William Lane Craig published a formal refutation of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion in a 2010 book entitled On Guard (p.121). And there are videos of the Sheldonian Theater presentation where Craig critiqued the book as well. In his critique, Craig outlined obvious and objective logical flaws with Dawkins' "central argument", as Richard Dawkins defined it and presented it in premises and a conclusion in chapter 4 of The God Delusion. Many are familiar with the allegorical statue of lady Justice holding scales as a symbol of fair and consistent judgement. A tractor holding a crushed car would probably be the most appropriate symbol of how basic logical observations may be used to basically crush the central argument of The God Delusion.
If an atheist philosopher acknowledges that Dawkins' central argument is based on spurious reasoning and contains fatal logical flaws, then the book has become fairly useless and embarrassing from a philosophical perspective because, well, it is perhaps one of the most highly praised books that secular humanists have promoted for quite some time and it completely fails to argue logically against God's existence.
On the other hand, if an atheist philosopher ignores serious and obvious logical flaws, and even refuses to acknowledge them when pointed out, choosing instead to focus on minor discrepancies here and there, the "good" and the "bad" of the book, then the book retains a lot of its perceived value in helping to promote atheism. I'd like to outline, first, how Craig simply and eloquently outlined the fatal logical flaws in the central argument of The God Delusion. Second, I'd like to display how a certain atheist philosopher named Stephen Law has taken on the role of avoiding serious logical questions about the central argument, and, third, how secular atheists seem to have difficulty in acknowledging the objective nature of logic and logical principles.
I. WL Craig Eloquently displays the logically crippled argument of The God Delusion. Craig summarizes, almost verbatim, what Dawkins calls "the central argument of my book" on pages 157-8 of The God Delusion:
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."
And the conclusion of Dawkins regarding his points?
"Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."
Craig has confirmed that this was Dawkins' basic outline:
"If you'll look at pp. 157-58 of Dawkins' book, you'll find that the above is almost a verbatim quotation of Dawkins' words (I substituted the word "explanation" for his metaphor "crane" so as to make his meaning clear). I also re-read his chapter to make sure that his own summary was an accurate summation of his argument. Of course, it was." Craig had used the same outline in his previous critique." Because atheists at my blog continue to claim that Dawkin's never offered the above outline as his central argument, I've provided a webclip from Google Books. The page numbering is different in the Google Books version, but the context is clear nonetheless. Click it on for a larger and clearer image. Dawkins clearly defines one central argument, "the central argument" not "a central argument" and the direct connect between "six numbered points" and his conclusion. As we'll see, Stephen Law will completely ignore all of this:
"This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points." Dawkins clearly refers to his central argument of six points as a singular entity "it" replete with a conclusion. However, secular atheists mainly refuse to acknowledge this fact. Why? Perhaps because the argument has no viable logical syntax.
William Lane Craig didn't waste time with superfluities:
Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.
A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified."
Craig goes on to explain why a sense of logical consequence is important in an argument: "What does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence."
If you click on the Venn diagram image below, you'll see diagrams outlining why Dawkins' premise 4 does not in any way add to his argument. On the contrary, it only serves to underscore Dawkins' faulty reasoning. Dawkins proposes that evolution offers the best explanation of design-like signs in biology. But this is an irrelevant point because many theists held belief in both theism and evolution and did not see any logical contradiction. This is true of Darwin himself. So, to propose that evolution is exclusively a "materialist view" is false. And to propose that evolution is better than theist views is illogical. One might as well claim that ice cream is better than ice cream sundaes. Dawkins claims he is arguing against God's existence, but he seems to be more arguing against 7-day Creationsim and biblical fundamentalism. Dawkins misses the mark. Webster's definition of Creationism: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis" - Notice that Creationism is based on creation "...in the way described in Genesis." The Oxford Dictionary also summarizes, "creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
This is what Dawkins is arguing against by bringing up the subject of evolution, not God's existence.
Craig also blasts the logic of Dawkins with regard to his argument against God as a designer:
"Secondly, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth. But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple."
Dawkins' key points verbatim:
"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 crane for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
If the argument of this chapter is accepted... the God hypothesis is untenable. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."
Visual aids can be helpful. If you click on and enlarge the following image, you will see how Venn diagrams can be used to outline the flow of a logical argument, wherein ideas overlap and relate to each other in a logical syntax towards a logical conclusion. Dawkins' central argument, on the other hand, offers a series of disjointed ideas that do not lead to a logically deductive conclusion. Therefore, it is not possible to portray Dawkins' central argument as an actual viable Venn diagram that overlaps. If you are reading this and believe that The God Delusion does offer a logical and sound central argument, feel free to sketch out a Venn diagram and post a link to it for all of us to see. According to Dawkins, a key point is his understanding that God must be complex, more complex than his creation. This idea was summarized by Law in his slide presentation:
"God must have at least as much organized complexity as his creation."
