Mysterious Ways
And since you mentioned skepticism – explain something to me. This Intelligent Designer we hear so much about. It’s supposed to answer those questions that atheists and biologists and similar tiresome people can’t answer. But the thing about this Intelligent Designer character is that it raises a hell of a lot of questions that don’t arise if there’s no need to explain the Intelligent Designer. Surely finding the Intelligent Designer a satisfactory answer to questions while finding Designer-free answers unsatisfactory, relies on ignoring a great barnlike stack of questions that trail in the wake of the Intelligent Designer. The most obvious one of course is Okay smartyboots then who designed the Designer? But there are others.
The one that I’ve been pondering today is what did this Designer design humans for?
Amusement? Entertainment? Company? An experiment?
Maybe company. Since the Intelligent Designer is apparently a singular noun, and since monotheism is supposed (by monotheists) to be in some way superior to polytheism – more sophisticated and mature and sort of serious – therefore clearly the Intelligent Designer is solitary. So what does it do when it’s feeling chatty? There’s no other Designer to chat with. So it designs humans?
Doesn’t seem very likely, does it. Would we really be good conversation-companions for a Designer who had the skills, time, energy, and materials to design the universe? Billions of galaxies each with billions of solar systems? I don’t know about you, but I would feel pretty awkward if I got a dinner invitation from the Designer one fine day. ‘Hi, I feel like a good old natter, drop by the house tonight and we’ll talk.’ And the Designer would feel pretty let down if I did. I just don’t think we’d be talking quite on the same level, you know what I mean?
So if that were the reason, why not design something better? Quite a lot better? There would still be plenty of room to design something inferior enough so as not to be afraid of rivals – while having some possibility of some sort of conversation. But with us? Come on. What are we going to do, talk about football or tv with someone who designs galaxies and lice and supernovae and mangoes?
Actually, why not design something better anyway. Even if the reason for designing humans is not in order to have some pals in this big wide empty cosmos. Even if it’s for some other reason, why not something better? I know, the standard answer is free will. But that assumes that the Designer is somehow engrossed in our moral nature, and the truth is, that doesn’t seem very likely either, does it? Why would it be engrossed in that? Why would it be interested at all?
Of course the old idea was that the Designer created us in its image. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense either. In fact, frankly, it doesn’t make any. The Designer – or the deity, we might as well call it, since that’s what fans of the Designer idea really mean by it, except for Anthony Flew – the deity, then, is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent – we’re told. As with monotheism, that’s supposed to be the sophisticated mature idea of deity: not the silly quarrelsome sexy all-too-human deities of the ancient Greeks or the Hindus, but a philosophical kind of deity that is Perfect. Okay but then we’re nothing like it and it’s nothing like us. So what did it do – design in weakness, limitation, incompetence, lacks of all kinds? Faults, flaws? Why? To see what we’d do? (That’s usually part of the free will defense. The deity wanted to see what we’d do, so it left us free, and told us not to eat this one piece of fruit, and then kicked back to watch.) So it’s an experiment then. Well…why do people find that consoling or satisfactory? One does have to wonder.
The slightly more modern version of the thought is that we’re here to represent Intelligence, or Mind. But the deity already does that – why bother with us? Maybe to see what this exciting stuff, Intelligence, looks like in a lesser entity? But that seems unconvincing. The deity has perfect Intelligence, as much of it as it’s possible to have. We don’t. So – is what we have even the same kind of thing? Isn’t this one of those cases where quantity and quality are mixed up together? The deity has enough Intelligence to design the universe. Jupiter, the Milky Way, earth, atoms, quarks, eyes, mildew. We don’t. Do we really have the same thing the deity has only in a smaller amount? Like soup? The deity has an ocean, we have a quarter-teaspoon?
I wonder if they ever talk about these things at the Discovery Institute. It’s in Seattle somewhere – do you realize I don’t even know where? But if they do talk about them, what on earth do they say? Maybe just the usual guff. The deity is beyond human comprehension, it’s ineffable, we can’t describe it in human terms, we can’t begin to answer such questions, it’s impious to try, blah blah blah. But then – oh well. You see the problem.
Why, for the same reason some of us keep ant farms–we’re His hobby, of course. But then that just raises the question of whether such a deity is something for us to feel all warm and cozy about. After all, I don’t interfere when my ants devour each other and I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep if they all happened to die off. (I sure as hell ain’t gonna resurrect ’em and issue ’em robes and harps.) Probably one day I’ll get bored with my ant farm and abandon the whole project and take up brewing beer instead. I figure yeast cells will be far more appreciative of my almighty efforts, and yield more interesting results. Behold, I have created a universe in a carboy.
