The Dawkins Confusion
Published 1 year, 7 months ago in My life.The article below is a response by Plantinga to the book entitled ‘The God Delusion’ written by Richard Dawkins. A very popular book in the world at the moment. Anyway have a read and share your thoughts…
The Dawkins Confusion
Naturalism ad absurdum.
by Alvin Plantinga
Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of 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….
Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let’s hope for Dawkins’ sake God doesn’t return the compliment.)
The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.1 Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, “I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist.” Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it’s not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party’s candidate at a Republican rally.
Dawkins is perhaps the world’s most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps “atheology” would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the above quotation suggests, one shouldn’t look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary. In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding. (Could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads.
Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins’ main argument seriously.
Chapter 3, “Why There Almost Certainly is No God,” is the heart of the book. Well, why does Dawkins think there almost certainly isn’t any such person as God? It’s because, he says, the existence of God is monumentally improbable. How improbable? The astronomer Fred Hoyle famously claimed that the probability of life arising on earth (by purely natural means, without special divine aid) is less than the probability that a flight-worthy Boeing 747 should be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Dawkins appears to think the probability of the existence of God is in that same neighborhood—so small as to be negligible for all practical (and most impractical) purposes. Why does he think so?
Here Dawkins doesn’t appeal to the usual anti-theistic arguments—the argument from evil, for example, or the claim that it’s impossible that there be a being with the attributes believers ascribe to God.2 So why does he think theism is enormously improbable? The answer: if there were such a person as God, he would have to be enormously complex, and the more complex something is, the less probable it is: “However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.” The basic idea is that anything that knows and can do what God knows and can do would have to be incredibly complex. In particular, anything that can create or design something must be at least as complex as the thing it can design or create. Putting it another way, Dawkins says a designer must contain at least as much information as what it creates or designs, and information is inversely related to probability. Therefore, he thinks, God would have to be monumentally complex, hence astronomically improbable; thus it is almost certain that God does not exist.
But why does Dawkins think God is complex? And why does he think that the more complex something is, the less probable it is? Before looking more closely into his reasoning, I’d like to digress for a moment; this claim of improbability can help us understand something otherwise very perplexing about Dawkins’ argument in his earlier and influential book, The Blind Watchmaker. There he argues that the scientific theory of evolution shows that our world has not been designed—by God or anyone else. This thought is trumpeted by the subtitle of the book: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.
How so? Suppose the evidence of evolution suggests that all living creatures have evolved from some elementary form of life: how does that show that the universe is without design? Well, if the universe has not been designed, then the process of evolution is unguided, unorchestrated, by any intelligent being; it is, as Dawkins suggests, blind. So his claim is that the evidence of evolution reveals that evolution is unplanned, unguided, unorchestrated by any intelligent being.
But how could the evidence of evolution reveal a thing like that? After all, couldn’t it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution? What makes Dawkins think evolution is unguided? What he does in The Blind Watchmaker, fundamentally, is three things. First, he recounts in vivid and arresting detail some of the fascinating anatomical details of certain living creatures and their incredibly complex and ingenious ways of making a living; this is the sort of thing Dawkins does best. Second, he tries to refute arguments for the conclusion that blind, unguided evolution could not have produced certain of these wonders of the living world—the mammalian eye, for example, or the wing. Third, he makes suggestions as to how these and other organic systems could have developed by unguided evolution.
Suppose he’s successful with these three things: how would that show that the universe is without design? How does the main argument go from there? His detailed arguments are all for the conclusion that it is biologically possible that these various organs and systems should have come to be by unguided Darwinian mechanisms (and some of what he says here is of considerable interest). What is truly remarkable, however, is the form of what seems to be the main argument. The premise he argues for is something like this:
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;
and Dawkins supports that premise by trying to refute objections to its being biologically possible that life has come to be that way. His conclusion, however, is
2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.
It’s worth meditating, if only for a moment, on the striking distance, here, between premise and conclusion. The premise tells us, substantially, that there are no irrefutable objections to its being possible that unguided evolution has produced all of the wonders of the living world; the conclusion is that it is true that unguided evolution has indeed produced all of those wonders. The argument form seems to be something like
We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;
Therefore
p is true.
Philosophers sometimes propound invalid arguments (I’ve propounded a few myself); few of those arguments display the truly colossal distance between premise and conclusion sported by this one. I come into the departmental office and announce to the chairman that the dean has just authorized a $50,000 raise for me; naturally he wants to know why I think so. I tell him that we know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that the dean has done that. My guess is he’d gently suggest that it is high time for me to retire.
Here is where that alleged massive improbability of theism is relevant. If theism is false, then (apart from certain weird suggestions we can safely ignore) evolution is unguided. But it is extremely likely, Dawkins thinks, that theism is false. Hence it is extremely likely that evolution is unguided—in which case to establish it as true, he seems to think, all that is needed is to refute those claims that it is impossible. So perhaps we can think about his Blind Watchmaker argument as follows: he is really employing as an additional if unexpressed premise his idea that the existence of God is enormously unlikely. If so, then the argument doesn’t seem quite so magnificently invalid. (It is still invalid, however, even if not quite so magnificently—you can’t establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.)
Now suppose we return to Dawkins’ argument for the claim that theism is monumentally improbable. As you recall, the reason Dawkins gives is that God would have to be enormously complex, and hence enormously improbable (”God, or any intelligent, decision-making calculating agent, is complex, which is another way of saying improbable”). What can be said for this argument?
Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane.3 (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is “a single and simple spiritual being.”) So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.4 More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins’ own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are “arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone.” But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.5 A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn’t have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.
So first, it is far from obvious that God is complex. But second, suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument, that God is complex. Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is; God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. Perhaps so; still, why does Dawkins think it follows that God would be improbable? Given materialism and the idea that the ultimate objects in our universe are the elementary particles of physics, perhaps a being that knew a great deal would be improbable—how could those particles get arranged in such a way as to constitute a being with all that knowledge? Of course we aren’t given materialism. Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.
So why think God must be improbable? According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God’s existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn’t just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn’t even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.
A second example of Dawkinsian-style argument. Recently a number of thinkers have proposed a new version of the argument from design, the so-called “Fine-Tuning Argument.” Starting in the late Sixties and early Seventies, astrophysicists and others noted that several of the basic physical constants must fall within very narrow limits if there is to be the development of intelligent life—at any rate in a way anything like the way in which we think it actually happened. For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants; if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs; in neither case could life have developed. The same goes for the weak and strong nuclear forces; if either had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life of the sort we have, could probably not have developed. Equally interesting in this connection is the so-called flatness problem: the existence of life also seems to depend very delicately upon the rate at which the universe is expanding. Thus Stephen Hawking:
reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 1012 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 1010 K would have resulted in the Universe’s starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 K.6
That would be much too warm for comfort. Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse. At an earlier time, he observes, the fine-tuning had to be even more remarkable:
we know that there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10-43 sec. after the big bang), would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10 to the sixtieth.7
One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument.8 It’s as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God.
