Dear Saint:Quote:Let's say that I assert that A=A and A cannot equal ~A ever. Someone responds to me arguing that this assertion is only based upon my being part of a "logical" world--I assume without reason that the same logical relationships would apply even to an "alogical" world.The first observation I would make about this argument is you are comparing an analytic statement (A=A etc.) with a synthetic statement about a hypothetical supernatural world. You next invoke "logic" which is fundamental to analytical statements. In fact, you couldn't have an analytical statement without logic. But logic is not fundamental to synthetic statements (only to the analysis of synthetic statements). In other words, natural laws are alogical. Supernatural laws can be assumed to be equally alogical.Although I may not have made this clear, my intent was to suggest that a supernatural realm might reasonably be supposed to operate by other laws than our natural universe. In fact, this argument is no different than arguments about alternative universes posited by string theorists which operate according to laws totally different from those governing our own universe.Quote:What reason do you even have to bring up such a realm of existence? Does it even make sense? Can one conceive of an "illogical" existence or a "supernatural" existence?Let's turn this around. Why is it more reasonable to assume the Big Bang was uncaused than caused? Either position rests on foundational assumptions which cannot be proved.Can one conceive of an "illogical" existence? Sure. Dissident Heart... Can one conceive of a "supernatural" existence. Well, er, yes. We have about a zillion religions demonstrating that fact. Not to mention a whole raft of horror stories (RD doubtless includes the Bible among their number), fantasy stories, supernatural tales, etc.Quote:I think that the point Richard is making is one that is frequently made in debates concerning contingency and necessity in regards to existence. The question asked is, "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" And the answer is supposed to be that God explains this. But then we are left with the question, "Why does God exist rather than nothing?" and the stock response is that this question does not apply to God, it would only apply to contingent matter and energy.The debate over contingency and necessity is an interesting and vexing problem for theists and non-theists alike, but since Dawkins does not reference the problem in his argument on page 31, I see no reason to include it in a critique of that argument.Quote:In terms of Richard's point, the question is, "Why does complexity exist", and the answer critiqued is "God creates complexity." Richard is essentially arguing that this doesn't really answer that question, because God himself must be pretty complex.Agreed.Quote:Instead of answering the question, the theist is essentially saying, "Complexity doesn't need to be explained, I can posit a being that lives in a realm that dodges these explanations".Some theists make this argument, which I agree is illogical. However, the argument isn't necessary to theism per se. Here's what I mean:Quote:"Complexity exists because it is the end product of selective pressures and random changes"That is only partially correct because "selective pressures and random changes" must occur within a framework of natural laws to operate. Science is well equipped, in fact perfectly equipped, to understand natural laws. But science cannot offer an explanation for why there should be natural laws in the first place. Ignoring the question because science can't answer it is metaphysical naturalism, pure and simple. It is not an unreasonable position, but it is also not the ONLY reasonable position. Asserting that a question must be ignored because an empirical answer is not possible is a philosophical position, not a fundamental truth.Finally, you haven't responded to the real show stopper in Dawkins' argument, which is that he confuses natural creative intelligences that evolved in the natural world with a hypothetical supernatural intelligence which, by definition, could not have evolved in the natural world. That's what makes the argument meaningless. I don't object that other arguments can be made, but RD didn't make them on page 31, which is where he explicitly concludes that God is a delusion.The problem I have with that whole idea, and, in fact, the title of the book, is that belief in God cannot shown to be false. Ultimately, what RD is trying to do on page 31 (what he promised to do on page 2) is demonstrate that belief in God is a scientific hypothesis. I would say his demonstration fails. Utterly.Fiske

Dear Mad:One thing Dawkins does get right in the God Delusion is stating that Miller cleans the ID crowd's clocks in Finding Darwin's God. But, he doesn't mention that Miller goes on to make a sophisticated argument for theism in harmony with science. Here is a bit from chapter 7, "Beyond Materialism" (p. 213).Quote:Remarkably, what the critics of evolution consistently fail to see is that the very indeterminacy they misconstrue as randomness has to be, by any definition, a key feature of the mind of God. Remember, there is one (and only one) alternative to unpredictability -- and that alternative is a strict, predictable determinism. The only alternative to what they describe as randomness would be a nonrandom universe of clockwork mechanisms that would also rule out active intervention by any Supreme Deity. Caught between these two alternatives, they fail to see that the one more consistent with their religious beliefs is actually the mainstream scientific view linking evolution with the quantum reality of the physical sciences.We need not ask if the nature of quantum physics proves the existence of a Supreme Being, which it certainly does not. Quantum physics does allow for it in an interesting way, and certainly excludes the possibility that we will ever gain a complete understanding of the details of nature. We have progressed so much in self-awareness and understanding that we now know there is a boundary around our ability to grasp reality. And we cannot say why it is there. But that does not make the boundary any less real, or any less consistent with the idea that it was the necessary handiwork of a Creator who fashioned it to allow us the freedom and independence necessary to make our acceptance or rejection of His love a genuinely free choice.Committed atheists like Richard Dawkins would attack with ridicule any suggestion that room for the work of a Deity can be found in the physical nature of reality. But Dawkins's personal skepticism no more disproves the existence of God than the creationists' incredulity is an argument against evolution.Miller is not setting out to prove the existence of God, just to demonstrate that the existence of God is not contradictory to modern science, and the fact that he is a professional biologist, as well-versed in the subject matter (if not more so) than Dawkins, makes his counterpoint to the latter's claims all the more interesting.Fiske

