Analyzing the core argument of "The God Delusion"

[iExiiL3]

Why does Dawkins sound like a whiny little bitch throughout his book?

Someone answer that question in depth please.

[grammastola]

@MattFarabaugh5, with all due respect, you're misconstruing what I said. For one thing, the design hypothesis goes far beyond the mere cause-effect connection. Second, you are claiming that God is an effect, but I see no reason to accept that claim. Indeed, the traditional notion of God is that he is the prime cause -- the very first cause. If you're going to claim that he is (and you do), then it's up to you to demonstrate that this is NECESSARILY so.

[MattFarabaugh5]

Your analysis of his analysis seems flawed to me. First, you say that the design hypothesis is not fatal because it does not posit a designer, but only posits that if there is an effect, then there must be a cause. God is an effect. God must, therefore, have a cause. To say otherwise would be fallacious. Or are you saying that god is not an effect? And please don't say that an effect is something with a cause - that would be circular logic.

[neuromatiker]

I am sorry to say your premiset is false. It is impossible to prove something to not exsist, such as god, fairies or unicorns. Dawkins simply finds the creationist explainion lacking, as it explains nothing - who designed the designer?

Now the god argument falls upon the religious to prove, but all versons of god presented so far seem unproveable, and very very unlikely.

I challange you: Prove the existence of your god, beyond a mere possibility.

[grammastola]

@neuromatiker You are incorrect. First, it often IS possible to prove the non-existence of something. (Look up reductio ad absurdum, for example.)

Second, whether one can prove God is irrelevant. Dawkins offered a specific argument, and his argument fails. That is what I'm pointing out. I am not attempting to prove God's existence in this video; rather, I explained why his particular argument fails. I've pointed this distinction out numerous times now, just FTR.

[mrdokma]

@neuromatiker Asking who designed God is a logical fallacy as follows: If the amount of passed time was infinite we would never arrive at the current point because you cannot count to infinity (google uncountable set). Therefore since God - if He created everything including time, space and matter - must exist outside of the frame of time any questions that inherently assume time cannot be applied to Him. So asking 'Who designed God?' - which assumes that He had a beginning is a logical fallacy.

[ShadowEspada]

I love this, keep it coming

[ferrett78]

Firstly, Id like to agree that the overall conclusion Dawkins reaches here does not follow from the previous statements. However, I'd also like to query some points.

1) If the theistic philosophy only suggests that every effect has a cause, how does this point have any relevance for either side of the debate?

2) Universal fine tuning could be merely the anthropic principle. There may be other Universes with other laws of physics which marvel at how fine tuned their universe is for them, too?

[grammastola]

@ferrett78 Regarding (1), you might look up the Kalam cosmological argument. It explores the implications of your statement.

Regarding (2), I discussed that matter in several of my other videos. Suffice to say that the anthropic principle is a woefully inadequate answer, and so is the multiple universe theory.

[Dumah000777444]

Time is a God's creation and God is not restricted by it. Everything created has a designer that created it and who preexisted. God has no designer since no one existed before Him (not even time would exist without Him).

So since time does not apply to God, neither time-related laws apply to Him (which makes almost all -if not all- known laws invalid for God).

[knivesron]

this book isent to prove god doesent exist! its to make apparant that te assume he does is stupid. dawkins is a scientist not thiest. this book is a scientific view on religon. if you dont belive in evolution you just dont know it well enough read dawkins new book the greatest show on earth. why should we assume things that we are not sure of and risk things like 911 happening and the middle east, its just not worth it

[lhooq21]

Teleological and cosmological arguments have never worked. All you need is to take a few more philosophy classes!

[Pdrum2]

Who designed the designer?

According to the principle of sufficient reason, everything must have a cause, it leads to an infinite series of causes, but it could end at an uncaused Cause of everything.

[Epydemic2020]

Who designed the designer?

"Only that which begins to exist has a cause."

[HeReformedMe]

I wonder...

...does Oxford still allow Dawkins to teach there?

[GiganticPotatoMan]

Dawkin's first argument is quite valid. If you argue that everything must have a cause, it logically follows that the creator of the universe must have a cause as well. I also disagree that the universe exhibits a tremendous amount of design, though it is quite complex by our standards. However, complex does not equal to design. Also, I agree that Dawkin's second argument, as presented, is quite flawed. The conclusion is not logical.