Now in response to this kind of theistic argument, Dawkins, along with others, proposes that possibly there are very many (perhaps even infinitely many) universes, with very many different distributions of values over the physical constants. Given that there are so many, it is likely that some of them would display values that are life-friendly. So if there are an enormous number of universes displaying different sets of values of the fundamental constants, it’s not at all improbable that some of them should be “fine-tuned.” We might wonder how likely it is that there are all these other universes, and whether there is any real reason (apart from wanting to blunt the fine-tuning arguments) for supposing there are any such things.9 But concede for the moment that indeed there are many universes and that it is likely that some are fine-tuned and life-friendly. That still leaves Dawkins with the following problem: even if it’s likely that some universes should be fine-tuned, it is still improbable that this universe should be fine-tuned. Name our universe alpha: the odds that alpha should be fine-tuned are exceedingly, astronomically low, even if it’s likely that some universe or other is fine-tuned.
What is Dawkins’ reply? He appeals to “the anthropic principle,” the thought that the only sort of universe in which we could be discussing this question is one which is fine-tuned for life:
the anthropic answer, in its most general form, is that we could only be discussing the question in the kind of universe that was capable of producing us. Our existence therefore determines that the fundamental constants of physics had to be in their respective Goldilocks [life-friendly] zones.
Well, of course our universe would have to be fine-tuned, given that we live in it. But how does that so much as begin to explain why it is that alpha is fine-tuned? One can’t explain this by pointing out that we are indeed here—anymore than I can “explain” the fact that God decided to create me (instead of passing me over in favor of someone else) by pointing out that if God had not thus decided, I wouldn’t be here to raise that question. It still seems striking that these constants should have just the values they do have; it is still monumentally improbable, given chance, that they should have just those values; and it is still much less improbable that they should have those values, if there is a God who wanted a life-friendly universe.
One more example of Dawkinsian thought. In The Blind Watchmaker, he considers the claim that since the self-replicating machinery of life is required for natural selection to work, God must have jumpstarted the whole evolutionary process by specially creating life in the first place—by specially creating the original replicating machinery of DNA and protein that makes natural selection possible. Dawkins retorts as follows:
This is a transparently feeble argument, indeed it is obviously self-defeating. Organized complexity is the thing that we are having difficulty in explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating machine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity… . But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.
In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett approvingly quotes this passage from Dawkins and declares it an “unrebuttable refutation, as devastating today as when Philo used it to trounce Cleanthes in Hume’s Dialogues two centuries earlier.” Now here in The God Delusion Dawkins approvingly quotes Dennett approvingly quoting Dawkins, and adds that Dennett (i.e., Dawkins) is entirely correct.
Here there is much to say, but I’ll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors.” A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are.” No doubt we’d tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren’t trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.
A second point: Dawkins (and again Dennett echoes him) argues that “the main thing we want to explain” is “organized complexity.” He goes on to say that “The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity,” and he faults theism for being unable to explain organized complexity. Now mind would be an outstanding example of organized complexity, according to Dawkins, and of course (unlike with organized complexity) it is uncontroversial that God is a being who thinks and knows; so suppose we take Dawkins to be complaining that theism doesn’t offer an explanation of mind. It is obvious that theists won’t be able to give an ultimate explanation of mind, because, naturally enough, there isn’t any explanation of the existence of God. Still, how is that a point against theism? Explanations come to an end; for theism they come to an end in God. Of course the same goes for any other view; on any view explanations come to an end. The materialist or physicalist, for example, doesn’t have an explanation for the existence of elementary particles: they just are. So to claim that what we want or what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism; the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind.
Toward the end of the book, Dawkins endorses a certain limited skepticism. Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don’t contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?
From a theistic point of view, we’d expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he’d have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.
If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.
The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins’ naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn’t give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a “delusion.”
The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.
Alvin Plantinga is John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
1. A third book along these lines, The End of Faith, has recently been written by Sam Harris, and more recently still a sequel, Letter to a Christian Nation, so perhaps we should speak of the touchdown triplets—or, given that Harris is very much the junior partner in this enterprise (he’s a grad student) maybe the “Three Bears of Atheism”?
2. Although Dawkins does bring up (p. 54), apparently approvingly, the argument that God can’t be both omniscient and omnipotent: if he is omniscient, then he can’t change his mind, in which case there is something he can’t do, so that he isn’t omnipotent(!).
3. See my Does God Have a Nature? Aquinas Lecture 44 (Marquette Univ. Press, 1980).
4. The distinguished Oxford philosopher (Dawkins calls him a theologian) Richard Swinburne has proposed some sophisticated arguments for the claim that God is simple. Dawkins mentions Swinburne’s argument, but doesn’t deign to come to grips with it; instead he resorts to ridicule (pp. 110-111).
5. What about the Trinity? Just how we are to think of the Trinity is of course not wholly clear; it is clear, however, that it is false that in addition to each of the three persons of the Trinity, there is also another being of which each of those persons is a part.
6. “The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times,” in M. S. Longair, ed., Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data (Springer, 2002), p. 285.
7. John Polkinghorne, Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding (Random House, 1989), p. 22.
8. One of the best versions of the fine-tuning argument is proposed by Robin Collins in “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-Tuning Design Argument,” in Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within (Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 47-75.
9. See my review of Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea in Books & Culture, May/June 1996.
Copyright © 2007 by the author or Christianity Today International/Books & Culture magazine.
This article is located at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Thanks Jad good stuff its great when your thoughts are put into words that explain things so clearly.
Wow… that was a very complex article! (therefore it’s unlikely to exist, he he he! But it does!)
Seriously though, thanks for putting this article up. It’s great to see both sides of the debate getting equal coverage on Nook.
Lost me right here ‘….the touchdown twins of current academic atheism…’ I feel that personal attacks on authors is a low form of criticism as it has nothing to do with the text.
Bad luck Jesus boy!
This is a huge post but my thoughts so far disagree. Philosophy being such a broad subject I am sure there are countless arguments to counter Plantinga.
For the man in the street life is much simpler. Evolution appears to be fact, we can witness it throughout history so why deny it ? In a few generations the Japanese, the Innuits, the native North Americans have all evolved.
If the Garden of Eden is a fable then where and when did God bring life to Earth ? For umpteen millions of years the dinosaurs were the dominant life form on Earth and then were extinguished, virtually overnight. What was God’s point in doing that ?
The ‘Fine Tuning Argument’. What if the Big Bang is a recurring phenomena and during this cycle has managed to attain the optimum expansion rate ?
Multiple universes. If they exist then how do we rate ours as ‘fined tuned’ without knowing the state of the others ? What if we are the worst of the lot (not unimaginable) and life in other universes is more sublime, even heavenly !
Dawkins book seems to show that a religion based on the Bible is absurd, with some parts to be taken literally and others not and no distinction between the two. It seems more and more people are turning away from the Church because they are being asked to believe in things which to them seem unreasonable. Philosophical argument will not alter this.
where are ackbar & ozwebfx I’d a thought they would be in on this one…….perhaps they’ve run off into the athiest sunset together?
Have any of you people (Brian lady chaos or Jadmorfier) actually read the book?
or are you basing all your thoughts on it on this editorial , by a person who OBVIOUSLY has their own agenda.
?
QUOTE
“where are ackbar & ozwebfx I’d a thought they would be in on this one…….perhaps they’ve run off into the athiest sunset together?”
