Nov 30, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  One huge difference between Christians and their critics is the framework in which judgments are made. Often it is the differences in the framework which results in their vastly different conclusions, more than the actual evidence.  One key difference is over one’s view of history.

Critics often see religion in general, and Christianity in specific, as a vastly negative force in history.  For example, they see the Middle Ages as the “Dark Ages” where the former brilliance of Rome was suppressed by the Church. When the iron grip of the Church weakened, this former brilliance broke free again in the Renaissance.  In fact for them the Western History of the last 1500 years has been marked by a struggle to break free of the Church and its flat earth view of the world, so as to embrace a more rational view based on science. 

Despite the popularity of such thinking is it nevertheless false and misleading.  For example, it never was church doctrine that the earth was flat, nor did even a large number of Christians believe in a flat earth.  This is a myth that originated among the critics of Christianity in the 18^th century.  As for the so-called Dark Ages, historians have long since realized that this was a somewhat self-serving view of history spawned by those in the Renaissance who saw themselves as restoring the glories of Rome, and not an accurate depiction of the  period historians now refer to as the Middle Ages.  

In reality the Middle Ages were a time or great intellectual development that, rather than suppressing inquiry, actually laid the intellectual foundations for the Renaissance and modern science.  It was from the so-called Dark Ages of Church repression that we see the origin of Universities, the beginning of experimental science, and many discoveries and innovations like the incorporation of things like the decimal system and gunpowder. It is from this period we see the invention of eyeglasses, pendulum clocks and the compass. Magna Carta comes from this period, as does the jury system and habeas corpus, along with the beginnings of representative government in the English Parliament, and the French Estates-General.   

As the historian Will Durant summarized it “It would be unwise to look down with hybritic pride upon a period that produced so many great men and women.” Durant went on to add “we shall never do justice to the Middle Ages until we see the Italian Renaissance not as their repudiation but as their fulfillment.” (Age of Faith, pg  1082, 1085)

To be sure, not everything was rosy. Like any period in history the complete picture was far more mixed. When compared with today’s standards, the Middle Ages often fall short.   But judging the Middle Ages by today’s standards about as valid as saying that Newton, Galileo, or other early scientist, didn’t even know what would now be called High School science, and therefore were stupid.  

A more accurate standard would be to judge based on the historical norm up to the period in question.  This is why Newton and Galileo are seen as great. While they may not have passed a High School science test of today, they made discoveries and scientific advances unknown until then.  

Unfortunately, history is so badly taught, and poorly understood, that the average person has little understanding of even recent history (or in some cases even current events outside of sports or music).  This lack of any historical understanding is why Britain and America are frequently condemned for having slaves.  Until recently, slavery was an almost universal institution, and one that still exists in some areas even today. Thus what was aberrational about Britain and America was not that they had slaves, but that they led the way in abolishing the slave trade and then slavery itself. 

Significantly other notable exceptions to the historical norm of slavery were Ancient Israel, and the Middle Ages.  While the Bible allowed slavery, it regulated it to the point that slavery virtually disappeared from Ancient Israel. Likewise, during the Middle Ages, under the influence of the Church slavery disappeared from most of Western Europe, only to be reintroduced after the Middle Ages.

Another example would be that, while we frequently hear of the atrocities committed by the early settlers of the Americas on the native inhabitants, one of the reasons we are able to do this is that the atrocities were documented by early churchmen seeking help in stopping them. Until then such atrocities were the norm, what was aberrational was the attempt to prevent them.

 So when judging the actions of those in the past, we must be careful to factor in what was historically the norm for their time.  What if in a couple of centuries from now, standards have change such that eating meat, driving your own car, watching football, or anything number of things we current do without a second thought, is then seen as barbaric and/or immoral? Would we consider ourselves fairly condemned for our failure to follow such future standards? 

Instead of focusing on condemning those who followed the norm of their time, would it not be better to focus on those who broke from the norm to help bring us our modern understanding? But to do this would in many cases, be to acknowledge the positive impact of Christians, such as those in the forefront of the anti-Slavery movement.   