[grammastola]

In brief, I think that his analysis is incredibly sloppy. He has a way of stating things with tremendous confidence though, and frankly, most readers are not used to analyzing such matters in detail.

[regelemihai]

I just bought his book today. He actually supports the cosmic fine tuning argument fullheartdly, only that he approaches it from the "Goldilocks theory" rather then the theistic approach that claims that God must've "twisted the knobs" in order for it to work.

Amateurish at best, which is even more disgraceful coming from someone who trumps himself as an "expert".

What is your view on the "Goldilocks theory"?

I'm curious.

[Descenter]

Fantastic. People's frustration with religion has meant they are blind to the fact that the philosophical debate for/against God is by no means answered by rejecting religion.

As an agnostic i've watched the Dawkins hysteria in horror as fellow studens have gobbled up this trash without real thought to the actual argument! Ironically, "thinking" is Dawkin's pretense for rejecting god.

[RealityAndReason]

Well, you might want to read what Roger Montague does with Dawkins' argument in his article "Dawkins' Infinite Regress" in the journal Philosophy.

It really hits home the vacousness of an argument for God which requires that intelligence is needed to explain complexity in the world.

Theists want to claim compleixty/order requires intelligent design, and somehow ignore that an intelligent designer is therfore not exempt!

[grammastola]

"It really hits home the vacousness of an argument for God which requires that intelligence is needed to explain complexity in the world."

I disagree with that statement, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose it to be true. How does this contradict my claim that Dawkins was wrong in his reasoning?

It doesn't. As I've said dozens of times now, even atheist scholars disagree with Dawkins' reasoning. I don't know what Montague says, but the errors of Dawkins are self-evident.

[SINTAXFREE]

Um yes, most of the speakers at AAI are highly respected authors/Scholars.

[grammastola]

"Um yes, most of the speakers at AAI are highly respected authors/Scholars."

You keep missing the point. Even if we grant your claim, this still only proves that some scholars do like the book. It does NOT prove that there scholarly community at large gives it "extremely high accolades," as you claimed.

Heck, the fact that you must turn to an atheist forum to find such accolades (as opposed to a philosophy conference, for example), speaks volumes. Your line of thinking is a waste of time.

[SINTAXFREE]

I noted Dennett only because you mentioned him and I know for a fact that he is a fan of The God Delusion. Also, every major Atheist author I can think of has mentioned what an acheivement this book was infact, many of the most respected atheist scholars where at the AAI.

[grammastola]

"I noted Dennett only because you mentioned him and I know for a fact that he is a fan of The God Delusion."

A fact that I did not deny. In fact, I cited Dennett to show that he was one of the few philosophers who liked the book -- and then I showed that he had not read it carefully.

You keep belaboring this point, as though it somehow disproves my claim. It does not -- ESPECIALLY since I did cite Bennett explicitly as an exception to the rule.

[SINTAXFREE]

Apparently, you didn't watch your own video. You said, The God Delusion has recieved a tepid response to say the least. Not only from theists but also from Athiests. You actually used Daniel Dennett as a referrence. Who is one of the Scholar/Athiests that spoke at the AAI. Denett has referrenced The God Delusion in his own works such as, Breaking the Spell and has personally praised Dawkins and The God Delusion several times which you can watch right here on Youtube.

[grammastola]

SINTAXFREE, with all due respect, you're not paying attention. I did not say that ALL atheists condemned this book; rather, I said that even atheist scholars can see the flaws in his reasoning.

Dennett is an exception to this rule, not the norm. In fact, I specifically cited him in one of my videos, pointing out that his comments strongly indicated that he did not read Dawkins' book very thoroughly.

You cited ONE atheist scholar who liked the book. That does not disprove anything I said.

[grammastola]

I repeat, SINTAXFREE: What I said is that "The God Delusion" has received negative reviews from both theists and atheists, and that the response from the scholarly community has been tepid. You attempted to disprove this by saying that Daniel Dennett liked the book.

This does nothing to disprove my claim. Quite the contrary; the fact that you could only find ONE prominent atheist scholar who liked the book shows how tepid the scholarly support for this book has been.

