The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Recently I carefully read (and highlighted) Chapter 4 of Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". Dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no God". His reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:

  1. Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance: "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."

  2. Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.

  3. Any God capable of designing the universe [and complex life] would have to be more complex than his creation, and therefore more improbable. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something would have to be even more improbable than his design."a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."

  4. Therefore God (being very improbable) almost certainly does not exist.

  There are several problems with Dawkins argument, however the main problem is is equating improbability of coming about by chance with improbability of existence.

  Even if one grants all of Dawkins other points (which many do not), his argument would only prove that any God is statistically improbable as to having come about by chance, (which virtually no theologian believes anyway).

  Dawkins argument proves nothing about the improbability as to existence of an eternal God (such as his main adversary the God of the Bible).

  The deception in Dawkins argument lies in the fact that when he uses the phrase "improbable" in relation to life, the universe, etc. he is specifically referring to improbable as to coming about by chance. However, later on when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance, and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).
• 

  mkr32208

  Even if one grants all of Dawkins other points (which many do not), his argument would only prove that any God is statistically improbable as to having come about by chance, (which virtually no theologian believes anyway).

  So how DID god come about if not by chance? Don't try to sell me that garbage that god has always been either...
• 

  Gopher

  Even if one grants all of Dawkins other points (which many do not), his argument would only prove that any God is statistically improbable as to having come about by chance, (which virtually no theologian believes anyway).

  So you're citing the beliefs of theologians as a reason to believe in God? Theologians are pre-disposed to believe in God, otherwise they wouldn't be theologians. That's circular reasoning.

  Your arguments fail to address Dawkins' main point -- that is , that any Creator God (such as imagined or described to us by traditions or "holy" books like the Bible) would have to be superior to and more complex than his creation.

  So.... From where did this complex God come from? If such a deity just popped up out of nowhere, it would prove life could pop up out of nowhere.

  The main two ways I've seen creationists evade this question are:

  (1) God has always been there, his origins are an undefinable mystery -- or

  (2) The rules of the universe don't apply to God. He exists outside the rules of the universe, so anything that is said or defined about him by religionists cannot be disproven because we cannot possibly understand him.

  So there is the appeal to mystery and to the fact that, in the minds of religionists, God simply HAS to exist. It's tunnel vision to me. And that's what Dawkins points out.
• 

  hooberus

  Even if one grants all of Dawkins other points (which many do not), his argument would only prove that any God is statistically improbable as to having come about by chance, (which virtually no theologian believes anyway).

  So you're citing the beliefs of theologians as a reason to believe in God? Theologians are pre-disposed to believe in God, otherwise they wouldn't be theologians. That's circular reasoning.

  My point was that (at best) Dawkins only disproves something that virtually no one believes anyway- not to cite "the beliefs of theologians as a reason to believe in God"

  Your arguments fail to address Dawkins' main point -- that is , that any Creator God (such as imagined or described to us by traditions or "holy" books like the Bible) would have to be superior to and more complex than his creation.

  Actually my arguments deal with Dawkins main point as to his reasoning as to "Why there almost certainly is no God" (the title of Chapter 4 of his book). I even for the sake of argument allowed for the possibility that a Creator God would have to be "more complex than his creation", and still showed that that Dawkins argument is fallacious as to disproving the existence of God.

  To use an analogy a boeing 747 is very improbable as to coming about by chance, and its creator (Boeing corp. with all of its complex employees, factories, etc.) is even more complex, and hense even more improbable as to coming about by chance, yet of course this does not mean that Boeing is improbable as to existence .

  So.... From where did this complex God come from? If such a deity just popped up out of nowhere, it would prove life could pop up out of nowhere.

  The main two ways I've seen creationists evade this question are:

  (1) God has always been there, his origins are an undefinable mystery -- or

  (2) The rules of the universe don't apply to God. He exists outside the rules of the universe, so anything that is said or defined about him by religionists cannot be disproven because we cannot possibly understand him.

  So there is the appeal to mystery and to the fact that, in the minds of religionists, God simply HAS to exist. It's tunnel vision to me. And that's what Dawkins points out.

  Dawkins point was to claim that through logic that he has shown that "God almost certainly does not exist".
• 

  mkr32208

  Dawkins point was to claim that through logic that he has shown that "God almost certainly does not exist".

  Yes thats true he did claim that and he did DO that.

