True Reason: My Final (?) Reply to Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson has replied several times more in the comment section of my latest response. His comments themselves can be found here, here and here. He has also summarized his comments in a separate blog post at his blog.

As has been the custom throughout my replies, I shall place the entirety Mr. Gilson's comments in blockquotes and I will respond after each quotation.

I have a lot to sort through here, so thank you for continuing the conversation. I have one quick easy note to ask at first:

First, you say,

And the subtitle, Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, I think flows better than Gilson’s wordy title: “ Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Biological Design.”

Where did I suggest that "wordy title"? I don't recall it and I can't find it.

I wasn't quoting you here. Thinking about the title I just felt it had a “wordy” sound to it, with the use of the word “biological design.” I didn't believe most would understand the title, which is likely why the publishers used the word “Design” in its place.

Second, I'm rather confused as to how you can say that Dawkins didn't address god (well, he didn't, actually) or that he didn't address God, in The Blind Watchmaker. This is quite a crucial point in your article here, and it's crucial in my mind, too. It's so crucial, in fact, that I really want to hear further from you on it before I go into any other topics you've brought up. I'll explain why at the end of all this.

You wrote,

I’ve been reading Dawkins’ book the last week or so, double checking to ensure I wasn’t in error in thinking Dawkins does not address god, and there is indeed nothing there.

I think this is quite obviously wrong. He opens the book with fully two chapters focused largely on the question of God. They form the framework within which his evolutionary arguments are made, and (as opening chapters usually do) they explain the purpose for the rest of the book.

Having just read both Chapters 1 and 2, I'm sorry but he was not discussing god, at least not in the way you believe. Most of these quotes I've already addressed and have demonstrated that you took them out of context. The first chapter lays the ground work for everything that comes after. Dawkins explains how god used to be the explanation for complex things, but after Darwin we had a naturalistic, and more plausable explanation: evolution by natural selection. I'd like to stress that Dawkins is mentioning god here, but you must look at the context. It is in the same context that I have continually argued. Dawkins' book is his attempt to demonstrate that god is no longer needed as an explanation for complex design since evolution better explains the existence of living things. But how is this arguing against the proposition that god exists? It isn't. There is a vast difference between arguing that something does not exist, and that something is a cause of something else. This does not imply that thing does not exist, only that it is not a cause.

In Chapter 1 Dawkins continues to discuss his reasoning behind his book's title and begins introducing the reader to several basic concepts of evolution by defining the terms he will use in the book, such as “complexity,” “apparent design,” and “what do we mean by explanation?” A sentence in Chapter 1 also highlights what this Chapter is about. Is it about the existence of god? No. Dawkins says,

We began this section by asking what kind of explanation for complicated things would satisfy us. We have just considered the question from the point of view of mechanism: how does it work? We concluded that the behaviour of a complicated thing should be explained in terms of interaction between its component parts, considered as successive layers of an orderly hierarchy. But another kind of question is how the complicated thing came into existence in the first place. This is the question that this whole book is particularly concerned with, so I won't say much more about it here. (22)

In the beginning of the chapter Dawkins repeated this same theme. He said, “We wanted to know why we, and all other complicated things, exist.” (6) I have already addressed the out of context quotes you've provided in this Chapter in my last reply.

To ram home the point I will quote yet another passage. Dawkins writes,

What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no. It is a surprising answer, and we have known and understood it for only a century or so. When Charles Darwin first explained the matter, many people either wouldn't or couldn't grasp it. I myself flatly refused to believe Darwin's theory when I first heard about it as a child. Almost everybody throughout history, up to the second half of the nineteenth century, has firmly believed in the opposite – the Conscious Designer theory. Many people still do, perhaps because the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education. It is certainly very widely misunderstood. (7)

Here is yet another quote where Dawkins is clearly not trying to disprove god's existence, but he is trying to convince his reader that god is not needed as an explanation for the complexity of living things, particularly human beings.

Once more, Dawkins states his case in about as clear a manner as one could wish. He writes: “In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the point of this book.” [emphasis mine in bold] (355)

This is the last one I shall cite, which should put this matter to rest. Dawkins wrote about Paley's “watchmaker” argument and says, “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit employed in a very special way. […] Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.” (9) Here Dawkins is seemingly responding to your very argument. He is not using Paley’s claim that god is responsible for complexity as a means by which to disprove god. He is using it, as I’ve continually explained, as a means of communicating how evolution by natural selection is the reason for the complexity we find in nature.

