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 7 of 83)
91. Yeah, and Richard Dawkins steals their car
CaptainCack at 9:10AM on Jul 25th 2008
92. "Obama might be an "amateur" but if our pros are like McCain and Bush, maybe what this country needs IS an "amateur"." - Cack
Bush has always been an amateur but this isn't about Bush. It's about McCain v. Obama.
Publius at 9:28AM on Jul 25th 2008
93. Great, its not about Bush. I did, however, say MCCAIN AND BUSH, not just Bush. My statement stands, just remove "Bush".
CaptainCack at 9:42AM on Jul 25th 2008
94. 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.
You aren't going to find it anywhere in there. In an E-mail I've read, but not the bible.
Hilarious how the "good book" is so often used as a tool, and nobody bothers to check - Which says alot about those "christians" that buy this horse manure.
"The antichrist is going to be a 40 year old muslim male."
"Really? How do you know that?"
"It's in the bible. Revelations."
"Wow. I didn't know that. I'd better go tell my brother."
Do you have any idea how absolutely moronic this sounds? Can't you realize why we are so hostile towards your religion?
What you've just done, is make up some crap about the doomsday end of the world bible hooey, and are using it for political purposes.
No proof. You just made it up, and threw it out there.
ex-christian at 10:17AM on Jul 25th 2008
95. Barack Obama is 46
CaptainCack at 10:34AM on Jul 25th 2008
96.
Anyhoo, back to the nonsense of Diddy.
He's trying to pass the "knowledge line" off as where god begins. We know exactly how strong gravity is, and we can use it to our advantage. But the line where we currently don't know - That's where god is. The line, if you will, where proof stops, there's god. By this stupid tact, if we discover the higgs boson, just push the god line back a bit.
He's also saying that evolution is a thing - object? It's a process. It's a complicated process, true. We have multiple sciences that give proof to what's been put forward. And again, where our knowledge stops, that's where god is.
You can't debate against that. It's stupid to even try. No matter what we discover, this silly argument just pushes the line back a little further.
It wouldn't matter if we came up with a solid unifying theory, that works to the moment of the big bang, the "ignorant god line" sits at the big bang. If we figure out that dark matter pulls superclusters of galaxies into singularities, and the cycle repeats, The line just moves back another notch.
It's really an absolutely goofy argument, and Diddy ties it to christianity.
ex-christian at 10:58AM on Jul 25th 2008
97. puppy, you're preaching to someone with an undergrad degree in marine biology.
Overpopulation and the pollution arising from industry is a major concern of mine since about 1964 as is our perpetual non compliance with Kyoto standards and the attempt by unregulated corporations (see 'fascism') to manipulate public opinion to align with their profit and against the best interests of the US and her citizens.
If you want any progress into resolutions or at least rollbacks in this area, you will have to get decision making back into the hands of an *educated informed* public.
Your ONLY shot at this is a return to constitutional government and that begins by wresting control of our economy and policy making from the merger of corporation and state that now exists.
Look at the 'green' record of our country since deregulation under Reagan. Down the freakin' toilet.
The US as Obama said in Germany has a huge role in resolution of global problems exactly like the ones you mention.
These issues, the italian style corporazione that we are drifting into now and the need for our nation's economy to serve the best interests of the US, her citizens and on a larger scale, referring to Obama again ALL citizens of this globe and the need to return to the mission statement of our nation as iterated in the Preamble are all intertwined. If corporate interests prevail, profit will continue to trump everything.
You have seen the results of interference with the duties of government in pursuit of profit.
Your food is not properly inspected, your port security is subcontracted to arabs, your imports poison children and there is no reliable disaster relief, just endless rationalizations and excuses and attempts to lay the blame elsewhere, usually at Bill Clinton's door.
These things are all interrelated. If you want to address the issues you mention, and I certainly do too, the ONLY way is to get unregulated corporate power out of the equation.
This is a government of, by and for people, not profit.
Clif Kuplen at 11:01AM on Jul 25th 2008
98. "According to you the chinese communists should be appeased in any way they demand, but the French who have been our allies since LaFayette are 'dopey'?" - Clif
Actually, no. Sadly, the chinese commies are being appeased because big business runs both political parties, not just Republicans (does Charlie Trie ring a bell.) Maybe you and I can agree on that. And I despise both parties so I'm no dittohead.
And yes, the French have been our allies since Lafayette but for some strange reason, and this is peculiar to liberals, the desire to be loved by the European public is of primary importance. They are always carping about our "image" in the world but for them, the rest of the world is elite European society. I'm not exactly sure why that is but thankfully, conservatives don't suffer from such a malady.
Publius at 11:02AM on Jul 25th 2008
99. Clif,
Thanks for your post # 60. Very interesting. I will respond shortly.
Publius at 11:13AM on Jul 25th 2008
100. And yes, the French have been our allies since Lafayette but for some strange reason, and this is peculiar to liberals, the desire to be loved by the European public is of primary importance. They are always carping about our "image" in the world but for them, the rest of the world is elite European society. I'm not exactly sure why that is but thankfully, conservatives don't suffer from such a malady.
A sociopath gives no thought whatsoever about what other people think of him/her. They are absolutely convinced that nobody else matters. Only themselves, and whatever they want.
By your definition, conservativism is sociopathic. "who gives a rat's ass what anybody thinks. We are the greatest. Our wants are all there is, screw everybody. I don't care if they helped us before."
ex-christian at 11:21AM on Jul 25th 2008
101. As naturalists, we most likely agree that constructs such as the economy do not exist for any purpose. They just exist.
xxx
you need to connect the compartments you keep your information in. The reason we have constitutional government is laid out in the preamble. Saying jesus runs the economy or that it's magic or wherever you're trying to go with that is patently absurd.
You're trying to defend something without being obliged to think about it.
If you have no more curiosity than that and 'it's a mystery' is more comfortable for you, best of luck, but I doubt you can pray your way out of the situation inattention and laxity in government oversight has gotten us into.
That will take the kind of work that Obama is capable of doing but it's exactly what the mcbush will fight tooth and nail.
If you don't like the message from me, get it somewhere else, but you need to get it. It may make you uncomfortable, but most focused efforts do.
Clif Kuplen at 11:22AM on Jul 25th 2008
102. Let's see what happens when I randomly throw in these three words... The Dark Knight
Mokele Mbembe at 11:30AM on Jul 25th 2008
103. Renzo:
I log on this morning and find you still yammering on about the form and syntax of my arguments rather than the substance.
Your hyper-sensitivity to criticism of DD's arguments and obsessive focus on minutiae in responding lead me to conclude what many others have said previously…..
RENZO=DD
John Galt
John Galt at 11:32AM on Jul 25th 2008
104. Do you want to know how I got these scars?
CaptainCack at 11:35AM on Jul 25th 2008
105. "A sociopath gives no thought whatsoever about what other people think of him/her. They are absolutely convinced that nobody else matters. Only themselves, and whatever they want.
By your definition, conservativism is sociopathic. "who gives a rat's ass what anybody thinks. We are the greatest. Our wants are all there is, screw everybody. I don't care if they helped us before." - X
Do you interpret everything to such extremes? A "sociopath"......Please.
Do you beleive that the French care what others think of them? And what about the Germans and Russians? How about the Chinese? They seem to be real worried about that whole "Tibet" situation. Do you think they sit around nattering about what the rest of the world thinks of them. I don't think so.
Publius at 11:42AM on Jul 25th 2008