On to chapter 2:
After a gratuitous bit of poisoning the well:
he decides he really doesn't want to talk specifically about God, as depicted in the OT, after all:
Or more accurately, he wants to deal with the God of philosophy and text-book theists--the God most of us want to believe in, in other words, because the personality of God, as revealed in various religious texts makes us uncomfortable with precisely the sort of well-poisoned attributes he lists above, rather than thinking about it in any depth. I know I am tempted frequently to make God after a sanitized, theoretical image, emasculated of emotional vibrancy, rather than the "primitive" deity of the ancient world--and it's then that I feel like I don't know or believe anything concrete about God. Ah well, that's my own error, I suppose.
Speaking of sanitized deities, Dawkins seems to anticipate the kind of "Unmoved-Mover" arguments of causation by making a parallel statement about the rise of intelligence:
This seems to be an intended answer to the unmoved-mover, undesigned-designer, uncaused-first causer type of argument. I wasn't familiar with the idea until I read this book, so if there is a more serious treatment of it elsewhere, I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I could read about it--either the atheistic formulation of the argument, or a philosophical deconstruction of it. I will do my best, admittedly amateurish, job to express what I think about it.
I say it runs parallel to first-cause arguments because they seem similar in function--something like:
1. Every observable phenomenon has a cause.
2. The universe is an observable phenomenon.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
This is uncontroversial (though perhaps not my wording)--the problem is that it leads to a "turtles all the way down" type of infinite regress problem. Basically, in case you don't know, the idea is that whatever the cause of the universe is, then that must have a cause, and then that cause must have a cause, and then that cause must have a cause, ad infinitum.
River_terrapin.jpg
Theists stop the regression at God, atheists at the universe. Of the two positions, I find the Atheistic position to be the weaker because it seems to me to be a case of special pleading, the discussion of which is handled in a different thread.
Here, Dawkins gives an argument that is related as it gets rid of first cause altogether, and instead posits that first causes must be "simple" because creative intelligence is the product of evolution, which might be formulated like this (though I am willing to consider other formulations):
1. All creative intelligences are the result of evolution.
2. At the beginning of the universe, there is no time for evolution.
3. Therefore the first cause of the universe is not intelligent.
While that might leave room for Azazoth, it doesn't for the classical "God" of philosophers and theologians.
My own, off-the-cuff answer to this is that premise 1, expressed as an absolute, should not be. If we apply some philosophical and empirical humility to premise one--all observable creative intelligences are the result of evolution--which is more in line with reality, then the weakness of the argument becomes apparent.
1. All observable creative intelligences are the result of evolution.
2. At the beginning of the universe, there is not time for evolution.
3a. Therefore, the first cause is either a hither-to unobserved creative intelligence that does not rely on evolution
3b. The first cause is not intelligent.
This seems more logically sound; unfortunately, it doesn't say much of anything because it puts us back where we started. So let's see if we can get somewhere with it.
4. All observable symmetrical systems were caused by creative intelligence.
5. The universe is an observable symmetrical system.
6. Therefore, there first cause must be an unobserved creative intelligence.
fwiw,
guacamole
After a gratuitous bit of poisoning the well:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror.
he decides he really doesn't want to talk specifically about God, as depicted in the OT, after all:
I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan... Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
Or more accurately, he wants to deal with the God of philosophy and text-book theists--the God most of us want to believe in, in other words, because the personality of God, as revealed in various religious texts makes us uncomfortable with precisely the sort of well-poisoned attributes he lists above, rather than thinking about it in any depth. I know I am tempted frequently to make God after a sanitized, theoretical image, emasculated of emotional vibrancy, rather than the "primitive" deity of the ancient world--and it's then that I feel like I don't know or believe anything concrete about God. Ah well, that's my own error, I suppose.
Speaking of sanitized deities, Dawkins seems to anticipate the kind of "Unmoved-Mover" arguments of causation by making a parallel statement about the rise of intelligence:
...any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
This seems to be an intended answer to the unmoved-mover, undesigned-designer, uncaused-first causer type of argument. I wasn't familiar with the idea until I read this book, so if there is a more serious treatment of it elsewhere, I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I could read about it--either the atheistic formulation of the argument, or a philosophical deconstruction of it. I will do my best, admittedly amateurish, job to express what I think about it.
I say it runs parallel to first-cause arguments because they seem similar in function--something like:
1. Every observable phenomenon has a cause.
2. The universe is an observable phenomenon.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
This is uncontroversial (though perhaps not my wording)--the problem is that it leads to a "turtles all the way down" type of infinite regress problem. Basically, in case you don't know, the idea is that whatever the cause of the universe is, then that must have a cause, and then that cause must have a cause, and then that cause must have a cause, ad infinitum.
River_terrapin.jpg
Theists stop the regression at God, atheists at the universe. Of the two positions, I find the Atheistic position to be the weaker because it seems to me to be a case of special pleading, the discussion of which is handled in a different thread.
Here, Dawkins gives an argument that is related as it gets rid of first cause altogether, and instead posits that first causes must be "simple" because creative intelligence is the product of evolution, which might be formulated like this (though I am willing to consider other formulations):
1. All creative intelligences are the result of evolution.
2. At the beginning of the universe, there is no time for evolution.
3. Therefore the first cause of the universe is not intelligent.
While that might leave room for Azazoth, it doesn't for the classical "God" of philosophers and theologians.
My own, off-the-cuff answer to this is that premise 1, expressed as an absolute, should not be. If we apply some philosophical and empirical humility to premise one--all observable creative intelligences are the result of evolution--which is more in line with reality, then the weakness of the argument becomes apparent.
1. All observable creative intelligences are the result of evolution.
2. At the beginning of the universe, there is not time for evolution.
3a. Therefore, the first cause is either a hither-to unobserved creative intelligence that does not rely on evolution
3b. The first cause is not intelligent.
This seems more logically sound; unfortunately, it doesn't say much of anything because it puts us back where we started. So let's see if we can get somewhere with it.
4. All observable symmetrical systems were caused by creative intelligence.
5. The universe is an observable symmetrical system.
6. Therefore, there first cause must be an unobserved creative intelligence.
fwiw,
guacamole
Comment