Peter Byrom: Dawkins' argument from complexity • Unapologetic 3/3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- In the final part of this discussion, Peter Byrom delves into Dawkins' argument from complexity, suggesting it may be a circular assumption. He unpacks Dawkins' fascinating exchange with Francis Collins from 2022, where Dawkins admits he may have a presupposition towards materialism. Plus, what does the future hold?
For more on some of these arguments, see Unbelievable? Is there a new New Atheism? www.premierunb...
For Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: www.amazon.co....
• Part One: • Peter Byrom: Discoveri...
• William Lane Craig's response to The God Delusion, Oxford 2011: • William Lane Craig: Is...
• "The Case for Christian Theism" documentary about William Lane Craig's 2011 UK Tour:
• The Case for Christian...
• Dawkins, Kenny, and Williams dialogue, 2012:
• Dialogue with Richard ...
• Dawkins and Collins Big Conversation, 2022:
• Richard Dawkins & Fran...
• Dawkins and Swinburne in The Mystery of Existence discussion, 2023:
• The Mystery of Existen...
• Dawkins and Boghossian discussion, 2023: • The Poetry of Reality ...
• Nate Sala's commentary on Dawkins and Boghossian discussion, 2023: • Richard Dawkins Admits...
• Subscribe to the Unapologetic podcast: pod.link/16221...
• More podcasts, free ebook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• Watch Unapologetic TH-cam playlist: • Unapologetic
• For conference & live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For our apologetics courses: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
Part One: th-cam.com/video/ZuqP11-t58s/w-d-xo.htmlsi=J_HqtLIdmFnAljYZ
While Dawkins might be less relevant today than he was in the 2000s-2010s he is still perceived as the "leader" of the atheists or atheist movement, just like Anthony Flew was perceived as that in the 80s and 90s.
No offense to the likes of Shermer, Harris, the late Hitchens, etc but they had their own flaws and limitations in their arguments or as human beings. Krauss, for example, went from one of the most well known to one of the least talked about because of his personal issues that got him canceled. Not to say Christians haven't had their own issues that somewhat undermined their credibility, but an atheist following the logical consequences of atheism is more expected to happen.
Of the newer atheists, Cosmic Skeptic is pretty much the only relevant or interesting one that people could engage with. Unlike the "New Atheists" he is not rude, shrewd, condescending, etc and seems willing to cast aside his atheism if he could be convinced whereas many of the old hats like Peter Atkins are unmoving in their atheism.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
You gotta be really thin-skinned to think that Shermer, Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett are "rude and condescending" people.
@@betsalprince
I might say I was wrong or inaccurate using a broad brush generalization on all of the atheists.
Hitchens could be charming or funny. Shermer generally is polite. But I have seen quite a few atheists, well known and lesser known, be rude and condescending such as Dave Farina. Krauss was quite rude in his debate with Lennox. Harris and Singer has had positions and views so appalling and have made remarks so casually that it gives pause to whether they could be remotely a moral person.
Then again what I consider rude, condescending, etc and what someone else considers might be two different things. I think maybe a decade or so ago there was more civility than there is today or in recent years. People knew how to act even if they disagreed once upon a time.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
@@HomicideHenry You weren't making generalizations on all atheists. You specifically said that "New Atheists" are rude and condescending, and the names that I listed above are people that theists unnecessarily refer to as "New Atheists". Now you're talking about other people and moral views. Just because you disagree with someone's moral views doesn't make them rude and condescending people.
@@betsalprince
What is the aim of the new atheists? To destroy religion any costs and that includes being rude and condescending to Christians Jews. That includes making up facts, stats, etc to bolster a viewpoint. I have seen this on display by Hitchens, Harris, Krauss and others. Yes some are more nicer or more polite than others, but that's besides the point.
When Hitchens claimed that in the womb all babies were covered in hair and that somehow proved we were all apes, he conveniently left out the fact that the hair is there to hold in place a thick material so that fluid wouldn't harm the infant. That's one of many lies he peddled to bolster his point.
Or how Sam Harris quoted Luke 19 claiming Jesus ordered Christians to kill unbelievers when the verse in question is a parable about King Herod. Harris by his own admission on Triggernometry has said that purposely lying, denying evidence, etc to uphold a viewpoint is completely valid if that viewpoint threatens your own worldview.
