Is Richard Dawkins leading people away from The Blind Watchmaker …

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 21, 2014

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

… to Jesus?

The Holy Smoke blogger discusses two publicized cases:

… He explained that he was, and is, a huge admirer of Dawkins the biologist. (I’m with him there: I read The Blind Watchmaker when it first came out and was blown away.) “But then I read The God Delusion and it was… total crap. So bad that I started questioning my own atheism. Then he started tweeting.”

Like a loony on top of the bus, no?

“Exactly!”

Funnily enough, this is the second time in a week that I’ve heard of Richard Dawkins leading someone to Christ. Let me refer you to an article in The Catholic Herald by Francis Phillips:

But it takes three to make a trend. Anyone?

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Comments

StephenB:
There would be a difference in the means, but no difference in the outcome. My complaint against TEs, however, is that they hold that God did not, in fact, determine in advance what he wanted.
My question is, I hope, simple. How does God determine things "in advance"? In advance of what? The last time he determined something? That's the basic question. Does God wait to see what happens before making another determination in advance? Doesn't He already know what will happen? Do we live in a clockwork universe in which all is predetermined, in advance, by God? What's the difference between that and Deism? Why do we need God's involvement if He's already determined in advance what shall happen?
I am just using it to mean according to God’s original intentions prior to the realization of those intentions.
I just don't know what "prior to" means to a God who is outside of time. I wasn't clear on whether you meant "apriori" in a logical sense or a temporal sense.
We could sum it up this way: The two ways of looking at it are [a] God decides the outcome before He acts (apriori intent) vs. [b] nature decides the outcome after God acts (aposteriori intent).
I am just seeking to understand if this is just metaphorical language or if God really thinks things over, takes his time about it, maybe debates it between his various persons, and then comes to a decision, and then comes to another decision about when to act upon the prior decision, perhaps debates the decision about when to act, and then finally acts. Does God reason along the lines of if...then...else? So God: If I do a, then I will be forced to do b, but if I choose instead to do c, then I will be forced to do d. Unless some condition x obtains over which I have no control, or have decided that I will not exercise control, but no condition x can ever obtain because... If I create Adam, he might be lonely, so I can create Eve so Adam will not be lonely. But if I create Eve, she could lead Adam to sin, and then I wold have to curse everything, etc. So is your view of God one in which everything is mechanistic up to the appearance of Adam? What about Satan and the fallen angels? So two issues: 1. God and Time 2. Determinism
... my most severe criticism of Theistic Evolution, is theological/logical not scientific.
I concur that those are where your objections lie. I just question their basis. Does God think before God acts? Does that question even make sense? If so, how so?Mung_{April 24, 2014
April
04
Apr
24
24
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

CuriousCat @ 42 I see your point. Thanks.Dionisio_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Yea..good point...I shoulda left the "blind" part outvh_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

vh: Absolutely! And not so blind, I would say. :)gpuccio_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Consciousness = the real blind watchmakervh_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Sorry, let's try again. Mung
If the outcome is predetermined, how could it be that the process was undetectable?
Let’s assume that the process is, in principle, undetectable. That fact would have no bearing on whether or not the outcome of the process is predetermined. We don’t know that God intended the specific outcome of His creative process through scientific or empirical methods. We know it because it is not theologically or logically possible for an omniscient, omnipotent being to purposefully design something through a process and not know what the outcome of that process would be.StephenB_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Nung <blockquote?If the outcome is predetermined, how could it be that the process was undetectable? Let's assume that the process is, in principle, undetectable. That fact would have no bearing on whether or not the outcome of the process is predetermined. We don't know that God intended the specific outcome of His creative process through scientific or empirical methods. We know it because it is not theologically or logically possible for an omniscient, omnipotent being to purposefully design something through a process and not know what the outcome of that process would be.StephenB_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @39:
If reading a particular book provoked certain reaction from you, or at least helped, was that the case with all the undergraduate chemical engineering students, who also read that same book? If not, why?
I think everyone has a different story of his/her own. I cannot answer the why question clearly, but the way I choose to believe is that we are offered different choices during our lifetimes, and we accept some and refuse others. We like to assign causes to all events, maybe because we feel safe by thinking that we understand and control what's happening around us. Overall, I do not know how this mechanism (if it can be called a mechanism, at all) works, but I am happy for myself that Blind Watchmaker was one of the "causes" of how I see the universe around me now, though Dawkins quite possibly wrote the book with the exact opposite intention.CuriousCat_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Mung
What’s the difference between a God who determines in advance what he wants and brings it about by mechanistic means and a God who determines in advance what he wants and brings it about by His own direct control?
There would be a difference in the means, but no difference in the outcome. My complaint against TEs, however, is that they hold that God did not, in fact, determine in advance what he wanted. For most of them, the outcome was indeterminate—a surprise—even to the causal agent that is responsible for it. In my judgment, this makes no sense from a Scriptural point of view, or even from a logical point of view.
How would we tell the difference?
I would say that it depends on what the effects look like. However, I don’t think that this really pertains to my most severe criticism of Theistic Evolution, which is theological/logical not scientific. My scientific objection to TE would be simply that its proponents don’t care about the evidence for design and that they mindlessly follow the doctrine of the Darwinists, who are, themselves, without any evidence to support their claims. That is a different kind of complaint.
If the outcome is predetermined, how could it be that the process was undetectable?
Who is saying that the process is undetectable? What does that have to do with the argument that the Creator knows what He wants and arranges for it to happen?
Perhaps you are using apriori an an ambiguous or equivocal way. Not saying you are, just asking.
I am just using it to mean according to God’s original intentions prior to the realization of those intentions. (As opposed to the TE idea that God “settles” for whatever happens to come out of the process. For most of them, God empowered the universe to “create itself,” -- to decide for itself, as it were, what the finished product would become. That is about as whacked out as a doctrine can get. We could sum it up this way: The two ways of looking at it are [a] God decides the outcome before He acts (apriori intent) vs. [b] nature decides the outcome after God acts (aposteriori intent).StephenB_{April 23, 2014
April
04
Apr
23
23
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

