Dawkins argues that God must be more complex than the universe and life he created. Since complexity comes arises from the gradual process of evolution, God (who skipped this process) must be very improbable.
Is this argument valid? Is it circular?
((From a logical standpoint))
2007-06-14 08:04:03 · 12 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's a poor argument, because it has a false basis. But you failed to mention why he used that basis for his argument. It is the same basis that religious people use for saying there must be a god.
So, all together, the argument is like this.
1) Either a complex thing needs something more complex to design it or not.
2) If you don't need something more complex to design something, then there is no basis for the "Intelligent Design" argument. In that case, the evolutionary argument, which has tons of evidence to support it, is sufficient to explain life on Earth.
3) If complex things need something more complex to design it, then God, having designed a whole universe requires something more complex to design him.
2007-06-14 08:07:19 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
You missed the thrust of the argument.
Dawkins says it is perfectly possible for complex things to come from simple systems, in non-closed environments.
What he is doing is turning the theists argument back onto them. It is the theists who say that complex objects must have a designer. A designer is by definition complex, so the designer must have had a designer2, which in turn is complex and must have had a designer3, . . . and so on until you end up with an infinite series of designers.
The theists try to get out of this by special pleading. The argument goes that the universe is ordinary and so the logic for requiring a designer applies, but the designer is 'special' in some way, and so the logic does not apply.
To Dawkins this is just the selective application of an argument to fit into the theists existing viewpoint and there is no logical basis behind it what so ever.
I would agree with him.
2007-06-14 15:17:02 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a play on the teleological argument. The teleological argument is flawed because it states one thing ("pretty things need a designer") but then declares that that statement does not apply to God (through special pleading).
Dawkins's argument appears compelling, since it points out that the ubercomplex God has no means of getting that way, while natural complex things do.
The argument is not necessarily sound, since one could, by stretching the definition of "god," decide that the singularity from which the universe came was a god. It's not the Christian God, though, and I think Dawkins is mainly concered with the Christian God.
The only part I have trouble with is when the argument deals with probability. Unless we find a mechanism for God actually coming to exist, I don't think we can assign a probability to that mechanism happening.
Of course, Dawkins's whole point is that there isn't one, and so theists merely assume God.
2007-06-14 15:11:59 · answer #3 · answered by Minh 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Seems valid to me. And, not circular. If complexity requires a creator, and the more complex, then the more a creator is required, then it would be logical to conclude that, if man is so complex as to having needed a creator, then the Creator must be more complex than his creation of man - and thus would require a creator himself. So who created the Creator? Completely valid PHILOSOPHICAL argument.
2007-06-14 15:10:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, physical forms become more complex with evolution...but what is spiritual becomes more simple.
The most highly "evolved" spirituality stems from "all is one". How much more simple is it than that?
God is not complex...complexity comes from duality...and physical process - which God is not.
Dawkins only successfully argues against certain images of God...but was unable to disprove God directly.
~ Eric Putkonen
2007-06-14 15:23:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is with the second statement. The apparent natural order of processes is to move from more complexity to less complexity, and to decay rather than to become more complex. God,(however improbable) exists.
2007-06-14 15:19:35 · answer #6 · answered by Paulie D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, even though I'm not a believer, I think the argument can be refuted by saying God's magic powers make him complex rather than evolution. Christians can always attribute the unexplainable to magic.
2007-06-14 15:08:47 · answer #7 · answered by Graciela, RIRS 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not even logical. Just because God retains all knowledge in one single moment in time doesn't necessarily mean He's complex. He is simple in composition. He is Spirit. Comparing Him to physical things will only confuse us more. Spirit has no limit and experiences none of the things physical objects experience. Time and distance do not affect Him. Likening Him to created things is like comparing ants to the Milky Way. The same rules do not apply.
2007-06-14 15:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by singwritelaugh 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It only makes sense when you counter "everything needs a more complex creator" argument. It is an easy way to turn it around on them.
2007-06-14 15:11:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes, but evolution and all other natural processes are of the physical world, and laws governing the physical world can logically only apply to physical matter. when people talk about G-d, they are talking about a being which is defined by its lack of physicality. laws of this universe can't apply.
2007-06-15 03:39:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