UNIT 3 - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Does Reason Support Or Challenge Belief In God?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UNIT 3 - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Does Reason Support Or Challenge Belief In God?"

Jasper Moody
5 years ago
Views:

1 KCHU 228 Intro to Philosophy Unit 3 Study Guide - Part 2 UNIT 3 - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Does Reason Support Or Challenge Belief In God? IV. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS FOR & AGAINST THEISM A. ARGUMENTS FROM BIOLOGICAL DESIGN i. The Design Argument from Analogy - William Paley ( ) p1. We can recognize human-made artifacts from natural objects by their design which points to intelligence, not a random accident of nature. p2. Nature exhibits design. Organisms are built to perform specific functions. p3. It is highly unlikely that such complex systems could arise merely by chance. p4. An intelligent designer could produce such complexity (this is known by analogy with the first premise). Conclusion: given the evidence, it is more likely that design in nature is the product of an intelligent designer (God) than a product of natural forces. Critiques: Critique of Premise 1 & 4: The argument rests on a poor analogy that of a human designer and a created artifact. Other analogies (such as an organic analogy God as vegetable ) might fare just as well or better. Also the analogy does not permit obvious instances of poor design (sickness, death, natural disaster). Critique of Premise 2 & 3: Possibly commits the false analogy fallacy - Design can arise from other sources than God or chance for example natural selection (random mutation arises by chance, but selection pressures are not random. They are determined by the environment).

2 Critique of Premise 2: Instances of poor design*, by analogy, would argue against a perfectly intelligent designer. *Instances of fatal design flaws in humans (from Wikipedia Argument from poor design ) In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother. In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal. In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death. [7] The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking. The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Critique of Conclusion: The argument, if valid, only proves some intelligent source of design it could be many different sources (polytheism), a source other than God (extra-terrestrial), or some unknown design principle at work in the universe.

3 ii. Argument from Irreducible Complexity 1. Many biological systems are so complex that the absence of any one of its intricate parts would constitute failure of the entire system. 2. The incomplete system would confer no benefit on the organism and therefore could not have arisen from natural selection. Conclusion: Such systems are more likely on intelligent design than random chance. Critique: Critique of Premise 2. Examples of irreducibly complex systems (the human eyes, the bacterial flagellum, etc.) on further inspection turn out to have evolutionary explanations that better account for the data than a designer. If history is our guide, examples that cannot currently be explained are likely to be explained in the future. Declarations of intelligent design are scientifically short sighted, and would destroy the discipline by discouraging scientists from searching for more answers. Critique of Argument: Even supposedly irreducibly complex systems also exhibit poor design. The Argument from Poor Design indicates that unintelligent, unguided evolution provides a better explanation for most of the data, and may present some reason for supposing candidates for irreducibly complex systems are not truly so, even before a thoroughly naturalistic account for them is found. Instructor Commentary: Much of the public controversy over intelligent design creationism (ID) is over whether or not it has legitimate scientific credentials or if it is a pseudoscience. As such the public debate often concerns political and scientific arguments, and is not directed at philosophy of religion. The critiques above reflect disagreement over the facts of the matter. They do not claim the argument is invalid, but do claim the argument is unsound. As a philosophical argument, ID fares much better than William Paley s watchmaker. If the first two premises are true then it would pose a serious challenge to modern science and philosophical naturalism. But would demonstrating natural selection to be inadequate at explaining some biological systems (ID presupposes most of evolutionary theory is correct) be enough to prove a higher intelligence is responsible for life? For this to happen, a positive argument would need to be made to establish intelligence as the source of design. Merely proving natural selection inadequate would not prove intelligent design (see forced choice fallacy in Unit 1).

4 B. DESIGN ARGUMENTS IN PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY i. The Fine-Tuning Argument from Design p1. Modern cosmology shows that life can only arise in a universe where very specific laws of physics occur. The physical parameters for a life permitting universe such as our own are very narrow.* p2. Modern cosmology also holds that after the big bang the parameters were most likely set randomly. p3. It is highly improbable that the narrow parameters needed for life in our universe would happen by chance. Conclusion: It is more probable that an intelligent designer (God) has finely tuned the parameters of our universe to permit life. *Examples of finely-tuned physical parameters of the universe If the initial expansion rate of the universe was less by one part in 10 17, the universe would collapse before life could form. If it were larger by the same amount the matter in the universe would disperse before stars and planets which could harbor life could form (Edis 88). The electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. If the forces were more comparable in strength, stars would have collapsed long before life had a chance to evolve. The electron s mass is less than the difference in the masses of the neutron and proton. If this were not the case, the neutron would be stable and there would be little hydrogen present to form stars. Critiques: Critique of Premise 1: The appearance of improbably fine-tuned physical systems has been common in the history of physics and often indicates that the dominant theories of the time are inadequate in some way. When better theories come along the phenomena seems less improbable (sometimes even necessary). The apparent fine-tuning of our universe may be an indication that our knowledge of physics is inadequate, and current paradigms in physics and cosmology are about to be overturned.