phoodoo @ 12 Interesting comments. Thank you. You wrote:
I guess in fact it was Dawkins who made me realize that evolution was nonsense.
Why hasn't the same happened to many others who have read the same books? Could it be another factor?Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

jw777 @ 37 OK, thanks.Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

CuriousCat @ 9 Yours is an interesting transformation story too. Hallelujah! However, I have some questions, which in some ways may also relate to other stories posted here. You wrote:
I cannot exactly say that solely that book is responsible from the paradigm shift in my views from naturalism to theism, but at least it helped me (or initiated) question many Darwinian explanations, which, maybe otherwise, I would have taken for granted.. So thanks to Dawkins
If reading a particular book provoked certain reaction from you, or at least helped, was that the case with all the undergraduate chemical engineering students, who also read that same book? If not, why? What other factors are required? Material factors, like genetic composition, brain wiring, brain size, etc.? Immaterial (non-material) factors? I believe it's more of the latter. In any case, it's a mystery, but some of us believe that God controls everything.Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

D @ 33: Older. D @ 34: I would presuppose they just have lower overall hyper excited opiate receptors, dopamine receptors, etc., because, in general they don't live a life of persistent "on to the next high" and/or "on to the next abomination." But again, this would have to mapped with MRS/fMRI and various EEG. D @ 35: I'd like to formalize my own thoughts on this a little more first; as well as gather what interest might there be on the topic.jw777_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I guess I don’t understand the question. I believe in the God of Genesis who creates the universe and its inhabitants with intent and purpose; sustains and watches over them with care; and intervenes at various times and places when it pleases Him. What does any of that have to do with deism?
You wrote:
Actually, I would say that the ID and theistic evolution camps are separated both in terms of [a] whether evolution was guided at all and [b] whether it is scientifically detectable. With respect to [a], no one I know in the TE camp admits that God guided evolution in such a way that it would produce a finished product that reflects His apriori intent, which would be the requirement for guided evolution.
What's the difference between a God who determines in advance what he wants and brings it about by mechanistic means and a God who determines in advance what he wants and brings it about by His own direct control? How would we tell the difference? If the outcome is predetermined, how could it be that the process was undetectable? Perhaps you are using apriori an an ambiguous or equivocal way. Not saying you are, just asking. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christian-darwinism-and-the-problem-of-apriori-intent/ lmgtfyMung_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

jw777 @ 31
perhaps we can start a new thread at UD
Are you starting a separate thread to discuss the issues you've brought up here?Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

jw777 @ 31
Maybe the brains of Amish children?
Does your question have to do with the fact that allegedly they have been less exposed to pervert images and ideas that may trigger wrong dynamic rewiring of their brains? Is that the idea you wanted to present? Would this apply to the case of children being exposed to violent images too? What about children being exposed to different types of music at different audio volumes?Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

jw777 @ 32
“Lady, there’s no way you’re thirty years old.”
Did that mean that she looked older or younger?Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Post script: A later-mythologized person whose real history we know, like Nikolaos of Myra, and whose pop-cultural legend development into SinterKlauss we know, shares no parallel with a perfectly basic First Cause sustainer of reality. My parents never mentioned Santa Claus to me; and I was harshly critical of the idea at 5, strangely the same year that Dawkins published his Blind Watchmaker. In my Kindergarten class one day in late Fall, my teacher mentioned that Santa Claus would be coming to visit us. Very matter-of-fact I said to my buddy, "you know, there's no such thing as Santa Claus." My buddy, whose parents also never bothered teaching him the fairy tale, just kinda shrugged. But soon the room erupted into a cacophony of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The teacher, desperately fighting to calm the chaotic room, shouted, "Children, children! Listen, I still believe in Santa Claus and I'm thirty years old." Without missing a beat, I said, "Lady, there's no way you're thirty years old." The next day I got moved to the afternoon Kindergarten, with another teacher.jw777_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Tangential to point #3 in my last comment: I have been developing a theory in hopes to unify presuppositional and evidential apologetics, at least in part, and perhaps we can start a new thread at UD where other contributors can help me refine it with title, "Materialism as Pornography." As I had pointed out, I've found that anti-theists often (perhaps always) confuse their intellectual maturation with some cult-like indebtedness and worship of evolution, naturalism and the like. The underlying implication is that the commitment to Neo-Darwinism or New Atheism has nothing to do with a weighing of logic, argumentation, evidence or science. Some presuppositional apologists have already posited this, saying that atheism is a sort of spiritual brokenness or hard-heartedness and so no amount of reasoning or convincing can sway them. What I am hypothesizing is that what others are calling "spiritual brokenness" we should be able to at least partially quantify with a faulty neurological wiring in fMRI or EEG that seems to me will look like the dopamine resistance we see in excitement addictions like pornography and meth addicts. More simply, we might predict that any perversion of the First Cause's intended optimal way for its creation to act (including a pathological denial of the First Cause) will be exciting, tantalizing and addicting. That is to say, a Dawkins is forever seeking the initial high he received when setting himself against God; and he is addicted to that excitement, always finding new justifications for his "drinking." We should see deep channels being carved in the brains of these people that makes it physiologically difficult to even fire neurons that can understand Aristotelian logic or how to synthesize theistic belief. For a better understanding of what I'm getting at, please view the Ted Talk, The Demise of Guys (and there are great related videos), but substitute "enmity with God" in place of "porn." See here: http://www.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge The toughest part of assessing my principle prediction will be finding a control group, given that some form of this neurological defect will be present in all people. Maybe the brains of Amish children?jw777_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Most humans can distinguish between imaginary (Santa) and Divine (God) by the age of 10 years old or so. Not being able to distinguish the difference by adulthood is a bit of a "disorder".ppolish_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

'They liken religious belief to belief in Santa Claus,..' What a savage irony that their infantile and vacuous jibes are not at all the mirror image of what we say about them, because what appear to be jibes against their beliefs on our part, while factual, can never even get close to expressing the fathomless amplitude of their folly (unsurprisingly, compounded by a pitiful, seemingly congenital, knavery). They are not even primary-school children. Just infant-school children - BUT minus the infants' common sense and thirst for knowledge and understanding.Axel_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Jw777 writes, “As such, I’ve always found it so curious that seemingly intelligent people like Michael Shermer or John Loftus had adult “enlightenment” moments that stumbling blocked them out of the faith.” What amazes me is that they turn around and state that religion and faith is for children, but adults should grow out of them, yet they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the number of adults who (like the posters in this thread) develop a love for Christ and become religious in adulthood. They liken religious belief to belief in Santa Claus, yet they offer no real explanation as to why adults convert from atheism to religion. The last atheist-penned book I read was The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I noted that while Harris declares all-out war on religious belief, he fails to realize that his entire thesis is based on a logical fallacy.Barb_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

jw777 @ 24 Wow! That's quite an insightful commentary. Thank you!Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Moose Dr @ 22
This has been a most enjoyable thread
Agree. Who would have thought that an OP title with a reference to Dawkins, would have caused so much fun in a blog frequented by 'IDiots', as I noticed some folks out there 'respectfully' refer to those who don't agree with their theories. That wasn't the logical result expected from Dawkins' successful writing career, was it?Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Moose Dr @ 22
nice to see that Dawkins’ work is producing fruit.
Yes, that's nice and ironically funny ;-) I remember your supportive comments after someone else suggested that I better get out of this blog, because apparently he did not like my questions and comments, which revealed my lack of solid scientific knowledge. Perhaps that commenter was a loyal fan of Reverend Dawkins'? That could explain such aggressive attitude ;-) Since apparently there are many more visitors to these threads than actual commentary (500:15 ratio so far in this thread), one wonders if some readers, who followed Reverend Dawkins, were unpleasantly shocked by those nasty comments made by one of their fellow colleagues? In such case, perhaps even Reverend Dawkins' most passionate followers' work could produce fruits too? Blessings to you.Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

