Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[_Aristotle Smith]

When building a worldview, one is best to start with facts...I will stick with science.

Derail, but I call BS. You don't start building a worldview from facts, you a priori have a worldview which then allows you to adjudicate that which is a fact and that which is not. How could you possibly know what is a fact if you didn't already have some pre-determined method (i.e. a worldview) for identifying it as such?

It doesn't do any good to say that science is the best method available, therefore one should should stick with that. For example, I am fully on board with the idea science is the best method available for discovering facts about the material world. But I also believe that the material world does not exhaust reality, therefore science cannot adjudicate all facts.

[_marg]

No one offers up Divine Simplicity as a proof for God’s existence, where the hell did you get that idea?

I’ve never endorsed Divine Simplicity.

Can you show me any post by me, anywhere, that says Divine Simplicity is a proof for God, or that I endorse and believe in Divine Simplicity?

Dawkins’ book deals with the God Hypothesis of religions which is the various claims which include an interfering in man sort of God existing which created the universe and life. You criticize him for not addressing Swinbourne’s argument for God.

You quote my quote of Dawkins: But how can Swinburne possibly maintain that this hypothesis of God simultaneously keeping a gazillion fingers on wayward electrons is a simple hypothesis? It is of coarse, precisely the opposite of simple. Swinburne pulls off the trick to his own satisfaction by a breathtaking piece of intellectual chutzpah. He asserts, without justification, that God is only a single substance. With brilliant economy of explanatory causes, compared with all those gigazillions of independent electrons all just happening to be the same!

And then you say: That doesn’t even deal with the doctrine of divine simplicity, I don’t even think that objection even gets off the ground, nor is it even fair to Swinburne. You are going to hand wave an idea away that takes pages to explain in just one or two paragraphs?

The bottom line Stak is that Dawkins' book addresses the rationality of the hypothesis of an intelligent creator of the universe ..an interfering in mankind sort of God which Swinbourne obviously believes in and argues for.

So if you are going to support Swinbourne and criticize Dawkins for not addressing “the doctrine of divine simplicity”..then it’s up to you to offer up ...why this doctrine should be addressed. If it doesn’t offer any proof that such a God exists then what are you bringing it up for, since that’s the issue discussed in Dawkins’ book?

If we are going to sit around and talk about how Atheist excel at critical thinking, and then deny the plain and obvious fact that Dawkins can’t even engage the idea of Divine Simplicity in any meaningful fashion, then we are no better than Lee Strobel.

Who said atheists excel at critical thinking? Dawkins and many of the scientists in the movement to counter the nonsense of religions which encourage and promote faith based beliefs ..in my opinion they excel at critical thinking. Some philosophers perhaps do, like Daniel Dennett, but I have my doubt that the study of philosophy does much to promote critical thinking. I rarely see philosophers in the public eye, doing the sort of thing P.Z Myers, Harris, Dawkins, Atkins, Nouvella do which is promote critical thinking.

ETA: And marg, you don't gauge someone by another's quotes. It would be intellectually lazy and dishonest to take Dawkins at face value without investigating Swinburne's works. How can you talk about critical thinking when you blatantly disregard the idea of going to primary sources in favor of secondary sources?
This does a disservice to both Atheists and Theists, and does nothing to advance the discussion.

Let’s take a look at Dawkins’ quote from Swinbourne:

Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God. And it claims that every property which every substance has is due to God causing or permitting it to exist. It is a hallmark of a simple explanation to postulate few causes. There could in this respect be no simpler explanation and one which postulated only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. And theism postulates for its one cause, a person [with] infinite power [God can do anything logically possible], infinite knowledge [God knows everything logically possible to know], and infinite freedom.

Just because Swinbourne attributes ‘cause’ to one source does not make the explanation “God” simple. If I said something like the above..you'd be slinging a slew of insults out at me..about how my point was so stupid. It gets back to the appreciation that such an assumption which Swinbourne makes, does not address what caused/created the intelligent being proposed...God. This quote shows how illogical Swinbourne obviously is. And this is the guy you want Dawkin's to devote time to in his book.

How can I ignore Swinbourne...you ask, its because the discussion about God's existence has been going on for centuries..and I know Swinbourne has nothing to warrant the establishment of the existence of any religious God. It's really not all that complicated..we don't need Bayesian probabilities and whatever other complications you want to bring to the discussion.

As far as your concern about advancing the discussion…your criticisms of Dawkins absent any real legitimate substance to warrant that criticism ..and your shifting the discussion to personal attack ..does nothing to advance the discussion. If you are going to criticize..then at least makes some sense and have a good reason to do so...with warrants to back you.

