Antony Flew's Parable of the Invisible Gardener

This is a classic parable. What do you think? Much ink has been spilled over it, I know.

23 comments:

jUUggernaut said...

Anthony Flew's hard to read text can perhaps be boiled down to this paraphrase:

'Any assertion is equivalent to a denial of the negation of the assertion and it is therefore possible to disqualify an assertion by points: if an assertion has been eroded to such a degree that there are no substantial pillars left for its edifice to stand on it must be condemned as must any building that is not structurally sound.'

(I've been mixing metaphors here, one from boxing, the other from engineering).

I sometimes imagine a debate with a score keeper who writes down the assertions made by a believer and a skeptic in columns and proceeds to cross out with a big fat marker the refuted stuff and the non-sequiturs.

Once you visualize the results it should be obvious that the erosion is nothing short of devastating.

I strongly suggest to use such graphic illustrations whereever possible because our minds (especially minds enamoured with an idea) are ill equipped to keep track of misses but cling to perceived hits.

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

One FLEW over the cookoo's nest? ;)

Unknown said...

Good Morning Friends

Flew asked: "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"

Axiomatically obvious is the assertion in harmony with the facts of reality that The claim that a god exists is self-contradictory. To claim that god exists, you must both assume the truth of the primacy of existence and deny it at the same time. When you say "x exists" (where 'x' is some entity, attribute or relationship), you are assuming that it exists independently of consciousness, which means: You imply the primacy of existence principle. But when you say what exists is a form of consciousness which creates existence, then you assume explicitly the primacy of consciousness principle, which contradicts the principle of the primacy of existence. In this way, the claim that god exists must be rejected as a falsehood. Either way, existence exists, and your god is out of a job.

(Thorn was directing this comment at specific persons. It could be generalized by replacing you or your with "a theist" or "the theist's".)

Thorn wrote a good essay explaining the Primacy of Existence vs Primacy of Consciousness principles that can be found at the following link.

The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy
.


Some will protest Objectivist metaphysics as somehow invalid due to objections founded in an aversion to Objectivist epistemology, yet they have no evidence that existence does not actually exist. The answer to Flew's question then is that nothing has to occur to prove God does not exist, for the Primacy of Existence principle precludes any possibility of God existing because that which is self-contradictory cannot exist.

Anonymous said...

Robert:

I really have no idea what you just said.

jUUggernaut:

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your quote here

"Any assertion is equivalent to a denial of the negation of the assertion and it is therefore possible to disqualify an assertion by points: if an assertion has been eroded to such a degree that there are no substantial pillars left for its edifice to stand on it must be condemned as must any building that is not structurally sound."

But all the same I think something more has to be said about the context of the article (which I'm not sure if you know or not).

This essay was a piggyback off of Poppers claims about science and what passed for science and what was (his words) "pseudoscience". He wished to distinguish between the two and he came up with the criterion of falsifiability.

A statement is falsifiable if it has something about it which can be proven definitively false through experimentation (an example might be the theory of gravity, if I were to drop an apple and it went up instead of down we could consider the theory of gravity falsified).

This meant that any statement to be scientific would need to have some element within it that could be proven false otherwise it could be labeled pseudoscience (when he used this he did not mean it in the derogatory way we use it today).

This brings us to Flew. Flew applied falsifiability to theological language in this article. So for Flew, for a statement to have meaning it must have something in which it is not.

The main problem that has always been leveled against falsifiability in general is this:
1) falsifiability seems to fail under it's own methodology. It is a non falsifiable concept and thus dubious at best.
2) It seems intuitive to say that meaning can be ascribed to a thing or action without that thing being able to be falsified. So a meaningful statement can be made using a non-falsifiable concept (love is often used as an example but there are others).

There are other reasons why it's been rejected but I think that is sufficient for now. That's my understanding of the context of the debate surrounding the article.

