GordonAckerman’s Weblog

Well I’m writing this blog round my breakfast, so I hope it will not be too rushed, but I felt I had to get back to blogging. Time has pressed me into this measure, but also I am going to not continue from where I left off, but just blog about what I read last night to save time on writing extensive marginal notes.

Chapter 3 – Arguments for the Existence of God

I don’t have a problem with Dawkins lumping together the arguments that there must have been a first cause, something to bring everything into motion and an origin to physical existence. But he does not really go to the core of the problem. But lets start with the things he argues around the edges of this concept.

He says it is “unwarranted” to claim that God needs no cause or to be brought into existence. In this he shows that he fails to comprehend the uniqueness of idea of God. He is totally beyond our everyday experience, other than of course our everyday experience of God. And if God were brougt into existence by something, then that cause would be God. God is the one without a prior cause.

Then he tries to make a general argument, calling these ideas ones of infinite regress – then the cause has a cause that has a cause that … Well ok, make some general discussion, but you need to get down to the very specific point of what it is that needs a cause, it is existence and progression itself. But taking the point that a terminator to a regression does not need to have all the characteristics ascribed to God is true, but doesn’t actually get us very far, and does not go any way to disproving the need for a first cause. But I would point out that the nature of what is caused does give us many clues to the causation

If we find that watch on the moor, we might not know who made it but we would be able to say a lot about that maker. Was that watch a bumbled first attempt that did not run, or was it a cheep mass produced item. Or perhaps we could see a finely honed instrument that kept precision time and was full of beautiful artistry.

Well we can go to the one point on which I feel an fellow feeling with Dawkins at agree that looking out at the universe we have to be filled with awe. So if this existence is started by anything it must be an infinite and all powerful cause, it must be a majestic and beautiful cause, it must be a cause of great wisdom to have established such a perfectly balanced creation. It must be a cause that needs nothing to bring it into existence or give it direction. Also we can see a universe of such diversity and abundance that speaks of the type of first cause that brought it into being. These things we can see and quite clearly identify the things that Dawkins claims there is no need for. For other characteristics of God’s nature we need to go to other places, but that would take us well beyond the discussion of His existence.

And if we don’t accept such a first cause, well then how are we here?

I see that Dawkins throws in the concept of the big bang, but even he does not try to argue that that is an event without cause. There must have been something out of which that came, if only space with a set of laws. So throwing the idea in is a bit of a red herring. What is it in this place for, unless to confure the argument.  But at least he does not try to defend it as a first cause.

Dawkins tries to throw in an argument about the inconsistency of the attributes of God. This is totally irrelevant to discussion of first cause, and he only seems to be avoiding the actual issue. But in this he shows that he has been unable to understand God as the ultimate being, that our descriptions can only begin to outline. That He is all powerful and also all knowing in no way ties Him up. He is totally free to chose, more than any other being, but unlike that rest of us He totally knows the results of His choices. That we can not imagine this is not surprising or that we can not see the sorts of choices that are available to Him. And undoubtly He will experience situations even like ourselves where we can see that one choice will tie us into another choice to come, but He is however able to so guide things as to open up possibilites that we could not see.

Dawkins argues that the “infinite” regression of cutting something smaller and smaller finds a natural end as you get down to atomic scale and can cut it no smaller. This is yet another red herring and he shows no reason by which a natural end could be found to the problem of first cause.

What we do know however is we are here. Dawkins suggests no reason to explain why we are. Till he comes up with a better answer than the divine origin he is stuck with a mystery that can only be answered by the existence of God. But then he did only skirt round the edges and not touch the core of it. For that at least we can be greatful.