The key argument against the existence of God, if I have understood Richard Dawkins correctly, is that introducing the hypothesis of a cosmic designer to explain the complexity of the natural world does not simplify matters but introduces a new level of complexity. If the natural world is so wonderfully intricate in itself, then any entity capable of conceiving and creating it must be even more wonderfully intricate.
Dawkins shows how evolution by natural selection can explain the complexity of life on our planet, and he therefore cannot see how an even more complex being, as a creator God must inevitably be, could come into existence without some kind of evolutionary mechanism.
I acknowledge that evolution explains how something as ‘clearly designed’ at the human eye or the wing of a bird can come about through a simple but powerful process. It follows that the appearance of design can be an illusion. Complexity can be the surprising end result of a simple explanation. It doesn’t follow that complexity (and specifically meaningful, intelligent, seemingly well-designed complexity) always requires some simpler explanatory process. In other words, being able to explain the method by which some complex life came into existence doesn’t imply that all forms of complex life (such as God) can be reduced to a simpler explanation.
This is a very scientific way of approaching reality – trying to understand it by looking for simpler rules and laws which would explain the observed facts. It’s a great way to explore life and one which I enjoy myself. But it’s not the only game in the playground. When it comes to relationships, trying to understand someone by finding simple key concepts that explain their behaviour is probably one of the least helpful approaches. Personal relationships are not about reducing to simple stereotypes, but about embracing the whole breadth and depth of another human life.
I am grateful for Richard Dawkins in making clear that any God worth his salt cannot be a simple, easily understood entity, but has to be a awesomely complex being of fathomless depths. It's a good job we have eternity to get to know him.
2 comments:
(I left this comment in another note, but so you don't miss it and can comment on it, I put it here as well; hope you don't mind :) )
Dawkins has faith in science. Science is based on the unprovable premise that the observable characteristics of the material world today is the same that would have been seen yesterday, and that of tomorrow. No empirical activity can prove that the laws of nature are constant.
Neither can it be proven that human logic is a consistently valid method of truth deduction. For instance, one can't “prove” that if A=B and B=C then A=C. It is either self-evident or not, but we can’t prove it.
These are axioms, in other words, articles of faith. They make a lot of sense to us, and they seem to hold true. But we have nothing outside them by which to know (as opposed to believing in) their validity.
God bless
Good point. If reality just happens to be the way it is for no reason, then why should it be stable (in the sense of obeying the same rules of nature in the future as it did in the past)? Why should it even be explainable (in the sense of being able to formulate simple principles which lead to more complex facts)?
To illustrate, consider the two lists of digits 12121212121212121212 and 77449857265757241373. The first can be explained as '12 repeated ten times'. The second cannot be explained in any way other than listing all the digits. Why should the universe resemble the first of these rather than the second?
Unless, of course, there is a deeper unifying principle behind the existence of the universe...
Post a Comment