Dawkins: Religion is Still Evil Part Two

KEVIN HARRIS: In this next clip, Dawkins responds to Alex O’Connor’s point that Darwin may have solved the mystery of complexity in living things, but not the origin of living things.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: The question we're trying to answer . . . we're trying to answer how did the first self-replicating entity come into existence? And that's a . . . question. It only had to happen once unlike the rest of evolution where it happened over and over and over again. The same thing happened over and over again, all over the world, different continents, different species, different kinds of animal, plant, and so on. The origin of life could have been a very, very improbable event because it only had to happen once. Therefore we are potentially allowed to postulate something very unlikely, something very implausible. I find that quite an interesting point actually. If you take it to an extreme, suppose we are the only planet in the universe which has life – which is we can't rule that out. I think it's highly unlikely, but we can't rule it out. If that's true then that means that the origin of life on this planet was a stupendously improbable event. Therefore when chemists try to postulate a possible scenario for the origin of life, they're not looking for a plausible argument. They're looking for a very implausible argument.

ALEX O’CONNOR: That's fascinating. Yeah.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: I don't believe that because I think that probably it was not that improbable an event, and therefore the likelihood is that there's lots of life all over the universe.

KEVIN HARRIS: Probability versus improbability. Dawkins doesn't think the origin of life is all that improbable.

DR. CRAIG: Right. In my study of the origin of life for my systematic philosophical theology, I discovered that among origin of life researchers there tend to be two broad camps called necessitism and contingentism. Necessitism is the belief that somehow the origin of life is built into the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore the origin of life is virtually inevitable throughout the universe. It had to happen because it's built into the laws of the cosmos. It would seem from what he just said that Dawkins tends to favor this necessitism. On the other hand, there is contingentism which says that the origin of life is an event that is highly contingent. It is therefore highly, highly improbable and very unlikely to recur. Probably most origin of life researchers would fall into the contingentist camp. Now, what is so fascinating about this is that each camp accuses the other of having a hidden theological agenda! The contingentists accuse the necessitists of believing that God has designed the universe so that it will be life-producing – that it's built right into the laws of nature – and that this is the intention of a cosmic creator that the universe would be anthropocentric. So these necessitists are really closet theists. On the other hand, the necessitists say these contingentists posit the occurrence of an event of unimaginable improbability. If the origin of life did occur as they say it did, it would have been a miracle! Therefore they're actually closet creationists believing in a divine miracle to bring about the existence of life. So both of these camps accuse the other of actually being closet theists, and the theist kind of sits back and smiles at this whole debate between contingentists and necessitists. What is interesting is that both camps then, in order to explain the origin of life, wind up appealing to the resources of outer space. The necessitists say that if life is built into the very laws of nature then it should originate not simply on this planet but also elsewhere in the cosmos. So they are very interested in astrobiology, searching for biological signatures on the residue of asteroids, meteorites, and comets. Unfortunately, to date no such traces of life anywhere in the universe have been found. On the other hand, the contingentists, in order to make the probability of the origin of life on Earth tractable, have to appeal to the resources of outer space – that there are so many planets in the universe that surely out of all of these somewhere one of them would have life originate on it by chance alone given this multiplication of probabilistic resources. In fact, at the most extreme these contingentists will appeal to our old friend the multiverse to explain the origin of life by chance; namely, in an infinite ensemble of worlds anything will happen and indeed it will happen infinitely many times over. So in an infinite multiverse, life would have to originate again and again an infinite number of times, and we happen to be on one such planet. Unfortunately, this appeal to wider probabilistic resources really backfires on the contingentist. You have here a kind of analog to the Boltzmann Brain problem that arises for those who try to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe on the basis of the multiverse. Namely, in a universe that is so vast that virtually anything will happen somewhere, the question arises: How do we know that life forms on this planet did not evolve at all but just sprang into being perfect and complete, whole and entire? The contingentist cannot say, “Well, that's too highly improbable. That just can't happen,” because in an infinite universe anything can happen anywhere. So he ultimately shoots himself in the foot and undermines his own point of view. The fact is that origin of life research is stalemated. We have no understanding of how life originated on this planet, no indication that it came from outer space, and so really this remains one of probably the greatest mysteries of contemporary science.

KEVIN HARRIS: In this next clip, Alex O’Connor refers to a C. S. Lewis illustration.

