Dawkins on Design

Beliefnet has a fascinating interview with Richard Dawkins.  An excerpt:

You criticize intelligent design, saying that "the theistic answer"--pointing to God as designer--"is deeply unsatisfying"--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level.

Yes, because it doesn’t explain where the designer comes from. If they’re going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they’re so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

Now I'm sure I lack half the brain power of Richard Dawkins, but this seems to be a distinctly unsatisfactory answer.  Of course the designer would have to be more complicated.  And of course we cannot explain where the designer comes from.  The notion of God, it seems to me, flows from our conviction that there must be an entity that stands over everything, above, beyond, and prior to it all.  Nature is not nearly as satisfying as the ultimate source of everything because nature cannot not stand above and beyond itself; if the first appearance of the natural universe has a cause (and how could it not?), it makes much more sense (to me) to identify it as a supernatural designing force beyond comprehension than as a random natural occurrence beyond comprehension.

Another excerpt:

Obviously, a lot of people find the theistic answer satisfying on another level. What do you see as the problem with that level?

What other level?

At whatever level where people say the idea of God is very satisfying.

Well, of course it is. Wouldn’t it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course it’s satisfying, if you can believe it. But who wants to believe a lie? . . . .

How would you feel if your daughter became religious in the future?

Well, that would be her decision and obviously she’s her own person, she’s free to do whatever she likes. I think she’s much too intelligent to do that, but that’s her decision.

This exchange gives some grounding to Gregg Easterbrook's charge that:

Dawkins complains . . . that so many people believe things about science that are off the wall--for example, that early humans co-existed with dinosaurs--because their science educations are poor. He’ll get no argument from me on that. But I suspect one reason so many Americans have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory is that overbearing figures such as Dawkins talk down to them and act contemptuous of their religious beliefs. So people respond--perhaps quite rationally--by screening out the views of scientists whose motives they distrust. In this regard, it is telling that polls show Americans overwhelmingly accept many findings of modern research, such as the theories of relativity and of cosmic expansion. The scientists who favor these ideas generally aren’t in the habit of mocking peoples’ faiths, and so they are believed by the general public. If Dawkins’s professional goal is “public understanding of science,” he is a flop, seemingly trying his best to make worse what he is supposed to fix.

Rob