My Youtube exchange with Richard Dawkins on Al-Jazeera is finally up on the web. You can watch my segment here and the subsequent Dawkins segment here. This is the famous "debate that never was." And that's the real pity. Dawkins insisted on appearing separately from me and being interviewed after me. This way he ensured that I could not rebut anything he said on the show. Fortunately I have an AOL blog where I can carry on the conversation.
Dawkins made some good points, noting for instance that evolution does not rely on mere "chance," but he also made some obvious blunders. When a caller pointed out that World War II was motivated in substantial part by a "survival of the fittest" ideology, Dawkins pretended to be completely baffled. He proclaimed the caller's reference "absolute nonsense." Yet Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler provides extensive documentation that the Nazis repeatedly invoked Darwinian evolution and that Nazi doctrine used "survival of the fittest" as a virtual recruiting phrase. So Dawkins is either historically ignorant or wilfully obtuse.
Here I want to address Dawkins's response to my argument that the effect that is the universe requires a causal explanation. It seems unreasonable in the extreme to say that even though nature had a beginning, somehow nature is the cause of itself. So God is the name we give to the supernatural being that is the cause of nature as a whole. Dawkins argued: "This leaves open the question of where did the creator come from?" Since the creator is this "great big complicated thing," what good does it do to invoke one complex thing to explain another? "If you postulate a designer you haven't explained anything." Basically what Dawkins is saying is that there is no point in using complex explanation A to account for complex phenomenon B if you cannot account for A.
This is a fallacy. We can see this by applying the logic to evolution itself. The logic of evolution is a "great big complicated thing" with all its elements of replication, natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and so on. Yet it is invoked to explain another complicated thing: the exquisite fit between living creatures and their surroundings. How reasonable would it be to argue: "We are invoking one complicated thing, namely evolution, to explain another, namely living things. Yet this leaves open the question of where evolution came from. We have no idea how and why evolution originally started. Since we cannot account for evolution, our explanation is useless. Simply to postulate evolution is to explain nothing." This is precisely Dawkins's argument regarding God, and here we can see how it boomerangs on evolution!
But consider the argument itself more closely. Is it really true that Complex Explanation A for Complex Phenomenon B only works if we can give a full account of A? Actually it is not true. Gravity may account for why objects fall at a certain pace, but this does not require that we give an account for where gravity comes from or why it exists in the first place. If we find various signs of intelligent life on another planet we can conclude that there are aliens on that planet without having any idea of who created them or where they came from. In summary, the best explanation for something does not require that we also provide an explanation for the explanation.
The problem I think for Dawkins is that his trademark snorts and sneers only work against televangelists who do not do much more than hurl Bible verses at their opponents. When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say. And perhaps this explains his peculiar insistence that I be given no chance whatever to respond to his statements on the Riz Khan show.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 83)
1. Dawkins wont debate you because you're a sophist. Why would someone, like Dawkins, who deals in facts and evidence want to have a discussion with someone like you who just wants to shout people down and ignore the need to properly research an argument? A perfect example is quoted in your post below.
"Written debates strike me as a bit wimpy, since both debaters can get advice and assistance from various experts. The advantage of a face-to-face encounter is that it compels each side to think on its feet and make its best case before a live audience."
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/03/16/are-atheists-now-scared-to-debate/
You have no interest in dealing with facts, merely in trying to "win", regardless of the truth. It's no doubt the reason why Dawkins and others decide to give you a wide berth. Can you blame them?
Mark Baxter at 1:04PM on Jul 24th 2008
2. DD; "Simply to postulate evolution is to explain nothing"
Simply to postulate God is to explain nothing.
a born atheist at 1:28PM on Jul 24th 2008
3. From Dinesh's article:
"Basically what Dawkins is saying is that there is no point in using complex explanation A to account for complex phenomenon B if you cannot account for A."
This is not what he is saying! He is saying that you shouldn't invoke complex explanation A simply because B is a complex phenomenon.
Evolution isn't invoked simply because life is complex. Evolution is invoked because there is a mountain of evidence supporting it.
insaneatheist at 1:31PM on Jul 24th 2008
4. This Dawkins obsession is getting sad. Did I mention that already?
Ryan Anderson at 1:35PM on Jul 24th 2008
5.
Boy, you yanked that one down pretty quick, Diddy!
What's up with that?
