Dawkins’ Central Argument, Part 1

Posted on September 16, 2007 by me

In his chapter entitled Why There Almost Certainly Is No God (The God Delusion, pp 157, 158), Richard Dawkins lays out the central argument of the book, summarized in six numbered points:

  1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
  2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
  3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

Let’s stop there for now, and take a look at the first two points. Assuming for a moment that Dawkins is correct on point one, that the “improbable appearance of design” has been a challenge to the human intellect, which is by no means a given, I will concede that number two, the natural conclusion (rather than “temptation”) is to assume that actual design exists. I would state propositions one and two slightly differently:

  1. The universe, and specifically the Earth and the various life the exists on the Earth, certainly give every appearance that they were not only created, but designed.
  2. The obvious and natural assumption is that the universe was indeed created and designed.

Point number two can be justified by the logic, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the chances are that it’s a duck. It can also be supported by the principle of logic known as Occam’s Razor: The simplest and most direct explanation tends to be correct. Of course, materialists have restated Occam’s Razor in order to support an atheistic explanation, but the proposition was first posited by a Catholic friar, William of Occam, to make the case that the only entity that need exist is God. Materialists have tried for some time to come up with a naturalistic explanation for the Universe, to make God the unnecessary being. However, the Big Bang and the deficiencies in other hypotheses have put God back in place as the most obvious creator/designer.

This brings us to Dawkins’ Point Three, that the assumption that the universe was designed is false because it raises the larger problem of who designed the Designer. I dealt with this flawed logic in my first post, but I’ll restate the problem. Dawkins’ objection appears to be nothing but a sleight-of-hand maneuver to avoid the issue, at least how he has expressed it. It seems illogical to conclude that a Designer designed the universe simply because you don’t have an explanation for the origins of the Designer, yet.

Dawkins proposes that the issue is statistical improbability, and it “is no solution to postulate something even more improbable” as an explanation. He then quotes the adage “we need a ‘crane,’ not a ‘skyhook,’ meaning that to explain the origin of the universe we need a cause from within the universe, not something from “the sky,” or from outside the universe. The reason Dawkins gives is that only a “crane” can “do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.”

Here we have what probably should have been multiple points:

  • You cannot imply there is a designer, because then you have the origin of the designer to deal with.
  • The problem is in explaining the improbable with something more improbable
  • To explain the improbable, only a gradual process from the simple to the more complex will do.

Dawkins never really presents this argument well; it seems that he has so little respect for those of a religious persuasion (and perhaps his audience) that he tends to oversimplify his arguments to the point of being rather dismissive. However, perhaps I can unravel his oversimplified logic in a rather simple, but still adequate manner, in my next post.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews | 5 Comments

Framing is the new spin

Posted on September 14, 2007 by me

At one time, framing referred to the building of supportive structure of something; our founding fathers, for example, are also known as the framers of the Constitution. Now, however, framing has an altogether new meaning. According to WikiPedia, “Framing defines how an element of rhetoric is packaged so as to allow certain interpretations and rule out others.”

This used to be known as spin. Spin, however, began to take on negative connotations, once people started realizing that they were being had by the so-called spin doctors. Now, instead of being spun, information is being framed to put it in the best context possible. I’m guessing that the term came from photography, where you frame your subject in the viewfinder. You choose your composition carefully to emphasize your subject and to exclude as much undesirable elements in the as possible.

There is, perhaps, a slight difference between spin and framing, although the effect is roughly the same: the public ends up with incomplete but highly processed information. Spin is trying to nuance existing information, whereas framing has to do with how to present information to the public. Framing is all the rage in politics, as you can imagine. And now, framing is being talked about by scientists.

Yes, scientists. You see, it seems that the general public still doubts global warming, the benefits of stem-cell research, and even Darwinism. In fact, it seems that atheism is actually in decline! Anyone who has read A Brave New World or any number of other futuristic novels knows that in order for the science-elite to control the world, they need buy-in from the public. So, some scientists are suggesting that the answer is in framing the information to make it more acceptable, and even desirable (“it’s not a bug, it’s a feature”).

Matthew Nisbet is one such framing proponent, with his blog Framing Science. Chris Mooney is another, who writes:

So in today’s America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge. Especially on divisive issues, scientists should package their research to resonate with specific segments of the public.

The Post article also quotes PZ Myers, who takes a different view (it’s odd to actually agree with Myers at times…):

“I’d end up giving fluff talks that play up economic advantages and how evolution contributes to medicine … and I’d never talk about mechanisms and evidence again. That sounds like a formula for disaster to me – it turns scientists into guys with suits who have opinions, and puts us in competition with lawyers and bureaucrats in the media.”

So, the question of “to frame, or not to frame,” is still being debated, and I’m guessing we’ll hear more. With Ben Stein’s movie coming out in February, the framing issue may heat up, but we’ll have to see. Jake Young has an interesting look at the framing issue as it relates to science and atheism, Why Pairing Science and Atheism is High-Brow. Some problems with his thinking are pointed out by Joy at Telic Thoughts. Again, I expect we’ll hear more on framing science.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Random Thoughts | 1 Comment

What’s up with Reformed theology?

Posted on September 14, 2007 by me

I’ve never really understood Reformed theology. Well, I can understand it, I just don’t get it. What’s the big attraction? And, why do Reformed folks judge everything by the Westminster Standards instead of the Bible?

I’ve commented on this before, and I still don’t get it. It’s obvious as I weave through the theological blogosphere that the Reformed folks, at least the ones who are of the commenting persuasion, take issue with anything that doesn’t fit in their theological box. This seems at the very least to be unwise, and appears to be a form of fundamentalism. It is the theological equivalent of the senior citizen who simply stares forward and plows through an intersection without even checking to see if there is cross-traffic.

