• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some questions for Dawkins

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
From: http://id-idea.blogspot.com/2006/09/richard-dawkins-explains-his-latest.html

Dawkins is quoted
(bold mine)

Most of the traditional arguments for God’s existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things. Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem. But whatever the answer – a random quantum fluctuation or a Hawking/Penrose singularity or whatever we end up calling it – it will be simple. Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don’t just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right. They are impotent to terminate regresses, in a way that simple things are not. The first cause cannot have been an intelligence– let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshipped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
Click to expand...

Let's examine these three bolded excerpts.

1) But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself

Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe, but we're never able to get to exactly what it is? If you're never able to get to exactly what it is (and remember, it is said that the laws of physics didn't apply at that point), how is one so certain that it is naturalistic in the first place?

2) The first cause cannot have been an intelligence

There is no way Dawkins can possibly know this. He is simply saying his belief here.

3) as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings

Some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings? What if god(s), if any exist, is/are a lot simpler than Dawkins' believes it/them to be? True, god(s) would still be complex when compared to a shrimp, horse, or human; but how is he measuring complex? Isn't complex relative to intelligence?
 
T'ai Chi said:
From: http://id-idea.blogspot.com/2006/09/richard-dawkins-explains-his-latest.html

Dawkins is quoted
(bold mine)



Let's examine these three bolded excerpts.
Click to expand...

1) But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself

Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe, but we're never able to get to exactly what it is? If you're never able to get to exactly what it is (and remember, it is said that the laws of physics didn't apply at that point), how is one so certain that it is naturalistic in the first place?
Click to expand...
Did you really read the quoted passage in detail or did you just skim over it looking for things you don't like? Dawkins is criticizing the infinite regression as an explanation. He makes no statement that it applies to science at all.

Dawkins:
To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things. Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem. But whatever the answer – a random quantum fluctuation or a Hawking/Penrose singularity or whatever we end up calling it – it will be simple.
Click to expand...


2) The first cause cannot have been an intelligence

There is no way Dawkins can possibly know this. He is simply saying his belief here.
Click to expand...
It's a perfectly logical statement. It's like saying the first tool cannot have been an 8 direction CNC milling machine. If God can exist without a creator then why can't the universe?



3) as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings

Some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings? What if god(s), if any exist, is/are a lot simpler than Dawkins' believes it/them to be? True, god(s) would still be complex when compared to a shrimp, horse, or human; but how is he measuring complex? Isn't complex relative to intelligence?
Click to expand...
You're really reaching here. If God is the prime mover then it must be complex enough to conceive of the universe.

If these questions really are for Richard Dawkins might I suggest you try to Email them to him. If you receive a response will you post it here for all to read?


Steven
 
Say T'ai, Richard Dawkins has a new forum on his site and he is a registered user. It has been explained that he is rather busy with preparations for his book tour but that he may answer questions from time to time. Since these are "some questions for Dawkins" perhaps you should post them over there.

Steven
 
Do you have a url? The 'World of Richard Dawkins' site seems to be about five years out of date, while users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ just suggests you visit 'World of Richard Dawkins...'
 
T'ai Chi said:
1) But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself

Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe...
Click to expand...
Um, no there isn't. Asking the question "how did something come from nothing?" is begging the question, because you're assuming that there was a point "before" (I use the world advisedly) the Big Bang in which no quantum particles existed. In other words, if no particles existed and then did exist en masse, then the laws of physics were violated at least once even without an omnipotent god to direct them. Assuming the winking in and out of existence of subatomic particles is far more likely, and does not conflict with the known laws of physics.
The real problem is that people expect a cause, but then tie themselves up in knots and need to invent imaginary sky faeries as a last resort explanation. The actual underlying structure of the unvierse, however, is far ore elegant and (in this context) more importanly, far more simple, which is the point Dawkins is making.
 
