A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."

by BurnTheShips 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • BurnTheShips


    On Dawkins’s Atheism: A Response

    My August 1 essay, “Philosophy and Faith,” was primarily addressed to religious believers. It argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith. I very much appreciated the many and diverse comments and the honesty and passion with which so many expressed their views. Interestingly, many of the most passionate responses came from non-believers who objected to my claim that popular atheistic arguments (like popular theistic arguments) do not establish their conclusions. There was particular dismay over my passing comment that the atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins are “demonstrably faulty.” This follow-up provides support for my negative assessment. I will focus on Dawkins’ arguments in his 2006 book, “The God Delusion.”

    Dawkins’s writing gives the impression of clarity, but his readable style can cover over major conceptual confusions. For example, the core of his case against God’s existence, as he summarizes it on pages 188-189, seems to go like this:

    1. There is need for an explanation of the apparent design of the universe.

    2. The universe is highly complex.

    3. An intelligent designer of the universe would be even more highly complex.

    4. A complex designer would itself require an explanation.

    5. Therefore, an intelligent designer will not provide an explanation of the universe’s complexity.

    6. On the other hand, the (individually) simple processes of natural selection can explain the apparent design of the universe.

    7. Therefore, an intelligent designer (God) almost certainly does not exist.

    (Here I’ve formulated Dawkins’ argument a bit more schematically than he does and omitted his comments on parallels in physics to the explanations natural selection provides for apparent design in biology.)

    As formulated, this argument is an obvious non-sequitur. The premises (1-6), if true, show only that God cannot be posited as the explanation for the apparent design of the universe, which can rather be explained by natural selection. They do nothing to show that “God almost certainly does not exist” (189).

    But the ideas behind premises 3 and 4 suggest a more cogent line of argument, which Dawkins seems to have in mind in other passages:

    1. If God exists, he must be both the intelligent designer of the universe and a being that explains the universe but is not itself in need of explanation.

    2. An intelligent designer of the universe would be a highly complex being.

    3. A highly complex being would itself require explanation.

    4. Therefore, God cannot be both the intelligent designer of the universe and the ultimate explanation of the universe.

    5. Therefore, God does not exist.

    Here the premises do support the conclusion, but premise 2, at least, is problematic. In what sense does Dawkins think God is complex and why does this complexity require an explanation? He does not discuss this in any detail, but his basic idea seems to be that the enormous knowledge and power God would have to possess would require a very complex being and such complexity of itself requires explanation. He says for example: “A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple” (p. 178). And, a bit more fully, “a God who is capable of sending intelligible signals to millions of people simultaneously, and of receiving messages from all of them simultaneously, cannot be . . . simple. Such bandwidth! . . . If [God] has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more elaborately and randomly constructed than the largest brain or the largest computer we know” (p. 184).

    Here Dawkins ignores the possibility that God is a very different sort of being than brains and computers. His argument for God’s complexity either assumes that God is material or, at least, that God is complex in the same general way that material things are (having many parts related in complicated ways to one another). The traditional religious view, however, is that God is neither material nor composed of immaterial parts (whatever that might mean). Rather, he is said to be simple, a unity of attributes that we may have to think of as separate but that in God are united in a single reality of pure perfection.

    Obviously, there are great difficulties in understanding how God could be simple in this way. But philosophers from Thomas Aquinas through contemporary thinkers have offered detailed discussions of the question that provide intelligent suggestions about how to think coherently about a simple substance that has the power and knowledge attributed to God. Apart from a few superficial swipes at Richard Swinburne’s treatment in “Is There a God?”, Dawkins ignores these discussions. (see Swinburne’s response to Dawkins, paragraph 3.) Making Dawkins’ case in any convincing way would require detailed engagement not only with Swinburne but also with other treatments by recent philosophers such as Christopher Hughes’ “A Complex Theory of a Simple God.” (For a survey of recent work on the topic, see William Vallicella’s article, “Divine Simplicity,” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

    Further, Dawkins’ argument ignores the possibility that God is a necessary being (that is, a being that, by its very nature, must exist, no matter what). On this traditional view, God’s existence would be, so to speak, self-explanatory and so need no explanation, contrary to Dawkins’ premise 3. His ignoring this point also undermines his effort at a quick refutation of the cosmological argument for God as the cause of the existence of all contingent beings (that is, all beings that, given different conditions, would not have existed). Dawkins might, like some philosophers, argue that the idea of a necessary being is incoherent, but to make this case, he would have to engage with the formidable complexities of recent philosophical treatments of the question (see, for example, Timothy O’Connor’s “Theism and Ultimate Explanation” and Bruce Reichenbach’s article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires.