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

There is a common perception, particularly among those who see themselves as independent thinkers, that the so called ideologues on both sides are the real problem because they put their ideology ahead of the good of the country.  Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly recently expressed a version of this perception when he said that he didn’t care which side won, he just wanted people who would be “problem solvers” who would come in and fix things.

There are a couple of things wrong with such a view.  One problem is that it is uncritically self-serving.   It tends to be uncritical in that it dismisses those on the right and the left as biased towards their ideology while it sees the “independent thinker” as better because they are above the fray.  The independent thinker does not get involved in fights between the various sides as they see this as little more than partisan bickering aimed more at winning than at getting things done.  

Now there is certainly some truth in all this, as there are those on both sides of the spectrum for whom winning trumps all. But I do not believe this is an accurate generalization for this perception fails to realize is that there is in reality no such thing as just solving a problem.  To solve a problem one must,

1)      Realize that there is a problem.

2)      Understand the scope and reasons for the problem.

3)      Come up with a basic approach for a solution.

4)      Work out the details of the solution to be implemented.

5)      Implement the solution

6)      Test the solution to see if it works. 

Only if the last step gives a positive result can there said to be a solution.  The problem is that many independent thinkers tend to act as if they are the only ones interested in reaching a solution, while the Ideologues are just too busy with defeating the other side.

 In reality most people, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum want a positive result to step 6.  For the most part, what the independent thinkers regards as partisan bickering are really disagreements over steps 1-4, and as a result of these disagreements, we never reach steps 5 or 6 on a whole range of issues.

One good example of this can be seen in the debate over Social Security.  Now there is general agreement among most that there is a problem particularly the farther into the future you go. However this is not universal. When we come to point two, there is a major difference between Right and Left, for the Left sees Social Security as basically a sound programs that has a funding problem, whereas the Right sees it as inherently structurally flawed.  This leads to little agreement over step 3, the basic approach to a solution, which means that we never even get to the rest of the steps required for a solution. 

The Left wants to basically keep Social Security as it is, and change the benefits and/or taxes to bring it back into balance.  The Right wants to fundamentally change how the program works so as to be closer to individual retirement accounts.  These basic approaches for a solution are mutually exclusive.  You cannot keep Social Security basically as it is, and radically change it at the same time. The reason neither side has solved this problem is that there is not enough of a consensus on either side to pass a bill.

Asking for a “problems solver” in this case makes little sense and it is counterproductive.  It does not make sense because the basic dispute is not over should we solve the problem, with the independent thinkers coming down decisively on the side of solving it, but rather the dispute is over the scope and nature of the problem, a dispute which then leads the respective sides to propose fundamentally different approaches. 

Nor can the independent thinker realistically say that it does not make a difference, either way is fine, because proposals of each side are mutually exclusive.  If the Left is correct, and the basic system is sound, then the Right’s proposals could end up causing more problems, by replacing a sound system with one that is unsound.  On the other hand, if the Right is correct, and the basic system is unsound, then the Left’s proposals would at best only delay fixing the problem. The time lost to discover this error would only allow the problem to get worst and even harder to solve. 

While many bills can be passed by splitting the difference, for such a difference there is really no such thing, you either keep the basic system or you change it.  To sort of change it is akin to being sort of pregnant, there really is no middle ground, and political compromises that allow politicians to claim a solution for the next election tend to result in the worst of both world rather than any solution.

Nov 16, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  Interest and discussion concerning Zeitgeist, The Movie and my three part review continues to grow, so this week I thought I would address a point that recently came up in a couple of relies to my review. These replies started out by agreeing with my review.  One began, “this movie is based on incorrect facts.”  Another said, “I am a Christian and I realize Zeitgeist part one was a complete total lie.”