Peter Atkins declares himself a rational, fair, unbiased scientist yet in the same sentence declares that if he saw a miracle he'd assume he was going insane and if he died and saw heaven he'd assume he was dreaming, implying no amount of evidence would ever sway him which goes to show his worldview isn't science based at all.
I could go on and on. These people for the most part have no scruples about lying, or being condescending because they view anyone religious as either unintelligent or crazy or potentially dangerous. I have heard many of these people's debates who titled themselves as "New Atheists" and while some may be nicer than others, they are not necessarily friendly or honest either.
I'm reminded of Hitchens saying that if he had the power to get rid of all religion he wouldn't do it, only for Dawkins to give him a look so cold hearted and scornful that it actually freaked Hitchens out a bit. That's the kind of people we are dealing with. These people who call us Christians evil but have no qualms eliminating those they disagree with. Men like Peter Singer who says an infant is of no more significance than a rat, and John Gray who says people are of no more value than slime mold.
We agree to disagree. I find nothing more condescending than such a worldview as that. It goes against all human experience and logic. My hope to Jesus Christ Almighty God is that many people abandon atheism, because I was an atheist too and Jesus Christ Almighty God helped save my life and Jesus Christ Almighty God helped change the way I look at the world.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
" he is still perceived as the "leader" of the atheists or atheist movement"
By whom?
Divine Simplicity was invented by Aquinas to avoid God's creator/creation paradox, and christians are paying the price of trying to explain away the ridiculousness of such idea.
I asked ChatGPT:
What is the simplest thing that could exist?
ChatGPT
The concept of the simplest thing that could exist is a philosophical and scientific question with various interpretations and perspectives. It largely depends on how you define "simple." Here are a few different ways to approach this question:
1 Subatomic Particles: In the realm of particle physics, the simplest entities are often considered to be subatomic particles, such as electrons, quarks, or photons. These particles are elementary in the sense that they are not believed to be composed of smaller constituents.
2 Mathematical Abstractions: Some might argue that mathematical abstractions, such as numbers or geometric shapes, are the simplest things that exist. These concepts have no physical presence but are fundamental to our understanding of the universe.
3 Existence Itself: From a philosophical perspective, some might argue that existence itself is the simplest thing that could exist. The mere fact that something exists, rather than nothing, is a profound and fundamental concept.
4 Pure Consciousness: In some spiritual or philosophical traditions, pure consciousness or awareness is considered the simplest and most fundamental aspect of existence.
It's essential to note that what is considered "simple" can vary depending on one's perspective and the context in which the question is asked. Simplicity is often a matter of abstraction and definition, and the answer may differ based on the field of study or philosophy being considered.
If some folks want to believe in creationism, Noahs Ark, Adam and Eve et all then fine but as my granny would say, takes all kinds.
Would a Rube Goldberg machine have been a helpful analogy to showing how an overly complex machine can be imagined to do a job that is 'simple' and can be accomplished with a much simpler machine?
Has anyone seen something functionally complex and structurally simple? If you will point at something supernatural, first, you need to SHOW it exists and NOT just ASSERT it exists. Do you know the difference between the words "assert" and "show"?
There are two examples given in this very video.🙈
@Birdieupon I think you are missing the point. If you have a tool that can cut and you want it to ALSO press, you need to add parts to it.
The example of the electric razor and blade razor is actually a counter example. The blade can ONLY cut (functionality simple AND structurally simple), but the electric one can trim, doesn't slice your skin, you can use it without paying close attention, you can use it on ANY skin type, etc.
So the electric razor has restricted capacity and diminished effects. Right. That’s the whole point.
@Birdieupon What? Do you understand your own words? Restricted capacity? It cuts the hair (razor, right?), but it has the additional increased advantageously good property of NOT harming you. I hope you can understand that it's easy to harm, and it's difficult to do things WITHOUT harming.
Because the complexity of its power has been diminished (it has less power to cut, and less versatility, because its application has been limited by the complexity of its structure). Feel free to keep going, but you're only adding to Sir Anthony Kenny's point: having a structure which is statistically less probable to assemble does not necessarily equate to having increased power (would you try to use an electric razor to open a letter, or take an electric razor to a knife fight)? 😉@@goodquestion7915
The New Atheist movement finished what was set to. Atheists are now proud to say "I am an atheist".