Like myself they have probably gotten pretty sick and tired of posts going missing with no support from Admin or Moderators. They have either left or are still active and none of their posts are getting published. I’ve already posted here this morning in reply to a few comments and still it hasn’t turned up. I’m not even sure if this one will work.
Jad, there is no obvious reason why your posts have not turned up. Certainly your last couple have. All we can do is apologise and ask that you resubmit. In regards to ackbar, there were certainly posts that were not published because content was considered offensive. The fault in these cases was not with the site or admin but with the tone and content of the posts. Regards, Admin.
Thanks for the response Admin. I saved the last one to my PC this time so here goes…
Cheers for the positive responses guys. I found it a fascinating read, even with all the brain freezes.
_________________________________________________________________________
QUOTE
“Lost me right here ‘….the touchdown twins of current academic atheism…’ I feel that personal attacks on authors is a low form of criticism as it has nothing to do with the text.
Bad luck Jesus boy!”
meinrosebud I’m not sure its a personal attack. I think he’s referring to Dawkins and Daniel Dennett as the ‘go to’ guys in atheism when it comes to religious discussion. Well, that was my take on it anyway. At the moment these two people have top selling books and are what seem to be the leaders of the pack in the no-God evangelism.
Even so it shouldn’t stop you from reading it.
______________________________________________________________________________
QUOTE
“This is a huge post but my thoughts so far disagree. Philosophy being such a broad subject I am sure there are countless arguments to counter Plantinga.”
Hi hannahsgranpa. Tell us what you disagree with or if possible find some arguments to counter Plantinga’s. That is why I posted the article, so we can discuss or debate the subject.
Philosophy is a broad subject yes but this particular argument is pretty direct and worth a 2nd look I think.
QUOTE
“For the man in the street life is much simpler. Evolution appears to be fact, we can witness it throughout history so why deny it ?”
I thinks it’s a little more complicated than that.
QUOTE
“If the Garden of Eden is a fable then where and when did God bring life to Earth ?”
If a fable then what God are we talking about? It’s not the God of the Bible so you’d have to look up other one-god belief systems or religions and see what they have to offer; hypothetically.
QUOTE
“For umpteen millions of years the dinosaurs were the dominant life form on Earth and then were extinguished, virtually overnight. What was God’s point in doing that ?”
When sin entered the world it brought death. Everything from then on began to die, everything on earth including the earth itself and the universe. Everything left today is also dying. As in some things have already died and become extinct and others are still dying. The nutrients in our fruit today is way less than the same fruit variety 4000 years ago. Everything that currently exists is on it’s way out, including us. The dinosaurs fall under the same banner. A natural disaster also may have helped with the extinction of dinosaurs, as well as many other plants and species.
QUOTE
“The ‘Fine Tuning Argument’. What if the Big Bang is a recurring phenomena and during this cycle has managed to attain the optimum expansion rate ?”
Another hypothetical? How does this recurring phenomena know what the optimum expansion rate actually is? And if it does know what happens the next time round? Or does it stop once it finds the optimum rate? If so then that denotes intelligence. A designer.
QUOTE
“Multiple universes. If they exist then how do we rate ours as ‘fined tuned’ without knowing the state of the others ? What if we are the worst of the lot (not unimaginable) and life in other universes is more sublime, even heavenly !”
It was Dawkins that suggested there were multiple universes. According to this idea then I guess anything is possible. What is your point though? Are you suggesting that yes there is a heaven and it is actually just another universe?
QUOTE
“Dawkins book seems to show that a religion based on the Bible is absurd, with some parts to be taken literally and others not and no distinction between the two.”
I think he tries to show that religion based on the Bible is absurd by taking some of his own beliefs literally and some not, and clouding the distinction between the both to try and prove himself right. I think Plantinga picks all of it out, or at least the main bits.
QUOTE
“It seems more and more people are turning away from the Church because they are being asked to believe in things which to them seem unreasonable. Philosophical argument will not alter this.”
I think it’s more people who don’t necessarily go to church but believe in a god of some kind are turning away yes but I think in general church goers are quite convinced there is a God. Some would doubt sometimes I’m sure. God knows I have (no pun intended).
QUOTE
“Have any of you people (Brian lady chaos or Jadmorfier) actually read the book?
or are you basing all your thoughts on it on this editorial , by a person who OBVIOUSLY has their own agenda.”
I’ve read other editorials of the book as well, mostly pro Dawkins but no I’ve not read the book. But the subjects Plantinga picks out is all that he discusses and he quotes those parts of the book. I don’t think there is much need to read the entire book just to confirm Dawkins belief system. I’ve seen and read a lot of his work already; I’m pretty sure I know where he stands.
hmmmmm
Read the book.
Is there something Plantinga missed in the book that adds or takes away from what he wrote in the editorial?
If so please share.
Thank you so much admin for scrutinizing articles before they’re considered for publication. I for one had been so taken aback by some of the comments/posts by certain nook contributers that I’d decided to keep away from Nook altogether for a few months. But now I’m back and the site appears to have become more friendly again- and now, after reading your comment on this post, I realize that it’s mainly thanks to you guys. Keep up the great work, am glad to be back! Cheers to all!!
by friendly do you mean nice to the religious?
reviewers are not to be trusted , all of them have their own agenda , you should actually read the book for your self , this goes for many many things.
make up your own mind , you should not let someone else work out your opinions for you ..
Your arguments are so weak and your reasoning so slanted that it is difficult to phrase a meaningful reply, or at least one that you can understand.
For example:
“QUOTE
“The ‘Fine Tuning Argument’. What if the Big Bang is a recurring phenomena and during this cycle has managed to attain the optimum expansion rate ?”
Another hypothetical? How does this recurring phenomena know what the optimum expansion rate actually is? And if it does know what happens the next time round? Or does it stop once it finds the optimum rate? If so then that denotes intelligence. A designer.”
There is evidence that the expansion of the universe is slowing and reasonable conjecture that it may eventually contract and collapse. If it is a recurring phenomena it needs to know nothing. Each cycle may last nanoseconds or billions and billions of years. The number of repetitions are infinite and therefore, by definition, so are the possible results, including the formation of life.
“QUOTE
When sin entered the world it brought death.” What kind of nonsense is that ? When did sin enter the world and was everything before then immortal ? It just doesn’t make sense.
I imagine that with philosophy, like statistics, you can prove just about anything. Dawkins asked numerous educated people which parts of the bible were meant to be literal and which were meant to be allegorical and the results were simply contradictory and confusing.
It may be a finely worded argument but, I reiterate, to the man in the street, in fact any man of reasonable intelligence, it is just smoke and mirrors.
hannahsgranpa I disagree that ANY man in the street of reasonable intelligence would find evolution a fact, or some kind of God just some smoke and mirrors. That would be just your personal opinion. My opinion, or view, of a reasonably intelligent person is one that would look a little further into the subject of his own accord. The idea that evolution APPEARS to be fact, so why deny it, is not my idea of a reasonably intelligent person on that particular subject.
_________________________________________________________________________
QUOTE
“There is evidence that the expansion of the universe is slowing and reasonable conjecture that it may eventually contract and collapse. If it is a recurring phenomena it needs to know nothing. Each cycle may last nanoseconds or billions and billions of years. The number of repetitions are infinite and therefore, by definition, so are the possible results, including the formation of life.”