[grammastola]

I find it curious that you keep citing the AAI as proof of "high accolades" from the scholarly community. As I emphasized earlier, the AAI is an atheist alliance, not a scholarly group.

Are there some scholars within the group? I don't doubt it. There are also scholars within creationist and apologetics organizations though, so your logic is self-defeating. If anything, your argument merely demonstrates that there are SOME scholars who like the book -- a fact that I never once denied.

[grammastola]

BTW, SINTAXFREE, I want to say this as gently and as cautiously as possible... there's a reason why I described the scholarly response to "The God Delusion" as tepid (i.e. lukewarm) rather than totally cold. As I explicitly acknowledged in this video series, there are indeed some scholars who liked the book. That doesn't change the fact that the general response from scholars has been underwhelming. I even cited a quote from Dennett which suggests that he didn't read the book very carefully.

[SINTAXFREE]

Hate to tell you but The God Delusion has recieved extremely high accolades from the scholarly community especially, among fellow atheists. This could be observed by the deafning applause at AAI (Atheist Alliance international) each time it was referred to.

[grammastola]

SINTAXFREE, the AAI is an atheist group, not a scholarly conference. Your comment merely demonstrates what I said, rather than refuting it. In contrast, his book has received little praise (and a lot of criticism) from philosophers and other scholars, as I documented in these videos.

Interestingly enough, if an alliance of Christians were to applaud the Bible or a book on apologetics, I doubt that many skeptics here would give any weight to such accolades.

[grammastola]

Incidentally, if it's somehow reprehensible to use a SUMMARY of Dawkins' argument rather than representing it in its entirety, then what does that say about Dawkins himself? After all, in his book, Dawkins summarized (very briefly, I might add) various theistic arguments. Where is the outrage at his refusal to reproduce the arguments of Augustine or Aquinas in painstaking detail?

Ah, but this is only wrong if an opponent of Dawkins does it. That's the answer.

[grammastola]

mortenlu is furious because I quoted a SUMMARY of Dawkins' argument... as though this were a fatal flaw.

OF COURSE I'm going to use a summary rather than read the entire chapter. That's just common sense. And for the sake of accuracy, I quoted the summary THAT RICHARD DAWKINS HIMSELF WROTE.

Do you have an issue with this summary? Then please call Dawkins up and tell him that he did a poor job of summarizing his own work.

[grammastola]

BTW, if you want to see the full extent to which Michael Ruse expresses his disagreement with Dawkins, all you have to do is check out the December 2007 issue of the journal, ISIS. He openly expresses respect for Dawkins, but at the same time, expresses his great disappointment in the quality of his book.

[mortenlu]

You also come up with a few atheists that dont agree with his arguments and post their opinion as if though they mattered more since they're atheist.

Whatever the subject, you will always be able to find "important" people with every possible opinion. Pulling names out of your ass doesnt strenghten your argument!

I wouldnt be supprised if you took their quotes out of context as well.

The worst kind of argumentation.

I also see that you approve your comments. I dare you to post mine.

[grammastola]

"You also come up with a few atheists that dont agree with his arguments..."

ABSOLUTELY. The point is that even outspoken atheists can see the flaws in Dawkins' arguments. I emphasized this at great length within this video as well as others.

Y'see, if I don't cite any atheists, people like you would retort, "Bah! You only disagree with Dawkins because you're some stupid theist." By quoting Ruse and Orr, I show that even non-theists can see the errors of Dawkins' reasoning.

[mortenlu]

I dont know what atheists you argue, but I dont argue against a person, I argue his arguments.

[grammastola]

"...but I dont argue against a person"

In your response, you said that I should be ashamed for using a summary of Dawkins' argument (his own summary, BTW) and you referred to me as "pulling names out of [my] ass." And that's just the tip of the icuberg.

Not arguing against a person? You could have fooled me.

Because you behave this way, I'm not going to waste time with you. I know that you'll complain about being 'censored,' but I've learned not to waste time who argue in that manner.

[mortenlu]

grammastola, you should be ASHAMED!

Seriously, Im sitting with the book right here. Dawkins never stated that those 6 points where his core argument. It was a SUMMARY of the chapter, witch were arguments for "Why there almost certainly is no God".

That wouldnt be a problem if you actually quoted what he wrote. No. You "quoted" parts of his summary, and took them out of context.