This notion is not well established by Dawkins and is based on a straw-man portrayal of God unrelated to the God described in scripture. WL Craig already pointed this out, but I've elaborated on this and other points of Dawkins' "God needs a designer" fallacy in another post, "Does God Need a Designer?". Another key point in the following Venn diagram relates to evolution by natural selection. This is taken directly from a quote in Dawkins' premise 4. However, even if evolution is considered to be true, this would be an argument against Creationism, not against God's existence. There are many who do not consider evolution and God's existence to be mutually exclusive. One only has to look at Darwin's famous book of Origins as an example.
The third and final point in the Venn diagram is taken from Dawkins' premise 6, which is supposed to wrap things up and drive home the conclusion. On the contrary, there is no connectivity between Dawkins' final point and as a point it merely offers wishful thinking for discoveries in the future.
II. Stephen Law avoids the logical framework of The God Delusion
Back in 2010, Law was featured in a lecture weekend discussing The God Delusion at Oxford University. At the very onset of the video series, an academic director of philosophy at Oxford, Marianne Talbot offered a somewhat confused introduction. At the 3.30 mark she referred to Dawkins book, stating, "I just find the arguments so appalling." However, by the 4.30 mark she claims the book is "deductively valid" as a philosophical argument. As a part of the video-taped lecture series, Law offers a lecture entitled, "Stephen Law on The Strengths and Weaknesses of the God Delusion" and Law, as a philosopher, never identifies the "central argument" of the book. Instead, beginning at about the 1.05 mark in the film, Law offers a slide entitled, "Dawkins' argument" and the first bullet point states, "Does Dawkins' argument (as I developed it) establish:" And from there on, Law completely avoids the "central argument" of the book and focuses on one point of the argument, the design argument. The following webclip displays Law's critique of "A KEY ARGUMENT" at the 51 minute mark, where Law states,
"So, I'm now going to turn to an assessment of Dawkins' main argument against the God Hypothesis, and, to be honest, I haven't had enough time to think about this myself. So if it appears that I am struggling, it is because I am."
Law then beings rambling on about the fine-tuned universe at the 54 minute point. Law explains why he agrees with Dawkins that God must be complex and at 54.47, Law states, "That's why God is highly improbable, that's his [Dawkins'] core argument." However, that point is only one aspect of Dawkins' disjointed central argument. That is not the central six-point argument outlined by Dawkins. It seems that Law does in fact struggle in identifying and assessing arguments, as he stated, and identifying the most basic requirements of a sound logical argument.
The basic definition of a philosophical argument includes specific propositions and a conclusion:
"An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion."
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion.
4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' distinct six premises and Law does not ask whether or not there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Law has failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
If Stephen Law or anyone else disagrees with these 5 points, it would be helpful to better understand wherein the problem lies. I offered Law an opportunity to address this problem at his blog, but he was unwilling to.
"An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion."
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion.
4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' distinct six premises and Law does not ask whether or not there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Law has failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
If Stephen Law or anyone else disagrees with these 5 points, it would be helpful to better understand wherein the problem lies. I offered Law an opportunity to address this problem at his blog, but he was unwilling to.
Question 1: Stephen, you had written a review of Dawkins' God Delusion stating you have read it at least twice and that you found the summary argument impressive (in a positive sense).
"This chapter contains Dawkins's central argument, summarized in pages 188-9....On a second reading, I am rather more impressed."
WL Craig has outlined why there is no logical consequence in Dawkins' argument.
Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p.121, see online, Reasonable Faith Forum, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
Stephen, do you still hold to your opinion that the God Delusion offers a good argument, a logical argument against God's existence? (October 6, 2012 at 2:44 PM)
Answer 1: I never said that, Rick. That's what you rather foolishly (but typically) extrapolated from my comment that on a second reading it I find the chapter rather more impressive. (October 6, 2012 at 3:02 PM)
Question 2: - OK, Stephen, let me try again. You do not seem to like to volunteer information so I'll try multiple choice:
1. Do you agree with Craig that Dawkins' summary argument (located in the chapter that you find so "impressive") does not offer sound logical consequence?
2. Do you find the chapter impressive regardless of a logically flawed argument?
3. Do you find Dawkins' summary argument to be acceptable logically, however, this is only part of what you consider to be "impressive" in this chapter of the God Delusion and you don't want the argument itself to receive an undue portion of the praise?
If there is a third option I may have missed, you are of course welcome to volunteer some information on the subject.
Answer 2: Rick you are aware I did a whole hour long videod lecture on Dawkins' argument, filmed at Oxford University
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3fGJq04rUc&feature=relmfu
Maybe you should watch it? It answers your questions. (October 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM)
Question 3: - So you are basically unwilling to plainly comment on whether or not Dawkins' argument outline in the God delusion offers logical consequence not. That's fine, and quite interesting coming from a "professional" philosopher who prides himself on his status as such.
If you are duly "impressed" with a chapter outlining a person's central argument in a book, then I'll leave it at that. You've had a chance to express your opinion on Dawkins' logic and have declined. Thanks for your time. (October 7, 2012 at 10:27 AM)
Answer 3: I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed (which is not to say he doesn't do a fairly good job of dealing with some lines of objection - hence my "rather more impressed than was on first reading comment). (October 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM)
So, as you can see by this exchange as late as October 2012, Stephen Law is not willing to wade in and offer a conclusive opinion on whether or not he believes Dawkins' summarized "central argument" offers a sense of logical consequence. This is after being made aware of WL Craig's critique with a link to the summary I have provided in the first part of this article. Instead of offering a clear opinion, Law changes the subject.
