Doxazo Theos

Who Designed the Designer?

Richard Dawkins often insists that the logic of the design argument immediately raises the question of who designed the designer. From The Blind Watchmaker:

To explain the origin of the [apparent design] by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. [p.141]

When I encounter a popular argument like this, I really try to give it the benefit of the doubt, considering that it must touch on some intuition many people share. Otherwise, popular arguments like this would never win the slogan status they do. But I have to confess—I have a truly hard time taking this argument seriously, especially when it’s presented by some sec-web goonie as a tour de force. The theist who even thinks about offering a rebuttal only demonstrates how hopelessly lost and confused he is in the aftermath of this end-all, knock-down argument akin to a modern-day Sherman’s march through theism. Alvin Plantinga similarly notes how this argument has gained momentum among the enlightened:

In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett approvingly quotes this passage [The Blind Watchmaker, p. 141] from Dawkins and declares it an “unrebuttable refutation, as devastating today as when Philo used it to trounce Cleanthes in Hume’s Dialogues two centuries earlier.” Now here in The God Delusion Dawkins approvingly quotes Dennett approvingly quoting Dawkins, and adds that Dennett (i.e., Dawkins) is entirely correct.

Wow. “But the argument finds its origins in great philosophers, like David Hume!” you point out how Dennett pointed out. “So surely it must be some kind powerful weapon.” Point taken—a la Hume, let’s try to take the “who designed the designer?” argument seriously.

It is hard to see what exactly the argument is trying to achieve, much less how it goes about achieving it. Even if we assumed it completely and totally successful, it certainly doesn’t disprove theism or prove atheism. The only sense I can make out of what it wants to show is that we should not infer a designer based on the apparent design in the universe. But even if we concede this, it still does not follow that the universe is not designed or that the universe does not have a designer. All it would show is design arguments that utilize inference to the best explanation are mistaken. As such, the argument does nothing against design arguments the conclusions of which are arrived at deductively or probabilistically.

But does the argument show that we should not infer a designer based on the apparent design in the universe? I think not. Take a look at the assumption the argument rests on:

(1) A only explains B if A has an explanation of a similar kind

But this is just false. (1) can be broken into two parts: a. A only explains B if A itself has an explanation, and b. The explanation of A is of a similar kind. Consider them in turn.

(1a) A only explains B if A itself has an explanation

This is the insight behind the age old “who caused God?” question. There is no reason at all to assume this is true. Physical compounds are perfectly explainable in terms of the elements which compose them even if the elements themselves are not. Furthermore, if this assumption were true, then literally nothing would be explainable. Accordingly, for any explanation to be valid, it would have to have a valid explanation of its explanation, ad infinitum. Well, there goes the entire domain of natural science! The fact is that some things are perfectly explainable in terms of the explanation immediately prior to them. Theists like Richard Swinburne have rigorously argued that a regress of explanation almost always stops at the feet of an agent and his intentions, which leads us to (1b).

(1b) The explanation of A is of a similar kind

If we are to explain complexity in terms of design, so says Dawkins, the designer must himself be just as complex or even more so. To explain one phenomenon by appealing to a phenomenon of a similar kind does nothing to advance an explanation. But why should we think this? This seems more like rhetoric than argument. When an archaeologist unearths an ancient hand-tool of some sort and infers things about its designer (such as why it needed to make said hand-tool), his colleague doesn’t object to the inference because the designer itself must have been at least as complex as the hand-tool. Further, the principle “like begets like”, which no doubt is what Dawkins has in mind, seems to only be true of material causes (even that is debatable). But, of course, God is not a material entity. So applying such a principle in this case blatantly begs the question against the possibility of non-material causes.

In short, the explanans and the explanandum are not always similar. However, we can infer characteristics of the explanans based on the explanandum—and this is precisely why we’re justified in making an inference to intelligence based on the apparent design in the universe. This is also why we’re justified in dismissing the argument as remarkably sophomoric based on Richard Dawkins’ fondness of it. Plantinga, perhaps the world’s greatest living philosopher, thinks even the word sophomoric is an aggrandizement of Dawkins’ arguments:

…much of the philosophy he [Dawkins] purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.

So the “who designed the designer?” argument is an utter failure. For an entertaining read, see Plantinga’s review of The God Delusion, in which he also tries his best to take Dawkins the philosopher seriously.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm and is filed under Apologetics, Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

29 Responses to “Who Designed the Designer?”

mattghg Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
sec-web goonie
lol

Have you seen Thomas Nagel’s GD review? He makes a similar point. Dawkins and Dennett seemingly can’t even conceive of anything non-material.
Chad McIntosh Says:
October 8th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Thomas Nagel has a review of GD?! I’ll have to pick that up as soon as I can. Thanks for the reference!

