What's wrong with Dawkins?

[wanstronian]

The physical processes in the brain are blind in the sense that they do not know what they are doing. For the physicalist, beliefs are simply predetermined modes of activity. There is no insight or foresight involved. Like habits they are programmed to follow certain routines. Unlike a rational being they cannot adjust automatically to an unusual situation. The flexibility of a mind with free will is a far more powerful explanation of knowledge, insight and understanding than a biological machine which is not responsible for what it does.

I’m not denying that at all, but the absence of free will does not preclude the possibility of learning and applying that learning to new situations. Examples from the animal kingdom are rife, there’s no reason why our advanced evolutionary position should not take this to new levels.

The question of the ultimate origin of free will remains.

If you mean by this, the unexplained something that allows us intellectually to become seemingly more than the sum of our parts, then yes. This phenomenon is so far completely unexplained.

One Rational Being with free will is sufficient. (Occam’s Razor).

If by this you mean a single person, that’s true enough. If you mean “God”, then you really shouldn’t be using Occam’s Razor as a prop.

 

[Fran65]

You know, I just don’t get it when people say this. We have a universe, which is clearly empirical evidence (if we assume it’s real.) If not, we each know that we are real, so that is our evidence.

I honestly can’t think of a philosopher that doesn’t, when trying to explain the foundations of being - that is the things we perceive, come to Being - a first principle. There are some who don’t try to do it and remain silent, and a few who deny any knowledge is possible (by which they mean, any.) Even physicists understand this, because the nature of their particular pursuit touches on it in a way the other branches of the sciences don’t.

I am with you on this one - I, personally take the universe (and my own existence) as evidence for God. However, that is a subjective judgement. There are competing explanations (e.g. materialism) and no direct, observable or measurable evidence of God as Catholics understand Him. By this I mean that no one has seen Him or experienced Him in a way that is verifiable and incontravertible. For example, I see evidence for God in the natural world; others do not, but neither of us can ‘prove’ whether God exists or not. It is still possible that the universe is solely the result of physical processes and nothing more. However if I measure the weight of iron as 2.75kgs, someone else can check that weight and agree or disagree. The iron either weighs 2.75kgs or not and we can know which it is using our senses.

In addition, I guess that its also possible for a first cause to exist without the other characteristics we ascribe to God i.e. Good, Perfect, Omniscient and Omnipotent. However, my belief is that God does exist with those attributes - but I can’t prove it.

 

[Fran65]

If you mean “God”, then you really shouldn’t be using Occam’s Razor as a prop.

Why not? God is the simplest explanation! Therefore Occam’s razor is entirely appropriate.

The existence of Being with the attributes of God is more simple than any other possible explanation for Free Will.

If as Dawkin’s suggests free will is a result of both physiology and the environment there are an awful lot of assumptions to make between the ‘experience’ of free will by an individual and its development over the millenia in a biological organism. As Dawkins himself admits regarding free will “its complicated”.

 

[Contarini]

Do you feel that the two are not analagous? If they’re not, why not?

Because God is not a limited object within the universe.

Any atheist who uses this analogy is not even worth debating with, because they aren’t bothering to understand traditional theism in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I am with you on this one - I, personally take the universe (and my own existence) as evidence for God. However, that is a subjective judgement. There are competing explanations (e.g. materialism) and no direct, observable or measurable evidence of God as Catholics understand Him. By this I mean that no one has seen Him or experienced Him in a way that is verifiable and incontravertible. For example, I see evidence for God in the natural world; others do not, but neither of us can ‘prove’ whether God exists or not. It is still possible that the universe is solely the result of physical processes and nothing more. However if I measure the weight of iron as 2.75kgs, someone else can check that weight and agree or disagree. The iron either weighs 2.75kgs or not and we can know which it is using our senses.

In addition, I guess that its also possible for a first cause to exist without the other characteristics we ascribe to God i.e. Good, Perfect, Omniscient and Omnipotent. However, my belief is that God does exist with those attributes - but I can’t prove it.

But materialism doesn’t explain the observable universe at all. Just like phlogiston, which was at one time a popular scientific theory, didn’t explain much. Or Newtonian mechanics don’t account for all the observations about planetary movements. A theory that better accounted for - whatever- is going to be a better theory, in science or philosophy. And Aristotle, despite being a heap of dust, explains reality a lot more convincingly that someone like Dawkins.

I agree that first principles and first causes don’t necessarily look much like God. But when talking about “proofs” of God’s existence, that is the first step. Once you see that beautiful equation that explains everything that physicists lust after actually exists, then you can talk about what it looks like.

 

[wanstronian]

Why not? God isthe simplest explanation! Therefore Occam’s razor is entirely appropriate.

So this being, who created the infinite universe, ensured that we all came into being, hears all our individual billions of thoughts (not to mention those of other life forms throughout the universe), knows everything, is everywhere, can do anything (including suspending the laws of physics), exists outside time and space… is simple?

It might be a simple word - three letters, a single syllable - but God, if he existed, would by necessity be an almost infinitely complex entity.

