This one is a bit of a ramble, so
please forgive my apparent lack of organized thought.
Is it possible to believe in an
idea of "God," without accepting the dogmatic, religious, often
superstitious worldview that frequently comes with the package? Must we be forced to choose between such
limiting and apodictically certain ontologies as Fundamentalism and
Atheism? Can we only hope to ever aspire
to the likes of Richard Dawkins or Billy Graham? Or, shall we take a rain check on the
argument, valuing some sense of easy ignorance over the effort required to more
fully understand the question, and in turn, the answer?
Consider the weight of an
electron. It is constant. The same holds for many things, like the
strong and weak nuclear forces, the pull of gravity, and inertia. They are all measurable and constant, even if
the consistency lies only in the fact that relativity is consistent and
measurable. Our senses tell us there are
rules to this place. Of course, the
existence of rules doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a
rule-maker. Let us explore this idea
with a logical analysis of the famous Watchmaker argument.
One intelligent design argument
states that if one were to find a watch out in the wilderness, we would assume,
due to it's relative complexity when compared to its surroundings, that there
is indeed an intelligent designer, a watch-maker. Surely something so complex could never have
arisen by chance out there in the woods all alone. Therefore, if life/the universe is
incomprehensibly more complex than a watch, we must also assume that there is a
creator of life/the universe, just as there must also be a watch-maker.
While it has gained more recent
popularity during the modern Creationist/Intelligent design revival, this
argument, in various forms, is older than the Theory of Evolution itself. (In a future post, I'll explain why Evolution
is referred to as a theory, and why scientific theories, by definition, are
highly credible.) First, we'll talk
about how David Hume approached this problem in his Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion.
Hume was working with a different
form of the argument, though the logic is the same. Instead of a watch, Hume spoke of a
house. A house, being complex and
orderly in nature, requires a designer and builder. Life/the universe, being much more complex,
must therefore also require a designer, a builder. You can see how it's essentially the same
argument. For the sake of clarity and
modern relevance, I'll use the form involving a watch for the remainder of the
discussion.
Hume, while not specifically naming
it so, identifies the informal, logical fallacy of false analogy. The argument also subtly, yet simultaneously,
commits the fallacies of hasty generalization and the fallacy of accident. Lastly, the argument is a form of self-defeating
statement. Analysis of the language
follows.
It is a false analogy to compare a
watch with life and/or the universe that way.
Hume argues that complexity and apparent purpose alone are insufficient
premises for drawing a designer conclusion.
Rather, we assume the presence of a watchmaker not based on complexity,
but based on some fundamental, if rudimentary, understanding of exactly how
watches are made. The same cannot be
said of life/the universe. Here is the
fallacy of accident, where a rule that applies more generally is applied to a
specific case it was not intended to apply to.
To assume the presence of a creator is to assume some fundamental
understanding of how universes are made, and that they require the input of
intellectual activity. Considering we
know nothing at all about the process of universe creation, it does not
logically follow with any necessity that there must be a creator. The fallacy of hasty generalization is
committed in that the rock in an atypical example of natural things, and
therefore makes a poor standard of judgement for the natural world in general,
which is what is ultimately being questioned here.
Finally, the statement defeats
itself in a very important way. One
might even apply the fallacy of begging the question. The argument seems to be comparing the
complexity of the watch with its natural surroundings, citing, specifically, a
rock, and using this rock as a base-line representative of simplicity in
nature.
Paley puts it like this: " . .
.suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to
be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary,
it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the
absurdity of this answer." He goes
on, " . . . suppose I had found a watch upon the ground . . .Every
indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the
watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of
nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all
computation."
He uses the specific case of a
rock. Rocks are complicated enough to
warrant an entire field of fully developed science, with several
subdisciplines. It further stands to
reason that virtually any other example in this case doesn't apply to the
argument the same way. Things as simple
as the moss on that rock, the tree it was under, and the bacteria clinging to its
surface are exponentially more complicated than any watch. Basically, the necessity of the watchmaker's
presence in the presence of a watch is supported by citing the watch's higher
level of complexity as compared to natural objects, which are arguably more
complex. We find, through logical
analysis of the language, that two conflicting premises are being cited to
support the same conclusion, namely that A) a watch found in nature couldn't
get there by itself due to its complexity B) Natural things, being less
complex, got there by themselves C) Nature, being more complex than a watch,
must have a designer.
