|
By Dean Hardy
When I first heard my mentor Dr. Norman Geisler speak, a listener asked him a question concerning his opinion of the late Bertrand Russell's book Why I am not a Christian. With a distinctive chortle Geisler scoffed, "I usually read that for my devotions." Geisler was alluding to the fact that the atheist's arguments were so weak, they actually strengthened his personal faith. I never really knew what he meant by this statement until I had read Richard Dawkins' God Delusion.
In the next few paragraphs I propose a simple task: to inform the reader of three sets of faulty analogies that Dawkins commits, and which completely dismantle his argument against a divine being. Note here that I will not defend Christianity specifically, but a general supernatural perspective of reality.
Dawkins, of course, is a self proclaimed atheist, "I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." But specifically on the question of God's existence he writes, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." After this statement, and over the next three pages, Dawkins alludes to five analogies that compare faith in God with some other mythical or random belief. He likens belief in God to a belief in: a cosmic teapot (taken from Bertrand Russell), the tooth fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), Esmeralda and Keith (two lobsters that created the world), and unicorns. It's surprising that Dawkins didn't mention the proverbial analogy uniting the belief in God with the belief in Santa Claus.
First, let's create a table showing the differences between these analogies, and let's throw in Santa just to make our argument complete:
| - |
God |
Santa |
FSM |
Tooth Fairy |
Unicorns |
Esmeralda and Keith |
Cosmic Teapot |
| Intentional Myth |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Directly Observable |
Not to date |
Every Christmas |
No |
Possible |
Possible |
Possible |
yes |
| Indirectly Observable(by effects) |
Yes (creation and design) |
Yes (via parents) |
Possible-only on your dinner plate |
Yes(via parents) |
Possible-but none to date |
Possible-but none to date |
No |
| Probability |
Probable |
Impossible |
Impossible |
Impossible |
Possible- but improbable |
Impossible |
Impossible |
| |
As we can see above, even if God is mythical, since this idea would be an unintentional myth, it could not be united to the other mythical creatures. Simply put, believing in something that was supposed to be fantasy is not the same as believing in something that is supposed to correspond to reality. While God is not directly observable, at least, not to date, this does not eliminate his potential existence. On the flip side, direct observability isn't automatic proof either: Santa is supposedly directly observable in malls every Christmas, but even children realize the impossibility of this person being the real Santa.
In the same way, these beings can become probable via indirect effects, but most of these effects can be explained away by the understanding of other causes producing the effects (i.e. money found under a pillow where a tooth once was and presents under the Christmas tree- both being caused by parents). While Dawkins believes he has dismantled the effect of "divine design," nothing, not even modern science, can explain the origins of the Big Bang.
This leads us to the last row, and even to Dawkins' point therein. Let it be made clear that in his book, he is not uniting the belief in God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Although, it may be stated that in NUMEROUS occasions in debates and television shows he makes this assertion and thus does make a clear faulty analogy. But in his book, his assertion is merely this, "That you cannot prove God's non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable."
While I understand his point, I would completely disagree with his conclusion. I do believe that it IS up to the atheist to disprove God, but not in the way that Dawkins is suggesting. Take for example this statement, "I once made a model of a square circle." Now of course, this is logically impossible, and by showing that it is logically impossible, I have shown that square circles are non-existent. In the same way, I do not understand why atheists wouldn't be expected to prove that the idea, or the concept, of an infinite being would be logically impossible.
To move on to our second and third faulty analogies, we will move to discuss Dawkins' contention that theism is improbable. The author takes two of the most substantial arguments for God's existence, namely the cosmological argument and the moral argument, and dispatches them in less than two pages. Barring the intellectual arrogance that he takes merely two pages out of four hundred to dismantle these "vacuous" arguments, let's attempt to objectively review his contentions.
The Cosmological Argument merely states that there are three options to the beginning of the universe: it popped into existence, it always existed, or something spiritual and infinite outside of our cosmos created it. Now of course, the first option is thoroughly irrational and the second is completely unscientific, thus we are left with the third option. The Cosmological Argument is fueled by the idea of an infinite regress, and of course, its ridiculousness. Dawkins tries to take the wind out of the argument's sails by saying, "Some regresses do reach a natural terminator." He uses two analogies: strips of beef and gold. If you get some strips of beef and cut them, then again, then again, eventually you will be left with something you can no longer cut. It would reach a natural stopping point where the regress naturally stops. While this is clearly a silly analogy, look to his analogy of gold, "Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces…the regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. If you "cut" gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator…"
While Dawkins never gives a clear answer to the trilemma above , he does argue that since there are natural terminators that aren't God, then we can't assume that God is the natural terminator to the existence of the world. Well, the analogy simply doesn't stick! Gold and meat have no relation to the efficient cause of existence. In other words, dividing gold does not apply to the chain of existence that goes back to the beginning of time. While an atom is the material cause of gold, God is the efficient cause of existence. This difference completely severs the two things that he is trying to unite. Secondly, it seems that Dawkins really doesn't understand the concept of the Big Bang. For if time, existence, and matter came into existence at the beginning of time, then whatever caused the world must be spiritual and outside of our material realm. Thus, something spiritual must have been the cause of that momentous occasion, even if you decide to call him a flying spaghetti monster.
Lastly, Dawkins rejects an early form of the moral argument, formulated by Thomas Aquinas. Basically, Aquinas argues that since we can attribute things as being "good", there must be a standard of perfection outside of ourselves by which we know what is good. That standard can only be found in an immutable, perfect being; namely God. Dawkins responds by saying, "You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness." Now isn't this analogy completely ridiculous? Comparing a standard of right and wrong to the olfactory sense is quite faulty. One of these is mere subjectivism, the other is, whether you agree or not, quite objective. Smelliness, and by this we are assuming he means "smelling bad," is completely up to the smeller. Whether something is right or wrong is not up to the individual. If there are absolute "rights" and "wrongs", then there must be a standard outside and above humanity that umbrellas our whole race. Only then can there be actions that are right or wrong for all people, in all places, and at all times. This then begs the question, what created this "moral umbrella?" Only a perfect being could create, and hold us accountable to this moral standard.
Throughout the God Delusion, Dawkins asserts that the existence of God is quite improbable, to the point that he calls himself an atheist. But as shown above, his philosophical maneuvering to prove his point has left him giving faulty analogy, after faulty analogy, after faulty analogy. While his book is still selling well and massive crowds show up to hear him speak, let it be known that the logic used by this caustic lecturer is completely unfounded.
POSTSCRIPT (added April 21st)
In response to the recent Ben Stein movie Expelled, Dawkins' commentary includes further contradictions to scientific naturalism. He explains that Hitler's acts were "heinous," but on what is he basing this moral? He also goes on to say that he is pro-universal healthcare and gives to the poor. But why do these things? By what standard is he judging good or evil? He claims that evolution is the way things are, but not morally the way things should be (he uses the aught/is fallacy). But that's the problem. If there are no moral absolutes, then the aught/is fallacy does not apply!
Secondly, and most important to the essay above, Dawkins says something contrary to what he had written in the God Delusion. In response to the idea that he believes that alien life may have seeded our earth with life, he writes, "Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe)." So where does Dawkins stand on the origin of the universe? It seems he DOES believe it's finite, and if it's finite, then it needs an outside force to aid in its creation.
1,2 http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Dean Hardy is the Head of the Bible Department at Charlotte Christian School in Charlotte, NC. He earned his B.A. in Religion from Palm Beach Atlantic University and his Masters in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He can be reached via http://www.tostandyourground.com/contact.php
|