Hoping dawkins be saved by Yeshua... and may the eyes of his heart be opened to the Lord and His call of mercy
Saved from what exactly?
Unfortunately, Yeshua could not save himself
@@yaserbatal6474 Couldn't or didn't?
@@betsalprinceeternal torment.
@@NoN0-eb8lj and who created that punishment?
Why are Christians still so obsessed with Dawkins? There are far more interesting and relevant atheists out there.
I don't understand why is everyone so adamant to play by Dawkins's rules and to apply his standards to God. What does it matter if God is complex in structure or not? If you do not believe in evolution from simple forms to complex it does not matter at all! And even if you do it matters little. What we discuss is whether there is a God at all. Say, a building has its architect and the builder. What does it matter if they are complex or simple? What does it matter even if they themselves are products of the evolution? Building is still a creation and the existence of its creators is beyond doubt. What are we even discussing here?
The irony is that Dawkins’ complexity objection doesn’t depend upon evolution at all, so we don’t have to “play by his rules”. The complexity objection is about God being improbable because he CAN’T evolve - he would have to be assembled by random chance. If God were complex in that way, it would be a problem… but he isn’t.😎
Dawkins knows so little and I know even less.
The argument that God has to be simple is a bogus argument. Dawkins wants to force God into his belief that something simpler than the universe created it. The Universe is not simple and it didn't start from a single point.
Where can I get the backstory regarding the central complexity arguments in more depth? - if feel I’ve come into a room mid-conversation?
There's more background in part one: th-cam.com/video/ZuqP11-t58s/w-d-xo.html
Austin Farrer, a neo-Thomist and more, suggested in _Freedom of the Will_ that God runs the universe kind of the way the mind runs the brain and a hand works through a glove. Picture an air traffic controller directing an aircraft full of hundreds of people. Perhaps the concept of one entity being able to impact many others is one of the rules of the game laid down by the Designer of the game. Any player is welcome to use those rules, but is also constrained by them. Then the Designer becomes a player and wins the game fair and square. Other "rules" that come from the mind of, and express the nature of the Designer might be the laws of mathematics, cause and effect, justice, humility, maturity, beauty, fairness, delayed gratification, holiness, logic, aspiration, love, respect, communication,....
Jesus.
Savior, Lamb of God, Messiah, Prince of Peace, ....
Another one-sided interview where no atheist was invited to respond to any of the assertions being made. It's getting disrespectful at this point.
Excellent. Getting my replies deleted.
Name a single atheist channel that has brought on as many Christian guests as this channel has brought on atheist guests.
The comment section is open for your responses to any assertions being made.
@@harlowcj The Atheist Experience, Talk Heathen, and Truth Wanted are atheist shows that invite theist callers for discussion. Still Unbelievable! podcast invites Christian guests for longer 1:1 discussions, and so does David Smalley's Dogma Debate podcast. Alex O'Connor's Within Reason podcast invites Christian apologists, theologians and biblical scholars for deeper theological discussions.
None of the shows listed above are national digital service multi-media companies registered as a charity that are tax exempt (Premier Christian Media Trust) that gets donations from churches, so of course they're not as big as Premier Unbelievable. This channel has been fair in the past. Not so much after Justin Brierley's departure.
Comment section being open has nothing to do with my feedback.
@colebryson1 Cool story bro. Can you prove that?
….all interviews are one sided. That’s why it’s an interview. You’re interviewing one person on a subject. If it was a debate then your comment would actually make sense.
Dawkins was insulting Christianity (34:11 - 34:40) and Peter couldn't be happier. Wow. Translation for Peter: Keep the brutes in their cage.
How is a mind that can dream up the complexity of reality less complex than reality?
Because it’s not made of discreet parts which need assembling. Thoughts - and indeed unembodied minds - are immaterial. This is the same confusion Dawkins makes: at best, thoughts are an example of complexity of function (something God can do), but what Dawkins needs to demonstrate is complexity of structure (such that he can justify God being less probable than the chance arrangement of the fundamental constants or any other artefact of apparent design in the material universe).
@@Birdieupon Can you demonstrate the existence of an unembodied mind? How can I differentiate it from a nonexistent mind?
@@betsalprinceThat’s what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is for! But notice how your objection has changed: it’s no longer about complexity, but whether there is, or even could be, an unembodied mind. Such an entity is not complex, which shows how irrelevant Dawkins’ argument is.