It is sad to see Dennet jump on the bandwagon of “the new atheism” lumping himself in with Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Hitchens, et. al. I have a hard time approaching his earlier work in a serious vein now.
mattghg Says:
October 10th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Nagel’s review at The New Republic has gone behind the subscriber wall now, but I can reproduce part of it for you;

Dawkins’s reply to the [teleological] argument has two parts, one positive and one negative. The positive part consists in describing a third alternative, different from both chance and design, as the explanation of biological complexity. He agrees that the eye, for example, could not have come into existence by chance, but the theory of evolution by natural selection is capable of explaining its existence as due neither to chance nor to design. The negative part of the argument asserts that the hypothesis of design by God is useless as an alternative to the hypothesis of chance, because it just pushes the problem back one step. In other words: who made God? “A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right.”

Let me first say something about this negative argument. It depends, I believe, on a misunderstanding of the conclusion of the argument from design, in its traditional sense as an argument for the existence of God. If the argument is supposed to show that a supremely adept and intelligent natural being, with a super-body and a super-brain, is responsible for the design and the creation of life on earth, then of course this “explanation” is no advance on the phenomenon to be explained: if the existence of plants, animals, and people requires explanation, then the existence of such a super-being would require explanation for exactly the same reason. But if we consider what that reason is, we will see that it does not apply to the God hypothesis.

The reason that we are led to the hypothesis of a designer by considering both the watch and the eye is that these are complex physical structures that carry out a complex function, and we cannot see how they could have come into existence out of unorganized matter purely on the basis of the purposeless laws of physics. For the elements of which they are composed to have come together in just this finely tuned way purely as a result of physical and chemical laws would have been such an improbable fluke that we can regard it in effect as impossible: the hypothesis of chance can be ruled out. But God, whatever he may be, is not a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world. The explanation of his existence as a chance concatenation of atoms is not a possibility for which we must find an alternative, because that is not what anybody means by God. If the God hypothesis makes sense at all, it offers a different kind of explanation from those of physical science: purpose or intention of a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world. The point of the hypothesis is to claim that not all explanation is physical, and that there is a mental, purposive, or intentional explanation more fundamental than the basic laws of physics, because it explains even them.
Chris Pickett Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Without wishing to sound too “sucky up” ….excellent article, just about the clearest critique of this particular Dawkinism I’ve read.
I have to confess this one often stumps me in conversation…obviously not because of its intellectual rigour but simply because at it’s root it is so supremely dumb!
The question that occurs to me is - Does Dawkins really believe this is a decent argument? If he does I can only conclude that he thinks that the God that Christians (and/or other theists) believe in is more like the gods of Greek myth than the God of the bible. Hmmm….
Chad McIntosh Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Haha, I know what you mean about this argument being a stumper in conversation. This sort of argument commits what I call the “madman fallacy.” In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton remarked that “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.” So the madman fallacy occurs when your opponent’s argument doesn’t even make an appearance on the radar of good sense, thereby leaving you baffled by its absence.

I think he does believe this is a good argument. I hear him give it much lip service in his lectures and interviews. On one hand, this really isn’t surprising considering his amateur experience in philosophy of religion.
A. Says:
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 am
I’m an atheist, but even I think Dawkins should expect the very same vigorous peer review by philosophers when he writes philosophy as he gets from scientists when he publishes science.
A. Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 1:36 am
That being said, even assuming you can prove god exists, that is only the beginning of a very long road toward proving what Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or even Zoroastrianism have to say about him, to say nothing of proving why any one of those traditions should have exclusive claim to god’s revelation.
Chad McIntosh Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 1:38 am
A,

I totally agree. But I don’t see how pointing out that Christians (or adherents of other monotheistic religions) have their work cut out for them in any way counts against them. The truth is, such work has been done and is, I believe, conclusive. If you’re interested in that work, I’d am more than willing to mention it.

The response that “well, this argument, even if successful, doesn’t prove your God” atheists typically give after hearing an argument for the existence of God really depreciates the discussion. For if they really thought said argument were sound, I hardly think they’d be criticizing it for not proving more. I think they’d be captivated by what the conclusion entails. That they are not and have no other response than that it doesn’t prove more tells more about the objector than the argument. After all, you yourself said these are “interesting and important topics” on your blog. If you notice the importance of these issues, can you really say the “it doesn’t prove enough” line is really honest and fair?

