An interesting take against Dawkin's God Delusion book

[Malati dasi 0]

From time to time our family's highly "materially" intelligent friend ( a telecoms engineer who now teaches chess to primary school students who was once married to a medical doctor, had a girlriend who was also a medical doctor and a recent GF who is an IBM consultant - how is that for a good batting average?), knowing I am a Hare Krishna follower, would engage me in topics such as the meaning of life and God. Most of the time I am lost and can't comment relative to his given parameters.

 

Unfortunately, even our devotees who have PHDs don't discuss these topics in depth relative to physics, naturalism and science. Therefore I sometimes like to do outside reading. I don't want to be labelled a fanatic hanging on to her blind faith.

 

I recently found the below article on the net. Here a christian follower/philosopher takes on Dawkin's on his GOD DELUSION. A very interesting reading indeed.

 

 

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.

[Malati dasi 0]

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.

[Malati dasi 0]

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?

 

 

[suchandra 1]

 

From time to time our family's highly "materially" intelligent friend ( a telecoms engineer who now teaches chess to primary school students who was once married to a medical doctor, had a girlfriend who was also a medical doctor and a recent GF who is an IBM consultant - how is that for a good batting average?), knowing I am a Hare Krishna follower, would engage me in topics such as the meaning of life and God. Most of the time I am lost and can't comment relative to his given parameters.

 

 

No you are not lost, it is something else. When getting into debates on spiritual philosophy Prabhupada also personified what he was putting forward.

When translating Srimad-Bhagavatam in Vrinadavan, Prabhupada wouldn't indulge into challenging modern science like he did when having an expanding global movement behind him. Thousands of followers, daily new temples opened who were substantial proof and backing to what Prabhupada would preach. Unfortunately our present Vaishnava preachers, they subjected to the rules of the global players in such a way that their preaching somehow became unheard - no such thing as triumphal procession of bhagavata-dharma.

 

Prabhupada: "Everything is… Because this world is duality. If there is black, there is white. If there is good, there is bad. If there is father, there is son. Otherwise, there is no meaning of son, eh, father. “I am father, bachelor daddy.” No. If you are father, you must have a son. If you are a son, then you must have a father. If the son says, “I dropped from the sky,” how it is possible? These rascals say it that there is no creator. How is that there is no creator? First of all, prove that you have no creator. Your father has created. How you can say there is no creator? Silent. The rascal is silent. You are talking of “There is no creator,” but you, yourself, you were created by your father. So these rascals are talking foolishly and other foolish persons are accepting them. But we are not so intelligent. Our answer is that “You say there is no creator. How you are created?” It may be we are rascals also, but this is our simple questions."

 

 

"So we have got two tests. One test is sufficient. If one is not devotee, if one is not Krishna conscious, he’s a demon, has finished our conclusion. We simply ask whether you are Krishna conscious, whether you know Krishna. If he says, “No, I don’t know…” I think our Śyāmasundara’s daughter is… She used to preach. She used to go to any elderly person when she was four years old. “Do you know Kṛṣṇa?” she said. So he says, “No, I don’t know.” “Oh, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” This is preaching. Finish, preaching. A child can preach. A child can understand, “Do you know God?” “No.” “You are a demon.” (laughter) Finished. Where is the difficulty? As soon as you say “I do not know God,” you are a demon. Bās. First- class demon. “I am scientist.” “You are rascal.” “No, I have studied, I have got my degrees.” “Māyayāpahṛta-jñāna. (laughter) Rascal, you have studied so long, simply waste of time. Your real knowledge is taken away because you do not know God.” That is described. We have got very simple test in Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement how to distinguish between an intelligent man a rascal. As soon as we understand that he’s not Kṛṣṇa conscious, he’s a rascal. Bās. There is no need of testing. Even though he’s M.A., Ph.D, D.H.C. and so on, so on, still we shall call him a rascal. This is open challenge; it is not secret. How? Cāṇakya Paṇḍita has said, tyaja durjana-saṁsargaṁ vidyayā ’pi alaṅkṛto san. He very nicely says that rascals and fools, must give up their company. Tyaja durjana-saṁsargam. “No, I have got many friends, they are university educated.” But he says, vidyayālaṅkṛto ’pi san. Even they are with degrees of M.A. Ph.D., tyaja durjana saṁsargaṁ vidyayālaṅkṛto ’pi san. Even he is educated, so-called educated, he’s not educated. Anyone who does not know God, he’s not educated, he’s a rascal. This is our conclusion. Not our conclusions, this is śāstra’s conclusion. So “He has got so many degrees and he’s rascal and he’s durjana, a bad man?” “Yes.” “Why?” Now maṇinā bhuṣitaḥ sarpaḥ kim asau na bhayāṅkaraḥ. Suppose a serpent, he has got a gem on his head. Is it not fearful? Very good example. Suppose a snake comes here and he, it has a jewel on the head. So you’ll be all safe? (laughter) No. He’s dangerous.