Dear Gas:Quote:All Miller is really pointing out is that so long as there are gaps in our knowledge, a God of the gaps can be used to fill them.You haven't read the book, have you? Miller, in fact, does not argue for a God of the gaps and specifically demonstrates why such arguments fail and are unnecessary. How is it, do you think, that he so successfully demolishes Intelligent Design arguments as Dawkins states on page 131 of The God Delusion?Fiske Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/5/07 12:36 am

Fiske--All Miller is really pointing out is that so long as there are gaps in our knowledge, a God of the gaps can be used to fill them.I'd like to point out how wonderful the God of the gaps hypothesis has been for phenomenon like weather (God creates rain, drought, etc.), complex biological creatures (God apparently had to create differing species), and so on.I'd argue that committed atheists wouldn't outright state that there isn't room for a God--unless, of course, like me, they felt the whole concept of God was internally contradictory as well as conceptually meaningless--but instead that there is simply no reason to believe in God, and in fact plenty of reasons to disbelieve in God, both pragmatic and otherwise.

Quote:"Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it."This is NOT what theists are asserting, and it very definitely does confuse naturally evolved intelligences with a hypothetical supernatural intelligence.I realize that this is not what theists are asserting. However, Dawkins' point is that, regardless of what they are saying, their argument is self-defeating because it entails that God himself has to be explained. They are saying one thing, but actually examining the issue leads us to see that what they are saying is misguided.Dawkins doesn't make it as explicit as I do, which is fine considering that this is supposed to be a popular book written for the average reader. Ultimately, though, I think you are missing the finer points of the argument.Now, part of the God hypothesis is that God explains the existence of complexity, correct? Of course! This is one of the main justifications offered for God's existence. Dawkins is responding that this argument fails because it posits an entity more complex than the complexity it was meant to explain. If the theist backpedals and remarks that God's complexity does not need to be explained, then essentially what he is saying s that, at some level, complexity need not be explained. Here's the important part: Because God's existence was invoked to explain complexity in the first place, the admission that complexity need not be explained destroys the only reason given to think that this being exists.Dawkins realizes, as I do, that those who take the route you are advocating--to argue that God's complexity doesn't need an explanation--are essentially shooting themselves in their feet. They say that complexity needs to be explained, posit a complex God to explain it, and then say, "Oh, nevermind, complexity doesn't really have to be explained." His point is that those who choose not to take this self-defeating route also reach a dead-end, because they are positing something just as complex as the complexity they are seeking to explain. Dawkins views the attempts to argue that God is "outside" of explanation, logic, or whatever is merely a cop-out--which it is--that stifles legitimate inquiry into the question.

Dear Gas:I don't see any reason to continue debating this. I assert that the argument on page 31 is flawed as a result of a logical blunder, and you have not provided one shred of counter evidence from the argument.Quote:Dawkins views the attempts to argue that God is "outside" of explanation, logic, or whatever is merely a cop-out Good for him! What does that prove?Anything beyond our universe is outside logical explanation, but it doesn't follow from that that nothing is outside our universe.The explanation for complexity in the natural world has been convincingly provided by science, (sophisticated theists like Kenneth Miller, and probably MadArchitect, agree to this as easily as non-theists). But the facts that the universe exists and that natural laws exist are beyond science, beyond logical explanation. There is simply no way to prove that the universe and natural laws exist because of God or not because no empirical evidence applies. Maybe the universe is all that exists and maybe it came into existence by itself. Or, maybe the universe is NOT all there is and it didn't come into existence by itself. There is no way to know.I'm not making this argument because I believe God is responsible for the existence of the universe. In fact, I don't. But I can't prove that and neither can you. Guess what, Richard Dawkins can't prove it either. People who believe in God are not any more deluded than people who don't. (People who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or that evolution isn't real are another matter, but neither belief is essential to theism.)What is really hard to admit is that one just doesn't know. And, in fact, can't know. But this doesn't justify pretending otherwise. Or saying that people who don't agree with you are deluded. Fiske Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/5/07 1:25 am

