It’s been ages since I’ve taken the time to read anything scientific. It struck me the other day that I’d better hurry up and do it, before it becomes illegal….
Seriously, though, periodically I need a break from reading transcripts, case books and other legal matter. So to assuage my science-starved brain, I picked up a copy of that anti-Republican rag, Scientific American, which is, for the moment, still available in regular bookstores.
The next-to-the last article, titled “Sticker Shock,” was a real hoot to read. As you can tell by the link in the last sentence, it’s available online. I highly recommend it for its proposal of various stickers to be placed inside science textbooks.
The article makes fairly clear the idiocy of the Fundamentalist Cult headed by President George W. Bush, which has not only made an earnest effort at silencing political debate in the United States, but has made a concerted effort at supplanting science, as well.
And the greatest example of that idiocy was mentioned — though its implications were not teased out — in Steve Mirsky’s hilarious one-page article. That wonderful example of the lunacy of the bozos who strive to obtain “balance” by teaching mythology in science classrooms (but never suggest teaching science in church!) is “intelligent design.”
“Intelligent design,” of course, is the theory that is variously and succinctly described thusly: Existence, or life, or the world, or the universe is so vastly wonderful, or complex, or miraculous, or amazing that it simply could not exist if it were not for Intelligent Design, or a Guiding Hand, or G-d. (It can be succinctly described thusly because, in the end, that’s practically the whole asinine argument.)
In the old days, this theory was attributed to William Paley. His book Natural Theology posited that if you stumbled across a watch in the woods, you would never think that such an intricately-designed item came to be by accident. You’d immediately jump to the (correct) conclusion that it was built by a human and dropped, or in some other way left there in the woods. That would be the accident, according to Paley; but to believe the existence of the watch was accidental would just be crazy. And because he wasn’t actually very bright, Paley thought this pretty well proved that G-d must exist; no leap of faith involved.
In a moment, we’ll get to why this is an outrageous — and ironic — argument. First, however, it’s important to recognize how far fundamentalist Christianity has advanced scientifically since Paley first floated this “argument” in 1800.
Variants of Paley’s insanity are currently in the vanguard of fundamentalist attempts to slip the teaching of G-d, instead of science, back into schools. Even people with science degrees are fond of this idea. Some brag that Americans are becoming more open to accepting that the idea of Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Frankly, that’s proof of just how sad the state of American’s knowledge of science is! The more ignorant we become about how the world really works, the more willing we are to re-embrace the mythology of the Dark Ages!
But these folk easily impress the majority of ignorant Americans because they’re able to perform complex mathematical calculations, or because they possess engineering degrees (hmmm…I wonder why they’re predisposed to favor mythological design ideas). What they’re not able to do is recognize when they’re begging the question.
If they were, they’d recognize what I said above: the idea of intelligent design is both outrageous and ironic.
Think about it for a second. I mean, really, really (really) think about it. The universe (or world, life, etc.) is of such unfathomable complexity and fits together so amazingly well that it requires believing in…
…something even more unfathomable. In fact, G-d is so unfathomable that even the Bible confesses “He” is unfathomable. (See sidebar for “How We Know G-d’s A ‘He'”)
Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens — what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave — what can you know?
— Job 11:7-8 (New International Version)
Read through the Tanakh. (Christians lovingly refer to the Tanakh as the “Old Testament,” which apparently means it can be ignored except when they find something particularly useful in supporting great ideas like the death penalty that they can’t get from the “New Testament.”)
G-d has to be a male because, obviously, He’s got too damn much testosterone flowing there. Ever since He created Earth and mankind, He’s been busy flooding or “volcanoing” or otherwise destroying what He purported created because He’s so pissed off that it didn’t go the way He wanted.
I don’t know a single believer in a personal G-d — fundamentalist Christian or otherwise — who would deny that G-d is even more incredible than “His” Creation. Yet they see no contradiction — no paradox, apparently — in declaring that the very incredibleness of the world (universe, life, etc.) is what proves that “He” must exist.