@@Birdieupon That was my first comment and I was responding to your comment about an unembodied mind. How does the Kalam Cosmological Argument demonstrate the existence and necessity of an unembodied mind, complex or otherwise? Is there any example of this unembodied mind that I can investigate in reality?
@@betsalprinceThe Kalam concludes an unembodied mind, and Craig explains why, so it’s best to look into that so that you can get a sense of the reasoning behind it. Whether or not unembodied minds can exist, however, the point is that Dawkins’ complexity argument is a complete dud and a red herring. Even if somebody were able to successfully argue against unembodied minds, it would have nothing to do with the kind of complexity that Dawkins relies upon in The God Delusion (ie it would be about mind-body connections & identity, rather than the probability of parts coming together).
I cant understand you. We are not all British! Thanks.
Maybe you can understand this simple analogy.
A spoon can stir a drink.
A food processor can also stir, but it does many things a spoon cannot.
A food processor MUST be MUCH MORE complex than a spoon to accomplish these tasks.
Thus, a God MUST be more complex than the universe he processes.
My 5 year old understands this, but you can not???
The claim is not that there is never a correlation between functional complexity and structural complexity. It’s that there is not NECESSARILY a correlative connection. Dawkins assumes a NECESSARY connection, which is false (and entailed in part by his circular assumption of materialism).
@Birdieupon Science DEMANDS a correlation between functional complexity and structural complexity.
You guys have NO science education, so you don't understand.
This is why Dawkins gets frustrated with the religious fantasy of a simple God.
@@user-xp4fm2st8usorry mate but science doesn’t demand any such thing. This very video contains examples where there isn’t a correlation. You’re just spouting dogma.
I would have been more interested in hearing Darryl Dawkins' take on these things.
He's rather Muppet like too.
So, maybe Dawkins was thinking that God's mind would have to be complex.
Right, and that’s the problem: confusing the mind with a mind’s ideas won’t give Dawkins the improbability he requires (you can’t assemble thoughts). Dawkins needs to show that God himself is improbable, which requires that God have a complex structure, not that he be capable of complex thoughts.
@@Birdieupon But a mind capable of complex ideas would be complex, whether it has physical structure or not.
Right, but I just explained to you why not just any complexity will do. It needs to be the kind of complexity that entails, in Dawkins' own words, "statistical improbability". Without that, Dawkins' argument against God doesn't work. The kind of complexity Dawkins talks about in The God Delusion concerns the unlikelihood of constituent parts coming together to form something with the appearance of design (i.e. complexity of structure). It's therefore no good for Dawkins merely to complain that God must be capable of having complex thoughts or performing complex tasks (i.e. complexity of function), because God does not have a complex structure which needs assembling in that way (given that he's immaterial - an unembodied mind is structurally simple because there are no parts). If Dawkins wants to argue that there can be no such thing as an unembodied mind, he's welcome to, but he never did. He gave us this argument instead, and it's a non-starter: he's either committed himself to demanding that God must be physically complex (question-begging) or he's just confusing the complexity of God's capabilities with his composition (equivocation). @@Whatsisface4
Who else here is cringe- watching this from outside the echochamber?
So, what you imagine is a non materialistic (supernatural entity? ) that is simple that unlike the simple inanimate objects you cite as having complex affects, has the unimaginably complex ability to bring the universe into existence. I submit that since bringing something into existence without prior materials is beyond the most complex minds of the material world, including your uncomplicated inanimate material objects, that by analogy it is newly impossible that even if there were a supernatural realm, the being in that realm would have to be unimaginably complex and would have had to come about through some supernatural process. The argument is always about who or what created the creator, and when it is framed that way then the argument for a supernatural creator of the universe collapses as an absurdity.😅😊
not if someone holds divine simplicity
@@andrewnietfeld7213 thanks for the feedback. But as I show above, divine simplicity is an absurdity even in a non materialistic world. Only complex things have motivation and the ability to create. Simple things have affect but no production or creative capacity. I doubt most humans actually think the God they believe in is simple. They just don’t bother to think through the argument so they accept his existence without understanding what they are signing up for epistemologically. Most folks, unfortunately don’t bother to develop a conscious epistemology that is logically consistent and don’t therefore actually believe in a simplistic God. It is only the apologist seeking to argue consistently who thinks so.
