So Rachel is now getting anxious. Our true believer is looking to Marilyn Adamson's "Six reasons to believe in God" to underpin her solid faith in God. She has been a little shaken by the first two reasons, which were essentially only one, circular argument. She is excited about discovering the other 4 reasons, which must be pretty impressive, because after all, this is God we're talking about here.
3. "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
Rachel considers the elements of this argument carefully. She puts aside the obvious and immediate question of "Why are natural causes insufficient explanations" and immerses herself in Marilyn's argument.
She decides to analyze what Marilyn says, step by step:
"The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance."
It might be better to say “The alternative to a supernatural explanation is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause.” (Otherwise we’d have to consider goblins, the devil or the tooth fairy as possible (if unlikely) explanations.) But yes, this makes sense, although it gives poor Rachel no reason to believe that the supernatural explanation is better than the natural one.
"If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else."
Agreed. Similarly the odds of winning a coin toss is one thing. But the odds of winnng the New York State Lottery is something else. There is an endless series of these comparisons available. But Rachel isn't quite sure how these comparisons give her a reason to believe in God. (Winning the New York Lottery might help though. "If I only just pray hard enough...!")
"What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life."
Science doesn’t confirm this. Rachel begins to smell a rat. “Science” (whoever he may be) says no such thing. In fact, quite the opposite. And the reference to Pasteur sounds suspiciously like an attempt to give scientific credibility to a most unscientific argument.
"Where did human, animal, plant life come from?"
Good question. Isn’t that the one we’re trying to answer?
"Natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA."
Why? Scientists happen to think they’re a very good explanation – why should Rachel prefer Marilyn’s unsupported assertion?
"A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune."
Well, this is a strange way of putting it, but even so, what reason is Marilyn giving Rachel to support the “God” hypothesis over the natural one?
"It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck."
Rachel is getting even more concerned now. After the undeniably limited intellectual merit of Marilyn's first three “reasons” she finds this finger-pointing at a straw man a little distasteful. Rachel, being a true believer, but also open minded, knows that scientific theories aren’t about luck. They’re about the accretive impact of many steps of natural selection over long periods of time. Luck is the last word to describe the deliberate painstaking process of natural selection for fitness in a given environment. And then Marilyn's random value judgement – intellectually wanting – without any support is not making her feel any better.
So our friend Rachel has heard the "Top 3" reasons for believing in God to underpin her unshakable faith. The problem is, her faith is becoming a little shaken because the top 3 reasons have not been reasons at all - they've been personal opinions wrapped up in tautologies, pretending to be something meaningful. She's getting nervous.
Rachel is also worried about why Marilyn is trying to undermine the achievements of science as a reason to believe in God. Surely God can stand on his own two(?) feet without having to take sideswipes at science at the same time.
Let's hope Reasons 4 through 6 work out a little better.
3. "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
Rachel considers the elements of this argument carefully. She puts aside the obvious and immediate question of "Why are natural causes insufficient explanations" and immerses herself in Marilyn's argument.
She decides to analyze what Marilyn says, step by step:
"The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance."
It might be better to say “The alternative to a supernatural explanation is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause.” (Otherwise we’d have to consider goblins, the devil or the tooth fairy as possible (if unlikely) explanations.) But yes, this makes sense, although it gives poor Rachel no reason to believe that the supernatural explanation is better than the natural one.
"If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else."
Agreed. Similarly the odds of winning a coin toss is one thing. But the odds of winnng the New York State Lottery is something else. There is an endless series of these comparisons available. But Rachel isn't quite sure how these comparisons give her a reason to believe in God. (Winning the New York Lottery might help though. "If I only just pray hard enough...!")
"What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life."
Science doesn’t confirm this. Rachel begins to smell a rat. “Science” (whoever he may be) says no such thing. In fact, quite the opposite. And the reference to Pasteur sounds suspiciously like an attempt to give scientific credibility to a most unscientific argument.
"Where did human, animal, plant life come from?"
Good question. Isn’t that the one we’re trying to answer?
"Natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA."
Why? Scientists happen to think they’re a very good explanation – why should Rachel prefer Marilyn’s unsupported assertion?
"A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune."
Well, this is a strange way of putting it, but even so, what reason is Marilyn giving Rachel to support the “God” hypothesis over the natural one?
"It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck."
Rachel is getting even more concerned now. After the undeniably limited intellectual merit of Marilyn's first three “reasons” she finds this finger-pointing at a straw man a little distasteful. Rachel, being a true believer, but also open minded, knows that scientific theories aren’t about luck. They’re about the accretive impact of many steps of natural selection over long periods of time. Luck is the last word to describe the deliberate painstaking process of natural selection for fitness in a given environment. And then Marilyn's random value judgement – intellectually wanting – without any support is not making her feel any better.
So our friend Rachel has heard the "Top 3" reasons for believing in God to underpin her unshakable faith. The problem is, her faith is becoming a little shaken because the top 3 reasons have not been reasons at all - they've been personal opinions wrapped up in tautologies, pretending to be something meaningful. She's getting nervous.
Rachel is also worried about why Marilyn is trying to undermine the achievements of science as a reason to believe in God. Surely God can stand on his own two(?) feet without having to take sideswipes at science at the same time.
Let's hope Reasons 4 through 6 work out a little better.
No comments:
Post a Comment