Dawkins

Having presented points of agreement with Professor Richard Dawkins, I am now going to present points of difference.

These are not in the area of evolutionary biology, which is Professor Dawkin's area of authority, and not mine, but rather in the area of metaphysical conclusions that Professor Dawkins presents, extending his research into other areas of human concern. In this area and these conclusions he is joined by other notable contemporary philosophers and rhetoricians such as Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.

I will not quote their arguments verbatim, as I do not have access to all the literature to do so "chapter and verse". I will present the broad structure of their arguments, basing it mainly on the "Atheist Pocket Debater" app for iPhone - a preaching resource for secular humanists that is inspired by the thinking and argument of these modern exponents of scientific atheism.

The first argument that I will examine is the Argument of First Cause.

This argument states that the universe must have a cause, because something does not come from nothing, and therefore God must exist to have created it.

Dawkins rightly points out that arguing that something must have a cause, because nothing comes from nothing, actually argues against the existence of God.

If the universe must have come from somewhere, because nothing can come from nothing, then where does God come from? Nowhere?

Dawkins would say that positing the existence of God is simply removing the problem of origin of existence to the next level.

The response to this is to say that God is eternally existing, and has no beginning or end.

The extension of Dawkins' argument would be to say: "If you say that something cannot come from nothing, and you're going to say that something exists eternally, why not just say that the universe, which we can see does exist, is eternally existing, and has no need of a transcendent creator, who is a speculation from the empirical point of view?"

This is the application of Occam's razor, the scientific principle of choosing the simplest explanation when in doubt, to the First Cause Argument. This argument for the existence of God has the fatal weakness that Dawkins has pointed out and that I have expanded by applying Occam's razor. Dawkins and company like to use this refutation of the argument from First Cause as an argument against the existence of God, but it is a refutation of the First Cause argument, not a refutation of God's existence.

You cannot establish reality on the basis of argumentation, but you can influence what people think, and as a result what they do with their lives.

Now for where the Vedic school differs from this.

The First Cause Argument is not Vedic, and you will never hear me use it. According to the Vedic worldview, the manifested universe is eternal and beginningless (anadi). Whatever exists has always existed and will always exist. Whatever does not exist will never come into existence. Existence is eternal.

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

- Bhagavad-gita 2/16

Sat means eternal. Bhavah means coming into being. That which is eternal does not come into being. That which comes into being does not exist.

So both the material universe and the Supreme Lord are eternally existing. There is no argument from First Cause for the existence of God in the Vedic worldview, because the Vedic worldview does not agree with the scientific perspective that this world came into existence from a previous state of non-existence. It's that point of agreement between Christian philosophy and modern science that gives rise to both the First Cause argument and its fatal flaw.

Just to elaborate on this Vedic idea of eternal existence and coming into being.

Just remaining within our immediate experience here - we can see that the material elements have persistence but manifestations of categories do not.

As an example, the elements of the material body have persistence - from dirt to plants, to bodies, to reproduction, to death, to dirt - the cycle of life uses and reuses the same elements, recycling them over and over again. Apparently at this point we all have some atoms in us that were in Shakespeare's body.

However, the material body itself is not persistent. The elements of your body do not have a beginning, but your body does. In the Vedic worldview this means that your body does not exist. It is like a shadow or the flicker of a candle. Does the "flicker of a candle" really exist, or is it merely the transient side effect of some other more substantial underlying manifestation - the flame?

The Vedic idea is that the body and the life we are now experiencing is like the "flicker of the candle", and that underlying it is a more substantial reality. Each of the material bodies is transient, however the underlying elements are persistent, and the "archetype", if you like, of the human body is also persistent, though not always manifested.

Just like I may have a cookie cutter and some cookie dough. With the cookie cutter I stamp out a gingerbread man. The gingerbread man is then eaten. He's gone. Temporary. However, with an unlimited supply of cookie dough (the persistent material elements), and the cookie cutter (the archetype of the form), the substance and the form are both be persistent while each manifestation is only the temporary coming together of the two.

In the same way, eternal elements combine together to give rise to a temporary manifestation - our body and our life in it. According to the Vedic world view this is as substantial as the temporary transient effect of the flickering of a candle.