I haven't read the book, but I was addressing the snippet you posted.He says:Quote:We need not ask if the nature of quantum physics proves the existence of a Supreme Being, which it certainly does not. Quantum physics does allow for it in an interesting way, and certainly excludes the possibility that we will ever gain a complete understanding of the details of nature.What is he saying? Quantum physics doesn't prove the existence of God, but it can accomodate God.In other words, quantum physics gives us no reason to believe in God, but it does not rule out God either--this is a God of the gaps argument if indeed he is tryin to say that the fact that it doesn't rule out God gives us reason to believe in God--despite the fact that he admits in the first half that it doesn't prove the existence of God.The theory of plate tectonics doesn't prove the existence of God, either, nd it is compatible with claims about God's existence, too. This hardly provides a suitable foundation for "finding God", though.As much as I respect Miller for his work against Creationism, I think this particular argument about God is lacking substance. Perhaps he is trying too hard to show that evolution doesn't preclude belief in God, and bending over backwards to show it. I suppose if people who believed in leprechuans were forming political movements that critiqued evolution, he'd publish a book titled "Finding Darwin's Leprechaun" and explain how science doesn't necessarily rule out their existence, despite the fact that it hasn't proved their existence, either.

Dear Gas:Quote:In other words, quantum physics gives us no reason to believe in God, but it does not rule out God either--this is a God of the gaps argument if indeed he is tryin to say that the fact that it doesn't rule out God gives us reason to believe in God--despite the fact that he admits in the first half that it doesn't prove the existence of God.Even in the snippet I provided Miller explicitly states that quantum indeterminacy does not prove the existence of God. What he argues is that if God does exist, quantum indeterminacy would be required for him to interact with the natural world. It's an interesting argument, but to understand it you'll have to read the book.I can't explain in a couple of paragraphs what he covers in 300 pages. And, rather obviously, he did not convince me that God exists. What he did convince me of is that a perfectly reasonable and rational person, in fact a scientist, can believe in God without being deluded.Fiske

So Miller's argument is this: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. (Even though we are given no "reasons" to believe in God? Perhaps Miller should find out what makes a belief reasonable!)Belief in extraterrestials with polka dot hats who like to eat stray cats is also compatible with all science tells us, but that doesn't make it reasonable for scientists to go about believing in such a thing. The fact that he has no solid reasons for believing in these beings is what makes his belief unreasonable!It could only be considered "reasonable" if one accepted that God of the gaps arguments are "reasonable". All Miller is saying is that God is compatible with science, not that anything regarding God is shown to be true. Arguing that God is compatible with science is NOT the same thing as showing that belief in God is reasonable or somehow correct.

Quote:Anything beyond our universe is outside logical explanation, but it doesn't follow from that that nothing is outside our universe.Actually, I would think that the way you have described it here does make it follow that nothing is outside our universe! Think of everything that is "outside logical explanation". A square circle is one example. Or a dog that is a dog but also a water balloon at the same time and in the same respects. Or how about a cat that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, and which is also both big and small in the same respects? These are things that clearly do not exist. In fact, one of the definitive ways of proving nonexistence is to show that something is illogical or contradictory. It makes no sense to say that something contradictory or illogical exists. So to argue that there is a realm where "logic does not apply" is essentially to argue that there is a "nonexistent" realm. In other words--such a realm does not, and could not, exist.But at any rate, I think we can rephrase what you are saying to be less problematic. We can simply say:Quote:The fact that a realm is beyond our comprehension doesn't entail that such a realm does not exist.But you are missing the point. Dawkins isn't arguing that God doesn't exist because we can't comprehend him, or because he is outside of our understanding. Instead, he is arguing that God does not exist because a supernatural God is not a legitimate explanatory entity--when it does attempt to explain complexity, it only multiplies it and leaves us pondering how God got to be so complex, and when it doesn't attempt to explain complexity by arguing that at some point complexity needs no explanation, then it leaves us without any reason to posit the God's existence in the first place. To posit a realm "beyond explanation" to dodge criticisms about the lacking explanatory power of an entity is as foolish as positing a realm "beyond logic" to dodge criticisms about the contradictory nature of an entity. This isn't "theology" but instead the most blatant and contrary to reason ad hoc cover-ups ever mustered.Imagine a student arguing with his teacher about math. The teacher says that one and one don't make three, but the student says that the teacher lacks an understanding of "numerology", which posits the existence of a realm where traditional mathematical rules don't apply, and where one and one DO make three. The teacher would rightly construe this as the flimsiest and most ridiculous ad hoc response ever offered to try and save an incorrect answer.