Why i am not a christian. Part 2. The watchmaker analogy.
This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can also read Part 1.
A common argument for the existence of God is known as the watchmaker analogy. The argument is easy to explain: say you happen to find a watch in the middle of the desert, do you stop and say to yourself, “hmmm, i bet that watch just popped into existence, all by itself”, or do you pick it up, take a look, and say, “that appears to be a complicated piece of machinery, i guess a watchmaker must have made it”. I suspect you’d go with the second option. The implication is that the design of the watch implies a designer. It would therefore seem obvious that if a watch implied a designer, than the entire universe, infinitely more complex than a silly old wristwatch, must also have a designer. And that designer is God.
There is an obvious objection to this argument. Who created God? For if the answer to this question is, “oh, that’s simple, God has always existed”, than surely the same argument can be applied to the universe. Why is it so hard to believe that the universe has always existed without a creator, when to believe in God is to believe that an even more complicated entity than the universe has always existed without a creator. The introduction of God solves nothing. It only serves to make the problem of “first cause” more difficult by substituting the dilemma of creating the universe with the dilemma of creating God.
As a side note, the idea that a universe, not our universe, has always existed, is not as strange as it may first appear. A popular proposition in the field of cosmology is that of the “oscillating universe”. The idea is that each universe, including our own, explodes from an infinitely dense singularity, expands (as it is now doing), slows under the pull of gravity, and then collapses, until finally space and time is reborn in a new configuration following a new explosion. Our universe is just one universe from a chain of infinite progression. You may be forgiven for thinking that this idea is even more absurd than the concept of God; except for two points. Firstly, the idea of an oscillating universe is arguably more simplistic, and therefore tenable, than the conception of an infinitely complex theistic God. Secondly, and more importantly, cosmologists arrived at this idea from tangible evidence that suggests that our universe exploded into existence approximately 14 billion years ago, is currently expanding, and thanks to “dark matter”, is slowing to the point that it may one day start to shrink. The point is this: the idea is based on tangible and reproducible measurements resulting from the study of the world in which we live… unlike the concept of God which is based on nothing tangible, nothing reproducible, and certainly nothing measurable.
A companion argument to that of the watchmaker analogy is expressed in the realisation that the laws that govern our universe are perfectly tuned. If we were to adjust the gravitational constant even a smidgen, or slightly increase the mass of any of the subatomic particles, the entire universe as we know it would be a disaster and incapable of supporting life. Therefore, the argument proceeds, there must be a God who twiddled all the dials to set the conditions just right. Again, there is an obvious objection to this argument: you and i are here, marveling at the finely balanced nature of the universe, not because it was destined by God, but simply because if it were any different, we wouldn’t be here at all. Let me repeat that from the opposite perspective. Imagine that the physical attributes of space and time were different, and hence the universe incapable of supporting life - if it were, you and i wouldn’t actually exist, and we wouldn’t be here suggesting that our life is a miracle that proclaims the existence of God. It is no miracle. It had to be this way or we wouldn’t exist. This idea is called the anthropic principle. And as astute readers will have noticed, the anthropic principle is even more convincing when viewed against the framework of an oscillating universe, where each instance of the universe has a unique set of properties, and in the never end cycle of expansion and collapse, every possible permutation of conditions is experienced.
Although these rebuttals of the watchmaker analogy do not for a moment suggest that God does not exist, they do clearly indicate that neither does the watchmaker argument prove that God does exist. And without an argument for God, one must assume that he does not exist. Non-belief must be the default position. I don’t believe in Zeus. I don’t believe in Atlas. I don’t believe in Apollo. Why not? Because without reason, the default position is non-belief. In a similar manner, i don’t believe in the christian God. Why? Again, without reason, the default position must be non-belief. In summary, the arguments here don’t “disprove” God, they simply invalidate another set of “reasons” for claiming that he exists. And that is all that is required.
The mob has spoken.
Hmm,
I am probably going to regret this - but hey without you at bible study to argue with what choice do I have.