As for the article itself, it really rocked my faith for a while when I first read it. In fact I'm still not sure how to respond to it's challenge. I don't think that the traditional answers are sufficient personally. The concept of God really does seem to be set to sliding goalposts that slowly erode the meaning inherent within the concept of God. I suppose the best answer might be to deny the assertion that the definition of God has changed. However the differences between an "immaterial..etc" God and no God at all are very difficult to tell. I find this extremely disheartening personally.

Anonymous said...

Hi Matthew,
The main problem that has always been leveled against falsifiability in general is this:
1) falsifiability seems to fail under it's own methodology. It is a non falsifiable concept and thus dubious at best.
2) It seems intuitive to say that meaning can be ascribed to a thing or action without that thing being able to be falsified. So a meaningful statement can be made using a non-falsifiable concept (love is often used as an example but there are others).


What has been rejected the article or falsifiablity?

I'll bet you can define what love means to you, as I can, and we can agree on some minimum standards.

Then we can test our mothers and see if they pass, and then we can test a stranger and see if they pass.

We can show, maybe not prove, that it is likely that our mothers love us, and show that it is likely that the stranger does not.

Let me know when you find something else that you are having a hard time identifying and testing for and i'll help you out.

If the definition and parameters of God are sliding, then when do the parameters for the description of chance (for example) absorb the concept of God?

strangebrew said...

Flew asked: "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"

Evolution!

Anonymous said...

Hi matthew,
one more thing specifically about this:
It seems intuitive to say that meaning can be ascribed to a thing or action without that thing being able to be falsified.
anything that has meaning ascribed to it has a description. If you can't describe it, then it can't exist either in the real world or in imagination. Here, try this, tell me about something that doesn't exist.

as soon as you do, it exists, if nowhere else but your mind and words and in my mind as I comprehend it. And if you describe love to me, and if there is nothing to corroborate it, then it only exists in your mind.

if we say we're going to falsify something, then if it doesn't match its description, then for all intents and purposes, its falsified.

If you want to say that I can't falsify Russels teapot, or whatever is going on in your mind, fine, at most I'm agnostic about it, but given data that I can accumulate relevant to it from the real world, its real world existence is unlikely, which for all intents and purposes makes it irrelevant, practically and pragmatically non-existent.

goprairie said...

in the specific example of the garden, you could move something or destroy something or add something that did not fit and ruined the aesthetics. if the moved thing was moved back or the ruined thing was replaced or the added thing was gone, you would have proof of the gardener. but if none of those happened, the beleiver would just say the god had other priorities or decided to let us have a hand in the garden or some other nonsense. but we are left with this: what is more likely? those claims about god or that there simply IS not god? you can't prove there is no god, but you can say no evidence exists that there is a god.

J. K. Jones said...

First, Flew’s parable didn’t convince him. He’s not an atheist anymore.

Second, try this answer:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. A man was there, pulling weeds, applying fertilizer, trimming branches. The man turned to the explorers and introduced himself as the royal gardener. One explorer shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries. The other ignored the gardener and turned away: "There can be no gardener in this part of the jungle," he said; "this must be some trick." They pitch camp. Every day the gardener arrives, tends the plot. Soon the plot is bursting with perfectly arranged blooms. "He's only doing it because we're here - to fool us into thinking this is a royal garden." The gardener takes them to a royal palace, introduces the explorers to a score of officials who verify the gardener's status. Then the sceptic tries a last resort: "Our senses are deceiving us. There is no gardener, no blooms, no palace, no officials. It's still a hoax!" Finally the believer despairs: "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does this mirage, as you call it, differ from a real gardener?"

(From: John M. Frame, "God and Biblical Language," God's Inerrant Word, ed. J. W. Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), p. 171.)

Unknown said...

J.K. Jones,

That is wonderful. I sure can't wait for God to come down, meet me face to face, and give me a ride up to heaven where all my dead relatives will testify that he is in fact the one true God!

I know he'll be here any second now...

jUUggernaut said...