If we focus on the temporary combination of the form and substance into the human body, and engross our consciousness in that, we find the sands of time slipping through our fingers, and the illusion is dispelled - the fog lifts, the clouds disperse, the candle flickers again, and it is all over.

The real use of this human form of life - the temporary coming together of the material elements, the archetypical form of the human body and mind, and our consciousness of that wave on the eternal ocean of becoming and unbecoming (bhava-sindhu), is to understand this and strive to understand our real nature:

What is it that is conscious of and experiencing this eternal ocean of becoming and unbecoming, of eternally temporary transformations of eternal matter?

Having attained this very rare form of human birth, we should make sure to realise its true worth by seeking after our eternal nature. Even if it turns out that there is nothing beyond an eternally existing universe and a temporary life as some chemicals thinking they are a person, as a materialist would argue, we have nothing to lose....

And the atheist's take on that argument, Pascal's wager, I will look at next.

In the meantime, you can read more about the First Cause Argument here.

I've added a new category to my blog: "Devotional Dawkins".

In this category I will be posting a series of articles examining the congruence between Richard Dawkins' empirical interpretation of the mundane world with the Vedic worldview that underpins Krishna Consciousness.

I personally think that while we have a number of congruences with Christian philosophers, on the matter of empiricism the Vedic worldview is more congruent with modern science than it is with Creationism as a scientific doctrine.

While it is tempting to join the Christian Crusade against Professor Dawkins, and many within ISKCON obviously think it a good idea, I personally will not be joining.

My observation is that many of the congruent points that we share with Professor Dawkins are points that Creationists would also wage war on us for - for example, the idea that there is a single common ancestor, and a limited set of common ancestors of all living beings, which I discussed in my previous post. This would be grounds for Crusade against our worldview by Creationists, whereas it is a point of agreement with Dawkins.

One of the major reasons why Dawkins' worldview is more congruent with the Vedic worldview than the Creationist one, is that Dawkins' area of authority is the phenomenological world of mundane experience. Just as Buddhist philosophy and psychology is compatible and very similar to Krishna Consciousness up to the point of nirvana, similarly Dawkins' worldview is compatible up to the limits of empiricism. His worldview does not contain the soul, and thus represents a subset of the total Vedic worldview.

Creationism, on the other hand, already has the soul within it. This is a point of congruence with the Vedic worldview. However, Creationism mixes the concept of the soul and the body, making it incompatible with both Dawkins and the Vedic worldviews.

The beginning of knowledge, by the Vedic standard, is understanding the difference between spirit and matter. Whereas Dawkins' biological worldview is devoid of the concept of spirit, and thus offers the potential for a synthesis, the Creationist worldview has the concept, but it is erroneous. Thus their world view offers neither empirical rigour, nor metaphysical rigour by the Vedic standard.

When I say empirical rigour, I am referring to what Dawkins calls "the explanatory power of Darwin's big idea.

Studying books such as Dawkin's watershed work "The Selfish Gene" reveals that Darwin's big idea explains the material world in terms that are congruent with the Vedic world view - the material bodies are machines manufactured by the material energy, and are vehicles for material desires which are a completely separate agenda for the higher-order beings (ourselves) who find themselves manifested within them for a limited span of time.

This is completely at odds with the worldview of Creationism - another powerful example of our affinity for Dawkins over the Crusade against him.

Professor Dawkins' statements about religion are outside the scope of his work on biology and empirical science, and fall more into the category of sociology and psychology. In many of those cases I also happen to agree with him. In the area of metaphysical statements he also exceeds the scope of empirical science, and these are again in another category. In that category I feel he speaks with more certainty than is warranted by the available empirical evidence, and also borrows from his authority in other areas to lend more credence to his ideas there, than they would otherwise merit in isolation.

Readers who made it this far in this article may also be interested in my category "Dawkins", where I posted two years ago a series of posts analysing Dawkins' debates with various religious representatives.

The Hindu Deity Prajapati, the progenitor of all living beings

We can be very sure there really is a single concestor of all surviving life forms on this planet. The evidence is that all that have ever been examined (exactly in most cases, almost exactly in the rest) the same genetic code; and the genetic code is too detailed, in arbitrary aspects of its complexity, to have been invented twice. Although not every species has been examined, we already have enough coverage to be pretty certain that no surprises - alas - await us… As things stand, it appears that all known life forms can be traced to a single ancestor which lived more than 3 billion years ago.

- Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p 7

It is a remarkable fact that there must be a moment in history when there were two animals in the same species, one of whom became the ancestor of all humans and no aardvarks, while the other became the ancestor of all aardvarks and no humans. They may well have met, and may even have been brothers. You can cross out aardvark and substitute any modern species you like, and the statement must still be true. Think it through, and you will find that it follows from the fact that all species are cousins of one another. Bear in mind when you do so that the 'ancestor of all aardvarks' will also be the ancestor of lots of very different things besides aardvarks.

- Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p 40

In the Srimad Bhagavatam the ultimate ancestry of living beings is variously ascribed to Brahma (SB 4.24.42), to Vishnu (SB. 10.40.13), and to Shiva (SB. 5.24.17).

The Vedic idea is that there is a limited set of common ancestors of all living beings, descended from the single common ancestor and called the prajapatis. The way the story is commonly recounted, the prajapatis are born of the original common ancestor, the prajapati-pati, and their wives give birth to all the various living species. The exact details of how they do this are not given, and trying to imagine how one lady gives birth to millions of different species can sometimes be a factor in someone going: "This is too fanatastic, I'm giving up this Vedic narrative for some rational science."

However, if you actually follow through on inquiry in the rational scientific school, and sit at the feet of the master of rational science, His Eminence Professor Richard Dawkins, studying his works such as River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, and The Ancestor's Tale, you will gain a scientific understanding of exactly how this is so. The Vedic literature compresses geological ages into sutras, and presents the conclusion in a way that can be comprehended by pre-scientific people.

All living beings of the various species that we see today have a limited set of common ancestors, and ultimately a single common ancestor.

The background stories in the Srimad Bhagavatam, about creation and the structure of the universe, are the same as the background stories in all the Puranas. They represent the cultural context of the civilisation that produced the Puranas. Their scientific understanding of the material world is presented in the poetic and metaphorical language that they used and understood. However, each of the Puranas differs in the metaphysical message that accompanies this cultural context. The message of the Bhagavatam is not about the prajapatis, and the prajapatis and the prajapatih-pati appear as background for specific stories, such as the Marriage of Kardama Muni and Devahuti (as SB 3.20), which carry the real import of the work.

This is by Ed Gungor and appeared in Relevant Magazine. Apart from not being into "belief" personally, I think this is a good piece.

Can we believe in evolution and a Creator?

Arguing for God being the Creator of the universe doesn’t necessitate an attack on the theory of evolution. Don’t misunderstand me; some evolutionists (particularly some of the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who argues in his new book people who don't believe in evolution are on the same level as Holocaust deniers) have gone ape over their theory (forgive the pun) to the point that they seem to forget it is a theory, and refer to it as if it is an undeniable scientific fact. (Please note: when I speak about evolution, I’m referring to Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory: life began millions of years ago from a kind of primordial ooze that gave rise to single-celled creatures, which then evolved into more complex ones, all the way up to we humans.)

Is the theory of evolution true? It definitely has its problems, but whether it is or isn’t true doesn’t impact the notion that God is the Creator of the world. Scientific theories about origins simply talk about how things came to be, not whether God was behind it. For Christians to argue about scientific theory—any theory—because they think it attacks the notion that God is the Creator seems silly.

What if the point of the creation narrative in Genesis was more poetic than literal? Historically, the Church has always held this position about creation. The Church’s take was simply that God created the world. That’s it. Before the nineteenth century, the Church never tried to specify how or when God did it. Those in the ancient world (to whom the text was written) did not think in literal or scientific terms, nor would they have cared about such notions. The big news of Genesis to the ancient world was that ONE God, not many, was responsible for all we see. That radical, salient point rang through that world which believed in many gods—not one—and had absolutely nothing to do with science.

A belief in God does not necessitate that a person accept the position that the earth is just six thousand years old. The historical, theistic argument is simply that we believe God is the why behind what is here, whenever and however it got here. Scientists may ultimately tell us how and when everything happened in ways not articulated in the biblical text, but science will never be able to tell us why. Why is the stuff of belief. Understanding this helps us be open to the research and questioning of science, while recognizing such questioning is not an enemy to faith.