In Chapter 2 the entire chapter discusses echolocation in bats. However, Dawkins does address the arguments of the Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, who accepts evolution “but cannot believe that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the course that evolution has taken (partly because, like many others, he sadly misunderstands natural selection to be 'random' and 'meaningless').” [emphasis mine] (54) Once again, Dawkins is not addressing the existence of god, only the belief that god must have had to help evolution along, which is a far cry from trying to disprove god's existence. It's is not a matter of god's existence, it is a matter of whether or not god is the explanation for the design we see in nature.

Gilson continues to press hard, repeating his previous arguments and adding some new ones.

You know, because I wrote it and you quoted it here, bhtat In the intro to his book he made it clear that he was addressing the "most influential argument for God." He devotes several paragraphs, early on, quite pointedly to William Paley's design argument for God.

Yes, and I explained in my previous reply how you have taken this quote out of context.

Then he summarizes that section, and briefly states his problem with it, and goes on to add,

I shall explain all this, and much besides.... I said [at dinner with a well-known atheist] that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published.

The question of God is obviously in his mind as he discusses his disbelief in God. But there's more.

He goes on to speak of Hume's treatment of God, following which he goes on to a lengthy discussion of complex things and eventually, "what kind of explanation for complex things would satisfy us." Back to Paley's argument for God again, and then on to a chapter on "Good Design," where Paley was again prominently featured in the chapter's introduction. Not just that, but Paley comes back into the picture again, well into the chapter, where Dawkins writes,

His [Paley's] hypothesis was that living watches were literally designed and built by a master watchmaker. Our modern hypothesis is that the job was done in gradual evolutionary states by natural selection.

Nowadays theologians aren't quite so straightforward as Paley.

[Recall that Paley used the analogy of an intentional, intelligent watchmaker to argue for God. Do you really think the title of the book wasn't meant to convey that the book would be a counter-theistic argument?]

Then follows a couple of pages on other theologians' and a bishop's arguments in favor of design, and against naturalistic evolution, both of which (it takes little knowledge to understand) tend to be arguments for God when they're offered by theologians and bishops.

That amounts to two entire chapters setting the stage for the rest of the book. The rest of the book, of course, is his exposition in favor of evolution and against design; where design was situated in the book as being an argument for God.

How about the close of the book? Look at the third-to-last paragraph. It ends,

The same applies to the odds against the spontaneous existence of any fully fashioned, perfect, and whole beings, including — I see no way of avoiding the conclusion — deities.

Look back a page or so earlier, in the portion beginning, "We have dealt with all the alleged alternatives to the theory of natural selection except the oldest one," and ending "In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution.... give[s] some superficial appearance of being [an] alternative to Darwinism" but fails the test of evidence.

He begins the book talking about God. He ends the book talking about God. He places his whole argument in a framework of what he clearly argues to be failed reasons to believe in God.

Do you still maintain that Dawkins does not address God in this book?

Each and everyone of these quotes have been taken out of context. I will take each in turn.

1) “I shall explain all this, and much besides.... I said [at dinner with a well-known atheist] that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published.”

The first snip of a quote (“ I shall explain all this, and much besides”) has nothing to do with the next quote you cite. The second quote cited is leading up to the comment I already addressed about Hume and should be seen in that context. It's not about arguing against the existence of god, it is about god being the only known explanation for the complexity of living things. Here is the quote in context:

Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit employed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I shall not do is belittle the wonder of the living 'watches' that so inspired Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my feeling that here Paley could have gone even further. When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin Of Species was published. 'What about Hume?”, replied the philosopher. “How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?”, I asked. “He didn't, said the philosopher. 'Why does it need special explanation?'

Paley knew that it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for complex biological design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (emphasis mine in bold) (pgs. 9-10)

Dawkins is using a story about a discussion with a philosopher friend to segue into his point about the reasons for complex design in nature and the solutions to the problem both before and after Darwin. Note the sections I highlighted in bold font. Dawkins is discussing an atheist's possible response to the claim that god is responsible for the complexity in nature before and after Darwin's theory of evolution became known. And, while one could still be an atheist before Darwin, an atheist would not have a very strong answer for that complexity in nature. After Darwin this changed. It would enable an atheist to be “intellectually fulfilled.” This quote is referring to the same issue we've seen before: complexity in nature and the reasons for it. Once you place these scattered quotes you've taken out of context, and place them in back in context the matter is perfectly clear.

