The following is a regrettably brief rebuttal I recently gave to the teleological argument, or the argument from design, at a local Philosophy Meetup Group. I have since elaborated on it based on the discussion.
http://www.meetup.com/philosophy-236/events/110847252/
While this argument in its purest sense only purports a deistic god, with the advent of the Intelligent Design movement among evangelical Christians its contemporary proponents are typically theists. Thus I discuss it within the context of Christian apologetics.
The deductive form of this argument focuses on the notion that complexity predicates design in some way. Now, I've attempted to distill the argument down into what I believe are its
essential forms, but as with almost all arguments, I suspect the
definitions of the words will be the primary sticking points. After much deliberation, I believe the best definitions of the involved words, which both sides of the argument could agree with are:
Definition (apprx) Designed: to be planned by an intelligence
Definition (apprx) Natural: The opposite of designed
Definition (apprx): Complex thing: an assembly of less complex things which serves a function that is greater than the sum of its parts
During the discussion, my definition of "complex" was challenged by an advocate of the argument. He proposed the property in question was a subset of complexity, which he referred to as "specified complexity". When asked to define this distinction, the answer as I understood it was (and I hopefully paraphrase faithfully) "complexity which contains information". The purpose for this distinction I can only suppose, for the topic changed before I could respond (It was a most excellent forum and I had no place to dominate the discussion with my agenda).
That being said I offer a continuation here: What then is the definition of "information", and how is it used to distinguish between complex things that must be designed, and complex things whose natural status goes unchallenged? A snowflake was presented as a natural complex thing...I assume because it contains no "information", but what is this "information"? How does one draw the line in such a way that is not biased by their desire to draw the necessary conclusions? Design is determined by complexity, but not all complexity, and this distinction is made by information. When we stray this many layers into vague definitions a hidden bias can be easily obscured. "Information" carries the not-so subtle association with intelligence, and if this is indeed the purpose, then the circular reasoning becomes apparent. Something is designed if it is complex, but only in a way that it is complex enough to have only been created by an intelligence. I conclude that "specified complexity" is only an attempt to hide the conclusion (god exists) in the premises of the argument (more on this in a bit)
If the problem is where to draw the line of significance in complexity, then what if we don't draw the line and admit all complex things as evidence? (more on this "evidence" from induction later) I argue this is the only choice, since if some complex things can be natural, then all could, but that is the materialistic position, thus allowing for the very worldview that the "teleologist" aims to refute! Therefore, I believe the only way to present the argument is as follows:
1.) All complex things are evidence of design
2.) There exist complex things in our world which we did not design (we=known intelligences, like humans, AI's, or potentially sentient animals)
Therefore:
3.) Some unknown intelligent designer exists
And,
4.) We call that designer, God.
One of the hallmark rules of formal reasoning is that the conclusion cannot be assumed in the premises, known as "begging the question", and here we see no mention of god in either. But look closer…Premises 1 and 2 are inherently contradictory if we do not make allowance for the divine beforehand……..Now let us forgive the vague definition of complexity- indeed if we had allowed the definition for "specified complexity" the logical transgression would be doubly so.. Instead let’s focus on the shifty usage of the word designed. In premise 2, “design” ostensibly acknowledges “by known intelligences”, lest it be so bold as to beg the question outright! But it subtly requires in premise 1 that an unknown designer must exist to allow for all the non-man-made complexities we observe. If it didn’t, then only known designed things (like watches) could qualify as complex, and that contradicts premise 2. I see no other wording that would avoid this fallacy, excepting for the fallacious redefining of complexity as mentioned prior. Thus, the question is begged and the argument invalid.
The argument is also unsound. Like much of apologetics, it is an attempt to force truth on our world through pure logic alone by aiming for unfalsifiability. Through definitions like the vague word “complex” and the hidden moving goalposts of the word “designed” it hopes to hide the fact that it is not explaining any mysteries of this world, but is instead preserving them by rolling them up to a supernatural realm where mystery is useful and thus embraced. Ironically, while accusing science of lacking an explanation, the theist has only managed to propose a solution (god) that is merely an exception to explanation, but not an explanation itself. All the while and despite religion’s best efforts, Science, the human endeavor to objectively explain mysteries HAS SHOWN how complexity can come about without the need for an intelligent driving force. Evolution, as just one example, could indeed be challenged, but not by the teleological argument, as such would create one very begged question indeed. All this calls into serious question the soundness of premise 1.
So what makes the argument so persuasive to well-known apologists like William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza? At this point I hope it is clear that the heart of the deductive fallacy exists in premise 1, and it is faulty inductive reasoning that allows theists to arrive at this premise unperturbed. They conclude that the presence of complexity in both man-made things and in nature is inductively indicative of both showing the features of design.
Now I’m a big fan of Induction, as was David Hume, one of its most notorious yet misattributed adversaries. In the purest sense, aside from tautologies, induction is all we really have. In life, specific examples establish a precedence from which we can assess the likelihood of accuracy of a generalization. With any luck, we can test our “theories” with additional examples to further strengthen them.
The problem is that there isn’t any actual precedence for design in naturally complex things (else we wouldn't distinguish them in the first place). A watch has precedence of design. I can tune to the Discovery Channel and see“How It’s Made” as indeed I do. But, (at the ready agreement of the theist) no mortal man has designed a dog or cat. Now we can hypothesize about the analogous nature of the complexity of natural to man-made things, but as with any application of hypothesis to reality we must adhere to the law of parsimony: accept the conclusion that explains the most facts while requiring the fewest new assumptions. And the new assumption in this case is a real doozey.
If we are to open the doors of induction, the theist will find he has just stepped through and onto a slippery slope indeed. What precedence do we have of omnipotence? Or of Omniscience? How about telepathy and the ability to exist outside of time and space? Any precedence for those? No, God is by definition without any precedence, and that makes him, by means of simple inductive reasoning, the most improbable conclusion imaginable. And since we still can’t establish the conclusion before the premises, he is the most cumbersome of new assumptions. - Poor Occam just cut himself with his own razor (he was a theist after all).
Now let’s imagine for a moment that I’ve successfully discredited the teleological argument, and indeed I think I have as have countless philosophers before me. Why are we still talking about it? ….The theist, biased by a necessitated belief, based not on reason but on deeper, subconscious influences, is NOT invested in the outcome of the argument. He has no stake in whether his logic fails or thrives. Tear down the façade and the structure remains time and time again. But to the intellectually honest, his position stands firmly on the validity of his logic and he will dutifully rise to any challenges. The intoxicating allure of an engaging debate is inevitably an illusion ending in a cheap climax and quick dismissal as the theist cries “faith” and leaves completely unaffected. *The most hardcore of apologists would never dare fall back on "faith" in an argument. Instead, they have renamed this trump card "presuppositional" apologetics" which they believe justifies them to assume God's existence in all arguments....LONG before the conclusion. This poor question has been begged to death.)
This is why I believe arguing apologetics is a red herring, a distraction, and not at the heart of humanity’s pervasive yet delusional belief in god. Much like Jesus hung out with sinners in an attempt to expose them to his ideas, it is sometimes necessary. But if the atheist believes his position best, and the dissemination of his ideas noble, I advise him to look away when the carrot of apologetics is dangled in front of him, and search instead for the social identity, the structure, and ultimately the fear, not logic, that drives theism.
No comments:
Post a Comment