Kimpatsu said:
Um, no there isn't. Asking the question "how did something come from nothing?" is begging the question, because you're assuming that there was a point "before" (I use the world advisedly) the Big Bang in which no quantum particles existed. In other words, if no particles existed and then did exist en masse, then the laws of physics were violated at least once even without an omnipotent god to direct them. Assuming the winking in and out of existence of subatomic particles is far more likely, and does not conflict with the known laws of physics.
The real problem is that people expect a cause, but then tie themselves up in knots and need to invent imaginary sky faeries as a last resort explanation. The actual underlying structure of the unvierse, however, is far ore elegant and (in this context) more importanly, far more simple, which is the point Dawkins is making.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem has to do with the way people perceive time as linear. We intuitively think of time as going forever in both directions. It's hard to imagine spacetime the way physics describes it because our brains aren't really wired for it. It's like trying to imagine the fourth dimension. If the universe is in a sense "spherical" then there really is no "before" the Big Bang. The "God Solution" for the origin of the universe from "nothing" just leads to the question of God's origin and another infinite regression.

"How did God come into being from nothing, did a greater god create it?"

"No silly, God was never created. He's always been."

"Well if God can simply exist without being created from nothing at some point, then why is it impossible for the universe to simply exist without being created from nothing at some point?"

"Errrrrrrrm..."


Steven
 
T'ai Chi said:
From: http://id-idea.blogspot.com/2006/09/richard-dawkins-explains-his-latest.html

Dawkins is quoted
(bold mine)



Let's examine these three bolded excerpts.

1) But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself

Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe, but we're never able to get to exactly what it is? If you're never able to get to exactly what it is (and remember, it is said that the laws of physics didn't apply at that point), how is one so certain that it is naturalistic in the first place?
Click to expand...

The scientific answer for the first cause is "Unknown. Insufficient information."

Edit: Here's an idea though. Suppose there are a set of natural laws that generate timelines, matter, and space. Perhaps these laws work in ways we do not yet understand.

I'm not saying that such a theory is right, I am merely suggesting that naturalism could possibly explain the origin of the universe some day.
 
Last edited:
1) But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself

Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe, but we're never able to get to exactly what it is? If you're never able to get to exactly what it is (and remember, it is said that the laws of physics didn't apply at that point), how is one so certain that it is naturalistic in the first place?
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you complaint is. In the context of the First Cause argument, the statement makes sense.

2) The first cause cannot have been an intelligence

There is no way Dawkins can possibly know this. He is simply saying his belief here.
Click to expand...

So the simplest (first) thing was complex enough to be intelligent?

3) as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings

Some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings? What if god(s), if any exist, is/are a lot simpler than Dawkins' believes it/them to be? True, god(s) would still be complex when compared to a shrimp, horse, or human; but how is he measuring complex? Isn't complex relative to intelligence?
Click to expand...

This is a continuation from the last argument. Complex things come after simple things.

I like my questions better:

Q: Are you always right, or never wrong?

Q: Is your new book in the top ten books of all time, or top twenty?

Q: Are you smarter than Einstein, or Newton?

Q: Can I get your number?

:D
 
It is really simple: "The first cause cannot have been an intelligence"

How can he possibly say "cannot"?
 
Darat said:
Simple logic.
Click to expand...
:) It really does not get much simpler. Is it any wonder so many of us have a problem with formal logic? I include myself BTW.

We really are lucky that there exist people who do get complex logic. We owe them much.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe, but we're never able to get to exactly what it is? If you're never able to get to exactly what it is (and remember, it is said that the laws of physics didn't apply at that point), how is one so certain that it is naturalistic in the first place?
Click to expand...

He isn't claiming we know what it is, but just the fact that we don't know isn't a valid reson to insert a god of the gaps.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It is really simple: "The first cause cannot have been an intelligence"

How can he possibly say "cannot"?
Click to expand...
He gives his reasoning:
1. All intelligent things are complex.
2. Complex things come late.
3. God is intelligent.
4. God cannot have been first cause.

The first premise is false, at least for Aquinas. Intelligence as it exists in God is not complex, nor is God himself complex.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Conversely, are we ever told why natural causes magically able to terminate the regress? Is it (naturalistic) turtles all the way down? There's a start to the universe, but we're never able to get to exactly what it is? If you're never able to get to exactly what it is (and remember, it is said that the laws of physics didn't apply at that point), how is one so certain that it is naturalistic in the first place?
Click to expand...

For special pleading to be special pleading there has to be pleading which is...special.

"everything has to have a cause"
"god doesn't have to have a cause, just because"

is special pleading

stating either

"everything has to have a cause"
"not everything has to have a cause"

is not special pleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom