God Delusion Chp. 4- Why God... Doesn't Exist

[Josh]

Dawkins bills Chapter 4 of the God Delusion as his slam dunk case against theism, but I actually find it the weakest point of his argumentation (which is ironic, because it's his most original argumentation).

Dawkins posits that if theists are going to argue that it's impossible to imagine something as complex as life or the universe coming into existence by chance, then they are in a double bind because the most complex thing in the universe is God, and how would His coming into existence then be explained?

The major problem with this line of argumentation, and this point has not been lost on his critics, is that Dawkins presupposes a God who is not transcendent to the universe. The whole point of the theistic argument is that it is only those things that come into existence within the universe that must have a cause. And it is only those things within the universe that can be assessed for their degree of fine-tuning/ improbability as well.

I'd also like to comment on Dawkins thoughts in this chapter about Irreducible Complexity and The Worship of the Gaps (on which I think he made some good points), and on the Anthropic Principle, which I have some disagreement with.

[Josh]

Dawkins cites my man pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his criticism of how theists often resort to a "God of the gaps" methodology.

In general, I agree with Dawkins that theists have a tendency to look for current "blind spots" within science and too quickly claim that the lack of a naturalistic explanation is equivalent to evidence of a supernatural one. There have been many examples of things that Christians once believed for such reasons, which have since been disproven by the advancement of science.

Also, I agree with him that the "God of the gaps" approach can be a lazy default that could stifle scientific progress.

However, I still think "gaps" in scientific knowledge can be instructive and can sometimes be considered as evidence of Christian claims in particular situations, just as such "gaps" can be indicators of alternative theories in secular scientific endeavors.

In my mind, the difference between a weak "God of the gaps" argument and a strong one has to do with whether, as science progresses, the particular gap one is talking about is getting wider or narrower.

Another observation: Dawkins brings up "multiverse" theory as a way of escape from the appearance that the universe is so fine-tuned as to have been impossible to come about by chance.

This is not really an escape, however, because one would still have to explain the existence and cause of this hypothetical, untestable, and likewise fine-tuned "multiverse".

[Josh]

A response from Roy Abraham Varghese:

Dawkins and the others ask, “Who created God?” Now, clearly, theists and atheists can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe*. Something always existed.

It is precisely at this point that the theme of rationality returns to the forefront. Contrary to the protestations of the atheists, there is a major difference between what theists and atheists claim about that which always exists. Atheists say that the explanation for the universe is simply that it is eternally existing, but we cannot explain how this eternally existing state of affairs came to be. It is inexplicable and has to be accepted as such. Theists, however, are adamant in pointing out that God is something that is not ultimately inexplicable: God’s existence is inexplicable to us, but not to God.


*or, since we know that our universe hasn't always existed, this option might be more specifically called the "multiverse".

[krhagan19]

Josh, have I got a book for you! www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Denial/dp/083083446X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251146602&sr=8-1 It is called "The Dawkins Delusion" and it systematically refutes the "God Delusion"

[Josh]

I have it and have been reading it along with the God Delusion. But, yeah, good tip.