It may be an understatement to say that [redacted] leaves readers with a false impression. Consider Paul Davies' words on this subject:
[T]he origin of life remains a deep mystery ... The essential problem in explaining how life arose is that even the simplest living things are stupendously complex. The replicative machinery of life is based on the DNA molecule, which is itself as structurally complicated and intricately arranged as an automobile assembly line ... [T]he spontaneous generation of life by random molecular shuffling is a ludicrously improbable event. (Davies [1988] 2004, 115 & 118)
Dawkins himself has published an anti-religious book and it was an inter-national best-seller. Although Dawkins is a zoologist, the book has generated heated criticism over Dawkins' opinions on living organisms. Instead of merely tackling the comparatively narrow issue of the existence of complex life on Earth, he focused on the broader issue of statistically improbable phenomena. On that subject, he wrote, "The statistical improbability of phenomena such as (the sponge known as Venus' Flower Basket) is the central problem that any theory of life must solve ... Chance is not a solution, given the high levels of improbability we see in living organisms ... Design is not a real solution, either..." Further down, he explains why he rejects design. According to him, intelligent design "is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability." Before continuing, let's reflect on what he said. He contradicted a belief that is widely held today. That belief derives from the belief that God has always existed. Did Dawkins address that in the sentences that followed? He did not:
[T]he higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself ... immediately raises the problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something (statistically improbable) would have to be even more improbable than (something statistically improbable). Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance. (Dawkins [2006] 2008, 145 & 146)
In the minds of believers, the designer or God doesn't raise "the problem of his own origin" because they don't believe He had an origin. If they don't accept Dawkins' premise, they don't have to accept his conclusion.
The closest Dawkins came in his book about God to confronting the idea that God always existed is when he cited an irreverent blogger who said, "Ask for an explanation of where (God) came from, and odds are you'll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing." (Dawkins [2006] 2008, 161) Dawkins did comment on the belief that God had no beginning but it was in a book on evolution and his main point there was that people who explain the origin of life "by invoking a supernatural Designer ... have to say something like 'God was always there'." (Dawkins [1986] 1987, 141) Nowhere in his book on religion, to the best of my knowledge, did he refute this belief. Perhaps he can't. If this is the case, then he won't be able to persuade the believing public that statistical improbability or organized complexity is a quality that "needs a special effort of explanation" and is "the thing that we are having difficulty in explaining." (Dawkins [1986] 1987, 15 & 141)
Whether it's right or wrong, the world is the way it is and anyone who writes a book like "The God Delusion" is not going to get a fair hearing. Any unfortunate choice of words is going to be misinterpreted on purpose. Even eloquence will be misunderstood if it is even possible for it to be. For example, Dawkins recapped the message of his book in a speech. He said, "Complexity is a problem that any theory of biology has to solve. And you cannot solve it by postulating an agent even more complex." (Broocks 2013, 102) As should be obvious to readers of this book, Dawkins was referring to complexity itself. As he said in his earlier book on evolution, "The biologist's problem is the problem of complexity." (Dawkins [1986] 1987, 15) This may surprise people who may have thought that the biologist's problem was merely the one of complexity on Earth. Indeed, Dawkins' critics, being less than impartial, have portrayed him as being only concerned with complexity on Earth. For example, a theologian wrote, "[A]theists ... rule out God as a possible explanation because the idea of God would be too complex to be the answer to why things appear designed." (Broocks 2013, 102) This is a misrepresentation. It's not that God is too complex to be the answer to local complexity; it's that a complex God cannot be the answer to all complexity unless He was "always there." (Dawkins [1986] 1987, 141) The theologian thinks atheists are only concerned with explaining complexity on Earth. Certainly, you can explain complexity on Earth or in a specified area by supposing a complex being but you can't explain complexity itself by positing a complex being with a beginning.
Dawkins, unlike the typical believer, starts with living things or "organized complexity" and then attempts to explain the phenomena. The typical believer, on the other hand, is taught out of a sacred book beginning at a very young age. The answer to the question of complexity is given to the youngster and, normally, he believes it. Dawkins seems genuinely frustrated when someone offers God as an explanation for organized complexity. God must be vastly complex and, in Dawkins' mind, you can't explain something by simply postulating that something. Certainly, for almost anything else there would be unanimity about whether you could explain something by saying it just is. People are taught, however, to make an exception for God.
Comments