[_DrW]

the imaginings of individuals who have too much time to think and to little data to think about.

<buzzer> "What is philosophy?"

"I'm sorry, but the correct answer is: what is string theory?"

"I'll take Lost Ten Tribes and the Hollow Earth for 500 please"

There is a large community of theoretical physicists and an even larger scientific community in general that would disagree with your assertion that string theory is mere philosophy. And since Divine Simplicity is really theology, most of them would probably be first insulted and then amused at the comparison. There are a number of important differences between String Theory and Divine Simplicity.

The string theories, and their unified 11 dimensional offspring "M Theory", appear capable of reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity. M Theory is therefore the best candidate out there for a "theory of everything".

While the energies that would be required to observe strings directly are currently unobtainable (and will almost certainly never be accessible to humankind), the theory does provide a way to understand quantum gravity as well as black hole thermodynamics, and has helped save theoretical physics from the problem of disappearing matter in black holes as originally postulated by Stephen Hawkings. While string theories do have their problems (including too many solutions and high energies required for determining their applicability to quantum gravity), some of them have proven extremely useful and work on them continues for just this reason.

"Divine Simplicity", on the other hand, is born of ignorance and superstition. It cannot be framed or described mathematically, cannot be used in any way to help understand the universe, cannot be tested, and reconciles nothing.

[_Phillip]

DrW,

I was just trying to be funny, apparently unsuccessfully (nothing new there)

I think string theory (and philosophy as well) is fascinating. My college math stopped with complex analysis and abstract algebra, so I have to rely on popular books about it like Greene's. Even if string theory turns out to be a dead end as far as physics goes, like quaternions, it still would have contributed to our knowledge of pure mathematics. And dead ends sometimes find application in unexpected places. In any case that's how science works: exploring new ideas in many directions, discarding the ones that fail to garner sufficient empirical support. In religion, by contrast, we sometimes hold onto ideas long after their expiration date.

About divine simplicity, my amatuer understanding of it is that by stating God has no parts, it is essentially saying that God is a fundamental reality. The God of classical theology has to be simple in that sense otherwise God would not be God. It is the end of the explanatory chain so that God cannot be decomposed into more fundamental, more simple elements. Kind of like a string :)

Phillip (hagiasophia)

[_DrW]

When building a worldview, one is best to start with facts...I will stick with science.

Derail, but I call BS. You don't start building a worldview from facts, you a priori have a worldview which then allows you to adjudicate that which is a fact and that which is not. How could you possibly know what is a fact if you didn't already have some pre-determined method (i.e. a worldview) for identifying it as such?

It doesn't do any good to say that science is the best method available, therefore one should should stick with that. For example, I am fully on board with the idea science is the best method available for discovering facts about the material world. But I also believe that the material world does not exhaust reality, therefore science cannot adjudicate all facts.

You have a point, so let me clarify.

When one builds a worldview, one observes the world and decides how to best interpret and interact with it. In making these decisions, one can rely on unfounded beliefs (beliefs for which there is no external credible physical evidence), or one can rely on evidence that can be reproduced, tested and verified (i.e. facts).

To the extent that one relies on unfounded belief (faith and superstition), one puts themselves in a position to be unduly influenced by angry gods, evil demons, and all manner of religious cons and absurdities.

Your belief that there is something beyond the universe of detectable matter and energy, or that which can be described by mathematics, is just that, a belief, and an unfounded one. While it may do little harm to hold such beliefs, it is a bad idea to rely on them when your physical welfare or that of others is at stake. Just ask the victims of faith healers, FLDS polygamists and religious zealots of all stripes, from fundamentalist Islamic suicide bombers to homophobic Mormon General Authorities.

[_DrW]

DrW,

I was just trying to be funny, apparently unsuccessfully (nothing new there)

I think string theory (and philosophy as well) is fascinating. My college math stopped with complex analysis and abstract algebra, so I have to rely on popular books about it like Greene's. Even if string theory turns out to be a dead end as far as physics goes, like quaternions, it still would have contributed to our knowledge of pure mathematics. And dead ends sometimes find application in unexpected places. In any case that's how science works: exploring new ideas in many directions, discarding the ones that fail to garner sufficient empirical support. In religion, by contrast, we sometimes hold onto ideas long after their expiration date.

About divine simplicity, my amatuer understanding of it is that by stating God has no parts, it is essentially saying that God is a fundamental reality. The God of classical theology has to be simple in that sense otherwise God would not be God. It is the end of the explanatory chain so that God cannot be decomposed into more fundamental, more simple elements. Kind of like a string :)

Phillip (hagiasophia)

Hello Phillip,

Fair enough.