Please explain why Calvin's ruthless crushing of humans is different from the Ayatollahs.
ex-christian at 1:50PM on Jul 24th 2008
6. Is your atheist researcher laughing his ass off? I know I am...
Atheist researcher: never let Diddy forget this one.
ex-christian at 2:12PM on Jul 24th 2008
7. I think that Dawkins is fully aware that "survival of the fittest" was a key point in Nazi ideology. One would have to be in a complete state of denial to ignore this fact. This displays the lack of morality among atheists like Richard Dawkins. When it is a proven fact that the ideology of Darwinism and the "survival of the fittest" has brought about great slaughter of human beings, more after Darwinism than in all of history before Darwinism; the atheists try to pretend that they are too sophisticated to acknowledge the crimes of atheism and Godlessness.
As the Bible says, those who reject the wisdom of God, well, they love death, instead. You can see this in the death count of Darwinism. You can see this in the death count of abortion in America, nearly 50 million dead American BABIES, and the atheists act like it is no big deal, no crime, no sin, nothing wrong with it.
God will pay them back in the eternal fire, as the Bible promises. Believe it.
Rev 3:16 at 2:18PM on Jul 24th 2008
8.
Dawkins made some good points, noting for instance that evolution does not rely on mere "chance," but he also made some obvious blunders. When a caller pointed out that World War II was motivated in substantial part by a "survival of the fittest" ideology, Dawkins pretended to be completely baffled. He proclaimed the caller's reference "absolute nonsense." Yet Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler provides extensive documentation that the Nazis repeatedly invoked Darwinian evolution and that Nazi doctrine used "survival of the fittest" as a virtual recruiting phrase. So Dawkins is either historically ignorant or wilfully obtuse.
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/Adolf_Hitler_Nazi_Germany_Christian_Nationalism_AntiSemitism.htm
In a speech celebrating Germany’s exit from the League of Nations, Hitler again maintained that the Third Reich was actively implementing a Christian agenda: “Along with the fight for a purer morality we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion. We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement, and not just with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out. And above all we have dragged the priests out of the lowlands of the political party struggle and have brought them back into the church.”
ex-christian at 2:30PM on Jul 24th 2008
9. 7. I think that Dawkins is fully aware that "survival of the fittest" was a key point in Nazi ideology. One would have to be in a complete state of denial to ignore this fact.
-----------------
And christianity was the key point in the crusades. So don't do that, either.
Dope. So what? Evolution isn't evil, and the nazi's were exploring eugenics, based on evolution, but not identical. And social darwinism. Not the same as the modern interpretaion of evolution by natural selection.
Those who do not believe in evolution, are the least evolved among us. That'd be you, sweetcakes.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:34PM on Jul 24th 2008
10. Rev: "I think that Dawkins is fully aware that "survival of the fittest" was a key point in Nazi ideology."
I think this is funny. Hitler uses Darwin as a justification for his evil and the Christians use it to write off Darwin.
So does that mean since Hitler also used Christianity as a justification for his evil that we can write Christianity off too?
Ryan Anderson at 2:48PM on Jul 24th 2008
11. "This leaves open the question of where did the creator come from?"
You really should put your opponents comments in context before you use them as a punching bag. Dawkins was answering a question given by an email on the show. The email said that evolution is nonsense, that everything has a beginning, that the first cells had to come from somewhere, therefore there must be a creator. Dawkins said that that question answers nothing because you have to ask the question of where the creator came from.
DD has once again skewed his rival with the only crap he could pull out of his non-debate. I watched the videos; while you both spoke intelligently on most points, your conlusions on this blog are absolutely off-base.
CaptainCack at 2:49PM on Jul 24th 2008
12. XC,
Please don't call him Diddy anymore, it shames the good name of the real Diddy.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:51PM on Jul 24th 2008
13. When it is a proven fact that the ideology of Darwinism and the "survival of the fittest" has brought about great slaughter of human beings, more after Darwinism than in all of history before Darwinism; the atheists try to pretend that they are too sophisticated to acknowledge the crimes of atheism and Godlessness.
Rev 3:16 at 2:18PM on Jul 24th 2008
=================================
When it is a proven fact that the ideology of monotheism and the "my way or the highway" has brought about great slaughter of human beings, more after Christ than in all of history before Christ; the Christians try to pretend that they are too sophisticated to acknowledge the crimes of Christianity and monotheism.
[sauce for the goose - wooo!]
Toad at 2:59PM on Jul 24th 2008
14. AOLWTF
Mokele Mbembe at 2:59PM on Jul 24th 2008
15. dd's number one ass-kisser hisself, Rev 3:16 is at it again. dd's spine must be quite flexible.
EVERY time I point out that I think Rev 3:16 MAY be dd, Kumar and Tsar Nicholas II ARE dd...they never ever come back with righteous idnigation to refute my point.
dd is truly pathetic. He is obviously jealous of Dawkins. His credentials? His intellect?
dd is a wannabe scholar.
pathetic.
America's Most Gangsta at 3:03PM on Jul 24th 2008