Again a lot of hypotheticals here. Reasonable conjecture is still conjecture, an opinion without enough evidence for proof. So it MAY eventually contract and collapse but no one really know much about it at all. Even so, IF it is a recurring phenomena, and the cycles could last nanoseconds or billions and billions of years, does that mean it is inside time and space or is it something that was always there? As in has it been doing this forever? No beginning, no end.
____________________________________________________________________________
When sin entered the world it brought death
QUOTE
“What kind of nonsense is that ? When did sin enter the world and was everything before then immortal ? It just doesn’t make sense.”
When God created yes he had every intention for us to last forever and He still does to this day. Not so much our physical being but our souls which are eternal. In the beginning of God’s creation, Satan tempted Adam and Eve to be like God; having their own authority and rejecting God as the higher authority. In that sin, came death; separation from God.
So our souls are immortal, or were made to be, but the rest was not, the world and everything in it.
I know this won’t fully make sense to you as an atheist but I hope at least you have a better understanding of what I believe. I too would probably find a lot of things you believe as an atheist to be nonsense as well but I want to understand where you are coming from as well.
Anyway please don’t hesitate to ask more questions if need be. I would be more than happy to attempt explanation as long as we keep it respectful, courteous and polite.
WOW !
I cant believe the ignorance around nook.
i thought we were living in an enlightened time , but next thing peoplewill besaying the earth is flat ?!!?!?
why is it that religious nuts always try to deny the evidence for things that conflict with their beliefs , instead of taking the rational approach and realising that maybe , just maybe they are wrong.
I know why they do it …. but i dont understand it .
whatever helps you sleep i guess , if you cant handle the real world , then god is for you .
I’m sorry j, I seem to have completely underestimated you. I thought we were having a reasoned argument but you have completely fooled me. Now I realise that you believe in Adam and Eve as fact, well, the rest is immaterial.
I don’t think Dawkins is confused at all and I don’t think the people who read his book are confused. On the contrary, the muddle-headedness seems to be on the other side of the argument.
youare, as a past president of the Flat Earth Society I would like to invite you to participate in our next Along-The-World trip. A small fee of $20,000 should secure your booking, plus the normal $5,000 premium for insurance against falling off the edge.
youare, which part of respectful, courteous and polite don’t you understand?
I’m just sharing with you, because you asked. Again if you don’t understand ask more questions. If you don’t want to understand then that is another story. Calling me ignorant and a religious nut does nothing for your case. Your not doing your atheism any favors, for yourself or anyone else in here.
Im sorry , It just came out in reading what has been posted here.
And what you are saying is against the grain…..even various religious leaders accept evolution.
I would be more impressed , if _any_ of the people on herecritisising such books or ideas had ACTUALLY read the item in question.
How about you head to the library and borrow the book , and give us a run down on it , and hell , I might do the same….
(runs off to ring llibrary)
QUOTE
“what you are saying is against the grain…..even various religious leaders accept evolution.”
Yes I understand. I myself am undecided on what process God used to create. Evolution over millions of years or evolution in less than 10,000 years; or creation and no evolution (goo-to-you) at all in less than 10,000 years. I’ve been a keen information junkie about the subject for over 10 years now. I’ve been convinced of both sides at different stages over these years as well but now I simply don’t know the answer. Neither are convincing enough for me and I don’t carry any kind of degree in any field of science whatsoever. Maybe the science of sleep but that’s about it.
QUOTE
“I would be more impressed , if _any_ of the people on herecritisising such books or ideas had ACTUALLY read the item in question.
How about you head to the library and borrow the book , and give us a run down on it , and hell , I might do the same….
(runs off to ring llibrary) ”
Yes I’d be willing given the time. I am also in the middle of two books atm so it could take a while. But if you think it’s going to add to the discussion I will persevere. Understand though I’ve seen and read lots of Richard Dawkins material before and I know his belief system and his adoration of Darwinian evolution and natural selection. My only interest in reading this book would be his philosophy and rational reasons for God being a delusion. Basically everything in the book that is related to the article I posted I will read. Just to make sure Plantinga didn’t leave anything out or take anything out of context.
yes picking and choosing from a book is agood way to read it and understand what it is saying [italics off]
I dare say if you put the time into learning about some of the science involved in these things it would become much more clear.
the earth is DEFINATELY more than 10,000 years old, to hold such a belief is definately contrary to ALL evidence , from many fields of science all supporting the age of the earth.
such a belief is akin to still believing the earth is flat, totally delusional.
similarly, evolution is supported by such a huge amount of evidence , that i believe it to be delusional to not see this.
I really find it hard to believe what i read around here , that in this day and age people still hold arcane irrational beliefs…….
absurd..
in regards to the book , i am glad to read it and report back here , but the local library is out and being a pooor uni student i will need to save up some cash forit ..
saying you will only read what relates to this story i feel is evasive.
Like i said in another thread somewhere , it doesnt really matter how you think the universe or life on this planet got its start , it is blatantly clear what happenned since then.
change selection time.
QUOTE
“the earth is DEFINATELY more than 10,000 years old, to hold such a belief is definately contrary to ALL evidence , from many fields of science all supporting the age of the earth.
such a belief is akin to still believing the earth is flat, totally delusional.
similarly, evolution is supported by such a huge amount of evidence , that i believe it to be delusional to not see this.
I really find it hard to believe what i read around here , that in this day and age people still hold arcane irrational beliefs…….
absurd.”
Well what I have found over the years is that a young earth is not contrary to ALL evidence and has nothing to do with a delusional ‘flat earth’ ideology. The flat earth term if commonly used by evolutionists who do not study young earth science. Evolution however is supported by a lot more scientists and the layman but that does make it any more true. I would have believed it to be true myself but I have found it doesn’t hold very much water. Much of evolution is based on certain ‘facts’ that cannot be proven. But still they keep building on top of these facts as if they were true and it grows into what we have today.
For example, in regards to speciation or ‘kinds’, new information and new molecular capability must occur. Evolution scienctists however claim speciation to work through mutation (microevolution) but its never ever been proven. The idea that a different mixture of already present information and molecular capability can create a completely new species or ‘kind’ is completely false. It’s never ever been proven. But they still work on new theories presuming it were true and build on it. And that is what you have today in your text books at school.
“But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. … Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.” Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations.
My suggestion is to read some more on creation science from creation science web sites and books yourself, not just evolution based media with their own biased definition of creation science. You will find it is not a ‘flat earth’ society and that is it full of some very very good scientists.
QUOTE
“in regards to the book , i am glad to read it and report back here , but the local library is out and being a pooor uni student i will need to save up some cash forit ..
saying you will only read what relates to this story i feel is evasive.”
I don’t believe evolution science can disprove the existence of God, and either does Dawkins. He only suggests it MAY but he can’t prove it with empirical scientific evidence. My interest in the book is Dawkins philosophy (hence the artical) so the rest of the stuff about evolution which I already know his stance on is not something I don’t already know. But I will read if I have the time. I don’t want to be and have no intention of be evasive.