  What exactly is YOUR claim then?
• 

  Galileo

  Dawkins was trying to use logic to analyze the probability of a god existing, using the creationists own arguments. Therefore, he was trying to give the creationists argument at least a modicum of credibility. That is why he didn't address the "god has always been there" or "god is outside of time" argument, as this is a nonsensical statement, goes contrary to everything ever observed, and is not backed up by even a single piece of evidence. Since "god has always existed, god is eternal" is simply a statement with no supporting evidence offered, there is no evidence required to refute it. It is the equivalent of my saying "I can fly" but then not offer any proof of any sort to back it up. That statement can be refuted by saying "no you can't", just as "god has always existed" can be refuted by saying "no he hasn't". Not a lot of material there for a book.

  Anyone can make a claim. If you want your claim to withstand scrutiny, however, you have to offer evidence to support it.
• 

  Gopher

  Dawkins point was to claim that through logic that he has shown that "God almost certainly does not exist".

  Of course, nobody currently living on planet earth can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of a creator god.

  So we are only left with logic and reason to try to sort things out (if we even want to try).

  It's a difficult subject, and many believers simply won't address the difficulty of how God started to be. In my opinion, if someone wants to believe such without proof, and say it's a matter of faith, that is fine by me.

  But when believers try to get into the realm of trying to scientifically or logically arguing for the existence of a creator-god (which seems very unprovable), they're in dangerous waters.

  Dawkins correctly pointed out that it's logical to ask the question -- if there is an infinitely complex creator-god, from where did such a god come? He's within his rights to put out his assessment that the idea of a god isn't logical.

  Dawkins is on the edge of the freethinkers' movement, and realizes that sometimes one has to boldly push the envelope to get one's point out there. The freethinkers and atheists are still in the minority in this country, and I really don't see why believers (who feel sure they have truth) are so hot and bothered by a minority dissenting viewpoint.
• 

  B_Deserter

  I think you're missing the point. If you had read the rest of the book (which I have), you'd realize that the scientific theories state that life most certainly did NOT come about solely by chance. The theory of Natural Selection is the polar opposite of chance. It states that creatures more suited to their environment will survive long enough to reproduce. The "chance" element comes in random mutations due to many different factors. Even then, the "chance" element is an illusion of sorts. Every mutation has a reason.
  
  Dawkins' argument is sound, and you are the one creating the straw man, here. He was merely pointing out the hyprocrisy of the creationist belief that the complexity of life requires a creator, yet the infinitely more complex creator doesn't. It basically works out to two different choices. Do you A) believe that all the matter and energy in the universe has always existed, in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics? or B) believe in a "creator" super-being who has always existed, and created the universe, the earth, and all life upon it with magic? Which one sounds more reasonable?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  1. Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance: "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."

  2. Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.

  3. Any God capable of designing the universe [and complex life] would have to be more complex than his creation, and therefore more improbable. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something would have to be even more improbable than his design."a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."

  4. Therefore God (being very improbable) almost certainly does not exist.

  Category error.

  The Ultimate 747 just had multiple catastrophic failures in all redundant hydraulic systems over the mid-Pacific.

  If it was an Airbus, the tail would just fall off. But "the Ultimate Airbus" just lacks a certain cachet, comprendre?

  BTS
• 

  Meeting Junkie No More

  I'm in the middle of reading this book too. Some interesting points...but:

  We're evolving creatures. All we know is limited by our senses and instruments. We don't have perfect senses, not by a long shot. We can't hear every pitch, we can't see every spectrum of light, we can't smell all there is to smell. We're limited.

  All of this limited information goes to our limited brains, which again, are only as developed as our current models. What we sense is a watered down version of reality. But not reality. What we are is limited too. Although we seem to think we have the monopoly on life most of the time, a plant or an ant probably 'thinks' the same thing. Their existence is enough for them. Ours is enough for us.

  It is for me most of the time, but sometimes I envy future creatures who will experience more of reality than I ever will. I'm only getting a glimpse into the possibilities.

  The above from another thread, courtesy of Serotonin wraith...so I listen to Richard Dawkins spout on and on and yeah, maybe he makes a point here and a point there, but again, he's limited like we all are. Creationists and evolutionists eternally sparring - it's like two ants discussing the virgin birth...it's out of their league. I don't mind all the hypothesizing and the pontificating, it's all very interesting reading!

  At the end of the day, I still 'know' there's a God, delusion or not!