On that line of reasoning, folks, shouldn’t there be some kind of infinite regress? If the world is so, uh, so “Wow!” that you have to believe it was created by G-d, then on that reasoning mustn’t G-d have been created, too? That’s why this is ironic. And outrageous? If that’s the reasoning, then it makes no sense to say “All that we know — existence itself — is so amazing you simply must believe G-d created it,” and then turn around and say that G-d, who is supposed to be even more amazing, “just is.”
Equally astounding is that this is sometimes justified by quoting the Bible: I am who I am. (Exodus 3:14 (New International Version).) We know G-d exists, uncreated “Himself,” because “He” wrote the Bible. And how do we know that? Because the Bible says it was written by G-d and since G-d wrote the Bible, then what the Bible says must be true! No question-begging there! As that other guy who was so fond of this phrase would say, “Well, blow me down.”
Which wouldn’t be too hard right now because after chasing that argument around its circle, I’m a little dizzy.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Jonathan // Feb 6, 2005 at 2:39 pm
I personally do not see much use in saying that the incredibleness of God in the world “proves he exists.” Because I do not think that one can really “prove” much at all. Ontology is so tricky, how can one prove “being”? Flew’s Gardener metaphor is very useful, but it does not prove that God does not exist. Much to my surprise, he now does believe in some form of intelligent design. But nevertheless, I do not think that one comes to God through proving or even “reasons”.
Much like Kierkegaard, I think that people do not believe because its demands are too hard and difficult.
2 Rick Horowitz // Feb 6, 2005 at 3:13 pm
There is no use in saying the incredibleness of G-d proves he exists, because it doesn’t. For similar reasons, what I wrote about is true: People saying the incredibleness of the world proves G-d exists are being illogical. If the incredibleness of the world proves G-d exists and if G-d is more incredible than the world, then that same reasoning means it must be true that someone/something existed to create G-d. You wind up — again, because of this line of reasoning — with an infinite regress.
Ultimately, there’s a disconnect between what can be “proven” and belief in G-d. You can’t prove G-d exists. You also cannot prove G-d does not exist. You can only decide that you will believe, or not believe, that G-d exists. And this is why Kierkegaard referred to the need to make a “leap of faith.”
For my own life, based upon what I’ve seen and not seen, I’ve decided no personal G-d exists. Other people have decided otherwise.
In the case of certain gods, though — for example, the Christian G-d — how one who believes ought to live is pretty well spelled out in a collection of books (known collectively as, “the Bible”). And the ironic thing is that most of those who claim to believe don’t even read the books, let alone do what they say. Heck, more than half of them don’t even agree with what the Bible says, but they don’t recognize that, either, because of the fact that they never read it.
3 Jonathan // Feb 6, 2005 at 3:53 pm
I do not see what you are trying to get at when you say that people who are Christians do not seem to read the books. I have not found that this to be the experience. Perhaps that is the case where you live, or a stereotype you wish to perpetuate.
As much as Christianity is a leap, it still depends on empirical evidence. You admit as much when you say that “based on what I have seen” you do not believe in a personal God.
I believe in a personal God and a personal system of ethics, one that is not constrained by metaphysical systems of ethics in which the hallmark is tyrannious onto-theology, instead of radical personal obedience before God.
Law, in the Christian sense throughout history, I think has been very misunderstood. Thus human constructions like natural onto-theology is doomed to failure for attempting to understand God.
4 Kent // Feb 6, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Well covered, Rick. Although my personal belief system is related to intelligent design it is nothing similar what the Xtians would like to shove down our children’s throats.
If Intelligent Design is what they really posit to be, it is stronger evidence that it should not be taught within our schools. After all, if it is the case, science reflects the provable reality of their belief system and they can then make the last connection to their deity of choice in the proper setting of their house of worship or home very easily.
If religions had the absolute answer to science, we should never have had that whole sordid mess with Galileo.
5 Rick Horowitz // Feb 6, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Jonathan, I’m not sure what planet you live on, but on this one, the evidence that most Christians don’t read their Bibles is all around. You see it in the way they live. You see it in the fact that you can virtually quote Bible passages to them and piss them off because they completely disagree with the comment (not knowing that it comes from their own Book).