J. K. Jones:
The great scientist and teacher Richard Feynman defined science as “A way of trying not to fool yourself.”
I contend that the writer of your fable is doing just that by fabricating a scenario that makes the conclusion inevitable that one of the two observers is deliberately blind.

But the kind of 'argument' pushed here is silly fallacy seen at the core of the entire "Intelligent Design" movement: "To my untrained and incurious eye this looks designed. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that it is indeed designed. QED."

Unless of course you ask any natural scientist who investigated the claim in question without prejudice.

It's either that or 'arguing' by reference to some 'book' or anthology or other.

Unknown said...

Matthew: Hello. I hope this message finds you in good health.

You wrote "Robert: I really have no idea what you just said."

I apologize for not being clear. My attempt to answer Flew's question involved a reference to what is a very strong A-theist/A-deist argument that was composed by Anton Thorn. His argument is called The Argument from Existence. The quote from Thorn's essay is straight forward understandable given knowledge of the special terms. Thorn defined the terms in his essay, and I'll paste that text here.

"The primacy of existence is the principle which identifies the fact that existence exists independent of consciousness. What does this mean? This means that whatever exists, exists independent of our awareness of it. Existence exists, and whatever is, is what it is, regardless of our thoughts about it, regardless of our desires, regardless of our wishes. The statement "wishing does not make it so" expresses the gist of the primacy of existence quite appropriately: it recognizes that our wishes cannot "pull rank" on the facts of reality." -(How the Claim "God Exists" Contradicts Itself by Anton Thorn)

Thorn defines the Primacy of Consciousness as:

The primacy of consciousness, however, is the reverse of the primacy of existence. This view essentially holds that existence is dependent upon consciousness. It holds that facts are facts, only because we want them to be facts. Truth is, on this view, whatever we choose it to be. If one does not like something, one can dismiss it and say "I don't like reality, I prefer my fantasy instead," and assert one's emotional excursions in place of knowledge of reality. -(Ibid, Thorn)

The text quoted previously in my prior message read as The claim that a god exists is self-contradictory. To claim that god exists, you must both assume the truth of the primacy of existence and deny it at the same time. When you say "x exists" (where 'x' is some entity, attribute or relationship), you are assuming that it exists independently of consciousness, which means: You imply the primacy of existence principle. But when you say what exists is a form of consciousness which creates existence, then you assume explicitly the primacy of consciousness principle, which contradicts the principle of the primacy of existence. In this way, the claim that god exists must be rejected as a falsehood. Either way, existence exists, and your god is out of a job. - (Ibid, Thorn)

To claim a creator god exists is to commit a stolen concept fallacy. The stolen concept is committed explicitly asserting a concept while denying another concept upon which the first logically or genetically depends. Nathaniel Branden described the stolen concept as follows.

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon’s famous declaration that “All property is theft.”

“Theft” is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of “rightfully owned property”—and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner’s consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft.” Thus, the statement “All property is theft” has an internal contradiction: to use the concept “theft” while denying the validity of the concept of “property,” is to use “theft” as a concept to which one has no logical right—that is, as a stolen concept.


To say god exists is to asset it exists in harmony with the primacy of existence principle. But god is asserted to be form of consciousness that is alleged to have created existence. This is an explicit example of primacy of consciousness thinking. Because consciousness logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of existence, the notion god, a form of consciousness without a mind or brain, as creator of existence is a stolen concept fallacy. This renders the notion of god self-contradictory and impossible.

In answer to Flew's question,

"What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"

I replied is that nothing has to occur to prove God does not exist, for the Primacy of Existence principle precludes any possibility of God existing because that which is self-contradictory cannot exist.

Nothing has to happen to prove god does not exist because the fact that existence exists independent of consciousness, any form of consciousness, means existence exists necessarily. If P necessarily obtains, then ¬P is impossible. Primacy of existence is the opposite of primacy of consciousness. That existence exists therefore means god cannot exist.

JK Jones: Hello. I hope your well and feeling fine.

You wrote Flew’s parable didn’t convince him. He’s not an atheist anymore.

Flew is still an A-theist. He has, allegedly, adopted a form of Deism. Deists are also A-theists in that they reject the idea that the deity has revealed itself through any human religion. Theists maintain that their god has revealed itself through their religion and is a personal being. Deism generally rejects such notions. Here is a link to a Deism site that promotes a book entitled *God vs. the Bible*

Ricard Carrier had a conversation with Flew from which Carrier reports that: The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure.

Best Regards and Wishes

Gandolf said...

To me it seems the parable Antony Few uses holds at least some factual evidence.IE no real evidence of god/s are ever really experienced.

Religions then basically so often exist on faith alone or what one has been indoctrinated to believe.

J. K. Jones dont take it personal, but i just dont see that the parable you offer even goes anywhere near being able to be compared.Right from the start your parable seems to use very false evidence.IE you suggest a gardener actually exists and can actually been seen and then even go on further to expand this fallacy to include that not only is evidence available that this gardener exists being also quite obvious to be seen but a further fallacy is added by you to suggest this man then just refuses to accept the available evidence which is then disregarded by him by him just choosing to turn away.

Your parable would seem to suggest for instance that evidence is plainly available, yet any non believers here might be just choosing to disregard it.

It might fit into false notions indoctrinated like that man is just born evil etc,and fit that what many would like to believe.

But if your parable is based on so much false evidence as this,i really wonder what value of proof it really is for any who choose to believe by these means.

Yet when i look at religions overall and consider them ,it seems a pattern exists that suggests these very types of blatant fallacies so often exist and even play a big part in formations of the many faith beliefs.

So in thinking of that i have to say im not quite so surprised,cause it fits with the evidence i see regarding how so often faith beliefs over look facts preferring to choose to try to bend evidence to continue to suit the faiths they wish to keep.

J. K. Jones said...

Gandolf and company,

You all don’t like the parable I shared, and I can understand why. It doesn’t make it necessarily false, but I wouldn’t like it either if I was on the other side of this issue.

The evidence for God’s existence is plain to see, and denials of that evidence are forced and temporary. That’s what the parable is saying.

Frankly, now you know how Christians feel when we hear Flew’s parable. It doesn’t make sense to us the same way the parable I shared does not make sense to you.

But no one seems to be saying anything about the first part of my comment. Anthony Flew is now saying he believes in some kind of designer. His recent book outlines a faith of a sort, although not a faith in a particular religion.

Why did he switch?

J. K. Jones said...

Robert Bumbalough,

I honestly didn’t see your comment. I thought I had subscribed to comments through my e-mail, and I don’t remember seeing it. I apologize.

Deism is not atheism. In Deism, there is a God who creates and designs.

I don’t understand Deism because it rules out God’s intervention in the world (miracles) while still affirming the greatest miracle of all (creation itself).

Why wouldn’t God be able to intervene? If an apple falls from a tree, and I catch it before it hits the ground, the law of gravity still works. It’s just that I intervened before the apple hit the ground. I reached out and caught the apple. God could intervene.

But that is beside the point. Why did Flew change his mind? I have not had a chance to read his entire book yet, but a skim of the contents seems to indicate the design found in the universe had a great influence.

There was also an appendix by N. T. Wright, with some interesting comments on Christianity by Flew at the very end. Something about a “fresh approach” that seemed more convincing that what he had heard before (not that he was convinced).

Again, why did Flew change his mind?

Gandolf said...

J. K. Jones said."Frankly, now you know how Christians feel when we hear Flew’s parable. It doesn’t make sense to us the same way the parable I shared does not make sense to you."

Well J.k i still dont see how it makes sense the same way.I think you would need to talk in your parable about a unseen gardener instead of suggesting a gardener that is suggested to be seen.Because god is never seen, yet in your parable it is suggested that he is.

See one parable suggests some reality the other is very fictional and full of imagination.

But never mind.

