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 3 of 83)
31. McCain apparently doesn't believe in Gay Marriage. Who knew?
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:41PM on Jul 24th 2008
xxx
he was against tax breaks for billionaires and the enron loophole at one time, but he came around. Give it a minute...
Clif Kuplen at 5:14PM on Jul 24th 2008
32. As expected, many have failed to understand D'souza's argument (which, by the way, merely restates an unanswerable criticism that
has been made by any number of scholars -- both those sympathetic to Dawkins's position, and unsympathetic to it -- in a number of
fields).
What D'souza is criticizing is Dawkins's supposition that an explanation that is more complex than the phenomena being explained
is not an explanation at all. Ultimately, this is a question about the nature of 'explanations.' What Dawkins misses, and what D'souza's counterexample makes clear, is that 1. All explanations terminate
somewhere; and 2. We must be clear about precisely what it is we're trying to explain.
With respect to point 1, I see no reason why we cannot terminate a series of explanations with 'god' if, *as must be the case for the naturalist*, we can terminate a series of explanations with 'nature' (or, rather, some fundamental aspect of nature). *Both* will leave us with at least one unexplained -- indeed, unexplainable -- entity. Some might want to
object that 'nature' is preferrable to 'god' since we at least know of nature's existence. True, we do know of nature's existence in a way that we don't know of god's existence, *but this objection
completely misses the point*: what is at issue here isn't, "What constitutes the 'best' explanation," but "What constitutes 'an' explanation?" (Remember, Dawkins is saying that god explains 'nothing' because he must be more complex than the universe he
created.) So, the relevant point is that both the theist and the naturalist (and everyone else!) will come to a point at which they reach something that cannot be explained. Here's the important point: once we reach whatever it is we can't explain, *is it the case that we haven't explained whatever follows from it or, alternatively, whatever
has led us to it*? (Note, this is precisely the claim Dawkins is making: If we resort to 'god' to explain 'nature,' then, he claims, if we can't explain god, we haven't explained nature.) Obviously not, for if this were so, then *no* explanation is ever possible (think of
it this way: U is the unexplainable termination of all our explanations (E), and E1, E2, E3...En and so on all ultimately lead to U. On Dawkins's reasoning, E1 to En are *all unexplained*, since
they all terminate in U, which is by definition unexplained. E.g, we explain E2 in terms of E1, which only works, on Dawkins's premise, if
E1 is explained; but E1 rests on U, which is unexplained; therefore, E1 is unexplained; therefore E2 is unexplained as well. So Dawkins's argument has explained away the very possibility of
explanation).
We can now move on to point 2. When we appeal to god to explain 'nature' (say, due to both the fact that nature had a beginning in space and time, and due to the 'fine-tuning' quality the universe exhibits), we are trying to explain the complexity of *the universe*, we're *not* trying to explain complexity itself, or the compexity of god. As such, it is perfectly legitimate to appeal to god *as an explanation* (note, it's irrelevant here whether you think god is a good explanation; the question is whether god is not an explanation for the reasons Dawkins cites). One could think of it this way: imagine you discover an Oldowan tool; to you, it looks like a randomly chipped piece of rock. Your buddy, an archaeologist, corrects you and says that the tool was created by such and such a people, about whom next to nothing is known. You look at him and reply, "But you've explained pecisely nothing. First, we know nothing about these people. But second, whoever they were, don't you realize that any people who might have created this tool are far more complicated than the tool itself? How can you explain something as simple as this tool by referring to something as complex as a human being?" The flaw is obvious: the complex object to be explained in this context is the tool, *not the people who created it*. Similarly, what one is attempting to explain when positing god as the creator of the universe is the complexity of the universe itself, not the nature of god.
Perhaps this really is why Dawkins won't debate Dinesh: Dawkins's arguments (with respect to god) are simply horrible. It's starting to seem that it's not the case that Dinesh is seeking cachet by debating Dawkins; rather, it appears that Dinesh, like his Savior, is willing to stoop to conquer.
