Month: September 2007

  • Dawkins Part 1: Straw Men

    A straw man argument is an argument that is set up so that it can easily be defeated. This is a favoured technique of politicians. MediaMatters.org provides some excellent examples of George W. Bush’s use of straw man arguments.

    Richard Dawkins provides several arguments for God’s existence, starting with some serious philosophical justifications for the existence of God. Unfortunately, Dawkins dismisses these arguments without properly addressing them, and he moves on from sophisticated arguments to some extremely weak “proofs” that have little in common with current, philosophically challenging explanations for the existence of God. So… let’s go through Dawkins arguments one by one and see what we’re left with.

    Without spending too much time on the specifics (you can read the chapter for the full outline on all of the proofs mentioned here), Dawkins does begin this chapter with noble intentions (or so the reader should assume). Dawkins highlights the three main “heavyweight” arguments for the existence of God. They are:

    Cosmological Argument
    God is the first “uncaused cause” of everything – Just like the Genesis account of creation, God was the first cause and he created everything that came after it. Aquinas argued this.
    Ontological Argument
    We have an understanding of perfection that we experience in our world. God is obviously more perfect than anything that we could possibly comprehend. Since the existence of God is more perfect than God not existing, God must exist.
    Teleological or Design Argument
    This is the “watchmaker” example, where it is argued that a watch is extremely complex and therefore must have been built by a creator that was more complex. By comparison, the world is extremely complex and therefore the world’s creator must be more complex.

    One of Dawkins many logic flaws in this section include his argument that if God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), then God knowing in advance that he (or she) would intervene in the world means that God is unable to change his mind about his intervention, which suggests that God cannot be omnipotent. The logic is flawed here, as the free will argument frees God from being powerless to decide upon his course of action at the time of the event. With free will, God simply knows the free will choice he will make in the future, thus freeing God from being trapped in a pre-determined decision that God cannot change when the time comes. This same free will logic is applied to us… even if we could see into the future, this would not limit our freedom to make choices even if they were known in advance. Those choices would simply be known in advance, but they would not limit our free will choices available to us.

    But back to the big three: Dawkins picks a set of arguments that are rarely quoted in modern debates. Aquinas’ argument from degree and the teleological argument are debated upon from time to time, but not with much success in philosophical circles today. As for the cosmological or “uncaused cause” arguments… well… these arguments have been expanded and are still used in modern debate. Modern arguments highlight the ability for God to exist outside of our space and time and thus are used to point to that first cause. Science refers to such an event as the Big Bang. Theists lean towards calling this an act of that uncaused cause, namely God.

    It must be noted that these proofs don’t in themselves offer a slam dunk case for the existence of God. At best, they do offer the need for a first cause, but the truly philosophical argument still revolves around the nature of that first uncaused cause.

    Note that most of these proofs have long since been rendered logically flawed and thus, are not worth addressing here. Dawkins offers nothing new with his arguments, nor does he do much to further his argument by picking up on these “dead examples”.

    It would appear that Dawkins gives up at this point. Done with his “heavy lifting”, he goes on to set up some truly bizarre examples. I have to admit that some of these examples were new to me, as they typically would not hold up as “philosophical arguments” in the true sense of the world.

    The Argument from Beauty:
    This is simply another version of Aquinas’ argument from degree, which has long since expired. At best, this is a straw man argument.
    The Argument from Personal Experience:
    Dawkins takes the view that objective scientific proof does not exist to explain the occurrence of “miracles”. Miracles typically refer to “supernatural events” that cannot be explained in ordinary scientific language. Some argue that miracles are scientific phenomena that we simply lack the ability to properly explain. Regardless of the definition, personal experience is typically not seen as a reliable witness unless the action in question is reproducible. Dawkins takes the position that personal experience is subjective at best, and psychotic or fraudulent at worst. Regardless, I don’t feel the need to argue this one. I am fine with setting it aside as neither a proof nor a disproof in this discussion.
    The Argument From Scripture:
    Dawkins brings up some fair questions about the reliability of scripture. He points out some inconsistencies in the New Testament gospels (Gospels = the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). While he does raise some valid points about inconsistencies from book to book, this misses the main (and consistent) message that is provided in the New Testament: Jesus is the Son of God who brings a message of peace and salvation to all of us.
    By picking apart the inconsistencies between the various accounts given in the Gospels, Dawkins could be seen as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Note that these are four accounts of Jesus from four different sources. In situations like this, discrepancies are to be expected. It would make me more nervous if all four accounts were completely in sync. Think of a murder investigation: if all of the witnesses were completely in sync on every minor detail, it would make me suspicious that the witnesses had collaborated in advance. The scriptures are sufficiently clear and in sync on the message that Jesus brings to us that the relatively minor inconsistencies should not affect the overall message of the texts.
    Further, Dawkins makes some critical mistakes by arguing that the official New Testament canon (the final set of books that we see as the NT) “were chosen, more or less arbitrarily”. This is incorrect. The New Testament as we see it was being circulated in its final form by around the end of the first century. This was much sooner than some of the later books that Dawkins refers to, including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, etc. Scholarship has shown these documents to have come along much later, sometimes as much as 100 or 200 years later than the NT canon. Dawkins makes several other erroneous claims that are not consistent with modern religious study. He “guesses” at why some gospels were omitted from the final canon (I just explained above that the canon was complete long before some of these other books arrived on the scene). He also tries to compare the Gospels to the Da Vinci Code by calling them both great works of fiction. Dawkins’ “speculation” is a fatal flaw in his ability to authoritatively comment any further on the quality and content of scripture. For an academic, Dawkins is embarrassingly weak in his justifications for his claims in this regard. It would be better off if he had not commented at all in this section.
    The Argument From Admired Religious Scientists:
    You’ve gotta be kidding me… Dawkins suggests in this section that religious scientists are enough for some people in their belief in God. That’s all fine and good, but this in no way addressed objective proofs for the existence of God. I don’t know why he spent time on this one…

