What to say to Christians Who Invoke Intellegent Design

2006-06-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

Intelligent Design is the latest iteration of the debate on the whether or not God exists. Proponents of Intelligent Design attempt to prove that the world is far too complex to be organized in the absence of some kind of guiding intelligence. On the converse Natural selection is a theory that explains how complex life has evolved from simpler forms, under a system of simple rules. This debate between Intelligent Design and Natural Selection is similar to the debate on the existence of God in David Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”.

In “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”, Hume addresses the question of God’s existence by portraying a dialogue between three different personalities who posses different views on the subject. The dialogue begins with Cleanthes arguing that God exists. Cleanthes presents the case for God, by attempting to show that there is empirical proof for God. Essentially he is arguing that because the universe appears to operate like a very complex machine, with systems that appear to have been designed to work in harmony, and that Man can design and build complex machines, then the intelligence that must have created the universe is one that is similar to that of Man. Cleanthes states, “The curious adapting of means to ends throughout all of nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance…We are led to infer... that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man.”[Pg 1] For Cleanthes this is all that there is, and there need not be any further explanation. “By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a deity and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.”

Philo disagrees with Cleanthes’ argument underlying his claim to God’s existence through empirical methods. Philo challenges Cleanthes claim that the Universe and a machine are really analogous. He argues that the more differences between two things being compared, will lead to less understanding and more error. “Wherever you depart, in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionally from the evidence; and at last bring it to a very weak analogy” [pg 2]. Philo goes on to argue that Cleanthes analogy is so dissimilar that it isn’t really an analogy. He uses the relationship between a house and the universe to point out that we don’t know nearly as much as much about the universe as we do about a house. He states, “The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause.” [Pg 2].

Philo continues on to question the validity of Cleanthes claim that by experiencing the world we can find proof of God’s existence. Phlio argues that Cleanthes has erred when arguing that we can understand the Universe –and the god who supposedly created it—by merely understanding its parts. Philo (which appears to be the true voice of Hume) argues that because we have not experienced the totality of the universe, we cannot know it. As such any inference that we make between a things parts and the thing as a whole will not provide us with any true information about the thing. “From observing the growth of hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of man?” [Pg 3]. Philo goes on to argue that we don’t have any particular reason to assume that anything beyond what we already know, shares characteristics with things that we are familiar with. This is pretty important because it shows that Philo’s method of investigation is actually empirical, while Cleanthes’s is mere speculation. Cleanthes has no experience that would lead him to believe that the universe is really similar to a man-made machine. Philo asks, “A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us: and do we then pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?” [Pg 3]. Philo continues on to argue that when we draw analogies between two or more things we can assume that they are similar if we observe “through custom” that they are somehow related to each other. He states, “I can infer, by custom, the existence of one wherever I see the existence of the other…” [Pg4].

Hume doesn’t prove that God’s existence cannot be proven by an empirical means, but he shows that if this were done in the way that Cleanthes has argued –by making inferences based on supposed similarities between Man and God—then the logical conclusions would be unacceptable for believers in God to accept. This is not stated in our selection, but if one follows the logical conclusion of Philo’s argument on Cleanthes position, then it becomes visible. Cleanthes argues, “The curious adapting of means to ends throughout all of nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance…We are led to infer... that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man.”[Pg 1]. If Cleanthes ascertains that we can make inferences between Man and God on the subject of design, then he must also hold that other inferences could be made. One could argue that because Man and God are somewhat analogous, then because Man is mortal, then God could also be mortal. One could also argue that because Man and God are somewhat analogous, then because Man is capable of error, then God could also be capable of error. This could be taken further to show that perhaps God’s design might not be so intelligent after all. Either way, the notion that God is capable of error, or subject to the rigor of mortality are notions that the faithful will find blasphemous.

Hume has effectively shown that Cleanthes claim that one can observe the empirical proof for God by observing the world, is flawed –by being based on the idea that Man and God are similar because both can create—and if pushed its logical conclusions incompatible with basic Christian (if not other) religious doctrines. Hume’s point should be convincing for both the faithful and the skeptic, and that is the genius of his argument. However, it is unlikely that the debate over intelligent design will end soon, because there are many who would rather leave the reasoning up to “intellectual authorities” rather than do the thinking for themselves. For many those folks, their minds have been previously made up, and they chosen to remain fundamentally anti-philosophical.

Afterthought:

Proponents of ID have only the world around them as their evidence, as there is no mention of the proceses of ID in the Bible or any other religous text. As such, in order to infer that a "God" designed the whole of existence much like I might design a marketing campaign, is to compare God to Man. God then must have other human like characteristics and we must then know God, becuase we can know ourselves. This interpertation of God, is not Christian.

Why George Bush Is Wrong About Gay Marriage

2006-06-06T23:11:00.002-07:00

If Gays are not allowed to marry (for whatever reason, spiritual or not) government has entered the business of granting rights and has then violated its only justification for existence: to respect and protect individual rights.   While religion has its place in society; we must not allow dogma to influence the blind eye of the law. If the church doesn't want to marry gays, that is their right as a private organization, but gays must be allowed to have access to the same liberties that the rest of us have. Otherwise we are not a truly free society.   The religious sense of marriage has no place in government. The only benefit that marriage offers (besides love and/or any religious reasons) is that it is a legal union. Marriage is much like incorporation. Partners can pass on wealth to their kin with ease and without hassle; they can share investments and pool together their resources without a lot of the legal headache and money. In the eyes of the law this is the only definition that matters. If religious folks don't agree with gays getting married, then they are entitled to their opinion. Religion does not hold a monopoly on consensual unions (but they might on forced nonconsensual unions). Simply put marriage is a contract between two adults. Just as the government should not be able to prevent you from your right to free speech because you are gay, they should not be able to prevent your from exercise your right to enter into a contract with a consenting party.   The reason why liberty is a responsibility is because we need to put our dislikes of others actions --as long as they don't hurt us-- by the wayside. There is not a legal reason to oppose gays who want to marry. We don't have the luxury of denying others of their legal rights because we don't want our traditions challenged. That's the nature of oppressive and corrupt regimes. Liberty is about equality under law. There can be no exceptions to that rule, ever.

Welcome!

2006-06-06T23:02:00.000-07:00

My ambitions for this online journal are to share my ruminations about current events, philosophy, science, economics and politics. Some may argue that these fields are vastly different from one another and have different sets of principles. Over time I intend to show that all of these domains, whether science of humanity, are governed by the same simple scientific laws.

I hope you all enjoy!

Corey