Firstly as I understand it the exact nature of the universe / dark matter and indeed the question of an oscillating universe are still up for some degree of debate. On the whole we have the amount of matter in the universe and with the exception of some studies done on the light from some very distant places (and as i understand it these studies were not what you would call the nail in the coffin) we are still not able to detect dark matter in any convincing manner. I suspect you could argue that dark matter is proven by the inability to explain the rate of universal expansion and the total amount of matter in the universe (the gap between as it were).
If this is so why not disbelieve it after all no one has evidence of it’s existence that you or I can prove. Indeed dark matter is for the most part taken on faith after all we can only detect it by it’s absence. I could posit that God has divinely decreed that the universe will expand at this rate and that it will eventually slow and collapse of it’s own accord irrespective of the total amount of matter in the universe. Understandably I am not able to prove my assumption and indeed the basis for my suggestion would be drawn for the most part from my religious background (I am not suggesting this just so we are clear).
If disbelief is the standard approach to all things under what circumstances do we argue that disbelief is ended. Should we only believe in that for which we fully understand, should we trust the judgment of others, should we accept that even though we cannot do something then as long as we see it happen it must be true? Should we have faith in some things (dark matter or microwaves) simply because we can see the results of their activity or should we be able to feel them and have the technical knowledge to understand what is happening.
Of course this proves nothing - ultimately all faiths rely on belief ( ok perhaps a few would dispute that - but even the nature of Buddhism would seem to suggest some belief in life after death). In this I can’t disagree with you - lover of science that I am. So what does this mean for the blind watch maker - nothing probably after all the blind watch maker like most arguments does forget that ultimately in the case of a number of faiths my own included personal belief is the only thing we are asked to have. Does god exist then - yes but can i prove he exists with absolute certainty - no more so than the nature of dark matter and the final solution for the universal constant have been found fully resolved and identified.
In fun,
TB
Tom, thanks for your comment. I totally agree that the jury is still out on the topic of dark matter. I’m not suggesting that it is a rock-hard scientific truth. I’m simply offering a response to those that consider the watchmaker analogy as a sound argument for justifying the existence of God. For even if the concept of dark matter is one day considered an embarrassing mistake, the mere recognition of reasonable alternative explanations for the creation of the universe is sufficient to relegate the watchmaker analogy to that of an “idea” (just like dark matter) rather than a “motive” for belief.
The main difference between the theory of dark matter and that of the watchmaker analogy is that the former is based upon a positive argument: we have made observations of the universe, and from what we have seen, we have drawn tentative conclusions. The watchmaker analogy, in contrast, is a negative argument, if it may be considered an argument at all, as it attempts to posit truth by undermining the alternatives. In this sense, it is an example of a position called “god of the gaps”. In this view, anything that cannot be reasonably explained by human endeavour (i.e. the gaps of human knowledge) is explained by God. Therefore, if we cannot with confidence explain how the universe was created, we assert that God must have created it.
There are many problems with this approach. Firstly, as i indicated above, it is not what i call a positive argument (an argument that directly supports a conclusion). The argument only makes sense if you already believe in god; it cannot be used to reasonably convince another person of the existence of god as it is not founded on any demonstrable principles. Secondly, history has shown that the “god of the gaps” perspective always looses out to science. There was a time when we didn’t understand how the sun moved across the sky. What did we do? We explained the unexplainable by deciding that god carried the sun across the sky in a chariot. When we came to understand that the movement was actually caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis, another modicum of knowledge was moved from the domain of god to the domain of science. The interesting point is that no human knowledge has ever moved the other way; it’s always a one-way street from god to science. It’s not like we once explained the existence of rainbows by appealing to the principle of light refraction, only to be forced, following advances in our understanding of god, to admit we got it wrong, and that it’s really just “god doing something mysterious”. We continue to chip away at the domain of god. Every day we use god to explain a little bit less about the world in which we live. Why? It’s because no behaviour explained by god, such as the creation of the universe, is supported by anything other than the absence of a definitive alternative. We will make advances in our study of dark matter. We will either grow to understand it intimately, or we will throw the idea onto the dust heap. We should expect no such advance in the domain of god.