Moreover, one of the first things you’re trained to look for when evaluating arguments is one that tries to prove too much, for it’s more than likely a bad one. So when atheists object to some argument’s modesty, they’re actually pointing out a successful feature of the theist’s argument!
Of course, all this is said without mentioning the atheist’s share of the burden of proof.

Thanks for your comments!
A. Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 1:38 am
I would agree with everything you just said at least as far as philosophy goes. What many of us (atheists) see, however, are people who are not as well versed in these issues as you clearly are taking a logical argument for god’s existence and then running to the front of the line without taking that “long walk” to justify what their particular denomination claims about god. That kind of behavior is at least as typical among theists as the atheist charge that “you still have a long way to go.”

I think we would both agree that many individuals on both sides of this debate are guilty of a little bit of intellectual dishonesty based on their preference for one outcome over the other.

In any event, even when I did believe in god, I never felt that these arguments either proving or disproving god’s existence did much by way of convincing anybody. You looked at the universe and you either intuited that god existed, or god’s existence didn’t make sense anymore. The real issue is knowing what you believe, why you believe it, having reasons, and being able to work with people on issues of common concern without getting too personally hung up on whether they believe in god or not.

Again, great blog. I’ll keep popping in.
Chad McIntosh Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 2:59 am
I can sympathize with what you say here, and part of my passion is to reverse this trend of “cutting in line,” so to speak, among Christians. A good starting point is engaging in and applying systematic, critical thinking not only to opposing worldviews but to one’s own. Intellectual dishonesty can and should be avoided. Intellectual bias, on the other hand, isn’t necessarily a vice. Ideally, intellectual honesty should serve to expose one’s intellectual biases as justified or not in the belief-forming/retaining processes.

I’m afraid I can’t sympathize much with your suggestion on not “getting too personally hung up on whether they believe in god or not.” Belief in God has too much existential import for us not to be personally hung over. Frankly, I’m astounded by people’s lack of concern and seeming disinterest in such matters. Even as an atheist I reasoned this way, as have most atheist philosophers. The issue is not whether we should be personally hung up on these issues, but rather whether we approach them with intellectual honesty.
A. Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I just want to reply to that last paragraph. When I say we shouldn’t get “too personally hung up on whether they believe in god or not,” I really mean that we shouldn’t let where an individual stands on that issue obstruct us from working with them on issues of common concern.

Then again, the answer to that question undoubtedly influences many people’s stand on moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, et cetera.

Obviously a world where god exists substantially differs from one where god does not exist, but I’m trying to make the broader point the “proofs” one way or the other, seldom do anything to convince the other side. If anything, I think they help individuals get a handle on why they believe what they do.

In any event, I’ve used up enough space on this post, and I’ll just wait out the next one!

Thanks again.
Russell Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Whether you are talking irreducible complexity, or blind watch makers, or how you determine your individual spin on current hot button issues, I fail to understand how theism can chance polarizing themselves on this issue. What Christians need to do is produce their version of God; else they only complicate the question. The discovery of a super being creator of the universe would be fine by me, (meaning it would change nothing), because I BET that being knows nothing of earthly organized religion, or I would hope so seeing the convoluted nonsense it has become. However we still have much to learn, and I see no reason to jump the gun just because of my own private burning need to be proven correct in front of others, (or yours for that matter). Some things are never going to be known; at least until you do the massive ground work to get to a reasonable answer.

So my question to you and the gallery is this; If there is a designer, what does this mean to you?
Chad McIntosh Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Russell,

I appreciate your question and take it to heart. I would be delighted to answer it. First, however, I have a question for you:

How much does your “private burning need to be proven correct in front of others” influence your metaphysical decision-making, or the answer to your own question for that matter?
Russell Says:
November 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Okay, fair enough.
I have no belief in a God, at least one that belongs to any particular religion. Mainly because it appears so much as if there is no God. In other words, if there is a God, he should be evident in some physical way. To just hang out in the cosmos is not actually enough to justify our acknowledgment of him as (our) God. I can not possibly know if there is or is not some kind of God (as described in holy books), unless he makes himself known in an empirical way, which I see no reason to NOT DO. Meanwhile people who claim to know things they can’t possibly know muddy the waters so no real investigation can happen. Science is finding answers to questions that up until this time have been the province of religion, and doing a good job of understanding the material universe at the same time. So I go with what I know, and to invent some kind of mental process that would include acknowledgment of something I can’t prove would be dishonest on my part.
Chad McIntosh Says:
November 15th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Russell,

Thanks for the comment—your honesty is admirable. If you pursue these matters in an honest vein, dropping that “burning desire” to confirm yourself, I think you’ll be surprised at where it leads you. I was surprised at where it lead me!