Dawkins’ argument doesn’t depend upon just any type of complexity, but specifically on the kind of complexity which entails that God must be EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE, and he appeals to complexity of structure in order to try to achieve this (ie he’s talking about a God made up of multiple parts that can be rearranged in different configurations, and their arrangement as a God would therefore be even more improbable than any phenomenon that God is invoked to explain: such as cosmological fine-tuning).
This is easily refuted by the fact that God has no parts, because he’s not material. He’s not created by any “process” because there’s no composition that needs to be formed and shaped in the first place. God can have complex abilities, but he’s not got a complex composition.
All you’ve done is essentially paraphrase Dawkins’ own fallacious objection (the type of complexity you’re referring to has no impact on God’s probability, because you’re only referring to effects and abilities that God is capable of, which is the same confusion Dawkins makes), including mere incredulity against anything that doesn’t fit a circular, atheistic and specifically materialistic presupposition.
Re:the origin of God.
We cannot conceive of space-time having a beginning, or what, "before" means.
Everything we understand at our level of reality is made up of parts. Yet a photon, waves of energy, waves of probability, fields, are not really "parts," and, reality is more like A.N.Whitehead's becoming, phenomena which cannot be parsed into individual events because only minds simplify things as concepts, and minds come to believe the simplifications are accurate depictions.
Matisse is not in his paintings. Magritte's painting of a pipe is not a pipe.
Humans cannot grasp what does not fit within their conceptual boxes.
Information is made up of symbols or objects which are organized in a physical sequence ( or electrical charges in a matrix pattern). Information must be copied, sent, interpreted,and interface with a system which then specifies this, not that.
DNA holds base 4 digital informationin kilobyte or even megabyte quantities. Cells contain nanomachines which serve to interact with DNA, create templates as RNA, link codon-anticodon to assemble proteins.
To say this is too complex for a Superintelligence to conceive and create is to have a very limited understanding of the possibilities of the nature of what is so far beyond human understanding, that rejection of it is akin to a stone-age person rejecting a cellphone as a possible object humans could create.
A scientific understanding should encompass all explanatory possibilities, including hyperdimensional and extraterrestrial god-like beings.
To reject that life was created is to reject what the weight of all the scientifice evidence forces humanity to conclude.
A Jupiter sized quantum computer would have the intellect to create both the encoding and understanding of how to create life.
"Outside space-time" is beyond us.
I like Azimov's story which ends with "Let there be light."
Peter just asserts things. Did you hear any explanation? Apologists' superpower: "dazzle the mindless".
Aggressive is 99% started by a dogmatic believer, which, from atheist standpoint. does not really matter, and they will gladly turn it to a dumpster fire.... Just my 10 cents from listening to 100's of discussions.
Lots of interest in Dawkins but still no evidence for a God 😊
Actually there is some. Just not enough...
for me an important approach is Ray Comfort's - discussing the essence of the gospel - also that appears to be the heart of the matter, why people avoid thinking about God - subconsciously ignoring that which is not wished to be true and same like an infant hiding his face believing that he cannot be seen, so thinking God and his judgement will not happen from not believing in it - but discussing God's moral law and the likeliness of judgement is where we need to go, and discussing God's solution to the dilemma - listen to 10 or more of Ray's interviews, digest it and it might become clear what I mean - the genuine gospel cannot be ignored and will always do its work
@@SAMBUT have no fear... Ray Comfort is turning sane people away xtianity almost as fast as Kent Hovind 🤣
Complex is what Christian has always made God up to be. So therefore Christianity seems very made up and implausible.... It is not hard to understand.
Yet Christianity for centuries has held to the view that God is simple IN STRUCTURE as Anthony Kenny pointed out in this episode.
Dawkins hasn’t been relevant in years. Apologists’ obsession with him is weird.
You mean Dawkins has done what he felt needed to be done. And the religious is still trying to make a come back that'll stick.
Atheism has one question, demonstrate your claim.
I claim that there is God.
You are welcome
...and luckily for Atheists, they don't even have to demonstrate their own.
@@DartNoobo that claim is not demonstrable
@@captivedesk3168 here, look :"There is God".
This is my claim, it is clearly visible and easily understood by everyone.
What are you talking about?
@@DartNoobo looks like you are an idiot that doesn't know what demonstrable means so... run along