I recently saw a debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, titled "Has Science Buried God?" One of Richard Dawkins arguments were really weak in my opinion. He argued that if we don't need an agent to understand a certain mechanism, then we get rid of that agent.
My objection to that argument is maybe illustrated well by the following example (which has been used many times by John Lennox): Suppose that we say the same of the Ford motor engine. Suppose that we say that we get rid of Henry Ford, since we don't need him to understand how the motor engine works. Obviously (I hope), all of us can agree that the argument in this case is not valid, since without Henry Ford we wouldn't even have the engine to understand.
For me it seems rational to reason that the same logic can be applied to the existence of a creator and His relationship to the cosmos. We do not get rid of a Creator simply because we can explain how things work in the cosmos, without needing a Creator.
Feel free to leave your comments.
Thanks,
Hermann
I totally agree. The same argument has been given by William Lane Craig. His explanation goes even further,stating that for the universe to exist (and even the big bang theory to be plausible) an 'ignition' of some sort would be needed, which gives rational grounds for a Creator - the 'Henry Ford'. Craig further claims that, if the New Atheist theory of Dawkins was true, it would mean that 'something' may be born out of 'nothing'- which is not only not scientific, but also not logical. Imagine going off to the movies, and while you're there, a goat suddenly pops out of nowhere in your living room and starts eating the carpet! Therefore, Dawkins is not only irrational when one considers Lennox's Ford engine example, he's actually a bit silly as well.
ReplyDeleteTo tell you the truth, often times I am quite dissapointed at how Dawkins simply dismisses the things that he wishes to and doesn't dismiss other things as long as they can support his argument or way of thinking. You bring up a good point about Dawkins's thinking being irrational because irrationality is exactly what the new Atheists have a lot to say about when it comes to religion. Dawkins often times lack consistency and this is cumbersome when we think about the leader of the new Atheists having this way about going about things.
DeleteFor instance, in the debate with John Lennox in Oxford, Dawkins accuses Lennox of being willing to smuggle in magic whenever the need arises; however in the interview afterwards Dawkins admits that he believes that the universe can be created out of nothing. I am quite concerned about how he thinks that this does not fall under the "magic" umbrella.
Also I think that Dawkins uses the evolution argument even in situations where it cannot be used. Evolution, in my opinion' does play an important part in life however I fear that many claims that are being made in the name of evolution has no supporting pillars in evolutionary theory. I won't go too much into details right now, but something that I noticed in the same Oxford debate was that Lennox asked Dawkins if he thought it impossible that that evolutionary process, being such an intelligent mechanism, could be driven by an intelligence. Dawkins replied that it works without an intelligence to which Lennos replied "but that's an asumption". Then Dawkins says exactly this: "No, that's exactly how it works."
That last sentence is merely his opinion and, in my mind, the sort of blind faith that he accuses believers (of whom I am one) of, since there is definitely no proof of this.
Anyway, thanks for responding. I liked your "goat analogy". I might steal it from you :-)
Hermann
Again, you make a valid point regarding Dawkins and New Atheism, and again I agree that Dawkins tends to be irrational, emotional and quite frankly, rude. You can scan through all his debates with theists and apologists alike, and you will never find any instance where he actually concedes to a good argument (of which I feel there are many). Instead, he turns to non-factual arguments and even belittling his opponents.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, the proof is in the pudding, as Dawkins continuously declines debating Craig - certainly one of the leading Christian apologists - for various reasons of which all of them, according to me, are phoney. Maybe he saw the debate between Craig and Peter Adkins, which took place some time ago, where Craig (without being rude and simply focusing on the facts) humiliated Adkins and the latter was literally left speechless (it's on You Tube if you haven't already seen it).
Feel free to 'steal' the 'goat analogy' (it sounds a lot more professional the way you put it :)) That's the nice thing about apologetics - we all steal a little bit from each other to improve our stance (I probably stole it from someone else as well!)
Keep up the interesting writing.