And the empirical evidence? Uh…when I stop laughing, I’ll respond to that one.
Seriously, there is no empirical evidence for G-d’s existence. Seeing G-d in something is like reading tea leaves: It’s there if you want to believe; it’s not unless you do.
6 Jonathan // Feb 7, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Rick,
I think the problem with the way you tend to argue is that you do not even see the merit in arguing something you already cannot be persuaded in believing. AKA you do not need feel you need to argue any point with substance.
Now, if you were to say that in your personal experience, Christians do not read their Bible because they do not live it, I would be quite fine with accepting that. Sure. Why not? But for you to say that I live on a different planet because you claim know what I have experienced as far as Christians and their Bibles are concerned, is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps it is because you cannot accept the fact that certain niches beyond your circle of living may disrupt your worldview.
As far as you quoting Scripture to piss off Christians, I am guessing that there is some bitterness about Christians that I am not aware of. How can I even dialogue with you about that? Unless, of course, it was intended to be a monologue.
That said, I know many Christians who read their Bibles religiously. And many Christians who read Christian writers religiously. Many of them are my friends.
Sure, you are bound to meet many Christians who do not read their Bibles, who do seem to assert themselves as bearers of the truth, and who seem to have lost the meaning of Scripture along the way. I have met many myself. But does this make you better than them because you point out their inconsistencies?
I suppose it may be the same if I asked you a question along the same vein. Why you chose to revere a God that you do not believe in by not writing his full name (G-d)?
It seems to me it is because of the old Hebrew tradition which exchanged YHVH with Adonai or because you do not believe he exists. However, if it was the latter, I would ask if you spell unicorn like “unic-rn.”
7 Jonathan // Feb 7, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Kent,
are you saying that Galileo did not believe in God?
or that Galileo did not believe that the Bible was a science textbook?
8 Sean // Feb 8, 2005 at 12:00 am
“Intelligent design”, I’d read.
I’d hoped, somewhat: “Hey, this is about aesthetics?”. So, that was “a real hypothesis”, I suppose.
Yet, this is not like “about aesthetics”, fair enough!
It sounds like this may be about something, contrived – “however possibly” – contrived, after some terms of “yay many” university graduates?
The phrase, “intelligent design” might sound as if it was a term, made in the addressing of concerns, in regards to software.
Now, in how the term is applied — in reference, in this page — it sounds utterly secular, though it might ever be supposed, by whomever, as if it was “theological”?
So, still, it seems to be about some designs of people.
One design: To attempt (quite vainly, quite sadly, and in some possible embarrassment to any reverent sense of Christianity) a “social design”, namely: To attempt to base a theological argument, upon secular material.
Perhaps another: To attempt to make “an argument, about creation” – firstly.
and then: To try (and utterly fail, indeed) to make an argument, about what — if they would get it through their foggy {Q} — does not even need an argument, about it.
finally, then: “Perhaps”, all of the above, being attempted, by (whom?), despite some very, very thin knowledge.
When “religion” might be regarded as-if being akin to “television show”, then I suppose that we will see such trivial garbage of “religious?” spectators — “this ‘intelligent??’ design”, for example.
but my! How the liken a human property to “their? G-d”, by it — “intelligence”, there — exemplary?
(I become more alarmed, in some — though I’m glad to know more of “the lay of the ‘modern’ land” — after hearing of any commonality, of any “such Christian? nonsense” — any frittering trivia of deep-fried stupidity, apparently being served-up, thoughout the nation.)
(Four years remain, I suppose — a time, enough? — to overcome the figurehead, supposed “leader of the tripe” — reelected, then! “Yay for the DNC?”)
9 Rick Horowitz // Feb 8, 2005 at 3:38 am
Jonathan: On the other hand, my use of “G-d” instead of spelling out the Name could be intended to avoid offending a group of readers, nu? 😉 If you read my blog long enough, you’ll see that I also differentiate between groups of “Christians” (the quotation marks here are only meant to indicate that I’m using the term in this sentence as a label). Of one group that goes by that label, I am respectful; of the major group that goes by that label, I am — shall we say? — “less than respectful.”