    The basic problem is that meeting such standards requires coming to terms with the best available analyses and arguments. This need not mean being capable of contributing to the cutting-edge discussions of contemporary philosophers, but it does require following these discussions and applying them to one’s own intellectual problems. Dawkins simply does not do this. He rightly criticizes religious critics of evolution for not being adequately informed about the science they are calling into question. But the same criticism applies to his own treatment of philosophical issues.

    Friends of Dawkins might object: “Why pay attention to what philosophers have to say when, notoriously, they continue to disagree regarding the ‘big questions’, particularly, the existence of God?” Because, successful or not, philosophers offer the best rational thinking about such questions. Believers who think religion begins where reason falters may be able to make a case for the irrelevance of high-level philosophical treatments of religion — although, as I argued in “Philosophy and Faith,” this move itself raises unavoidable philosophical questions that challenge religious faith. But those, like Dawkins, committed to believing only what they can rationally justify, have no alternative to engaging with the most rigorous rational discussions available. Dawkins’ distinctly amateur philosophizing simply isn’t enough.

    Of course, philosophical discussions have not resolved the question of God’s existence. Even the best theistic and atheistic arguments remain controversial. Given this, atheists may appeal (as many of the comments on my blog did) to what we might call the “no-arguments argument.” To say that the universe was created by a good and powerful being who cares about us is an extraordinary claim, so improbable to begin with that we surely should deny it unless there are decisive arguments for it (arguments showing that it is highly probable). Even if Dawkins’ arguments against theism are faulty, can’t he cite the inconclusiveness of even the most well-worked-out theistic arguments as grounds for denying God’s existence?

    He can if he has good reason to think that, apart from specific theistic arguments, God’s existence is highly unlikely. Besides what we can prove from arguments, how probable is it that God exists? Here Dawkins refers to Bertrand Russell’s example of the orbiting teapot. We would require very strong evidence before agreeing that there was a teapot in orbit around the sun, and lacking such evidence would deny and not remain merely agnostic about such a claim. This is because there is nothing in our experience suggesting that the claim might be true; it has no significant intrinsic probability.

    But suppose that several astronauts reported seeing something that looked very much like a teapot and, later, a number of reputable space scientists interpreted certain satellite data as showing the presence of a teapot-shaped object, even though other space scientists questioned this interpretation. Then it would be gratuitous to reject the hypothesis out of hand, even without decisive proof that it was true. We should just remain agnostic about it.

    The claim that God exists is much closer to this second case. There are sensible people who report having had some kind of direct awareness of a divine being, and there are competent philosophers who endorse arguments for God’s existence. Therefore, an agnostic stance seems preferable atheism.

    To this, Dawkins might respond that there are other reasons that make the idea of God’s existence so improbable that nothing short of decisive arguments can override a denial of that existence. It’s as if, they might say, we had strong scientific evidence that nothing shaped like a teapot could remain in an orbit around the sun. We could then rightly deny the existence of an orbiting teapot, despite eye-witness reports and scientific arguments supporting its existence.

    What could be a reason for thinking that God’s existence is, of itself, highly improbable? There is, of course, Dawkins’ claim that God is highly complex, but, as we’ve seen, this is an assumption he has not justified. Another reason, which seems implicit in many of Dawkins’ comments, is that materialism (the view that everything is material) is highly probable. If so, the existence of an immaterial being such as God would be highly improbable.

    But what is the evidence for materialism? Presumably, that scientific investigation reveals the existence of nothing except material things. But religious believers will plausibly reply that science is suited to discover only what is material (indeed, the best definition of “material” may be just “the sort of thing that science can discover”). They will also cite our experiences of our own conscious life (thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) as excellent evidence for the existence of immaterial realities that cannot be fully understood by science.

    At this point, the dispute between theists and atheists morphs into one of the most lively (and difficult) of current philosophical debates—that between those who think consciousness is somehow reducible to material brain-states and those who think it is not. This debate is far from settled and at least shows that materialism is not something atheists can simply assert as an established fact. It follows that they have no good basis for treating the existence of God as so improbable that it should be denied unless there is decisive proof for it. This in turn shows that atheists are at best entitled to be agnostics, seriously doubting but not denying the existence of God.