QUOTE
“Like i said in another thread somewhere , it doesnt really matter how you think the universe or life on this planet got its start , it is blatantly clear what happenned since then.
change selection time. ”
This is were our belief systems are the opposite. I feel it is very important how the universe and life on this planet got started, and why. Scientists also feel the same way and the search goes on to this day. When did space and time begin? And why? And how?
I also believe it is not blatantly clear what happened since then. In fact to truly know how it happened you really do have to know how and why it began. It is very important in science, philosophy, and spirituality.
Young earth not contrary to all evidence?
Im sure you can find SOME evidence to support almost any idea , that does not make it valid , as you have to IGNORE large portions of evidence.
I dont think there is such a thing as you earth science the evidence makes its own conclusions.
evolution doesnt hold water?
science is all based around logical conlcusions based on evidence at hand, that includes evolution.
All science is based on in-direct evidence, evolution is no different to testing time taken for water to boil or the size of an object , it is all IN-direct , so dont let that fool you.
The conclusions that have been reached FIT with the evidence at hand .
When / If contrary evidence arises, things will change , unlike theology , science changes based on evidence.
admirable i think.
I have read a little a spetner, and from MEMORY ONLY some of his conlcusions are based on faulty logic.
Others are blatant speculation he passes of as factual .
He also Fails to add any new information to the whole argument himself except for trying to create the necessary gaps for his god to fill , he fails to insert any specifics himself so as to deny others the ability to pick holes in his logic .
Spetne said he gets his evidence from more than just science , which begs the wuestion…. and detracts from the respect for his “work”
And failing to submit papers for review , but rather writing books , helps him to evade more critical views of his ideas.
IF god were to have made all the species there would be evidence of this , just like there is evidence for evolution.
the spetners of theworld , if they were successfull in de throning evolution would have something to put in its place , not just _god did it_
.
The truth is they dont , evolution is without a doubt the best most workable theory for how we all got here ….
the god did it is no theory at all .
if only you applied the same scrutiny in all your belief systems..
as for dawkins philosophy , my understanding is that he talks about the likely hood of such a god existing , and shows just how unlikely it is.
of course you wont know unless you red it ( neither will i ).
IF you have time
Wow , … Good to see , people other than me here to fight the good fight ….
LOLOLOL
Admin again I posted a couple of days ago and thought I saw it actually posted but now it’s gone! I deleted my backup version on my PC here cos’ I thought it made it through. I shouldn’t really have to backup everything I write though. It can’t just disappear can it? If you can find it I would really appreciate it.
Also I can’t find any links or information on how to contact Admin for particular issues such as this.
go to the front page , then hidden right down the botton is the CONTACT us section.
Fair question Youare, I have read it and now you make me read it again, (dam you) this is what I think, Page 11, he talks about “laws acting around us”, page 12, “powers breathed into, fixed law of gravity”, where does he think these things come from? Page 13, we don’t know how to use the word “God” and only he knows what Einstein & Hawkins and many others believe, on one hand he quotes Einstein to support his nonreligious stance and on the other he refers to an Einsteinian religion. His attempts to separate the personal God from the natural god are pure desperation the same as the “we cant grasp it yet” throwaway line, its a huge cop-out.
Page 21, you can get out of the draft because you’re a Quaker, he says this shows an inordinate respect for religion, no Richard it means they wont be any good in a war, the reason for the draft! His obsession that all wars and troubles in the world are caused by religion is just plain wrong, just because a warring person has a religious background doesn’t necessarily make his war religious, as I’ve said before, Pol Pot, Mao, Sukarno, Ku Klux klan, Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, Mussolini, Marx, Stalin, even Saddām Hussein, the ancient Greeks, the motivating force behind their conquests was power, trade, politics, wealth, love, racism, supremacy, control, greed, lust, fascism, communism etc. If his answer to that is that its impossible to put aside your religious upbringings then he also has to say that Einstein & Hawkins are Jew & Christian respectfully, or is it that only scientists including himself can achieve this?
He has a strong theme that religious people believe that theirs is the only way, which may well be right but isn’t he doing the same thing?
Page 32, the United States would be better without religious based charities because they get tax-free dollars, which means the government (his taxes) would have to do the charity work, not a lot of sense in that! Page 33, you cant explain the trinity therefore its absurd, unlike science that’s moved on, please explain string and M theories, the other 7 dimensions, the double slit experiment, light, time, when did they start and how, who started the big bang, what existed before the big bang, the EPR paradox, with your crystal clear science, I find it much more comprehensible, graspable and meaningful to believe in a designing and creating eternal God. If you haven’t read some of these scientific theories please do so, you’ll soon see what I mean. Have a look at Steven Hawkins website.
I agree with him when he talks about the man made parts of religion, as in all walks of life there are plenty of crazies and their easy pickings, but if he were to look deeper and shrug off all the add-on’s and seek out true Christianity there would emerge a very different picture. Pages in the 40’s he tries to paint the picture that the greats of history were atheists to somehow bolster his case, well there are more than enough on the other side to counter that. He quotes Jefferson as saying he should question the existence of God, well Richard any Christian who hasn’t, isn’t worthy of the title. Then he goes on to tell us how Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams, and ALL their friends would react in today’s America, the mans amazing, he can know their minds even after their dead, predict their answers and project their thoughts into the future!!
Page 57, religion has nothing else other than what’s good or bad to contribute to human wisdom. WOW and science has! The fact that these people and others did or didn’t say a particular thing to suit his argument is of no consequence, just make it up, put the words in their mouths, just tell us what you think they would or should have said, even if a particular person didn’t say a single word on the subject just go right ahead and write a sketch for him ( Bob Newhart ). The Great Prayer Experiment, I don’t know why he’s even bothered to mention it, only a hand full of crazies had anything to do with it, yet he devotes 5 pages to it and tries to tar us all with the same brush. There have been plenty of scientific loonies who have tried to prove a point with some crazy experiment.
The Thomas Aquinas Proofs, his only argument is that they all rely on regress and invoke a God who is immune to regress to terminate it. Exactly Richard and if you acknowledge the existence of God you can also endow him with any other properties. Regression stops at the atom yes, but atoms aren’t eternal.
Page 92, he now even tells C.S. Lewis he should have known better. The next passage about the written word is spot on, know who wrote it, the context, bias, time, meaning, etc. but he should add accuracy and not to make it up as you go or the “I think he meant” method and remember it applies to both sides.
Chapter 4, The complex design and beauty arguments seem to really bother him and I don’t see why, they don’t necessarily have to trouble either side, perhaps its because the more we learn about the universe the more wondrous it seems. Evolution by unguided natural selection and adaptive behavior, to me just isn’t enough, if the fossil record was littered with overwhelmingly high quantities of failed designs, if there wasn’t so many interdependent plants, insects and animals, instead of the plethora of successful lasting, interconnecting and there today for a purpose thousands of years later plants and animals he may well have strong anti-guided / designed legs to stand on. Tiny incremental steps do explain the pathway of simple to complex yes but it fails to tell us the why and that’s where I introduce a designer. Lets go back millions of years, there is no such thing as a skeleton in existence, the moment the first tiny little beginning of a skeleton part appears, whatever that may be, you have gone from nonexistent to existent and that is called invention or creation, from then on its evolution. The Dawkins argument of irreversible complexity addresses only the latter. The half an eye or 51% of a wing is a useful thing to have and may even save your life proposal on page 123 sounds good until you think about it, what about the 1 to 51% bits you had to drag around for millions of years that are more likely to have endangered your life. Then he declares they may have evolved quicker, so now the mindless, unguided, non-designed process can some how change its speed!!