[grammastola]

"Dawkins never stated that those 6 points where his core argument."

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. He specifically described them as "the central argument of my book." Those were his exact words.

Are those six points a summary of his coverage elsewhere? CERTAINLY. That does not negate the fact that these points constitute his central argument.

Heck, DAWKINS HIMSELF wrote that summary. If he did not intend this to be an accurate summary, then he should not have described it as such.

[grammastola]

"No. You 'quoted' parts of his summary, and took them out of context."

I quoted the outline as Dawkins himself presented it. Did I quote the entirety of his arguments for those six points? No... but that's exactly why Dawkins himself described it as a "summary."

Moreover, the point is that EVEN IF WE GRANT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE SIX POINTS, his conclusion simply does not follow. I took great pains to point this out, but of course, you choose to ignore that.

[screenname10101]

Miller had a highly artificial setup that couldn't occur naturally, was able to form only a portion of the necessary amino acids, and the amino acids didn't link together. Abiogenesis - as in life forming spontaneously from increasingly complex molecules - is not scientific. The origin of life is a mystery.

[grammastola]

When I pointed out that Dawkins offered no proof for his claim that complexity MUST arise through evolutionary processes, sculpt2live retorted that "proof" is a mathematical term. This is a foolish objection, of course, since "proof" can be used in many non-mathematical senses.

Isn't it interesting that this type of objection NEVER comes up when fellow skeptics say, "You have no proof that there's a God!" or somesuch thing? That's because it's a MANUFACTURED objection, not a logical one.

[grammastola]

"'proof' is a mathimatical term..."

Of course, it is. That doesn't mean that it's an EXCLUSIVELY mathematical term, though. There are mathematical proofs and there are non-mathematical proofs. Just as any philosopher. Heck, the term is even used in courtrooms, for pity's sake!

You can't seriously consider your statement to be a serious objection. If anything, I'd say that it's a perfect example of the deconstructionism smokescreen tactic that I described in another video.

[grammastola]

"Yea, it's definitely coffee table stuff. Dawkins had said as much during his tour."

As I've repeatedly pointed out, Dawkins said quite a bit more than that. He declared that his proof was "unanswerable." That's a pretty strong claim, wouldn't you say?

Besides, being coffee-table fare isn't an excuse for shoddy logic and poor philosophy. If he didn't mean to offer an irrefutable proof, then he should not have claimed to do so... period. Surely that's not a difficult concept to grasp.

[grammastola]

"Um, I thought I already had researched that pretty well with these two journals and the book..."

Well, the Wikipedia article shows that you missed some of the flaws with the Miller-Urey experiment.

As for why the results are inconclusive, that should be extremely obvious. If Miller-Urey did not reproduce the actual atmospheric conditions, then we can't claim that it shows HOW amino acids would have occured. That's because the conditions it used were DIFFERENT from what actually existed.

[grammastola]

"lol I think we can assume that you just slipped a little when you used the word "proof" there. I feel sure you know better than that. :)"

Why do you consider this objectionable? The point is that Dawkins simply claimed that complexity must arise through evolutionary processes -- and yes, he did NOT provide any proof. Such an absolutist claim requires hard proof -- or at the very least, an exhaustive, strongly inductive argument. He didn't even provide ANY evidence for such a bald assertion.

[grammastola]

BTW, folks, did you notice this? In the video, I mentioned that I don't believe that evolution is sufficient to explain the full extent of the appearance of biological design. To this, critics have responded by saying, "Why in the world do you think there's no evidence for evolution?" Obviously though, the two claims are not the same.

In logic, that is called strawman argumentation. It a tactic in which one attacks a position other than that which your opponent has articulated. Not good.

[grammastola]

Actually, sculpt2live, the flaws with the Miller-Urey experiment go beyond just the atmospheric conditions. Read the Wikipedia entry on this topic if you want a quick introduction.

Anyway, we could argue for days about whether the Miller-Urey experiment was an "excellent achievement" or not, but the point remains: If they did not use accurate atmospheric conditions (among other problems), then the results are ultimately inconclusive.

[grammastola]

"You've lost me when you speak of 'no evidence for evolution.'"

With all due respect, you got lost on your own, since I said no such thing. Rather, I contested the notion that evolution was SUFFICIENT to explain the entirety of biological design. Obviously, that's an entirely different claim.