But after agreeing, they went on to claim other grand conspiracies.  The first writer went on to claim that while Zeitgeist was based on incorrect facts, the same could be said for the Bible, and religion was simply a means to control the masses and enslave them.  The other writer said, “I believe the rest of the movie is true and that the US government had everything to do with [911]” and that “most Christians now believe 911 was an inside job, Satan is in control of our government.”

Both of these replies demonstrate in their own way the persistence of these grand conspiracy theories.  Part of this is simply the flawed and often dishonest way in which they presented.  We have a general, and somewhat necessary, view that people are honest.  Even people who claim not to trust anyone still do a lot of trusting in their day to day lives. So when we hear someone telling something, there is a tendency to accept it unless we have a reason not to.

For example, one of the reasons the Christian writer gave that Parts II and III of Zeitgeist should believed even though part one was flawed is that there is a “video of Larry Silverstein admitting he demoed building 7.” Now a video of the building’s owner admitting that he was the one responsible for bringing down the building, rather than the terrorist would be pretty powerful evidence.  But the actual situation is a good example of how these grand conspiracy theories work.

Now there is video of the owner, but what he says is “pull it.”  The conspiracy theorists claim “pull it” is jargon which refers to bringing down a building by explosives, and thus their claim that the owner ordered the building brought down.  So even when those who do check out this claim see the video, they will see just what the theorist have led them to see, Silverstein given the command to “pull it.”  While this is conclusive evidence for the conspiracy theorists, and at first blush seems at least plausible, the problem is that there are other, and better, understandings of Silverstein’s statement.

Frankly given that he was talking to the Fire Department commander and his stated purpose in the video was to not to risk further loss of life,  I find Silverstein’s own explanation that this referred to stopping the effort to put out the fires to be far more likely.  After all if the building were to be demolished by explosives, it is extremely unlikely that the NYFD would have been in on any such conspiracy, given the number of firefighters who heroically gave their lives that day.

This is just one piece of evidence, and conspiracy theories are built upon a seaming endless stream of such claims. When people do take the time to refute them, they are often simply rejected, a part of the conspiracy.  Thus when I pointed out some of the refutations of the 911 conspiracy to the Christian writer defending them I was told that they were done by organizations that were “all run by a secret society called FREE MASONS.” Not only do these theory slant evidence to support them, they have a built in way of rejecting any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.  

Paul tells us that in the last days, people “will gather around them a great number of teachers, to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 tim 4:3-4)   

There is a very simply principle: truth cannot be grounded in error. As we try to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel, we must be doubly careful not mix it with error.  This is not a new problem. There is always a great temptation to having secret knowledge, to know what others do not; to be in on the secret.  During the time of the early church, this desire expressed itself in the form of Gnosticism, a religious movement based on secret knowledge that competed with Christianity in the second century. 

The conspiracy theorists of today are the modern Gnostics. Laura Curtis summarized this nicely in her blog Suspending Disbelief, when she wrote “Like Gnostics, they are the Chosen Ones, privy to information the rest of us can’t comprehend. They’re special. Part of an elite few. We can’t handle the truth! They are the messiah, here to save us from our own dangerous ignorance.”

One of the worst aspects of these conspiracy theories is that there is real evil in the world and these theories only divert our attention away from it. One does not need to be a Bush supporter to believe that Islamic terrorism is both real and evil. It existed long before Bush, and will exist long after he is out of office.

As Paul said, “test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) 

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Other than on talk radio, liberalism dominates most aspects of our culture, such as the news and entertainment media and academia.  This domination gives liberals five huge advantages that allow them to perpetuate their dominance even though the policies that they support have been demonstrated time and time again to have failed, while conservative policies have been show to have worked.

The first and most obvious is simply their ability to filter and control what people hear.  As I heard a Democratic Senator say shortly after the 2000 elections, the problem with Fox News was that they let the Republicans “get their message out.”  