For starters, can you honestly fault God for not being a physical being when, by definition, he is an immaterial person? This is a category mistake. You might as well disbelieve in the musical note C because it isn’t purple or doesn’t smell like meatloaf.

I can not possibly know if there is or is not some kind of God (as described in holy books), unless he makes himself known in an empirical way, which I see no reason to NOT DO

Now here is a statement with which I can fully sympathize. I could not agree with you more, Russell. It should be no surprise to you for me to say that it is precisely this issue which I think distinguishes Christianity from all of the other religions. God presented himself empirically knowable via the historical person of Jesus, setting Christianity apart as the only religion which can be empirically falsified or confirmed on historical grounds. Now if this is not what you meant by knowing God in an “empirical way,” then I ask what you think would count as empirical evidence for God—perhaps that is the more interesting question.
Russell Says:
November 15th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I will get back to you later on this, short handed at work today.
Russell Says:
November 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Chad-
This is one of those topics that would take a book to respond to. My main problem is that for God to create as he is reported to do in Genesis, and then inspire various people over time to write books, seems rather lame when you consider that He can do whatever he wants. Why has he chosen to withdraw himself from humans physically? How did things go so wrong (according to canon), that we are basically alone with no reliable means of communication. The absentee landlord syndrome.
What is all this about hell fire for non-belief? Why did God allow humans to even propagate after the supposed fall? How can God justify this action in light of the misery that has ensued ever since? Why does God use negative reinforcement when we know that only works temporarily? It would seem to me, that God has done little to prevent evil, but has done much to condemn those who do it. When I really try to put myself in the place of the almighty, I have to think that it would be infinitely more utile to have foreseen the misery the act of creation would have caused and refrain from it, especially if I had already been through the whole fracas with the angels. The only possible justification I can see is that physical life is of so little importance to God compared to the afterlife that the whole thing is worth it in the end, however if that is true God missed a golden opportunity to use positive encouragement with much more emphasis on reward than upon punishment.

Perhaps out simplistic thoughts regarding ethics are only correct in light of the metaphysical bubble we find ourselves in, after all, we know that some laws we rely on daily are not absolute, like quantum physics, and the first several trillionths of a second after the big bang, however if evil is to be understood at all, it must conform to our ability to comprehend it else it is not ethically understandable to us.

I think that’s enough for now, I’ll give you time to respond.
Have a great Friday!!
Chad McIntosh Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 2:55 am
How we feel about something is irrelevant to whether or not it’s true. I’m not going to defend the Genesis account or written word as “unlame” or what have you, because the prior and more interesting question is whether they’re true. Now what we could do is consider possible reasons why God could have acted in ways so described by Judeo-Christian tradition. This sort of thing works heavily into probability calculations. Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne has done tremendous work in this area, mounting an impressive barrage of possible reasons why such actions are precisely what we should expect were the Christian God to exist. See his The Christian God (Oxford, 1994) and The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford, 2003). For example, why expect communication from God via written word? Honestly I can’t think of a better method for conveying specific information to multitudes of people throughout history. We can look at Swinburne’s arguments or other reasons such as these in more detail, but again I think a better approach is one not dependent on prior probability or possibilities, one that directly asks the factual questions of God’s existence or historicity of the New Testament.

Why has God chosen to withdraw himself from humans physically? I mentioned already that this is a real problem for every religion except Christianity—Only Christianity has laid claim to Emmanuel, or “God with us.” The historical person of Jesus Christ is a decisive counterpoint to the absentee landlord syndrome. On what historical grounds do you challenge this, if so?

What is all this about hell fire for non-belief? There are various Christian positions on Hell, some of which do not incorporate “Hell fire for non-belief.” The Hell issue is therefore secondary to the factual issues mentioned above. The doctrine of Hell need not be a barrier to you accepting Jesus—Christian belief can obtain without it.

I think you were right to be expressive tentativeness and reservation on issues in your last paragraph. The epistemic gap between us and God looms large; so much that perhaps we’ll never find out “why” to every question we have of God, especially those regarding something as mysterious as evil. This is not to retreat into agnosticism. This is to humbly admit limits of human speculation. One theodicy response is as good as another. But again, the ground for inquiry in this area becomes most fertile only after we assume God exists.

