion are both about filling in the gaps, and the search for completeness. The debate is just about which really gets the job done.
My point is not that the Bible misunderstands the nature of God, but that the readers of it, through the ages, have distorted the various aspects of the nature of God, until whomever they worshipped bore little resemblence to Yahweh.
If you keep the big picture in mind as you read the Bible, God doesn't seem nearly as schizophrenic as most atheists make him out to be. I was grumpy this morning, but I'm a pretty amiable guy most of the time. That's why I am quick to remind fellow Christians of the personality of God.
And no, I'm not suggesting God slew the Amalekites because he was grumpy that morning.
I would almost prefer he have slaughtered all those tribes because he was grumpy rather than because he decided that genocide was the only way to give the Israelites all that land.
But regarding your larger point: I'm going to ignore all that "spiritual aspect of the universe" stuff, as pretty as it was, because none of it is relevant to the God Hypo's definition of an interventionist God.
You still have not addressed why you reject the Hypo's premise that any god's interventions into the natural world would be scientifically measurable. In fact, your citation of the Bonnke ministry supports the premise of the Hypo. (Seriously, though, you're gonna cite Bonnke? That's the first time I've read his name in a sentence that didn't include "charlatan" or "liar.")
Your fairy example is even more to the point. If a fairy really did intervene in the natural world to keep the light on longer, the traffic logs would record an unusual extension of the red traffic light's time. Boom - scientific evidence supporting an interventionist action.
In fact, Joe, I really don't see how you could argue against the premise of the God Hypo, unless you believe that all the Biblical miracles were just metaphors for spiritual revelations. Otherwise, how could you claim that the physical parting of the Red Sea was not a scientifically measurable fact? To use Dawkins' language, either the Red Sea parted or it didn't, and that fact would be determined scientifically.
If you accept this, and I cannot see how you would not, then we can move forward with the book, and analyze the various arguments Dawkins throws out against God.
And you may keep your spiritual aspect of the universe, and hold it to your face nightly and cherish it. The God Hypo pays no heed to your non-interventionist God.
Well, first of all, let me clarify the former statement, for my own benefit if for no one else's. I did not mean that my grumpiness is out of character, but part of my character. To really understand me, you can't take just one or the other--you've got to figure out how and why they're both me.
Secondly: "Science and religion are both about filling in the gaps, and the search for completeness. The debate is just about which really gets the job done." Touché.
And thirdly: Zhubin, you and I are arguing different points, or at least you're missing mine. I agree that divine intervention ought to be, at least in theory, measurable. In fact, I'm saying that it is. But that's not the God Hypothesis. Even if I handed in a plate full of "proofs", Dawkins would assign them to TAP or delusion/hysteria or find some other natural explanation.
What I'm saying is that the God Hypothesis does not require scientifically verifiable evidence, whether it's there or not, and Dawkins doesn't get to make up a new hypothesis and assign it to the rest of us. He has written a chapter (that we've discussed far too long) about what he believes must be the hypothesis religious believers live by. However, it is really just how he perceives our beliefs, and therefore I reject it as quite plainly incorrect and incomplete. Suprisingly enough, I have no problem addressing and even embracing some of Dawkins' later points, very few of which I feel "hinge" upon this defintion the way you seem to.
I agree. Let's move on.
I'll keep this short and we'll move on. But this is why it's so important to discuss this issue: Dawkins spends the whole book attacking the God Hypothesis, which he defines as "a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." If you disagree with this definition of God, then the book is pointless. Joe, despite your protest that "this is not the God Hypothesis," you have to yet to point out where you disagree with this definition of God.
Similarly, it's critical to figure out if you accept this chapter's central point that claims of divine interventions into the natural world can be testable scientifically, and if not, why you do not. Joe, both you and Tim (and presumably Christopher) agree with this point.
What confuses me is Joe's subsequent argument that, despite agreeing that divine interventions are scientifically measurable, he would still believe in a Christian God and His divine interventions, even if there were NO scientific evidence in favor of divine interventions, because he has had personal revelations that prove it.
But you can't accept that divine interventions are subject to scientific analysis and then deny scientific proof in favor of personal revelations. If, let's just say, it were conclusively scientifically proven, beyond all doubt, that Jesus had a biological father, or that the Red Sea never parted and the Jews just crossed it on boats, how could you possibly believe otherwise? Personal revelation? But then you never really accepted that divine interventions are subject to scientific analysis.
Bottom-line: I know that this book isn't going to change anyone's mind. But not even two chapters in, Dawkins has you guys caught in a logical trap: if you believe in a religion that wholly depends on divine interventions, and you accept the premise that claims of divine interventions are subject to scientific analysis, how have you not committed yourself to hinging your religious beliefs on scientific analyses of those claims of divine intervention?
But whatever. If you're sick of this issue, we can move on, despite Christopher's failure to participate. Joe, you can go ahead and post the next chapter up - we might as well take a jump on it.
But this will be brought up again, eventually. That question requires an answer, even if I have to get us all together at Perkin's for it.
This is a response to Christopher's first comment in the Week 3 post.