2) “He goes on to speak of Hume's treatment of God, following which he goes on to a lengthy discussion of complex things and eventually, 'what kind of explanation for complex things would satisfy us.' Back to Paley's argument for God again, and then on to a chapter on 'Good Design,' where Paley was again prominently featured in the chapter's introduction.”

The first quote is horribly taken out of context. The “what kind of explanation for complex things would satisfy us” quote refers to the in depth discussion Dawkins uses about machines as an analogy for living things. He discusses what the best kind of “explanation” would be for the complexity of living things. Dawkins wrote,

We began this section by asking what kind of explanation for complicated things would satisfy us. We have just considered the question from the point of view of mechanism: how does it work? We concluded that the behaviour of a complicated thing should be explained in terms of interaction between its component parts, considered as successive layers of an orderly hierarchy. But another kind of question is how the complicated thing came into existence in the first place. This is the question that this whole book is particularly concerned with, so I won't say much more about it here. (emphasis mine)

This has nothing to do with god whatsoever. And this quote I provided previously to ram home my point that Dawkins is discussing the role god plays in evolution, and not god's existence. Regarding the mentions of Paley, Dawkins writes about Paley,

Meanwhile I want to follow Paley in emphasizing the magnitude of the problem that our explanation faces, the sheer hugeness of biological complexity and the beauty and elegance of biological design. (24)

As Dawkins has done throughout his book he is discussing... yes! Biological design! Dawkins goes on to explain just how complex many features of biology are, and comments that Paley “would have loved the electron microscope.” At the end of the chapter Dawkins shows the reader a diagram of an eye, describing the immense complexity.

Gilson writes:

Recall that Paley used the analogy of an intentional, intelligent watchmaker to argue for God. Do you really think the title of the book wasn't meant to convey that the book would be a counter-theistic argument?

I've shown in context each of the quotes mentioning Paley and none of them depict what you so badly want to see. Dawkins is using Paley as his model. Paley wanted to show his readers how wonderfully complex life was, and he argued that god was responsible for this complexity. Dawkins, on the other hand, argues that evolution is the reason for the biological complexity we see around us. This is not about disproving god. It is about explaining the explanation for complex design, which has been shown to be evolution.

The final quote provided by Gilson is:

The same applies to the odds against the spontaneous existence of any fully fashioned, perfect, and whole beings, including — I see no way of avoiding the conclusion — deities.

This final quote Gilson has quote-mined is this, in context:

The whole book has been dominated by the idea of chance, by the astronomically long odds against the spontaneous arising of order, complexity and apparent design. We have sought a way of taming chance, of drawing its fangs. 'Untamed chance,' pure, naked chance, means ordered design springing from nothing, in a single leap. It would be untamed chance if once there was no eye, and then, suddenly, in the twinkling of a generation, an eye appeared, fully fashioned, perfect and whole. This is possible, but the odds against it will keep us busy writing noughts til the end of time. The same applies to the odds against the spontaneous existence of any fully fashioned, perfect and whole beings, including – I see no way of avoiding the conclusion – deities. (452-453)

Is Dawkins admitting that he was talking about the existence of god the entire time? What are the chances? Not good once you place what Dawkins said in context.

While Dawkins does employ exactly this logic in his later book The God Delusion, it is clear from the context that Dawkins' intention was to describe and refute the argument that evolution is all about “chance,” and he states that this is a misunderstanding of evolution and nothing we know of has ever just popped into existence. He argues that the probability of something – of anything – popping into existence fully formed is astronomically improbable, and this even includes “deities.”

This conclusion is clearly warranted since Dawkins does not mention the Christian god once throughout this entire discussion and is only summing up the main themes of his book. He used the generic word “deities” to describe something that simply exists in order to make a point. Dawkins says farther down the page, summing up: “It is the contention of the Darwinian world-view that both these provisions are met [given enough time and “finely graded intermediates” “we shall be able to derive anything from anything else...”], and that slow, gradual, cumulative natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our existence.” (453)

Gilson finishes with his comments:

Look back a page or so earlier, in the portion beginning, "We have dealt with all the alleged alternatives to the theory of natural selection except the oldest one," and ending "In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution.... give[s] some superficial appearance of being [an] alternative to Darwinism" but fails the test of evidence.