However no i dont think i feel how christians might feel,because a very fictional parable really makes little impression on me.I only wanted to voice an opinion of some differences that i dont see can be really compared.And wondered if you could explain how this was possible ,but you have not been able to.

If faithful folk wish to try to compare these two very different types of really incomparable parables,then its no skin off my nose.Im still smiling :)takes very much more than this to upset me.

J.K said"But no one seems to be saying anything about the first part of my comment. Anthony Flew is now saying he believes in some kind of designer. His recent book outlines a faith of a sort, although not a faith in a particular religion.

Why did he switch?"

Well J.K who really knows.But there is at least one fact Antony Flew was the son of a Methodist minister.Old habits die hard and fear is well known to have strange effects on people,even without evidence .For instance people are frightened of the dark or frightened of ghosts,in ships on the sea have been frightened of falling off a flat earth that is actually quite round :) .

And many many more stupid things that have absolutely no evidence for need of fear.

It has also been Suggested that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline.And well i suggest Flew at aged around 85 is really no spring chicken anymore,and some old folk can even revert to a type childhood in their later years.This then is maybe a possibility.

As a prominent atheist just imagine the type of condemnation and threats of receiving all types of hellish nasty`s in the suggested afterlife,he would likely have received from many rabid type believers in their hatred of his opinions! for many years.I suggest its quite likely his letter box was filled many times by letters suggesting his hellish type of final demise,should he choose to continue with this line of thinking.

I myself have even read stories placed on the net of people who have supposedly had visions or something of this hell,that within they depicted atheists to have been seen there receiving the very worst of treatment.Screaming or what ever it was that this particular scaremongering piece of writing suggested ,i cant quite remember exactly and neither am i very bothered.

But J.K let me just say manipulation and fear is a very powerful tool.And minds can be (led) to believe almost anything,specially when not being used very rationally.

The Standing Dragon said...

@JK:

Quote:
The evidence for God’s existence is plain to see, and denials of that evidence are forced and temporary. That’s what the parable is saying.
/Quote.


The problem here, is, well - the evidence for God's existence is not exactly plain.

I do not accept the bible as proof of anything other than authors existed at some time in the past. Begin there. Remove the statements made in this book from the picture -

... now. What evidence to you have for God? What is so plain that any rational man must concede God's existence? If I have never read the bible, I must still be able to see the face of God out there in the world, right?

But I don't. Not this miracle-based, personally-driven God. I see cruelty and intolerance, war and famine, hypocracy and denial.

If we add the bible back into the picture, I see fantastic stories with remarkable assertions but very little proof. I see conflicting messages within the work itself and within, even, the same subject in the same work.

Worse, I see so-called followers that pick-and-choose what words they'll follow at any given moment, in some small effort to make sense out of pieces of the puzzle. I see people wearing clothes of more than one fabric, though expressly forbidden to do so - I see them NOT helping the poor, NOT giving up their wealth, NOT wearing tassels on the four corners of their clothing, NOT putting railings around their house roof. I see them not stoning their disobedient children (a good thing, mind you) - but I do see them using a book that says 'love thy neighbor as thyself' as an excuse to use hate and fear to push their own agenda on those neighbors who have the audacity to simply disagree.

I see misunderstandings in the Laws of Large Numbers, arguments from incredulity - (I can't believe this, so this other assertion must be true!) - arguments from tautology, "The bible says it is true, so it must be, because it's the bible!" - and arguments from ignorance.

But.. I have yet to see proof of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, personal God who is generating peace between his followers, who is easing suffering, who is solving problems, or who is .. honestly.. doing anything miraculous. Ranks right up there with Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle.

So.. perhaps this simple assertion you make, that the proof of God is obvious - is where you'd need to start to convince a skeptic like me.

What is so obvious about it?

The Standing Dragon said...

Let me add two things, as they've just occurred to me, as I sit here and think -

I am an athiest. I gladly say so, though I'm relatively new to being one. But the line between atheism and true deism is a little bit blurry.

