• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Swinburne Contra Dawkins on Complexity and Creation

October 14, 2011 by Daniel Horne 6 Comments

Watch on YouTube.

A name that popped up in Episode 43 and Episode 44 was that of Oxford philosophy professor Richard Swinburne. Swinburne has made his reputation positing analytic arguments in favor of Christian theism. As Robert pointed out toward the end of Episode 43, most Christians, even if sympathetic, would probably not find Swinburne's arguments dispositive toward their belief. Even so, it's only fair to allow serious scholars like Swinburne to frame their own arguments before rendering judgment. Swinburne's approach reveals the strawman nature of the arguments deployed by Hitchens, Harris, et al. when they evoke the cartoonish "I believe because the [insert Holy Text] says so" stereotype. (I will cut Richard Dawkins some slack here; he's actually done a pretty good job of engaging non-silly theists in civil debate.)

Among Dawkins' arguments against God-as-sufficient-reason-for-creation is this:  Musn't any Supreme Being capable of creating the Universe necessarily be so complex as to demand an accounting for His/Her/Its own origin? Dawkins thinks so; he declares the lack of explanation for something as necessarily complex as an omnipotent God renders useless any appeal an Unmoved Mover. Carl Sagan posed the issue a bit more elegantly in Cosmos years before:

Where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step, and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the universe always existed? There’s no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions.

To see Swinburne present an alternate version of the same argument in dialogue, check out his performance on the PBS show Closer to Truth.) I find Swinburne's arguments engaging, if not compelling. They are as carefully considered as Dawkins' arguments to the contrary, and Dawkins -- to his credit -- posted Swinburne's rebuttal to Dawkins' critique on his own website:

[Dawkins] writes that "a God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple". And why does he think this? He doesn't say, but I take it that his reason for thinking this is that, if God gets his knowledge and exercises his power in the way in which we do (via brains) he will need to be very very complicated, since ordinary human brains with their limited powers of control are very complicated things.

But (1) I am not the same thing as my brain. The full story of the world would need to include both what happened to me and what happened to my brain. Split brain experiments illustrate this -- see, for example, chs 8 and 9 of my book The Evolution of the Soul.
And I (a simple entity) control quite a bit of my brain (a much more complicated entity) so that I can make it cause many different motions of my limbs, tongue etc.

And (2) whether a hypothesis is simple or not is an intrinsic feature of that hypothesis, not a matter of its relation to observable data. Whether the hypothesis is such as to lead us to expect the data is a second and different criterion for assessing a hypothesis. Whether the hypothesis that one criminal committed all of some set of murders, or whether Newton's theory that all bodies attract each other with forces proportional to mm1/r2 is simple is something we can see by studying it. But, to be probably true, the hypothesis must also satisfy the criterion of leading us to expect the data. The postulation of one entity (God) with the stated properties (scientists prefer hypotheses postulating infinite qualities to hypotheses postulating very large finite quantities -- other things, that is, satisfaction of other criteria, being equal) is intrinsically simple. I also argue that it leads us to expect the enormously complex data (enormously large numbers of protons, photons etc. behaving in exactly the same way).

Now, who could find fault with that reasoning? Anyone...?

-Daniel Horne

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Things to Watch Tagged With: atheism, Christianity, Intelligent Design, philosophy of religion, Richard Dawkins, Richard Swinburne

Comments

  1. Tom McDonald says

    October 14, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    I’m not sure I have a dog in this fight, other than concern that naive empiricism is made more critical, and it so happens that such criticism is being rendered by the theological side. It is significant that Swinburne appeals to our intuition (not a pejorative word here) that we are “not the same thing” as our brains, i.e., I am not identical to my brain. But of course, this raises the question of dualism, which materialists are now wont to rule out of hand. I hate to sound a one-note song here, but the dualism/materialism debate is just so tired, and it seems to me the world of Anglo philosophy is sorely needing to accept what Kant, Hegel, and Hegelian/continental philosophy has been exploring for a long time now: there is an eliminably paradoxical character to thought or reason as a unity-in-difference with embodiment, i.e., both our inclination to a material unity in science, and our intuition of a dualistic, radical difference of thought in philosophy both give expression to a truth of the human condition. Exactly what the character of this paradox or dialectic is is disputed though. For example, Lacanian psychoanalysis claims it is entirely to do with language: when the natural human organism takes up the collective grammatical structure of “I” in language-use, one becomes (capable of being) an independent reasoner or “I” in the language-game of one’s culture. This is an interesting to solution to why we experience dualism between nature or body and culture or thought, and it also shows why we would likely never be able to undo it without ceasing to be the thoughtful beings we’ve become.

    Reply
  2. Wes Alwan says

    October 14, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    See also: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHAPFA.1.pdf; and http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEDGH.1.pdf. And the Kenny paper mentioned in the episode announcement.

    Reply
  3. Vikram Paralkar says

    October 14, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    Some thoughts about Swinburne’s comments (I’m responding to the excerpt in your post):

    1) I disagree with the statement “I am not the same thing as my brain”. There’s every indication that consciousness is a higher-level feature of the brain. I looked up the book linked in the excerpt, and here’s a quote from the back-cover: “…mental states are states of the soul, a mental substance in interaction with the body”. (So, yes, Tom, he’s a dualist!) I agree that if there is such a thing as a “mental substance” that can float free of a neurobiological substrate, then yes, a mind could potentially be “simple”. But there’s no evidence whatsoever supporting this. In fact, we know that every single aspect of what we call the mind can be damaged by damaging specific parts of the brain. Swinburne’s very conception of a mind is founded on an assumption that is contradicted by observation after observation in neuroscience.

    By the way, the chain of causation from mind to brain works both ways. A very simple molecule – C2H5OH (also known as alcohol) – when introduced into the vicinity of neurons, can control very complex aspects of our minds (our ethical/moral principles and inhibitions)!

    2) Swinburne says that the idea of a mind as a first cause is more satisfying that a host of quarks/strings all exhibiting the same behavior. He’s setting up a false equivalency here – between a phenomenon any particle accelerator can demonstrate at a moment’s notice (fundamental particles exhibiting the same behavior) and something that has never ever been demonstrated (a disembodied mind floating free of a brain). In order for the equivalency to be valid, he would first have to demonstrate that a disembodied mind is even possible.

    Reply
    • Daniel Horne says

      October 17, 2011 at 1:13 pm

      Hi Vikram,

      I ultimately agree with you more than I disagree, for just the reasons you cite, though you do a much better job than I.

      I recently posted a video on some experiments supporting the idea that core aspects of self (including the ability to render moral judgments) is at the mercy of physical processes within the brain.
      http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/08/02/magnetic-morality-modulation/

      That said, while the mind-body problem is almost certainly based upon an illusion, it’s a _damn compelling_ one!

      Reply
  4. Erroll Treslan says

    October 16, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Wes, thanks for those links – nice to add to my philosophy library on The God Delusion. To date, I only had these two: http://www.ouruf.org/d/grad/10.1%20ganssle%20-%20Dawkins%20Best%20Argument.pdf

    http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/Dawkins.htm

    Love your show. Keep up the great work.

    Reply
  5. Wes Alwan says

    November 21, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Thanks Erroll — you’re very welcome.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?
  • Ronald Cogen on Ep. 311: Understanding the Dao De Jing (Part One)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in