This is part 2 of my series in response to Richard Dawkins. If you missed part 1, you may read my opening criticisms on The God Delusion here.
R ichard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, well versed in the currents of modern evolutionary science as well as the arguments and popular mythologies which rail against it. So, when some poor sap opens up a question and answer session by asking why, if evolution is true, we do not see monkeys giving birth to humans, Dawkins’ response hardly requires thought.
We do not see monkeys giving birth to humans because that is not evolution.
If an argument against evolution is to be offered, it would behoove the giver to have a rudimentary understanding of what does – and does not – claim. After all, researching your topic is not an optional endeavor if you wish to build a compelling case. Surely, Dawkins would agree with this when it comes to his field of research.
First, there was mud and water. Then, there were acids. Then these acids came to life. Then they grew into humans.
I find it strange, then, that he does not employ the same level of attention when penning what is, essentially, an anti-theological treatise. He appears to have taken the time to gloss over the Cliff’s Notes, but like the undergraduate wondering about monkey-born humans, his comprehension of Christian theology leaves extraordinary gaps.
It is in chapter 3 of The God Delusion that Dawkins begins his attempt to educate the reader on historical theology. He opens this foray by first laying out the historical arguments that have been given for the existence of God, hailing back to such Christian thinkers as Aquinas and Anselm. Unfortunately, the entirety of each argument is esconced in little more than a few sentences, after which Dr. Dawkins proceeds to rail on about their incredulity. Take, for example, his complete rendering of the cosmological argument:
There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
That’s it. While it may be true to a point, it is oversimplified beyond credulity. Imagine if the tables were turned, and we attempted to define evolution simlarly simplistically.
First, there was mud and water. Then, there were acids. Then these acids came to life. Then they grew into humans.
I can assure you, Dawkins would not take kindly to such a depiction. The details align with what abiogenesis and evolutionary theory contend, but they are so simplistic as to render the portrayal very nearly dishonest. So it is with Dawkins’ rendering of the cosmological argument. It is no wonder, then, that his rebuttal is equally simplistic.
…these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.
Is this a fair critique? If the entirety of the cosmological argument was accurately depicted via the cursory statement he used to describe it, then yes. This is hardly the case, however. So what is the cosmological argument, and how does it address Dawkins’ criticisms?
The Cosmological Argument
Pause for a moment, and indulge me in a thought experiment. From here forth, pretend that God does not exist; if He does exist, we know nothing of Him. All we have is the knowledge of our surrounding world and the inferences we can draw from this observation.
Thus, we are left with an initiating causal agent that is timeless, powerful, willful, intelligent, and active. These attributes, together, form a fitting foundational definition for God.
The first thing we become aware of is time. We exist in a perpetually moving present; by the time you reach the end of this sentence it will already be a part of your past. What you do now, in this moment, will inevitably have some impact on your future. We live in a universe of causality. Cause and effect; before and after; beginning and end.
This leads to our next awareness. All things have a beginning, a cause, and each beginning has its own beginning. The cycle continues, perpetually it would seem, in the infinite regress so near to the heart of our author. According to Dawkins, there is no reason to invoke an end to this regress. It is perpetual.
Enter the brilliance of Einstein. Albert Einstein’s discoveries in the area of relativity had some remarkable consequences in the science to come. At the heart of this discovery was the recognition that time and space (matter) are intricately connected. That is, the two do not exist apart from one another. We do not have “space” and “time”, we have “space-time”.
This was carried even further by Stephen Hawking, who caught the implication for modern science: if matter had a beginning (the big bang), then so did time. They do not exist apart. Thus, we find ourselves at an interesting crossroads: matter and time are not eternal, and both are causal… so what caused time?
This brings us back to our thought experiment. If all things had a beginning, and time is no different, then the cause of time and matter must bear some unique properties:
- This cause must be timeless.
- This cause must be powerful and creative (by which I mean it has the capacity to create)
- This cause must be capable of acting without a preceding cause, as “before” does not exist in a timeless state
This latter point bears further examination, as it has deeper implications as well…
- If this cause is capable of acting without previous influence, then it must bear autonomy.
- If it bears autonomy and can act independently, it must bear will.
- If it bears will, then it must bear intelligence.
Thus, we are left with an initiating causal agent that is timeless, powerful, willful, intelligent, and active. These attributes, together, form a fitting foundational definition for God.
Historically Orthodox
Now, I can easily forgive Dawkins for not familiarizing himself with the work of Einstein and Hawking. These two are hardly theologians, after all, and while we can draw inferences from their discoveries, it takes a bit of connecting the dots to align this with the historical arguments for the existence of God. As Dawkins dealt principally with the arguments from history, it is fair to expect these implications to go unexamined.
There exists a causal agent that is timeless, powerful, willful, intelligent, and active. I think “God” is a fitting moniker.
Nevertheless, the implications themselves are hardly new. While brilliant men like the two aforementioned scientists lend credibility to these theories, the reality is that discussion of God as “timeless” can be found as early as the fourth century. Boethius, for example, described time as a river and God sitting along the shore. From this vantage point He could see the whole of eternity laid out before Him, and is free to enter the water at will, feed the fish, or even divert the stream. St. Augustine, arguably the most influential theologian next to Paul the Apostle, further argued that God was timeless. This is very different than being eternal. Timeless means that the very concept of time simply does not apply.