    And the final two, which can be combined:

    Pascal’s Wager and Bayesian Arguments
    These aren’t so much proofs as they are reasons to believe in God. They’re about playing the odds, probability and hedging one’s bets. Pascal’s Wager is simply about covering your butt ni case God is real. And the Bayesian Arguments explain the odds in favour of God’s existence based on a series of subjective and poorly defined factors, none of which offer air tight arguments that do God much justice.

    So that’s it… Dawkins should be issuing a refund for this chapter of the book. He offers up some age old, flawed arguments for the existence of God, combined with a few extremely weak straw man targets that he easily knocks down. And, in the rare instance where he thinks he’s on to something, he doesn’t do his homework which leaves him with a a failing grade for accuracy and authority.

    Modern debate continues to circle around some of the traditional discussions I highlighted above, but it also looks at some additional ways of thinking of God. These include:

    • Faith and reason – can the two exist apart from one another?
    • Rational Theism – check out Kant’s “Religion Within The Limits of Reason Alone for an overview.
    • Evidentialist arguments – What exactly constitutes a proof one way or the other?
    • The Historical Claims of Religious Intervention
    • And many others…

    Dawkins ignored these modern discussions in favour of his weak straw man choices. Dawkins offers no new thoughts here and his approach is disappointing as his attempt is akin to taking candy from a baby. It’s a weak attempt to weaken the argument for God, but without very strong ammunition. It is to his detriment as it greatly reduces the value and authority of his writing in this area.

    Next up: “The Ultimate 747 – Is that the best he’s got?“

  • The Atheist Delusion – Why I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins in 10 parts

    Richard Dawkins has put together an interesting package. His book, The God Delusion, has inspired a great deal of discussion and controversy. After reading the book, I find myself disappointed. I was expecting so much more. For such a great deal of noise, I expected some solid, faith-shattering arguments. Instead, I felt that Dawkins’ arguments were weak, lacking in solid logic and poorly assembled.

    Why then am I going to spend time and effort refuting a book that I found to be so negative? Well… the popularity of the book requires some strong refutations in order to set the record straight. That’s my main purpose in posting this set of responses. Additionally, I can’t stand to see these guys (Dawkins, Sam Harris and the rest of their “crew”) thinking that they’ve got the upper hand. I have a keen interest in apologetics, so refuting this type of writing is a great passion for me. Note, apologetics doesn’t mean apologizing for my faith, but rather defending it on intellectual grounds.

    Before I get started on my critique, a couple of first thoughts. There are a couple of things that Dawkins does quite badly throughout this book. They are:

    1. Lack of respect – Dawkins takes on a very confrontational tone in his writing. His arrogant and offensive tone is off-putting and it distracts from his writing. While he is entitled to his opinion, his negative attitudes towards religious belief can at times be seen as an emotional response rather than a rational one. Thus, his lack of respect towards those of alternate worldviews takes away from some of his arguments.
    2. Stereotyping – Dawkins groups all religious believers into one big pot, confusing the beliefs of many different faiths into his own, convenient negative hodge-podge. Rather than develop a clear and concise definition of his fundamentalist religious targets, he bunches all religious believers together. His glossing over of religious belief leaves the reader wondering if he has a clear understanding of the religious claims of each reader.

    So without further ado, over the next few days, I’ll be tackling the following subjects, one by one:

    1. Straw Men – Dawkins weak proofs of God
    2. The Ultimate 747 – Is that the best he’s got?
    3. Problems with Organized Religion and Sociological Explanations for Religion
    4. The objective roots of morality
    5. The Historical Jesus
    6. The problem with fundamentalism
    7. The slippery slope of abortion
    8. Why not rid ourselves of religion, politics and economics all at the same time?
    9. Childhood abuse and brainwashing
    10. On Evolution and concluding thoughts

    Be sure to check back daily. My goal is to post a new section each day, but this will ultimately depend on how much time I can devote to my posts each day. Please do forgive me if I can’t keep up to the daily writing requirements to get these finished on time.

    Ultimately, I think the answer becomes one of cohabitation. I feel the presence of God in my life every day. And, I appreciate God’s presence, just as I appreciate the scientific progress in understanding the world that God has provided for us. I am thankful for the scientific research that allows us to lead fuller, richer lives. But I am conscious of the limitations that surround practical scientific research. While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.

    In Him,

    Todd Dow

  • 3rd Building Block of a Happy Family

    This is part four of my four part series entitled, “Family Matters.”

    3. Being Loving:
    Not only do we have to be present and wise, but we also have to be loving. Love is something that we all crave. To a child, love is paramount. Without it, a child feels a tremendous sense of loneliness and isolation. And this can lead to significant problems later in life. It’s a parent’s responsibility to ensure that a child feels love always.

    This doesn’t mean that we can’t discipline our children. Discipline is important in teaching children right from wrong, which is an important part of growing up. But discipline can be done lovingly. It’s a matter of how it’s applied.

    On the positive side though… love can come in many forms. I’ve narrowed it to three kinds, but I’m sure there are many others. These are play, laughter and affection.

    1. Play: this is playtime as a family. Digging in the sandbox, throwing around a football, having a water fight or playing a board game as families are all examples of play.
    2. Laughter: Keeping the mood in the home light and welcoming is done through laughter. Laughter removes dark shadows that can otherwise creep into a positive family dynamic.
    3. Affection: Show your love to your children and your spouse. Hugging and kissing are important forms of showing love to those you care about. And it’s important that children see a healthy relationship between parents as well. The odd kiss or hug doesn’t hurt in front of the kids.

    The fuel of any family is love. Play, laughter and affection are key ingredients in maintaining a healthy dynamic at home.

    How many of you are nicer to the gas station attendant than you are to your spouse when you walk in the door at night? Most of us say please and thank you to service workers. But do we always extend the same courtesies at home? I’m guilty of it. I think we all are from time to time.

    In fact, here’s something that I want you to do today. I want you to talk to your family. I want you to tell them what they mean to you and how much you value them. We don’t do this often enough… we think about it. But how often do we vocalize it? In fact, right now, most of us are here with someone we love… I want you to look at the person beside you and give them a quick smile, a wink or a nudge, just to tell them that they’re important to you. Do that right now. I’ll wait.

    And today, at some point, maybe lunch, maybe dinner, I want you to go around the table and tell each other what you mean to one another. Give it a try. It might feel awkward at first, but I guarantee that you’ll feel invigorated.

    Wrapping Up:
    All of this leads to a family that feels happy and healthy. And, from there, anything is possible.

    I’ve talked a lot about families in the traditional sense of the word. But all of the things I’ve mentioned here easily transfer over to the other types of family that we discussed at the beginning of this discussion. Let’s take another look at today’s sermon passage:

    Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.

    I’m starting to see myself as part of the “old” group that is mentioned in this verse. I’m definitely not a child anymore. So I think this verse applies to me as well… I’m still going on the way that I should go. And so are the rest of us here. So, for the adults here today, let’s continue on in the way that we should be going. And, for those of us that can influence children or be a mentor to someone else, do that. Lead them in the way they should go as well. In this way, we can build not only our individual families, but also our collective church family as well.

  • 2nd Building Block of a Healthy Family

    This is part three of my four part series entitled, “Family Matters.”

    2. Being Wise:
    The Power of Why
    One of the things that motivated me to explore philosophy and religion in university was the fear that someday I’d be unable to answer the following question:

    “Daddy, why are we here?”

    I knew that that question would someday come and I felt ill equipped to handle it. I know the basic answers presented in the Bible, but I was afraid that my kids would find out that I had a superficial understanding of the New Testament, at best, and that the inevitable follow up “whys” to my questions would become more and more difficult to answer. This frightened me. And it also left me feeling inadequately prepared to raise children. In addition to feeding, clothing and taking care of my kids, I also feel it is my responsibility to instill a sense of purpose in my children.

    I somehow feel relieved to know that I am obtaining the skills to either:

    1. Answer every possible why that my kids can come up with; or
    2. Sufficiently bore my kids so that they’ll take my word for it and won’t ask any further questions;

    Either way, I feel fairly comfortable with the inevitable questions that’ll be coming my way in the next few years.