Now the question: is there any evidence, physical or mathematical, to support belief in the tenets of divine simplicity, or the God which it endeavors to describe?

Is divine simplicity ever likely to be of as much value to humankind as even the largely neglected quaternions?

A few years ago, a group of Russian and Ukrainian mathematicians and programmers in a company I helped manage came up with some outstanding quaternion-based color image compression applications. So, I would not say that work on quaternions was a dead end (and would agree that applications for new mathematics are often found in unexpected places).

Do you believe that useful applications for divine simplicity will ever be found?

[_Phillip]

Do you believe that useful applications for divine simplicity will ever be found?

Neuroendocrinology and quaternions? I have to admit you have a fascinating career. I need to get out more.

Useful applications for divine simplicity? You mean beyond providing employment for theologians and entertainment value for threads like this one? Well you got me there, if by useful you mean an increase in our ability to control the natural world for our benefit. An understanding of divine simplicity or any of the attributes of God has value only if there is a God. If there is, then it provides us with a deeper understanding of the ultimate cause of things, knowledge for knowledge's sake. If there is no God then it's all a waste of time or, at best, an intellectual diversion.

[_DrW]

Neuroendocrinology and quaternions? I have to admit you have a fascinating career.

Or perhaps just a short attention span. (So much technology - so little time.)

[_EAllusion]

I don't think fine tuning arguments are at all successful. And I believe I have read some pretty thorough beat-downs of fine-tuning that speak to Swinburne's version specifically. I even think you can cut through the heart of fine-tuning arguments in a relatively short amount of space. Dawkins, unfortunately, doesn't want to do the necessary background work to give a great reply. It's a shame, because he's on the right track. I'm glad Dawkins isn't impressed and all; he shouldn't be, but he also doesn't provide a good treatment of the topic in the above quoted session. Read Jeremy Gwiazda's or Eliott Sober's criticisms and you'll see how it's done.

[_Tarski]

There is a well known adage: A theory that explains everything explains nothing.
I am anxious to find out why Swinburne's God is not just such a theory:

Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God. And it claims that every property which every substance has is due to God causing or permitting it to exist. It is a hallmark of a simple explanation to postulate few causes. There could in this respect be no simpler explanation and one which postulated only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. And theism postulates for its one cause, a person [with] infinite power [God can do anything logically possible], infinite knowledge [God knows everything logically possible to know], and infinite freedom.

My sarcastic theory: Everything that needs an explanation is ultimately explained by The Super Explanans. It is utterly simple and need no explanation (by definition) and just has the unanalyzable fauculty to explain and be the cause for everything. All things are explained now. Let's party.

By the way is Swinburne all in for something like a scholastic substance ontology?

To me this just sounds empty:

Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance

I don't know about the rest of you but when something is explained in terms of some substance or entity simply possessing a unanalyzable faculty (like the old example of virtus dormativa), I don't feel like I have gotten an explanation at all. I want to see a mechanism or something like it where I can get a sense of "oh, that's how it works". Explaining the animate nature of living things in terms of molecular biology is infinitely better than appealing to something like an "elan vital" for example. The latter is just a word/phrase masquerading as an explanation.

To say that God is beyond all mechanism and beyond even all categories and concepts that normally go into a satisfying explanation, just doesn't cut it. I am still left with a feeling of having been cheated. (Hey, cars move and turn and accelerate because they possess "pure motility"!)

I don't want to feel like I asked why and got the answer "because!".

I am also very very suspicious of terms being used in ways that are radically out of their usual context. For example, there it the idea of a God being outside of time and space and yet creating the world including space and time. Isn't "create" a verb? Must we not have an action in time even if it isn't in our own spacetime manifold?

Again, the idea of a person existing outside of time and space sounds kinda like an apple made of pure communism.


I once read a whole book about this kind of thing: "Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God" By Drees

Drees has PhDs in physics, theology, and philosophy. Wow!!

The whole time he managed to make me feel like he was a thinking person and kept it interesting. It felt deep, oh so deep.
But in the end I felt like it distilled down to a speck of BS and certainly nothing with explanitory power. It created the feeling of enlightenment without actually enlightening!


Finally, the very idea of a person with no embodiment and no physicality, no mouth, no ears, no hands, no brain and yet sustaining every molecule and every quanta of light in every instant of every epoch, smells like just nonsense.


Look, I always hear how we just have to take theology seriously because there are these educated people and famous prolific historical figures that take/took it seriously and because there are journals and academics in the topic.

But there are plenty of people who are educated and intelligent that think it is obfuscation and nonsense.
Does any substantial number of educated and intelligent people think that physics or biology is merely obfuscation and nonsense? That is a clue that there is something fishy about theology.