I'm reading The God Delusion by Dawkins, and I have to say I'm pretty impressed by the "Ultimate 747" argument. The original 747 argument was proposed by (if I remember from what I read) Fred Hoyle against evolution; that anything as complex as life (as it currently exists) appearing by chance is as likely as an explosion creating a fully-formed 747. (Of course, anyone with a glimmer of understanding of evolutionary theory knows that the complexity we see in life today is not the result of pure chance.)

The Ultimate 747 argument goes something like this: if life, the universe, and everything was created by a personal God, then the God who created it is necessarily more complex (and therefore more improbable) than the order we see in the universe. It does no real good to say that God is outside of the universe, because that doesn't really explain anything. Further, such reasoning hampers scientific progress, because if we allow for the existence of such a God, then whenever we come upon something we can't (yet) understand, we chalk it up to "God did it."

I have to admit, I'm a little saddened this makes so much sense to me.

Originally posted by Braveheart

The Ultimate 747 argument goes something like this: if life, the universe, and everything was created by a personal God, then the God who created it is necessarily more complex (and therefore more improbable) than the order we see in the universe.

What??? Why is God necessarily more complex? If I say that He isn't, am I contradicting some basic principle of thought?

It does no real good to say that God is outside of the universe, because that doesn't really explain anything. Further, such reasoning hampers scientific progress, because if we allow for the existence of such a God, then whenever we come upon something we can't (yet) understand, we chalk it up to "God did it."

I take the fundamental goal of science and thought to be "to uncover what is really there", agreed? If we find out that God is the ultimate explanation of something and the atheist says that they don't like it because scientific progress is halted, ignore them. It is not about progress for progresses sake. It is about progress for discoveries sake.

I have to admit, I'm a little saddened this makes so much sense to me.

Don't be sad, just think a little bit.

Originally posted by Philosophickle

What??? Why is God necessarily more complex? If I say that He isn't, am I contradicting some basic principle of thought?

Think a little about it, Phil. A God that can intelligently design the universe has to have a mind complex enough to design it. And if it's a personal God, He has to also be able to monitor the sins of billions of people, hear their prayers, maintain relationships, etc.

I take the fundamental goal of science and thought to be "to uncover what is really there", agreed? If we find out that God is the ultimate explanation of something and the atheist says that they don't like it because scientific progress is halted, ignore them. It is not about progress for progresses sake. It is about progress for discoveries sake.

Ignorance (if not outright opposition, as in the case of Galileo) of scientific discoveries seems to have been the modus operandi of Christianity for much of its history. I'm not saying it has to be that way.

Don't be sad, just think a little bit.

In the words of a drunken Ford Prefect, "I'm trying to, baby, I'm trying to."

Originally posted by Braveheart

I have to admit, I'm a little saddened this makes so much sense to me.

It makes sense because it's designed to be persuasive--not becuase it's accurate, or even true. Phil pointed out a couple of very real problems with Dawkin's argument, but for my part, it comes down to the fact that Dawkins has rejected any possibility of God a priori. His book is just as faith-based as Left Behind--and to my mind, almost as valuable.

((And just in case there's any doubt, I think LaHaye's a moron, too.))

POWELL:
I'm thinking a lot of god belief works this way:

You imagine some possible worlds. You find you have control over what happens in your imaginary worlds. You decide who is there and who isn't, who succeeds and who fails, who is happy and who is sad, who lives and who dies. Local time in the imaginary world is no contraint because you can restart or jump ahead at will. The local speed of light isn't a constraint either. You can move yourself to any point in your imaginary world and use none of the world's time (only your thinking time).

It may not be obvious to you that the imaginary world's complexity is limited by the complexity of your brain.

Imagining what you think is the actual world is very much the same, but you're pressured to keep things as they appear rather than merely as they might be and how you'd like them to be. However, if you have ultimate power over your imaginary worlds, you figure there's some person who has ultimate power over the actual world. You call this person, God, and give to him the attributes you have in relation to your imaginary world.

AFAICT, God merely "exists" in the imagination.

John Powell

Originally posted by Braveheart

if life, the universe, and everything was created by a personal God, then the God who created it is necessarily more complex (and therefore more improbable) than the order we see in the universe.

So Dawkins takes a faulty creationist argument and creates an atheistic argument on that basis? There may be rhetorical value there in the context of trying to mess with someone advocating the original 747 argument, but that's it.

Dawkins should know as well as anyone that this universe may well run on a very simple, small set of principles and that the "complexity" we see is just the result of those principles playing out. (Think of cellular automata models.)

So a creator God would not even need to fully understand the resulting complex results, just have the special power to get the ball rolling and perhaps step in to do some miracles and talk with religious founders.

It does no real good to say that God is outside of the universe, because that doesn't really explain anything.

But it's not nonsense either. Clearly such a God would have to interact with our universe to fill the role of the traditional personal God, but there's nothing particularly crazy about thinking the "Hubble Bubble" does not sum up all existence.