III. Secular atheists are still under the illusion that The God Delusion is logically valid
1. Sound logic is a necessity for sound philosophy.
2. The central argument of the God Delusion is obviously objectively and logically crippled.
3. Stephen Law was made aware that the central argument of the God Delusion is objectively and logically crippled.
4. Stephen Law has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the central argument of the God Delusion is objectively and logically crippled.
5. Law either perceives this fact (that the God Delusion is objectively and logically crippled) or he does not.
6. If Law does not perceive this fact then he is not very perceptive as a philosopher.
7. If Law perceives this fact but repeatedly refuses to acknowledge it then he does not seem to be very candid as a philosopher.
8. Whether or not he perceives this fact, Law's actions tend to diminish the perceived value of logic as a philosophical necessity.
A secular atheist at my blog named Imnotandrei continues to claim that I am a liar for pointing out that Stephen Law does not seem to hold a very high regard for logic. I attempted to explain why Law's refusal to acknowledge the logical problems with The God Delusion was significant, however, in a comment from the previous post, Imnotandrei seems unwilling to acknowledge this.
R: Unlike Law, WL Craig was able to plainly state that the God Delusion offers no sense of logical consequence whatsoever from its premises to its conclusion.
I: This is evidence that Craig and Law disagree (surprise, surprise) -- not evidence that Law has a "low regard for logical principles."
Is Imnotadrandre's point true, that it's merely a matter of questionable personal disagreement on some cloudy and unclear subject? Or, on the other hand, is it more a matter of a blatant denial of obvious objective facts by one party? Well, WL Craig offered that it is a case of obvious objective facts. He claimed "You don't need to be a philosopher" to realize the "central argument" of Dawkins' God Delusion outlined on pages 157-8 has a serious problem with its logical syntax. Though an obvious and objective fact, Stephen Law apparently desires to continue to deny there is any problem and his fawning fan Imnotandrei apparently wishes to continue to falsely call me a liar for simply pointing these types of objective facts out.
Stephen Law didn't offer any rebuttal or explanation when I challenged him on this subject. Law simply avoided the subject of logic and began talking about science. Can anyone offer any defense of the logical syntax and logical consequence of Dawkins' argument? So far I have not seen one such defense anywhere on the Internet.
Conclusion
Who is really in a state of delusion? Well, firstly, Richard Dawkins, who continues to deny that his "central argument" offers a faulty logical syntax, and would prefer to offer several illogical excuses for not debating the subject publicly. Secondly, Stephen Law, a philosopher who does not like to discuss logic and prefers to change the subject to science, perhaps afraid to raise a threatening hand against atheism's anointed leader Richard Dawkins. Thirdly, Imnotandrei, a blog commenter who claims there is a merely personal disagreement between Craig and Law, but denies that sound logical syntax is an objective necessity for a sound logical argument.
So, what part about the word "illogical" do these people not understand? It's that part that suggests that their beliefs are false. Whenever that is implied, apparently, it is objective logic that must be sacrificed, but not their tightly held subjective beliefs. All three examples help to underscore the post "Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" that you may want to read if you found this post helpful. If there are any civilized atheists who would be interested in debating this subject, I would welcome it. For secular atheists who simply wish to perpetuate slander at my blog, I do not have time to waste in attempting a rational debate.
(updated 03/13/13)
Tags: How Craig disproved God Delusion, Stephen Law's inadequate analysis of The God Delusion, how secular atheists avoid logical analysis, Stephen Law avoids logic, the illogical central argument of The God Delusion, atheist logic avoidance. Dawkins quotes from The God Delusion, Summary of central argument in The God Delusion, Dawkins flawed logic, flawed thinking, flawed arguments, visual aids in apologetics,
Related:
Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague
Does God Need a Designer?
Stephen Law: EGC Illusionist Debunked
R:No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises
ReplyDeleteAs it was pointed out before, the argument from design has always been one of the central ones in theologie. You yourself use it, Rick. By refuting the argument from design, theology is left without any good arguments for the existence of god which does allow to doubt the existance of a christian like deity.
And claiming that Craig has a solid understanding of logic is hilarious. Most of his premises remain just assertion or false statements. We have a balatant example of his ignorance in the article above, where he calls a mind as "simple". Furthermore, one needs to prove the possibility of a mind withtout a body.
R:A secular atheist at my blog named Imnotandrei continues to claim that I am a liar for pointing out that Stephen Law does not seem to hold a very high regard for logic.
Actually, you claimed that top-atheists do not use logic in their arguments against god s existance. Imnotadrei pointed out the dozens of mistake in you original syllogism. Then he offered you the example of Law, an atheist using logic, you started pestering the man without bothering to read any of his papers. When Law refused to waste his time with you, you just asserted that he holds logic at a low level, despite all the paper provided by imnotandrei, where Law is shown to use logic. And now you are trying to narrow the subject to just the evalution by Law of "The God delusion". Yep, you are still a liar, Rick.
R:So, what part about the word "illogical" do these people not understand?
You still failed to answer what you understand by the word "logical". You seem to have a peculiar understanding of the term, limited to syllogisms and venn diagramms.
R:For secular atheists who simply wish to perpetuate slander at my blog, I do not have time to waste in attempting a rational debate.
Do not worry, Rick. We have discovered a long time ago that you are incapable of an honest and rational debate.
>As it was pointed out before, the argument from design has always been one of the central ones in theologie.
DeleteApparently this is a reply to the following comment:
R:No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises
As noted, the person posting this comment fails to differentiate the difference between the value of a specific truth claim and requirements of logical syntax in a logical argument.
He or she has completely missed the point of the post and does not seem to get it. This is probably the same "Anonymous" that called me a liar for a number of consecutive blog posts because he could not understand how words have overlapping meanings.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html
If this is the same person, there is no need to attempt any further rational dialogue.
Any non-slanderers care to contribute?
Any non-slanderers care to contribute?
DeleteWell, considering that a slanderer wrote the post, why should you restrict the response?
Rick: Unlike Law, WL Craig was able to plainly state that the God Delusion offers no sense of logical consequence whatsoever from its premises to its conclusion.
DeleteImnotandrei: This is evidence that Craig and Law disagree (surprise, surprise) -- not evidence that Law has a "low regard for logical principles."
Is Imnotadrandrei's point true, that it's merely a matter of questionable personal disagreement on some cloudy and unclear subject? Or, on the other hand, is it more a matter of a blatant denial of obvious objective facts by one party? Well, WL Craig offered that it is a case of obvious objective facts. He claimed "You don't need to be a philosopher" to realize the "central argument" of Dawkins' God Delusion has a serious problem with its logical syntax. Though an obvious and objective fact, Stephen Law apparently desires to continue to deny there is any problem and his fawning fan Imnotandrei apparently wishes to continue to falsely call me a liar for simply pointing these types of objective facts out.
Stephen Law didn't offer any rebuttal or explanation when I challenged him on this subject. Law simply avoided the subject of logic and began talking about science. Can anyone offer any defense of the logical syntax and logical consequence of Dawkins' argument? So far I have not seen one such defense anywhere on the Internet.
Conclusion
Who is really in a state of delusion? Stephen Law, a philosopher does not like to discuss logic and prefers to change the subject to science. Imnotandrei, who claims there is a merely personal disagreement between Craig and Law, but denies that sound logical syntax is an objective necessity for a sound logical argument. So, what part about the word "illogical" do these people not understand? It's that part that leads to the conclusion that their beliefs are false. Whenever that is implied, apparently, it is objective logic that must be sacrificed, but not their tightly held subjective beliefs. Law and Imnotandrei help to underscore the post "Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" that you may want to read if you found this post helpful. If there are any civilized atheists who would be interested in debating this subject, I would welcome it. For secular atheists who simply wish to perpetuate slander at my blog, I do not have time to waste in attempting a rational debate.
R:Stephen Law didn't offer any rebuttal or explanation when I challenged him on this subject.
DeleteLiar. He gave you a link to a whole lecture on youtube about the strenghth and weakness of the God delusion
R:Can anyone offer any defense of the logical syntax and logical consequence of Dawkins' argument?
I just did in my post above.
R:Whenever that is implied, apparently, it is objective logic that must be sacrificed, but not their tightly held subjective beliefs.
Rick, we all know that you do not care about what is real and false. You are the one, who is unable to accept that the god hypothesis is false under any circumstances. And even if you manage to prove that the central argument from the "God delusion" is flawed, that does not cancel out the thousand of other arguments against your concept of a round square.
R:If there are any civilized atheists who would be interested in debating this subject, I would welcome it.
Isn t it ironic that you have been spamming a dozen of blogs to start a debate at your own blog, but now you refuse to do so? 8)
Yawn,
DeleteAnonymous is back with more unsubstantiated slander:
Liar. He gave you a link to a whole lecture on youtube about the strenghth and weakness of the God delusion
As noted at the link,
Law offers a lecture entitled, "Stephen Law on The Strengths and Weaknesses of the God Delusion" and Law, as a philosopher, does not seem interested in analyzing the logical structure of Dawkins' actual argument, but, rather, focuses on general questions of scientism and whether or not theism is compatible with science, as related to the question of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). This attitude of avoiding a focused discussion on the logic of Dawkins' argument is displayed at Law's blog comments as well.
Summary: Law's link does not address my questions at all regarding the logical structure of the "central argument" of the God Delusion. So much delusion, so little time.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. 8)
DeleteLaw does address several points about the God Delusion in that lecture, including the criticism from Craig or logical flaws he found himself, not just "scientism". So what conclusion do we arrive at?
a)Rick is a shameless liar
b)Rick has problem with basic comprehension
c)Rick is both a liar and has problems with basic comprehension.
Did I miss anything?
>Did I miss anything?