    I find Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” stimulating, informative, and often right on target. But it does not make a strong case for atheism. His case is weak because it does not take adequate account of the philosophical discussions that have raised the level of reflection about God’s existence far above that at which he operates. It may be possible to make a decisive case against theism through a penetrating philosophical treatment of necessity, complexity, explanation, and other relevant concepts. Because his arguments fail to do this, Dawkins falls far short of establishing his claim.

  • jamesmahon

    Hmmm. Do I engage with this or not?

    To begin with, I am not a fan of Dawkins but do not believe in god. I find him abrasive and patronising but no more so than most preachers who get to air their views.

    However, having read the god delusion I think that the argument about complexity was brought up because people say that as the universe is so complex it must have been made by someone/something. But this means that the thing who created it was equally complex so who created the creator? I don't think that his the only argument in his book which when taken in conjunction with his others really is saying look, there is no need for a god to explain the creation of the universe. There is no need for a god to explain the things that theists say a god has to exist for. Things get explained by science over time and the good thing about science is that it expands human knowledge and experience by questioning. The benefits of this questioning have been many fold. So yes, why not be agnostic - but then spin it around and say why bother being agnostic. For whatever reason (and science is beggining to find out) humans have a predisposition to the spiritual. But that does not mean that god exists and that spiritual side of me can be fulfilled without the need for god. By loving my children for example. Keep in mind that 99.9% of the animal kingdom get by just fine without believing in god.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    What I find curious is Dawkins assertion that God is complex. Personally, yes. Ontologically, He is a spirit. He has no parts or perhaps a single part. He is of one "substance" - spirit.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog


    I think the problem is simply that Dawkins and other like him, argue from the point of view that God would be subject to the naural laws of the universe, such as needing a creator.

  • wobble

    It is interesting that these sort of debates have been going on from Classical Greek times, down through the Enlightenment to our day.

    In most former times people took it as a given that there were gods or a God, and those that were labelled "Atheist" were more often than not simply against the prevailing religious authorities.

    The fairly modern rejection of the possibility of a God or gods, was preceded by many scientists feeling that considerations of what or who god is had no bearing on their scientific work.

    I think Richard Dawkins has done a great service to us all by keeping this in the public eye, although I agree his arguments are sometimes a bit thin, but not so slim as the guy above quoted who attempts to belittle RD's attempts but only offers as support for his argument a very JW/WT type statement :

    "There are sensible people who report having a direct awareness of a divine being"

    Who are these people ? can we test how "sensible" they are ? There are a good number on this board who fit that description, but that is not proof enough for me.

    Richard Dawkins has ably dealt with the complexity argument in a number of his books, and I think his questions need an answer from Theists, not just a WT type attack with no real refutation or evidence for the opposite view to his.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Thing is he contradicts himself and renders his conclusion rediculous. On one hand he states that God must be complex because the universe is complex, then turns around and states this somehow proves that something simple made it. Of the several premesis, only one can be observed - that the universe is complex. False premises beget false conlusions. Even if he is correct in his belief, his "proofs" don't cut it.

  • nicolaou

    Dawkins style may not suit everyone but he has crystallized the arguments against a Creator of the universe. Whatever objections may be raised against what he has written pale when compared to the nonsense spouted on threads like this.

    Mad Dawg: "[God] is a spirit. He has no parts or perhaps a single part. He is of one "substance" - spirit."

    Deputy Dog: "the problem is simply that Dawkins and other like him, argue from the point of view that God would be subject to the naural laws of the universe"

    Nothing but a series of flat assertions and delusional constructs. Can you guys actually hear yourselves? Do you understand your own idiocy? Frankly you deserve all the ridicule and derision you get.


  • cantleave

    Well said nic!

    The problem is you can't can't reason with theist because they are starting from an reasonable premise, ie the nature and eternity of God can not be understood and it will always be beyond our comprehension.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Nic said:

    Nothing but a series of flat assertions and delusional constructs.

    Do you mean like quantum fluctuations of nothingness? You do realize that Dawkins’ statements about the complexity of God, or the existence of God, are Nothing but a series of flat assertions and delusional constructs? You should listen to yourself sometime. BTW, I get very little ridicule or derision.

  • Simon

    No, it's creationists own arguments turned against them and shown up for the idiocy that they are ...

    "The universe is complex - anything that complex needs a designer."

    They then miss that the designer of something is ALWAYS more complex than the thing they design (i.e. a watchmaker is more complex than a watch).

    The reality is that the universe wasn't designed but was the product of natural and simple processes - the simplicity fits the facts and passes the simple logic test too.

Share this