What really is the difference between having no god at all and having a remote, uncaring god that doesn't answer prayers, doesn't interfere with the processes in the world, and doesn't in any way delegate humanity, or this little bluegreen planet as 'special'?

The line's awfully thin - and while there's certainly a meaningful difference, there's no practical one. In both philosophies, one of the principles is that in the absence of God's attention, Man must choose his own path. We write our own destiny within the limits of the universe, for good or ill.

In that, a true deist and an athiest are probably at most going to have merry arguments about watchmakers over a beer somewhere. So what difference does it make if Flew came to believe in a distant and impersonal God? It by no means validates the existence of an omnicient triad deity living in my soul - it simply says that Flew thought that an impersonal God would explain away a few inconsistencies he saw in the ordering of the universe.

Which.. alright. It implies to me an imperfect understanding of even the layman's versions of physics and biology, but it's ultimately a moot point when discussing God's involvement in His supposed Creation.

The trouble with most theistic belief isn't that it's believed. I honestly don't care if you want to gather every Sunday for a miracle-driven cannibalistic ritual (i.e. Catholic transubstantiation and the Eucharist) - certainly the crackers and wine don't care either. I don't care if your idea of a good Sunday morning is going and listening to a man in a fancy suit spout platitudes of love while smacking you with damnation, and then demanding money before falsely and theatrically healing parishoners before your Very Eyes. (Benny Hinn). I.. honestly just don't care.

The trouble comes in when a theist uses their belief, and their belief alone, as a reason to judge everyone else around them, and apparently find them wanting if they're not attending the same building and listening to the same ritualist each Sunday.

Don't you see? Your belief is yours. I don't want to touch it, and don't care about it - save when it descends upon me and determines that I am utterly and completely worthless because I don't think the icon of a cross is worth genuflecting to anymore.

This is the parable of the garden:

This world exists. The garden is there - there's no question everyone sees that. But in the end, is an invisible, intangible, untouchable, unknowable gardener any different than not having a gardener at all?

Perhaps it brings you comfort to assume that you can't have a garden like this without a gardener. I say imagine how much more beautiful it could be if we stopped assuming there was one and set out to care for the garden ourselves, hmm?

J. K. Jones said...

The Standing Dragon,

“…the evidence for God's existence is not exactly plain.”

It is plain enough. The problem is that we are all born in such a condition as to suppress it.

“I do not accept the bible as proof of anything other than authors existed at some time in the past. Begin there. Remove the statements made in this book from the picture … misunderstandings in the Laws of Large Numbers, arguments from incredulity - (I can't believe this, so this other assertion must be true!) - arguments from tautology, "The bible says it is true, so it must be, because it's the bible!" - and arguments from ignorance.”

You want me to move through a relatively long set of arguments. I have outlined those arguments in posts on my own blog. See www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com and follow the search label “Nine Reasons Why…” Otherwise, I am going to be typing for a long time.

By the way, many of the reasons I give are not “proofs” as such. But there are proofs in the series of posts that are convincing.


“…I see cruelty and intolerance, war and famine, hypocrisy and denial.”

Those things are wrong, WRONG. One of the main reasons that I am a Christian is that the Christian faith allows me to call things evil. Not just evil based on social convention or evolved intuition, but real, existential, metaphysical evil.


“…fantastic stories with remarkable assertions but very little proof. I see conflicting messages within the work itself and within, even, the same subject in the same work.”

Let’s discuss whether God exists or not first, shall we? If He does not exist, He can’t speak His Word, after all.


“…I see people…”

You see many things very clearly. Evil people do evil things, and they often use religion to justify what they do. I’ve done it myself. I am a sinner just like everyone else.

Christianity affirms that this is the case. We are all sinners. Real sin. Violation of a righteous standard, not just some form of hypocrisy verses the standards we claim to live by.

You might also be a bit confused about the relationship between ceremonial laws and moral laws, but that discussion should be saved for later as well.


