Friday, May 21, 2010

Traces of God: Answering the Reverse Design Argument

Image hosting by PhotobucketImage hosting by PhotobucketImage hosting by Photobucket


Atheists have an arugment that seeks to reverse the design argument. It does exactly what the design argument does, which is probably reason enough to disregard it; it reasons form the apparent state of the world to the probable non existence of God. If it is illogical to reason form the wrold to God, it is equally illogical to reason from the world to not God. For this reason I swore off design arguments years ago. I have violated that oath twice, but for good reason (I'll get to those in a minute). In any case, there is a great deal wrong with this argument, and in figuring up all the many problems I see it I began to think of two things:

(1) Perhaps it would be instructive to delineate the cases under which one can argue from the state of the world to the existence of God.

(2) In pondering this question, I began to think about perhaps what might be the ultimate God argument.


The problem is that really if you think about it almost all probabilistic arguments are really arguing from the state of the world to the probable existence of God. But somehow this seem less drastic in some cases than others. I know there are those who just turn off at any kind of God argument. But for us Connoisseurs of God arguments, this should be a thorny issue. After all, what's the real difference between arguing form the contingency of the world, and arguing from the design of the world? Well, off hand the real difference is that one can be compared to something, the other can't. That's one of the major problems with this atheist argument, which was advanced at one point by Richard Carrier at one time. We do not have a designed universe to compare outs to, so we don't know what we are observing, design or random devleopment?

The argument says if we were to consider a random universe that came about by accident, you couldn't do better than our own. It really looks accidental. Life is precarious and rare, the universe is very hostile to it. It's vast, far more vast than it has to be. On the one tiny oasis we know of where life took root it blossomed into something as glorious as Richard Carrier's ego, we have no really obvious clue that God exists. If we were to consider what a puroespful logical creator would do we should expect sign posts to his existence everywhere, right? Well, maybe. maybe not. That's the problem the argument is nothing more than begging the question. It assumes we know what God would do, and after constructing a straw man God who behaves the way we want him to, we just assume we know what he would do and than access the tragic fact that it hasn't been done. So by golly, there must not be a God, because this non God doesn't' follow my advice! Of course the model for his straw God is fundamentalism.  Athens are so afraid to take on liberal theology honestly, but it's because they are all secretly fundamentalists. What I mean by hat is they are the "tails" to the fundies "heads." Like communist and anti-communists, they are both parts of the same thing.

The difference in this argument and one that actually has something to compare, a base line from which to work, should be obvious. The atheist who argues for Carrier's idea must forge his own base line by setting up a straw man (um, God) and then priviliating his assumptions about the nature of religion in such a way that he just nixes the possibly of any other kind of theology. That's not a real comparison. The fine tuning argument can compare fine tuning to lack thereof, compare target levels to the actual hitting of same. The contingency arguments (quantum and other forms of cosmology) can compare contingency to necessity. Religious experience arguments are drawn from the results of experience, they compare experience to non experience. The two instances in which I do use design arguments are those in which comparisons can be made between the nature of the world and state of existence known to lack that attribute as known non designed reality; the use of the "God Pod" as evoking innate ideas. We can compare reactions to God talk to other kinds of talk and see that our brains only react to God talk in the way that they do. Thus we can compare the innate ideas of God to reactions to other ideas. The other instance is the fine tuning arugment,which has already been explained. But the Carrier reverse design argument has nothing to compare except Richard's ego. With that as the standard for assumptions, we have no basis upon which to draw conclusions about the nature of God from the state of the universe.

This argument does have one other troubling application. It could be a "possible defeater" for proper basically. To be properly basic an idea must be logically apprehended as it is, with no possible alternative explanations, or  "defeaters." The argument is a possible defeater only if we understand it to be indicative the kind of universe God would not make. But we can't make that assumption beause we can't pretend to know all the things God would do. Once can find many alternative theological explanations that involve both Evangelical views of God and non Evangelical views. The most obvious non Evangelical view is that of process theology. The atheist can only think of God as a big man upstairs. This is the basic image they rebel against. The will of the father is their Kryptonite. They foresee a big man on a throne who decides and deliberates such a potentate wants to be served, they reason, and thus must make a universe in which he is known commonly to all. So we should expect the universe to be smaller, easier to navigate, easier to understand, filled with sign posts of God. No disease, no problems and everyone automatically given tons of faith so the world would be a paradise. If some serpent spoiled it, it should be put right immediately so that we can go on in our little heavens, where no doubt we get to listen to Richard Dawkins directing the chores of angels.

The God of process theology, on the other hand, is more like the Helena dialectic, or like some organizing principle. This is not a God deliberates and decides. this is a God who is potential in one realm, and who micro manages (literally) creation in the other; almost a law of physics, changing with creation, bringing subatomic particles into being and ushering them out of being. This is more of a stage director in the play of the universe (and in other dipolar structure stage director and producer) than a big king on a throne. Such a God would start the process of life and allow it go where it will, then embrace (to whatever extent possible) any beings that evolve sufficiently to come up to its level.

Another version would be my own idea of God as being itself (Tillich's idea--). This version of God is much like the process God, but I fell that God is too sacred a mystery to pin down to dipolar structures or to analyze all of "his" ("her," "its") doings. God is the great wholly (Holy) other. WE cannot know except through mystical union what God is doing. But such a God is the basis upon which being proceeds into concrescence and the basic reality of the Platonic forms. Such a God does not design or make plans, but the whole of creation is a non deliberating plan in the sense of being an expression of God's charter indwell; yet not necessity the result of raciocentination. Thus God starts a principle of life emerging from the nature of being, because that's what being does it spreads the beings, it "let's be" (John Mcquarrie). The evolutionary course that is followed may be assisted in an automatic sort of way, not as a plan, not as a deliberate gesture, but as the result of a nature that has to manifest itself creatively. This being doesn't' say "I will make men, and men will serve me." But men evolve out of the storm and the wastes of the abyss and they naturally come to find God because theta's he nature of beignet is there to be found in the sense of the numinous. When humanity reaches a point where it comprehends the numinous, to seeks God and finds God.

