The God Delusion: A Logical Fallacy?

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by Solid444, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    Hey guys,

    I take it that a lot of the people that post on this board have read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I am in the process of reading it for the first time and there has been something that has really troubled me thus far. I wanted to put it on here because I need some clarification since this has the potential to undermine the rest of the book. I am looking, particularly, for answers from atheists but if theists can clear up this issue I will really appreciate it.

    In Chapter 2, Dawkins starts to make connections between Science and the existence of god. He says that the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis like any other. He then goes on to say that god's existence (or non-existence for that matter) is a scientific fact about the universe. So therefore, like any other scientific hypothesis, the existence of god can be validated or rejected through the scientific method.

    Here lies my problem. Science can be used to make conclusions about the natural and physical by looking at the natural and physical. It is constrained within that realm. God (or at least most ideas of a god) is not natural but supernatural by nature. So how can a tool, like science, that is used to make conclusions about the natural be used to conclude something about the supernatural? To me, this seems to be a very blatant category error. He is giving the idea of god a quality that it does not only not possess but that is opposite to its very definition.

    Could someone clear up my confusion, if there is any?
     
  2. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    How do you know God is supernatural? What evidence can you put forward towards that? You are making an error by presupposing that the supernatural exists.
     
  3. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    You are missing the point. Dawkins attempts to debunk an idea of god that is supernatural. One, that has god as the creator of the universe, the prime mover and ultimate reality. This idea of a god cannot be natural, that would be absurd, therefore it must be supernatural. So by saying that the existence of this god can be debunked using natural means is a category error. Is he simply saying that science can be used to debunk the idea of a natural god? If so, he is not saying anything since the idea of a natural god is absurd, at least in the context of this book.

    Your post leads me to believe that Dawkins is taking a stance that presupposes that god is natural for the sake of his argument. However, this is not the case. He is obviously postulating an argument against the idea of a supernatural god, that is very evident in his book (so far). Since this is the case, how is it not a category error to say the existence of this supernatural god is a scientific fact?
     
  4. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    It's a decent point. the way I would see it is this, definitions of natural and supernatural are man-made. How can people talk about something being supernatural and possesing supernatural qualities when they can't define what that is? It is a perfectly reasonable position to take that there is absolutely no such thing as 'supernatural'. And anything which might be mistaken for supernatural is actually natural.

    And being (like a God) which can create and and influence our natural world must have qualities and abilities which are natural, if it can create natural things, it can affect natural things and if it can affect natural things it can be detected.

    People would call something like a vampire or ghost supernatural, but if these things did exist we would be able to detect them, even within the bounds of our 'natural' science.
     
  5. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
    Having not read the book, it seems the original hypothethis is that the supernatural must exist due to unexplainable phenomena, and that's where Dawkins argues the logic goes wrong.
     
  6. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think it's even simpler than that, although it's a little tough to put into words. Essentially, Dawkins says (I've read the book, although it's been over a year ago) "If God exists, then he REALLY EXISTS." You can't claim that a diety who, according to the tenets of every religion which believes in a god or gods of some sort, is active in the physical world in some way, yet claim that there cannot be any proof of his/her/it/their existence. If God can speak to people as he did to Moses, it should be possible to prove so. If God can directly influence events in the physical world, as He did when he stopped the sun for Joshua, then it should be possible to prove it. Etc.
     
  7. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is pretty close to my line of thinking on the subject. There is a mountain of evidence strewn throughout history that man once believed certain phenomena to be "supernatural," but said phenomena are now known to be natural. The concept of something beyond the natural world is a human construct - in a way Dawkins is pointing out that this construct is flawed because there is essentially no reason to believe in the supernatural.

    For the record, I have not read the book.
     
  8. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    If god can create natural things then he cannot be natural, he must be supernatural, simple as that.

    I see what you are saying and I did try to comprehend it this way, however, I arrive at the same category error. He did not say that gods actions in this world should be able to be proven. He said that god's very existence is a scientific fact. In other words, there should be no difference in trying to prove the existence of gravity and the existence of god because they can both be treated as scientific hypothesis and be validated using the scientific method. He is speaking about the very ontology of a god, not his actions. Once again, a category error.