Scripture seems to verify this as well. God is “alpha and omega, beginning and end,” and the psalms tell us that to God, a day is as a thousand years. He simply does not encounter time as we do. The incarnation, then, was not just God stepping into the flesh… it was God stepping into time.
These arguments have prevailed throughout most of Christian history, and any dutiful theological research would have encountered them. That Dawkins did not (or worse, simply ignored them) speaks more to the veracity of his representation than it does to the weakness of the arguments.
There exists a causal agent that is timeless, powerful, willful, intelligent, and active.
I think “God” is a fitting moniker.
@OfDustAndKings January 8, 2013 at 9:09 am
Infinite Regress: Dawkins on Theology http://t.co/q5FuT6Xi
James Pate January 8, 2013 at 10:49 am
I’ve read or heard atheists appeal to quantum mechanics to argue against the cosmological argument. Do you have any thoughts on that?
T. E. Hanna January 8, 2013 at 11:06 am
I’m not a scientist, so my understanding of quantum mechanics is purely at a lay level. As I understand the argument, however, it centers around the idea that quantum mechanics defy causality. Thus, the causal chain is broken, and with it the need for an initiating cause.
You have to understand what is meant by ‘causality’ here, however. In a scientific definition of causality, predictability is integral. The search for causes requires that, once a cause is identified, it can be isolated and tested, resulting in a consistent and recurrent effect.
Quantum mechanics break this. When a cause is applied, they react. When that same cause is applied a second time, they react differently. A third time – differently again. This does not negate the causing factor exerting influence, but it does negate predictability. Without predictability, it cannot be defined as ‘causal’ in a scientific sense.
When I speak of causality here, however, I am simply referring to the fact that things are reacting to an influence. That they may react unpredictably is irrelevant. They are reacting, and something is causing them to react. We still have cause and effect.
The second argument is usually in response to the way matter and density arise at a quantum level. The discovery of the higgs-boson particle this past year was monumental in validating current models of universal origins on a quantum level. Essentially, the higgs-boson was a theoretical particle responsible for quantum-level explosions resulting in more matter. As fascinating as this is, however, we still require quantum particles, and we still require time. We have not ended the regress with a higgs-boson, as it requires an influence to act. That is, it still cannot act autonomously. In order to end the regress, we need to invoke some aspect of will, and we need something capable of acting from beyond the spectrum of time. These both still leave us with the observations detailed in this article.
@mathful January 8, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Infinite Regress: Dawkins on Theology http://t.co/C8rFjajw via @ofdustandkings
@OfDustAndKings January 8, 2013 at 3:13 pm
#Dawkins and the Cosmological Argument http://t.co/7tQ2bQbV | #Christianity #Atheism
befuddled2 January 9, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Even with your expansion of the Cosmological Argument there are still severe problems with it.
Your listing of three unique properties needed for an explanation of the beginning of space and time, in other words what began the Big Bang, relies on assumptions and not on certainties and evidence. Your properties with my questions:
1. This cause must be timeless.
Why must this cause be timeless? Why could it not be in infinite regression of one event causing another? In just a bit I will supply a couple of possibilities. My point here is that this is an assumption that needs more support before being accepted as true.
2. This cause must be powerful and creative (by which I mean it has the capacity to create)
Again, why must the cause be powerful and creative? Again, more support is needed.
3. This cause must be capable of acting without a preceding cause, as “before” does not exist in a timeless state.
And again, why must there be something capable of acting without a preceding cause? Why not an infinite series of preceding causes?
I ask these questions and point out these problems with your three properties because there are alternative natural explanations for what began the Big Bang.
First, there are a variety of different multiple universe hypotheses that arise out of both Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. Put simply (actually greatly oversimplified) this means that one universe creates another or several others. This process can go on without end, so the Big Bang was our universe’s birth cause by another universe. Although there is no evidence as yet supporting the reality of any of these hypotheses, they do flow easily and naturally from two theories that have a great deal of supporting evidence and they violate no known laws of nature.
Let me mention that a few of these theories should be able to be tested in the near future by the Hadron Collider in Europe. However, even if they do not pan out there are even more hypotheses that cannot be tested yet and are still awaiting further theoretical and technical development in the future for testing.
Another real possibility is that our universe is one that expands and contracts and is in an infinite series of bounces so to speak. At one time this was a discredited idea but lately there has been some more work done on it and it fits nicely into some theories combining Quantum and Relativity theory and has some supporting evidence from our studies of the universe. Not nearly conclusive yet, but enough to give this idea new life.
Bottom line though is that even if these ideas are not capable of being tested and may not ever be by us, the fact that they exist and are consistent with the known laws of the universe and flow out of those laws naturally shows that your three properties are flawed. There are natural explanations to explain what began the Big Bang.
The God hypothesis is just one of many different possible explanations of how the Big Bang began. The Cosmological Argument as a conclusive argument for God’s existence fails due to this fact.