I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, and offering my thoughts on chapter three, where he looks at the arguments for God’s existence. Check out the earlier posts if you want to see what I’ve covered so far. Almost there now. Here are the last few “arguments” in the chapter.
The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists: e.g. "Newton was religious, so who are you to say different to him?" Really? Who is using this argument?
Pascal's Wager: "You're better off to choose to believe that God exists, because if you're wrong it won't matter anyway. If you choose not to believe in God and you're wrong, you might end up in hell." Dawkins has some good points to say about this one (which I'm sorry to say I've used before). Choosing God along the lines of this argument (because I'd be better off) is a selfish reason to choose God, and not very honest. Also, there are quite a lot of supposed "gods" out there. Which one are we supposed to choose in order to be safe? I remember a sketch by Rowan Atkinson that referred to this. "Oh I'm sorry Christians. The Jews were right." Not to mention the fact that many atheists have chosen not to believe because they see that religion has had a very bad (even evil) influence in the world's history.
The Bayesian Arguments, using probability, don't seem to work very well in my mind, so we may as well go with Dawkins on that one.
And then he concludes the chapter with The Argument from Improbability, which he says works in his favour. "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." This sounds to me like "God can't have designed the universe because then someone would have to have designed God." Why does God have to be designed? God is God.
I think the bigger question is, "Why is that such a conclusive argument for Dawkins?" He comes back to it a lot in these chapters. I wonder if the argument behind this one is in reality more like this: "God can't exist because it's irrational to think that God exists."
The next chapter deals with improbability a bit more, but I'll leave that for another post.
So where does all that leave us? Obviously I haven’t been convinced, although it has been a very helpful book to read. It’s great to see things from the other side of the discussion for a change, and I can see how it all works for Richard Dawkins. He’s an intelligent guy, and I respect his thinking. He's got some important things to say about religion, and Christians would do well to listen a bit more.
Summing up...
My conclusion from all of it is this:You can't prove or disprove the existence of God using science, philosophy or logic. My advice is to stop trying. It's the wrong field altogether, although it makes for some interesting, important discussions.
Dawkins proposes that belief in God is the same as if someone postulates that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. And this highlights the problem. If you're an atheist, it is the same. God and an orbiting teapot may as well be the same thing. But if you're not an atheist, obviously it's vastly different.
For myself, I'm open to the scientific possibility that God exists. For Dawkins this is irrational. I think the fact that he is closed to that possibility is irrational and unscientific. And that's basically where it all ends up. For me it's God, but for him it's a teapot.
And for that reason, we can't really have a reasonable discussion on these lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment