Tag: philosophy

  • 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

  • Did the Enlightenment negate God?

    I’d argue no… in fact, I’d argue that the Enlightenment, while enforcing rational investigation into the nature and existence of God, did God a favour. Although the Enlightenment was great at showing us our human limitations, it brought us no closer to God than any other religious faith. And really… didn’t the Enlightenment just trade one religion for another (Mnotheism for Scientism)?

    The Enlightenment is seen as the “Age of Reason”, which has led to the diminishment of church authority in the political and academic realms of society. The Enlightenment marked the transition from medieval “faith” to modern “knowledge”. Enlightenment thinkers concerned themselves with “rational thought”, which led to scrutiny of all things within the natural world. A newfound skepticism arose during this period. Questions of worldview (metaphysics) and what we can know as humans (epistemology) came to mark this period. From Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) to Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals”, the Enlightenment saw a great deal of thought pertaining to the nature of our world and our place within it.

    In previous generations, education and religion typically ran hand in hand, with one defending the other. Following the development of the printing press and the revolt of the Protestant Reformation, the church’s hold on academic thought dissipated significantly. Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) scientific method provided an early framework for later Enlightenment thinking. Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique continued this tradition. And, Voltaire’s wry caricatures of the religious leaders of his day (Candide is a great read in this regard) lent more fuel to the anti-religious fire that was burning during this time.

    There was a tremendous focus on the material world during this time. Rational thought tended towards that which could be measured (empiricism) or explained (rationalism). It was important to be able to explain events within the limitations of the natural world, as opposed to the traditional spiritual explanations given by the church. This led to great debates on the nature of miracles (see Hume’s “On Miracles” in particular) and the value of religion in personal life.

    While skeptical thought did negatively impact the church, it did not disprove the necessity and value of religious belief, nor did it supplant it with anything other than a new religion, namely “scientism”. I find it ironic that the last of the Enlightenment giants, Emmanuel Kant, offered a newfound explanation for God through his idea of moral justification. So much for the skeptical death of God provided by his contemporaries…

  • All the rage

    The irony in this article is too good to pass up. You have to give it a read:

    All the rage from The Walrus Magazine.

  • Should atheists have children? – Part 4

    So… where does this leave the atheist?

    I see two options available to the atheist. The atheist can either live a life of nihilism, suffering under a burden of meaninglessness, pushing the stone up the hill every day for the rest of existence, believing that all of the effort is for nothing. Alternately, the atheist can convince himself or herself that their life has meaning in some way. This meaning would be internally defined, which would lack any external validation. Thus, it would lack objectivity. And thus, it would be considered deceitful to the individual. I don’t know which is worse, living a life of meaninglessness, or lying about it to oneself.

    The question now becomes, is there a moral and ethical responsibility for an atheist to alleviate suffering in the world? Peter Singer, in Practical Ethics, argues that there are numerous reasons to act morally. He cites reason [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Second Edition, New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 318.] and self-interest [Singer, pg 322] as two reasons to be ethically responsible. To this list, I would add compassion as another reason. There is no shortage of reasons for the atheist to be morally and ethically responsible. The only difference between the religious and the atheist viewpoints is in one’s motivations. Regardless of the motivation, the results are often the same. The atheist is just as likely to be morally conscious of one’s neighbour as a Christian would be. Actually, Bertrand Russell, like many other critics of Christendom, argues that religion has been historically responsible for some of the greatest atrocities ever recorded. The Crusades were religiously motivated, as were the attacks of September 11. Atheists would be the first to point out the moral inappropriateness of either of those activities.

    Thus, the atheist is just as capable as a Christian to determine right from wrong. Therefore, the atheist is just as morally obligated to protect their children as a Christian would be. By extension, it would only make sense for an atheist to protect his or her children from suffering. This presents a paradox, as the atheist is unable to live a life free of suffering. As I concluded earlier, either the atheist is suffering from an existence stuck in meaninglessness or the atheist is lying to him or herself about their meaninglessness. Looking out over this vast meaninglessness is reckless. The atheist is ill equipped to answer what purpose there is to living life any longer. Why not just quit life now? If life is meaningless, then what’s to stop the atheist from crossing the line now? Wouldn’t suicide be easier than living one more day in the suffering torment of meaninglessness? Life appears to be in vain. For the majority of atheists, the abyss has not yet been contemplated. Instead, many atheists (the masses) simply disregard the abyss. They ignore the fact that they have nothing to live for. These atheists simply go through life pretending that everything is fine. They lie to themselves, trying to convince themselves that their life has meaning. That is worse than accepting one’s fate and still struggling onwards in spite of the futility.

    The clever atheist could counter by asking if the Christian is lying as well, simply masking the nothingness that surrounds the whole religious experience. This argument is simply deferred back to the earlier discussion pertaining to the metaphysics of our reality. Both the atheist and the religious practitioner are equally suited to argue their case. The difference is that the atheist chooses nothingness or a self-imposed purpose in life, whereas the religious practitioner chooses an external, pre-ordained purpose. Both the religious and the atheistic worldview are valid choices, based on the evidence presented to support either argument, but only the latter choice leaves the believer with a purpose of hope.

    This decision is ultimately one of hope… Is the atheist able to instill a sense of hope into a child, or would an atheist be ill equipped to prevent a child from needless suffering in the world? Horrible, horrible actions could happen to a child regardless of whether that child’s parents were atheists or Christians, so the responsibility for bringing a child into a world where evil exists is equally burdensome to either one. However, the moral and ethical responsibility that the atheist fails is in providing hope to one’s child. The atheist is poorly equipped to protect a child from the eventual view of the abyss that the atheist is confronted with on a daily basis. It is one thing for the atheist to accept the burden of pushing the stone up the hill, like Sisyphus. It is yet another for the atheist to introduce this meaningless existence to his or her child. That goes against the moral and ethical responsibility to alleviate suffering in the world, which is especially applicable to one’s children. Therefore, unless a parent is able to perceive meaning in life, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to bring a child into an existence that lacks meaning. Lack of meaning is, as we saw with Sisyphus, the worst kind of punishment that one could inflict on another.

    Todd Dow