Ch. 2 - THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

FiskeMiles · Experienced Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Posts: 108 Gender:

Dear Gas:

Quote:
Science doesn't prove God's existence, but in fact God's existence is compatible with scientific claims in quantum physics. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe in God.

This is a non-sequitor, and it's not what Miller argues.

Quote:
The fact that he has no solid reasons for believing in these beings is what makes his belief unreasonable!

What do you know of Miller's reasons for believing in God? In fact, you haven't read the book so the only thing you know about it are the three paragraphs I posted above, which you haven't even read carefully. Yet this has not prevented you from leaping to all sorts of conclusions about Miller's arguments.

It seems to me that you're not interested in listening to and understanding what other people are trying to say about theism because you've already made up your mind on the subject.

Fiske

George Ricker · Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Ch. 2 - THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

I think my perception of what's going on in this chapter is different than some of the others.

Dawkins describes the god hypothesis as the proposition that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

He goes on to write, "This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."

Since, according to Dawkins, creative intelligences arrive late in the evolutionary process and are, thus, a relatively recent feature of the universe, a creative intelligence cannot be responsible for designing the universe. Thus, "God," in the sense defined, is a delusion. At least, that's the author's contention.

Dawkins states the god hypothesis and then offers an alternative to it that he thinks has more value and that he proposes to defend in his book. The first statement is what will be discussed in this chapter. The second statement is a position that will be defended throughout the book

After stating the god hypothesis, Dawkins considers various approaches that have been made to it. He writes briefly about polytheism, including in that discussion some comments about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Catholic pantheon (yes, I know Catholics don't consider them gods——so does Dawkins) of saints.

Turning to monotheism, Dawkins notes that the god hypothesis of this chapter would have to be fleshed out to accommodate the Abrahamic "God" of Judaism, Christianity and Islam because that "God" is a personal deity who may intervene in human affairs. He then segues to the deism of the European Enlightenment and the secularism of the founders of the United States. He notes that deism has been at times as reviled as atheism and cites the treatment of Thomas Paine as an example.

Dawkins spends time on the American experiment in secularism because he is aiming at an American, as well as British and European, audience and because there is a strong effort by some to enshrine a particular variant of monotheism, Christianity, as the unofficial official state religion here in the United States. (He doesn't state this, by the way. This as my interpretation of what he is attempting.)

He also takes a brief side trip talking about the possibility that one or more of the Founding Fathers might have been closet atheists. It's an interesting but unproductive journey because there is no way to know. Based on their written words, I'm inclined to think Jefferson, Franklin and, certainly, Paine were really deists. However, two of the three, definitely Jefferson (possibly Franklin), have been claimed by everyone from atheists to liberal Christians.

In the next section, Dawkins considers agnosticism, which he divides into two types: temporary agnosticism in practice and permanent agnosticism in practice (In passing, I thought the acronyms were much too studied, an attempt at cuteness gone awry). He finds the former to be useful in cases where there is no evidence for either side of a proposition. The latter is less satisfactory because it places some propositions permanently off limits by declaring there can never be, because of the nature of the subject under consideration, any evidence and consequently no way to find answers. Dawkins rejects this form of agnosticism because he points out there are many questions in the history of ideas that once were regarded as out of science's reach but have since been resolved.

This is appropriate to a discussion of the god hypothesis because agnosticism, particularly the permanent kind, is often used to place that hypothesis out of bounds to any scientific inquiry. Dawkins notes that the hypothesis should be considered scientifically because if the god of the hypothesis actually exists, the universe should have a different character than if it does not.

Clearly, Dawkins does not claim the god of the god hypothesis can be shown to exist or not to exist. What he does claim is that it is an appropriate subject for scientific consideration and that while we may not be able to answer the question with certainty, we certainly can evaluate the relevant probabilities. He rejects the notion that because the god-idea cannot be proven or disproven the hypothesis is a 50-50 proposition.

After concluding that section with a discussion of degrees of probability vis-a-vis the god-idea, Dawkins turns his attention to another approach to the god hypothesis, the NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) approach of Stephen Jay Gould. Not surprisingly, Dawkins rejects out of hand the notion that scientists may not or should not comment on the notion of "God's possible superintendence of nature" as a scientific matter.

This "hands-off" approach is unrealistic anyway because many of the claims of many believers in various versions of the god hypothesis are about people and events that supposedly happened in this universe and, therefore, cannot be immune to scientific inquiry. Religionists, he notes, are all too quick to latch on to anything in science that appears to support their position. They don't reject the opinions of those modern scientists who do accept the god hypothesis as outside the bounds of legitimate scientific inquiry.

Dawkins bristles at, what he calls, the "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists" who cling to NOMA in an effort to find allies among the religious. While understanding the impulse, he thinks the approach substitutes a short-term, and short-sighted, tactic for long-term strategy. Dawkins comes down squarely on the side of those who see the attack by creationists (ID advocates) on the teaching of evolution in public schools as part of a larger campaign against science and reason itself. He notes that creationists also have no use for NOMA. While some in the scientific community cling to the proposition that science should not comment on the god hypothesis, and other religious matters, creationists don't hesitate to attempt to substitute their creation myths for genuine scientific inquiry.