As for your experience of knowing people who read Bibles: bravo! The existence of Anabas testudineus doesn’t have me taking my guppy out for an occasional walk.
My claim was not “No Christians read the Bible”; it was “Most Christians do not read the Bible.”
10 Kent // Feb 8, 2005 at 8:39 am
Jonathan, No that was not what I was saying.
In 1633 Galileo Galilei, astronomer, was convicted of heresy, for supporting the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. It was not until more than 300 years later in 1992 that Pope John Paul II said the church had wronged Galileo. The reason for his excommunication was that the rotation of the earth and its orbit of the sun were entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.
Also the epithets “infidel” and “atheist” have been hurled against a distinguished list of benefactors of humankind. Among them are Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, John Locke, and John Milton. Incredibly and ironically, these four possess otherwise unblemished, and unquestionable — Christian credentials!
11 Bob_Marcotte // Feb 11, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Interesting…silly but interesting.
For all you math geeks: please calculate the number of stars and planets we have ‘discovered’. Now how many of them contain life similair to ours? I’ll wait but the answer is one.
Just what would the odds be for so many cosmic events to happen in the perfect sequence to create us?
Yet, it is logical to bet AGAINST those odds and say that God does not exist?
If anything, discarding all that logical mathematics for a belief of no God defines the term “leap of faith”.
IF you find only one watch in the forest, you decide that it was left there by man. Why is it such a stretch to seriously consider that this one planet is intentional?
For all you philosophy geeks: How can you use rational thought to ‘discover’ something as irrational as your Creator? If the “Intelligent Designer” was intelligent enough to create all of this without your help, what leads you to believe that his thoughts must be rational by your definition of the term? If the rules of time and space and physics all bent to his will in the creation of the universe, wouldn’t that redefine what is ‘practical’? What is ‘possible’? Or more importantly, what is ‘Impossible’?
Isn’t “rational” thought built on a series of beliefs that make sense? How can you apply rational thought to a concept of creation so vast that it overwhelms the human mind?
Oh I forgot, we only believe in what we can see and what we can prove. I guess that means my definition of existance is different from yours since I have seen and proven a different set of experiences than you have. Obviously, your views and beliefs are flawed because they don’t arrange themselves neatly around my views and beliefs.
In the end, the human mind that does not comprehend the intent and intelligence of creation is striving to become its own god, a creator of an existance that can be rationalised by a limited and imperfect brain.
The rats in the maze only know the maze, human philosphers will only know the maze without a leap of irrational logic somewhere that allows them outside the restrictions of human logic.
I believe that’s called faith.
12 Rick Horowitz // Feb 11, 2005 at 1:23 pm
There are many points I could make to show that the one being “silly” here isn’t me. But to keep the response as short as possible and, more importantly, on point:
As I said before, take this same argument and use it for G-d. If your argument is that it’s just so absolutely incredible that we could exist that the only possible explanation is “G-d created us,” then who created this absolutely incredible being? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you’re saying that the absolute incredibleness of it all is what should convince one that there must be a Creator, that’s fine. So…the absolute incredibleness of G-d required that he has a Creator, too, using that rationale.
If I read you right, you want to say, “Well, no. Because you don’t get it, Rick. You have to go ‘outside the restrictions of human logic.'” That’s fine and dandy, too. But don’t turn around and try to use human logic to make an argument for “intelligent design” and then say, “that’s a convincing argument, but you aren’t allowed to use it for anything other than what I said you could use it for.”
Note in all this that I have nowhere said, “G-d does not exist and I can prove it.” I said that the argument for Intelligent Design — as you yourself delineated it — is paradoxical. You try to say, “Look, logic shows there must be a Designer,” but when someone uses that same logic to show that an infinite regress would be required, you say, “well, you have to go outside logic.”
Take your leap of faith, folks. I have no argument with that. Try to argue that we should teach your view in our science classes, based on “logic” that only works when it favors your position, but has to be ignored when it doesn’t, and you just sound, as you said, “silly.”
13 Shawn // Feb 24, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Before you dismiss intelligent design as “idiocy”,”insanity” or other such,perhaps you should examine evolution with some intellectual honesty for a change.My Apologies for not having paragraphs properly spaced,as im not familiar with this format and simply dont know how to do so.
