Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

I will respond to this in three parts. In relation to the Teleological Argument for the existence of God, it is not really an argument from purpose. None of the arguments for the existence of God put forward by Dr. Craig use the term purpose; if they did, you are right, it would be quite blatant question begging. The question of ‘does the universe have a purpose?’ is a separate one in this case.

The Teleological Argument itself relates to the ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe. It is important to recognize that ‘fine-tuning’ does not mean ‘designed’. So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean 'designed'; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning. The teleological argument, put forward by Dr. Craig is an attempt to explain how the universe could exist, as it does. It is from this that one concludes that it is either due to necessity, chance or design. The teleological argument makes the case that this is due to design (if you want to see some really bad logical/scientific thinking, look at how Richard Dawkins argues the ‘chance’ conclusion, Pg 145 of ‘The God Delusion’).

You also mentioned the moral argument. Under the points you have made you seem to be putting forward a relativistic moral perspective. However, the problem of such a position becomes clear when you have to justify what exactly makes someone else’s actions wrong. If someone violates the manmade construct that is useful, it does not follow that what they are doing is really wrong, the most that could be argued is that they are doing something that is not useful. What also needs to be considered is the question of use, is utility really an appropriate basis for morality. The greatest good for the greatest number seems quite abhorrent to me, since I am clearly a minority in many respects. Using the utilitarian argument for morality there would be nothing wrong in a disrespect of the rights of a minority. Furthermore, basis morality within these concepts does nothing to create any sort of basis for moral obligations. If good and evil exist in an objective way (as argued by Plato), then there is no good reason for choosing the good instead of the evil. I think it is correct what Nitzke argued, that the death of God, is the end of objective morality.

The fine tuning argument presupposes that the purpose of the universe is to create a mass of subservient worshipers for an egotistical being, a concept that strikes me as a total farce. That we, or all life for that matter, is an incidental artifact of this particular universe indicates only that we do exist, not that the universe was created for that purpose.

It is precisely the same inane idiocy that declares that if a guy is struck by lightning and killed that the storm was designed exactly to generate the electricity to whack that individual at that particular place and time and the forces to do so have been gathering in the atmosphere ever since he was conceived in the womb and have been moving inexorably to ensure his electrified death. And, of course that proved there was a God out to get him because he did something to offend the supernatural being. No doubt there was precise coordination to create that event but to move from that to the supernatural is obviously the concept of a demented mind.

They are real terms invented by humans to express moral or ethical judgments on the actions that people take. And they have real and serious consequences. Everyone who was ever executed under the rubric of justice is a victim of such terminology.

Humans have been cooking up such terms ever since our ancestors came down from the trees to walk in the grass.

ruveyn

Ok, but the argument from design still argues in a sense that the purpose of universe's existance is to have life in it, since you're saying it was "designed" for that. However, the fine-tuning doesn't have to be due to design. Consider the multiverse hypothesis which states that there could be many universes with different values of the fundamental constants and any of these universes may or may not be hospitable to life. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct then the fine tuning is simply due to the fact that we can only live in a universe which hospitable to us, while there are also be many other universes with no life in it because they are not hospitable. As a comparison, the reason why live on Earth and not on Venus is because Earth has a climate hospitable to our existance while Venus is too hot. So, life just appears where it can. Before you say it, this is argument is not the same as arguing that the fine-tuning was by chance. At the same time though, it is an alternative to arguing it was due to design.

Also, with regards to Richard Dawkins' book, I haven't read it but as I understand it, he never argues a 'chance' conclusion. What he does argue for is natural selection, which a lot of religious critics conflate with "chance" but it's not the same thing.



I wasn't trying to put forward any particular moral perspective, be it relativism or utilitarianism (you seem to have confused those 2 perspectives in your above post but they are not the same thing). Rather, what I was arguing was that morality was necessary for the functioning of a society even without that having to come from some kind of "authority" (i.e. God). If good and evil exists in an objective way, I don't believe that your statement that there would be no good reason for choosing the good is correct, even if no God exists. There would still be an incentive for choosing good because otherwise no society could exist if evil was consistently chosen. Therefore, there is an evolutionary incentive.

Also, while I was not necessarily arguing for utilitarianism, your argument that utilitarianism makes it moral to disrespect the rights of the minority is not really correct. Utilitarianism simply argues for maximising the greatest amount of good for the most number of people while minimising least amount of evil or suffering for the most amount of people. Therefore even disrespecting the rights of the minority would still be wrong according to that perspective.

@ Jono

Sorry but I am about to go away for Christmas, so this will have to be brief. I mean no disrespect and I wish I could give your well thought out post the response it deserves.

As to the multiverse as an alternative to chance. It does not really function in this way, it is more of an answer to chance, to make the situation more likely. The problem with this is that the teleological evidence, does not really support this view. For one, the evidence could and would more likely create a universe that still supports our existence, but was not so finely tuned. If our universe is just a random member of an infinite World Ensemble, then it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we in fact observe. Roger Penrose has pressed this objection forcefully. He calculates that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison.) So if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, it is incalculably more probable that we should be observing an orderly universe no larger than our solar system. Or again, if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since such things are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are simply much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us.