Further, such reasoning hampers scientific progress, because if we allow for the existence of such a God, then whenever we come upon something we can't (yet) understand, we chalk it up to "God did it."

We could, but it's pretty clear that God-belief doesn't determine that people will think that way. Otherwise we'd have no history of God believers ever being scientifically curious.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

It makes sense because it's designed to be persuasive--not becuase it's accurate, or even true. Phil pointed out a couple of very real problems with Dawkin's argument, but for my part, it comes down to the fact that Dawkins has rejected any possibility of God a priori. His book is just as faith-based as Left Behind--and to my mind, almost as valuable.

((And just in case there's any doubt, I think LaHaye's a moron, too.))

It's a bit much to call Dawkins a moron, isn't it? Maybe that's not what your "too" referred to, but it sounds like it. (BTW, you make it sounds as though you've read the book through; I'm just over halfway through it.)

I don't think Phil's problems are real problems at all. I've already pointed out the complexity issue (Seasanctuary's objection notwithstanding--I'll get to it shortly, I hope). An argument God is within the bounds of things that can be scientifically tested necessitates a complex God; an argument that He is outside of nature calls is an ad hoc argument that calls for a presuppostion that anything can be outside nature.

Not all arguments that are designed to be persuasive make sense, especially in light of known facts.

Originally posted by Braveheart

It's a bit much to call Dawkins a moron, isn't it?

At this point, I don't think so. Dawkins has become the very "monster" he fights, for if faith-based reasoning is morally wrong, he's just as guilty as the religionists that he condemns.

An argument God is within the bounds of things that can be scientifically tested necessitates a complex God; an argument that He is outside of nature calls is an ad hoc argument that calls for a presuppostion that anything can be outside nature.

It's no more ad hoc (and no less, I'll agree) with an argument that there can be nothing outside of nature. By its very (pardon the pun) nature, the Universe as described by the Hubble Bubble is finite. But we do not know (and indeed, it is very possible that we cannot know) what, if anything, is outside of that bubble.

Not all arguments that are designed to be persuasive make sense, especially in light of known facts.

Quite true--but you will agree that Dawkins knows a lot of facts, and is capable of designing an argument that works with those facts.

Originally posted by Braveheart

It's a bit much to call Dawkins a moron, isn't it?

Why?

Originally posted by Philosophickle

I take the fundamental goal of science and thought to be "to uncover what is really there", agreed? If we find out that God is the ultimate explanation of something and the atheist says that they don't like it because scientific progress is halted, ignore them. It is not about progress for progresses sake. It is about progress for discoveries sake.

Science is the use of certain methods to “uncover what is really there”. The reason we use these methods is that they produce results. Using these methods, we can make accurate and useful predictions about the world.

If you're suggesting that there is another method to acquire accurate knowledge that is better than scientific methods, then what would it be? You say, “if we find out that God is the ultimate explanation of something”. But what method are we going to use to find that out? And can we apply that method to all of our experience to produce a consistent, non-contradictory knowledge base that can make accurate predictions? If that method can do a better job than scientific methods, then great. I'm sure scientists would love that.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

So Dawkins takes a faulty creationist argument and creates an atheistic argument on that basis? There may be rhetorical value there in the context of trying to mess with someone advocating the original 747 argument, but that's it.

Dawkins should know as well as anyone that this universe may well run on a very simple, small set of principles and that the "complexity" we see is just the result of those principles playing out. (Think of cellular automata models.)

Dawkins should know it. But I would think (without having read the book myself) that he's specifically responding to the Intelligent Design argument, where the existing premise is that the creator of something must be more complex than the thing created. The response just shows that that argument leads to worse problems.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

So a creator God would not even need to fully understand the resulting complex results, just have the special power to get the ball rolling and perhaps step in to do some miracles and talk with religious founders.

True. Maybe he just knows how to create a Big Bang. Although I don't think that is the god most Christians believe in. They believe God also knows everything there is to know. How does he store all that information? How did he know that creating a Big Bang would result in human beings that would worship him?

In a way Dawkins is right. His 747 argument may not be a very good argument against the metaphysical, but it is a good argument for why the presumption of naturalism is a good methodology for science.

-Neil

Originally posted by NeilUnreal

In a way Dawkins is right. His 747 argument may not be a very good argument against the metaphysical, but it is a good argument for why the presumption of naturalism is a good methodology for science.

-Neil

That may be so--but he's deliberately extending his argument beyond the applicability. That's when it goes beyond "being right" to engaging in baseless rhetoric.

Seas,

First of all, let me say I appreciate an agnostic arguing from the other side. Are you agnostic-leaning-towards-belief, or are you so dead-center of the faith continuum that you can switch-hit?

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

So Dawkins takes a faulty creationist argument and creates an atheistic argument on that basis? There may be rhetorical value there in the context of trying to mess with someone advocating the original 747 argument, but that's it.

The only reason the creationist argument is flawed is that it doesn't take into account the ability of natural selection to favor gradual increases in the complexity of initially simple molecules/life forms. To think life sprung up "as is" by pure chance is deemed by creationists incredible, and rightly so.