Finally, Dawkins concludes with some discussion of another hypothesis, that of extraterrestrial intelligent beings (of the natural sort, not gods) and how we might think about it. He contrasts the evidence we might investigate, the probabilities we might consider and the difference between the "little green men" hypothesis and the god hypothesis. Borrowing terminology from Daniel C. Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he notes the difference between "cranes" and "skyhooks."

While I don't think this chapter is the inconsequential hash some of you seem to think it is, I do think Dawkins might have arranged things better. However, the overall consideration of the various approaches that are made to the god hypothesis (as he defines it) is essential to what follows and useful in understanding what he has to say.

Personally, I thought he would have been better served by calling the chapter The God Hypotheses. Clearly there is more than one hypothesis at work here. Dawkins may regard them all as variants on a common theme, but I take the position described by David Eller in Natural Atheism that there is no "God," there are only gods. The notion of a single god-idea seems indefensible. People worship all sorts of gods, and as often as not, they can't clearly describe or define them to themselves, let alone anyone else.

That is not Dawkins' position, however, so I'll leave it at that. I thought Chapter Two was useful and, usually, entertaining.

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

irishrosem · Doctorate Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 536 Gender:

DH: Being unable/unwilling to make the distinction between Bull Connor's God of White Supremacy and Dr. King's God of Agapic Revolution should disqualify anyone from making any meaningful comments on the matter

As I said, to Dawkins, myself and many others, making a distinction between your two versions of god is useless. It’s like making a distinction between the comic book and movie versions of Superman (or Storm in the X-Men who I think was seriously misinterpreted in the films) within a real world context. Just because you believe god exists, doesn’t mean that Dawkins has to tread lightly in making sure he doesn’t insult your particular delusion. His conclusion is outside the interpretation of gods, it is directed at all gods, good or bad. I am not going to comment further, for fear of indulging your mushroomesque posts (you’re not a member of UDV are you?), which could result in steering the discussion away from the book. There’s already a thread largely dedicated to Dawkins’ tone, use that to vent.

Niall:…religion is used to justify anything and everything, both positive and negative, in a religious country.

That’s exactly my point. Religion, or god, didn’t do these things (good or bad), despite the attempt to attribute causality to religion or god. People, not god, are responsible for their actions.

If you want to look at how religion was used to justify slavery I suggest you look up When Slavery was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War (Religion in the South) by John Patrick Daly. This book develops the idea that both pro and anti slavery views developed from the same religious perceptions of “freedom.” I, however, can’t actually recommend the book; I haven’t yet read it through, merely put it on my “to-be-considered” reading list. I also did a quick search on James Henley Thornwell (actually I was looking for some of his quotes) and found this article: “The US Civil War as a Theological War: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South.” Its works cited list, I think, would give you ample of reading material to further investigate, if you wish.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: god mattered...

irishrose: His conclusion is outside the interpretation of gods, it is directed at all gods, good or bad.

Which is the key, crucial, vital flaw in his argument.

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: Re: god mattered...

Thanks Irish, might try looking into some of those.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Saint Gasoline · Intern Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 151 Gender:

Quote:
So because the existence of God doesn't explain how the natural world operates, God can't exist? Does this seem convincing to you?

That is not what I have said. I have said that God is posited to explain something about the natural world. However, it turns out that God is NOT an explanation for the thing in question. Therefore, we have no reason to believe in God.

Saint Gasoline · Intern Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 151 Gender:

Quote:
What do you know of Miller's reasons for believing in God? In fact, you haven't read the book so the only thing you know about it are the three paragraphs I posted above, which you haven't even read carefully. Yet this has not prevented you from leaping to all sorts of conclusions about Miller's arguments.

I know of Miller's arguments the bits you have posted, which show that he has not given a reason to believe in God. Earlier, you said that Miller's arguments made it "reasonable" to believe in God, but so far, the only "reasons" you have offered by quoting Miller are God of the gaps arguments: "God is compatible with quantum physics", etc.

Compatibility doesn't make a belief reasonable.

If Miller makes a legitimate argument for belief in God based upon some sort of evidence or reason, then by all means, post it. All I'm saying is that the excerpts you've posted here don't give anyone a reason to believe in God at all.

FiskeMiles · Experienced Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Posts: 108 Gender:

Dear Irish:

mushroomesque -- very apt!

Fiske

FiskeMiles · Experienced Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Posts: 108 Gender:

Dear Saint:

Quote:
I have said that God is posited to explain something about the natural world.

But all theists do not posit God to explain something about the natural world. In fact, some theists (like Einstein) argue that the natural world explains something about God.

Fiske

FiskeMiles · Experienced Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Posts: 108 Gender:

Dear Gas:

Quote:
If Miller makes a legitimate argument for belief in God based upon some sort of evidence or reason, then by all means, post it. All I'm saying is that the excerpts you've posted here don't give anyone a reason to believe in God at all.

All I'm saying is that your characterization of Miller's arguments is inaccurate. If you are interested, read the book for yourself. There is no way I can read it for you.

Fiske

PS: Don't take this as an unfriendly put down -- I'm simply not qualified to make Miller's arguments. Moreover, whatever you think regarding Miller's Christianity, his critique of Intelligent Design is absolutely devastating and something any atheist interested in the matter would benefit from reading.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT