Skip to main content

Dawkins interviews McGrath

1 hour ten minute video. Very interesting. Go here.

Comments

Larry Hamelin said…
It's very painful. McGrath is stuck in a circle: It makes us feel good because it's true; it's true because it makes us feel good.

Just shoot some heroin and get out of my face, kay?
Anonymous said…
There are a few things that I don't understand regarding what Dawkins says though:

1. "God must be incredibly complex..."

Why?

2. "You can't just pop God into existence..."

But isn't that what physics does with the universe immediately prior to the big bang?

A theory (among others) is that a singularity existed, which gave rise to the big bang...What was before that?

Isn't the Hartle-Hawking boundry condition precisely what Dawkins says ought not be done? Doesn't the same basic logical argument exist with the entire family of Penrose-style singularity models?

You can's just say, "well it just was" because that's essentially the same argument Dawkins makes in this video, isn't it?

I'm really not here to defend either side ... but I do want logical clarity, and I suspect some logical slight of hand by Dawkins...
James James said…
Spelling:
"McGrath"
"sleight of hand"


Steve:
Yeah, I agree, God wouldn't have to be complex. What would this mean, anyway? Humans are complicated. But God is not thought to be made of matter: it's just a mind/an intelligence, which can make things occur by thought (is omnipotent).

Dawkins doesn't need to use this argument, and weakens the cause because people take him up on it. We don't need to know any physics: we have a sound argument just from philosophy already:

God could have just popped into existence, but then the universe could have as well. It's just the cosmological argument, again. Everything needs a cause, what caused the universe to exist, God, what caused God to exist, God existed forever (I thought we just said everything has a cause?), why couldn't the universe have existed forever, QED. We don't need god to explain anything.

The point is, as usual, that there is no evidence for the existence of god.
James James said…
Cripes - just looked at the 1533 comments here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews
Anonymous said…
cagliost said...

"The point is, as usual, that there is no evidence for the existence of god."


Well, no. I'm not interested in that portion of the argument.

I think that facet of the argument is very boring, and it has its own logical problems that I seldom see adequately dealt with. But never mind...

I'm much more interested in the idea that a scientist of Dawkin's reputation is making illogical leaps, (i.e., "God must be complex") with no supporting logical reasoning and committing logical fallacies, such as the regress problem I mentioned, and NO ONE is calling him on it.
Larry Hamelin said…
Steve: One might justly criticize the support Dawkins does offer but idea that he offers no support for his assertion of God's complexity is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

First of all, if God is presented as intelligent, that in itself is an assertion of complexity, since all known forms of intelligence (e.g. animal's nervous systems, computers and other cybernetic systems) are without exception necessarily complex.

Secondly, the argument from natural complexity for the existence of god takes as a premise that a complex system requires a more complex designer; the notion that God must therefore be complex is inherent in the original argument. Dawkins makes this point crystal clear in The God Delusion.

It's blatantly hypocritical to simply define complexity away: God is "just a mind/an intelligence, which can make things occur by thought (is omnipotent)" with no support whatsoever.

An omnipotent God explains nothing. Swinburne notes that a (hypothetical) omnipotent god can create any sort of universe it wants, or no universe at all. To explain this universe we must restore all the complexity of natural law to our conception of God. And worse: If a God performs "miracles", then separate events cannot be explained by universals: Each and every event must be explicitly specified.
Larry Hamelin said…
Additionally, when even pretending to speak logically and rationally, contradicting yourself in the same sentence, "no supporting logical reasoning and committing logical fallacies," is usually considered an intellectual faux pas.
James James said…
Just a quickie:

"I think that facet of the argument is very boring"
I think it's conclusive.

"and it has its own logical problems that I seldom see adequately dealt with."
Seldom? I would have thought once would be sufficient! :-)
Anonymous said…
The Barefoot Bum said...

"Additionally, when even pretending to speak logically and rationally, contradicting yourself in the same sentence, "no supporting logical reasoning and committing logical fallacies," is usually considered an intellectual faux pas."


Excuse me? What exactly is your point? I mean, apart from getting to use the phrase "faux pax."
Anonymous said…
cagliost said...

Just a quickie:

"I think that facet of the argument is very boring"

I think it's conclusive.



Yup. No data. Specultive. Not much to talk about: boring. Pretty conclusive.
Anonymous said…
The Barefoot Bum said...

"Steve: One might justly criticize the support Dawkins does offer but idea that he offers no support for his assertion of God's complexity is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest."


Well, you can lob ad hominem all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Dawkins presents no objective data to support this claim. NONE.

"First of all, if God is presented as intelligent, that in itself is an assertion of complexity, since all known forms of intelligence (e.g. animal's nervous systems, computers and other cybernetic systems) are without exception necessarily complex."


Intelligence != complexity.


"Secondly, the argument from natural complexity for the existence of god takes as a premise that a complex system requires a more complex designer; the notion that God must therefore be complex is inherent in the original argument. Dawkins makes this point crystal clear in The God Delusion."


What is the operational definition of "comlexity" in this argument? How is such "complexity" measured?
Anonymous said…
The Barefoot Bum said...

"It's blatantly hypocritical to simply define complexity away: God is "just a mind/an intelligence, which can make things occur by thought (is omnipotent)" with no support whatsoever."

Well, first of all I NEVER said "God is just a mind...(etc)" cagliost did. I don't write for cagliost.


Second,

Complexity is generated in nature through processes such as self-organization, time and so on...

Emergent complexity is indicative of natural process and randomness, not a designer.

Complexity doesn’t imply the existence of a designer or a design. The complexity found in computer architecture is artificial.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o