I could go on and probably will later, but this is getting too lengthy, almost as wordy as Jad.
Brian , I cannot comment on this book as i havent read it YET…. but…
two points on what you have said …
Page 57, religion has nothing else other than what’s good or bad to contribute to human wisdom. WOW and science has!
So what WISDOM has the bible given us .?
COmpard to all the wisdoms of the world that science has.
I think that is a hands down victory to science there , the pc you are on and the lights and the house you are in all speak meassures.
and..
The reason that the fossil record isnt “littered” with failed designs is very simple idea.
Failed designs spcifically have failed , there are less of them around .
the chances of an animal dieing and falling in an evironment that will produce viable fossils thousands , or millions of years down the track is slim…..
makes sense really….
one other thing , the % of mis used or un used “BITS” are carried around in all of us , in the form of switched off genes , vestigal organs etc ..
as for speed there is a lot of information on the things that effect the pressure on selection of animal species…
i have seen a series of lectures on this , and the evidence is truly there.
and , more recently genetics and dna , have been brought in to test these ideas further , and …. guess what … its all stacked up ..
I think a “Created ” world would be very different.
And the idea that God would have planted all the diversions , just sounds like its trying too hard to me…
and what do you mean about stephen hawkings website?
specifically
Wow nice post brian! That was so long I feel I’ve already done my quoter of reading for the week.
Very interesting indeed. So from what your saying, Plantinga’s article was quite nice to Mr Dawkins considering everything else he has to say about the apparent God delusion?
___________________________________________________________________________
Thanks YOUARE for the contact details. I’ve been in contact with Admin since then and been trying to resolve the issues and find some of my lost posts. Hopefully all is well.
one thing brian
Page 32, the United States would be better without religious based charities because they get tax-free dollars,
its not just church charities that get tax free exemptions , ALL church activies get tax free benefits , charities or not , an in my opinion thats not right , when you see the HUGE gold covered churches littered around the usa , thats all sponsored by the tax payers in the fact that the churches pay NO TAXES.
Personally , The belief in a supernatural being , should not qualify for tax exemption.
FOR example., I know richard dawkings runs a charitable foundation , that is tax exempt , as it runs for CHARITABLE reasons only , it does not build houses of worship to no god etc … only verified charitable stuff…….
Now , if he was getting tax exemption for NON charity stuff … that would be a bit …. annoying wouldnt it ?
That is what churches get .
the other thing where you mentioned laws acting around us etc …..
Its an important part of science to realise what we DONT KNOW yet .
inserting a creator , in those spots is not rational.
that is exactly what your ancestors did , in worshipping the sun , and such , if we dont understand it YET , then it must be gods doing , its just silly .
The God of the GAPS , as it is known , is one of the most pathetic religious escapes ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2TFVe9LDc
I agree with you to a point there YOUARE. I too do not understand sometimes what some churches spend their money on. From the outside I can’t see it’s purpose. But what I do know is tithe comes into it as well. A non-obligated giving of money by the body /congregation of the church.
It’s not just belief in a supernatural being that qualifies the church for a tax exemption. It’s what it does for the community, small and large. The church does so many things you do not know. I’ve been attending my church for many years now and I still don’t know just how much it does for the local community and the community abroad.
Now if you are referring to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science as a charitable foundation I would love to know exactly where all the donations are going to and what for. The website doesn’t give any real information except that it’s still in the process of applying for charitable status. If you know anymore than I do please share.
I dont have an issue with church members giving money to their church , but that money then becomes income for the church if it is not directly spent on charitable causes.
Then there is the money in taxes that should be paid on services and items bought , ie the building, the facilities etc etc …
all of this is a % of tax dollars that SHOULD be going to the tax dept.
as far as tac free status for churches , obviously it varies from country to country , but working with the community , is NOT a required item for tax exempt status churches are only required to be “not for profit” organizations , but they need not be charities.
This is certainly the case in australia , and I believe in the USA ,
As for thedawkins foundation , im not sure , but in australia organisations that push the advancement and “encourage” science can also claim tax free status.
I believe that is the tact that they are going for , I do know that they distribute free dvds on science subjects ..and that they only recently came into existence , maybe the last 12 months ? so its early days..
Youare, I started off with the grand idea to pick up every point he mentions page by page and make comments on it, I may well get there, in the mean time your points, the Hawkins website, look up unsolved mysteries he and others talk about multi universes, bubble theory, and other extremely problematical hard to comprehend stuff. One heading is “strange stuff explained” you get just as many questions as answers.
PC’s and light bulbs are not wisdom, (some would say its unwise to have them) wisdom is learning, knowledge, ability to discern, insight, good sense, judgment, belief systems, stuff like that, some of the worlds greatest philosophers, (philosophy means “love of wisdom”) have been religious people, Augustine, Bonaventure, Magnus, Aquinas, Bacon.
The bible is full of wisdom, just the 10 commandments alone would be enough, the sermon on the mount, the parables, a lot of the psalms, proverbs, the wisdom of Solomon.
I agree with you about the tax free charity stuff especially in the U.S. my point is that some do good things and if we cut it all out the extra burden on the gov. would be enormous but clean it up yes.
The God of the gaps is no more unreasonable than the we’ll figure it out later of the gaps argument but I’m not talking about gaps I’m talking about abysstical chasms. As I’ve stated before only when science has ALL the answers to ALL the questions and the theory of everything can they categorically say God cannot exist, until then I’m happy to insert Him wherever and if I turnout to be wrong I’ll cop it sweet. If you think that’s a pathetic religious escape, so be it.
Part 2, The God delusion,
Other irritating and over used methods in his writing are hypotheticals, some are so exhaustive that by the time you reach the end you’ve forgotten its not a true story or he goes on to use it as an example to explain something else and then there’s his mocking sarcasm such as on page 132.
The “climbing mount improbable” progressions such as commandeering existing mechanisms by protein molecules from the flagella motor, they must be the smartest molecules in the universe, how did it go:- molecule A said to B would you look at that motor we gotta have one of those, why don’t we see water-skiing molecules today? Sorry a bit of my own sarcasm.
Anthropic principle page 134, life started because of extremely high numbers and good luck. He admits that’s actually not a good enough explanation so he throws in another hypothetical :- chemist will create new life one day. The other alternative - God did it, means you are suffering from “amazing blindness” and you need your “consciousness raised“. Pages 142 to 150. Its far too complex to have God in the equation, more complex than multi universes, so therefore he cant exist, again he seems to think that all you have to do is simply increase the numbers enough to reduce the probability factor and that makes it believable. Remember the multi universe theory is a totally un-provable theory of the gaps idea. He states that the theory of natural selection is simple of itself and is the only process capable of generating complexity out of that simplicity, an attribute that apparently cannot apply to God.