When analyzing these types of
fallacies, specifically ones of relevance, an alternative conclusion to the
erroneous one drawn by the original arguer should be apparent. Such is the case here. By the line of reasoning in the above
paragraph, you can easily support the opposite conclusion. A) Nature, being much more complex than
watches, got there by itself. B) Comparing the relative simplicity of the
watch with the mind-bending complexity of biological systems in nature leads
one to conclude that, C) If nature got there by itself, and it is more complex
than a watch by orders of magnitude, it follows logically that a watch could
indeed get there by itself, free of an intelligent agent.
It takes some work, but this type
of reasoning is highly relevant to the original question I posed at the top of
this article. Before we can answer this
question, however, we need to qualify our statements. Part of the issue lies
with the limited conception of God as an "intelligence." When most people talk about the existence of
God, they are almost always referring to the Judeo-Christian archetype of a
masculine, father-like, creating intelligence, exhibiting human traits such as
jealousy, anger, and self-gratification from completed tasks.
What else could "God,"
possibly mean? "God," is found
in the infinite possibility of fractal structures. "God," is found in the ability to
restrain oneself in a moment of anger.
"God," is found when sitting still in silence. "God," is found both on, and in,
the toilet. "God," is found
right here, right now, not there, not then.
"God," is found in the paradox of experiencing an objective
reality of energy and mass from the subjective framework of the senses and the
mind.
Is this starting to sound like some
metaphysical mumbo jumbo?
A Zen master, in response to a
question about the existence/nature of God, said, "There is no God, and He
is always with you."
This appears to be more of that
self-defeating non-sense we dealt with above. Is it? At the risk of further contradicting myself,
I will say it is, and then again it is not.
If the universe really is devoid of apparent distinction, as is claimed
by both physicists and Eastern holy men alike, and if the duality we experience
is just an illusion created by our minds, then distinctions such as
"I," and "God," become meaningless outside the context of
that limited, subjective experience. If
all is one, then there most certainly is no God, at least apart from myself and
everything else, and if there is no real way of separating myself from God, I
can no sooner get away from God than I can from myself, therefore, there is no
God, and he is always with you. In another sense, if God truly is a subjective
experience unique to each of us and our perceptions, then truly, there is no
God, only individual subjective experience of God. Subjective experience is a fundamental truth
of life, so, therefore, He is always with you.
Ultimately, the clear majority of
us as a species could use a long over-due frameshift in paradigm. The idea of having to choose between
rational, logical thought, and a very real, ongoing experience of what is
perceived of as the divine, is a false dichotomy. No need to pick one at the exclusion of the
other. Indeed, the universe opens up and becomes more vibrant when studying
religion alongside philosophy and science, successfully reconciling our
emotional and irrational humanity with the astringent, objective sterility so
highly sought after in the realms of science.
The important question isn't so
much about the existence of God as it is about the nature and actual definition
of God. There is almost certainly no
objective truth to the anthropomorphic deities that occupy our works of legend
and myth, and still, they are a very real part of some people's subjective
experience.
I know that as someone raised in a
Judeo-Christian household, in a primarily Judeo-Christian culture, I tend to
think of religious affairs as static, never changing antiquities of the past, a
bunch of people and happenings so far removed by time and culture from my own
place in the world that they require formal education in language, culture, and
history to make any real sense of. It's
time for a shift into the present.
Religion is a human activity, invented by humans for humans, and just
like every other human activity, religion is incredibly dynamic and subject to
being changed to suit the needs of those practicing it. According to the New Testament of the
Christian Bible, John the Baptist came out of the wilderness urging people to
repent. Why? " . . . because the Kingdom of Heaven is
at hand." he said. Not in some other place at some other time,
like that place in the clouds you see after death.
Heaven. Here.
Now. Act IMMEDIATELY, because
this is a limited time offer. What do you think?