Besides, as I said, even if we grant Dawkins' claims regarding evolution *for the sake of argument*, his conclusion still does not logically follow. I emphasized this repeatedly and at great length.

[Mikannika]

You take the time to go Dawkins book letter for letter and you have find some things that are not very good.. Well done! Very constructive too... Why don't you give the bible the same treatment? What point are you trying to make anyway?

[grammastola]

"What point are you trying to make anyway?"

I emphasized my point repeated: Dawkin's book is filled with sloppy argumentation. Sounds to me like you're unhappy with that simple claim.

As for the Bible, that topic would merit another set of videos. I have many reasons why I believe the Bible, some of which I've already covered. Even if I did not though, your criticism would still be unfair; after all, there's only so much that can be covered in the course of ten minutes.

[XiaoFury]

thank you for this. :)

[bluevaines]

Grammastola-this is a little off topic but would like to know if you could tell me who came out with the phrase "ignorance is bliss"

I am convinced it came from atheism reason being the responses that you get from atheists LOL.

Just thought I would ask.God bless.

[patrox247]

Great video. I agree that the philosophical core arguments are almost laughable. They almost made me feel dirty for having had given credence to any of his works in the past. Dawkins assertions are a disappointment to many. Is he trying to lose respect in the intellectual community or has he just lost it?

[AlienFnord]

I realize the need to summarize the points for brevity, but I think you have misrepresented points 5 and 6. They are an appeal to the anthropic principle and that we shouldn't give up hope of finding a physical equivalent of evolution is just a side note.

Further, regarding his second point, if a complex system has to be created by a more complex system, God is certainly no answer to the appearance of design without a reasonable explanation of why God would be exempt from that rule.

[grammastola]

"They are an appeal to the anthropic principle and that we shouldn't give up hope of finding a physical equivalent of evolution is just a side note."

It's more than just a side note. It's one of his main tenets, as summarized on pp 157-158. Moreover, the point remains... He's appealing to the hope of an an evolution-like explanation, even though there is no evidence of it whatsoever... and even if there were such a theory, it wouldn't rule out God's existence!

[grammastola]

"Further, regarding his second point, if a complex system has to be created by a more complex system, God is certainly no answer..."

I addressed that at great length in a previous video. It does NOT logically follow that a complex system must be created by something more complex. Dawkins argues thusly, but only because he argues that complexity must evolve... and that's circular reasoning.

And as I said, even if we grant that claim, Dawkins' conclusion still comes from out of left field.

[grammastola]

"...God is certainly no answer to the appearance of design without a reasonable explanation of why God would be exempt from that rule."

He says that complex systems must come from more complex systems, but he bases this on a PHYSICAL definition of complexity and asserts (without proof) that all complex systems arise by evolution. Moreover, in my previous video, I articulated multiple reasons why a non-physical creator would be exempt from his criteria.

[grammastola]

"If I'm not supposed to take that as being in direct conflict with the validity of the theory of evolution, I'm not sure what to take it as."

AlienFnord, one can believe that evolution OCCURS without believing that it is SUFFICIENT to explain biological complexity. There's a huge difference between the two. Observing that it occurs is not enough to ensure that it accounts for every possible instance of biological complexity, and I think you know that.

[SavedTru8]

"one can believe that evolution OCCURS without believing that it is SUFFICIENT to explain biological complexity"

-Are we talking microbes to man, water to land, dinosaurs to birds. common prosimian ancestor to humans evolution?

[FlowCell]

The big error of Dawkins is to use evidence for evolution to disprove the existence of God. This point of view often held by atheists was challenged by strong evolutionists Stephen J. Gould.  Evolution speaks nothing of the existence of God.

You can't believe in God without faith and faith is belief without evidence. Since, according to Dawkins, their is no evidence for God, so God must not exist, and since God doesn't exist he leaves behind no evidence.

What a circular argument!

[grammastola]

That's right, FlowCell. In fact, you touched on a point that I did not cover. Dawkins said that evolution is the most powerful explanation for the appearance of biological design. Even if that were true though, it still would not logically follow that it is the correct explanation. It would be a good start if it were true (and again, I disagree that it is), but it still falls far short of a rigorous refutation. Such statements do carry great emotional appeal, which may be why he used it.

