Sizing Up My Response to Dawkins's Argument
Sizing Up My Response to Dawkins's Argument
Dawkins's best argument against the existence of God goes as follows:
The main work in this argument is done by the second premise, that our universe fits better with a naturalistic universe than it does with a theistic universe. The detectable feature Dawkins points to that is an indication of this better fit is complex life developed over a long period of time through natural selection. In a universe with no God but with complex life, we would expect there to have been a long process of development. The fact that life did develop in this way, then, lends confirmation to the atheistic hypothesis. One virtue of Dawkins's best argument, then, is that it identifies one way in which the universe we observe points to the conclusion that no God exists. I have identified, however, four other detectable features of our universe that may be relevant to premise 2 of the argument. Each of these four features fits better with a theistic universe than with an atheistic universe.
Many philosophers have developed theories to show that these features of the universe are compatible with a naturalistic worldview. Some of these strategies are pretty good. Even if these attempts are successful, they would not undermine the strength of my criticisms of Dawkins's argument. My criticisms are not some version of a “God of the gaps” strategy. It is not the lack of a good naturalistic explanation that supports my criticism. Regardless of the availability of naturalistic explanations, these features still fit better with the view that God exists. The four features I identify show that there is good reason to reject the second premise of Dawkins's argument. Either this premise is not true or, at the very least, Dawkins has not given us strong reasons to think that it is true. Therefore, the argument he presents turns out to be not well supported. Dawkins's best argument in the end does not deliver.