The Complexity of the Creator
The attack on moderation, or excluding the middle (broadly conceived) and the assumption that this is all there is are the two key points of disagreement, from which most everything else follows.
The assumption that this physical universe is all that exists is illustrated in the discussion of the multiverse theory (pp. 145-147). Now do not take this too far. I’m actually attracted by the multiverse theory as he expresses it. It’s obviously speculation, but it’s enjoyable speculation at least, and may even point in the right direction in years to come. My knowledge of physics is too small to go any further than that.
But for me the question still remains–who is the creator? At some point you do have to get to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. The environment in which the universes of the multiverse exist, such as to be subjected to natural selection must exist, and thus you only push the question back another step. Now, instead of asking where the universe comes from, you must ask where the multiverse comes from. The universe is clearly not nearly so universal as we thought (if these speculations are true). It is naturally caused by the multiverse.
This should be familiar to those who have studied arguments for the existence of God. The question frequently comes back to where God comes from. But that is the point of that particular category of argument. Because nothing else is self-existent, we look for a self-existent source for other things, because it seems pretty clear that something must be self-existent. (Of course it may indeed be “turtles all the way down!”)
At the same time if we admit that something is self-existent we have already taken a step beyond anything we understand within the physical world. We’re imagining something that’s so far out of the box that it’s, well, out of the universe, or perhaps even out of the multiverse. At this point, I think I’m making one of the best arguments for agnosticism. Whatever is the ultimate cause or “ground of all being” (Tillich), is not something we can measure according to the standards we know.
Thus I find it totally irrelevant, though interesting, for Dawkins to claim that God must be “very very complex and presumably irreducibly so!” Well, yes. And if theists in general were asserting that God had first evolved into what he is and then created the universe, that would be relevant. But this is a clear example of Dawkins assumption that even God must be natural. He first defines God into the natural universe and then argues against him, but that is simply a complex way of assuming one’s conclusions. As it is, it kind of misses the point.
What theists are saying is that there simply is no natural force that can produce the creator, period, so the creator is something that is outside of our physical universe, who operates according to very different laws.
For a contrary view more conservative than mine, see Christianity and Secularism by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. (My company publishes that book.)
At the same time if we admit that something is self-existent we have already taken a step beyond anything we understand within the physical world. Were imagining something thats so far out of the box that its, well, out of the universe, or perhaps even out of the multiverse.
Why should that be so? If we accept that there’s a bottom testudinian in our pile of turtles (perhaps it swims), on what basis can we categorically declare that the universe itself is not that turtle?
But this is a clear example of Dawkins assumption that even God must be natural.
I’d say that it’s more an example of the amount of time he’s spent arguing against ID proponents. The whole point of these spurious arguments against evolution is that there supposedly aren’t the “probabilistic resources” available for complex functionality to naturally arise.
Evolution obviously makes a mockery of this argument. However, if we were to accept that it were true, would it not apply tenfold to God, who must be even more complex, and for whom there is no such bootstrapping explanation available?
I’m aware that you’re a theistic evolutionist so this specific case doesn’t apply to you. However, there are huuuuge numbers of arguments of this form that substitute other qualities (such as existence) for complexity. In all cases, this just raises the question: why is it valid to assume that the quality is inherent in God but invalid to assume it is inherent in the universe?
==What theists are saying is that there simply is no natural force that can produce the creator, period, so the creator is something that is outside of our physical universe, who operates according to very different laws.==
This sentence seems to describe the Deist position rather than the theist position. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here.
It describes a common element between the deist and the theist position. i.e. theists and deists both see God as the ultimate cause. Deists do not believe he intervenes beyond creation and possibly sustaining the fixed laws of the universe. Theists allow for such intervention, though we differ considerably on just how and when God will intervene.
Two points here. First, while we can assume such a quality, at least thus far we don’t have even a theoretical way to observe it. Second, I agree that it is possible to assume that the universe possesses such a characteristic. That’s why I have sympathy for the agnostic position.
For the pantheist, however, that makes the universe God, which provides us a different position on origins, illustrating again why I object to Dawkins pushing toward the extremes when he calls pantheism a weak form of atheism, and deism a weak form of theism.
Why do you say that God “must be even more complex”? Some might argue that God is in fact ultimate, but infinite, simplicity.
Peter,
Could you point out to me where I said that? I’m concerned that I may have been unclear. The complexity of the creator is something that Dawkins asserts, in that the designer must be more complex than what he designs. I disagree, and suggest that we’re in a completely different realm when dealing with the creator.
So if I implied anything at all about the complexity of the creator, than I was more than unclear, but I can’t find where I did that.
Henry, I was responding (and relying on your blog’s nice nested comments facility, is this a WordPress plugin?) to what Corkscrew wrote in his or her comment:
However, if we were to accept that it were true, would it not apply tenfold to God, who must be even more complex, and for whom there is no such bootstrapping explanation available?
I was aware that you, Henry, do not agree that God is necessarily complex.
And I, having gleefully installed that same feature, forgot all about it, and made assumptions.
Bad me! 🙂
Too bad Dawkins won’t pay attention to this.
God in what sense? In the sense of possessing intelligence? Not if intelligence can arise at a later stage of the process. In the sense of being benevolent? Not if morality arises from human interactions. In the sense of existing? That alone is scant reason to call something God.
This is why this breach in the logic is so damaging to the God concept: because otherwise there’s no reason to believe that all of these qualities have the same source. There need not be one monolithic deity, or even any deity at all in the usual sense of the word.
In fact, the only entities in which we know all these qualities reside are human beings. Maybe the humanists are right and mankind itself is worth worshipping.
I don’t assume that. The people who state that simplicity cannot give rise to complexity (for example Intelligent Design advocates) assume it. I just follow their logic to its absurd conclusion.
Fair enough, Corkscrew. I don’t accept that simplicity cannot give rise to complexity, which probably implies that my position is theistic evolution rather than intelligent design.
Dear Mr. Neufeld,
a rather late comment, but better late than never (I stumbled onto your website on the occasion of Expelled vs. PZMeyers 🙂
You wrote about Dawkins’ Complexity argument against the Designer/Creator and claimed that it is based on his “naturalization” of the Creator. I don’t think that the statement “complexity of the creator/designer no less than complexity of design result” is restricted to natural design processes. It is not a theorem of the physical world, but of information/complexity theory and should be applicable to any rational process in which something is designed and made (which after all needs a full model of the result in the mind of the designer or in suitable tools like CAD/CAM).
Of course, a theologian can always claim that his God is so alien to our physical universe (despite creating it) that even an abstract discipline like information theory is not applicable. But in this case, I think we should all heed the final injunction of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, its #7: “Worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen”.
Thanks for considering my points – and let me express my sincere congratulations for your excellent blog.
Best regards,
HRG.
Thanks for your kind remarks. It’s not too late to comment until comments are closed, so you’re not too late.
A couple of points:
1) I’m not sure that information theory can be extended beyond the natural world.
2) If #1 is the case, then your quote is applicable, but I will confess to a weakness. I find keeping silent pretty much impossible. I do, however, confess to a theoretically infinite ignorance about God.
What I talk about, I think, is the experience of the divine, or what I suppose to be the divine.