Similar to this is the ability to shape perceptions.  The view presented of most Republican leaders is that they are either out of touch, dumb, heartless, corrupt, or some combination of the above.  Ronald Regan was a dumb actor who was reading his lines.  George Bush 41 was out of touch. Dan Quayle was dumb. Newt Gingrich was heartless, and the current president is just a dumb cowboy.  That these perceptions are untrue does not seem to matter. The current president, for example, is not only a reader, but a serious one at that, going through over 100 books a year, and with such depth, as to impress at least one author with his thoughtful analysis of the author’s book.  One wonders just how many books those critical of Bush have read in the last year? But such facts are irrelevant, and the perception left by the media is that Bush is just a dumb cowboy.

In addition to the ability to slant the debate, and shape perception, the liberal dominance also allows them to effectively rewrite history, at least to some extent, even recent history.  This is because memories get hazy with the passage of time, and eventually the only thing most “remember” is the liberal view that is repeated over and over. 

For example, many people remember how the anti-war movement forced us out of Vietnam and the pictures of the last helicopter lifting off from our embassy.  What they don’t remember is that Nixon negotiated a peace agreement 1972 that ended the war, removed our troops and brought home our PO; this in 1973.   It was only later, that the anti-war movement in Congress, ensured our defeat of South Vietnam, by among other things drastically cutting the aid we had promised.  So in reality the antiwar movement did not end the war, as the war was already over, they did ensure that the peace became a defeat.

Another example would be the conformation of Clarence Thomas.   In polls taken immediately following a debate that was far too controversial for the liberal media to control, the majority of the American people believed Thomas, and for good reason, as there were simply too many holes in the charges against him.   But in the years since the confirmation, the media has kept at it and as memories faded, and the assaults on Thomas continued, they slowly reversed public opinion.  

The last two benefits of the liberal dominance come from their control of academia. The first and clearest is that it provides a source of “experts” who can be counted on to make the case for liberalism, or to counter the argument of conservatives.  Given the liberal dominance of the news media, these liberal “experts” are often presented as objective and unbiased.

Finally academia can be counted upon to provide a steady stream of new studies to support the claims of liberals.  This is extremely important as the newer studies are always given precedence over older studies.  Thus it does not matter, how much of liberalism is refuted, for liberalism is an ever moving target.  Once DDT was the big problem requiring government action; by the time it had been refuted, it had already been replaced by a new scare overpopulation. Before overpopulation could be refuted, it was replaced by global cooling, before global cooling could be refuted, it was global warming.   This concept of a moving target occurs even within these large debates.  Most of the earlier studies warning of Global warming have long since called into serious question or even refuted. But no matter there is a steady stream of new studies to bolster the case.

To make matters worse it is not limited to a single issue, but the same tactics are used on a whole range of topics from global warming, anti-smoking, schools, health care, the economy, virtually everything liberals are interested in.  All used new studies to claim there is a crisis which only government can solve. By the time the studies are analyzed and the problems pointed out, it no longer matters, because more recent studies will have “confirm” the crisis or raised some new crisis requiring government intervention.

In short the failures, mistakes, and errors of liberals are never really examined. In fact the successes of conservatives are often attributed to liberals. For example, if you look at the economic data, it is pretty clear that Clinton inherited from Bush 41 a growing economy which stagnated when Clinton increased taxes.  Then when the Republican won control of Congress in 1994 and push through tax cuts, the economy took off for the remained of the decade, allowing to Republicans to push through a balanced budget over Clintons objections.  Yet this is now presented in the media, as Clinton inherited failing economy from Bush 41 and by raising taxes, caused the economic boom of 1990s and balanced the budget.

Given their ability to filter information, shape perceptions, rewrite history, combined with their liberal experts, and the constant source of supporting studies, it is a wonder that conservatives ever win.  But they do. And as the importance of alternative media grows, the effectiveness of the liberal dominance will decline until like the old Soviet Union, it will implode. And like the Soviet Union, that implosion may happen much quicker and sooner than anyone expects.

Listen to the MP3

Nov 9, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  Last time in my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at the flaws in the first three point of what Dawkins calls “the central argument of my book.”  Again, he summarizes this argument in the following six points:

1 – The appearance of design is one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect.

