Skip to main content

Dawkins, complexity, the binding problem, simplicity

Dawkins' central philosophical argument against theism can be paraphrased thus:
1. a being that can do what God purportedly does must be very complex, and
2. such a being must have evolved, and
3. no being that has evolved could be God.

The first claim can be dealt with by looking at the arguments for the divine simplicity (Q. 3 in the Summa theologiae).  Those arguments hinge upon the five ways, which Dawkins either ignores or (in the case of the first way) misreads in a way that is almost comical.

But of course, one who misunderstands human nature will not be able to take the arguments in Q3 seriously.  So the preamble to these arguments must be philosophical anthropology: namely, the contrasting of the binding problem that besets materialism, with the notion of the soul as the first activity of the body.  Once once recognizes the need for an activity (the soul) that is, with respect to the body, simple, one is able to appreciate how God could be simply immaterial.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more