 

So that is going on. So-called educated scientist, degrees, what they’re doing? Atom bomb, kill men. This is their scientific discovery: that you can kill a man with a knife, one man or two men; now we have got scientific discovery, millions of men in a moment. Come on, discovery. So why don’t you discover something that millions of hospitals, diseased men can be brought into life again? That we cannot do. Kill, killing, killing is going on. What you have discovered? So this is their scientific… Discover something and declare that there is no more death. Here is medicine. Then that is scientific discovery. What is this nonsense? People are dying, and you have discovered something to facilitate death? Is that discovery? Therefore they are this snake with jewel. That’s all. They’re not gentlemen even. A gentlemen thinks that “I shall kill so many persons by dropping one atom bomb. I have discovered such nonsense thing”? And they are going on as scientist. So be careful. They are like snakes with jewel on the head. That’s all. So they do not know.

 

So here we must know what is dharma and what is adharma. Simply rubberstamp, “I am Christian,” “I am Hindu,” “I am Muslim,” “I am this…,” like the tilaka and mālā. No. You must know the science. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends, ye Krishna-tattva-vettā sei ‘guru’ haya. Any person who knows about Kṛṣṇa perfectly well, he is guru. That’s all. He is guru. So we have to learn this science, what is dharma, what is religion, what is irreligion, what is God. That is human life. Simply talking all nonsense, “There is no God and there is no creation,” don’t waste your time. Don’t waste your time. The human life is very, very valuable. This is the time. In cat’s and dog’s life… We cannot invite the cats and dogs in this temple and take this lesson on Bhāgavata and Bhagavad-gītā. We invite human beings. We invite human beings because there is chance. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. A human being can understand what is God, what I am, what is my relationship with God. And if we act according to that, our life is successful. Simply denying God and manufacturing atom bomb and killing, is that civilization? No.

 

Thank you very much. (end)"

 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.1.38

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Los Angeles, June 4, 1976

[cbrahma 0]

Real intelligence is in the heart. Dawkins isn't very hard to debate for me, because I have some scientific knowledge (a Bachelor degree in Science)

Even with all the material knowledge one can be lost because one is spiritually blind.

Don't allow the scientific claims to intimidate. Evidence depends on criteria. That is, what counts as evidence depends on what you are looking to prove.

Nature is full of evidence of an intelligent creator if one is willing to accept the possiblity of the existence of such a Person.

If one has already presumed that nothing can happen outside of nature - that is creation - then of course , no evidence is enough.

[gHari 0]

Perhaps he can't chant, but he should listen to Prabhupada's japa. All the proof he needs, an ocean of proof is in his heart as CB mentions.

 

Japa: http://chantandbehappy.com/bin/prabhupada/music/01_Group_Japa.rm

[stonehearted 0]

Malati asked me to thank the board administrators and moderators for posting this excerpt, along with the link to her blog. She had trouble posting herself, and they stepped in to help.

[theist 1]

 

Unfortunately, even our devotees who have PHDs don't discuss these topics in depth relative to physics, naturalism and science. Therefore I sometimes like to do outside reading. I don't want to be labelled a fanatic hanging on to her blind faith.

 

It is unfortunate. It seems so much work has gone into trying to justify the cosmology of the Bhagavatam that the more essential work such as you have posted here has been neglected.

 

 

I recently found the below article on the net. Here a christian follower/philosopher takes on Dawkin's on his GOD DELUSION. A very interesting reading indeed.

 

 

Yes the Christians have a section that is far far ahead in this area of standing up to the atheists through science.