Q&A: The Argument from the Complexity of the Component – Dawkins
The Argument from the Complexity of the Component – Dawkins
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
In God Plays Dice, p. 219, in the context of Dawkins’ claim regarding “Hoyle’s fallacy,” you write as follows:
“Dawkins assumes that God must be complex, since His complexity is a necessary conclusion from the complexity of His creation. This conclusion is based on begging the question, namely the assumption that creation by God is random and blind creation, as we explained above.”
I would appreciate your clarification:
- What is the explanation of the statement, “creation by God is random and blind creation”?
- What is the connection between the assumption that the creation of the world was done in a blind way and the complexity of the creator? That is, why, if we assume that the creation was done intentionally, does that change anything in the context of the complexity of the creator?
Answer
If some thing X, which is complex, was created by a deterministic machine, then the machine’s complexity must be greater than the complexity of X. But if a volitional and intelligent entity creates X, then it need not itself contain complexity. It builds the machine from a plan that it itself creates, and not from a structure embedded within itself. Such an entity must be intelligent, but not necessarily complex.
Think of a person who creates a machine versus a robot that creates it. The robot must be very complex, because the entire structure of the machine is contained within it. A human being, by contrast, needs to be intelligent, but not necessarily complex.
Discussion on Answer
In my opinion, no. The intellect is spiritual, and therefore does not have complexity like that of a machine. It has intelligence that can generate complexity.
We’re repeating ourselves, and that’s unnecessary because in any case this is only a secondary point. Even if God is complex, He does not need a cause (He is His own cause).
Dawkins was talking more about order, in my opinion. If the world is so ordered, then the one who ordered it must also be no less ordered—unless there is no orderer and the order was created by improbable chance. Either way, atheism should be assumed. By saying that God doesn’t have to have a creator, you’re only making His existence less probable than the world itself. It’s absurd to say that God doesn’t need a cause as part of an argument that talks about order or complexity..
If the intellect is spiritual, then why is it the brain that carries out the process of thinking?
A pure intellect that thinks without mechanical aids has never been revealed to us.
If so, God is not an inference from the familiar!
No?
Ohad,
I already explained why I disagree. When the creator is an intelligent being, the order is not embedded in him but produced by him. I don’t see any point in repeating this again and again. What you wrote—that my argument makes Him less probable than the world—is just a string of words whose meaning I couldn’t make sense of. I think you didn’t read my words and the argument as I presented it.
.,
How exactly would a pure intellect thinking without a brain or some other mechanical aid be revealed to you? Do you have tools that can observe non-material things? Everything that appears here in the world appears through a material medium, and that applies to intellect as well.
The claim that the brain thinks is self-refuting. Thinking is a mental act, and the brain is a physical entity. At most, one can say that we think by means of the brain, not that the brain thinks. I’ve dealt with this in several places in the discussion of emergentism. You can search for it here.
So God is neither ordered nor complex? Necessarily simple and a bit messy? That’s a good explanation, but it sounds a bit problematic to me as a description of the God of Judaism. Besides, I don’t see the logic in assuming that God is intelligent when we know that there can be mechanisms of order that create order without an intelligent planner, evolution being the best-known one.
You can of course caricature it however you like, but there are excellent explanations here for all your questions. You’re repeating things that have already been answered, and I don’t see any point in continuing. Stopping here.
Just one point that came up here (and was answered in parallel threads). There is no creation of order without planning. The laws of nature are what make evolution possible, and the planner created them. Therefore evolution is not relevant to the discussion in any way. I elaborated on this in the book God Plays Dice and in the article that summarizes it.
I’m not caricaturing anything; I’m just explaining why mechanisms of order like evolution show that it’s problematic to assume a planner. Evolution is relevant because it produced one of the arrangements familiar to us without any planner at all, which shows that under our laws of nature, order can arise without a planner. You then ask what created the laws of nature, but that’s already a completely different question. The argument talks about order in the world, not about the orderliness of the laws of nature. The laws of nature produced black holes and exploding stars and other things whose very last association is order. So I’m simply asking why the assumption of order and therefore an orderer still holds despite mechanisms of order that remove the need for a planner (the first person who thought of this, as far as I remember). You didn’t address that directly. In any case, I’d be happy for an article that summarizes God Plays Dice.
I was asked about my argument, not yours. My argument deals with the laws, not with reality. If you want to attack an argument that you’re formulating—go ahead. But why here?
An article summarizing part of it: https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%98-%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%98%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%99%d7%97%d7%a1%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%91%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94/
But isn’t it true to say that the human intellect must be more complex than anything it creates?
What is the definition of “complex” in this context?