The "logic trap" you believe we are caught in is nothing of the kind. Dawkins claims that any actions of God would be quantifiable and empirically testable because of their effects on the real world. Yes, I would agree. The red sea has been shown to have extreme low and high tides which could have occurred when the Israelites went there...or the tide could have been altered by God and still be shown scientifically to be at an extreme low at that point.
This is not a refutation of the logic trap. The logic trap is not saying that science has definitively proven that the Red Sea did not part or that Jesus had a biological father. The logic trap is saying that if it was definitively proven that the Red Sea did not part, or that Jesus had a biological father, your religion would collapse. See the difference? Because you have accepted the premise that divine interventions are scientifically testable, you would have no recourse to nonscientific defenses to save your religion if science cannot support your claims. Your religion lives or dies on scientific proof.
Dawkins would say that we just don't understand yet and I would say God had a hand in it...neither of which can be proved or has more validity for God could (and does) work within the framework he set up.
...
1. Dawkins himself asserts in this book and his other works how insanely improbable we are as being here. Yet we are here so regardless of how improbable, it can be true. The same argument can be used for God in that no matter how improbable he is in the same company to a greater degree with life on earth and the laws of chemistry in the Universe.
2. Improbability does not, in any way, denote truth. Period. And Dawkins never gives us the scientific data he has used to calculate God's improbability.
Aw, c'mon, Christopher. Half of this doesn't even make any sense, and the other half sounds like you didn't read the chapter.
First off, "we just don't understand yet" is not a position to be proved. "God had a hand in it" is a position to be proved. You can't equate the two. The TAP person isn't trying to prove anything - he's waiting for you to show evidence to him!
Secondly, you are just repeating the same argument that Dawkins spent the whole chapter debunking and we spent the past forty comments debating. Your argument is that, in the absence of any evidence, you are entitled to assert that God did it, because it's just as valid as any other theory. I don't want to rehash the whole chapter, but let me just remind you of Dawkins' central point that you do not get to do that. You are asserting a scientific position (the Red Sea parted, and it parted due to supernatural means) and you must support your position with scientific evidence. If you cannot provide any evidence, then the proper response is TAP, until someone can prove with scientific evidence that 1) the Red Sea did NOT part, or 2) the Red Sea DID part, but because of natural causes.
Do you disagree with this? Do you think Dawkins is wrong, and you DO get to assert that "God did it" in the absence of any evidence? Then engage it. Tell me why you get to do that. Don't just blankly reassert the argument that he spent the whole chapter dismantling.
Thirdly:
Dawkins himself asserts in this book and his other works how insanely improbable we are as being here. Yet we are here so regardless of how improbable, it can be true. The same argument can be used for God in that no matter how improbable he is in the same company to a greater degree with life on earth and the laws of chemistry in the Universe.
No, it can't. This argument is nonsensical. You are presupposing God's existence to argue that he exists. Go back and reread your argument, and write me a report on where and why you messed up.
Fourthly:
Improbability does not, in any way, denote truth. Period. And Dawkins never gives us the scientific data he has used to calculate God's improbability.
Here we go again. And again, let me remind you that Dawkins does not need to prove to you that God is too improbable. He doesn't give you the scientific data because he doesn't even make that argument. He's saying that YOU need to give the scientific data to prove God's probability, because YOU'RE the one asserting God's existence.
(Read comment #6 (mine) for even more elaboration on this)
Of course improbability does not denote truth. But all of science is an attempt to find the most probable explanation for events. It is certainly possible that gravity is caused by an invisible sticky substance, but it is much more probable that it is an attraction caused by space curvature. Why? Because all the evidence we have points to the latter explanation.
But when we have NO evidence one way or the other, the proper position is TAP, NOT "any position you want." This is why Dawkins talks about the celestial teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The whole point of that - again, as he says - is to show that one cannot just assert God's existence and demand that atheists disprove it. I can raise an infinite number of theories for every single event, but you are under no obligation to accept any of them in the absence of any evidence that proves the strength of those theories - that is, the probability that they are the correct answer.
To sum up, Dawkins is NOT trying to disprove God with improbability. Dawkins is just saying that it is up to YOU to show evidence that God is more probable than, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot counter this with your two points, which were, respectively, a circular argument and a demand that he disprove your assertion.
(Also, I won't bother to explain why your argument that "God could just work through the laws of nature" is entirely unsatisfying. Scott and I have already discussed how Dawkins effectively dismissed this argument. See above.)
And speak of the devil! Check out this New York Times article today about there being no archaeological evidence for the Jews even BEING in Egypt, much less parting the Red Sea to leave it.
From the article: "If they get upset, I don’t care,” Dr. Hawass said. “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”
Indeed!
Nice, but the same article has the head of the excavation offering another viable explanation for the lack of evidence.
Again, inconclusive conlusions don't negate our faith.
Also, you make Chris' (and my) point perfectly in saying that we presuppose the existence of God. That is it exactly! Therefore, TAP is not our default--were any of our tenants to be conclusively proved incorrect, we would have a major crisis of faith; however, until they are, we're entirely comfortable relying on what we already know to be true.
At risk of repeating myself, personal experience/revelation does not preempt scientific data, but it does take care of the absence of conclusive data.
*Sigh* Tenets. Tenets. Not tenants.
Late nights do not great typists make.
Post a Comment