ALEX O’CONNOR: By sort of borrowing and adapting something C. S. Lewis said. Lewis talks about the relationship between Hamlet and Shakespeare. I can ask, “Why did Sherlock Holmes move into Baker Street?” And you can either say, “It's because he was looking for a roommate” (or something like that), or you could say, “Because Arthur Conan Doyle wanted him to.” Both of those seem to be true in a different resolution of thought. Now, what I'm imagining here is us discovering Hamlet by Shakespeare on the table in front of us and immediately crudely you look at it and say, “Well, that must have been designed. That must have an author.” I don't just do the William Paley thing – “Well, it's complex.” What I say is, look, Professor Dawkins, I've done some research into this little book and I've discovered that it obeys certain laws. I've noticed that at the end of certain sentences there are these little dots. It usually means that it's the end of a sentence. Also, we've discovered this thing called iambic pentameter. It seems that the way these sentences are constructed seem to follow this law – this law of literacy. And I said to you, “Now, where did this book come from?” and you say, “I still think there was an author of this book. I still think someone created it.” And I said, but look at all the progress that we've made just by describing it in terms of these things that we're calling laws of literature. I've discovered all of these laws of literature – iambic pentameter and sentence construction and grammar and all of this stuff. Surely, one day these laws of literacy will go on to explain the origin of the laws of literacy or the origin of the text itself. Surely that would be where this is going. But, of course, I'm making a category error if I do that. Is there not a fear that we're doing that when we say that science will one day explain the origin of the very thing that science is about? I suppose what I'm putting forward is that maybe laws of physics, laws of biology, laws of science are not the kind of thing that can explain the origin of the laws of physics, the origin of the laws of biology, that kind of stuff.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: Well, it could be. We haven't got there yet. But all I said was that Darwin's success should give us confidence, and that there will come a time when we understand the laws of physics. I think we're not far off (not we, I mean the physicists) aren't far off that now, in fact.

KEVIN HARRIS: The laws of literature don't account for the origin of literature, but Dawkins says, “Yeah, but Darwin gave us confidence.”

DR. CRAIG: This is not even to mention the information that is contained in the script of Hamlet. The biological information, for example, in the genetic code. Well, now, Dawkins’ point here, frankly, is just silly. Origin of life studies and evolutionary biology are different fields of science. They are not the same. The evolutionary complexity of life is to be explained on the basis of biology and biochemistry, but the origin of life itself can't be explained in those terms. It has to be explained purely in terms of organic or carbon compounds which are inanimate and inert and not alive. You have to explain how in the world these things would come to life and produce the first living cell. Darwin's success in the field of evolutionary biology doesn't provide any confidence whatsoever in this very different field of chemistry and the chemical origin of life. Rather, the relevant comparison for success should be to look at what advances have been made in origin of life research since, for example, the famous experiments by Stanley Miller in 1953 at the University of Chicago when he synthesized amino acids. There has been no progress in origin of life research in understanding how the macromolecules essential to life came about much less how they formed themselves into a living cell. So the field is not a progressing field, and that should be where we measure our confidence, and it does not inspire confidence that this mystery is about to be unlocked. In fact, I was struck that Dawkins himself says in one of his books that our understanding of the origin of life is still basically at the same point that it was when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859. That does not inspire confidence that we are on the verge of unlocking this mystery.

KEVIN HARRIS: I was going to ask you if you heard echoes of Richard Swinburne in that illustration that they were using – if you were to ask why Sherlock Holmes had this in his garage, one answer would be because he wanted it in his garage and the other answer would be because the author crafted this and put it in there.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, one is answering within the story world, and the other one steps outside of the world of the story and asks how do you account for this thing – where does it come from? I noticed Alex O'Connor asked Dawkins if he thought that anybody had offered any good arguments in any of his debates, and I immediately thought of Richard Swinburne in that recent dialogue that you and I did a podcast on where Swinburne just takes Dawkins apart. Yet, Dawkins, in his response to O’Connor, says, “No, I've never heard any good arguments for God's existence.” He thinks he's won every debate despite what I think most of us know happened not only with Swinburne but with John Lennox as well. So, yeah, there are echoes here I think of other thinkers.

KEVIN HARRIS: In this clip Dawkins is asked if he would like to revise The God Delusion, his book.

ALEX O’CONNOR: The God Delusion, which was the atheist book – do you think it still survives as a sufficient treatment of God and religion in modern culture? If you were to write it again, would you be taking the same approach of talking about it as a scientific issue, or would you feel the need to change the way that you're talking about . . .?

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: I would certainly still talk about it as a scientific issue because I think that's the most important thing. I probably might add a chapter on the idea of what Dan Dennett calls “belief in belief.” The idea that whether you believe it or not, it's a good idea that some people do. And I think that's patronizing. I think that's condescending. It's sort of saying “we” intellectuals don't need this crutch, but other people may do, and if they do then it's a good thing because it helps in the battle against Putins.