Considering that, let me ask again what you think would count as good evidence for the existence of God. Thanks for the comments, Russell—your questions resonate personally with me as I have wrestled and continue to wrestle with similar ones.
Russell Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Chad-
I’ve put your comments in brackets, and mine w/o brackets. The formatting I usually do on blogs like Xanga never seem to work on other types of blogs.

How we feel about something is irrelevant to whether or not it’s true. I’m not going to defend the Genesis account or written word as “unlame” or what have you, because the prior and more interesting question is whether they’re true. Now what we could do is consider possible reasons why God could have acted in ways so described by Judeo-Christian tradition. This sort of thing works heavily into probability calculations. Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne has done tremendous work in this area, mounting an impressive barrage of possible reasons why such actions are precisely what we should expect were the Christian God to exist. See his The Christian God (Oxford, 1994) and The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford, 2003). For example, why expect communication from God via written word? Honestly I can’t think of a better method for conveying specific information to multitudes of people throughout history. We can look at Swinburne’s arguments or other reasons such as these in more detail, but again I think a better approach is one not dependent on prior probability or possibilities, one that directly asks the factual questions of God’s existence or historicity of the New Testament.

It’s not that we expect written communication from God, but rather how to verify that what was supposedly written is in fact from God. Historically it has been by comparison with itself that we judge this, but where is the objectivity in this method?

Why has God chosen to withdraw himself from humans physically? I mentioned already that this is a real problem for every religion except Christianity—Only Christianity has laid claim to Emmanuel, or “God with us.” The historical person of Jesus Christ is a decisive counterpoint to the absentee landlord syndrome. On what historical grounds do you challenge this, if so?

Like I said, I don’t question the historical Jesus as an actual person. I question the accuracy of the account that has been passed down through history. The discontinuity of the Gospels and the lack of anything penned my Jesus himself. All we have is what others say about him and nothing about what he says for himself. It is a question of standards, what do you except and why.

What is all this about hell fire for non-belief? There are various Christian positions on Hell, some of which do not incorporate “Hell fire for non-belief.” The Hell issue is therefore secondary to the factual issues mentioned above. The doctrine of Hell need not be a barrier to you accepting Jesus—Christian belief can obtain without it.

Hell is no barrier to me because I don’t believe it is factual. I think its part of the doctrine that is designed to frighten folks who would otherwise see the concept as ridiculous. When there is no way to prove the positive of negative consequences of a belief system, the systems very existence is suspect. Apparently all we have is a book, claimed to be the inspired word of God, with only (these days) itself to prove its veracity. This constitutes a circular argument. Accepting Jesus is way down the road, or should be for the thinking individual. There are many road blocks to reason and truth that need to be hashed out first.

I think you were right to be expressive tentativeness and reservation on issues in your last paragraph. The epistemic gap between us and God looms large; so much that perhaps we’ll never find out “why” to every question we have of God, especially those regarding something as mysterious as evil. This is not to retreat into agnosticism. This is to humbly admit limits of human speculation. One theodicy response is as good as another. But again, the ground for inquiry in this area becomes most fertile only after we assume God exists.

We can assume a lot of things exist that we don’t have evidence for, however our success depends on being correct, not just that we believe something. Why we believe is probably more important that what we believe because belief is based on evidence, not simply wanting something to be true. Faith wants something to be true without evidence, which is why atheists are atheists, at least that is why I’m an atheist.

As for the limits of human speculation, they change. Once the world was flat and demons caused heart attacks. Once volcanoes were considered the price one pays for angry Gods, (some things never change, look at what the fundies said about Katrina). This part of the theists’ belief system seems to fulfill its own prophecy, in that if you lack a logical reason for something, they you simply invent more dogma to explain it. Fortunately humankind has progressed to the point where we can look back and clearly see this tendency we have to invent.

Considering that, let me ask again what you think would count as good evidence for the existence of God. Thanks for the comments, Russell—your questions resonate personally with me as I have wrestled and continue to wrestle with similar ones.

I would have to say that I wouldn’t go about it the way your question implies. First I’d need to have a reason, (some evidence that needs explaining), in order to be led by that evidence to something called God. I would not assume that God exists and go in search of evidence; that is not how it’s done.