    I know that Dawkins is a brilliant man and a great scientist. How then, can he make such a blatant logical error in his reasoning.
     
  9. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Not necessarily. It depends what you mean by God. Many of the attributes of God can be assigned to a natural being For example we can conceive in theory a natural intelligence that could be outside the universe as we know it, and who is powerful enough to be able to design the universe as we know it. Such a being would conceivably operate within the constraints of the laws that govern the universe.

    I think that such a being is what Hawkins is talking about in that particular chapter, and certainly it is not a logical fallacy to say that if such a being existed, he would indeed exist as a scientific fact about the universe, and could theoretically be discovered through the scientific method. Of course, such a being would have to be extremely complex, in order to have some of the characteristics we assign to God.

    If such a being is outside our universe, it would be very difficult for us to actually physically discover him, unless he immerses himself into the universe in ways in which he can be detected. But we could, applying scientific principle, perhaps find evidence of his interaction with the universe he created, and also theoretically find clues that would lead us to him, just like we find clues that lead us to other theoretical suppositions about the universe, some of which may end up being true.

    Now if we are talking about a supernatural dimension that is not connected in a logical way to our material universe, then that's a different argument. I don't think that is what Hawkins is dealing with in that chapter. I speculate that Hawkins can do little more than dismiss such an idea without much discussion because the supernatural cannot logically be discussed scientifically if it operates outside the laws that we observe in the universe and which we use as a basis for our deductive and inductive reasoning.

    Really when Hawkins says that a 'supernatural' God almost certainly does not exist, all he is saying is that what he thinks is that a 'supernatural' God almost certainly does not exist. That's all he can really say about that.

    Hawkins doesn't claim to disprove the existence of God. He is an apologetic for atheism and I think his purpose is to prove that there is logic in being an atheist. His argument, to put it in the simplest terms, is that you can conceive logically of a universe without God, and furthermore that in logical terms it is easier to conceive a universe without God than a universe with God.
     
  10. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    Let me clarify what I said,

    If god can create natural things out of nothing then he cannot be natural, he must be supernatural, simple as that.

    This statement still stands. If god is natural and therefore constrained by natural law, then he cannot create something out of nothing because that goes against the natural law that constrains him.

    That is not the type of "god" that Dawkins is talking about. He has said in the past that there could be a possibility of the type of god you mentioned above to have intelligently designed the universe. If he believes in the possibility of such "god" existing, then why would he call it a delusion. That type of god is not the delusion he is trying to prove. He is obviously referring to a supernatural god.
     
  11. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    I didn't say that if God does exist that he isn't supernatural. By that I mean posessing powers/qualities/abilities which are outwith the 'rules' which govern what we see as our natural universe. However, to create our universe his abilities would have to be able to affect our universe and theoretically, we could be able to detect these affectations. It's surely not a coincidence that stories of God affecting or changing our universe have disaapeared since man has develpoed the skills, knowledge and technology to detect these effects??

    That's speaking hypothetically. I don't think that anything that we would describe as supernatural exists because there's no evidence for it and there is no natural phenomena which requires a supernatural explanation.
     
  12. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    This is a distinction without a difference. Science does not discriminate against phenomena that operate counter to the perceived order of things, and it hasn't for almost a century.

    Either God has an affect in the natural world and can be detected by looking at nature, or he has no effect and thus should not be worshiped because he can't do anything to help or harm you.
     
  13. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
    P2. The universe began to exist
    C. The universe has a cause

    This cause cannot be natural because our natural reality would only come into being at the beginning of the universe.
     
  14. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "Wow, look at those lightning bolts! Zeus must be pretty pissed."
    "This is a hell of a storm. What did we do to offend Poseidon?!"
    "It is cold and we can't grow anything anymore. Hades must be boinking Persephone right now."

    Stop me if you've heard these before...
     
  15. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    And this has what to do with what I said?
     
  16. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    Really??

    P1: Did God ever begin to exist?

    P2: How do you know this. The universe as we see it now began with the big bang, I don't think that means conclusively that it didn't exist before that.