He begins the book talking about God. He ends the book talking about God. He places his whole argument in a framework of what he clearly argues to be failed reasons to believe in God.

Do you still maintain that Dawkins does not address God in this book?

If so, then I'm going to have to give up this conversation as hopeless, and consider your critique of True Reason as irrelevant for its lack of basic credibility; because if you can misread Dawkins that badly, whose perspective is agreeable and familiar to you, there's no point in even paying attention to what you have to say about something against which you have a strong prior bias.

Once again, when taken in context, this quote too, is discussing something entirely different. Gilson is merely quote-mining here, and quite disingenuously too, inserting his own distorted (mis)understanding of the text. Here is the entire quote, including the proceeding paragraph, which places this comment in context. Dawkins is not looking to refute the existence of god. He is discussing the role god did or did not play in the process of evolution. Dawkins writes in the final chapter, pages 450-451:

We have dealt with all of the alleged alternatives to the theory of natural selection except the oldest one. This is the theory that life was created, or its evolution master-minded, by a conscious designer [This very relevant section was conspicuously missing from Gilson's (mis)quote.] […]

At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution.' Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. The evidence for some sort of evolution has become too overwhelming. But many theologians who call themselves evolutionists, for instance the Bishop of Birmingham quoted in Chapter 2, smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. (emphasis mine)

The highlighted parts of the text ought to make it perfectly clear to any non-biased reader Dawkins' very clear argument deals, not with the existence of god, but god's alleged role in crafting or guiding the evolutionary process. This, as I've noted time and time again, is not an argument against god's existence, but merely arguing against god-guided evolution.

Does Dawkins “address god?” Yes, but not in the manner in which Gilson is arguing. Gilson is arguing that Dawkins' argument seeks to disprove god. But every single quote I've provided proves otherwise.

I must say that I am very disheartened to see Gilson coming out and attacking me, saying that both me (in his second comment, see below) and my review of the book lacks any credibility. Quite frankly, the irony is unbearable given the fact that I have continuously demonstrated Gilson's bias because of the fact that he is reading way too much into Dawkins' argument. And his further lack of logic is continued when he asserts that because I have allegedly failed to rebut his arguments in this one chapter my entire review should be considered “irrelevant for its lack of basic credibility.” Not only is this a pointless and unjustified ad hominem, but it is also horribly illogical. Even assuming I had not succeeded in rebutting Gilson's arguments in his chapter it does not then magically make every other argument I've provided in the review worthless or in error.

I will continue to address Gilson's second comment. He writes,

Returning again to one of your core complaints, you say that Dawkins addressed the problem of biological design only, and that I was in error not to have treated his argument that way.

I remind you of three things.

One, I wrote,

I didn’t, however, criticize Dawkins primarily for failing to address other related topics. I criticized him for committing a rather obvious logical fallacy. (This was the whole point of that section of my chapter in True Reason, as well as much of the rest of the book: the fallacious logic so frequently displayed by Dawkins and other New Atheists.) He drew his conclusion — a universe without design — without having demonstrated it. He didn’t even try to demonstrate it, except in one limited set of phenomena, biological evolution.

Had he succeeded in showing design was unnecessary in the case of life, that would have revealed a biosphere without design, not a universe without design. But no, actually, it would only have revealed the scientific and logical possibility of a biosphere without design; which is why I wrote in True Reason that Dawkins disappointed me. He drew the conclusion, there is no design, after arguing a case that could only lead to it is possible there is no design. Alvin Plantinga pointed out the same thing, as I noted in True Reason.

Clearly that shows what my argument was based upon. I'll reword it, since it escaped you the first time: Dawkins failed to demonstrate a biosphere without design. He only showed the possibility of a biosphere without design. Now, if he failed to demonstrate a biosphere without design, then, a fortiori, he also failed to reveal a universe without design. The same failure extends both to the universe and to its more limited aspect, the biosphere.

Yes, I am well aware that this is the argument you made in the book. I have already acknowledged it and this is the topic which we have been discussing. No need to “remind” me of anything, thank you, though.

Dawkins made no such strong assertions in his book. Since Gilson likes to bring up Dawkins' subtitle so often, it should it remembered that Dawkins' argued that “the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design,” not that it proves a universe without design. In fact, Dawkins writes of the belief in god-guided evolution that “[w]e cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed that God took care that his interventions always closely mimicked what would be expected from evolution by natural selection.” (451) This does not appear to be the hardcore denial that he seems to be insisting upon.

Second, the entire book is a focused case study on how organized complexity can come to be in the realm of biology, yet it's clear throughout that he takes his gradualistic/selectionistic principle (elsewhere dubbed "Climbing Mount Improbable") to be, most likely, universal. I look at the first paragraph of chapter 1, and I see,

Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated. The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space.

He goes on of course to exclude that which is "the stuff of physics" as opposed to biology, based on their differing complexities of design. The stuff of physics is too easy, he says.

Clearly then, he was addressing design generally, but quickly left all other manifestations of it behind in order to concentrate on the one truly interesting case, biology. He knows that if he can demonstrate a non-designed origin for biological phenomena, the rest is easy. Thus based on its opening pages, the book is a book about design, focused on its most interesting manifestation, life.

Yes, Gilson is correct to argue that “the entire book is a focused case study on how organized complexity can come to be in the realm of biology,” but this is odd, since this is the entire point I've been trying to get Gilson to accept, but Gilson has insisted that Dawkins was arguing that he was trying to explain away the “design” argument in its entirety.

Allow me to quote this passage in its entirety since it appears that Gilson has also taken this out of context:

We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. The universe that we know, of course, is a tiny fragment of the actual universe. There may be yet more complicated objects than us on other planets, and some of them may already know about us. But this doesn't alter the point that I want to make. Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated. The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space. On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call 'simple' things, such as rocks, clouds, rivers, galaxies and quarks. There are the stuff of physics. Chimps and dogs and bats and cockroaches and people and worms and dandelions and bacteria and galactic aliens are the stuff of biology.

The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. (3-4)

It should be clear that Dawkins is focused purely on biological objects. Dawkins did not say the universe is a complicated thing that must be explained. When he mentions “complicated things everywhere in the universe” he was clearly referring to all biological entities, which is why he listed a number of examples of such entities. This is once again not a quote that supports Gilson's (mis)readings. Dawkins is referring to biological design only.

Gilson continues,

You write,

But, as Gilson makes clear in this reply, he believes Dawkins’ book was supposed to be about rebutting the argument from design, in all its forms, apparently, thus disproving the existence of god.

It was. Dawkins' position is that if the argument from the design of life—the hard case—can be disproved, the rest is trivial. Read page 1 of chapter 1 again. It's quite clear.

As I just demonstrated this is a misunderstanding of what Dawkins is saying. He is making a case for biological entities only.

Gilson continues, quoting me:

Another topic. I'd like to help you with this:

I was trying to figure out the reasoning behind why Gilson would argue that Dawkins’ argument is illogical and does not disprove there is purposeful design in the process of evolution.

Dawkins shows (or thinks he does) that the concept of God may not be necessary to explain life. That's not an argument revealing a universe, or even a biosphere, without design. If it succeeds, the best it succeeds in doing is revealing a universe (or biosphere) in which design may or may not be involved. It undermines the necessity of design, but it does not prove the absence of design.

(His argument about God needing to be yet another instance of organized complexity, on the other hand, does reveal something. It reveals that he doesn't know what he's talking about. But that's another story for another day.)

As Dawkins' noted in the final chapter of his book, this argument is impossible to prove false, thus the very argument proves nothing. He writes,

Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. […] But many theologians who call themselves evolutionists […] smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change.

We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed that God took care that his intervention always closely mimicked what would be expected from evolution by natural selection. All that we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main things we want to explain, namely organized complexity. (emphasis mine)

It should be pointed out that this argument I did address in my initial response to the chapter, and Dawkins anticipated this argument in The Blind Watchmaker, but Gilson does not deal with it in any way in his chapter in True Reason.

Finally, I should have caught this in my previous comment but I missed it:

there is not a single quotation in the book that can be pointed to where Dawkins remotely says anything like, ‘because evolution explains biological design, there is no god.’

The whole book is an argument against intentional/teleological design. God, as God is understood in theism, acts intentionally/teleologically. Syllogism:

1. If there is a God as understood in the prevailing theistic views of God, then God acts intentionally/teleologically in nature.

2. There is no intentional/teleological action in all of nature.

Now, Dawkins doesn't spell out the major premise. He doesn't have to. In his discussions on Paley and other natural theologians he makes clear that this is the God he has in mind.

