Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and their 'attitude'

It blows me away that materialists take the laws of chemistry and physics as givens (thereby --they believe-- ending the infinite regress problem) and scoff at Christian claims that God is uncreated.

David I believe you ended one of your posts with "He is risen"
My response: He is risen indeed. Happy Easter everyone.
 
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

----- Original Message ----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Cc: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2007 10:12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and their 'attitude'

A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because
any God capable of
designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same
kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress

from which he cannot help us to escape.
 

This is so exceedingly ignorant that it amazes me that anyone takes it seriously. In addition to George's point about God's "simplicity," Dawkins simply doesn't get that "God" is outside the created order and above secondary causes. He just blithely blows on by the whole discussion of primary and secondary causes in Christian theology and simply assumes what we call "secondary" or "natural" causes
must be the only causes.

If Dawkins wants to disprove a designer-god who is part of creation and who can be accounted for by natural causes, well, fine. So what? The Christian God is not part of the creation and by defnition is
not accounted for by natural causes. How can anyone purporting to critique the Christian tradition be so uneducated about this most basic of distinctions between God and the creation?

Moreover, Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that he's actually laying the groundwork for the scholastic evidence for God as the "uncaused cause." God doesn't "present an infinite regress" --
materialism presents an infinite regress (so how does Dawkins explain where matter came from?), which is stopped only by an "unmoved mover" (per Aristotle) or "uncaused cause" (per Aquinas: God).

On 4/7/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:

> I hadn't thought of it that way, but it strikes me that Dawkins's argument
> is pretty silly. I think Dawkins's premise is that God must be more complex
> than us to have created us. I actually think it's a false premise to assume

> that you have to be more complex than what you create in the first place.

Seems your disagreement is with Intelligent Design which arguments
Dawkins skilfully uses against religion.

> We haven't done it yet, but I don't think it's inconceivable that given the

> rise in computer power, that one day someone will write an evolutionary
> simulation in a computer that will give rise to "virtual" entities inside
> the computer that are more complex than us. However, we as "programmers"

> are at a different level of reality than the entities that exist within the
> software simulation. I think Dawkins wants to reduce it all to one level.
> In the radio broadcast, he suggested that a Designer must be more complex

> than us, and so it must also have evolved, and as it's more complex, then it
> is even more unlikely than us.

You are pretty close here. He basically uses ID's arguments against ID
and religion.

> But his premise right at the start is that
> this material world in which things evolve is the only one there is. But he

Not really. After all, God is not ruled out a-priori.

> then wants to use this to "prove" the non-existence of God (or to be more

> precise, to demonstrate the near impossibility of God). But the thing he's
> trying to prove is the premise he's assumed in the first place.

Nope, that does not really accurately describe Dawkins' argument.

<quote>
A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because
any God capable of
designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same
kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress

from which he cannot help us to escape. This argument, as I shall show
in the next chapter, demonstrates that God, though not technically
disprovable, is very very improbable indeed.</quote>

Dawkins also points out that

<quote>Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also
raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how
organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any

deliberate guidance. </quote>

> I think this argument is wrong for the same reason that the Design argument
> is wrong. When Paley stumbles upon the watch on the heath, the only reason

> he is justified in assuming it had a watchmaker is that he knows that
> watchmakers exist - there is independent empirical evidence of them - one
> has seen a man making a watch. But no-one has seen God zapping a flagellum

> into existence, so the analogy breaks down. The Design argument presumes
> the existence of God from the start. By the same token the Dawkins argument
> for the non-existence of God presumes the non-existence of God. Both sides

> are flawed in assuming what you're trying to prove in the first place. (I
> think there's some name for that logical fallacy, but the name escapes me
> for the moment).
>
> Iain

>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 7 23:18:43 2007