I'm glad my story resonated with some of you. Thank you for the comments. I would like to add three simple points: 1.) Never forget, in debate or just your own peace of mind, that abiogenesis and macroevolution are our two biggest bones of contention. They do not occur. They are not empirical. And even if we somehow make the philosophical leap to inductively decide we like believing in them (for example, if we get them to occur in a lab under the directed guidance of intelligent agents), they are inarguably so rare as to be miraculous. Their mechanisms of action, no matter how imagined, are more disconnected from our present experience of physics than any man rising from the dead, especially if you concede there MIGHT be a God. 2.) Just recently I came across an interview with Dr. Ed Feser (Cross Examined, podcast, feb. 4, 2011) wherein he quite deftly demonstrated that Richard Dawkins is our premier example of someone who doesn't even understand Aristotelian logic or the actual impetus of any theological arguments. It was an angle I hadn't explicitly considered before, but I had "felt" or intuited whenever reading Dawkins' writing or any similarly-minded argumentation. 3.) I hope that my story gives hope. Thanks to the information revolution, my acquaintance and indoctrination with Neo-Darwinism and New Atheism at ten years of age was precocious for my generation but will not be for any subsequent ones. And still, my early brainwashing still didn't stick. If anything, it set up an unexpected counter culture enticement with conservatism and Christianity. As such, I've always found it so curious that seemingly intelligent people like Michael Shermer or John Loftus had adult "enlightenment" moments that stumbling blocked them out of the faith. For me, having been unflappably committed to methodological naturalism since I could read (around 3) , as an adult I always reacted to the BIG QUEsTIONS (I.e. - how can a good God allow suffering, etc.) like this: "Oh boy, this old chestnut? I already dealt with this when I was like 9. Didn't Augustine, Anselm and Descartes put this garbage to rest a million years ago?" So, perhaps it's a bit Pollyanna. But I feel like part of the allure of contemporary militant anti-theism is that people see it during their intellectual maturation and thus confuse it with being causally inciting of their educational awakening. Hopefully, as kids become aware of "sophisticated" anti-theistic arguments at younger and younger ages, those sad, old, pathetic talking points will lose their luster the same way they had for me. They just kinda become old fuzzy noise. I really believe that if Christopher Hitchens had made it to a ripe old age he would've done an about face for the same reason. Spinoza and Bertrand Russell were still exciting news to him. To me, even someone like Victor Stenger is a boring fossil whose next "interesting insight" I can anticipatedly quote before it comes out of his mouth. It's not even that I can't any longer seem to see a Dennett or Gould or even Hawking as sophisticated... It's like B.B. King said, "the thrill is gone, baby."jw777_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Barb @ 11 Thank you for your comments.
...they seem to have adopted evolution as their creation myth and they refer to Darwin’s work with the same reverence a Christian refers to the words of Jesus in the New Testament.
But you and I know very well that only the latter (bold text) deserve our complete reverence and attention. God bless you.Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

This has been a most enjoyable thread. Its nice to see that Dawkins' work is producing fruit. From the holy smoke link at the top: "How can I best win souls? By straightforward argument, or by turning myself from a respected academic into a comic figure fulminating against religion like a fruitcake at Speakers' Corner, thereby discrediting atheism?" Love it!Moose Dr_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Blue_Savannah @ 5
1 Corinthians 1:19
Thank you for posting this truthful reminder. Amen! Yes, we have seen this biblical passage confirmed over and over again, specially these days, when God is allowing the seriously dedicated scientific researchers to discover the wonders of highly sophisticated mechanisms and elaborate choreographies and orchestrations that operate at the cellular and molecular levels in the biological systems. Today children can ask simple questions to any scientists and get "don't know" as the only valid answers. I've been asking some of those questions lately, but still have not gotten any valid answer: How did we get the mechanisms behind the cell fate determination (both functional and 3D-spatial) that operate during the first few weeks of human embryonic development, when they differentiate from their initial zygote telomeres state? How did we get the mechanisms behind the genotype-phenotype association? From the engineering software development point of view, in order to build in-silico modeling and simulation apps, one just wants to know how those mechanisms work, with as many details as one can get. The origin of those mechanisms don't seem necessary in order to develop those computer programs. But as thinking persons, we are interested in knowing the origin of those mechanisms. Children's questions demand simple, clear answers, which are consistent, coherent, comprehensible, logical, so they can hold water. Most of the OOL explanations we read out there these days don't seem to satisfy those requirements. Oh, well, what else is new? Rev. 22:21Dionisio_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Here is a interesting review of "The Blind Watchmaker" http://evillusion.wordpress.com/thinking-about-organ-ev-and-a-blind-watchmaker/melvinvines_{April 22, 2014
April
04
Apr
22
22
2014
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply