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 4 of 83)
46. That would be the sedimentary ones.
a born atheist at 8:59PM on Jul 24th 2008
47. Such is the life of the intellectual leach.
allabaster at 8:55PM on Jul 24th 2008
==================
"Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!"
Toad at 9:03PM on Jul 24th 2008
48. "I TA'd Intro to Logic classes so I don't need to pick up a text."
Then why do you insist on calling a counterexample an analogy?
"A counter example is an scenario chosen because it demonstrates that another example does not hold for all cases."
Well, if we're talking about logic, we're talking about arguments, not 'examples.' Also, in logic 'counterexamples' are instances in which you take an argument, reduce it to its logical form, then fill in the variables with propositions that differ from those of the first argument, all the while being careful to maintain the same logical form. This is precisely what Dinesh did: Here's Dawkins argument; here's what it amounts to in terms of its logical form; and here's a counterexample, using different terms (substitution instances) chosen to make the initial argument's flaw obvious. Let's see this process unfold in Dinesh's own words:
First, Dinesh presents Dawkins's argument: "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."
Then, Dinesh provides us with the logical form of Dawkins's argument: "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."
Finally, Dinesh uses a counterexample to show what's wrong with the argument: "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."
Do you see it now?
"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."
First, this is clearly not an analogy. Analogies are used either to illustrate a point (e.g. Plato's cave) or to argue a point. This is obviously not an illustration by analogy, so is it an argument by analogy? Well, what is an argument by analogy? It's an argument that proceeds along these lines: S1 has qualities Q1, Q2, and Q3; S2 has qualities Q1 and Q2; therefore, S2 (probably) has Q3. Now, did Dinesh's argument more closely resemble what I described as a counterexample above, or an analogy? The answer is clear.
Second, the point of Dinesh's article was not, "God is complex, but evolution is too"; in fact, it's your mistaken interpretation in this respect that has led you to conclude that Dinesh was using an analogy. In other words, if you think Dinesh is trying to make a claim here about evolution, then you've misread the article. 'Evolution' just happens to be the substitution instance he chose to use (for obvious reasons -- this is Richard Dawkins) to make the point that Dawkins's argument stinks. In other words, Dinesh is saying, "Your argument is so bad that it can be used to explain away your favorite explanation, i.e. evolution; but both you and I both know that evolution is accurate; therefore, any argument that explains away evolution is fallacious."
"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."
This confused statement makes me seriously question your claim to have taught logic. Dawkins's claim that the creator is a complex explanation for the universe isn't his 'argument'; it's a premise in his argument. People who have taught logic simply don't confuse arguments with premises (or counterexamples with analogies).
Now, if you want to claim that Dinesh's substitution of 'evolution' for 'god' in his counterexample doesn't work, then that a least is a sensible claim to make, and you may be able to get somewhere with it. However, when you try to make this point, *in the context of criticizing Dinesh's logic*, while getting just about every basic logical term wrong, your point isn't at all persuasive.
Renzo at 9:34PM on Jul 24th 2008
49. Really good article, Dinesh, as usual. Congratulations. Dawkins just can't avoid exposing the coward he is.
Dawkins says he doesn't believe in God. No problem, after all lies and stupid things Dwakins says, God himself doesn't believe in Dawkins.
Reepicheep at 10:13PM on Jul 24th 2008
50. “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
xxx
Marvelous words and a VERY soft inventory of the rise of american fascism.
If you challenge that this is fascism, I can take you over it vis a vis mussolini's manifesto so you'll have no doubt.
We invaded Iraq and torture detainees and send them overseas to be tortured and some of these people were innocent european citizens.
Bush is pretty much universally loathed and mistrusted, and Barack represents a new time and the end of the era of america and her citizens existing to serve the interests of a number of global corporations - the abomination that has been the bush attempt to destroy constitutional government.
And look at the results. That's the difference between a statesman addressing a crowd and your post turtle going on about a surge he didn't remember enough about to know when it started.
He's come home with an Iraqi government that wants to draw down the occupation his way, and even the mcbush is going to go along with it, unless they flipflop some more.
He's not even elected, and the war is now directed against terrorists again and there will be an end to the oil occupation.
That's freakin' amazing! You have no idea how amazing. That thing's been going on for longer than WWII and it took obama as a nominee one trip to get a timeline. The surge hasn't ended but Obama going to Iraq sure as hell made it irrelevant.