I have argued elsewhere (probably Panda’s Thumb or Infidels, I don’t remember which) that we humans are not the goal of the Intelligent Designer. Based on sheer numbers, bacteria are the peak of creation. There are on the order of 5*10^30 of them and only about 6*10^9 of humans. In fact, my bet is that all life except for bacteria is an unanticipated and unwanted side effect of the Intelligent Designer having designed and manufactured all those bacteria with their cute little flagella wagging behind them.
RBH
Scientists will never accept that a phenomenon in their field can never be explained by science. So the concept of “irreducible complexity” is a bit of a red rag to a bull.
For the sake of argument let’s go along with “irreducible complexity” for a moment. It effectively puts a hard limit on science. Which means science cannot talk about it, so it belongs to the realm of pure philosophy which is not something that must be taught in a particular way in US public schools. And that is the motivation and intent of the ID movement – to get evolution out of public schools.
RBH
I love it! You can just imagine; the poor old ID gets back from firing up a few alternative universes, sees what’s happened and thinks “Bugger me, you can’t leave these things alone for a minute without them getting ideas above their station. Give ’em a flagella and they take an opposable thumb and a cerebral cortex!”
Flagella or flagellae?
Why don’t you answer the question yourself? Intelligent Design is just a trojan horse for bringing “God Created It” back into the discussion.
Having put your recent smackdowns of the argument for intelligent design on the record, why not now call it what it is – a dishonest way to cloak God in the trappings of science?
(I also sent this to the editors)
I am atheist, but perhaps for not much longer. After reading this article (below), propagandistic as it is, I fail to see viability in my position any longer. I’m wondering what are your thoughts regarding this.
Here is the article:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html
First, I may give up because THERE IS NO VIABLE/SELLABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THEISM ON A SOCIETAL SCALE. What, the theist will ask, do I propose we do? I have, and no atheist/humanist/agnostic etc., has a viable political alternative to a quasi-theistic/democratic society. Atheism is all academic – not public. Explaining the innateness of human morality vs. morality from God, the theist will always choose God’s version of morality. It’s like choosing between one lick of an ice cream cone and having your very own bannana split. Why on earth would I want just one lick? Atheism, *to the masses*, is therefore not a viable way to live.
You can break it down logically all day long if you like, (have fun). ** But at the end of the day there is no viable solution expelling today’s strong theism. Try, for example, writing to the NYTimes why ID is illogical. Even if you are lucky enough to be published (and logically correct), there is no effect, no viability, no purpose. ID and Creationism, false as they are, WORK. They are just too powerful for the masses to pay attention to logic, especially since logic offers no alternatives or appeals to pleasure. Logic doesn’t have that ‘feel good’ air and is, *to the masses*, false.
This lack of alternative, I think, is a major stain and black hole for atheistic thought. Showing that the bible has contradictions is a failure too – I mean, who cares? It doesn’t work people.
This, and similar other reasons, are why ID and Creationism ARE powerful arguments FOR God. People will believe and continue to believe in God, especially IF the alternative has no structure, meaning or appeals to pleasure and utopia.
Politicians and theists have a lock on the minds of the people. The coming onslaught of Atheistic viewpoints. Antony Flew’s conversion will be highjacked and exploited, adding the the power of (yes, power) of ID’s and Creationist arguments.
I’m about to give up…
The “World tribune” article is hilarious, albeit unintentionally.
Get a load of this:
‘Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated that the “rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism.”‘
What in heaven’s name is “false spirituality” ?
And I just loved this lumping together: ‘With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively’. This makes the usual error of comparing atheism, which is a lack of a positive belief, with e.g. a particular religion. Replace “atheism” with “non-Christianity” or “non-fascism” or “non-Buddhism” in the above quote and you will immediately see the problem. When will these fools understand that when two people agree that something is incorrect, it does not mean they will agree on what is correct ?
Seems to me that all this asking what in the world could have been on the Designer’s mind is really a variant of ye olde Problem of Evil. I mean, why this silly old world of limitations and suffering?
There is of course only one reasonable answer, if you want to keep this Designer God silliness around… The Manichean Heresy. Gotta have an evil god and a good god dukin’ it out, or maybe one god with serious bipolar issues. But somehow I don’t think Behe, Dembski and their ilk are going to come to this ever-so-logical conclusion about their mysterious Designer (who they don’t say is God-the-one-and-only-except-when-He’s-three, but we know that’s Who they mean).
But what the heck, I’m not a Christian so I’ll go there. I can even fold in the Anthropic Principle… or rather, the Misanthropic Principle.