To answer your question “if disbelief is the standard approach to all things under what circumstances do we argue that disbelief is ended”, i would say that it all hangs on probability. Our understanding of the world, whether it be derived scientifically, or historically, is founded on probability. How do i know that George Washington existed? No one alive today ever saw him. No one can personally vouch for his existence. We believe it, not because we can “prove” it in some mathematical sense, nor can we claim 100 percent historical certainty. We can only assert his existence with high probability based on the evidence that we have available to us. As to what level of probability we need to ascertain belief, well i think that varies from person to person, but arguably it must be more than 50%.
This is where the watchmaker analogy and theories of dark matter diverge. A scientist can make observations that either add to or subtract from the current probability assessment relating to the existence of dark matter. Today we may be 20% confident. Tomorrow we may be 10% or 25% confident. There is a reason for our assessment. It can be discussed, it can be critiqued. On the other hand, the probability assessment that god created the universe is either zero, because it is founded on nothing other than a pre-existent belief that it is so, or to play out the “god of the gaps” principle, it is the converse of the probability of the alternatives. Either way, the deciding factor is science. The “creative power” of god merely ebbs and flows depending on what science can or cannot explain. And this it not enough for me. I need a positive argument for the existence of god. It just isn’t enough to say “god did it”, simply because i don’t have any better ideas today.
Firstly can I just say that the Killers and the New Pornographers are most excellent.
OK now on to the discussion you are right in suggesting that the nature of god does defy a scientific answer. I would hope that the truth will out in the end - I am also less confident than I at first appear on the exact nature of god.
At the end of the day faith in all things is a component of who you are and what you believe. For me my faith weak though it is at all times is based on a experience that transformed my life and which occurred inside not outside. This sadly makes it a matter of personal experience, it could be argued that a series of things - bright sunlight, a strong need, a lucky break, a need to find an answer and of course brain chemistry led to a confused moment.
It is also based on the clear change I have seen in others, changes which once again could be coincidence but would appear in some cases at least to be more than that. Is it scientifically measurable - I suspect that it could be. So is this a positive a argument for the existence of god Yes and No - Yes in the sense that their are witnesses to the experience of God - No in the sense that God’s presence cannot be measured within us with technology of our understanding.
Others who are better educated in theology than me could also provide a strong philosophical argument in defense of god, it’s not my gift of course. Their are others who would argue that bible provides evidence of god through it’s words and it’s veracity as a historical text (in that parts that are historical it’s surprisingly accurate). However at the end of time god (if he exists!) is speaking to each of us as individuals.
TB
I’m glad you enjoyed the albums. I was really impressed with both releases.
I can’t argue with personal experience as a justification for your faith. I think it is great that you have had a positive transformation in your life, and in some regards, the truthfulness of that experience is probably irrelevant; it’s the outcome that matters most.
I could contend that such transformations are not unique to the domain of religion. I know of countless people that have taken a 180 degree turn in life thanks to all sorts of non-religious experiences. And as i mentioned in my post on other religions, the fact that people of different faiths have near identical personal experiences at the hand of completely different gods, does lead me to think that the transformations are more self-manufactured than god-given. There is a plethora of literature on studies of the placebo affect, where positive expectation has brought about significant changes of state. It should not surprise us to see this affect play out in the domain of religious experience.
However, as much as i may not be convinced by the argument of personal experience, i at least respect it. I guess i’ve become somewhat frustrated when talking with christians that offer up all sorts of historical or philosophical explanations for why they believe, when the truth is, i think that very few people actually come to believe in god because of a formalised argument. In my experience, that step of faith is motivated either by a desire for change, the influence of friends or family, or a critical junction in life. I also suspect that most christians do not remain christians because of the robustness of the historical record, or the unity of the theology, or the the tightness of a philosophical argument. As in your case, i think most people remain christian for personal reasons. The formalised arguments, more often than not, appear to be pseudo-credible attempts to justify what the faithful already believe to be true.
You have an opinion? Share it.