Not happy to simply quote other scientists speeches and make comments, on page 153 he inserts imaginary questions into Dyson’s speech to make it sound inane. He then goes on to tell us what God can and cannot be and how He must behave, the fact is that if you accept that God exists then you have to allow Him to be and do anything within or outside of scientific laws or any other restrictions and He can be complex or simple and He has to be eternal. To say God cannot exist because He doesn’t fit into the Dawkins acceptable mould (or any other) is applying such limitations.
The summing up on pages 157 & 158 give us the bottom line choices:- A boundless God (skyhook) to explain statistical improbability and complex design in the universe or the most ingenious and powerful crane with heavy demands on luck, in fact such is this demand, that our limited human intuition can’t be comfortable with it, but we shouldn’t give up hope because our present relatively weak cranes will improve. Sound like a supernatural crane to me, now let me try and think of a name for it!!
To be continued……
Brian ,
you miss the point on tax free churches.
Tax free charities no problem.
Tax free place of worship is a problem.
Science has given us more Knowledge of our world than all the religious papers of all time put together.
This quote God of the gaps is no more unreasonable than the we’ll figure it out later of the gaps argument, is just crazy …..
you expect science to have all the answers before you listen to any ? thats just silly…
you may as well insert goldilocks into the gaps , it makes as much sense.
your counter to the mount improbable idea shows you dont understand the process he is talking of.
then there is this one
generating complexity out of that simplicity, an attribute that apparently cannot apply to God.
hmmmm , so , you would be happy to accept evolution for us if the same could be used to explain god ? is that what you are getting at ?
the creator argument never ends , we are so complex we must have been designed , our designer must be more complex , so he must have a designer and so on and so on ad nauseum…..
the real question tho is not in evolution , evolution is fact.
the question is in itself of creation.
science has someIDEAS on the start of life , but , i would say they dont have anything SOLID yet .
if you wish to insert your god there , i guess that is (almost) understandable.
Only a fool would claim the bible to be a book of science .
As far as your tax free churches argument goes I think you would have to go back to what this country was founded on. Based on that I think it would explain why churches today are tax-exempt. I’ve not really looked into it but it would interesting to find out the reasons for it today.
As far as I can tell my church does most of it’s work through the tithe and other non-obligated offerings. It seems a rather small roll is played in the tax-exempt things. In fact the private school that is on the same property seems to get way more tax benefits than the church does.
My wife does the pay roll for both the school and the church and everything else to do with money coming in and coming out for that matter so I’ll find out what I can and get back to you.
Youare I agree with you about the tax issue. I have never said the bible is anything other than God’s workshop manual for life. Yes science has given us more knowledge but thats not necessarily wisdom and I wasn’t making comparisons.
I think you should re-read what I’ve written more carefully, where did I say “science to have all the answers before you listen to any”. Perhaps you should explain the mount improbable idea. I have already stated I have no problem with evolution my point was he’s happy to attribute a something to one and not to the other as it suits his argument. The start of life point is as you say. The trouble with the Dawkins camp is they have become science book bashers and wont tolerate any other ideas, what I’m saying is ONLY when you have ALL the answers is the time to be smug.
Just because someone has a different idea from yourself or even the majority doesn’t make them a fool.
Just because someone has a different idea from yourself or even the majority doesn’t make them a fool.
depends on the idea doesnt it ?
Some ideas are indeed worthy of being called foolish.
your quote
God of the gaps is no more unreasonable than the we’ll figure it out later of the gaps argument, is just crazy
seems to me to say that if science doesnt have all the answers NOW you arent willing to listen.
It isnt about “smigness” its , about scientific method , and REASONABLE conlusions which is what all of this is based on .
The idea that god evolved , is an interesting one , but it is (currently) a big leap of faith.
And has nothing to do with science.
Maybe as we find out more about this new planet gliese 581 C , this will answer more questions..
what if ….very simple life was found on this planet , and could then be proven HOW life starts….?
what does this mean to you…
I’ll jump in on this one even though the question is for brian. It’s my blog so I can do what I want.
QUOTE
“what if ….very simple life was found on this planet , and could then be proven HOW life starts….?”
It couldn’t prove how life started at all. You would then have to ask where did this ‘very simple life’ come from? I think this is what a lot of evolutions try to do to answer how life started. They try to make it really small or simple. This is where the goo-to-you theory comes from I think. But it doesn’t answer where, when or how the goo got started. From nothing some might say. Those kind of answers I find irrational and illogical.
I believe however the existence of God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good god is a very logical and reasonable answer to how life began. This can be explained through philosophy; logically and rationally. Below is a the cosmological argument for the existence of God. I’ve posted it on one of brian’s blogs but no one has responded to it all. Either it was ignored, skimmed over or perhaps not understand properly but I think it is very relevant to this topic as well. Anyone’s thoughts on this argument are more than welcome…
“We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist, begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”
- Thomas Aquinas
WHolly good god ?
LOL
now i thought we were having a serious discussion , now you are doing comedy !
And what makes you say it COULDNT prove how life started…
Im giving a hypothetical , that is that when we get to this planet we find life just beginning , hypothetically again , in the way that science has theorised in the past .
It is POSSIBLE….
So what IF , They were in fact able to observe this… what then ….
dont try and dodge the question , and say its not possible…
So , MAn finds life springing up on a new planet from chemicals that exist on earth also , and in doing so , they are able to study and understand how life springs up … in the same way we understand how life springns up from seeds.
So…..What does this mean to you….
can you put forward your ideas on what was proposed please
thank you ackar ,
i would like to know what your thougths are on this brian , jadmorffier .
ackar has put it more clearly than i did i guess…
its a very interesting thought.
Ackbar, I understand your logic but that doesn’t make it actually true, or even possible, without reason. As an example I will quote loosely from a book I have just read which touches on the difference between logic and reason…
1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) brian and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) brian and Jad have pink tails
Now this is a logical statement but it is not actually true, obviously. It is logical because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual truth about reality.
ackbar you are a devout atheist and evolutionist and from the little time we have spent together I have noticed a few things about you. One is that you are pretty much convinced there is no God; not totally or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Two, you believe evolution to be the very best explanation (so far) as to how we came to be the way we and the universe are today. You have come to this conclusion because of the overwhelming evidence provided by scientists from all over the world. What I’m getting at is that the scientists logic can be backed up by the overwhelming evidence in the real world. Scientists can theorize an evolutionary concept and back it up with empirical evidence using the five senses, see, hear, feel, taste and smell.
Your ‘POSSIBLE’ hypothetical sounds somewhat logical but there is absolutely no reason for it to be true in the real world. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever on this earth, nor has there even been in history that makes your hypothetical possible or reasonable. We have never ever observed life ‘just beginning’ from any new species or ‘kinds’.
In a nutshell, your hypothetical is not possible in the real world.
I didn’t dodge the question though, I spent over an hour replying to it lol. If that doesn’t satisfy try this…
Your hypothetical states that man finds life just beginning on a new planet from chemicals.
‘Just Beginning’ is not THE beginning. It’s not the start. When did these chemicals start? Better yet you’ve got an entire planet these chemicals are sitting on. Where did this planet come from? Or when did IT start??
