New Atheism

Dawkins' Assault on Science in 'The God Delusion'

On this Page:

KEY FINDINGS

1) The 'Almighty Dawkins' Delusion

2) 'BURDEN OF PROOF'

3) SCOPING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

3a) Metaphysical Basis of Science

3b) Fundamental Premises

3c) Formal Statements of Truth

3d) Scientific Methods and Theories

3e) 'Hard' versus 'Soft' Science

3f) Knowledge versus Belief in Science

4) THE ONLY VALID SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS ON GOD'S EXISTENCE

(Click the images for a lightbox slideshow)

KEY FINDINGS

Contrary to common thought:

1. Dawkins' Burden of Proof argument is not only unscientific, but deeply flawed. In science, theories can only be corroborated, not proven, by empirical investigation via the scientific method. In critical rationalism, there is no concept of 'proof' beyond statements of syllogistic logic, typically expressed mathematically, which demonstrate a tautology. Moreover, demands of 'proof' for a 'claim' assume the opponent has a reason to prove something. Proof of the existence of God would violate free will, and therefore the onus is on those wanting to prove God does NOT exist. Further, as explained below, Occam's razor is not applicable to removing explanations at different semantic levels, and evolution simply demonstrates any Intelligent Designer that might exist knows how to make and use tools.
2. We are not mere specks on some meaningless little planet that would be at the center of the universe if some Divine Being exists, as new atheists mockingly portray. An Intelligent Designer of the universe as we know it would view the triviality of our physical location in the continuum of Euclidean space and chronological time as totally and completely irrelevant to our importance, when compared to the incredible entropic complexity attained here, which is unique in the known universe by thousands of orders of magnitude.
3. The total scope of scientific knowledge is necessarily bound by its foundation on the rational rules of formal logic.
4. The existence of rational explanation for reality at all IMPLIES a rational agent. Within the scope of scientific rationalism, the inference remains, by the definition of inductive reasoning, as a speculative possibility that is neither provable nor unprovable.
5. As scientific explanations and predictions become more comprehensive and accurate, the likelihood of the universe being the product of Intelligent Design INCREASES, not DECREASES.

If you want to apy the $5,000 for peer review, I will add references, edit this blog appropriately, and put your name on it as sponsor. Thank you.

1) The 'Almighty Dawkins' Delusion

There is one 'disproof' of God's existence that many claim is 'scientific,' from Professor Richard Dawkins. Those making the claim point to Dawkin's qualifications. That's just about the only legitimate justification. Dawkins holds two PhDs, and ran the postgraduate college in Oxford before he retired from it and wrote a polemic called 'The God Delusion.'

The new atheists' claim to Dawkins' scientific undeniability has no bearing on the academic community at all. While scientific journals have politely reported on the book in their 'News' sections, none of them have published his so-called 'proof' as peer-reviewed, corroborated, scientific fact. Peer corroboration is typically considered necessary for a scientific finding to be accepted, Moreover, despite the supposed importance of Dawkin's opinion, not even one dissertation has been written about his atheistic assertions in the college he used to run, nor even in the entire University. However, new atheists ignore all that, continuing to assert their echoing of Dawkins is 'scientific.'

Ad hominum remarks would typically be inappropriate in a scholarly rebuttal, but Dawkins himself fires a barrage of personal insults at religious people at every interview opportunity. Hence the shockingly low regard he now garners in his own prior castle should not be ignored either. In the Oxford halls where he once reigned supreme, Dawkins now is at most tolerated as a once-great man who has lost his marbles, and far more frequently, spurned due to his unbridled spite for anyone else but himself. Regardless, one frequently hears glowing admiration from those who parrot his ideas. Of the hundreds of new atheists who mocked the first draft extracts of this article, none had any relevant educational qualifications in the philosophy of science, instead sharing no more than an avatar of themselves as a baboon sticking its tongue out, a skeleton holding a machine gun, a cartoon of naked women having an orgasm, etc. One would really expect a man with Dawkins' education not only to realize the type of response he would get from many followers of Sam Harris et al., but also to feel responsible enough not to provoke it, which he does in numerous quips on YouTube and so on.

Further, one might note that Dawkins had ALSO previously complained his landmark work on genetic altruism in 'The Selfish Gene' (1976) had been stolen and distorted into atheistic rhetoric by the likes of Sam Harris and Ayn Rand. Given Dawkins' subsequent degradation in behavior, one might reasonably believe 'The God Delusion' was never intended to be a real scientific proof, but actually written to exploit the hordes of the gullible and naive who flocked to the calling of the supposed 'new atheism.' Dawkins fed upon the disciples of those he had previously despised for adopting his thought into their own personal agenda.

Upon the PROPER examination of exactly what is 'knowable' within the fundamental tenets of science itself, it is clear that there can be NO scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of a Creator, one way or the other. Professor Dawkins 'disproof' is instead purely rhetorical, decided via a value judgment of beliefs upon opposing sides, presented as if by a prosecuting attorney desiring only to win a case.

Moreover, all Dawkins' observations on how science can explain reality as well as it can do NOT prove God is 'unnecessary' as he claims. Instead, our advancing of scientific knowledge makes the existence of an Intelligent Designer MORE likely, as science uncovers more sophistication in the mechanics of any intended Design.

