Dawkins Straw God Arguments Part 1

By -
Photobucket


Richard Dawkins.net posts an article:saturday setp 12, 20


article entitled:



"Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to do"




Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend  William Paley, in "Natural Theology," that the creation of life was  God's greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today  we'd amend the statement: Evolution is the universe's greatest work.  Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most  surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have  ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous  well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.

 Here we see the atheist willing to take the prescriptive side of physical law, whereas most of them time they will demand that physical law is only descriptive. Notice how Dawkins seems offer physical law and evolution almost as an er zots alternative to God. This is practically a liturgical statement one awaits the following hymns. Yet in taking the prescriptive view Dawkins leaves his view open to my God argument "Fire in the Equasions:

Argument:


1) Naturalism assumes cause/effect.

2) c/a governed by laws of physics.


3) Laws of physics must have orgnaizing principal
4) Mind is the only example for organizing principal
5) An Organizing principal based upon Mind that creates  everything is called "God."




Analysis:


1) Naturalists assume necessity of naturlaistic cause and effect  (from empirical observation).


Dictonary of Philosphy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism" "...the belief that everything that exists is ethier matter or entirely  dependent upon matter for its existence."   Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr.  Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark,  1999) http://www.ctns.org/Information/information.html Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?(this source is already linked  above)    "...One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every  physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of  preceding physical causes.."      Science and The Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead. NY: free Press, 1925, (1953) p.76

"We are content with superficial orderings form diverse arbitrary  starting points. ... sciene which is employed in their deveopment  [modern thought] is based upon a philosophy which asserts that physical  casation is supreme, and which disjoins the physical cause from the  final end. It is not popular to dwell upon the absolute contradiction  here involved."[Whitehead was an atheist]
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html  Cambridge Relativity and Quantum Gravity. 1996, University of Cambridge  The physical laws that govern the universe prescribe how an initial  state evolves with time. In classical physics, if the initial state of a  system is specified exactly then the subsequent motion will be  completely predictable.    



2) Therefore, if we agree with them, it is logical to assume  naturalistic cause and effect as background concition to the emergence  and/or production of the universe.

Dr. Sten  Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA IMAGE/POETRY Education and Public Outreach program


Q:Which came first, matter or physical laws?

"We do not know, but matter is derivative from energy, and energy is  derivative from 'field' so in some sense, the physical laws that  determine the quantum dynamics of fields must have been primary, with  matter as we know it coming much later."



3) Since physical laws would have to proceed matter/energy, they  would have to reside in some organizing principle (such as a mind?)  since they could not reside in the workings of universe that did not yet  exist.

This leads to a Dilemma:






a) Either the laws of physics are general law like  statements  demanding a law giver (law implies a law giver)

b) Or they are mere tendencies which mark conventional  frames of reference for our observations of the uiverse.



*If the former, than since all  products of the natural world require a cause, what causes the laws of  physics? It seems there must either be an infinite regress of causes for  physical laws, or a single organizing principle capable of directing  physical law; such as a mind?

*If the latter, than the skeptic loses  the lock on scientific rationality and with it, the basis upon which to  critique religious belief as “unscientific.” After all,  just because we  don’t notice regular tendencies toward supernatural effects does not  mean that they are impossible, if physical laws are nothing but mere  tendencies.
4)Major Physicists propose Unitive principle they call "God."

MetaList on  Scinece and religion

Stephen Hawking's God



In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen  Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his  colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then  they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the  only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel  laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a  subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that  when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be  like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these  physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that  in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that  traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But  that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is  really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of  mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word  "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to  be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of  words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The  question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of  years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.



Ok These guys are not talking about the God of the Bible, but the fact  that they do resort to organizing principle proves my basic point. They  can't just leave the laws of phyiscs unexplained, they have to resort to  organizing principle that ties it all up in one neat package. But why  assume that principle can't be the personal God of the Bible? The rest  of this Website argues that it is. But the main point here is that it is  very logical to assume an organizing principle such a mind which  orgainizes and contians physical laws.But "which god" is dealt with  else where. at the very least this argument gives us a Spinza-like God.

5) Mind is best explanation for organizing  principal.

This principal would not dwell in any location, since it must proceed  the existence of all physical matter and objects. It cannot resides in  any location, or in the actions of a energy and matter, since it must  proceed them for them to come to be, or to exist. Mind is the only thing  that explians:




a. non physical location--no topos
b. Organizing function; organizing information and  sturctures. The major element of mind is organization and containment of  information. Like a genetic structure has to reside in genes, where  does an organizing pricipal for the universe reside? In a mind that  creates the universe?