Regarding the minor premise, recall what I wrote earlier: Dawkins thinks that if he explains away biological design, he has as good as explained away all design in nature. So there's no doubt that he affirms 2 in this book, even if he doesn't say it in those exact words.

Regarding the conclusion, he doesn't spell that out either. That's because any dummy can figure it out.

3. Therefore there is no God, as God is understood in the prevailing theistic views of God.

Collapsing all that into one short paraphrased sentence, we have something that's logically equivalent to, "because evolution explains biological design, there is no god God [Dawkins knows how to capitalize proper nouns].

I can't imagine how that isn't obvious to you.

As I said, if you continue to maintain these strange interpretations of Dawkins' book, you will continue to have credibility problems.

Yes, of course, Gilson is correct to note that design is often proposed as an argument for god, but as I've said over and over, he is reading Dawkins' words with an obvious bias, and he is not seeing what Dawkins actually says. In fact, Gilson even admits here that “Dawkins doesn't spell out” the argument he wants to believe Dawkins is making. Well, of course! That's because he is not arguing against god's existence. Only god's alleged hand in the crafting of complicated biological entities, as I've shown over and over again with numerous quotes. Gilson's syllogism is nothing but a horrible distortion of Dawkins' argument. Gilson's entire argument, based upon an immensely outlandish interpretation of The Blind Watchmaker, has failed dramatically.

I'd like to address one small, but very important, issue in Gilson's summary of this discussion linked to at the start of this response. In his blog post, titled “The Curious Case of the Atheist Who Denied Dawkins Was Disputing Deity” on his ThinkingChristian.net blog, he writes: “The Arizona Atheist continues to maintain that Dawkins does not address God in The Blind Watchmaker."

I believe this statement is misleading since it makes it appear that I am arguing that Dawkins' does not mention god at all in The Blind Watchmaker, which is demonstrably false. The dispute is not about whether or not Dawkins' mentions god, but in what context. And that context I've demonstrated to be an argument against “god-guided” evolution, and he does not anywhere argue that god does not exist. Nor does he even imply it. This inaccuracy has clearly lead to at least one commentator on Gilson's blog to badly misunderstand the issues under discussion:

TFBW says:

June 12, 2014 at 8:03 am

Translating anything that Dawkins has ever written into a syllogism is an exercise in creative interpretation. Let’s not quibble about such fine details as whether the proper conclusion is “there is no God”, or “there is no evidence for God”, since both are possible interpretations. Whichever is the more appropriate, they are both conclusions which contain “God” as a major subject, leaving open the question as to why the Arizona Atheist is being so obtuse about the fact.

As I've gone at great lengths to show, Dawkins' book was not about the existence of god at all. The only topic at issue in Dawkins' book as it related to god was whether or not god was a probable explanation for the complex design we see in nature. Period. This commentator should have read my response, rather than apparently reading only Gilson's distortion of it.

Finally, I shall briefly discuss Gilson's final comment. He writes,

I think a large part of the problem here is summed up in one person's statement somewhere that I put too much stock in the subtitle of the book; that I should recognize that the book was intended, as Tony says here, to show that the biological design argument is not persuasive, rather than to "reveal a universe without design.

In my chapter in True Reason, I explain how I dove into the book looking for how Dawkins was going to reveal a universe without design. I read the book because I wanted to know how he was going to accomplish what the title of the book said the book was going to do. I hardly think that was a culpable error on my part!

In fact, I don't think it was an error. Dawkins spent a lot of time on Paley, as you agree here, AA, in a book he titled "The Blind Watchmaker." He said in the book,

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics.... Natural selection is the blind watchmaker ....

In his chapter on Origins and Miracles he says that a deistic Creator answer to his argument is "feeble and obviously self-defeating." This is an argument against God — a positive attempt to disprove God — with of course his additional, "where did God's organized complexity come from?" argument entering in at that point. (Christian theism does not posit an organized-complex God in anything like Dawkins' sense.)

So the book is more than an argument that the design argument for God is no longer persuasive. It is an attempt to demonstrate that the biosphere was crafted (pardon the anthropomorphism) by a blind watchmaker, and that there is no sighted watchmaker. It is an attempt to reveal a universe without design.

