Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Rebellious mankind labors to suppress the obvious and opt for the unreal

2) Rebellious humans labor to suppress the truth and end up in futile speculations (Romans 18:ff)

In Lennox’s conclusion in BSD, he dismantles the Douglas Adam quote.

“I think the book The God Delusion gives the game away in the dedication at the front of the book to Douglas Adams where he says, 'Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?' Now you (Dawkins) do a brilliant job of getting rid of the fairies. Though it must be said that most of them didn’t believe in them anyway (i.e. Dawkins has constructed a straw man). But when you see the beauty of a garden, say in new college at Oxford, do you believe there is no gardener or no owner that its sublime beauty has come about from raw nature by pure chance? Of course not. For gardens are to be distinguished from raw nature by the operation of intelligence.” (Lennox, BSD)

In response, Dawkins will agree that the most “obvious”, “natural” explanation is that there is a gardener behind the garden. He will agree that even “fools” would believe this. But then Dawkins will reject the obvious and opt for the seemingly impossible –that which is “staggering counterintuitive.” Then after exercising his faith in Darwin’s interpretations of the evidences he will assert that his new explanation is “comprehensible” and “rational”, and the original design argument which he had previously asserted as“obvious” is now “counterintuitive” and goes against "common sense." Do I hear “new speak” anybody - for you Orwellian fans? Read the entirety of Dawkins statement now with my emphasis added.

“When we go into a garden and we see how beautiful it is…and we see colored flowers and we see the butterflies and the bees…of course it’s natural to think there must be a gardener. Any fool is likely to think there must be a gardener. The huge achievement of Darwin was to show that that didn’t have to be true. Of course it’s difficult. Of course it would have to wait until the mid-19th century before anybody thought of it. It seems so obvious that if you got a garden, there must be a gardener who created it and all that goes with that. What Darwin did was to show these staggering counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process (excursion for a moment). He showed not only a garden but everything in the living world and in principle not just on this earth but on any other planet wherever you see the organized complexity that we understand that we call life that it has an explanation which can derive it from simple beginnings by comprehensible rational means. That is possibly the greatest achievement that any human mind has ever accomplished.
Not only did he show that it could be done but I believe that we can argue that the alternative is so unparsimonious and so counterintuitive to the laws of common sense that as reluctant as we might be because it might be unpleasant to admit it—although we can’t disprove that there is a God, it is very very unlikely indeed.” (Dawkins, BSD)

By what magic does Dawkins change that which is evident even to a fool into that which is very "unlikely indeed" and defies "common sense?" By what magic does Dawkins change that which is “staggering, counterintuitive” into “comprehensible, rational?” –his magical faith in Darwin’s’ interpretations of the evidence.

This exhanged between Lennox and Dawkins was stimulated by Douglas Adams’ quote. Would Adam's quote have been as popularly poignant and useful to the Atheists’ cause if he had said, “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there is a gardener behind it all?” No! When the deceptive, straw man of “fairies” is exposed for what it is, and the real issue of “intelligence” is substituted, then the statement is seen as foolishness because it denies the obvious.

Although Dr. Dawkins efforts to supress the truth are heroic, he cannot completely extinguish his own "common sense." Notice Dr. Dawkins astonishing concessions…

“The deist god would be one that I think.. it would be….one could make a reasonably respectable case for that…not a case that I would accept. But I think it is a serious discussion we could have.” (OD 4:30)

You could possibly persuade me there was some kind of creative force in the universe with some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything—the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You could possibly persuade me of that. But that is radically and fundamentally incompatible with the sort of god who cares about sin, the sort of god who cares about what you do with your genitals, the sort of god who is interested, who has the slightest interest in your private thoughts and your wickedness. Surely you can see that a god who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a (undecipherable ) cuss about what you are thinking about and your sins and things like that. (Dawkins, OD 37:00 minute mark, emphasis added)

So, after Dawkins went to great lengths to suggest that a garden does not imply an intelligent gardener, when pressed on origins, what is Dawkins willing to entertain as to why there is something and not nothing? He is willing to entertain some form of intelligence! He does this again when he is willing to entertain the possibility of alien intelligence as an explanation of how life was started on earth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa55s9Gs_Eg&feature=PlayList&p=381BB86DA989935D&index=4). Dr. Dawkins, when pressed, allows for the possibility of intelligence causation. Is Richard Dawkins evolving?

Oh what sophisticated lengths mankind goes through to suppress the truth and escape their accountability to their Maker. Romans 1:18-19 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”

3 comments:

  1. I think that Lennox and Dawkins got sidetracked by the word "garden" in the Douglas Adams quote. Douglas Adams offers an analogy: "being impressed by the beauty of a garden makes some people suppose that fairies are responsible for it"* is considered analogous to "being impressed by the beauty of nature makes some people suppose that God is responsible for it." The object of this analogy is really about nature and God, not gardens and fairies. However, Lennox gets sidetracked by the word "garden" pressing Dawkins to admit that a garden must have had a gardener.