I would assume that if there is some God out there, at least one responsible for our creation, that he would know enough about our makeup and thinking that he would address us by some standard in which we could use due process to understand him. Even if he doesn’t change through time, we do.
Chad McIntosh Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
It’s not that we expect written communication from God, but rather how to verify that what was supposedly written is in fact from God. Historically it has been by comparison with itself that we judge this, but where is the objectivity in this method?

Like I said, I don’t question the historical Jesus as an actual person. I question the accuracy of the account that has been passed down through history. The discontinuity of the Gospels and the lack of anything penned my Jesus himself. All we have is what others say about him and nothing about what he says for himself. It is a question of standards, what do you except and why.

Your idea of historical inquiry is severely narrow. I know of no scholar of Biblical or late antiquity literature that judges the reliability of a text solely by comparing it with itself. This is a criticism made in ignorance. There are several prevailing criteria for testing the historical reliability of some document. These are established and employed by secular and religious scholars alike. The four most common and widely agreed upon criteria for historical authenticity are the criteria of dissimilarity, multiple attestation, environmental typicality, and coherence. But one’s method really all depends on what one’s testing. We can look into the reliability of an historical hypothesis within an historical document or the reliability of an historical document alone. But still, one’s test for historical reliability may be relative to whichever document is being tested (say, one document may be older than another). Using these methods, what reasons to do you have to doubt that where the Bible purports to be relating things that happened on this earth at a particular period of history, is it conveying accurate or reliable information about what was said and done? Moreover, where do you think the Gospels show irreconcilable discontinuity?

Demanding Jesus to have penned words himself in order to be judged authentic again misunderstands how one does historical inquiry. Such a demand would wipe out nearly everything we know of history. Such a standard is simply laughable—one I’m sure you’re only comfortable applying to a text you already think is unreliable. Do you want to do real history here, or are you content with hand-waving?

If you agree with me that Hell need not be an issue by saying “there are many road blocks to reason and truth that need to be hashed out first,” one wonders why you initially brought it up in the first place. Smokescreen.

You say that you are an atheist because “faith wants something to be true without evidence.” That might be your definition of faith, because it’s certainly not the Bible’s. A good Biblical definition of faith would be ‘trusting that which you have reason to believe is true.’ We can look further into the Biblical data on faith if you disagree, but if not then I guess you have no reason to be an atheist now that you’ve been corrected on the matter.

Your last two paragraphs make it clear that there is no evidence that could convince you there is a God. Please correct me if I am wrong (this correction would of course entail answering my question you avoided).
Russell Says:
November 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Chad,
Please forgive the abbreviated response, I am strapped for time today.
I am enjoying our discussion, but please let’s not get into a debate over these points. To be fair, I should finally attempt to answer one of your questions.
My original question was;

So my question to you and the gallery is this; if there is a designer, what does this mean to you?

To which you responded;
How much does your “private burning need to be proven correct in front of others” influence your metaphysical decision-making, or the answer to your own question for that matter?

Actually I could care less about being right or wrong, and thankfully I don’t make many metaphysical decisions everyday. God’s existence doesn’t depend on my agreeing or disagreeing with it, but if I am to believe in his existence, the burden should be on him. If he gives me no reason to believe in him based on my own person, (who I am and how I reason), how can justifiable incredulity be blamed on me?
Even if we did agree that the universe was created and not evolved, it still wouldn’t support any particular religion, so we’d still have to start over in that area, and it is a ponderous undertaking.

The best argument I’ve heard for the existence of a God, was a book I read some years back called Scaling the Secular City, by JP Moreland, Philosopher of science. We spent the afternoon together discussing it and he makes an excellent argument in logic for the existence of a creator, but that’s as far as it goes for me. I’m not one to get into point by point debates as some of my atheist friends do, been there done that. I have come to a point where the time involved in thinking about this subject is substantial, and I am experiencing a knowledge choke, which simply means that I have a lot to think about.
Biblical scholars, atheist videos, and blogs keep me pretty busy, I feel like a miner for a few morsels of knowledge. Unfortunately I have a rather full life and must keep things of this nature in perspective.

I do however appreciate the tone of the discussion that we have been having and I wish it were like this between all those of differing outlooks. Change is the only thing we can count on, so I don’t want to be so set in my ways that I can’t change.
Russell Says:
November 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Chad, I almost forgot.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Chad McIntosh Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Russell,

The central claim of your last post seems to be that if we are to believe in God, “the burden should be on him.” But I see this reasoning weak in a number of areas, most notably in its ambiguity. What, exactly, should God have the burden of doing? Any answer one gives to this question will be biased. For example, if you take it to mean that it should be God’s burden to provide us with sufficient evidence for his existence, then not only would I agree but I would also claim he has shouldered that burden. If this is what you mean and you don’t agree with my response, then we’re back to my original question of what you think would count as sufficient evidence for his existence, then. You have not answered that question yet.

