Criticising Dawkins

Hi Year 12,

I have made some notes on Libby Ahluwalia, which is the reading I gave you to do for this Friday.  Here is what she says on Dawkins and how a critic may respond to his points.

Criticising Dawkins,

Dawkins assumes the universe’s existence as a brute fact.  Can you remember what Hume said when he criticised design arguments?  Can you remember his scales argument?

He uses the example of a pair of scales.  One end we can see has a weight (kilogram maybe) on it.  The other end is out of sight but has something on the end that is much heavier.  We have no idea what is on the other end or by how much more it weighs.  It is hidden from us.  The cause of the world is hidden from us in the same way.  We also do not know if the God who created the world (if he did) is good, clever, stupid etc.  We do not know if he made only one world, if our world is just a practise world or a copy of another god’s world!

Hume also says that there are many possibilities as to why this world is as it is, we just do not know and cannot prove that there is an intelligent designing mind behind it.  Amongst the possibilities are the ideas that there may be more than one god or goddess behind the apparent design of this world, this universe may be a practise run for a more perfect universe elsewhere, it may have been designed by a team of gods who then died or left and there are many other possibilities too.

Likewise one may say that Dawkins is assuming that natural selection and evolution are the reason this world is as it is.  He may be right.  Even if he is right does that mean we can disregard the idea of God?  Isn’t it an assumption to say this means there is no designing intelligence behind the universe?

Dawkins criticises religion for making assumptions about God, for making blind leaps of faith, but isn’t he doing the same thing?  After all no-one has proved God isn’t there.

Dawkins is using an inductive argument (this means his conclusions are only probabilities and not proven).  He has said that science has shown that chance is the cause of the universe, but this is not incontrovertible – randomness cannot be tested – it is impossible to prove it all happened by chance.

Dawkins says scientific theories can be tested, he says “Airplanes built by scientific principles work”.  He says we can’t test religious theories.  But the wats in which life began can’t be tested, we have to guess through inductive reasoning.  Evidence may be found to support our ideas, but it cannot do any more than show probability.

Dawkins wants to object to religion on the grounds that it put limitations onto science.  But equally his he should not allow science to dictate the usefulness of religion.

Lastly Dawkins is criticising Paley’s point of view and which is over 200 years old.  If Christians got together and began criticising scientific approaches from 200 years ago, they would easily find fault with them too.