Science does not have to be an enemy of faith. Nanoscientist James Tour, a professor at Rice University, spends his life building molecules in the lab. He says, “I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

One could say that the order of non-living things—the laws that govern physical objects, the earth orbiting the sun, the seasons coming and going, the laws governing atoms and the subatomic universe—is enough evidence to assert that there is a God who designed things to be the way they are. But the most compelling evidence—the evidence that seems to scream: THERE IS A GOD! — comes from things that are alive.

Dr. Walter L. Bradly, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics, says, “Ice crystals have a certain amount of order, but it’s simple, repetitive, and has a low amount of information, sort of like filling a book with the words, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you’ over and over again. In contrast, the kind of complexity we see in living matter has a high information content that specifies how to assemble amino acids in the right sequence, like a book being filled with meaningful sentences that communicate a story. Unquestionably, energy can create patterns of simple order. For instance, you could see ripples on the sand at a beach and know they were created by the action of waves. But if you saw the words, ‘John loves Mary’ and a heart with an arrow drawn in the sand, you know that energy alone didn’t create that.”

Even the smallest, single-celled organisms have more complexity within their cellular walls then anything scientists have been able to recreate using huge supercomputers. What guides the process in all living things is DNA, which regulates every cell of every plant and animal. The DNA molecule is like a tiny microprocessor that controls everything a living cell does. The data encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living thing is a kind of written language. The English language uses a twenty-six-letter alphabet; DNA uses a four-letter chemical alphabet. As the chemicals are arranged in various “lettered” sequences, they form what amounts to words, sentences, and paragraphs containing all the instructions needed to guide a living cell. The DNA molecule instructs cells on how to make proteins, what and how to eat, how to get rid of waste, when to divide, how to repair itself, and so on. So, where did DNA come from? How was the code “written?” Was it written by chance or was there a Designer?

British chemist Leslie Orgel once said, “Evolution is smarter than you are,” to which atheist Christopher Hitchens responded, “But this complement to the ‘intelligence’ of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of ‘intelligent design.’”

Why not? Why couldn’t evolution have an intelligence that was put in it by God? That Hitchens (along with the other neo-atheists) can make no “concession” to the possibility of God being involved is evidence of a silly prejudice. It is not a logical observation.

It appears any comments moratorium has been lifted. My commentary about evolution over at Dandavats.com finally got some love.

Here's the next in the series of conversations that David Jorm and I recorded on his recent visit to Brisbane. This one is about evolution and fundamentalism.

My earlier commentary on Evolutionary theory, posted here and as a comment on Dandavats garnered some response. On Facebook I got one comment and hooked up with one person who has a similar perspective, which is encouraging.

On Dandavats, however, there has been no response.

On another website, which shall remain nameless, a standard reply to no response is: "Your failure to rise to our challenge proves that we are right! Your silence is acceptance of your guilt! Why is no-one stepping forward to speak to this? Where are all the big leaders?"

But of course, the lack of a reply doesn't always mean that your logic is so tight, your arguments so on the money and irrefutable that everyone is cowering in the darkness, hiding from the light of righteousness shining from the torch you, the hero, are holding aloft. Sometimes it just means that you're a dick.

However, it's hard to tell whether the silence on Dandavats is because no-one who reads Dandavats thinks that the comment is worthy of a response, or because there is a dark conspiracy, lead by "elements within the leadership of ISKCON"*, to suppress all discussion of evolutionary theory by the membership of ISKCON.

The Dandavats' commentary censorship policy, undocumented officially but observed in action by several people, including myself, does lend itself to a juicy conspiratorial interpretation, complete with shadowy hooded figure tapping finger tips together and intoning: "Excellent!".

Several comments that people have made to me on Facebook point to such a conspiracy as well.

I'll leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves. If a source on the inside wants to give an anonymous tip off, leave a comment or send me an email.

I'll write Praghosa prabhu, the editor of Dandavats to see why my comment sank like a stone.

