In the beginning…
When I started this blog I intended to talk about religion and philosophy. Somehow I wandered into the cesspool of politics. Truth be told, better political bloggers than me are a dime a dozen. That’s not to say I won’t continue to comment on politics, I will. But I want to spend some time on more interesting topics. So here’s a story.
The CEO of a major corporation walks into his boardroom. He is shocked to discover a huge steaming pile of fresh dung just inside the doorway. The CEO, baffled and furious, turns to his assistant and screams “Where did this come from, what is it doing here, how do you explain this?” The assistant points to the adult African elephant standing on the far side of the room and says “I think that elephant over there did it.” The mollified CEO replies, “Ah, of course. That explains everything.”
One of the reasons commonly offered for believing in God begins with the claim that the existence of the universe stands in need of explanation. Why is there something rather than nothing? The question is a good one, and I don’t have an answer. But if the unexpected pile of dung needs an explanation, then so does the unexpected elephant.
Positing a Creator does not explain the universe. It simply postulates an entity whose existence is at least as mysterious as that of the world, while offering not one shred of explanation for the world or anything in it. Instead of one mystery, two.
A supernatural explanation is not an explanation at all. It is a decision to stop looking for explanations, and instead pretend to have one.
Posted on July 23rd, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: religion, science
Entries RSS
You are correct, sir, that any explanation involving a creator moves the question, but does not answer it.
However, I must disagree with the statement “A supernatural explanation is not an explanation at all”. If you added the modifier “rational” or “verifiable” I would agree. Does poetry have explanatory power? Does art? Music? I would argue they do, though these forms of explanation do not fit in a rational framework.
You seem to ignore, or dismiss, the possibility that there are things in the universe beyond rational explanation. Yet rational explanations must fit within a logical, axiomatic framework. If one accepts the law of the excluded middle (what could be more rational?) then (p or not p) is true, but as you well know, there are propositions, p, for which this is not provable. More importantly, one can prove it is not provable.
When playing the game, you must choose consistency or completeness. You can’t have them both. Consistency, which is to say rationality, has its limits. Completeness, on the other hand, is provably irrational.
Heenaww naw ikkbal abba geeki wtti….oh, sorry I was speaking in tongues. I get that way when we talk about the Almighty. I feel safe if I pretend to believe there is a hereafter, you know, cover my bases. I’m in good company, I think Blaise Paschal did the same. Only problem is he hasn’t said anything in a couple hundred years.
Dooley
JD: I addressed Pascal’s advice re covering your bases, here.
ARSPL: Rational explanations are exactly the kind of explanation I am interested in. Notice the title of this blog.
Aesthetic responses to the world are not lost on me. C. S. Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy” treats the subject, as does Otto’s “The Idea of the Holy”, both interesting works. I may have something to say about this later.
It is interesting that you bring up completeness vs consistency. I agree, but fail to see how it advances your point. Completeness is simply not to be had in any sufficiently powerful formal system. That said, we are very well served by many consistent albeit incomplete systems. Inconsistent ones are entirely worthless.
I think rational arguments can be made in favor of theism. I plan to try my hand at some down the road. But the types of argument that start with the premise that all things must have a cause and infer from this (usually to avoid an infinite regress) the existence of something which has no cause strike me as silly.
pwyll, I also am interested in rational explanations, if they exist. My point was that they don’t always exist. This, I would argue, is precisely what Godel’s thoerem tells us.
I also agree that “uncaused cause” arguments for the existence of God are nonsense. But, in my opinion, all the arguments for the existence of God are nonsense. I must admit that I am surprised that you write that rational arguments can be made. I look forward to finding their errors.
While you’re waiting, here are qver 300 proofs of the existence of God.