Infinite God or Infinite Regress: Dawkins' Main (or Only) Argument

As I mentioned last time, Richard Dawkins’ main argument in The God Delusion against the “probability of the existence of God” comes in chapter four of his book, which mostly has to do with his rejection of the argument from Intelligent Design. Dawkins bases his rejection on just one argument, which is this: If the complexity of this universe demands an intelligent designer, such a designer would have to be even more complex than the universe he designed, and so would likewise require a designer. To put it simply, “Who created God?” Dawkins asserts that Intelligent Design or theism does not answer the question of what or who caused order, but simply removes it to another place, time, or realm:

“Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself (/herself/itself) immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as highly improbable as a Dutchman’s Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman’s Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance.” (120)

“Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer?” (121)

This is called the “infinite regression argument,” which refers to the need to regress backward to an infinite number of designers of the designer. In other words, if something as complex as the human brain points to an intelligent Designer, than the Designer must be even more complex, which points to another Designer, ad infinitum. As silly and as unsophisticated as this argument may seem, it is Dawkins’ main, and really only, argument against the existence of God, “indeed the premise of the whole discussion we are having” (143).

Ironically, however, it is Dawkins’ atheism that results in the infinite regression, while theism is the only way out. For example, unable to explain the origin of the universe, Dawkins resorts to multiple universes (“multiverses”). Since he fully admits that there are no laws or principles known in our universe that could account for the origin of order out of disorder or everything out of nothing, he is forced to speculate that our universe sort of inherited the order and design from other universes that came before ours. The problem is, however, that this “oscillating universe” theory has not only been largely abandoned by cosmologists, but any prior universe would have the same problem—where did that original ordering principle (and that universe) come from? You either have to finally stop and say this series of universes had a beginning point, or you are stuck with the infinite regress. 

The very concept of an infinite number of oscillating universes however, is impossible, because the actual existence of an infinite series of anything is impossible. It would be like trying to count to infinity. Similarly, it is impossible to pass through an eternity of time, for “if an infinite number of days existed before today, today would never come because one can never traverse the infinite” (William Lane Craig). Therefore, there cannot be a beginningless series of events. This is precisely why the universe had to have a beginning. But that gets us to the question of what caused it. Where did it come from?

In the end, Dawkins just gives it all over to “luck.” He states that the anthropic principle (“We are here, so we must have got here somehow”) “entitles us to postulate more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.” In other words, “We don’t know how the universe began and cannot even postulate it, but we are here, so maybe it was just luck even though we don’t believe in luck.” Now there’s a scientific statement for you!  Yet he “hopes” that a solution will be found. Sounds an awful lot like faith. But, unlike Biblical faith, his is a faith and hope in the impossible, and with neither evidence nor even a plausible theory.

The Intelligent Design argument, on the other hand, does not rely on an infinite regression. On the contrary, it is the only way out of it. All scientists now agree that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning. And anything that has a beginning has a cause. So the universe must have had a cause. A “first cause” is necessary, for how could absolute nothingness have created everything? That first cause must transcend the material/physical realm, it must have the ability to create complex order out of disorder and everything out of nothing, and it must be eternal.  Whatever caused time/space/matter/energy cannot be another inanimate, impersonal, materialistic entity, as that would force us back into an infinite regress and thus an impossibility. The only possible explanation for a “First cause” is an eternal, intelligent, transcendent, personal Creator—which is exactly what the Bible teaches: “In the beginning, God….”  And this God is not an infinite regress, he is simply infinite.

Richard Dawkins and "The God Delusion"

Last week we began to take a look at some of the arguments used by Richard Dawkins and the “New Atheists” who are gaining such a voice lately as popular writers and speakers. As I read Dawkins’s The God Delusion, I am struck with several things. First, there is a contempt for religion and religious people that seems far beyond reason. Even his fellow atheists criticize Dawkins for his exaggerated ridicule and caustic insults. For example, fellow atheist and Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse, said, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist…” (from Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn, Benjamin Wiker, pg.4). Dawkins has been likened (again, by his fellow atheists) to the most rabid, fundamentalist preacher spewing out a diatribe against the pagans. When one has a good argument, however, there’s no need to resort to such tactics. Whether, then, Dawkins’s vitriolic rhetoric is an indication of the weakness of the atheist position in general or just of Dawkins’s inability to argue reasonably on the subject is open to debate, but Dawkins lets his emotion rule.

In fact, Dawkins seldom resorts to reasoned argument, the second thing that really strikes me about The God Delusion. Often he seems to just ramble about points that seem unconnected to his argument. But more importantly, he shows an utter disregard for even the most undeniable facts. One of his most amazing statements has to be this: “I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre  Dame, the Shwe Dragon. the temples of Kyoto or, of course the Buddhas or Bamiyan.” (pg.249). Seriously? Dawkins is either utterly ignorant of the history of his own time, or just plain dishonest. Has he ever heard of Stalin or Mao Zedong? Last week I previewed the history of atheist regimes and their 110+ million murders in the past 100 years. And the truth is, Stalin bulldozed plenty of Greek Orthodox churches. As recent as three or so years ago the atheist Chinese government bulldozed a church building that was being used by a growing church.