In 2008 I made the error of writing that the title of the book was about proving a universe without design. When that error was pointed out I corrected it. I still maintain that the purpose of the book is to show that

1. there is no design in the biosphere

2. if there is no design in the biosphere, there is no design; for if it can be shown in the hard case that there is no design, then how much much easier is it to show there is no design anywhere? (See the opening pages of ch. 1)

3. If there is no design anywhere, there is no designer

... which is virtually synonymous with, there is no God.

On that level, Dawkins is making an argument against God.

He includes also his where-did-God's-organized-complexity-come-from argument to try to show that God is a self-defeating concept. That is even more patently an argument against God.

The book is an argument against God, not just a presentation of the non-persuasiveness of the design argument.

This is yet again a horrible misreading of The Blind Watchmaker. The “watchmaker” Dawkins refers to in the first quote cited was Paley's response to the complexity seen in nature. Dawkins argues that Paley got the answer wrong. Organized complexity came, not from a conscious designer with forethought, but by a “blind watchmaker,” natural selection, that has no plans, no forethought. Dawkins is discussing the origins of organized complexity.

Gilson writes, “In his chapter on Origins and Miracles he says that a deistic Creator answer to his argument is 'feeble and obviously self-defeating.' This is an argument against God.”

I'm sorry, but this quote too is taken out of context. And badly. Dawkins is talking about how evolution got started. His comments are referring to the common question that even if evolution is true, how did the “machinery of replication” come into existence? He comments that many people posit god as the one who “set up the original machinery of replication and replicator power […]." He argues that this is a “transparently feeble argument” and “obviously self-defeating.” (199-200) He goes on to write how what he is trying to describe is (gasp!) organized complexity! Here is the quote in full:

Organized complexity is the thing that we are having difficulty explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this book is about. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. […] To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there,' and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there,' or 'Life was always there,' and be done with it. (emphasis mine) (200)

Dawkins is discussing the reasons for the complexity in nature and argues that it cannot be a supernatural designer. This is still discussing how organized complexity came about. In this passage he is arguing against god being the reason for that organized complexity. Namely, he could not be the creator of the “engine” of evolution itself that is the cause of complexity. This is not about god's existence. It is about god's alleged role in the process of generating life and kick starting the process of evolution.

Gilson provides another syllogism:

I still maintain that the purpose of the book is to show that

1. there is no design in the biosphere

2. if there is no design in the biosphere, there is no design; for if it can be shown in the hard case that there is no design, then how much much easier is it to show there is no design anywhere? (See the opening pages of ch. 1)

3. If there is no design anywhere, there is no designer

... which is virtually synonymous with, there is no God.

There are a number of problems with this. First, Dawkins did not attempt to show that “there is no design in the biosphere.” (emphasis mine) What he attempted to show was that there was no “apparent design.” Meaning, something that appears to be designed with forethought but isn't. So there is no confusion I think I ought to define the words I'm using. By “design” I am referring to the intentional creation of organized complexity. By “apparent design” I am referring to (as well as Dawkins) that something appears to have been intentionally designed, but it in fact was not. The “apparent design” was caused by a “blind watchmaker,” an unconscious process with no forethought and no intentions. It is a small distinction, but it is important to Dawkins' argument.

Second, this syllogism takes a very large and illogical leap since the premises do not add up to the conclusion: “If there is no design anywhere, there is no designer.” Leaving aside the blunder about Dawkins' intentions to show the cause of the “apparent design” in nature, it does not then follow that this alleged cause does not exist. Allow me to use my own analogy. If my hat suddenly falls off of my head and I look over at my friend who claims the wind knocked it off, but I know he was the one actually responsible and is fooling with me, and I deny the wind was the cause of my hat falling off, am I denying that wind exists? No, this would be absurd. I am trying to explain the cause of my hat falling off. I'm not questioning the proposition that wind exists. That is another question entirely.

Conclusion

I titled this response my “final (?)” reply to Tom Gilson because in his previous response he said that if I did not concede to his (obviously wrong-headed) interpretation of The Blind Watchmaker I was not worth talking to. Well, I have not conceded. Not an inch. And for good reason. Not a single quote cited in the book is an argument against god's existence. What it is is an argument about the best explanation for the complexity of biological creatures. If this signals Tom's departure from this discussion, so be it. Facts are facts and words mean what they mean. Words have a definite meaning, particularly when an author takes such great pains to explain what he means as Dawkins has done.