Humanity finds God in a million different places. It finds God in flowers and trees, in brooks (and in books), in grass, in each other. It finds God in storms and scary things, and in the night. It finds God in the sky and the stars in the darkness of a vast and endless expanse. It reaches out for what is there because it has been put into it to do so; not because God sat and said "I will make men and men will seek me" but because God provided for the reality of the Imago Dei to evolve and develop in whatever species reached the point where humanity has come to. God did this automatically as an aspect of self expression, as an outgrowth of consciousness. This kind of God would make a universe of the type we see around us. This type of God would also place in that universe hints so that whatever species reaches that level that God's manifestation would be waiting to show them God's solidarity with them. God would plant a thousand clues, not as a matter of deliberation like one plants Easter eggs, but as the result of being what God is--self communicating and creative. Thus we have design arguments and fine tuning arguments, and contingencies and necessities and the lot. We can find the God Pod in our heads that lights up when it hears God ideas. We can do studies and determine that our religious experiences are better for us than unbelief, because the clues are endless because the universe bears the marks of its creator.

Yet these marks are sublet for a reason. This is where the Evangelical view of God can also be a sophisticated view. The Evangelical God can also be the God of Tillich and the God of process, after all, these are all derived from the same tradition and the Evangelicals have as much right to escape anthropomorphism as anyone. The Evangelical God seeks a moral universe. This God wants believers who have internalized the values of the good. We do not internalize that which we are forced to acknowledge. Thus God knows that a search in the heart is better to internalizing values than is a rational formally logical argument, or a scientific proof. Thus we have a soteriological drama in which we can't tell if there is or is not a God just by looking at the nature of nature. That must remain neutral and must illud us because it is not given to us to have direct and absolute knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is a privilege. We must seek it through the heart, that's where it isthmian to be found. It's a privilege but faith is a gift.

11 comments:

A Hermit said...

As usual this would be much better without the gratuitous generalizations about atheists...

I know it bothers you that I keep harping on this, but I would really like to be able to engage with your ideas and find it difficult to do so because the smug, condescending tone of those cheap shots early in the piece just turn me right off.

Metacrock said...

that's just what I would expect an atheist to say.

"fundies say the darnedest things."

"funny things get said when Christians talk among themselves"

"do you know any Christians who can read?"

"stupid Chrsitians"

when I see you stand up to one atheist one single time and say "that's not right stop doing it" then I will stop giving atheists their own medicine.

A Hermit said...

"when I see you stand up to one atheist one single time and say "that's not right stop doing it" then I will stop giving atheists their own medicine."

If you have never seen me do that it's because you weren't paying attention.

What I'm trying to tell you is that you defeat your own purpose by throwing in those generalizations. It might make you feel better but it undermines your arguments; people like me are less likely to even read them through. telling me atheists are "all secretly fundamentalists" when you should know damn well by now that many of us are anything but that is not the way to engage that part of your audience.

Metacrock said...

go look on CARM on the "Other" board right now: "why is Christianity so evil?" where are you? I don't see you there.

WAR_ON_ERROR said...

Joe,

I have a question:

What does "raciocentination" mean? Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are mispelling things or if you know fancy words that I don't (which is fine).

Oh, and I agree. I'd like to see more atheists publicly denounce other atheists' bad behavior. Can't say that it's pretty though. hehe At least it isn't when I do it.

Ben

Metacrock said...

As often happens, it's both. I spelled it wrong and its' a real word:

ratiocination


"Main Entry: ra·ti·o·ci·na·tion
Pronunciation: \-ˌō-sə-ˈnā-shən, -ˌnä-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1530

1 : the process of exact thinking : reasoning
2 : a reasoned train of thought"

WAR_ON_ERROR said...

Thanks. Also seems to be a fun word to say. haha

What are some of the major differences between what you would consider your "liberal theology" and the type of theology that Carrier would be addressing? I'm not so sure that you both are talking about the same type of Christian claim. You have a blog post that explains that kind of thing somewhere?

Ben

Metacrock said...

What are some of the major differences between what you would consider your "liberal theology" and the type of theology that Carrier would be addressing? I'm not so sure that you both are talking about the same type of Christian claim. You have a blog post that explains that kind of thing somewhere?

I can't say I really know what Carrier expects. I know him, the less said about the better I guess. I've squabbled with him on line before.

In general I'm not all that liberal. I've been told my real liberals that I'm "Neo Orhtodox," the only problem i Have with that is that usually means Calvin or Garth and I am not a Calvinist or a Barthian

I went to a major liberal seminary, Perkins at SMU and had a couple of classes with Schubert Ogden. But I'm probably not as liberal as he is.

I believe in the Nicene creed, I guess the main issue that separates me form the fundies my take o the bible I'n not an inerrentist. Also my social ideas, 'm a socialist.


here is my credo page on my stie Doxa

WAR_ON_ERROR said...

Thanks!

A Hermit said...

"go look on CARM on the "Other" board right now: "why is Christianity so evil?" where are you? I don't see you there"

I haven't been on CARM in at least a month; real life is making too many demands and I don't have time for all that mental masturbation right now...

Metacrock said...

real life--bah humgbug!