Contact Aletheia: 715-849-8328
A Review of
Oct 12, 2007, Wausau, Wi — This week I
return to my extended review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” In the prior parts of this review,
I have shown how Dawkins’ simplistic approach to the subject of religion
regularly leads him into trouble. This
is especially true when in chapter 3 he begins to deal with the arguments for
God’s existence.
Not too
surprisingly Dawkins starts with the classical proofs for God set forth by
Thomas Aquinas. His view of Aquinas’
arguments is clearly set forth when he says, “The five ‘proofs’ asserted by
Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are easily –
though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence – exposed as vacuous.” (pg 77)
Reading his supposed refutation, it would seem that Dawkins should have
hesitated a little longer.
To
understand the problem with Dawkins refutation, it is first necessary to know a
little about Aquinas’ arguments. It is
impossible to fully cover details of these arguments here, but I hope to cover
enough to show the serious flaw in Dawkins attempt at refutation. (For those
seeking a more in depth discussion of some of these arguments and some of the
objections raised by critics should see Chapter two of my book Christianity and Secularism).
Aquinas’ first
three arguments all deal with the impossibility of an infinite regression of
linked events. For example an apple
comes from a tree, and the tree grew from a seed, and the seed came from an
earlier apple, and so on and so on, further and further into the past. Such a
regression can either go on forever, with no beginning, or it can have a
beginning. Aquinas’ argument is based on
the claim that it would be impossible for such regressions to go on forever,
but there must have been a beginning to the sequence, a first cause, a first
mover, etc.
Unfortunately
for Dawkins, he seems too busy finding fault, to have actually have understood
the argument. Dawkins’ first attempt at
an argument is to claim that Aquinas’ arguments “make the entirely unwarranted
assumption that God himself is immune to the regress… there is absolutely no
reason to endow [a terminator of the sequence] with any of the properties
normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of
design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers,
forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts.” (pg 77)
Now it is
true that these arguments do not give us a complete picture of God, but neither
Aquinas, nor others defending these arguments claim that they did. After all the main purpose of these arguments
is to primarily demonstrate one attribute of God: his existence. That these arguments do not give us a
complete picture of God, is not an argument that they don’t succeed in the purpose
for which they were intended. That a
scalpel cannot perform all the tasks needed in surgical operation, is not an
argument that a scalpel is useless at the task for which it was intended.
Yet while
these and other arguments for God’s existence don’t need to go beyond
demonstrating the existence of god to be effective, often they do. For example, the arguments based on the
impossibility of infinite regression, not only demonstrates the existence of a
first mover, first cause or creator, they also tell us more. For example, for something to be the true
beginning of a sequence, it cannot itself be part of a sequence, and therefore must
be eternal, which is also an attribute of God.
Since
everything in the natural universe, is base on cause and effect, an eternal
creator could not be part of the natural universe, and thus, must be beyond the
natural, or in other words is supernatural in nature. Thus these arguments not
only argue for existence, but the existence of an eternal supernatural
creator. While not by any means a
complete description of God, it is at least a good start.
At this
point Dawkins’ takes a bizarre side trail to expose what he claims is incompatibility
in the out understanding of God.
According to Dawkins, since God is supposedly omniscient, he already
knows “how h is going to intervene to change the course of history.” But since he already knows, he cannot change
his mind, and since he cannot change his mind he cannot be omnipotent.
Like so
many of the supposedly devastating critics of atheists, much of this argument
turns on exactly how you define omnipotent.
If it is defined as the ability to do anything, then Dawkins is correct,
God is not omnipotent. He cannot, to use another supposedly devastating
critique, create a rock that is too heavy for him to move. On the other hand, if omnipotent is defined
as God being so powerful, that his desires are not limited by his ability; that
his he can do whatever he desires to do, then there is no problem at all.
In fact,
not only is there no problem, but Dawkins’ supposed refutation, simply
demonstrates yet another characteristic of God: that he is unchanging. So rather than a refutation, now we have
these arguments show the existence of an eternal unchanging supernatural
creator.
More next
time.
See www.consider.org for additional information.
The book and press materials are available upon request.
To schedule an interview or to have
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. speak at your chruch or event
contact Aletheia at 715-849-8328