The Problem of Evil and the Design Argument
Philosophy, Religion January 2nd, 2010A quick recap on these two arguments:
- We observe that universe has certain properties
- These are consistent with properties that we would expect from a designer (with good intentions)
- Therefore the universe was designed
- Bad things happen
- A good and omnipotent God would prevent bad things from happening
- Therefore God is not both good and omnipotent
- A Defence: what apparently is “bad” might have be “good” but we cannot fully comprehend it from our current point of view.
Recently, I noticed an interesting thing. If we admit this defence of “bad things” are really good, we therefore say “we are not in a position to assess the attributes of the universe”. This statement may then be applied to the design argument, which undermines the first axiom of us observing the “designed” attributes of the universe. So these arguments are in fact the same argument, two sides of the same coin! So things that appear designed at this point in time might be the work of a short sighted designer, only to backfire later (or as the product of many other origins). This possibility cannot be distinguished from a competent designer using the design argument.
(I omit discussing the other objections to both these arguments, false dichotomy being the most obvious.)
Anti Citizen One
PS Happy new arbitrary length of time!
PPS Ireland’s anti-blasphemy laws come into effect that forbid causing “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion”. Nice step backwards. They need to amend their constitution to remove the moronic basis for this law. Given the hysterical nature of many religions, we can look forward to curtailment of free speech… idiots.
PPPS A topical quote that illustrates some of the above issues:
“God is ultimately responsible for the earthquake in Haiti and has a reason that is beyond our ability, trapped in time, to understand or comprehend. But it would be theological ignorance coupled with absolute arrogance to try and interpret God’s actions as a judgment against a particular person or nation.” — Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, for Newsweek.
January 17th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“We observe that universe has certain properties
These are consistent with properties that we would expect from a designer (with good intentions)”
Picky point I guess, but the argument from design makes no reference to “good intentions” – that would be a moral telological argument (a combination of more than one set of assumptions).
The strict definition is roughly that which you proposed (minus the moral bit) that the argument from design arises because we percieve what appears to be design, order or purpose thereby implying a designer.
I do like your rejection from false dichotomy.
My own preference is Voltaires
“… from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense.”
The two key terms for Voltaire is that the perception of design makes the existence of a designer “probable” but that this alone makes no definitive conclusion as to the nature of the designer.
The design argument therefore is no argument but an inference, and as such any number of possible conclusions may be inferred including that the universe is the source of its own design and genesis.
Ultimately though your point is valid, standing from a relative position in time any attempt to derive a conclusive proposition that the universe is ordered and designed (thus inferring a designer) is to ignore the “complete picture” – although we have a working model of the beginning and development of the universe we are still very much hypothetically discussing the “why is there something rather than nothing?” philsophy/science of it and the speculation of “what will come of the universe?” is entirely in the realm of “all the cards are on the table”.
It’s our old is/ought problem.
January 17th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
To comlpete the above thought… “that standing from a relative position in time any attempt to derive a conclusive proposition that the universe is ordered and designed (thus inferring a designer) is to ignore the “complete picture” …”
I would suggest that such a complete picture is either outright impossible to obtain or is “error 404″ currently unavailable!
January 18th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
[...] Design Argument Considerations in Excruciating Detail Origins, Religion January 17th, 2010 Comment: ‘Picky point I guess, but the argument from design makes no reference to “good [...]