The Dawkins Confusion


Richard Dawkins is one of America’s leading Atheists who has written many popular works against Theism. Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins’ latest book, The God Delusion, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 21-24.

Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame does an excellent job showing how Dawkins makes some very weak, misleading and very unsound arguments in his attempt to show that the idea of God is absurd. Plantinga’s own words say it best:

“Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.”

Dawkins claims that the existence of God is “monumentally improbable,” by which he means that the more complex a creature is, the less probable its existence; and since God is infinitely complex, it is infinitely improbable that he exists. Plantinga points out that God is not necessarily complex, and since He is immaterial, the argument for complexity doesn’t fit. God is a necessary being upon whom all other beings depend on for their existence.

Plantinga goes on to examine the evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe. If the force of gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, and if it were weaker all stars would be red dwarfs; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. If the weak and strong nuclear forces were either stronger or weaker, intelligent life would be impossible. The existence of life also depends on the expansion/compression ratio of the expanding universe, so that if the universe were expanding any faster it would be too cold, and if it were expanding any slower, it would be too hot and collapse back in on itself; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. Stephen Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.

Dawkins tries to evade this evidence by suggesting that there are an infinite number of universes, with different combinations of distribution of values over the physical constants. First, there is no evidence for this, and second, very few would have viable combinations that would allow intelligent life to exist. His argument also doesn’t answer the question of why this particular universe in which we live is extremely fined tuned.

Dawkins tries to avoid the conclusions drawn from the argument from design by saying, “But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.” Thus he tries to reassert his original argument from complexity for the improbability of God.

However, if we were to land on an alien planet and discover sophisticated machines, we would instantly proclaim that some intelligent alien beings created those machines. If someone in the group argued that we hadn’t explained anything at all since any intelligent life that designed those machines must be at least as complex as they are, we would send him back to earth on the first available flight to enroll in Philosophy 101. Such an argument is meaningless and misses the point entirely. So, too, does Dawkins’ argument, which is sophomoric at best.

Theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity but only organized complexity in general, to explain one specific manifestation of it (the universe). Even Dawkins’ arguments do not give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity. Explanations must come to an end somewhere on any view. Dawkins has merely tried to give a technical covering to the age old question, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” Such a question confuses categories since God is an eternal, self-existent, non-contingent, uncreated being.

Dawkins also fails to carry his arguments to their ultimate logical conclusion. If man is the product of unguided random evolution, then his brain is the product of the same process. Therefore, man can not be certain that his brain is functioning properly and that he is able to perceive reality accurately or reason about it accurately. Naturalism, then, is self-defeating since it is based on unreliable cognitive processes.

“he real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”

Plantinga concludes:

“The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion." The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.”


You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html