    Another problem...you use the word 'universe' to describe our 'world' (for want of a better word) but you use 'natural reality' later on. How can you say that whatever existed, or didn't, before the BB isn't a part of our natural reality? You don't know what any kind of reality was like before the BB. What if our natural reality was caused by another natural reality?

    The truth is that you, I and everybody else doesn't know enough about what happened and existed before the universe, or even if words like before or begins have any meaning in this context, to make such definitive statements.
     
  17. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    The barriers of what we see as our 'natural reality' tend to recede the more knowledgable we become.
     
  18. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A very succinct way of putting it to be sure. I'm quite fond of this quote from Men in Black myself.
     
  19. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    This is not a refutation of premise 1 at all. This argument is stipulated within our natural reality. God is not in this natural reality (if he does exist) therefore you cannot answer that question and it does not follow that god needs to begin to exist.

    So you are saying that the universe existed before that even though space and time did not exist? And if space and time did not exist then science did not exist, so it would follow that science also came to be.

    Because our natural reality and the way that we make conclusions based on this natural reality, which is science, completely falls apart at the big bang singularity. We cannot conclude anything about the natural world without science. Therefore, whatever existed before the big bang has to be supernatural.

    Here's a little trick,

    You don't know what any kind of reality was like before the BB. What if our natural reality was caused by a supernatural reality?

    What you said in your post and what I wrote here mean exactly the same thing. It doesn't matter what the nature of the reality before the BB is, to us, it is supernatural because it would be outside our natural understanding.
     
  20. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    You have yet to defend any of these statements.

    As spejic points out the distinction between supernatural and natural is irrelevant if you can measure something's effect.

    You're most recent post continues to state "but God doesn't exist in our reality" without defending that statement. Why do you take these assumptions for granted?
     
  21. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    As was pointed out earlier, it completely fell apart at "lightning" and tons of other things before, but it no longer does. Why are you drawing the line at the big bang (not that you shouldn't) and more importantly why do you throw your hands up and say "I give up, everything past that line is supernatural"?
     
  22. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Read up on the theory of a big bounce. Make sure you are not smoking weed when you do.
    Umm...yea, reality doesn't fall apart at a singularity. Relativity does, and quantum theory isn't testable, hence quantum mechanics. I'm not saying that any of them answer the question you are posing, but you need to keep your facts straight.
    You don't know what any kind of reality was like before the BB. What if our natural reality was caused by a giant pink elephant taking a dump

    You're right, this is a fun game.

    Space travel was outside our natural understanding not long ago.
     
  23. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    Yeah, I know it's not a refutation. I was just wondering what you thought about it.


    I'm not saying that. I'm asking how you know that it didn't exist. Or how you know space and time didn't exist.


    What if we find a way to discover what existed before the big bang? Would it still be supernatural? It comes back to what I was saying about what we define as supernatural. If you want to count anything at all 'before' the big bang supernatural, that's fine then yes, I'd agree that the universe has a supernatural cause. If supernatural means a being with other wordly powers then I can't see any argument for that.



    If you want to define the universe as our natural reality, then a better description for anything outside, before or after our universe is that it's non-natural, certainly not supernatural.
     
  24. Solid444

    Solid444 Member+

    Jun 21, 2003
    Because before the big bang I cannot make any hypothesis that can be verified or debunked using the scientific method because science cannot tel me anything. I cannot come to any natural conclusion, therefore, that cause has to be a supernatural one. Or do you think that I can make a scientific conclusion and verify it without the use of science?

    I am not throwing my hands up, I am coming to a logical conclusion. If there must be a cause to the universe and this cause cannot be natural, then this cause must be supernatural.

    The way to show that this is not the case is to show that the universe has always been (did not need a cause) or that this cause can be natural.
     
  25. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    This is all ridiculous. You created a problem and then created the perfect solution to the problem totally out of whole cloth with no evidence, and then you simply assume the solution is the same as the God you worship. Things don't need causes, and if something had a cause you need evidence to tell you what nature of the cause is. If someone were to accept this argument, it is also perfectly in line with every other god-like being (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or natural beings with some arbitrarily high level of technology. And that is no help at all - accepting this idea does not put us any closer to understanding.

    If you want to change anyone's mind, you have to do better than whip out the Cosmological Argument.
     

Share This Page