Delete- Anonymous has missed pointed out specifically where in the film Law supposedly addresses Craig's criticism of the flawed logical syntax of the "central argument". If you look through the film, Law never identifies the "central argument" of the book itself. Instead, Law focuses on the design argument, as Anonymous did in his first comment in this thread. However, the design argument is not the "central argument" as Dawkins presents it in the 4th chapter.
Where is the exact time in the movie when Law has supposedly adequately addressed this main problem?
In the linked film, Law outlines the criticisms Swinburne has for The God Delusion at about 1 hour and 5 minutes into the film. Law also outlines Plantinga's criticisms.
In the conclusion of Law's little film, there is no mention of the fact that the "central argument" of the book has a flawed logical syntax
If Law has actually demonstrated that the "central argument" does not have a problem with logical syntax, when it is an obvious objective fact that it does have such a problem, then Law has pulled a rabbit out of a hat, he has done the impossible.
Why am I not surprised that Anonymous believes that this has somehow happened?
So it turns out that it is not just about scientism and how compatible religion is with science? 8)
DeleteR:If you look through the film, Law never identifies the "central argument" of the book itself.
Yep, let us ignore Law s criticism of the central argument from the God s delusion at 0:51 of the video. Again, if an argument is not present in the form of a syllogism or a venn diagram, then it seems it is not logical for you.
R:However, the design argument is not the "central argument" as Dawkins presents it in the 4th chapter.
And what is the central argument of Dawkins as you understand? And let us take his original quote, not the quote minned version by your hero Craig.
1 One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, 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. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is
tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
3 The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity
to otherwise improbable complexity.
4 The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his
successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that -an illusion.
5 We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
6 We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently
better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable. God almost certainly
does not exist.
And another quote of Dawkins what he understands by the god s hypothesis on page 29:
Delete"Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."
Hence, without the assumption of a design, the concept of a god becomes highly improbable. Thank you for proving once again that you and Craig are liars for Jesus.
>Yep, let us ignore Law s criticism of the central argument from the God s delusion at 0:51 of the video.
Delete- Again, another failed example. At the 0:51 mark Law discusses "A Key Argument" as defined by Law regarding design and the "God hypothesis", not Dawkins' "central argument" -the summary argument of premises and the conclusion of The God Delusion as defined by Dawkins.
No matter how many faulty examples are posted here by atheists, no matter how many documented examples are posted of Stephen Law avoiding questions about logic, not one atheist at my blog seems to be able to admit that Law never once addressed "the central argument" of The God Delusion as defined by Dawkins on pages 157-8 of his book, The God Delusion.
That river denial sure runs perty deep. Much deeper than the one in Egypt, anyway.
no matter how many documented examples are posted of Stephen Law avoiding questions about logic,
DeleteHey, Rick -- last thread I posted two examples of Law's use of logic.
Try and get this into your head: It's not that Law avoids questions about logic, it's that Law isn't interested in *your* questions.
As I've said before; why is it all right for you to shut out debaters, but when someone else doesn't answer your questions, it's a sign they they "avoid questions about logic"?
By that reasoning, we can safely assert that Rick Warden avoids questions about logic, therefore, clearly, he doesn't think that logic is important.
R:Again, another failed example. At the 0:51 mark Law discusses "A Key Argument" as defined by Law regarding design and the "God hypothesis", not Dawkins' "central argument"
DeleteYep, let us ignore the the slides with "Central argument" of the god s delusion written on them or Law s own words as "main argument" or "core argument" of the god s delusion.
R:not Dawkins' "central argument" -the summary argument of premises and the conclusion of The God Delusion as defined by Dawkins.
Funny how you use Craig s straw man summary argument and not the one from Dawkins. Yep, liar for Jesus all to the core.
R:No matter how many faulty examples are posted here by atheists, no matter how many documented examples are posted of Stephen Law avoiding questions about logic
And you still fail to explain what you understand by "logic". There is more to logic than Venn diagrams and syllogisms.
R:Law never once addressed "the central argument" of The God Delusion as defined by Dawkins on pages 157-8 of his book, The God Delusion.
Liar. I just gave you the exact time of the video - 0:51. And that is not "how Dawkins define the central argument of the God delusion, that is how Craig defines the central argument of the God s delusion.
>Yep, let us ignore the the slides with "Central argument" of the god s delusion written on them or Law s own words as "main argument" or "core argument" of the god s delusion.
Delete...Liar. I just gave you the exact time of the video - 0:51. And that is not "how Dawkins define the central argument of the God delusion, that is how Craig defines the central argument of the God s delusion.
- So much delusion, so little time...
1. I've just posted a webclip of the 51 minute mark into the blog post. Anyone who is not a complete mental zombie can see that there is no mention of a "central argument" at all.
2. It is not Craig who defines pages 157-8 of the God Delusion as his "central argument" but Dawkins himself. It seems I will probably have to take a photograph of the book page before some atheist zombies will acknowledge this possibility.
According to Imnotandrei's logic, Stephen Law avoided discussing the central argument of the book because Law knew that I would one day criticize the book and Law was doing this just to spite me.
R:Anyone who is not a complete mental zombie can see that there is no mention of a "central argument" at all.