2 – The temptation is to attribute design to a designer.

3 – The designer hypothesis is false because it does not explain who designed the designer. 

4 – Evolution, the best explanation so far, shows that design at least for biology is an illusion.

5 – Since in evolution, apparent design is an illusion, it could be an illusion in other areas such as physics.

6 – We should not give up hope of finding better explanations elsewhere and the
weak explanations we do have are better than the explanations that rely on God.

When we come to point four, that evolution shows that design in biology is an illusion; this of course assumes that not only is evolution a valid theory for the origin of new life forms and biological structures, but that it is a completely explanation.

Space here does not permit a discussion of all the problems with evolutionary theory, and in any event, these are well discussed elsewhere. So I will just mention two points that cast serious doubt on Dawkins argument. The first is that the problems with evolutionary theory have not decreased over the years, as our understanding has grown, but rather have increased to the point that, as I discuss in my book Evidence for the Bible, even the definition of evolution itself is now unclear, as supporters keep shifting the definition to avoid these problems, frequently in contradictory ways.  

The second is that, contrary to the claims of evolutionists like Dawkins, evolution is not questioned simply for theological reasons, and not are all of those who question it are even theists. In fact, evolutionists have increasingly had to resort to the suppression of differing views, in order to maintain their dominance, as the evidence contrary to evolution and in support of intelligent design has grown.  In short, the claim that evolution has shown design to be false is simply untrue despite how much evolutionist like Dawkins might want to believe in it.

Point five, which claims that the apparent design in areas other than biology might also be an illusion, correspondingly falls apart. Yet even if this was not the case, point 5 would still have a huge problem as it is fallacious. It simply does not follow that even if evolution shows design to be an illusion in biology, that it was therefore an illusion elsewhere.  This would be like claiming that just because some apparent suicides turn out to be murder, all apparent suicides could be murder, and therefore we can reject the concept of suicide itself.

This brings us to last point. It can hardly be called a conclusion.  Rather it is a plea to “not give up hope.”(158)  I must commend Dawkins for his honesty.  Most atheists strongly deny that hope, and it counterpart faith, play any role in their thinking, and in fact are highly critical of theists when they express hope or faith.  But at least theists do not confuse expressions of hope, with logical arguments that make opposing views untenable.

Dawkins’ does acknowledges that there are problems in the view he defends, but see hope in an old argument frequently employed by atheists.  Chance + enough tries = certainty.  Such reasoning has another name: The Gambler’s fallacy, and the error of such reasoning can be clearly seen in the lavish displays of wealth in such places as Las Vegas.

Based on Dawkins estimates, where concerning the number of planets he even knocks off a few zeros “for reasons of ordinary prudence”, and where he assumes that life is a one in a billion chance, there would still be billion planet with life, and ours would only be one of them.

This is at least better that Carl Sagan’s famous estimate of billons and billons of planets.  Yet like Sagan’s it is seriously flawed. Sagan only considered a few of the factors needed for life. Far more rigorous looks at these numbers have shown that if all of them are considered the chance of having even one planet in the entire universe that would support life, are less than 1 in 100, odds that even Dawkins says are to be laughed at. And this is just for a planet that could support life. It does not begin explain how life itself could start. The odds against life starting by chance are so incredibly huge that they are truly beyond comprehension, odds so large that even other atheists have compared them to a miracle.  (For a more complete discussion of these odds, see chapter four in Evidence for the Bible)

So Dawkins’ hope is based on an off the cuff estimate that are not even close.  Where he estimate billions of planets with life, serious estimates of all the relevant factors show that there should not even be one planet that could support life, much less actually have life.

So Dawkins argument has serious problems with each of his six points.  It ends with a hope that could only reasonably be called misplaced.  Rather than showing that God is untenable, the evidence points to the existence of God, and this conclusion as grown stronger over the years, not weaker, as we have learned more about life.

