The God Delusion by Dawkins

[thewriteranon]

I've had tons of atheist friends tell me that I should read The God Delusion, and that it's a fantastic book that really influenced them. I still haven't read it, and I have almost no desire to read it. The reason for this is pretty simple: Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher. I do not want to read a book on philosophy written by someone who has no training in philosophy any more than I want to read a book on biology written by someone with no training in biology. For example, if I want to learn about evolution by natural selection, I have no interest in reading a book written by William Dembski. In exactly the same way, if I want to learn about philosophy, why would I choose to read a book by Richard Dawkins?

To be a part of the Cool Kids Club.

I am not part of the Cool Kids Club. I am a member of a much more secret and cooler organization.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I am not at all convinced by Dawkin's reasoning on this. It is special pleading that asserts that even though everything else material has a material cause, the Universe does not.

To be fair, Christians also claim that "even though everything else material has a material cause, the Universe does not." That's explicit in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig assert that even though the universe may not have a material cause despite the fact that everything else material has a material cause, the universe must have had an efficient cause because everything else material has an efficient cause. This seems like a fairly inconsistent position, to me, but it is the one which Dr. Craig supports.

[guacamole]

To be fair, Christians also claim that "even though everything else material has a material cause, the Universe does not." That's explicit in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig assert that even though the universe may not have a material cause despite the fact that everything else material has a material cause, the universe must have had an efficient cause because everything else material has an efficient cause. This seems like a fairly inconsistent position, to me, but it is the one which Dr. Craig supports.

The point is that therefore something--some cause--must be defined as special--the first cause. In this case, theists move it backwards into the "supernatural" or "special." It's a nice happenstance that they are not also engaged in special pleading therefore.

[TheWall]

Simplicity in the case of theology does not mean that the thing lacks intelligence or refinement. Rather it refers to the fact that the simple thing is self contained and does not have more parts than needed.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The point is that therefore something--some cause--must be defined as special--the first cause. In this case, theists move it backwards into the "supernatural" or "special." It's a nice happenstance that they are not also engaged in special pleading therefore.

Eh, I'm not so sure I agree. It would depend on the particular formulation, of course, but WLC's idea clearly looks just as much like special pleading as does Dawkins'.

[guacamole]

Eh, I'm not so sure I agree. It would depend on the particular formulation, of course, but WLC's idea clearly looks just as much like special pleading as does Dawkins'.

Theists have supernaturalism as a built in part of causation. The universe isn't the only thing with a supernatural cause.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Theists have supernaturalism as a built in part of causation. The universe isn't the only thing with a supernatural cause.

The supernaturalism wasn't what I was referring to. Rather, it's the fact that, on WLC's formulation, all material things have material causes, except for the universe itself, which must be special.

[guacamole]

The supernaturalism wasn't what I was referring to. Rather, it's the fact that, on WLC's formulation, all material things have material causes, except for the universe itself, which must be special.

I'm not sure how WLC, as a Christian, would make the argument that all material things have only material causes. If so, then yes, he might be engaged in special pleading and I would disagree with him.

[Kbertsche]

Dawkins, IMO, rightly rolls his eyes at the traditional theological claim of "God is 'simple'", which blithely asserts in the face of all evidence and reason that God is a non-complex being and does not have any parts... yet who somehow nonetheless has immense intelligence, thoughts, desires, will, emotions, knowledge, etc. Dawkins notes that here the theologians are essentially saying "God is 'simple' because theologians said so, so there. So your scientific ideas that an intelligent being is a complex entity are irrelevant." They are essentially declaring this by fiat and thus admitting that no rational argument could ever convince them.

Though hansgeorg seems to agree that "God is simple", I don't think I've ever heard this claim in traditional theology. And if theologians DO say it, I suspect that they mean something different by it than does Dawkins. Can you (or hansgeorge) present any references to theologians claiming that "God is simple"?

(One of Dawkins' main problems is that he doesn't really understand the Bible or theology, so he ends up attacking a straw man. I suspect that he is doing the same thing here.)

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not sure how WLC, as a Christian, would make the argument that all material things have only material causes. If so, then yes, he might be engaged in special pleading and I would disagree with him.

He doesn't make the argument that they have only material causes. He makes the argument that despite the fact that all material things have material causes, the universe itself-- though material-- has no material cause. This is special pleading.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Though hansgeorg seems to agree that "God is simple", I don't think I've ever heard this claim in traditional theology. And if theologians DO say it, I suspect that they mean something different by it than does Dawkins. Can you (or hansgeorge) present any references to theologians claiming that "God is simple"?

(One of Dawkins' main problems is that he doesn't really understand the Bible or theology, so he ends up attacking a straw man. I suspect that he is doing the same thing here.)

God's simplicity has been a major point of Classical Theology for a very long time.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/

[guacamole]

He doesn't make the argument that they have only material causes. He makes the argument that despite the fact that all material things have material causes, the universe itself-- though material-- has no material cause. This is special pleading.

Material things have either a supernatural cause or a material cause or both. If WLC is asserting something else then I think he is wrong.

[hansgeorg]

I'm personally quite fine with the idea of there existing a first cause. I wouldn't want to argue for an infinite regress of causes as an alternative. But IMO the first cause could well be a mathematical truth - a theorem of quantum physics.

If there had been only 1:st, 2:nd and 3:rd via (first mover, first cause, first necessary existence), at least at a superficial glance, the God of these ways could be impersonal.

It's when we add 4:th and 5:th ways, one of which is argument from order and other of which is argument from most noble, that we can actually grasp that God must be personal.

(I forget in which order these two come).

And CSL backed the "argument from most noble thing" (and hierarchy of noble things) up as in his argument for a valid and universally so morality.

Creationists and Geocentrics are backing the other part up.

[hansgeorg]

I am a member of a much more secret and cooler organization.

"we who have NOT read Dawkins' The God Delusion"?

[hansgeorg]

To be fair, Christians also claim that "even though everything else material has a material cause, the Universe does not." That's explicit in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.

No. For the universe to have a "material cause", it is not needed it was preceded by something material, it needs only consist of matter and of matters which are formed and to it as material causes, i e as components.