DeleteSo what do I get if I pint point most of the exacrt times where Law mentions the central argument from the god s delusion? 8)
R:It is not Craig who defines pages 157-8 of the God Delusion as his "central argument" but Dawkins himself.
I just gave the exact quote from Dawkins on feb 18th. Is it not enough for you to compare the original version with the one from Craig?
R:According to Imnotandrei's logic, Stephen Law avoided discussing the central argument of the book because Law knew that I would one day criticize the book and Law was doing this just to spite me
Again, I am asking you for the tenth time. What is the central argument of the God delusion as you understand it? And I mean YOU, Rick, not Craig.
>So what do I get if I pint point most of the exacrt times where Law mentions the central argument from the god s delusion?
Delete- Oh no, now it's clear as day, The Zombie Apocalypse has officially begun. Do you think anonymous could understand that one actual example would be helpful.
>Again, I am asking you for the tenth time. What is the central argument of the God delusion as you understand it?
- Since the article was written 4 days ago, Dawkins' own quotes about the "central argument" of his book as he presents it have been most evident in the above article. Dawkins offers 6 premises and a conclusion for his (illogical) "central argument" as outlined by Craig:
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."
That's it, that's the "central argument" of The God Delusion that no atheists want to acknowledge. Would it help if I retyped it in all caps? Probably not.
Now that Anonymous knows what the "central argument" looks like, he will no doubt pinpoint where Stephen Law makes everything alright and demonstrates how the logical syntax of that argument is a tad off but not bad enough to make a serious fuss over.
Craig and I are certainly not the only ones who have pointed this "central argument" out:
Delete"Let me focus explicitly on the end of Chapter 4, since Dawkins presents in it what he calls "the central argument of [his] book" (p. 157; all quotations and page numbers are from the 2006 edition). I have tried to take Dawkins' statements in context, but please correct me if you think I've been unfair. His argument is as follows:
Life is too complex to have come about by pure, random chance
It is therefore tempting to believe that it was created by an "intelligent designer"(p. 157) like other complex things
However, this belief is false because a designer would be more complicated than the thing designed, and "the whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability" (p. 158)
Darwinian evolution shows how life "with [its] spectacular statistical improbability" could have been produced (p. 158)
There is no analogous argument for physics, but the anthropic principle allows us to take "more luck" into account than we normally would in most arguments (p. 158)
Probably a better argument for physics does exist
Therefore, "God almost certainly does not exist" (p. 158) I'd like to point out two central inconsistencies in this argument. In addition, I'd like to examine whether Dawkins' arguments are purely empirical and derived wholly from scientific evidence and reason, or whether they contain an element of "faith"."
Neil Shenvi
http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/DawkinsResponse.htm
In a later article, a doubter attempts to reframe Dawkins' argument, But Craig sets him straight and reaffirms the six points:
Delete1. 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.
"If you'll look at pp. 157-58 of Dawkins' book, you'll find that the above is almost a verbatim quotation of Dawkins' words (I substituted the word "explanation" for his metaphor "crane" so as to make his meaning clear). I also re-read his chapter to make sure that his own summary was an accurate summation of his argument. Of course, it was."
Read more:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-central-argument-once-more#ixzz2LSuYhwoe
R:Oh no, now it's clear as day, The Zombie Apocalypse has officially begun. Do you think anonymous could understand that one actual example would be helpful
DeleteLike maybe Law s second slide where he does present the plan of his presentation?
R:That's it, that's the "central argument" of The God Delusion that no atheists want to acknowledge. Would it help if I retyped it in all caps? Probably not.
Yep, you are goign against a straw man. The problem lies in the 6th step. You should try to use your brain once in a while without repeating the nonsense of others word for word.
R: 6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology
It is not about giving up hope, it is about that the weak evidence for a naturalistic universe are still better explanations for the existence of the universe than the god of the gapes argument. Hence the creationist hypothesis fails both in biology and cosmology.
And without the creationist hypothesis defeated, the whole concept becomes invalid.
For the mentally impaired I repeat:
1. The likelihood that god did design and created the universe is very low, since we have much better explanations for the diversity of life or the appearance of matter in natural phenomena than creationism.
2. Hence the existance of a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who DELIBERATELY DESIGNED AND CREATED the universe and everything in it, including us, is incredibly low. i.e. God almost certainly does not exist.
R:Craig and I are certainly not the only ones who have pointed this "central argument" out
I do not have much interest in Neil Shenvi. We can discuss him later on, but first try to slip out of the mess Craig put you in or admit he is wrong.
R:If you'll look at pp. 157-58 of Dawkins' book, you'll find that the above is almost a verbatim quotation of Dawkins' words
Funny how little things and distortions which are "almost" invisible change the argument so much, is that not so?
According to Imnotandrei's logic, Stephen Law avoided discussing the central argument of the book because Law knew that I would one day criticize the book and Law was doing this just to spite me.
DeleteYou'll need to explain this one, since you clearly don't understand my logic, and assigning this reasoning to me is yet another example of the kind of behaviour you claim to find "uncivilized". Making claims about what I would say or how I would reason while refusing to otherwise engage? Hardly "civilized."