 This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Last time I looked at some of the problems with Bill O’Reilly’s fallback argument that fighting Global warming would at least make the world cleaner, and isn’t cleaning up the world a good thing? In addition to the problems that CO2 is not really a dirty pollutant that needs to be cleaned up, and all the ambiguities in the science concerning whether the earth has warmed, will it continue to warm, how much humans are affecting any warming, and whether there is anything we could realistically do about it, it is not at all clear whether global warming is even a bad thing. 

For example, one of the bad effects cited by Al Gore is the number of people who will die as the result of increasing temperatures.  But what Gore ignores is that far more people die each year as a result of cold, than heat.  Thus, any warming of the earth should result in a net saving of life. In addition, most of the land mass of the earth is concentrated in the northern latitudes.  This means that while warming might result in the loss of some costal lands due to increased sea levels, and some farm lands due to drought, we will gain far more land that is currently uninhabitable due to cold.  Nor is this unprecedented in human history, for example, during the time of Rome, England was warm enough to be a producer of wine, while today it is too cold.  So while some decry the coming of Global warming, it is just as likely, if not more so, that we should be celebrating the ending of Global cooling, assuming of course that it is really ending.

Still, there is even a more troubling problem with O’Reilly’s argument. His isn’t-cleaner-good argument ignores the costs other than his caveat of not destroying the economy. A common problem that affects a lot of arguments on all sides of many debates is Utopianism.  Utopianism is presenting your side in a perfect world context of only positives while ignoring or downplaying the costs and downside. If this was a perfect world and there were no cost or downsides, then clearly cleaner would be better.  Sadly such perfection is still a ways off, and here in the real world to make things cleaner, will not only have some benefits, it will also have costs and downsides. There are pros and cons to everything.  So while, in a perfect world, cleaner is better, in this world it all depends on whether the benefits of being cleaner, outweigh the costs to be cleaner, and we could cause an awful lot of suffering, without destroying the economy.

When we look at the proposals made to fight Global warming, even the drastic proposals such as the Kyoto treaty, would have at best minimal effect on Global warming.  Yet the cost would devastate our economy, and lower living standards worldwide.  More minimal proposals such as increasing the CAFE Standards to force more fuel efficient cars would have almost no effect at all on Global warming, though it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, at a cost of increased deaths and injury from car accidents, for more fuel efficient cars mean smaller and lighter cars, and smaller lighter cars are more dangerous cars.  Yes in a perfect would, you could have smaller, lighter and safer cars, but again this is not a perfect world.

A clear example of the dangers of being “cleaner” is DDT.  In the 1960s the big environmental scare was DDT and unfortunately the environmentalist got their way and DDT was banned. Like so many environmental claims, those that resulted in the ban on DDT, have also turned out to be false. DDT is safe, except of course to the insects it kills.  But the costs of the ban are not speculation, and in fact were known before the ban and used as arguments against it.  But the environmentalist ignored the costs, for them the danger was too great. As a result diseases like malaria, which in many areas had been wiped out, have since returned, and now kill between 1-2 million people a year.  In the nearly 40 years since the ban that is over 40 million people who died as a result of environments scares, and this is for malaria alone.   And yet even today despite the fact that millions have died and continue to die, many environmentalists are still more worried about theoretical risks lifting the ban on DDT might have, despite all the evidence against it, rather than the actual deaths the ban is currently causing.

The changes demanded by the global warming activists are far more sweeping and invasive than just a ban on a pesticide.  The changes would devastate the world economy, entail a huge loss of freedom in order to enforce, remove any hope for those in poverty of ever getting out, throw many more into poverty, and lower standards of living worldwide.  It should not be forgotten that one of the effects of a lower standard of living and increased poverty is not just increased suffering, but also more deaths.   

So the real question is not isn’t cleaner better, but rather is how many people must looses their jobs, how many people must be thrown or locked into poverty, how many people must die, for how much cleanness and all to fix something that we may not have any control over, may not even be happening, and even if it is, it may not even be a bad thing?   Environmentalist like Gore may have good intentions but that does not change the fact that people with good intentions can still do a lot of harm. Just ask the relatives of all those who have died from Malaria or West Nile virus.