5 Critique of Premise 3: In some cases talk of fine tuning is misleading. When different units of measurement are used the apparent improbability vanishes (Note: this critique does not address all cosmological constants and so does not in itself succeed in refuting the argument, but would lower the strength of its inference). This is like saying that if he had been one part in of a light-year shorter (that is, one meter shorter), Michael Jordan would not have been the world s greatest basketball player -Victor Stanger in God: The Failed Hypothesis Critique of Premise 2 & 3: Probabilities may be calculated incorrectly based on a false assumption that the value of all physical parameters are causally independent of each other. In fine-tuning arguments, all parameters are kept fixed and then a single constant is varied, showing disastrous consequences for life in such a cosmos. But in simulations where all the parameters are allowed to vary at the same time numerous life permitting universes can arise (Anthony Aguirre & Craig Hogan) Critique of Conclusion: Why is an intelligent designer more probable than a multi-verse or primordial meta-verse which gave rise to our own? Incredibly improbable events (like a universe that randomly took on physical constants just like ours) can be likely to happen over a long or infinite time span. ii. The Design Argument from Entropy p1. The second law of thermodynamics declares that entropy will increase in any closed system. Entropy is the tendency of physical systems to move from high states of order to low states or order. p2. The fact of entropy (order moving towards chaos) conflicts with evolution (both cosmic and biological) which states things move from disorder to complexity. Conclusion 1: Therefore evolution doesn t take place and life requires an intelligent designer (God). or Conclusion 2: The fact that in our universe does exhibit evolution, in violation of the laws of physics, implies there must be a transcendent intelligent force (God) intervening in nature to create change.

6 Critique: Critique of Premise 2: The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems where energy cannot flow in or out. The earth is not a closed system we receive energy from the sun. So entropy is not a problem for the evolution of life on planet earth. The universe as a whole does seem to be increasing in entropy, but individual systems in our universe (like stars and galaxies) are not closed systems either and may show a temporary increase in order due to receiving energy from its neighbors or gravity bringing more matter (and hence, more energy) into that individual system. Critique of Premise 3: Demonstrates ignorance concerning the nature of scientific inquiry and what qualifies as a physical law. Laws are observations of stable relationships in nature. If the second law of thermodynamics is inconsistent with the way nature operates, we wouldn t need to go outside nature to explain it. The second law would simply lose its status as a law of nature. V. GENERAL COMMENTS ON TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR GOD If arguments for God fail then negative atheism can be consistent with reason (it is not irrational to doubt the existence of God). It would not follow, however, that positive atheism is true (failure to prove God exists does not mean God does not exist). Some theists (Such as Aquinas) maintain that no single argument for Gods existence proves God. They only prove some aspect of God s character exists. Reason points to some higher power but one can only accept God through faith. When traditional arguments (for or against theism) fail, philosophers often attempt to rework the arguments and make them stronger. There are many new versions of the ontological, cosmological, etc. arguments that attempt to make up for these deficiencies. There are also new critiques for these arguments. Though arguments often belong to a family of similar arguments, Philosophy is always evolving each family of arguments has many generations.

7 VI. WHAT IS FAITH AND WHAT IS ITS RELATION TO REASON? Of course we should say something about the nature of faith. Many theists would not claim to have sufficient reason or proof that a God exists, yet they have faith in God anyway. Here are some common perspectives on the relationship between faith and reason. 1. Faith and reason are incompatible (pro-reason). Reason is sufficient for knowledge. Faith is a way of claiming knowledge of propositions for which one has no evidence. Believing where one does not have proof is not the same thing as faith. One can believe something rationally even when proof is unavailable by inductive reasoning and appeal to the better explanation or abductive reasoning. Faith is believing without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. 2. Faith and reason are incompatible (pro-faith). God s infinite nature is such that knowledge of Him is beyond the abilities of human reason. Human reason is finite and corrupted by sin. If reason contradicts the tenants of faith, it is reason that must be rejected. Faith is a way of knowing that transcends the confines of reason. Through faith the believer has access to knowledge of God. 3. Faith and reason converge God as the author of reason is knowable by reason (even if his infinite nature is not entirely comprehensible). Logic and empiricism reveal God to the same degree as other abstract phenomena inferred by scientific inquiry (for example-- the existence of the electron). Faith and reason are not contradictory but different paths to the same conclusion. 4. Reason and Faith are complementary Reason and faith do not contradict or converge but overlap. Reason points to the truths of revelation, but a leap of faith in necessary to bridge the gap.

Philosophy of Science. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology

Philosophy of Science. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophy of Science Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics