The God Delusion
Chapter 3 Summary: The argument for God’s existence
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins provides a multitude of alleged proofs for God’s existence, and then promptly dismantles them with the power of logic and reason. In chapter three of The God Delusion, which is titled Arguments for God’s Existence, he lays out a few specific examples of “proof” which include the proofs of Thomas Aquinas, the argument from beauty, the argument from personal “experience”, the argument from scripture, and Pascal’s Wager.
Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas’
The unmoved mover: Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
The uncaused cause: Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
The cosmological argument: There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
The argument from degree: We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore, there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.
The teleological argument (from design): Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore, there must have been a designer, and we call him God.
Not one of these “proofs” offers any further evidence than faith. To believe any of these proofs are accurate one would already have to have faith in God, because Aquinas simply offers no further argument other than “yes, we refer to Him as God.”
The argument from beauty:
This argument is that anything we see and describe as beautiful is product of God’s divine intervention. Dawkins also goes on to say that offering God the credit for a person’s personal skills as a “gift from God” is nonsensical, and can be compared to nothing more than jealousy.
The argument from personal experience:
Dawkins says that when a person has an out of body experience or a hallucination about an encounter with the divine it is not evidence of God’s existence. It may have been real to the person who experienced it, however, it is not verifiable proof.
The argument from scripture:
This would refer to a person who uses scripture from the Bible to prove God’s existence. Another portion of the chapter talks about biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, who wrote a book subtitled This is the Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why. He unveils a huge uncertainty about the New Testament. The entire New Testament was written by different men about events that may or may not have taken place years sometimes centuries before they were written about. Dawkins proposes on page 96 that the gospels that did not make the cut were probably left out because of the “embarrassingly implausible” stories within them.
Pascal’s Wager:
French mathematician named Blaise Pascal posed the argument that no matter how long the odds are against God’s existence the is an even larger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. Growing up in the south between two different churches, one Southern Baptist and the other Church of Christ, this is an argument I have heard many times, and it certainly cannot be considered proof of God’s existence.
Chapter 4 Summary: Why there almost certainly is no God
The Boeing 747 allusion is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner. Richard Dawkins, who adopted the idea in his own reasoning against God’s existence, does not present the argument formally, but here it is extracted from the few sentences he actually devotes to the argument.
Argument #1:
Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.
Premise #2. If God exists, then God shows evidence of design in himself.
Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself.
Argument #2:
Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible.
Premise #4. Conclusion #1 above implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods).
Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, hence Premise #2 is false, so God does not exist.
The Irreducible complexity Argument. Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. The argument suggests rudimentary advancements in miniscule amounts over long periods of time have caused, for example, humans to develop from a very primitive Neanderthal to the slightly-less primitive homosapien we have today.
The Worship of Gaps
Creationists eagerly seek a gap, and when an apparent gap of knowledge or understanding is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries theologists, Dawkins says, is that gaps shrink as science advances, which causes the idea of God to be threatened with the threat of eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide in terms of what role “He” plays in the present-day world.
Discussion Questions
What are some examples of “proof of God’s existence” that have been preached to you in your religious experience?
In your educational experience how much “creationism” have you been taught vs. Evolution?
What are your thoughts on Pascal’s Wager?
Should it be a requirement for public officials to proclaim faith in a God? Is it possible for a person to hold public office without a proclamation of faith?
What did you use in your earlier years to “fill the gap” of you lack of knowledge and understanding? Was it God or something else?
Has any educator ever argued against God’s existence in your educational experience? Was the argument valid or delusional?
Quiz Questions
Name TWO out of Thomas Aquinas’ FIVE “proofs”.
What was the subtitle of biblical scholar Bart Ehrman’s book?
Who is the author of the book The God Delusion?
The central theme/argument against God is the Ultimate Boeing ___ allusion?
According to the Worship of Gaps, creationists eagerly fill lack of knowledge/understanding with _____?
The Irreducible Complexity argues that biological systems cannot evolve through ____?
==
Also of interest:
36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction
by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
Discussion Question Responses:
ReplyDelete1. What are some examples of “proof of God’s existence” that have been preached to you in your religious experience?
When I was a pre-teen my church did a youth lecture series on scientific proof of God. At this point in my life I had already begun questioning my faith, so the idea of scientific evidence was very appealing. Unfortunately, the "science" was not real science.
They presented dubious studies that apparently proved how the fossil record was fake. The Earth was 6,000 years old, and scientist lie about Carbon dating and other techniques. Evolution was also a big think they lectured on. However, it was not very scientific. It was more about "How could a monkey become a man?" type of arguments.
I don't remember too much of the actual lessons, but I remember being incredibly angry and disappointed in the lectures series.
2. In your educational experience how much “creationism” have you been taught vs. Evolution?
I grew up in a very rural, Christian town. Evolution was not a topic that we were allowed to discuss openly. It was said as a dirty word that "non-Christians" believed. However, my 7th grade year, my school hired a retired scientist to teach General Science. He was an amazing man who was essentially Bill Nye. He was able to explain complex topics in a way that a 7th grader could understand. He was also the first teacher to explain evolution as a reasonable scientific theory.
He unfortunately receive a lot of flack from the community and retired from teaching after about five years, but I know he made an impact on a lot of students.
3. What are your thoughts on Pascal’s Wager?
The seriousness of Pascal's Wager is (obviously) going to depend on your level of security in the idea of atheism. I, personally, do not put much stock in Pascal's Wager. If I die a good person and a god wants to send me to a hell, I will perish knowing that I have the moral high ground over a deity (that sounds really cringey, but I think the sentiment is important).
If I follow Pascal's Wager and then there is no God, I will have wasted my life. Sure, I'll be dead and I won't know that I wasted my life, but it sucks to think about in the present.
4. Should it be a requirement for public officials to proclaim faith in a God? Is it possible for a person to hold public office without a proclamation of faith?
No. Not only is it a violation of First Amendment Rights, it sets a terrible precedent that only the religious can be moral or worthy of leadership. I do believe that it is possible to have a political leader that does not proclaim a faith. It may take a while for it to happen in the South, but in the North and West where religion is not as prominent, it is a feasible idea.
5. What did you use in your earlier years to “fill the gap” of you lack of knowledge and understanding? Was it God or something else?
When I was a preteen I essentially avoided the topic. I didn't want to believe in God, but I didn't know enough about science to rely fully on that. As a teenager, I used interpersonal relationships. I figured that experiences in the present were more important than an afterlife.
6. Has any educator ever argued against God’s existence in your educational experience? Was the argument valid or delusional?
I have never experienced a professor argue against God's existence, but I have seen students get into arguments with professors about his existence. Senior year of high school a VERY vocal atheist in my class challenged a teacher who brought up prayer requests during class. It resulted in the student being sent to the principal's office for being disrespectful.