Dawkins states that the central argument in his book “The God Delusion” is
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect 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.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
This summary can be found on pages 157-8.
Now if this argument can be shown to be illogical, what would it mean for the rest of his book? Just to re-iterate that this summary forms the central argument of his book.
Now let’s look at this powerful argument that resulted in a bestseller. Dawkins premises are now emphasized in bold to distinguish his words from my explanations
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
The above statement acknowledges that the appearance of design in the universe is not only complex but also improbable. All I did is to highlight the word improbable and clicked on the Thesaurus. The following synonyms were offered: unlikely; doubtful: implausible etc. Why is this improbable? I don’t know but Dawkins said it. Is it because that all the scientific rules, laws and evidence we have coupled with suggested explanations (postulations), there are still no convincing explanation that would suggest an observable design that oozes with so much sophistication?
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
A comment on whether temptation is natural or not will not be made. What does Dawkins mean by this statement? Okay let’s try to answer this question. Dawkins is implying that we cannot link the appearance of design to the existence of GOD. Does a creationist have to do this to provide the best explanation for GOD’s existence? Well, what about the cosmological argument for GOD’s existence? What about the ontological argument? What about the objective moral argument? What about the historical evidence for the crucification and resurrection of JESUS? These are arguments that are always made by William Lane Craig in basically all of his debates on the topic “Does GOD exist?” I always asked myself the question why Dr. Craig always uses this argument when his opponents already knows that he will use this argument. Then after listening to the debates, I realised that Craig’s challenge to all his opponents has still not been met. No one as yet could tear down these arguments and erect a new one in its place.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
I am sure by now you see the problem in this statement. Questioning how the designer came to be has no relevance to the point of designer designing the design. Just to give you an example. If someone who does not know who his parents are and no-one has any explanation on where he is born and this someone made a little piece of art with just soda cans, is it rational to say that because we know nothing of the designer implies that we cannot link the design to him?
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
A concession that it may be the most popular explanation does not make it the most powerful explanation. If this was so, then the cosmological, ontological and the historical arguments would have been defeated already. Is this statement a subjective one or is it factual amongst those who hold this argument to be ingenious and powerful?
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
I’m not sure what Dawkins is implying or stating here. I’ll leave this one for the reader to advise.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
I conditionally agree to the first part of this statement. The condition I attach to this is there may be an explanation existing outside physics. I think the brave thing to do is to look outside science for explanations if an explanation cannot be found within science. If science cannot answer the “Why” question, will we be justified as labeling it as a silly question?
Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
Now I want the rational and the brave to answer this question: Based on points 1 to 6, can we logically conclude that GOD almost certainly does not exist? If this be the central argument in the book, what impact will it have on the book itself?
I will leave you, the reader to draw your own conclusions. I will leave your conscience to decide whether your conclusions were arrived at by logic and rationality.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