The universe seems just so remarkably unlikely, really. It can’t just be coincidence that the natural constants are just what they need to be for stars and planets and water where life can form. Plus there’s the inexplicable, sure-looks-designed-to-me features of living organisms. Clearly all life forms, but most especially humans, were deliberately put on this planet. Why? All life, not just human life in Hobbes’ theorized ‘state of nature,’ is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Even though we’re designed (because it looks like we are, by golly), we’re obviously not all that well designed. Our bodies go through a process of increasing physical and intellectual power that fills us with hope and optimism, and then we begin a long, slow decline into pain, indignity, and eventual death. Clearly the purpose of the former is to make the latter more painful. The only logical conclusion is that all creatures, especially we self-aware humans, were created for the exact purpose of suffering miserably, only to realize it’s hopeless before we die pointlessly. The fact that we have brains capable of imagining a kind God and beautiful afterlife is just the most cruel irony of all. God laughs at our suffering and our delusions, which is not only the purpose of our existence but the purpose of the universe’s existence.
Of course, I don’t actually believe this. But once you let in all this “There’s just gotta be a Designer, ‘cuz this or that is so special and (for now) inexplicable” crapola, my story is a much more plausible one than any you are likely to get from the ID proponents or any other purveyor of religious delusion. My “theory” at least ACTUALLY SATISFIES THE OBSERVATIONS.
Harrumph!
I don’t know about the Designer’s purpose for the universe as a whole, but anyone who’s read “The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” knows that the purpose of the Earth and its contents (humanity included) is to serve as an analogue computer.
Hobby, ant farm, yup. Except even with that, you get the same sort of disproportion problem. It would be not so much an ant farm as a mildew farm, a dust farm, a bathtub-drain-hair farm. This is an IntDesigner that designed the whole entire universe and everything in it, remember – presumably it takes quite a lot to interest and entertain such an intelligence. Would it really design us by way of an ant farm when it could 1) watch something more interesting and 2) design a more interesting ant farm to begin with?
Manichaean designer, yup. The idea that God is Nice requires considerable talent for selective attention. Cf the Eric Idle song to the tune of ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’ – ‘All Things Bad and Horrible’ or whatever it is.
Computer, mice, 42, yup. I nearly mentioned that, but I’ve mentioned it so often before…
No alternative – you’re an atheist? Are you sure about that? You wouldn’t be pulling our legs would you?
Ant farms too sophisticated to represent us? Okay, go with my beer brewing analogy then. We’re just little yeasties, single-celled fungi whose only purpose is to thrive briefly in our carboy and then die, leaving behind delicious waste products. Then we are filtered out and cast aside and the Designer quaffs the tasty brew for a quick buzz. In this case, though, I think the Designer’s got a bad batch on His hands. Maybe we’re a unwanted strain of yeast that blew in (our Designer is an authentic Lambic brewer!). Guess He’ll have to chuck it out and start all over again.
I read a blog (the site where Jamie whyte responds to challenges to his book ‘bad thoughts) where someone claimed that we need to suffer to help us develop into mature, well adjusted individuals, explaining that a loving parent will leave her child to ride a bike even in the knowledge that he might fall and graze his knee (cue god with ball of cotton wool, savlon (i live in south africa) and loving concerned expression). It has this initial air of plausibility but I find it amazing that such thoughts persist in intelligent people (sorry, but its true). People are not just falling off bikes, loving parents don’t allow their kids to be raped and tortured if they can help it. Dare I suggest that loving parents might do anything IN THEIR POWER (apparently god has a bit of that) to stop things like that. The analogy doesn’t really help with my impression of god.
incidently this guy goes on to claim that alvin plantinga and Peter van Inwagen had decisively refuted J Mackie’s discussion of the problem of evil in his book ‘the miracle of theism’. i suppose he has read each author, which implies some thoughtfulness on the issue. sigh…
the link is
http://www.corvobooks.com/books/bad_thoughts_comments_p1.php
there are also some entertaining attempts to show how sensible the unity of the trinity is. who would have thought??
Credo in un Dio crudel
“where someone claimed that we need to suffer to help us develop into mature, well adjusted individuals”
And there again. Why not just design us as mature (compassionate, sensitive, strong, etc) individuals in the first place? Hmm? Why design us such that we have to suffer in order to develop into anything at all? Why not just build it in?
The answer is obvious: no reason; the ‘need to suffer in order to X’ answer is just an ad hoc contrivance to come up with a kind-sounding explanation of an extremely unkind situation. Of course it’s just crap.
And then another aspect is that the only reason we need to be mature, sympathetic, strong and such is in order to deal with suffering and to help other people with their suffering. If there were no suffering we wouldn’t need all that moral muscularity.
“Why not just build it in?”
Ah, but that would be cheating. Tennis without a net, you know. Besides, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
“someone claimed that we need to suffer to help us develop into mature, well adjusted individuals, explaining that a loving parent will leave her child to ride a bike even in the knowledge that he might fall and graze his knee…”
This reminds me of a similar argument I once heard a rather muddle-minded minister use. He argued that when parents have children, the parents eventually have to abdicate part of the house – step aside so that their children can have space enough to grow up. In an analogous way, the minister argued, God has to step aside from his creatures to let them grow, which is why there is evil/misfortune in the world.