Dawkins uses both an oscillating model to answer the evidence, as well as and Lee Smolin's evolutionary model of physics (pg 145, the God Delusion). Oscilliating models have been out of the mainstream since the 70s (such a universe would require an infinitely precise fine-tuning of initial conditions in order to persist through an infinite number of successive bounces, talk about a teleological argument). and the evolutionary model fails in relation to Black Hole cosmology.

As to the moral argument. I understand they are not the same thing, they were used as two examples. The evolutionary incentive is not really enough to make going against it the basis for an objective morality. If we are to consider it to be truly objective, then we would have to make the decision that our moral code, rather than the code developed by some other animal is to be the correct one. Evolution also does not attempt to make a moral being, evolution can be entirely successful and still have people believe things that are false (see the evolutionary argument against naturalism).The greatest failure of utilitarianism is that no one actually knows what the greatest good for the greatest number actually is. That is why it can be so easily abused into majoritarianism. If it is legitimate, then what values are more useful in a given situation than others? I submit to you that this is unknowable to us in a truly objective way. If it is to be correct, then what is good in each situation must be known by defined by something outside of us, otherwise its just another relativist position.

"Good" is not a useful word. Successful, intelligent, etc. make far better sense.

"good" could also mean fit or proper. A is a good means to achieve end B.

Size 9 D is a good fit (for shoes for some people).

Ever see an athlete make a good play?

ruveyn

Richard Dawkins is the Pat Robertson of athiesm. I like democracy and religious freedom so I don't respect either of them.

cereal.

What is your specific beef with Dr. Dawkins?

ruveyn

Good and bad are terms of approval or disapproval. They are merely expressions of opinion. They must be related to some form of comparison to have any meaning at all and they cry out for more precise evaluation. A good athletic move is one that is successful or novel and clever or a demonstration of athletic prowess. Good is merely a sloppy way to express an opinion.

As respectfully as I can put it, My problem with Dawkins is that he shoves atheism down people's throats. He is so self absorbed in his own conclusions about the world that he assumes that anyone who opposes his anti-god agenda is stupid and needs to be "re-educated". I don't care what he has to back up his arguments, all intolerant arguments are the same to me. Whether coming from the religious or non-religious community its the same garbage in a different pail. If I am in a democratic society and I feel in my heart that there is a "giant spaghetti monster" who is he as some doctor in England to tell me what to think and believe.

Doesn't democracy mean anything anymore? Doesn't freedom of religion mean anything anymore? If I'm not forcing my belief in God on other people, why can't people just respect that and leave it alone? Whether you believe in God or not, you should be allowed to believe what you please without a bunch of people throwing dirt in your face.

Doesn't stupidity mean anything any more? I know it's popular and a great recommendation for US politicians but it has its limits.

As respectfully as I can put it, My problem with Dawkins is that he shoves atheism down people's throats. He is so self absorbed in his own conclusions about the world that he assumes that anyone who opposes his anti-god agenda is stupid and needs to be "re-educated". [/quote]

I appreciate your delicacy in answering the question. I think you are mistaken. What you call "shoving atheism down people's throats ..." is a plain and uncomplicated statement of his disbelief in the deities of the various religions and a justified complaint of the privileged position that religions occupy in the major societies of the world. It would be much better if religion were purely a private or family affair and not inserted into the public doings of our societies. I have no objection to each person or family maintaining their own superstition. I object to the superstitions becoming a public matter and I think that is essentially Dawkins public message and that of the other members of the "four horsemen".

people generally do not mention in public how many times a day they move their bowels. It would be nice if people also did not discuss their private religious practices in public also.

ruveyn

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. But democracy is more important to me than trying to convince you otherwise. So if you want to think I'm an idiot for having my own personal beliefs that I'm not pushing on anyone, so be it. I'm sorry to hear that.

I appreciate your delicacy in answering the question. I think you are mistaken. What you call "shoving atheism down people's throats ..." is a plain and uncomplicated statement of his disbelief in the deities of the various religions and a justified complaint of the privileged position that religions occupy in the major societies of the world. It would be much better if religion were purely a private or family affair and not inserted into the public doings of our societies. I have no objection to each person or family maintaining their own superstition. I object to the superstitions becoming a public matter and I think that is essentially Dawkins public message and that of the other members of the "four horsemen".

people generally do not mention in public how many times a day they move their bowels. It would be nice if people also did not discuss their private religious practices in public also.

ruveyn[/quote]

I agree with that, that is EXACTLY how I believe religion should be. I find though that after listening to Dawkins interviews, he tends to be more offensive than defensive when it comes to talking about religion. There are lots of atheists who are very respectful about their beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Ex: Jesse Ventura is very reasonable when it comes to religion (He is an atheist last time I checked.) Maybe you've read or heard something that I haven't (which I would be open to hearing), but Dawkins really doesn't strike me as a very tolerant person. If I'm wrong I'm open to hearing otherwise.