Stating that God is simple just diminishes your argument - it’s completely counter-intuitive. It’s a preposterous statement in the context of all he is supposed to have done and be capable of.

 

[Fran65]

But materialism doesn’t explain the observable universe at all.

It certainly doesn’t explain the origin or purpose of the universe. But it has however been successful on a local scale (our world) at solving physical problems e.g. it explains how and why bacteria multiply and how to stop them. Why some bacteria are benefical and others are not etc.

 

[Fran65]

Stating that God is simple just diminishes your argument - it’s completely counter-intuitive. It’s a preposterous statement in the context of all he is supposed to have done and be capable of.

What is difficult or complex about an uncaused first cause?

Its our own inability to imagine this that makes God appear complex.

St Thomas Aquinas has a very good argument and explanation for God being simple. I suggest that you read Chapter 3 of Brian Davies book The Thought of Thomas Aquinas.

 

[antunesaa]

Nonsense. You could potentially have laws which describe how free will comes to exist. But it wouldn’t dictate the decisions people take.

You’re placing your belief of the existence of free will on a physical law that is not known yet. My argument is deeper than that: any physical law that can be grasped by science must be precisely described and repeatable; but if free will must obey a physical law (deterministic or not), it is not free will because the law constrains it. And if you mean that a physical law describes how free will comes about but free will itself cannot be explained by any physical law and merely exists, then you have just created an object outside science, that is, a metaphysical object.

I give you a simple example. Suppose science describes a law that says that under circumstances X a subject chooses A 50% of the time and B 50% of the time. Now, you would say that this preserves free will because you can still choose A or B. I say it doesn’t. Why? Because if it is your free will that you should choose A 75% of the time and you are put 100 times under circumstances X, the theory is going to be rejected immediately. (For instance, if you choose A exactly 75 times, the odds that the theory is true are 1 in 5.2 million.) So, either you are deluded that you actually choose in each experiment and the theory is true; or you actually have free will and the theory is rejected.

This is just an example but if you think about it the conclusion is without loss of generality. My point from the beginning is: if you reject any metaphysical object, you are permanently deluded that you have free will. Either you embrace materialistic atheism and give up free will, or you reject it and accept that some objects exist but cannot be described scientifically, which destroys the main claim of Dawkins and other atheists that those things do not exist.

 

[wanstronian]

You’re placing your belief of the existence of free will on a physical law that is not known yet. My argument is deeper than that: any physical law that can be grasped by science must be precisely described and repeatable; but if free will must obey a physical law (deterministic or not), it is not free will because the law constrains it. And if you mean that a physical law describes how free will comes about but free will itself cannot be explained by any physical law and merely exists, then you have just created an object outside science, that is, a metaphysical object.

I give you a simple example. Suppose science describes a law that says that under circumstances X a subject chooses A 50% of the time and B 50% of the time. Now, you would say that this preserves free will because you can still choose A or B. I say it doesn’t. Why? Because if it is your free will that you should choose A 75% of the time and you are put 100 times under circumstances X, the theory is going to be rejected immediately. (For instance, if you choose A exactly 75 times, the odds that the theory is true are 1 in 5.2 million.) So, either you are deluded that you actually choose in each experiment and the theory is true; or you actually have free will and the theory is rejected.

This is just an example but if you think about it the conclusion is without loss of generality. My point from the beginning is: if you reject any metaphysical object, you are permanently deluded that you have free will. Either you embrace materialistic atheism and give up free will, or you reject it and accept that some objects exist but cannot be described scientifically, which destroys the main claim of Dawkins and other atheists that those things do not exist.

I’m not evangelising Dawkins here. I accept that there may be something that gives us genuine free will. I don’t know what it is. Saying it is “God” doesn’t explain it at all.

 

[antunesaa]

I’m not evangelising Dawkins here. I accept that there may be something that gives us genuine free will. I don’t know what it is. Saying it is “God” doesn’t explain it at all.

My point is that, if you admit that free will exists, at some point you have to postulate something that is outside Science’s scope, and for which you cannot produce empirical evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not denying that at all, but the absence of free will does not preclude the possibility of learning and applying that learning to new situations. Examples from the animal kingdom are rife, there’s no reason why our advanced evolutionary position should not take this to new levels.

You are still faced with the problem of responsibility. How do you explain it? Or do you reject it?

If you mean by this, the unexplained something that allows us intellectually to become seemingly more than the sum of our parts, then yes. This phenomenon is so far completely unexplained.

At least you have the courage and the honesty to admit it - unlike Dawkins who regards it as an unimportant philosophical question in which he has no interest…

If by this you mean a single person, that’s true enough. If you mean “God”, then you really shouldn’t be using Occam’s Razor as a prop.

Why do you regard economy as a prop? In any other explanation you would regard it as one of the most important criteria!

 

[Contarini]

So this being, who created the infinite universe, ensured that we all came into being, hears all our individual billions of thoughts (not to mention those of other life forms throughout the universe), knows everything, is everywhere, can do anything (including suspending the laws of physics), exists outside time and space… is simple?