ALEX O’CONNOR: I think Voltaire said, “I don't believe in God, but I hope that my maid does.”

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: I didn't know that quote! It's a very good example, and that is so patronizing.

KEVIN HARRIS: I suspect that Alex is politely dropping a hint that The God Delusion is inadequate. But Dawkins says he'd only add a chapter on belief in belief.

DR. CRAIG: O’Connor's question was, “Does The God Delusion survive?” And in light of the many criticisms of this book, I don't think that it does survive very well. I have laid out some of these in my article, “Dawkins’ Delusion.”^[1] I've given a lecture on this at the Sheldonian Theater in Oxford University that you can access on YouTube to see how one might respond to Dawkins’ critique of the theistic arguments.^[2] And I think his book very clearly fails. The central argument in The God Delusion is a logical mess, and I don't think Dawkins even realizes it. Part of the problem here is that a scholar has a certain intellectual obligation to respond to his critics. When other scientists or philosophers offer criticisms of your view, you need to be forthcoming in responding to those criticisms. And Richard Dawkins hasn't fulfilled that intellectual obligation. I think he's been professionally negligent in this regard. He simply continues to repeat his arguments as though they had never been responded to. In light of the many responses by both theists and atheists alike^[3], I do not think that The God Delusion survives.

KEVIN HARRIS: Well, let's get to the juicy stuff, Bill – what Dawkins says about you. Alex asks him about public debates.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: I mean, the sort of professional debaters on behalf of religion – people like William Craig – I have no time for him. I mean, he’s got this sort of loud rather pompous voice and he says “premise one, deduction two” and things like that. And the audience, I suppose, is supposed to be impressed.

ALEX O’CONNOR: I've had William Lane Craig twice on my podcast, and I always had a good experience with him. Having said that, I didn't debate him. I don't know what that would be like. Is that something you're not interested in doing – debating William Lane Craig? Or having a conversation perhaps with William Lane Craig?

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: I have done. I vowed not to. I feel such contempt for him because of his . . . I don't know whether you've seen what he says about the Israelites slaughtering the Midianites. Instead of saying what any decent theologian would say (“Well, it never happened, and this is just an Old Testament story”), he says, “The Midianites had it coming because they were so sinful.” And then if you worry about the Midianite children who had their brains beaten out of them, “That's okay because they went straight to heaven.” And that finished him off as far as I was concerned for me. I actually wrote a piece in the The Guardian saying why I will never have anything to do with him.^[4]

KEVIN HARRIS: No surprises there. A personal attack. I think he's referring to the Canaanites.

DR. CRAIG: Right. He is referring to my defense of God's command to the Israelite armies to go in and drive the Canaanites out of the land of Canaan to divest them of the land and to kill anyone who attempted to remain behind in the land. What's interesting about this complaint by Dawkins is that he thinks it's pompus for me to explain or lay out the premises logically of my argument. He thinks that this is intended to impress people. What's funny to me about this is that I actually used to hide the logical structure of my arguments. When I first began to speak on university campuses years ago, I would attempt to conceal the logical structure of my arguments by presenting them more in a narrative form because I thought people would be put off by the formality and the dryness of a logical presentation and would find a narrative presentation more entertaining. But what I discovered was that people really like to hear the logical structure of the argument stated clearly. You see, the purpose of doing this is not to try to impress people, but rather it is for the purpose of enhancing clarity. It's saying, “Here are my premises.” In fact, you're doing a real favor to your opponent because what you're saying is there are two premises to my argument. Here they are. And if you can shoot down either one of these premises then my argument fails. So, which premise do you reject and why? It's really an attempt to bring clarity. So the issue that he's raising here with Alex O’Connor is presumably not the adequacy of my defense of the consistency of God's being all-loving and all-knowing and issuing this command to bring judgment upon the Canaanite tribes by driving them out of the land on the pain of death. Dawkins has never responded to my ethical defense of that position. Instead, he just reacts emotionally to it. So the real issue here is not the adequacy of my defense of that biblical story; rather, the issue is: Why has Dawkins refused to debate me over and over again? Why has he issued a parade of changing excuses for why he won't engage in a debate with me after boasting earlier on that he would debate anyone at any time anywhere. It appears that all of these excuses that he gives are just hypocritical. Peter Byrom, who was himself once a follower of Dawkins, has charted these. He made a video about them. And he counts somewhere around 10 different excuses that Dawkins has used over the years for refusing to debate, including things like “Craig is not a bishop or a cardinal, someone important” or that “Craig is a creationist” or “I'm busy” or “Craig is a professional debater.” He has latched now upon this article that I wrote defending the biblical story of the judgment on the Canaanites and said that he will not debate me because of the immorality of the position that I take. This shifting parade of excuses even came to the attention, believe it or not, of Private Eye magazine which did an article on all of these different shifting excuses. Now, you might think why in the world would a detective magazine be interested in this story? I think it is because if someone who is accused in a court of law keeps issuing changing and inconsistent alibis then his credibility is undermined, and you really begin to put him under suspicion. That's exactly the sort of pattern of behavior that we've seen exhibited by Professor Dawkins.

