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 6 of 83)
76. again. I believe that the economy exists to serve the best (and constitutional) interests of the US and her citizens. Everything else flows from that concept.
******************************************
We too often make statements that are grammatically incorrect, semantically deficient, or careless. You do it. I do it. As naturalists, we most likely agree that constructs such as the economy do not exist for any purpose. They just exist.
Natural Puppy at 4:13AM on Jul 25th 2008
77. “I keep saying this. Did you know who he was in 2002? Do you know who he is now?
Where was he today? Talking to an adoring throng of 200,000 of America's best allies.
He didn't have a billionaire daddy or come from a line of admirals or have huge political machine fuhding him, yet here he is.He has a better record in the senate than you think but it is not important at all at this time. You are looking at a statesman. I grant you he's as savvy as politicians get, and he has some of the best help available now with his campaign, but Obama is indeed a statesman. They're just a cut above - the Hawkings, the Mozarts, the Alexanders, the Newtons. I have no idea what appeal this constitutional abortion of a government could have for you, but whatever it is will cause you to dissociate from his accomplishments. It is emotional and not rational, this much I can tell you. Also if he didn't stand for and advocate what I also think needs to be done I wouldn't vote for him, but he does in great detail, and I see that as a position of ethics and integrity. I know why I'm voting for him, but I have no idea why you're voting against him. Do you think this is America? How long you been around?” - C;if
Very nice Clif, but I’ll ask it again: Can you name one significant Obama accomplishment
‘It is emotional and not rational, this much I can tell you. “ - Clif
It’s rational to vote for someone with who has accomplished nothing?
Publius at 6:23AM on Jul 25th 2008
78. In the words of Mike Tyson, Dawkins is a "Scared coward."
Frank Pak at 7:10AM on Jul 25th 2008
79. Publius: "It’s rational to vote for someone with who has accomplished nothing?"
I guess graduating from Harvard (on his own merits) and then becoming a state legislator and then a US Senator isn't enough for you?
I think it's pretty impressive.
Ryan Anderson at 7:10AM on Jul 25th 2008
80. Mike Tyson, now there is a role model.
a born atheist at 7:46AM on Jul 25th 2008
81. All those atheists who were blindly following what Dawkins said about God and religion must be feeling v embarassed now as it has become clear that dawkins is too afraid to debate DD or any of the other christian apologists...
kumar at 8:04AM on Jul 25th 2008
82. I guess
Publius at 8:14AM on Jul 25th 2008
83. I guess
Publius at 8:15AM on Jul 25th 2008
84. kumar; "All those atheists who were blindly following what Dawkins said about God and religion"
All two of them? There are no atheist leaders. It is not an organization. He is not a pope.
a born atheist at 8:15AM on Jul 25th 2008
85. Sorry about that. AOL is screwed up.
"I guess graduating from Harvard (on his own merits) and then becoming a state legislator and then a US Senator isn't enough for you?" - Ryan
Not really. That's pretty standard fare for politicians. Ivy league doesn't impress me one bit. All it says is that you paid about $200,000 too much for your education. Look at Ted Kennedy or G.W.
Publius at 8:28AM on Jul 25th 2008
86. Please quote for me the passage in Revelations where it says that the Anti-Christ will be of muslim descent, in his 40's, and people will flock to him.
I would like chapter and verse numbers too so I can reference it on my own and see for myself. I think its a load of crap.
CaptainCack at 8:32AM on Jul 25th 2008
87. Kumar (DD?):
You continue to believe that the statements of ANY "leading" (your definition) atheist/evolutionist (which two designations equal each other only in your mind) represent the beliefs of most other non-believers, because you cannot understand that atheism is not a "religion" like yours. It has no organization, no priests or ministers, no agreed upon dogma, no organized worship, etc. Therefore, your suggestion that atheists should even care about your inability to trick Dawkins into a "debate", let alone feel embarrassmanet, is only an embarrassment to you. Please notice that most of the comments you have generated so far over three separate postings about your "upcoming" dabate that was not a debate and never "came up" have been clearly opposed to your ridiculous and obviously obsessional effort to "force" Dawkins to debate you AND... most of any subsequent discussion has been about other issues that are the ones most often discussed on this Blog and which are only obliquely associated with anything you have happened to post that day.
Harvey at 8:37AM on Jul 25th 2008
88. Obama has had some minor accomplishments in the Senate. He's done some work on Ethics Reform and he co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama inititiative to strengthen the framework for securing/destroying conventional arms. Fabulous. I just don't know why Obama supporters are so unwilling to admit that he's an amateur. Compared to mcCain, he's not even on junior varsity.
Publius at 8:44AM on Jul 25th 2008
89. Mccain is claiming to have won every war after vietnam, finished 849th out of 899 in Annapolis, crashed 5 times while in the military, and tried to redefine the surge to make up for his screw up.
Obama might be an "amateur" but if our pros are like McCain and Bush, maybe what this country needs IS an "amateur".
Frankly, he doesnt act like one.
CaptainCack at 8:53AM on Jul 25th 2008
90. HAROLD AND DINESH D'SOUZA GO TO WHITE CASTLE
(in disguise, of course...a bad disguise)
HA HA HA HA
America's Most Gangsta at 9:04AM on Jul 25th 2008