To be blunt, I see no reason to have anything but pity or contempt for people who use this argument. The same people believe God performs miracles, which means that He’s capable of intervening on our behalf when He so chooses. When hundreds of thousands of people die in a tsunami, do we not then have to conclude that God could have prevented it, and chose not to? To go back to the parent/child analogy, what would we conclude about a parent who could have prevented his child from being killed, and did nothing?
Phil
Personally, I’ve never believed that God is dead. That’s far too comforting a belief. That God is senile provides a much better explanatory fit for Providential history.
“To go back to the parent/child analogy, what would we conclude about a parent who could have prevented his child from being killed, and did nothing?”
Why, that it was a loving parent teaching the child not to pick its nose, of course.
I don’t know, I think the God-is-senile approach lets the bastard off too easily. God is sadistic seems more like it.
Well, there are the followers of Rev. Tim LaHaye, with their hilariously masochistic fantasy: strict obedience to the Absolute Master will lead to your annihilation, but also to ecstatic fusion with him, and that authorizes the release of all sorts of hatefulness. But to take God as sadistic, you would have to care for his pleasure as much as he cares for yours.
Ah. So I would. An incisive point.
Very well then – a stupid mechanic, as Hume’s Philo has it. Or senile.
Why? Does it take two to tango necessarily? Does a sadist always require a willing partner? Methinks you’ve been reading too much Foucault.
God’s a bumbling S&M freak and I say to hell with Him!
Well, attempts at irony are always uncertain, (though, in this case, it begins with authorizing “the release of all sorts of hatred”- I take it that, in this context, the preceding analysis is unproblematic). And, yeah, I’ve read a bit of Foucault, but not too much- I’m not an acolyte. But if it takes two to tango, the dance begins in the acceptance of the premise. The point, I suppose, is that God is, as well, a “cosmological” idea, so, considering everything else, there’s more than enough to “straighten” one’s pleasure. (Suppose the idea of God were reducible to an anthropological source, even to that peculiar hypostatization that Freud called the superego: does that really make things better?)
Yeah, but does it take two to tango? And what is this “irony” thing you’re talking about?
Karl:
“Irony” is an ancient anthropological custom; somehow it has to do with the ability to read. As for it taking two to tango, actually it takes three: somebody has to play the music.
Does irony require literacy? I don’t think that’s an essential component of its definition. And you can tango to a recording or even hum the music yourself. Again, not essential.
Of ourse, to state the obvious, we need not see God as either senile, or a sadist, or as a senile sadist. (Now THAT would be interesting…He might punish us repeatedly because He forgot that He punished us the first time).
God has a perfectly legitimate excuse for all the bad stuff, which is that He does not exist.
Phil
Oh, you’re no fun anymore, Phil.
No, irony does not require literacy…Stendhal- “God’s only excuse is that He doesn’t exist.” [ed]
John, however, is still a hoot.
Glad to oblige.
“Oh, you’re no fun anymore, Phil.”
I take exception to that. I was never any fun in the first place.
John – yeah, the Stendahl quote is what I was paraphrasing. Your question about what happens when God is so senile he forgets he’s a sadist poses deep theological questions – ones I would like to see more minsters address.
I don’t think I was voicing a need to “justify” God’s existence in the way you mean. Surely, the point is that you can’t judge the truth of a proposition by how comforting it is, or isn’t. The truth is based on evidence and logic alone. And the existence of suffering doesn’t seem logically compatible with the existence of a deity who is both good and capable of preventing the suffering.
Phil
But surely a God who is both omniscient and omnipotent should be capable of juggling contradictory attributes? At any rate, He’s never been notably accused of being a logician, just adept at talking through whirlwinds…
“At any rate, He’s never been notably accused of being a logician, just adept at talking through whirlwinds…”
You’re right about that. In many parts of the Bible, God just tells puny humans like Job to stop their belly-achin’, because they aren’t as big and powerful as He is. Not a logical or enlightened fellow, this God is. Doesn’t his lack of logic compromise his claims to omniscience or omnipotence? Someone should publish a book called “Are You Serious, God? The Logical Goofs of the Almighty.”
Of course, you can always hold the gnostic theodicy. That’s where a lesser, power-mad demiurge is responsible for all of life’s unpleasantries, leaving the real God’s hands relatively clean. I don’t think it holds up, but I admire the novelty. Jung seemed to subscribe to a version of this idea.
And then there’s the immortal Homer Simpson, who explained why an onmipotent God seeks human praise by saying: “It’s because God is powerful, but insecure…like Barbara Streisand before James Brolin. He’s been a rock for her.”
Phil
Have a look at two comments on this topic received by the spiked! site, at http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA91F.htm.
The comments in question are the first two on the page as of 19 March, from Peter Hollander and Leanna Lewis.