The theory of evolution is still labeled a theory because it indeed lacks a vital detail..proof.No absolute proof has been found that this theory holds water since its introduction by Charles Darwin,therefore cannot be considered as fact like many try to assert.
Darwin even said in his own book on pg.91 “if a complex organ of life is ever found that could not have been formed by numerous excessive slight modifications,I would cease to believe in Darwinism”.
Lets look at the human eye.Just one of many examples we could use.The human eye can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages.It gathers 80% of all the info absorbed by the brain.The eye contains over 130 million light sensitive rods and cones which generate photochemical reactions that convert light into electrical impulses and there are 1 billion such impulses that are transmitted to the brain every second.Darwin was quoted saying “To suppose that the eye with all of its inevitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic abberration could have formed by natural selection semms,i freely confess,absurd.”
Over the years there have been many skeletal fragments and other “evidence” discovered that supposedly helps prove this theory.The end result on the investigations of many of these proved the remains to have been of animal origin,and in some cases a hoax altogether.
In the cambrian fossil layer millions of species suddenly appeared and scientists cannot tell us where they came from.What the fossil record bears is the sudden,instantaneous appearance of fossils.If you look at the pre-Cambrian layer you dont find any transitional forms,you dont find any of the ancestors of all this sudden appreance of life.What the fossil record bears is not the story of evolution but the story of extinction.The vast majority of all the creatures that have ever lived are extinct.So,therefore what the fossil record shows is the sudden appearance of life.Sounds much like creation.The cambrian fossil layer is the achilles heel of evolution.
There literally tons of information available on this subject,all of which would not be plausible to state here.So,as a summary ill just state this.To believe in evolution,we must believe that life came from non-life,intelligence came from non-intelligence,and through blind chance we now have all of the intricate,complex,and intelligent forms we have today.Sounds to me like it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.Not to mention,for years mankind has needed to travel-so why havent we evolved into winged humans-why must we rely on external devices for means of travel..where is evolution now?
I also am curious to know why you seem to have such blatant hostility towards creation,or for that matter God and those who choose to follow Him.But,before you jump to the keys in an attempt to claim that is not the case,allow me to copy and paste a section of your own article.
“The article makes fairly clear the idiocy of the Fundamentalist Cult headed by President George W. Bush, which has not only made an earnest effort at silencing political debate in the United States, but has made a concerted effort at supplanting science, as well.
And the greatest example of that idiocy was mentioned  though its implications were not teased out  in Steve Mirsky’s hilarious one-page article. That wonderful example of the lunacy of the bozos who strive to obtain “balance†by teaching mythology in science classrooms (but never suggest teaching science in church!) is “intelligent design.â€ÂÂ
“Intelligent design,†of course, is the theory that is variously and succinctly described thusly: Existence, or life, or the world, or the universe is so vastly wonderful, or complex, or miraculous, or amazing that it simply could not exist if it were not for Intelligent Design, or a Guiding Hand, or G-d. (It can be succinctly described thusly because, in the end, that’s practically the whole asinine argument.)”
And shortly after that,you go on to take a cheap shot at Paley just because he doesnt agree with your view.Oh,and not to mention,basically insult the intelligence of the american public as well.
It is completely unfair and ignorant of you to assume that because someoen doesnt agree with you that they are uninformed lunatics who have a deluded world view.True,i cannot pin those words on you as you have not stated that.However the inferrances are plain for all to see.
14 Steve J. // Feb 27, 2005 at 5:52 pm
SHAWN:”It is completely unfair and ignorant of you to assume that because someoen doesnt agree with you that they are uninformed lunatics who have a deluded world view.”
Not in this case. The adherents of ID really are “uninformed lunatics who have a deluded world view.” Sorry, do you need a hug?
15 Intelligent Design: An Identity Problem // Aug 19, 2008 at 7:21 am
[…] long ago, I wrote an article called “The Paradox of Intelligent Design” which resulted in a few interesting comments. Mostly, those comments demonstrate the very illogic […]
Leave a Comment