    But more important than this are the numerous moral and ethical decisions that our kids will have to face someday. The complexity heightens as we get older. It starts out with being nice to our friends. No hitting, no pulling hair. It extends to not making fun of the new kid in the class at school and not spreading gossip. As we get older, problems like peer pressure towards sex and drugs become issues for some. As adults, we face extremely complex choices, like the morality of abortion, the rights of convicted criminals or whether or not we should be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Whatever the case… it’s our responsibility as parents to understand the choices and to be ready with answers and guidance to those under our care. It’s up to us to be wise, because our children certainly aren’t going to obtain their sense of right and wrong from the media or from most of society today. During my undergrad at U of T, I sat through numerous lectures that focused on moral and ethical thought. I appreciate and respect the right for different perspectives, but I’ve gotta tell you… today’s education system isn’t teaching right from wrong. It’s teaching how to understand different points of view. Don’t get me wrong…this is a very important skill. It is important to be able to approach a problem from multiple angles. It is important to be able to empathize with others. But that doesn’t help us to teach our kids whether or not we should discuss the pros and cons of war, abortion or capital punishment. It’s wrong to kill. It shouldn’t matter what the situation is. We shouldn’t kill. It’s that simple.

    I didn’t get that message from my philosophy lectures. I got differing worldviews. I got a bunch of “yeah, but what about this or that” types of scenarios. In today’s secular society, nobody is wrong. Everyone just has a “different opinion”. Well… I’ve gotta say, I appreciate different opinions, but there comes a time when the line has to be drawn. And that line has to be drawn by parents and we have to teach our children when to draw the line. Our schools teach critical thinking. I do appreciate that. But it is being left up to us, as parents, to teach our children how to make appropriate moral and value judgments.

    It’s up to us as parents to have the wisdom to guide our children until we can impart sufficient wisdom on them so that they can make their own decisions.

    And in an increasingly secular world, it is increasingly more important that we pass on our religious traditions to our children.

    Coming up next: The 3rd Building Block of a Healthy Family.

  • 1st Building Block of a Healthy Family

    This is part two of my four part series entitled, “Family Matters.”

    3 Building Blocks of a Healthy Family
    1. Being Present:
    I heard a terrible story earlier this week… I’m not sure if anyone here heard this story or not. A mother forgot her two year old daughter in the backseat of their SUV a few days ago. The daughter was in the car for over 7 hours before someone found her. The baby didn’t survive. It was a tragic, heart-rending story. My heart immediately went out to this woman and the rest of her family. I can’t even imagine the pain and anguish that this family is going through now. It must be devastating.

    What is surprising though is that this story isn’t uncommon. There have been numerous examples of this in recent years. What is going wrong when people forget their kids in the car? I’m a parent, and I can’t understand where things would go that bad that you forget your kids in the backseat. When I am driving with Noah or Katie, I’m always talking to them and interacting with them. Julie’s the same… she is always trying to engage with them. Mind you… it’s not always easy to interact with a 2 year old, but we do what we can to communicate with our kids. They’re not just a package that is being delivered to day care or to the grocery store. They’re precious cargo. We wouldn’t stuff adults in the back seat and ignore them for the entire ride, would we? So why should it be different with kids?

    When people start forgetting that their kids are in the car, I think that’s a sign that LIFE IS MOVING TOO FAST. If we find ourselves forgetting about what’s important in life or if we’re slipping into a state where we’re living just to work, well… it’s time to re-evaluate and re-align ourselves.

    But all around us, family seems to be taking a back seat to personal gratification. As a society, we’re:

    • Working longer hours;
    • Too busy doing recreational activities to spend time with our kids;

    It seems to come down to time management… What are we working longer hours for? Most of us would say to make more money for our families. This is a fair argument, but only to a point. How much money is enough? What about the father looking back on his life, looking at the missed opportunities to spend with his kids when they were young because he was too busy working. Does the money seem worth it at that point? You can’t do it over again. You can’t go back and spend time with your kids when they’re grown. They’re grown up by then as well. Opportunities are missed.

    It is a cruel joke though… I could easily get swallowed up in work, school, working out, spending time with friends and doing a host of other activities. But instead, I’ve made a commitment to my family:

    I’ve quit work… no, I’m just kidding.

    But seriously, as a family, we’ve assessed what’s important in life and what’s not. We’ve put together our list of priorities. And family ranks high on that list, right around the same level as working to support our family and going to church. We fit the other stuff in where we can, but we seldom sacrifice family time to accommodate some of the lower hanging fruit. Family time is just too precious and too important to miss out on it.

    And the fact that Noah recognizes when we’re “all together as a family” speaks volumes to me. Sometimes, it sounds like a question, like he wants that affirmation that this is going to happen as a family. Other times, I can tell that it’s a statement of excitement and anticipation. Either way, if a two year old can figure out his priorities, then his or her parents should be able to figure them out just the same.

    Coming up next: The 2nd Building Block of a Happy Family.