Clif Kuplen at 10:17PM on Jul 24th 2008
51. The notion that the United States can be characterized as 'fascistic' is beyond silly, beyond absurd, and beyond stupid: it's damn insulting to all the people who have been tortured and murdered by fascistic regimes, and who would've given anything to have been in today' United States instead. Here's the test: think of any uncontroversially fascist regime in history, and ask if the average citizen in that society would rather have lived in today's United States instead; ask how many people living under such regimes would have given their lives if it would've meant sending their families to today's United States; ask how many people living in the United States today would dispassionately react to the thought of living under any of these genuinely fascistic regimes instead. Once you ask and answer these questions, the entire notion crumbles. People like to have fun playing fast and loose with the very wide ranging criteria scholars have used to define fascism because it's so darn easy to do. To quote Alan Cassels, "When it comes to devising a conceptual definition of fascism *to serve as a frame of reference for the individual fascist movements*, there is not the vestige of a consensus. There exists diagnosis enough, but the quintessence of a singular political philosophy called fascism remains elusive. In fact, *the confusion grows apace as the epithet "fascist" is hurled with increasing abandon, but declining meaning, as a term of contemporary abuse*."
It's incredibly simple to go to some wiki-quality definition of fascism, and to match up the criteria with one's perception of current conditions; in fact, it's too simple. (Notice how easily unreflective conservatives do the same thing with "communism" and "socialism"; gee, you're in great company here, aren't you!) I guarantee that, if Obama is elected President, one could just as easily match up the criteria with the conditions and claim that the United States is a fascist nation under him. Your disagreements about whether the criteria are met would be no better than a Bush supporters disagreements today are. To put it bluntly, it's such a stupid and insulting move that it does nothing but discredit the one making it.
Renzo at 10:51PM on Jul 24th 2008
52.
Geez D'Itler. Why don't you just stalk Dawkins like one of Dill dO'Rielly's clowns? Really, this is starting to look like you've got a boy crush on the Jonas Brothers.
T.Brough at 11:00PM on Jul 24th 2008
53. 51. The notion that the United States can be characterized as 'fascistic' is beyond silly, beyond absurd, and beyond stupid
xxx
but not beyond true.
Cut the bullshit renzo. I'm talking about compliance with Giovanni Genitile and Benito Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism, the manifesto that drove Italy, Spain and Germany, to a lesser extent other countries, but reflected absoulutely in republicanist history and philosophy, point by point.
The neocon fascism 1.1 has only a single distinguishing characteristic and that makes it even more malevolent. I might modify that only in the last few weeks to highlight another difference that's emerging recently.
Go read IT, not some other garbage and then we can talk. If you don't know what fascism is, and I guarantee you that you don't yet, you need to know before you start quoting anything.
This is a fascist nation for a number of reasons and has been on that track since 1980.
Clif Kuplen at 11:19PM on Jul 24th 2008
54. “Marvelous words and a VERY soft inventory of the rise of american fascism.” - Clif
In order for you to use the word “fascism” in sentence, it might help you if you understood the meaning of the word. I won’t be so pedantic as to give a definition, but let’s just say it involves a dictator. Maybe in your puny little mind Bush is a dictator, but he is no less a dictator than Bill Clinton was when he led an illegal air war over Kosovo without congressional or U.N. approval. The fascism charge is just empty rhetoric and you know it.
“If you challenge that this is fascism, I can take you over it vis a vis mussolini's manifesto so you'll have no doubt.” - Clif
No need to Clif, already know it. Not sure what it has to do at all with the current administration but please, do your best to prove your point. Again, empty political rhetoric.
“We invaded Iraq and torture detainees and send them overseas to be tortured and some of these people were innocent european citizens.”
Yes. We invaded Iraq with the approval of 2 deliberative bodies, the Senate and the House of Reps. and after 20 odd U.N. violations. Stupid, yes. Fascist, no.
Yes. A few muslim terrorists may have been tortured. I wonder if Al-Qaeda members would have used those awfully harsh tactics of sleep deprivation on our captured boys or would they have just cut their heads off and videotaped it. Yeah, you’re right Clif. We’re the big bad fascists.
“Bush is pretty much universally loathed and mistrusted, and Barack represents a new time and the end of the era of america and her citizens existing to serve the interests of a number of global corporations - the abomination that has been the bush attempt to destroy constitutional government.” - Clif
Bush is loathed…so what. Who gives a rat’s ass what the French and the Germans think. The last thing Americans should care about is what the dopey French think.
