Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God? Well Dawkins seems to think so, but Lennox does not.
Richard Dawkins is completely unaware of the divine simplicity argument. About 10 minutes in this becomes clear and continues to run throughout the whole debate as a kind of theme. This was put forth to him in a different debate moderated by Sir Anthony Kenny found here. Divine simplicity basically posits that God isn’t a composite, God isn’t made out of parts. God is not complex in the sense most often understood by most scientists and atheists such as Dawkins. In classical theism, God is identical to his attributes, which are not abstract entities or quantities, and they are not some thing. This is why educated and philosophically minded people know to articulate the nature of God in this way; “God is goodness” not; “God has goodness.”
However the whole divine simplicity argument is lost to Dawkins and because it is lost to him he considers God complex, a being so complex that it requires an explanation of its existence. But according to this logic, if God isn’t complex, which has been the overwhelming argument put forth by the historical defenders of classical theism, then God doesn’t require an explanation for its existence.
Below are some random thoughts and notes that are relevant to a great book I have been glancing at recently called The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (SoP for short) by Randall Collins. This is of course strictly in-between reads of An Introduction to Metaphysics. I will have an article on the topic of metaphysics posted shortly on The Known Quantity, so keep your fingers crossed.
Sociology has always interested me personally. It seems the more and more I delve into philosophical topics the closer I brush up alongside it. Whether its the discipline of science generally or postmodern philosophy particularly, sociology plays an important role in both. I suppose this is because language used in sociology seems to have a type of meta-utility for all types of specific disciplines. Put that way, to me the philosophy of sociological language seems like a ripe macro-level concept for study by sociologists.
SoP is an epic book, more than 1,000 pages. However on page 21 it states:
The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science, “Evolution and Ethics” by Michael Ruse, pg. 855 to 862.[link]
Ruse begins by distinguishing between moral discourse, or that which when discussed becomes a morality. So that the content of moral discourse is ethics. Ethics which come in two flavors; normative or substantive (also called ethics or metaethics). These Ruse equates normal ethics and metaethics to the moral statements of; “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “God wants you to love your neighbor as yourself” which is the content of “what one ought to do” or “why one ought to do what one ought to do” as Ruse puts it.