I wish I could avoid belaboring the point I've stressed repeatedly throughout these several responses to Mr. Gilson, but this quote so soundly refutes his argument I could not resist reminding readers of it here in the Conclusion. Dawkins wrote: “In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the point of this book.” Now that I have that out of the way I'd like to conclude this response with a few observations.

First, despite my initial misunderstanding about Gilson's chapter I swiftly acknowledged the mistake, but also explained that my mistake was due to the poor wording chosen by Mr. Gilson and the fact that common sense told me Gilson correctly understood the subject of The Blind Watchmaker. However, as Gilson's responses have made repeatedly clear, he did not grasp the subject matter of the book and continues to inject his biases into the text. Despite my repeated attempts to rid him of his distorted views of the book, he continues to repeat past mistakes and continues to make new ones. This appears to be wearing on Mr. Gilson since he felt the need to resort to personal attacks. Attacks that were not only demonstrably false but also nonsensical.

Second, I only hope that if Mr. Gilson decides to respond again he should first reread The Blind Watchmaker, preferably after shaking off the biases he came to the book with, and that he also dispenses with the ridiculous rhetoric and the personal attacks. It only makes his case appear more desperate and error ridden than it already is.

Addendum:

Mr. Gilson has finally replied on his blog to my question and argument about god's attributes and exactly how god interacts with a world he is not apart of. He responded in a new blog post. He writes,

For those who are inquiring into the possibility of God, you could read this post this way: Is this the God you are wondering about?

For those who dispute the reality of God, you could read this post this way: Who is the God you think you are disputing? Do you think about him as he really would be, if theism were true? If not, then you are not disputing theism as you think you are, but some other imagined system of thought.

For example, a few days ago the Arizona Atheist wrote,

Obviously, a theist will argue that god is not bound by the laws of physics, and for the sake of argument I will concede that god is not bound by those laws. However, my question is how does such an immaterial being interact with a material substance and how could it act in a material world? By what processes might god use to achieve this? In addition, these attributes are logically inconsistent. Theists argue that god exists, but then he has no existence. Huh? I believe all of this mumbo-jumbo is merely a snake-oil salesmen pitch to allow god to avoid any logical or factual arguments against him/it/her, whatever. If someone is going to propose an argument, it must at the very least be logically consistent, if not something tangible, based upon the known laws of physics and other processes humans have discovered. Anything less is pointless gobbledygook.

He is not thinking of God as theism understands God, but God as if God were part of God’s own created order. He thinks he is disputing God, but he is instead disputing a god of his own devising.

To dispute the Christian God as a concept, you owe it to yourself intellectually not to dispute some god other than the God in whom Christians believe.

To inquire into the reality of the Christian God, you owe it also to yourself to inquire into the God as Christianity really believes in.

But you might ask us, “How can we know which God you believe in, since by your own admission, there is so much of him beyond human comprehension?” My answer would be two-fold:

1. If you are thinking of God as if God were part of God’s created order, you are thinking of some other God.

2. If you want to know something about God as Christians understand God, there is no better way—in fact, no other adequate way—than by studying the life and message of Jesus Christ.

Gilson failed to respond to a single thing I said. In fact, it's worse than that, because he quoted me out of context! I wrote my response based upon the very attributes of god a Christian philosopher outlined! I wrote, quoting Edward Feser's own words regarding the attributes of god: “ If god is immaterial, outside of time and space, and 'He does not ‘have’ existence, or an essence' (quoting Feser) how can this god affect this material world?”

So to say I don't understand or create a strawman makes no sense. He also failed to quote the entire first half of my response, which makes the reader fail to notice that I did quote the accurate attributes of god. This first half is critical to understanding the quote cited by Gilson. His only “response” was to quote scripture and to restate the proposition to which I was objecting. My question, given Gilson's premise that god is not of this world, is exactly how does this god interact with the world which he is not a part of? And I also questioned the contradictory attributes of god, which Mr. Gilson did not say anything about.

This is why I asked my question. Rather than respond to my question and argument Gilson plays the “No True God” fallacy. But this is the very reason I asked my question. In order to debate something you must have a consistent and logical framework about that which you are explaining. If you do not, then what you are describing is just pure nonsense and you likely don't even understand it yourself. Which seems to be the case with Mr. Gilson. Rather than attempt to advance the discussion he seems content with asserting his inconsistent and illogical proposition without clarifying anything.