KEVIN HARRIS: In this next clip, Alex presses Dawkins on debating you. Listen to this.

ALEX O’CONNOR: I think that as particularly at the height of the New Atheism and religion debates that were happening in the sort of late 2000s, I think a lot of people were disappointed that the forerunner of the atheist side, Richard Dawkins, and arguably the forerunner of the Christian side, William Lane Craig, never came together to have that debate because even if you do think that what he believes there is particularly and specifically evil, I suppose everything you've just said to me people would probably just like to see you say that to William Lane Craig.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: I wrote an article in The Guardian saying it, and I did in fact have a debate with him in Mexico. I forget when.

ALEX O’CONNOR: With the boxing ring.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: Yeah. I just have no desire to . . . I don't respect him. I find his manner pompous, and I just don't want to be in the same room with him really.

ALEX O’CONNOR: Well, in the interest of diplomacy I will offer no further comment except that that's certainly not my experience with the man. I imagine that we've had very different interactions with him in the past. Let's put it that way.

KEVIN HARRIS: Well, that's the second time that Alex compliments you, Bill. But Dawkins is not changing his mind.

DR. CRAIG: I really appreciate Alex O’Connor's compliment. I have to say if you watch this entire interview that he does with Dawkins^[5], Alex O’Connor just shreds Dawkins’ excuses in a very gentle and kind way. He just dismantles Dawkins, and Dawkins is reduced to stammering at the end. What O’Connor shows is that Dawkins has debated people who hold the same position on the Canaanite judgment that I do, like John Lennox. He's fastened upon this judgment on the Canaanites because it affords him the perfect excuse. It allows him to assume the moral high ground and to look down on his opponent as contemptible and beneath consideration, not worthy of debating because of his immoral status. So it's the perfect excuse because it allows Dawkins to posture as the morally superior person and the other person is morally contemptible.

KEVIN HARRIS: One more clip. Alex asked Dawkins about C. S. Lewis's question regarding why we seem to be made for another world. Why would we evolve a desire for something which does not exist? Here's Dawkins’ response.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: The idea that because you want something therefore it must be true – I find that a most extraordinary idea.

ALEX O’CONNOR: It does seem strange to want something that doesn't exist.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: Why?

ALEX O’CONNOR: Because if we're trying to give an account of where this desire comes from, it seems to have to latch onto something. It seems like what you're suggesting is that what it's latching onto is just the general desire to stay alive as long as possible.

PROFESSOR DAWKINS: Well, I was thinking specifically of the desire for eternal life, but I think you can do a kind of version of that for whatever else C. S. Lewis was saying. Some people may have a sexual desire for a film star that they're never going to meet and wouldn't look at them if they did. It doesn't mean that there's anything realistic about it. It's a natural extension of sexual desire.

ALEX O’CONNOR: But of course the film star exists.

KEVIN HARRIS: He said that kind of fast. In case anybody missed it, Alex says, “Yeah, but the the movie star exists.” Nevertheless, Dawkins thinks desire for God is just an evolved projection and reaction to fear of death.

DR. CRAIG: This is just one more example of Alex O’Connor's acuity and insight. He just exposes Dawkins here as not even understanding the argument and so gives this inept response about fantasizing about a movie star when, in fact, the movie star does exist! It actually bears out Lewis' argument from desire.

KEVIN HARRIS: As we wrap up today, Richard Dawkins’ book and his lack of philosophical sophistication has been widely criticized. But he seems to have some staying power. Any concluding thoughts on these interview excerpts that we've looked at?

DR. CRAIG: Dawkins does seem to be hanging on, doesn't he? I think his day has passed. His material has been subject to severe criticism by both theists and fellow atheists alike. I think that the fanfare of the New Atheism is quickly fading. So I hope that he will continue to do these sorts of interviews with people like Alex O’Connor because I think that O’Connor far more effectively than any Christian apologist exposes the inconsistency and the weaknesses that are endemic to Professor Dawkins’ positions.^[6]