Ahh, but there is no evidence that Stalin’s atheism motivated his brutality (pg. 273)! Again, can Dawkins be serious? Does not the brutality of every atheist regime point to a connection? But Dawkins cannot think of a single war fought in the name of atheism (278). I guess it depends on what you call “war.” Ask the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of believers who were (and are still being) imprisoned by atheist regimes—imprisoned because they had the audacity to practice their faith!

Finally, I am struck with how Dawkins mostly uses the worst examples of religion. Sometimes it is difficult to argue with him simply because what he passes off as representative examples of Christian faith many believers would reject also, myself among them. An awful lot of evil and no little amount of foolishness is done in the name of so-called Christianity. Makes one wonder why there aren’t more atheists.

Conveniently, however, Dawkins not only neglects to distinguish between so-called Christianity and what is a true expression of it, but fails to mention the inestimable good that has been done in the name of the “religion” of Christianity. In the first centuries after Christ, Christians stood out for their compassion and sacrificial love in a world that was noted for its cruelty and indifference. Rodney Stark, in The Rise of Christianity, writes: “The willingness of Christians to care for others was put on dramatic public display….Pagans tried to avoid all contact with the afflicted, often casting the still-living into the gutters. Christians, on the other hand, nursed the sick, even though [some] died doing so….Even in healthier times, the pagan emperor, Julian, noted the followers of the Way ‘support not only their poor, but ours as well.’”

Jesus taught his followers not only to love one another, but to love the poor, and even to love their enemies. And they are still loving their enemies, even if they are atheists who hate God.    

Imagine No Religion

Richard Dawkins—evolutionary biologist, Oxford professor, accomplished author, famous atheist, anti-religionist, and anti-creationist—is perhaps best known for his latest book, The God Delusion, a 2006 Bestseller. In The God Delusion Dawkins takes all of religion to task, laying upon its shoulders the blame for much of the evil in the world, especially wars. In the Preface of the book, Dawkins draws upon John Lennon’s famous song, “Imagine,” which includes the line “Imagine no religion.”  By imagining a world without religion, we are told, we can imagine a world without 9/11, 7/7 (London bombings of 7/7/2005), the Crusades, witch hunts…you get the picture. The suggestion is that religion is the cause of most, if not all, wars and violence. In fact, Dawkins is on a personal crusade to wipe out religion from the world.

In the weeks ahead, I’d like to take a look at some of the arguments of Dawkins and his fellow “New Atheists” as they are called, starting with this idea of religion being a major cause of wars and violence. For starters, let’s try to imagine a world without religion, or at least without Christianity (Dawkins refuses to distinguish between violent and non-violent religions). R.J. Rummell, political scientist from the University of Hawaii, has extensively researched historical data on wars, compiling estimates of government-caused deaths (i.e., deaths from wars, genocides, persecutions, etc.) throughout history (what he calls democide)(http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM). He estimates the total number of deaths from democide in the past 100 years alone to be 262 million, which is about 50% of the total number killed throughout history! My, how far we have evolved! Of those, the number killed in the name of “Christianity” (including the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and witch hunts) on the most liberal count is about 264,000. Now, that is 264,000 too many, to be sure. Even one single death performed at the hands of man in the name of Christ would violate the consistent teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt 5.9) and love your enemies and pray for them (Mt 5.43-47). He told Peter to put away his sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Mt 26.52). And he told Pilate that if his kingdom were of this world, his servants would be fighting, but his kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18.36). The apostles similarly taught followers to be peacemakers (Rom 12.17-21; 1 Pet 3.8-12).  So while some religions could well be characterized as violent and hateful, in no way do the teachings of Christ even remotely justify wars and killing in the name of religion—beyond, perhaps, defending the defenseless against such murderers.

But let’s continue imagining. Imagine a world without religion, and thus an atheistic world. Actually, we do not have to imagine, for we’ve seen it in our own lifetime. Consider the worlds of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and the Khmer Rouge, for example. According to Rummell, Atheistic Communism alone in the past 100 years has wrought 110 million deaths. That’s one third of all deaths by democide in all of history! And that’s 1000 times more deaths in the past 100 years than those caused by so-called Christians supposedly in the name of Christianity over the past 2000 years. And we haven’t even considered the regimes that strongly discouraged religion (Nazi Germany, WWII Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.), which would bring the total to 141 million—almost 50% of all people killed in all of history! We could add to that the 100 billion abortions, which Christians have consistently opposed. So imagine! And these were just short-lived regimes covering only a portion of the world. It makes one wonder, if there was an entire world without religion, how long would it be before there weren’t any people left at all? Imagine!