6) A mind that contians physical law can be said to be creator and  thus God. Therefore,if we assume physical law there must be a  "lawgiver," therefore, God exists QED


Corollary:Science cannot Explain Laws of Physics

A. Cause of Physical Laws Unknown
1)Physical Law Merely Assumed to Exist.


OFFICE OF  DR. ROBERT C. KOONS   Post-Agnostic Science:How Physics Is RevivingThe Argument From Design

Robert C. Koons

Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
koons@phil.utexas.edu



"Some have objected that the anthropic coincidences cannot be explained,  since they involve the fundamental laws of nature. The laws of nature  are used in explaining other things -- they themselves cannot be  explained. They are rock-bottom, matters of physical necessity,  immutable and uncased. This objection is sometimes based on actual  scientific practice -- scientists seek to discover the laws of nature  and to use these laws in constructing explanations of phenomena. They do  not try to explain the laws of nature themselves. There are several points to make in response to this."


2) Skeptics object,  but Some scientist now Ask.

Paul Davies, Author of God and The New Physics, and The Mind  of God, skeptic turned believer due to the new evidence on design.  From First Things, Tempelton Award address:


"All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today  has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of  self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit  a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to  organize and complexity itself to the point where conscious beings  emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what  it all means."

"Now you may think I have written God entirely out of the picture. Who  needs a God when the laws of physics can do such a splendid job? But we  are bound to return to that burning question:
Where do the laws  of physics come from? And why those laws rather than some other  set? Most especially: Why a set of laws that drives the searing,  featureless gases coughed out of the big bang toward life and  consciousness and intelligence and cultural activities such as religion,  art, mathematics, and science?"
Koons, (Ibid.)  "...It is no longer true that scientists never seek to explain the laws  of nature. Much of recent cosmology and unified force theory has  attempted to do that. ...even if scientists never did attempt to explain  the fundamental laws, it would still be an open question whether they  should do so. Finally, whether something can or should be explained is  itself an empirical matter, to be decided on a case by case basis, and  not on the basis of dogmatic, a priori pronouncements. The anthropic  coincidences are themselves excellent evidence that the laws of nature  can and should be explained. If the laws really were absolute rock  bottom, inexplicable brute facts, then we would be faced with a set of  inexplicable coincidences. If the only price we have to pay in order to  explain these coincidences is to revise our beliefs about the  rock-bottom status of physical laws, this is a small price to pay."



B. How do Physical Laws  make a universe?
Stephen Barr



"The laws of physics are proposed by some, as brought out by Furgesson,  as constituting a "final cause" in place of God. This view is actually  suggestive of an inversion and can be turned around into an argument for  the exist of God. Barr states "The more serious problem with this idea  of laws of physics as necessary first cause is that it is based on an  elementary confusion. At most the laws of physics could be said to be  the 'formal cause' of the physical universe, whereas by first cause is  meant efficient cause, the cause of its very existence. Hawking himself  asked precisely the right question when he wrote 'even if there is only  one possible unified theory is it just a set of rules and equations?  What is it that breaths fire into the equations and makes a universe  for them to describe? The usual approach of science constituting a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a  universe for the model to describe.' That is decisive--crushing...." (in  First Things)


But Dawkins has more mistakes to make in his insistence upon a atheist straw man God. I'll follow that trajectory in part II...coming soon to a blog new you.


Ironically Dawkins makes a most telling statement:


Wouldn't we be tempted to fall on our knees and worship them, as a medieval peasant might if suddenly confronted with such miracles as a Boeing 747, a mobile telephone or Google Earth? But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us. Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable —and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.


Of course he thinks he's making a comment on the primitive superstitious mind and how it turns ordinary things we understand into "supernatural." But the irony is this statement really tells us more about Dawkins and the atheist than about medieval peasants. Rather than describing the mind of primitive mind it is rather a window in the atheist mind and shows what they deify; themselves, their own control of nature, their gadgetry, what the assume "primitives" would worship that they so easy understand (making them the objects of worship). It also shows us their need of God. They have jacked down the glamor of the divine from an eternal mystery to something they think have a handle upon, laws of physics, but of course they can't really tell us anything about them. Where are they kept? what makes them happen? How can they exist before there is a universe to describe? The faint trace of mystery and thus of deity lingers in Dawkin's liturgical praise of his own interests.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As ...
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus ...
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need. ...
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b...
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o...
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol...
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how ...
Read more

Do you say this of your own accord? (John 18:34, ESV)

By -
Image
One of the most well-known events in Scriptures is Jesus' exchange with Pontius Pilate at his trial as described in John 18. In verse 38 of that chapter, Pilate asks the question that may be the most ironic in the history of the world, "What is truth?" A less known but equally intriguing saying of Jesus from an apologetics viewpoint can be found in Jesus' response to an earlier question in the same trial. It is a question that is not often quoted, but on those rare occasions when it is quoted, Jesus' response is often overlooked as not particularly important or relevant to today's world. However, it is my experience (as well as the experience of many people who have truly spent time studying the Scriptures) that little, if any, of what Jesus said in the Bible lacks significance across time. To best understand the response, it's important to see the response in context. The situation is this: Jesus has been arrested following His betrayal by Judas I...
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc...
Read more