Here's the second part of an article I wrote in 2006 about Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.
In the first, posted a few weeks ago, I set out the problems Dawkins faced when writing it. To summarise, firstly, he didn't know enough about theology to do a decent demolition job. Secondly, for someone who sets himself up as a rationalist, Dawkins’ own reasoning was often slipshod. Thirdly, Dawkins made assumptions about the value of scientific truth which didn't seem to me to be warranted, and which he doesn't question.
In particular I tried to show how Dawkins failed to grasp the implications for religious people of the physical nature of the universe - broadly, it's a mistake to invoke the laws of physics to cast doubt on an entity that many religious people believe doesn't take physical form.
In this second part I want to look at Dawkins' treatment of the curious fact of the universe and of our
presence within it.
This has been seized on by Theists keen to support the idea of a God.
Isn’t it funny, the argument runs, that conditions in the universe are just right for
us? How amazing that if the laws of physics were just slightly different then we wouldn't be here! This is an argument which is not perhaps as shaken as it should be by the thought that “we could only be discussing this question in the kind of universe that
was capable of producing us" (The God Delusion, p.144), but nevertheless Dawkins seems uneasy
here, and if there is only one universe then he evidently feels he has some refuting
to do.
Dawkins suggests that the “Goldilocks” (ie just right for us) universe theory
could be undermined by the suggestion that there are many universes “co-existing like bubbles of foam”, as he puts it. This is not his field
of expertise, and he can do little (p.145) except outline the theories of
Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others about these multi or mega-verses.
Obviously if there were more than one
universe, Theists would no longer be able to claim that the existence of one
which included us must be part of God’s master plan, to design intelligent
beings capable of appreciating Him (or other pronoun of choice).
It’s worth pausing here to consider how Dawkins’s intellectual
stance sits alongside his rhetorical means.
Religion, The God Delusion tells us, is a
lingering superstition, whereas Dawkins is a scientific
rationalist, using only the tools of pure reason to demolish quasi-mediaeval
faith.
But what tools is he relying on here? The “suggestion”
that there are many universes. The multiverse "theory". Our universe "may" this, "may" that, "may reverse itself". "It is conceivable that" followed by "if" the other. This on p.145, whilst over on p.146 someone else “has developed a
tantalizingly Darwinian variant on the multiverse theory”; but don’t
worry, it’s not a religious nut, it’s a respectable theoretical physicist, one Lee
Smolin.
So let’s get this straight.
When Theists rely on unproven theories, they’re taking us back to the
Dark Ages. But when theoretical
physicists do, they’re wheeled out to provide support for Prof Dawkins’ attempt
to demolish the “Goldilocks” universe argument.
There’s more of the same double standards, incidentally, elsewhere in
the book - look at p.155/6.
“May” and “if”, “theory” and “suggestion”, are deluded fantasies when they are part of the belief systems of the religious, but put them in the hands of Professor Dawkins and they become glinting forensic tools.
There is a powerful whiff of hypocrisy here. The application of rigorous and fair premise-and-conclusion logic is the cornerstone of science, and something with which Dawkins explicitly associates himself. He is a scientist after all. But instead of examining
the subject in a dispassionate and even-handed way, Dawkins buttresses his
arguments with the same rhetorical bluster and flabby ratiocination he derides in his opponents.
The temptation to chuck the book in the bin was pretty strong, but
my wife had paid fifteen quid for it, so I carried on reading.
However things got worse.
I'll post the gory details in a couple of weeks.