 Listen to the MP3

In this installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I come to what Dawkins calls “the central argument” of his book. About this argument he claims that if it “is accepted, the factual premise of religion – the God Hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist.” (pp 157, 8)  This central argument centers around the apparent design we see in the natural world around us.  He summarizes his argument in the following six points:

1 – The appearance of design is one of the greatest challenged to the human intellect.

2 – The “temptation” is to attribute design to a designer.

3 – The designer hypothesis is false because it does not explain who designed the designer. 

4 – Evolution, the best explanation so far, shows that design at least for biology is an illusion.

5 – Since in evolution, apparent design is an illusion, it could be an illusion in other areas such as physics.

6 – We should not give up hope of finding better explanations elsewhere and the
weak explanations we do have are better than explanations that rely on God.

I have to admit that when it became clear to me what his actual argument was, I was both shocked and disappointed.  I was disappointed because, despite his simplistic approach to the whole subject of religion up to this point, I was still expecting something a little more substantial.  This was particularly the case when, in a section on Irreducible Complexity, he spends several pages refuting the claims made in a Jehovah Witness’s track. 

This again reveals a major flaw in Dawkins thinking and his approach, though in his defense, it is one common to all groups.  All groups of any size, be they political, religious, or whatever, have those who are on the fringe. By their very nature of being on the fringe they often make arguments that are not representative of the whole, but despite this, opponents often see refuting the fringe to be the same as refuting the whole. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a small group that are not orthodox Christians and thus not even representative of Christianity, much less theism in general.  They are also marked by strong tendency towards anti-intellectualism.  Yet Dawkins still spends several pages on one of their tracts, refuting a source that even most theists would not take seriously.

 Not only was I disappointed, I was shocked as to just how bad his argument actually was.  In fact, given point six, it is more an expression of hope than an actual rational argument.

If taken as an argument, there are problems with each of his six points. At first blush, point one may seem reasonable, particularly since it claims the problem of apparent design is only “one of the greatest challenges.”  Yet it has a hidden assumption that is very much a problem.  In short, apparent design would only be a problem if there wasn’t a designer.

To be clear, it may be a very great challenge to discover the identity of  the designer and perhaps how they executed their design,  but the design itself would not be.  To see this, imagine that that the first explorers to Mars were to find a watch laying on the ground.  While it might be a very difficult problem to discover how the watch came to be there, the fact that the watch had been designed would probably not be an issue at all.  As such, apparent design in the natural world around us is only a great problem if design is something that needs to be explained away without resorting to a designer.  Thus Dawkins argument falls victim to circular reasoning right off the bat, as his initial premise assumes his conclusion.

This  circular reasoning probably underlies the slanting found in point two when Dawkins talks about the “temptation” to attribute apparent design to a designer as if it this were somehow inherently a false choice to be resisted.  While no doubt this is Dawkins’ view, to build it into his argument in this fashion is illegitimate and perhaps shows that even he sees the weakness of his argument and feels a need to push the reader with his choice of words, rather than relying on the strength of his reasoning.

The problem in point three, who designed the designer,  again results from Dawkins’ simplistic approach to the entire subject.  The key problem for Dawkins is that whether something was designed or not designed, only comes into play for things that had a beginning.  The issue of design is inherently linked with the question of how something came into existence.  It is therefore meaningless when discussing things that have always existed.  By definition design must precede existence.  As such, when talking about an eternal God, the question of who designed God is an irrational question, akin to asking ‘What is the difference between a duck?’ It may at first sounds like a question, but the more you think about it the less sense it makes.

So, Dawkins third points, is simply false, at least if one is referring to a God such as the eternal God of the Bible.   I will look at the problems in the remaining points next time, but it is important to remember that if the premises of an  argument are flawed, the argument itself is unsound. Based on the first three points, Dawkins argument already fails.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.