[AlienFnord]

If a hypothesis is more powerful than the competing ones, surely that would mean it is simply the more plausible and on that ground should be the preferred one. To convince oneself that evolution is not true (in any other sense than in which you can squeeze through anything as being not necessarily true) must require an impressive amount of ignorance or self deceit.

[grammastola]

"If a hypothesis is more powerful than the competing ones, surely that would mean it is simply the more plausible and on that ground should be the preferred one."

Preferred, but not necessarily proven or correct. There's a difference, which is why this line of attack by Dawkins fails, as do many of his other arguments.

Moreover, as I emphasized at great length in the video, even if we grant the accuracy and sufficiency of evolution, Dawkins' argument would still fall far, far short.

[grammastola]

"To convince oneself that evolution is not true... must require an impressive amount of ignorance or self deceit."

I knew that somebody would raise this objection. It never fails.

As you may recall, I did NOT deny that evolution occurs. No, I questioned its sufficiency in explaining biological design. Moreover, I *specifically* granted its sufficiency *for the sake of argument*. In other words, even if we grant this point, Dawkin's six-tenet defense still fails on numerous other points.

[AlienFnord]

If we enter into an implicit agreement of taking a particular thing for granted for the sake of argument, it is not my intention to deliberately use your actual position on the matter against you within the confines of that particular discussion. Outside of it, however, it seems like fair game.

If your statement of non-acceptance of evolution were just intended as an offhand remark that you're not interested in defending, I apologize for attacking it.

[AlienFnord]

Of people who have had some basic form of education, I would be very surprised if the majority of theists did not accept evolution. I don't think I've ever personally met anyone who thought there was any controversy surrounding it (which may have skewed my perception a bit, of course.) My point is that, no, of course evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God. If it did, there would be no theists who would accept it. It does, however, defeat a popular argument for God.

[grammastola]

"Of people who have had some basic form of education, I would be very surprised if the majority of theists did not accept evolution."

Right, and as I've often emphasized, I do not deny that evolution occurs. I do disagree about the extent of evolution, and I certainly don't believe that it's an adequate explanation of life on earth, but I don't deny it.

Besides which, my rebuttal was NOT based on any denial of evolution. Ergo, this issue does not invalidate my critique of Dawkins.

[FlowCell]

Let's make sure that we are distinguishing abiogenesis and evolution. Those are two related by different topics all together. In fact most people don't even realize that the major ID advocate, Michale Behe fully accepts evolutionary theory, but rejects abiogenesis.

But as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on abiogenesis, and Behe may have a valid point in the end, but we shall see.

[grammastola]

"Let's make sure that we are distinguishing abiogenesis and evolution."

Agreed. In fact, this is yet another severe problem in Dawkins' argument. He invokes evolution, but fails to acknowledge that without abiogenesis, evolution cannot get started -- and we are nowhere near having a good naturalistic model for abiogenesis. At best, we only have vague hints thereof, and I'd even dispute those. (Consider the flaws in the Miller-Urey experiment, which are widely acknowledged.)

[FlowCell]

That's because most arguments for God have been gap filling arguments. As science fills in those gaps, it looks as though God is not longer needed, but all these arguments do is detract from spirituality. God should be looked at as the beginning and the end. Try thinking of God like the two cookies of an OREO. Everything else is the a creamy middle.

[ZeroShift5000]

It really isn't a hard concept to get that who or what ever created time is not bound by the limitations of time and therefore needs no beginning. The resistance is emotional and spiritual not intellectual.

[tenneral]

I take the view that the God Delusion was not written for philosophers, but for ordinary folk like myself who wanted a broad picture of the rationalist viewpoint. I found the book extremely persuasive and, though I am not a philosopher, completely convincing. I think that this was the motive for Dawkins in writing the book.

[grammastola]

I addressed that objection early in the video. Dawkins himself claimed to provide a through treatment of theism and an argument for atheism that was "unanswerable." Clearly, he meant his book to be very a thorough treatment indeed.

Was his book persuasive? Certainly! That's because most people aren't used to thinking logically and systematically. String a lot of impassioned arguments together, and you can sound quite persuasive indeed. Sadly, his conclusion does not follow from his claims.