In fact, from what we now know about the origination and evolution of life, an Intelligent Designer may have needed to create such a vast universe, simply to assure a species would develop that is even capable of appreciating divine purpose. Note AGAIN, this is merely to say there are other possibilities, not that anything can be scientifically proven on the topic. 'Proof' is entirely irrelevant and a completely inappropriate term in scientific investigation altogether.

Hence, this article seeks to rectify the notable lack of formal, qualified critical response to Dawkin's book, which in view of how those admiring it have portrayed themselves to me is perhaps not surprising. Nonetheless, Dawkins' was MEANT to be presenting scientific proof. So this article contains an appropriately scientific rebuttal. Since this article's presentation in its entirety, the only criticisms related to its actual scientific content are several dozen requests for clarifications on the nature of rationalism and statements about formal logic from the philosophy of science groups, which I have attempted to address properly.

2) 'BURDEN OF PROOF'

By far the most frequent response to Section 3 of this article, which contains my scientific refutation of Dawkins, is that the 'burden of proof' must be aggressively demanded from theists, because they have had the audacity to make a claim atheists find not only derisively false, but far more significantly, and far too frequently, offensive. Putting aside the irony of that, I have been required to point out five simple problems of scientific fact with the emotional rejections of there being any other alternative than a meaningless, purposeless universe:

2a) 'Burden of Proof' is Rhetoric, not a Scientific Method

Burden of proof' is the evaluation of beliefs for a judgment determined by persuasive force. While its method has significance in rhetorical or legal scenarios, it is not anywhere close to being a scientific method. In empirical science, there is no 'proof,' only corroboration. The only significance of evidence is to increase the strength of a theory, but a theory can never be proven, because an alternative better explanation could always be found. Outside persuasion of opinion by rhetoric, the concept of 'proof' only appears in deductions (in formal logic) and very specific syllogisms defining necessarily tautological expressions (in mathematics). It should ALSO be noted that courts of law can overturn ANY opinions previously regarded as proven true, at any time of their own choosing, by their own principles, illustrating that there is not really any guaranteed 'proof' of anything otherwise.

2b) Onus of Proof is on Atheists, not Theists

Even if one is going to bother with rhetorical debate, the burden of proof is not on the claim that God exists, as Dawkins states. Many theists feel that proof one way or the other should not exist, because it should be a matter of faith. By the rules for 'reverse burden of proof' in rhetoric, the onus is therefore on atheists to prove God does NOT exist, otherwise, a significant segment of opponents to such atheists' demands are not refuted. That is to say, as some believing 'A' also believe that 'A' should not be provable, then according to the rules of rhetoric, those claiming 'not-A' is true can ONLY prove 'not A' themselves, else opponents' beliefs are not completely denied. That has nothing to do with the philosophy of science, but it does show that Dawkins does not even have a valid rhetorical position either.

2c) Occam's Razor is Inapplicable

Dawkins adds to his argument that the existence of God should be removed by Occam's razor. That is not a scientific argument either. Occam's razor can only remove explanations at an equivalent level of semantic abstraction. Because theistic explanations of existence are causal, the explanation is at a higher level of abstraction than random occurrence, and therefore not removable by Occam's razor. For further definition, please see the discussion of formal logic below.

2d) Random Life Origination: just ANOTHER Red Herring

First off, a probabilistic argument cannot be considered 'proof,'' merely a statement of statistical likelihood, and therefore, NOT PROOF. Notwithstanding, current estimates at best vary by hundreds of orders of magnitude, due to huge differences of opinion on appropriate premises, rendering the statistical deductions totally meaningless, AS WELL AS devoid of anything resembling 'proof.' And even beyond that, even if it could be shown that life likely originated by random chemical reactions, that could have been an intentional product of Intelligent Design.

2e) Evolution proves Nothing Either

The more science provides logical descriptions of reality, the more intelligent any Creator that might exist appears, which should be as we expect, considering the size and complexity of the Universe we know.

The most that evolution can prove in the debate on intelligent design is that any Divine Being that exists knows how to use tools. For some reason, atheists assume any God that exists must be stupider than a Neanderthal. The ability to use tools is a primary definition of intelligence in science. Perhaps we should sympathize with atheists possessing such primitive reasoning abilities for not knowing how to use their thumbs either, given the level of intelligence they presume for a Being capable of designing the entire universe. Such individuals then criticize what they perceive as 'flaws in creation' such as inequality and disease, ignoring all the evidence, for thousands of years, in every single religion, of nothing more than empathy for the flaws, and a sincere overriding concern as to what humanity chooses to do with what we are each uniquely given.

The extent of debate on evolution exceeds all bounds of rationality and descends into complete absurdity.

2f) Our Geometric Decentralism is Irrelevant

Atheists desire us all to see our place in the universe as an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in the remote outreaches of one of zillions of galaxies, as a way of diminishing the dignity of the human condition into a random occurrence. They neglect that any Divine Being capable of creating a universe of the complexity we know would find geometric placement in space completely insignificant compared to entropic complexity.

One human brain contains more than 86 billion neurons, and the earth's population is approaching 8 billion, making the number of human neurons in the human population now alive equivalent in degree to the number of stars in the observable universe. The degree of sophistication in ordered matter is greater here, by thousands of orders of magnitude, than any other location in all known space and time, within which, humanity and its vast span of interactions are the most sophisticated system of all. Even if the forces necessary for our placement on this planet occurred randomly with respect to Euclidean space, that would not diminish, in any way, any intentional design of the material universe to procure our existence.