If you think that Obama represents the end of an era of serving the interests of global corporation, you are just your typical, naïve democrat. Obama is bought and paid for by the highest bidder. You name it: Financial Institutions, Trial lawyers, Big Pharma. There are very few politicians that aren’t captive to the business lobby. Even that socialist moron up n Vermont…..Bernie Sanders.
Clif….What has Obama accomplished? Name one significant thing. Hell…name one insignificant thing. He was a back-bencher in the Illinois senate and he has no record to speak of in the U.S. Senate. He has good looks. I’ll give him that. You can’t even compare his record to McCain‘s, or Hillary‘s for that matter. She should be your candidate; then I’d be nervous. She‘s far more intelligent and accomplished than he is. Once this race heats up, Obama will look like a little schoolgirl. If the Republicans are so loathed, why is Obama’s lead only 4-5 points? That should make you democrats real nervous because he should be up no less than 8-10 points considering where Bush’s ratings are. Not good Clif.
And the rest is just nonsense. You have a right to your opinion but it’s still nonsense.
Publius at 11:25PM on Jul 24th 2008
55. “The notion that the United States can be characterized as 'fascistic' is beyond silly, beyond absurd, and beyond stupid: it's damn insulting to all the people who have been tortured and murdered by fascistic regimes, and who would've given anything to have been in today' United States instead.” - Renzo
Well said Renzo. You beat me to it.
Publius at 11:29PM on Jul 24th 2008
56. Are these sentences equivalent?
1)God created the Universe.
2)Evolution created of diversity life on Earth.
No.
1)A supernatural being zaps all matter into existence.
2)The process of how living things diversify explains the diversity of life.
These second two sentences say the same thing as the first two but they are shown to be obviously different notions.
1)What GOD did, that is 'make' the universe then explains the universe.(if you want to believe that, as Christians do)
2)The diversifying of living things(the process of evolution) explains the diverse living things.(if you believe that evolution is happening, Christian or not)
D'Souza's 'comparison game' hides GOD(the complex being who can create universes) from us, presenting us instead with GOD(the process of creating the universe).
He pawns us off with..
1)GOD(the process of creating the universe) created or explains the universe
.... is equivalent to....
2)Evolution(the process of creating diversity of living things) created or explains the diversity of living things.
But GOD isn't a process, HE is (we hear) a magical, eternal being.
not-pboyfloyd at 11:41PM on Jul 24th 2008
57. Yes. A few muslim terrorists may have been tortured. I wonder if Al-Qaeda members would have used those awfully harsh tactics of sleep deprivation on our captured boys or would they have just cut their heads off and videotaped it. Yeah, you’re right Clif. We’re the big bad fascists.
No we are not facists but on the other hand aren't we supposed to be better than these middle ages desiring fanatical shitheads? Is claiming we didn't stoop to their barbaric level really saying anything?
Who gives a rat’s ass what the French and the Germans think. The last thing Americans should care about is what the dopey French think.
Yes. We invaded Iraq with the approval of 2 deliberative bodies, the Senate and the House of Reps. and after 20 odd U.N. violations. Stupid, yes. Fascist, no.
Had we listened to the dopey French that stupid mistake would have never been made.
tmo at 12:15AM on Jul 25th 2008
58. Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins
D'souza is obsessed.
mikespenard at 12:57AM on Jul 25th 2008
59. Maybe this debate hasn't taken place because discrediting evolution does not prove a God. Even if a rational argument for a God can be forwarded it certainly doesn't prove any particular one.
Then again I've been trying for years to get someone to debate me that the universe revolves around the earth. I mean just look outside stuff in the sky moves but I don't feel me moving. The only time I've felt the earth spin was when I was drunk. The only logical conclusion is that all scientist are drunks.
tmo at 12:23AM on Jul 25th 2008
60. If DD wishes to debate a scientist he should know what science is. An important part of the scientific method is the principle of parsimony, sometimes called Ockham's razor. Simply stated it is thus: "No more entities than are required should be used to explain anything in nature". A scientist is prohibited from positing a being without cause as the cause of anything in nature that has a natural explanation which the scientific community has been unable to falsify and accepts as fact.
Another thing DD should be aware of: the origin of life, whose cause is unknown (a gap that supernaturalists have seized upon) was the beginning of biological evolution.
If DD is unaware of elementary scientific knowledge, he cannot credibly debate a scientist.
Natural Puppy at 12:27AM on Jul 25th 2008