P.S. I am also curious, Rick. What is your understanding of the difference between a "central argument", a "key argument" and a "core argument"? You seem to consider those somehow diametrically opposed to each other
DeleteAnd the delusion continues...
Delete>Like maybe Law s second slide where he does present the plan of his presentation?
- Introducing the plan of Law's presentation is not the same as addressing Dawkins' central argument.
>What is your understanding of the difference between a "central argument", a "key argument" and a "core argument"?
Dawkins' never referred to A central argument" he referred to THE central argument.
The following text has been added to the post today along with a new webclip for the deluded fawning fans of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Law.
"Because atheists at my blog continue to claim that Dawkin's never offered the above outline as his central argument, I've provided a webclip from Google Books. Dawkins clearly states "the central argument" not "a central argument" and the direct connect between "six numbered points" and his conclusion. As we'll see, Stephen Law will completely ignore all of this."
Anonymous, you might want to consider Imnotandrei's theory of avoidance presented on February 19. Law might address obvious objective problems and questions of logic if I were not personally involved in the equation:
"It's not that Law avoids questions about logic, it's that Law isn't interested in *your* questions."
R:Introducing the plan of Law's presentation is not the same as addressing Dawkins' central argument.
DeleteHe addresses the actual central argument at 0:51. What more do you need?
R:Dawkins' never referred to A central argument" he referred to THE central argument.
Uhu... Let me quote the slide from the picture you provided yourself:
"I now turn to the assessement of Dawkins main argument against the God hypothesis"
Do you still deny that Law discuses the central argument of the God delusion? Do you deny that the main argument is the central one?
R:Dawkins clearly states "the central argument" not "a central argument" and the direct connect between "six numbered points" and his conclusion.
Yep, you still ignore the straw man that was pointed out. Let me quote myself again:
"It is not about giving up hope, it is about that the weak evidence for a naturalistic universe are still better explanations for the existence of the universe than the god of the gapes argument. Hence the creationist hypothesis fails both in biology and cosmology.
And with the creationist hypothesis defeated, the whole concept becomes invalid.
For the mentally impaired I repeat:
1. The likelihood that god did design and created the universe is very low, since we have much better explanations for the diversity of life or the appearance of matter in natural phenomena than creationism.
2. Hence the existance of a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who DELIBERATELY DESIGNED AND CREATED the universe and everything in it, including us, is incredibly low. i.e. God almost certainly does not exist."
Are there any words you do not understand, Rick?
R:Anonymous, you might want to consider Imnotandrei's theory of avoidance presented on February 19.
As it was pointed out before to you, not many are prepared to waste their time spoon feeding you the most basic things. The fact is that you misrepresent Dawkins central argument and you refuse to acknowledge this.
>He addresses the actual central argument at 0:51. What more do you need?
Delete- The absinthe, vodka or whatever he is drinking lately, has been seriously affecting Anonymous, it seems.
Yesterday I just addressed the exact same point:
1. I've just posted a webclip of the 51 minute mark into the blog post. Anyone who is not a complete mental zombie can see that there is no mention of a "central argument" at all.
The webclip image is still there.
>As it was pointed out before to you, not many are prepared to waste their time spoon feeding you the most basic things.
Anonymous has failed to point out one single instance where Stephen Law addresses Dawkins' "central argument" as outlined by Dawkins.
Because Anonymous is regurgitating failed points on this thread and in an obvious state of denial, there is no point in attempting a rational dialogue on this thread with him.
Are there any non-slandering and rationally competent atheists who wish to try and defend Stephen Law's mental block with regard to Dawkins' obviously flawed central argument?
...I didn't think so.
So you are still refusing to address the straw man that was pointed out twice now in a row? And you still push the nonsense despite knowing it is false. Thank you for proving once again that you are a liar for Jesus.
DeleteR:I've just posted a webclip of the 51 minute mark into the blog post. Anyone who is not a complete mental zombie can see that there is no mention of a "central argument" at all
My condolences to your brain then. Yep, there is a huge difference between "the main argument" and "the central argument" in your delusional world it seems.
R:Because Anonymous is regurgitating failed points on this thread and in an obvious state of denial, there is no point in attempting a rational dialogue on this thread with him
Suit yourself, Rick. The one thing you are right about is that people can judge for themselves how big of a liar you are.
And Rick demonstrates his failure of reasoning again.
DeletePerhaps I need to put this in a Venn diagram? ;)
Well try this one more time:
Stephen Law chooses not to answer some questions.
Some of these questions are about logic.
All of these questions come from Rick Warden.
Which is the logically sound deduction from this:
a) Stephen Law avoids questions about logic
or
b) Stephen Law is not intereted in answering Rick Warden's questions?
Remember:
A sometimes treats items in category B with method C.
A sometimes treats items in category D, contained within category B, with C.
A always treats items in category E, contained within category B,
with C.
Which is a firmer deduction:
A treats all items in category D with C
or
A treats all items in category E with C.
Can you figure this one out, Rick, or do you fail again to understand my "theory"?
