Explain this argument against design?
Posted by James on June 29, 2011 · 4 Comments
Question by weezijian: Explain this argument against design?
George H. Smith, in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design
Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)
Eh… I’m not in a philo class or anything… So this isn’t my homework.. I stumbled upon it on wikipedia and need help understanding it…
Thanks guys
Best answer:
Answer by jammin7000
Therefore George H. Smith argues on behalf of the trees, but has no use for the forest? Btw, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts…(forest is greater than the sum of the trees: God is greater than the sum of his creation)
For every effect, there is a cause- fundamental science axiom. Nature is the effect, what is the cause? xyz? xyz = God?
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Smith is quite tuatological
I could happily answer your question in detail, but I’m not in a mood to do your homework for you. I suggest more study. It is the best way to learn, understand, and retain a subject. However, I’ll leave you with a hint. What is to say the writer of that paragraph isn’t wrong about nature? Can you prove that nature is not also a “designed object”? Can you disprove it?
The fact that there are intricate, complicated, and beautiful aspects of nature doesn’t validate the argument that something outside the system is responsible.
As long as we are prisoners of our own reality…nothing can be compared to nature; and not be claimed as something of nature which is ‘unnatural’ enough to needing planning behind it.
To simplify this think what makes up, up. It is only up in relation to down. Things are classified by distinction. You have to start with what you know and what evidence there is. We know a building is desined by intelligence. Now look at nature and try to find something common. It simply isn’t there. Nature is simply random with no intent or meaning. A tree isn’t where it is for any particular reason other than that is where the seed landed and germinated. There is a clear distinction between what we designed and what we didn’t and that is the only world we live in. We have those 2 options. He is saying in order to show design in nature we would have to see a 3rd option to contrast to nature. That 3rd option would have to be the plane of existence the designer is on. Now in regards to atheism being a waste of time because you can’t disprove a creator. This is just circular logic. I can’t disprove fairies but most people don’t think they are real. Atheism simply looks at evidence and comes to the conclusion since there is no evidence for a creator there is no reason to think there is one. That’s what the scientific method is all about. Creationism and every argument they try to make for it all starts with the assumption that there is a creator. Rational arguments have to come from true assumptions.