This is why I added the cosmological argument by Thomas Aquinas to the end of my last post. YOUARE if the cosmological argument is what you were referring to when you asked me to put forward my ideas then I hope this helps. The idea is that everything has a beginning and an end. Science actually proves this. So there had to be a point at which it all began. And at that point there had to be something to start it. It couldn’t be something that also has a beginning and an end but something that was always there. Something eternal. And that is a god.
Aquinas also covers the fact that everything in nature is possible to be and not to be. What I believe this means is that, for example, an apple is an apple and a 20 cent coin is a 20 cent coin. The sum of all its parts makes up the total and there is nothing else identical to it. It either exists or it doesn’t exist. It’s either a 20c coin, or it’s not a 20c coin. These are the only two options (to be and not to be). An apple can’t be a 20c coin and a 20c coin can’t be an apple. Even if some of the parts to an apple are found in the makings of a 20c coin, on the whole, or a total sum, it doesn’t make it a 20c coin. And the same can be said visa-versa with the apple. Again science proves this logic giving it reason.
So if things either exist or don’t exist; and have a beginning and an end, it means that at some point nothing existed at all. It would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist because even now nothing would be in existence. And since you can’t have nothing creating something into existence, there had to be something eternal at the beginning, outside of space and time creating it. This is God.
This only covers the half of what Thomas Aquinas is trying to say. I like it better the way he says it myself. He crosses all his ‘T’s and dots his lower case ‘J’s on the subject making for a pretty solid argument. I hope my interpretation does it some kind of justice.
I dont know about your history with ackar, but im dissapointed you cant answer the question at face value .
YOUARE I also found out some info on the tax free churches argument we were discussing.
As it turns out it has very little or nothing to do with the religion itself or tax free worship as you call it. The tax exempt part is the same in a Christian church, a mosque, a Buddhist temple etc. right across the country. The reason for it is because of all the community work these types of places do for the government or the councils. Even some sects get tax exemptions because of the non-profit community work they are involved in.
Why you ask? Because our government, or pretty much any government for that matter, would never ever give any kind of tax exemption if they weren’t going to benefit from it. What the church puts into the community is far greater than anything any council could pull off on their own. And even if the council could pull it off it would cost 10x times more to do it because the church and other religions does so much for so little. So the reason the government gives these places tax exemptions is because it is by far the cheapest way of getting things done in the community. If there were a cheaper way of doing it you can be assured the government would be doing it. It has nothing to do with the actual religion itself.
I spoke to the senior paster at my church about all this and he said with our church the tax benefits don’t even cover the wages. Its the tithe and donations that pay for most of these things. The buildings and offices etc. are the main benefactors for tax exemptions because they are completely non profit and put back into the community so much more than what is put in to do it. For example our church and the private school on the same property is building a sports center with 5 basketball courts, classrooms, a table tennis area, change rooms and kiosk. This is not something just for the school and our church but for the entire community. The tithe and donations that go into this building is a lot cheaper for the government and the local council to do if they were to do something like this on their own with their own funding.
So I hope that answers your question. Being a soft-skeptic though I am sure there would be some religious groups that take wrongful advantage of tax benefits like this but I don’t think you see that kind of behavior much in our country as opposed to other countries. And also a lot of things on the surface that churches do can seem questionable but when proper investigation is done in most cases the benefits to the community far outweigh the cost layout to the project involved. For example something like an extravagant and large building or auditorium to seat more church goers looks questionable on the surface. The largest church in Australia, Hillsong gets accused of much of this sort of thing. But they continue to publicly broadcast all finances that come in and go out of the church so any one with the time can investigate anything into it. And trust me they do.
There are other churches around the world though that have gold plated buildings and auditoriums with peasants and homeless people sitting at the front door. That I don’t understand.
QUOTE
“I dont know about your history with ackar, but im dissapointed you cant answer the question at face value .”
What do you mean at face value? I gave my opinion of his hypothetical question and logic behind it with the lack of evidence and reason behind it.
I then also answered his hypothetical on his logical terms and said this…
“Your hypothetical states that man finds life just beginning on a new planet from chemicals.
‘Just Beginning’ is not THE beginning. It’s not the start. When did these chemicals start? Better yet you’ve got an entire planet these chemicals are sitting on. Where did this planet come from? Or when did IT start??”
To my knowledge I have answered ackbar at face value and then some. If not please explain why you think otherwise.
My original question was what if ….very simple life was found on this planet , and could then be proven HOW life starts….?
what would this mean to you …..
Jads,
“As it turns out it has very little or nothing to do with the religion itself or tax free worship as you call it.”
This is actually not correct.
“Advancement of religion” , is all that is required for tax exempt church status ( along with being a recognised religion, and even CDI , stated that many churches while they are not for profit, are not necessarily charities.
So , a church needs only to work for the advantage of religion to gain tax exempt status , they do not need to conduct charity works.
refer to http://www.cdi.gov.au
In any normal venture , the tithe and donations etc , would be taxable as income.
QUOTE
“My original question was what if ….very simple life was found on this planet , and could then be proven HOW life starts….?
what would this mean to you …..”
If I understand the question correctly what it means to me is nothing in regards to how life starts. In order to find out how life starts you must find out how life begins. If I find a simple life on this planet it has already begun before I stumbled across it. It doesn’t matter how ’simple’ or small this life is that I just found so to me it doesn’t explain how life starts at all because I wasn’t there at the beginning.
And that is why I continued on from that with the Aquinas argument, to clarify my stance on the issue.
______________________________________________________________________________
QUOTE
“Jads,
“As it turns out it has very little or nothing to do with the religion itself or tax free worship as you call it.”
This is actually not correct.
“Advancement of religion” , is all that is required for tax exempt church status ( along with being a recognised religion, and even CDI , stated that many churches while they are not for profit, are not necessarily charities.”
Just reading through some of the CDI pages I believe its not just ‘Advancement of religion’ that is all that is required for a charity; it is also the relief of poverty, the needs of the aged and the relief of sickness or distress, the advancement of education and the advancement of religion or other purposes beneficial to the community.
It’s the advancement of religion OR other purposes beneficial to the community that is the key here I think. The church provides both the education of religion and many other purposes beneficial to the community. So a church could actually not provide any form of religious education whatsoever and just do all the OTHER purposes beneficial to the community and still gain tax exempt status.
That’s my understanding at least anyway.
I cant find the section , but it clearly , says , that a church need not be doing charitablework to gain exemption , it only needs to be furthering the cause of religion… thats it..
it said it very clearly , but i cant find it again … anyway , its very clear..
yes i read all the stuff you said but i still feel it dodges the question with semantics.
my original question , contained a distinction ,that it “could then be proven HOW life starts”
So , in the same way that scientists worked out what creates cancer and how a human embryo starts , …
lets take the step and say , because life is just begiinning on this planet they are able to work out how life springs up , in in-animate chemicals , ….. whatever it is … a special amino acid that gets absorbed into tissue once life begins etc ,…
people are made up of chemicals that exist elsewhere in the universe, but .. one day , the “SPARK” im sure will be worked out ….
in the same way we are able to SPARK an embryo into life in a test tube.
so …. IF , this is discovered …. and its a huge if … but IF….
what would this mean to you ?
QUOTE
I cant find the section , but it clearly , says , that a church need not be doing charitablework to gain exemption , it only needs to be f