The Dawkins' Fallacy

[Sophus]

I intended to post this earlier when it was fresh in my mind but this will have to do. At some Gnu Atheists' Blog, I can't even remember where, I believe it read that PZ Myers, among others, had struck down Richard's argument that God must be more complex than the simplest components of nature/the universe we can discover through science; God must have evolved from something simple as well, if he exists. I hadn't heard this from the atheists before and was wonder if anyone knew what this person is talking about? A link to PZ's post, perhaps?  

Do any of you disagree with it? I cannot think of a flaw with it so long as we keep a scientific mind. If someone invokes magic, then... well... whatever.

[Davin]

[youtube:3ny78j1u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog[/youtube:3ny78j1u]

This is the closest thing I can think of that matches. But I don't exactly follow him very closely.

In the interview with Ben Stein, he mentioned that if humans came about from intelligent design, the thing that designed us must have come about through the process of evolution.

[epepke]

I'm not going to speak for Dawkins, and I don't like him much these days anyway.

How I have seen this argument is as a reductio ad absurdum.

If one declares that the origin of the universe cannot be explained by something as simple as a quantum event, and then therefore must require something more complex, like a god, then that god, by the same reasoning, must be explained by something even more complex.  Therefore the argument that a complex god is necessary is refuted.

Understanding this seems, however, to require more neurons than are usually available.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't have any problem with Dawkins, I thought this was a basic and reasonable argument.

A designer God cannot be
used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of
designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand
the same kind of explanation in his own right.

[Jac3510]

There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally. Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:jwz51ltz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:jwz51ltz]

[DaveD]

There is a difference between seeing an effect and looking for the cause, and presupposing a cause and asserting that it has any effect.

[The Magic Pudding]

There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally. Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:381071uv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:381071uv]

I have enjoyed your posts, but do you really believe this crap?

[Jac3510]

There is a difference between seeing an effect and looking for the cause, and presupposing a cause and asserting that it has any effect.

Of course, and it is a myth of popular atheism that theology does anything less than look for the effect of causes and ultimately finding it in God. We don't start with the proposition that God exists and then go around say, "He caused that, and that . . . and oh yeah, He caused that, too!" The fact that some theists do that is no more condemning of theism generally than the fact that some atheists argue that all Christians are idiots. We are to deal with the strongest form of an argument. Picking off a weaker form and declaring victory doesn't float.

I tell you guys this alot, and I will continue to do so for a while yet, I imagine: I have enjoyed posting here as the vast majority of the conversations I've had have been productive. Further, the discussions I've not been a part of have even been nice to read (ok, well some of them!). It's a very nice community. I hope to be part of it in the long term.

edit: in any case, Dawkins' argument, which is the subject of the OP, is definitely fallacious in my view, and I've offered three reasons to think that it is. I'm sure the moderators and Sophus would appreciate it if we kept to a discussion about that.

[The Magic Pudding]

I have enjoyed your posts, but do really believe this crap?

That depends on when you stopped beating your wife. I am jesting, of course, but if you will allow me to disregard your characterization of theism as "crap" and consider it for what it is--an intellectual representation of how the world really is based on rigorously philosophical reasoning, namely, that God exists and is distinct from His creation--then yes, I believe it thoroughly.

I do appreciate the first part of your post, though.

I tell you guys this alot, and I will continue to do so for a while yet, I imagine: I have enjoyed posting here as the vast majority of the conversations I've had have been productive. Further, the discussions I've not been a part of have even been nice to read (ok, well some of them!). It's a very nice community. I hope to be part of it in the long term.

edit: in any case, Dawkins' argument, which is the subject of the OP, is definitely fallacious in my view, and I've offered three reasons to think that it is. I'm sure the moderators and Sophus would appreciate it if we kept to a discussion about that.

Why doesn't god provide a more coherent message to the common man.
It would do some academics out of a job but it would save a lot of trouble.

Jac I see your arguments, they are just a game, like WOW a waste of time.

[Sophus]

There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally. Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:2mdmabxe]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:2mdmabxe]

Thus far I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts Jac3510. Magic Pudding, these are well thought out points worthy of attention I think.  I wish to reply in depth later, but for now I will simply say: do not most realms of science have a certain "Darwinian principle" to them, in that the order of everything runs from complexity to simplicity? (Note: not on a comprehension level of course). Maybe "most" isn't the right word, but Biology and Physics. For God to be a physical being he should have evolved.

[The Magic Pudding]

Thus far I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts Jac3510. Magic Pudding, these are well thought out points worthy of attention I think.  I wish to reply in depth later, but for now I will simply say: do not most realms of science have a certain "Darwinian principle" to them, in that the order of everything runs from complexity to simplicity? (Note: not on a comprehension level of course). Maybe "most" isn't the right word, but Biology and Physics. For God to be a physical being he should have evolved.

I don't doubt jac's points are well thought out and are fit to obfuscate.
"everything runs from complexity to simplicity?"
Ha?
Can I say I hold a deep suspicion for an argument that seems designed to exclude ordinary people from understanding, but by it's nature is bound to be used to govern them.

[Jac3510]

MP,

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

Every ordinary person, however, has the capacity to learn the discipline and test it for themselves. If you want to take the time and learn this material and discuss it as others here are, you'll find it's all very clear. The fact that some of the people I am discussing these things with here are making the exact same arguments as philosophers in the past, probably people they've never read, proves we aren't dealing with random thoughts, but a certain and testable system of ideas and their consequences.

The information is right here for you to access if you want to. If you decide not to, that doesn't speak ill of philosophy, knowledge, or truth.

Edit:

Sophus,

The comment about God being physical, was that directed to me? Obviously I would just deny that God is physical . . .

[Sophus]

Sophus,

The comment about God being physical, was that directed to me? Obviously I would just deny that God is physical . . .

If not existing physically, wouldn't that be to say he doesn't exist at all? Is there anything, other than thoughts (which are caused by physically existent neurons and such) which can be said to exist beyond physics?  

Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

[The Magic Pudding]

MP,

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

Every ordinary person, however, has the capacity to learn the discipline and test it for themselves. If you want to take the time and learn this material and discuss it as others here are, you'll find it's all very clear. The fact that some of the people I am discussing these things with here are making the exact same arguments as philosophers in the past, probably people they've never read, proves we aren't dealing with random thoughts, but a certain and testable system of ideas and their consequences.

The information is right here for you to access if you want to. If you decide not to, that doesn't speak ill of philosophy, knowledge, or truth.

Yes I know things aren't simple, but god is supposedly all powerful, why doesn't he provide an understandable message for the masses, why does he rely on corruptible priests?  

I don't know how an ipod is built, but it works, what priests provide is less reliable.

Theists say here is the world and god created it.
I say yes, who created god?
And you give me ineligible gobldy gook.
You are much better at gobldy gook than any I've seen, but still it doesn't satisfy.

This is not science.
You may say I don't know the language so I can't understand.
I say you can't explain because you don't understand.

I'll say again, I object to a god created universe only explainable by an elite.
I suspect a confidence trick perpetrated on the common people.

[Sophus]

[youtube:1czveu6f]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog[/youtube:1czveu6f]

This is the closest thing I can think of that matches. But I don't exactly follow him very closely.

In the interview with Ben Stein, he mentioned that if humans came about from intelligent design, the thing that designed us must have come about through the process of evolution.

Not quite. This article elaborates a little more. I have no idea how they can claim God to be almighty, worthy of worship, beyond their puny human comprehension and yet simple at the same time.