Meanwhile, check out this short clip that aired on ABC Counterpoint:

David Aaronovitch throws cold water on some of the more crazy ideas getting around and asks why have conspiracy theories become such a part of modern life? Are they just a bit of harmless fun or is there something more sinister and damaging about them?

- Conspiracy Theories - Counterpoint - 8 June 2009 (audio)

* I put "elements in the leadership of ISKCON" in quotes because for me the leadership of ISKCON rests with people who I find inspiring and whose example I emulate. In the interest of constructing an entertaining conspiracy narrative, however, here we are using the classic "the guys who control everything, like the ISKCON Illuminati" definition that is in common use.

I just left the following comment on Dandavats, on the post New Book Reveals Fundamental Flaw in Darwin’s Theory.

The comment is still in moderation, but it will be interesting what discussion it generates (aside from the predictable "this is illegal thinking!"). As you probably know, it's a topic I am quite interested in.

(Theologian and philosopher Connor) Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

- from the BBC website

Please note that this program is divided into six videos on Youtube. Here are the other parts:

• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Part Five
• Part Six

Club New Vrndavan continue their campaign against Darwin and evolutionary theory (personally my campaign is against religious atheism, which I distinguish from those two). The latest installment is a review of the book "Nature's IQ". Here's an excerpt from a review on their site:

Darwin himself discovered the frog in Chile (Rhinoderma darwinii). After female Darwin’s frogs lay their eggs on wet beaches, males sense the scent of the eggs and fertilize them. They then station themselves beside the eggs in groups and guard them for about twenty days. When the developing eggs begin to move in their tiny, jelly-like globules, the males lean over to them and gulp—they seemingly eat them! Of course, they do not eat the eggs but instead place them with their tongue into their long expandable vocal pouch, situated in the lower part of ther body. The eggs continue to develop in the vocal pouch until one day the male suddenly yawns widely, and the fully developed baby frogs jump out of his mouth….

…For viable offspring to hatch, the frog father must know that he has to keep an eye on the eggs. Furthermore, he has to have the instincts commanding the right behavior: when the young are about to hatch, he has to get them into his specially structured vocal pouch. And when they are fully developed, he has to set them free. If any of these elements were missing, the frog’s reproduction would be unsuccessful. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Darwin’s frog and its special way of reproduction came into existence step by step, as a result of small changes….It is inconceivable that this frog species, with its specialized behavior, came into existence by a sudden large-scale mutation….The chance mutation of these genes causing a series of concerted, appropriate behaviors would be more than a miracle.

The (favorable) reviewer then goes on to say:

This excerpt provides one example of the methodology employed in analyzing and diffusing evolution theory in terms of reproduction and survival of offspring. Other sections cover predation, defense, symbiosis, animal communication, navigation, and mating behaviors.

Eeek. I hope it gets better than that.

In an evolutionary schema things do not spring forth fully formed. For example, take a look at the evolution of pop music. Pop music today utilizes various musical elements, and various intricate electronic elements. If you were to look at recorded music in the 1930's and that of the latter years of the first decade of the 21st century (that is to say: today), you'd see a great difference.

That didn't happen overnight. There are a series of innovations and gradual developments that lead from single microphone recordings of acoustic instruments to digital audio workstations, vocoders, and auto-tune.

So to imply that evolutionary theory requires all the elements of a complex arrangement to all become present simultaneously is disingenuous.

Obviously there is a difference between pop music and biological organisms, and I'm sure someone is going to pull out a comment about orders of magnitude, but my point here is related to evolutionary development and gradual appearance of increasing complexity.

A series of biological innovations can be postulated that would eventually lead to the particular combination of factors observed in these frogs. In fact, if you observe any system where the conscious living entity, the jiva, is in contact with and animating the material elements, you find all kinds of surprising, unexpected, and frankly wonderful arrangements developing over time.

I've heard evolutionary defenders explain their perspective on the development of the eye, another favorite "irreducibly complex" argument point of anti-evolutionists, and they have a coherent narrative in that area.

Of course, you may not be able to find all the intermediate steps in the fossil record, but as a theoretical exercise it's not a show-stopper.

That's not to say that a particular evolutionary narrative is "true". However, in the battle of theoretical narratives I do not find the argument that intricate complexity is not possible through evolutionary development to be particularly compelling.