As far as I can tell, the reason you have not answered that question is because you’ve already made up your mind on the issue—which brings me to what I think you really meant to say: “If we are to believe in God, then the burden should be on him to compel or coerce such belief.” But if this is really what you meant to say, Russell, then I think we can close this discussion by agreeing to disagree (progression on these terms is bleak, indeed).

Thanks for the great discussion. I hope you are enjoying the holidays. Sorry for such a delayed response!
Russell Says:
December 19th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I too am sorry for the delay in my response; things are hectic this time of year.
Actually I am rather confused as to what God has done, and what man has messed up in religious writings. I only wish I had the spare time to delve into these matters with more objectiveness.
The only thing I can be relatively sure of personally is that God, if existent is not represented by any living religion and I fancy He, if again he exists, is repulsed by the futile attempt at man reaching out to Him.
Philosophy and science as yet can only go so far in reasoning about origins, but I am encouraged to see several new gadgets being introduced to the search in 2008, with the gamma ray telescope and the new particle accelerator.
My wife will constantly inquire about things she does not know by postulating a solution, for instance, if I say I think I’ll buy my lunch tomorrow, she won’t ask me “what do you think you’ll buy?” She will instead ask “are you going to get a hamburger?” sometimes I let her go through the list of possible lunches I could buy until she tires of the wrong question, which of course should be, “what do you think you’ll buy?” I see religion to be a lot like my wife, (sorry honey). I wish science and human kind would kiss and make up, but people like the New Atheists are making the gap even wider. Religious people are not stupid at all, but both theists and atheist these days are just arguing past each other.
Heath Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:48 am
Let me state that I am the Jonny-come-lately to this discussion, and I hope it is not too late for these comments to be seen. I am both intrigued and facinated.

Chad, I am adding your blog to my favorites… great stuff…

Russell, might I suggest that if:

a) the burden is upon God to prove his existence to you, and
b) God knows you to be a well-reasoned and rational post-modern thinker,

then perhaps you might consider that the amount of time, energy, and thought that Chad (as an apparent self-admitted servant of God) has placed into this discussion is the very act of God’s revelation that you are seeking.

It’s not as sexy as a burning bush, but Moses was only a shepherd and you seem to be far more educated than he… Rational minds require more than just our eyes to see the Truth. The mind can often percieve that which the senses might miss.

just a thought…
Chad McIntosh Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Thanks for the comment and link, Heath! I shall return the favor (lol @ “not as sexy as the burning bush,” btw).

Russell,

If you admit being “rather confused as to what God has done, and what man has messed up in religious writings,” then how can you on the other hand assert that you’re “relatively sure … that God, if existent is not represented by any living religion…”? Again I think you’re cherry picking what you’re comfortable saying is a possibility.

Man’s attempt at reaching out to God indeed has been futile. But this is precisely the beauty of the gospel—instead of being repulsed by our attempts at reaching out to him, God delightfully extends himself down to us because he knew we couldn’t. A line in a book I am currently reading reminded me of your words here. The author writes “…God in redemption is willing to reach out to humanity in whatever ways are suitable to its fallen and weakened condition” (Dallas Willard, Hearing God. p.27). This is God’s continual promise in scripture, to which I have found him true over and again.

I largely agree with your last paragraph and am also excited for the new developments in 2008. These are exciting times for those delving into these matters with more objectiveness. The gravity of these matters is too important to overlook, though, so don’t let them take a backseat! I am confident that progress is in store for those who seek with an open mind and an open heart. Maybe that is a good way to kick off the new year!
Keith Brian Johnson Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Since you seem to be using the Biblical account as your basis for saying that God *has* given us good reason to believe in him (”Him,” for you), have you read any of Bart Ehrman’s books or any of the retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong’s books? (I’ve read one Ehrman book and am on my second Spong book.)
Keith Brian Johnson Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I have to admit that I’ve never been terribly impressed by Dawkins’s argument that a designer of the universe would have to be at least as complex as the universe itself; after all, one could easily imagine a designer’s creating the universe’s basic substance (including spacetime) and imposing a (relatively) few rules of evolution upon it, and then just letting it develop all of its complexity on its own. How complex would the designer have to be in such a case? But Dawkins’s argument is directed specifically at proponents of “intelligent design,” and he seems to be taking them as saying that the designer had to design every detail of the universe, everywhere and at every moment. I don’t know whether that’s what ID proponents really say or not. But, against them, it may be said that God’s knowledge in designing the universe must include all of the complexity of the universe itself–that as a matter of information, God’s pre-creation planned version of the universe must contain as much information as the universe itself over the course of its history. This particular argument of Dawkins’s seems to run somewhat this way:

1. God is invoked only as a designer of the universe.
2. A designer of the universe is invoked only as an explanation of the universe’s complexity (and order, but let’s skip that, since similar considerations seem to apply to order as apply to complexity).
3. An explanation of a phenomenon that is worth anything as an explanation must not posit the existence of a theoretical entity that is just as complicated as the phenomenon being explained unless something observable is gained thereby.
4. Nothing observable is gained by positing a designer-God as complex as the universe itself.
5. But a designer-God would have to be at least as complex as the universe itself.
6. Therefore, a designer-god would not be an explanation of the universe that was worth anything.

I suppose that to be the argument, or something like it. As you note, it is an argument that functions against an inference-to-the-best-explanation argument for the existence of God. I take it that was Dawkins’s main intent, although it’s true that he also inveighed against religious belief generally.

I have to disagree with your analysis in (1) and (1b). It isn’t that the explanation for B must be of the same kind as the explanation for A; it’s that the explanation for B must be of lesser complexity than the explanation for A. Even that isn’t really right; it’s more that the theoretical entities (B) invoked to explain physical phenomena (A) should not be themselves just as complicated as the physical phenomena themselves unless there is some observable benefit to postulating them.

But I haven’t gone back and looked up Dawkins’s argument, so I’m doing this from memory, and perhaps I’m not getting it right. My apologies if I’m not.
Keith Brian Johnson Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I also want to note why someone (like, perhaps, Russell) might decide to withhold belief in God without closely examining every argument out there for God’s existence. First, there are lots of arguments out there; closely examining each takes time. Second, the most famous of them fail to impress us; it seems likely that in all the time that God-believers have been constructing proofs, they would have constructed a really good one if they could, and it seems unlikely that a really good one would have been kept a secret. Third, different arguments have different flaws, and philosophers keep tweaking old arguments to try to get around objections to past arguments. Part of what they do is vary their metaphysical assumptions, so that anyone who seriously tried to address all of the arguments out there would also have to closely examine various theories of abstracta, of idea causation, and so on. It would get very tedious and time-consuming. Fourth, while we are awash in arguments for God-belief, it seems reasonable to suppose that had we lived in a society dominated by Thor-belief, by Santa-belief, or by Percival-the-Imperceptible-Penguin-belief, we would be awash instead in arguments for Thor, for Santa, or for Percival the Imperceptible Penguin (complete with imperceptible tuxedo, imperceptible top hat, imperceptible spectacles, and imperceptible pocket-watch). Philosophers, given time, can come up with intricate arguments for anything. We’re justified in only looking at the best and spending our other time on other pursuits. Fifth, scientists, when faced with phenomena to be explained, come up with various theories to explain them. And then, when experimentally tested, nature often says, “Sorry–no. Nice try.” When metaphysicians come up with theories, we should suspect that an awful lot of them are wrong, too–but which ones? Bad metaphysical theories will proliferate because they can’t be tested and because they *can* be forever tweaked and refined. So, we should be skeptical of any particular metaphysical theory. In particular, we should be skeptical of the metaphysical theory that God exists.

I’ve been spending time examining various ontological arguments for the existence of God, finding that (1) the errors are often a bit subtler than I’d thought and that (2) the errors are nevertheless there. When I’m through with ontological arguments, I’ll attack cosmological arguments, and then teleological arguments, and then Pascal’s Wager, and then whatever arguments seem to be left. Your blog is helpful in this, despite–or perhaps because of–my disagreement with your stance. Thanks for that.

29 Responses to “Who Designed the Designer?”

Leave a Reply

Windows 7 Vs Windows Vista

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

oem iso software

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Microsoft

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Microsoft

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

oem iso software

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Vs Windows Vista

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

oem iso software

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

oem iso software

"Autocad Mechanical Desktop"

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

Accounting system software acer arcade oem software 279.

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

oem iso software

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Windowsxp

oem iso software

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Vs Windows Vista