Renzo at 6:09PM on Jul 24th 2008
33. O.M.G DD!!
This is the weakest thing you have ever written!! Your total lack of rigor in your "logical" arguments is appalling. This is high school freshman-level debate construction....no, not even that good. This is pitiful! There is no comparison WHATSOEVER to Dawkins' statements about invoking a Creator to explain the complex universe and your weak-ass "analogy" to evolution, survival of the fittest and the interactivity of ecological systems. No comparison...None....do you understand...NONE. These latter phenomena are all highly related to each other by definition. They are difference aspects of the SAME THING. Natural selection drives evolution which leads to speciation and organisms occupying specific niches in an ecosystem. They are components of the SAME CONCEPT.
Furthermore, the basic tenants of evolution are not complex...they are remarkably simple in scope...one of the really amazing things about the theory is how a set of fairly simple "rules" about how organisms interact with each other and their environment leads to the world we see now.
On the other hand, a Creator is not by definition related to the Universe, is not by definition a component of the Universe, does not by definition lead to the Universe.
As it relates to Hitler, the Nazis and natural selection....just because Hitler (or historians of Hitler) have concluded that the Nazi drive to dominate the world was driven by natural selection doesn't mean that Dawkins has to agree that natural selection was, in fact, the driving force. Hitler had all kinds of nutty justifications for his actions. If I had been asked the same question I would have responded the way Dawkins did “absolute nonsense” with the meaning that “no, I don’t believe that natural selection was, in reality, driving Hitler’s movement”.
DD…you really pissed me off on this one. Either you are a f*cking idiot or you are lazy or you just try to jerk people around for the fun of it. I’m done with your P.O.S Blog!
John Galt
John Galt at 6:24PM on Jul 24th 2008
34. "Your total lack of rigor in your "logical" arguments is appalling... There is no comparison WHATSOEVER to Dawkins' statements about invoking a Creator to explain the complex universe and your weak-ass "analogy" to evolution, survival of the fittest and the interactivity of ecological systems. No comparison...None....do you understand...NONE."
Galt, given your name, and its association to Rand's comic book philosophy, I'm not surprised that you know nothing about logic. First, it's not an 'analogy,' it's a 'counterexample.' Second, there *is* a relevant 'comparison,' which, given your first remark, is somewhat ironic: what's comparable is the *logical form* of the arguments! If you bother to look, you'll see that the arguments have *precisely* the same logical form. Galt, put down Atlas Shrugged, and pick up any intro to logic text.
Renzo at 6:43PM on Jul 24th 2008
35. Renzo; "Your buddy, an archaeologist, corrects you and says that the tool was created by such and such a people, about whom next to nothing is known."
What is obvious here is what is known. The tool was made by *people*. The people were toolmakers. We know where they lived and probably about when they lived. We know the tools they used were stone. All this from your single sentence. We know quite a bit about the complexity of the 'such and such people'. In fact, in order to claim that it is a tool at all, all this must be known.
a born atheist at 6:59PM on Jul 24th 2008
36. Previous posts have done a splendid job of demonstrating the vacuity of DD's rhetoric, but here's my two cents--
DD: "So God is the name we give to the supernatural being that is the cause of nature as a whole."
Me: How disingenuous! DD is an apologist for Catholic doctrine, and he's claiming here that his god is some very vague abstract, impersonal thing! But of course DD's god is the one who is mysteriously three-persons-in-one, one of whom was born to a virgin, walked on water, arose after being dead for three days, etc.
DD: "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."
Me: They work just as well against your Catholic dogma, which is no less ridiculous in the last analysis than the most primitive creationist bullshit out there. Transubstantiation my ass!
Joe Bob at 7:06PM on Jul 24th 2008
37. Evolution is an explanation that describes how life can go from simple to complex. God assumes instant complexity. That is the difference.
a born atheist at 7:13PM on Jul 24th 2008
38. Renzo in 34:
I TA'd Intro to Logic classes so I don't need to pick up a text. A counter example is an scenario chosen because it demonstrates that another example does not hold for all cases. DD was trying (weakly) to draw an analogy between Dawkins' argument that a Creator is a highly complex way to explain the origin of the universe and evolution being a similary complex way to explain the natural world. That's not a counter example....just a bad comparison.
Would you consider it apt if DD had said that Science is a big complicated thing so it can't be used (any more than a Creator) to explain anything? Well, that is effectively what he is saying. Evolution is a set of ideas based on careful observation of the natural world....it is not a "thing" unto itself.
John Galt
John Galt at 7:44PM on Jul 24th 2008
39. Renzo; yes... clearly we are all idiots.
Ryan Anderson at 7:46PM on Jul 24th 2008
40. One could think of it this way: imagine you discover an Oldowan tool; to you, it looks like a randomly chipped piece of rock. Your buddy, an archaeologist, corrects you and says that the tool was created by such and such a people, about whom next to nothing is known. You look at him and reply, "But you've explained pecisely nothing. First, we know nothing about these people. But second, whoever they were, don't you realize that any people who might have created this tool are far more complicated than the tool itself? How can you explain something as simple as this tool by referring to something as complex as a human being?" The flaw is obvious: the complex object to be explained in this context is the tool, *not the people who created it*. Similarly, what one is attempting to explain when positing god as the creator of the universe is the complexity of the universe itself, not the nature of god.
Renzo at 6:09PM on Jul 24th 2008
=======================
Parallel example:
You find a chipped rock. Your theory is that it's just a rock, and was chipped by colliding with bits of gravel.
Your friend is Clif Claven, the postman from "Cheers". He says, "Nah, what ya got there is an ancient, uh, fedoomi wedge. Yeah, it's a little know fact that the, uh, Clovis Riciculii people, who are the forebears of all postal carriers, invented the chipped fedoomi wedge. Indeed, we all owe a debt of thanks to them for, uh, setting the postal standards we all hold so dear. Neither rain nor sleet, as it were, stopped them from delivering stone tablets on their, uh, appointed rounds. To this day, we can thank them for the wedge, which, uh, prevented their stone wheels from rolling off, and is the, uh, precursor of the modern emergency brake."
Toad at 7:53PM on Jul 24th 2008
41. Just read the text to Obama's awful speech in Berlin. Man is this guy going down in November. He is a man of limited (none actually) accomplishments and his lack of experience in anything will hand the Republicans another 4 years. I particularly enjoyed this bit of American self-loathing:
“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.” Barack Hussein Obama
First of all, what a dreadful piece of writing: “I know my country has not perfected itself!” How clumsy.
The idea that a presidential candidate would stand in front of a bunch of selfish, hedonistic Europeans, and Germans at that, and somehow apologize for not being perfect is rich. What an embarrassment! We had to go over there not once, but twice, and have our young boys die in the hundreds of thousands and then have to apologize because they disapprove of our foreign policy! What a joke. In fact, the only reason their little socialist experiment is at all surviving is because WE, America, exists. We are their Army, Navy, and Air Force. This allows them to wallow in their laziness and nihilism. We basically had to cut their balls off or those dummies would still probably be slaughtering themselves. Thank God for America!!!
The media love affair with Obama is about to end and his immaturity and inexperience will come to the fore. McCain, only a mere 4 points behind will easily close the gap once the American people begin paying attention in September.
Publius at 7:57PM on Jul 24th 2008
42. sorry, that should read "Clovis Ridiculii"
(you'd think I'd be able to get it right when I'm just making shit up, but NOOOO...)
Toad at 8:21PM on Jul 24th 2008
43. You find a chipped rock. Your theory is that it's just a rock, and was chipped by colliding with bits of gravel.
Your friend is Clif Claven, the postman from "Cheers". He says, ......-Toad at 7:53PM
-------------------------------
OR, said chipped substance may have indeed been a 12th century B.C. 'sex stone'......ya know, a fucking rock !
mac at 8:25PM on Jul 24th 2008
44. Renzo thank you for breaking it down to a level that even a simpleton can understand. The quality (or lack there of) of counter arguments can only add to your point.
It constantly amuses me when the militant Atheist has to throw logic right out the window in their quest to prove a negative. Such is the life of the intellectual leach.
allabaster at 8:55PM on Jul 24th 2008
45. OR, said chipped substance may have indeed been a 12th century B.C. 'sex stone'......ya know, a fucking rock !
mac at 8:25PM on Jul 24th 2008
====================
um - ribbed for her pleasure?
Toad at 8:56PM on Jul 24th 2008