By the same token, to assume the existence of a creator that has the knowledge and ability to create ex nihilo the initial bundle of mass from which everything sprang (not to mention the aforementioned abilities of a personal God), and to set physical laws in place that favor, say, the existence of life, requires just the complexity you're arguing against.

Dawkins should know as well as anyone that this universe may well run on a very simple, small set of principles and that the "complexity" we see is just the result of those principles playing out. (Think of cellular automata models.)

So a creator God would not even need to fully understand the resulting complex results, just have the special power to get the ball rolling and perhaps step in to do some miracles and talk with religious founders.

But then you're talking about a creator god that isn't the god of most (as far as I can tell, any) organized religion. This creator god may as well have just spilled his chemistry set. Would he even care about how his sea monkeys behaved?

But it's not nonsense either. Clearly such a God would have to interact with our universe to fill the role of the traditional personal God, but there's nothing particularly crazy about thinking the "Hubble Bubble" does not sum up all existence.

Maybe not. As a theist (albeit, a struggling one), I of course think not.

Maybe what I'm trying to do is get to a point where I'm not making a priori assumptions either way--and where hopes and wishful thinking don't get in the way of reason--as to whether God exists, and then see where the evidence leads.

We could, but it's pretty clear that God-belief doesn't determine that people will think that way. Otherwise we'd have no history of God believers ever being scientifically curious.

Well, of course. I stated as much when I said, "I'm not saying it has to be that way." Scientific curiosity does not have to be hampered by faith. It's the point where faith and/or established dogma run counter to scientific findings we run into trouble, usually.

Originally posted by Braveheart

Maybe what I'm trying to do is get to a point where I'm not making a priori assumptions either way--and where hopes and wishful thinking don't get in the way of reason--as to whether God exists, and then see where the evidence leads.

Braveheart, that's a commendable goal ... but I'm not sure it's practical, especially if you choose to deal solely within a scientific paradigm. While I disagree with Dawkins on several counts, one of my primary disagreements is my assumption that science cannot evaluate questions outside of the scope of the natural world. If your sole source of information is science, then you may learn all there is about the natural world, but that will not (indeed, cannot) tell you anything about whether or not God exists, much less about the traits and characteristcs of any God that may exist.

Originally posted by Braveheart

I'm reading The God Delusion by Dawkins, and I have to say I'm pretty impressed by the "Ultimate 747" argument. The original 747 argument was proposed by (if I remember from what I read) Fred Hoyle against evolution; that anything as complex as life (as it currently exists) appearing by chance is as likely as an explosion creating a fully-formed 747. (Of course, anyone with a glimmer of understanding of evolutionary theory knows that the complexity we see in life today is not the result of pure chance.)

The Ultimate 747 argument goes something like this: if life, the universe, and everything was created by a personal God, then the God who created it is necessarily more complex (and therefore more improbable) than the order we see in the universe. It does no real good to say that God is outside of the universe, because that doesn't really explain anything. Further, such reasoning hampers scientific progress, because if we allow for the existence of such a God, then whenever we come upon something we can't (yet) understand, we chalk it up to "God did it."

I have to admit, I'm a little saddened this makes so much sense to me.

Actually, this argument doesn't really apply and I think it can kind of hurt Dawkins.

First off, surely you know Braveheart that one of the doctrines of God is simplicity. This does not mean that God is simple to understand. It means that God has no parts. What he is, he is entirely.

What can we say about the matter of creation? It's made of parts. Your brain is made of parts and if all those parts weren't in the right place and functioning properly, your brain would not function. Your mind though is immaterial. It is not made of parts.

Also, is Dawkins admitting that complex things need a designer? Then he still has the problem on how the complex things in our universe exist without a designer. If he is saying they don't need a designer, then even if God is complex, who is to say he needs a designer?

I'd really start looking into the doctrine of the simplicity of God. Dawkins's argument only works if God is material by nature.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

Braveheart, that's a commendable goal ... but I'm not sure it's practical, especially if you choose to deal solely within a scientific paradigm. While I disagree with Dawkins on several counts, one of my primary disagreements is my assumption that science cannot evaluate questions outside of the scope of the natural world. If your sole source of information is science, then you may learn all there is about the natural world, but that will not (indeed, cannot) tell you anything about whether or not God exists, much less about the traits and characteristcs of any God that may exist.

Maybe science can't tell us anything about whether God exists, and maybe it can. I do think science can tell us something about the the evidence we have of God's existence. Let me explain.

One of the possible explanations we have for why people "hear from God" is that we evolved with left- and right-lobed brains, and that the lobes weren't always as neatly fused together as they are now. Perhaps the voices from God were actually one lobe communicating to the other.

Or maybe, as Shadow from Neil Gaiman's American Gods posited, people just heard from God. My endeavours have to leave open that suggestion, too, at least for the time being.

By the way, ACoM, would it be prying to ask where you personally stand on the issues at hand? Do you believe in a god(dess)? If so, which one?