It might be a simple word - three letters, a single syllable - but God, if he existed, would by necessity be an almost infinitely complex entity.

Stating that God is simple just diminishes your argument - it’s completely counter-intuitive. It’s a preposterous statement in the context of all he is supposed to have done and be capable of.

Hopefully your shock at this basic theological proposition will get you to rethink your assumptions about what we mean when we speak of God. We are not talking about a being of the same kind as other beings but greater. You think that God must be complex because the more creatures approximate God’s perfection, the more complex they are. An analogy here would be a polygon and a circle. You can create a million-sided polygon that looks a lot like a circle to the naked eye. But a circle in fact only has one “side.” To a triangle or a square (if it could think), it might seem obvious that a circle must have even more sides than a million-sided polygon, because a million-sided polygon is far more like a circle than a triangle or square. But this would be false.

Edwin

 

[wanstronian]

Because God is not a limited object within the universe.

How do you know that?

Any atheist who uses this analogy is not even worth debating with, because they aren’t bothering to understand traditional theism in the first place.

And any theist who tries to avoid the question by asserting that their belief can’t be argued by analogy is not worth debating with, because they aren’t bothering to argue rationally.

 

[wanstronian]

What is difficult or complex about an uncaused first cause?

In and of itself, probably nothing. If your God is simply another name for the unknown, postulated “cause” of our universe, then fine. But don’t go making that cause a sentient being, there’s nothing to suggest it’s accurate.

If, however, your “God” is the being capable of all that I described in my post, don’t go stating that he’s simple. All that suggests is that you are.

Its our own inability to imagine this that makes God appear complex.

Well, that’s a neat little get-out clause, isn’t it! One of several used by theists to avoid facing up to the repercussions of the existence of God.

St Thomas Aquinas has a very good argument and explanation for God being simple. I suggest that you read Chapter 3 of Brian Davies book The Thought of Thomas Aquinas.

I’m not going to go and buy a book about the thoughts of a priest who died 605 years before the invention of the light bulb. If you can point me towards an online reference I’ll humour you. But looking at his five reasons for the existence of God on Wikipedia (please correct me - and it - if it’s wrong), I don’t believe I’ll find them remotely convincing.

 

[wanstronian]

You are still faced with the problem of responsibility. How do you explain it? Or do you reject it?

I explain it in the same way. I don’t really know - nobody does - yet. But “God” is not a rational or complete explanation.

At least you have the courage and the honesty to admit it - unlike Dawkins who regards it as an unimportant philosophical question in which he has no interest…

It’s not courageous! If I diverge from Dawkins on this point then that’s fine. I don’t worship the guy, I just think that a lot of what he says makes sense.

Why do you regard economy as a prop? In any other explanation you would regard it as one of the most important criteria!

For reasons I have explained in my last few posts, the postulation of “God” to answer this problem is anything but economical.

 

[wanstronian]

Hopefully your shock at this basic theological proposition will get you to rethink your assumptions about what we mean when we speak of God. We are not talking about a being of the same kind as other beings but greater. You think that God must be complex because the more creatures approximate God’s perfection, the more complex they are. An analogy here would be a polygon and a circle. You can create a million-sided polygon that looks a lot like a circle to the naked eye. But a circle in fact only has one “side.” To a triangle or a square (if it could think), it might seem obvious that a circle must have even more sides than a million-sided polygon, because a million-sided polygon is far more like a circle than a triangle or square. But this would be false.

Edwin

That’s an incredibly neat analogy that unfortunately has no place in this discussion. God is not a geometric shape. Analogies should at least be roughly analagous.

 

[WillieWonka]

Because God is not a limited object within the universe.

Any atheist who uses this analogy is not even worth debating with, because they aren’t bothering to understand traditional theism in the first place.

Edwin

One doesn’t have to understand anything about traditional theism to discuss the existence of God. Do you think there is an orbiting teapot?

 

[tonyrey]

You are still faced with the problem of responsibility. How do you explain it? Or do you reject it?
I explain it in the same way. I don’t really know - nobody does - yet.

To what do you attribute responsibility? To the mind as an entity or to a collection of brain processes?

But “God” is not a rational or complete explanation.

What are your criteria of a “rational explanation”? Do you believe there is in principle a scientific explanation for free will and responsibility? Even more to the point, do you believe there is in principle a scientific explanation for everything? If so, how would you justify your belief?

For reasons I have explained in my last few posts, the postulation of “God” to answer this problem is anything but economical.

The most economical explanation of yourself is that you are one person - yet what a multitude of thoughts, feelings, decisions and activities you experience, create and produce. Is that unreasonable?

 

[mathematician]

Because God is not a limited object in the universe

How do you know that?

Because if he wasw a limited object in the universe, whatever else he was he wouldn’t be God. That the creator can’t be part of his creation is an elementary exercise in logic which even an atheist ought to be able to grasp.