    At this point Lennox seems to betray his own logic. Lennox asserts that "...gardens are to be distinguished from raw nature by the operation of intelligence." It seems to me that he is suggesting that a garden exhibits clear intelligent intervention, but "raw nature" does not. But he uses this assertion to support the idea that nature *does* exhibit clear intelligent intervention by analogy to the garden. Wait... Is a garden different from nature in this respect or the same as nature in this respect? He seems to want it both ways.

    Why does a garden clearly imply a gardener? Because we've observed the world around us and we've never seen a garden arise any other way. But nature is not the same. We observe nature occurring without any clear intelligent guidance all the time. Paintings imply a painter, because paintings are not the kind of thing that we see occur in nature without a painter. Watches imply a watchmaker, because watches are not the kind of thing that we see occur in nature without a watchmaker. But nature itself? We only see nature propagating itself without any clear guidance. It is not clear that nature implies any sort of design as these other things so clearly do.

    You may think, "Even so, it seems so apparent using common sense that a designer was involved in nature." Dawkins admitted this, and still rejected the notion of a designer. Why? For the same reason that Galileo rejected the apparent notion that the Sun circles the Earth. For the same reason that Einstein rejected the notion that time travels at the same rate no matter what your frame reference is. Sometimes the truth isn't obvious at first. Sometimes the truth is counterintuitive. However, thorough observation and reasoning often leads us conclusively to the counterintuitive truth by many small, logical steps. Dawkins (and many others) recognize common descent by evolution as one of these cases.

    I think this is summed up quite nicely by Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

    * Yes, I know that very few people really follow this garden-fairy logic. However, it's an analogy. The main point is in the object of the analogy, not the image used to represent that object.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brett, I hope you have a safe trip to Indiana this week. I will be praying to that end. I have some free time on Sunday if you wanted to get together. I will be occupied on Friday and Saturday with Jon Greiner’s wedding.

    Thanks for the comments. Lennox opens himself up to your exact criticism because he was imprecise with the terminology, “raw nature.” However, based upon the context of the dialogue both men accept the premise of the argument -- from the lesser organized complexity (the garden) to the greater organized complexity (the universe). If Dawkins believes in the kind of distinction you indicated between “gardens,” “pictures,” “watches,” and “nature,” he never lets on to it throughout any of his discussions with Lennox. Does he not actually assign “gardens” into the same “kinds” of organized complexities as the universe when he says,

    “He (Darwin) showed not only a garden but everything in the living world and in principle not just on this earth but on any other planet wherever you see the organized complexity that we understand that we call life that it has an explanation which can derive it from simple beginnings by comprehensible rational means.” (Dawkins, BSM)

    Please correct me if I am wrong but, by his statement Dawkins seems to suggest that a garden can be explained by something other than a gardener (I would like to see that BTW!). This is because he accepts the premise that a garden (organized complexity) is an example of other organized complexities which he asserts can be explained by something other than a designer.

    On a different note for precision’s sake, you say, “We observe nature occurring without any clear intelligent guidance all the time...We only see nature propagating itself without any clear guidance.” Brett, I feel compelled for instruction sake to show the distinction between what you “see” and what you “believe.” What you and I both “see” is nature propagating itself—that is it! What you believe about what you see is your explanation for the propagation--“natural means.” You do not “see” the sustaining forces of life; yet, however you have faith in your naturalistic explanation. Certainly, you “see” the results of propagation, reproduction and germination, etc. at a biological level. But you do not “see” the sustaining forces behind “life.” This goes back to my point in one earlier blog…

    “Brett goes on to say that there was nothing miraculous (i.e. supernatural) about his church, his life, his college ministry, etc. However, I would begin to push Brett to examine his apparent naturalistic worldview assertion. Let’s just take his “life” as one example--or any of our own lives. What explanation is there in the naturalistic worldview for what keeps the brain sending a signal to the heart to keep pumping the blood for “life”? What keeps the atoms that make up the material world bound together? Brett on the surface sees the natural causes of the heart and the brain signals and the atoms but he does not go beyond to ask what keeps them going? Or does he? Brett still acknowledges wrestling with the question even now of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Precisely! (Aucoin, “Concerning the Supernatural”)

    You know the book of Job. God answered Job with the same types of questions with which I have peppered you my friend.

    Excerpts from Job 38-39
    Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell me if you have understanding..
    Have you ever in your life commanded the morning?
    Have you entered into the springs of the sea?
    Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
    Have you understood the expanse of the earth?
    Tell Me if you know all this.
    Can you lead forth a constellation in its season?
    Can you send forth lightnings that they may go?
    Who has put wisdom in the innermost being?
    Do you know the time the mountain goats give birth?
    Do you observe the calving of the deer?
    Can you count the months they fulfill?
    Or do you know the time they give birth?
    Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're right. Both Dawkins and Lennox seem to fumble a bit in their choice of words here.

    And, of course, I won't deny the possibility that God is sustaining life as you say. That's why I specified that nature propagates without any *clear* guidance. This hinges on the word clear. The guidance may be there, but it's not clear, or else it wouldn't be so easy to miss it.

    ReplyDelete