Reformed theology, aka Calvinism, is primarily concerned with the sovereignty of God, which has a direct impact on their doctrine of justification. Your desire and choice about whether to follow Jesus and be “saved” is not as important – and some would say of no consequence at all – as God’s decision as to whether or not you will be saved. The full spectrum of Reformed thinking, of course, runs all the way from the hyper-Calvinists who see only God’s sovereignty to those who hold to a form of universal election; however, the common emphasis is on God’s sovereignty. Therefore, when someone like NT Wright suggests a different spin, the Reformed Right condemns it out of hand.

Now, of course, you can go to a number of find Presbyterian churches and never hear any of this. One advantage of the current state of the church in America is that to a certain extent, Christianity has become cross-theological. When I was a child, a great chasm existed between Lutherans and Presbyterians. However, I’ve attended non-denominational Bible studies for 30 years, and para-church organizations like InterVarsity do much to expose people to a broader culture and ideology than what we heard in our Lutheran, Presbyterian or Baptist ghettos. It still confounds me, then, when I see that there are still dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists around who wave the Standards around instead of the Bible.

Michael Spencer, the “Internet Monk,” has posted a 3-part interview with Lutheran blogger Josh Strodtbeck about the differences between Lutheran and Reformed thinking as it concerns God’s sovereignty. As both are Reformation-based traditions that can look very similar at times, this is a very interesting and enlightening discussion. Here are the links:

Lutheran theology, of which I am possibly closer to than anything else, is often ignored in many of the Calvinist vs Arminian discussions, as it really sits off of that continuum, taking a different approach to the issues. For Lutherans, “sovereignty or free will” is not that big of an issue, and as far as I know, we’ve stopped burning Calvinists at the stake. I’ve just started rereading some Lutheran theology, having been out of that fold for 30-some years, and am finding things I agree with, and some I don’t. Luther, like all Catholics of his day, were way too influenced by Augustine, and was obviously still influenced by Roman Catholic doctrine. I really can’t blame Luther for not going further than he did, as the apple can only fall so far from the tree. But, for the most part, Lutheranism was a giant leap in the right direction and has a lot to offer to us today.

So, please check out the discussion.

Posted in Reviews, Theological Musings | 2 Comments

On meeting Ben Stein, and a look at Expelled

Posted on September 13, 2007 by me

Yesterday afternoon, as a result of flight cancellations due to the grounding of the Bombardier Q400 puddle-jumpers, I found myself in the Spokane airport waiting for a rescheduled flight to board and noticed a gentleman who bore a striking resemblance to Ben Stein.

If you don’t know Ben Stein, you probably do but just don’t know it. A former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, Mr. Stein can be seen often on Cable TV news channels commenting on finance and politics, heard as voices in cartoons such as Jimmy Neutron, or seen doing eyedrop commercials. You may remember his game show, Win Ben Stein’s Money. Or, you may best remember him as the boring economics teaching in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. He’s an author, speaker, and now star of a soon to be released documentary, Expelled.

I wasn’t, of course, sure that he was the genuine Ben Stein, and am not one to randomly approach people inquiring if they are famous personalities. A few minutes later, I found myself sitting directly behind the Man Who Could Be Ben Stein on my flight, where I spent the next hour wondering if it was really him. After we disembarked, my curiosity got the better of me and I walked up to him with a very smooth “Are you Ben Stein?”

As it turned out, he was. He immediately lit up, shook my hand, and asked my name. He was off to catch a connecting flight, but spoke to me for about five minutes before he headed off. My impression is that he is a genuinely nice man who has never let his “public figure” status go to his head.

As I had been recently reading about his upcoming movie, I mentioned to him that the movie seemed to be causing a bit of a stir; he laughed and replied that he really didn’t understand why, as the movie was not even finished yet, being still in the editing process. “They tell me I’m the star,” he laughed, “and even I don’t know what’s going to be in it.”

Expelled is a movie dealing with the evolution-design debate, specifically concerning the myriad attempts to keep any mention of “design” out of the American education system. From the movie’s official site:

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, is an upcoming feature film in which host Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) goes on a quest to expose the suppression by science’s anti-theist elite, and unveil new scientific facts that may suggest evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

Now, here’s the controversy: essentially, the anti-design contingent is pissed. Now that the promotional materials for the film are being released, folks who were interviewed for the film claim they were misled about the nature of the film, which originally had a different title, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.” According to PZ Myers, the letter he received asking for an interview stated, “We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.” Apparently, even with this pretty out-front claim, he never bothered to ask if they were taking any particular side. You can read Myers’ whole thoughts about the film here.

It’s not uncommon for movie titles to change. It appears the film also moved from Rampart Films to Premise Media, but the producer is the same. The issues being discuss appear to still be the same as what was outlined in the initial letter Myers received. Now, I’m sure some of the fear is due to the hack job that happened to a few scientists a few years back with the film “What The Bleep Do We Know, which started out as a film about quantum physics but in reality was promoting some psycho cult whose leader says she channels the spirit of a 35,000 year-old Lemurian warrior.

It remains to be seen how Expelled will turn out, but I’m guessing folks like Harris, Dawkins and Myers will come across sounding like themselves; it’s pretty obvious how they stand on the issues, and I can’t imagine that they’re going to be edited to make them out to be Creationists. My guess is that the film will be no more biased, and hopefully more honest, than the recent documentaries by Michael Moore or Al Gore, and certainly won’t feature any dead Lemurians.

Ben Stein is an intelligent man, and I can’t wait to hear what he, and the others on all sides of the issue, have to say.

p.s. If you want to see an example of “no intelligence,” check out this post on The Panda’s Thumb.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews | 14 Comments