Anonymous, you might want to consider Imnotandrei's theory of avoidance presented on February 19. Law might address obvious objective problems and questions of logic if I were not personally involved in the equation:
"It's not that Law avoids questions about logic, it's that Law isn't interested in *your* questions."
The following is a quote by Richard Dawkins, as noted in a webclip from The God Deluion I've embedded in the article previously mentioned:
Delete"This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points."
Instead of acknowledging that Dawkins' "central argument" is "summarized" as a "series of six points" the secular atheists at my blog continue to make illogical types of deductions:
A) Since I am the one pointing it out, it is probably not true.
B) Since Law did address "a" major point in the article, then Law has addressed Dawkins'"central" 6-point argument as quoted.
Any clear-thinking person can see that Dawkins outlined his "central argument" as the 6-point argument and Law did not touch upon it once in the 1.5 hour lecture. For those who cannot see this, I'll pray God gives you revelation.
R:Instead of acknowledging that Dawkins' "central argument" is "summarized" as a "series of six points" the secular atheists at my blog continue to make illogical types of deductions
DeleteLiar, I never denied that Dawkins did summarize his arguments in six points. I pointed out that YOUR summary of his argument is a straw man. And to this day forth you refuse to even address the problem of your straw man.
R:Since Law did address "a" major point in the article, then Law has addressed Dawkins'"central" 6-point argument as quoted.
Nope, that is your disability showing up. Law did address the central argument from the god delusion, if you do not understand the argument itself and logical principals, then it is your own problem.
R:Any clear-thinking person can see that Dawkins outlined his "central argument" as the 6-point argument and Law did not touch upon it once in the 1.5 hour lecture.
a) You provided a straw man of Dawkins by mindlessly copying the flawed version of Craig s summary, instead of offering the original summary.
b) As long as you deny that there is more to logic then syllogisms and venn diagrams, not much can be done.
>You provided a straw man of Dawkins by mindlessly copying the flawed version of Craig s summary, instead of offering the original summary.
Delete- The only difference between Craig's summary and Dawkins' summary is that Craig's is easier to understand because he does not use the awkward word "crane" as noted by a quote by Craig noted in the article:
(I substituted the word "explanation" for his metaphor "crane" so as to make his meaning clear).
It's not a "straw man" at all. Anonymous, I'll pray that you can break out of your mental prison with God's help.
It is not about the word "crane" as it was pointed out more than twice to you. Look at my comments on Feb 20 or 21
DeleteAnonymous,
Delete>I never denied that Dawkins did summarize his arguments in six points.
At first I thought that Anonymous had made a colossal breakthrough, but then I took a closer look at what he wrote. Dawkins didn't summarize "his arguments" (plural) in six listed points, rather, he summarized his "argument" (singular) in a series of six points and a conclusion.
It seems that Anonymous has misinterpreted Dawkins central argument much the same as Law has. Dawkins clearly refers to his central argument of six points as a singular entity, "it" but secular atheists refuse to acknowledge this fact:
"This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points."
I wish you engaged with what is actually written by your opponent, Rick. Oh well, nothing new under the stars...
DeleteThe subject of the blog article is the central argument of the book The God Delusion. It is fairly difficult to discuss this subject because not one secular atheist posting comments at my blog has acknowledged that a central argument exists in The God Delusion.
DeleteAgain, no one denied that a central argument exist. Neither Law nor anyone present at your blog
DeleteSomeone has just incorrectly re-framed my comment. This is what I wrote:
Delete"...not one secular atheist posting comments at my blog has acknowledged that a central argument exists in The God Delusion."
Do post a link to where one secular humanist at this blog has acknowledged that Dawkins offered a (singular) six-point central argument in his book The God Delusion.
Right now you are just nitpicking as usual. A single argument can be broken into several smaller arguments. You claim that you cannot discuss the central argument from the god s delusion is ridiculous. I have not acknowledged on your blog that gravity exist, but that does not mean that I deny the existence of gravity.
Delete>A single argument can be broken into several smaller arguments.
DeleteI'm not sure which Anonymous this is, but a similar point was just made in the latest comments of the most recent post. Why don't we all discuss it there. There is also a question I would appreciate you answering at that post:
Are you also willing to acknowledge that "the central argument", as defined by Dawkins, consists of six points that somehow form a conclusion for Dawkins?
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-logic-reveals-spiritual-blindess.html?showComment=1362247134850#c3393274064913604764
>If this is the same person, there is no need to attempt any further rational >dialogue.
ReplyDelete>
> Any non-slanderers care to contribute?
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.
Something Rick once specifically asked people *not* to do on his blog -- now his primary rhetorical weapon.
Holy crap what a bunch of bickering.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Anonymous, when the truth and logic of God's existence is presented for civil discussion, it tends to bring out a lot of gratuitous slander and negative rhetoric.
DeleteIn the case of Imnotandrei, his unsubstantiated slander is well documented at this blog. Therefore, pointing out that he is in fact a slanderer is not really slander. I hope that makes sense. The definition of "slander" includes negative comments that are neither true nor supported. This is Imnotandrei's forte. His verified slander is documented at the following post and link:
Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams: Adventures in Internet Apologetics
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html