“What really is the difference between having no god at all and having a remote, uncaring god that doesn't answer prayers, doesn't interfere with the processes in the world, and doesn't in any way delegate humanity, or this little bluegreen planet as 'special'?”

I don’t know. I will become an atheist long before I become a Deist.

By the way, don’t get the idea that I won’t become an atheist if that is where the arguments lead. Don’t think I’ve never considered it. Don’t think I don’t have unresolved personal hurts and anger, and even some potential intellectual issues.


“…what difference does it make if Flew came to believe in a distant and impersonal God?”

I am asking if you have read his book and / or considered the reasons he gave for his change of mind on the issue of God’s existence. He calls himself a “rational theist,” not a Deist for that matter. We might just let the man speak for himself.

As a place to start, you might try the book review here: http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/review-there-is-a-god.php


“…The trouble with most theistic belief isn't that it's believed…The trouble comes in when a theist uses their belief, and their belief alone, as a reason to judge everyone else around them…”

I have good, rational reasons to believe what I believe. My faith is falsifiable. It is based on real events that have taken place in history, or they have not. It’s either objectively true, or it is false.

No one believes anything without reasons. Maybe they don’t have good reasons, but they have reasons.

“… The garden is there …”

That is, after all, the really big unsolved dilemma in the parable. The garden is there. Where did it come from? Why does it look tended?

Please see the link above for a short version of Flew’s new parable.

“… imagine how much more beautiful it could be if we stopped assuming there was one and set out to care for the garden ourselves, hmm?”

But we do not care for this garden. No one.

Some may come closer to caring than others do, some may even care about some particular things very much, but no one cares enough to live consistently and perfectly. Not even close.

That is Christianity’s unique contribution to the world. It alone of all religions has the very God whose moral standards we all ignore coming to earth to set things right. God living in a human body, struggling with the same issues we face, suffering the same pains we suffer. Dying a death He didn’t deserve on our behalf so we can be forgiven. Rising from the grave so that we can have the power to pick ourselves up when we fall, dust ourselves off, and try once again to get it right.


Let me know if you want to continue the conversation, either here or at my blog.

Either way, I’ll put my gardening gloves on.

jUUggernaut said...

JK Jones:
"
“…the evidence for God's existence is not exactly plain.”

It is plain enough. The problem is that we are all born in such a condition as to suppress it.


I find it telling that humans are not equipped with a sense that enables them to clearly perceive god and to distinguish god from frauds or hallucinations.

In most other regards we seem equipped with senses required to get by in our ancestral haunts, even to strive. If there's a sense missing maybe we don't really need it.

It reminds me of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The earth is about to be destroyed by an intergalactic highway and our earthling hero Arthur Dent learns about it an hour before the destruction is told the construction proposal had been on public display for a year - in some secret basement nobody had known about, guarded by a hungry leopard.

What kind of Christian is this god to not give his creations effective tools (emphasis on effective!) to discover and distinguish him?

Unknown said...

JK Jones: Hello and or course it is my hope this message finds you in good health.

Mr Jones wrote in reply to The Standing Dragon:

TSD: "…the evidence for God's existence is not exactly plain.”

JKJ: "It is plain enough.

Mr. Jones if you are making a reference to the argument from design or teleological argument in your statement, then you are asserting a position refuted by David Hume in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" published in 1776.
The teleological argument proceeds from an analogy between the apparent order inherent to nature to man made structures to a conclusion that nature is designed because it seems to be like human built devices.

The following is an essay written by Paul N. Tobin showing how and why Hume refuted the argument from design.

********************
The Teleological Argument

The Teleological Argument, or more colloquially, the Argument From Design, is probably, in some form or another, one of the most familiar argument for God's existence among laymen. It argues that the world and, by extension, the universe, shows signs of being a designed entity by analogy with human designs. For instance, the eye is an organ similar to the camera, for both are used for focussing an image; the former on the retina and the latter on a film.

* The Teleological Argument
* Hume's Demolition of the Teleological Argument

The Teleological Argument

Perhaps the most eloquent statement of this argument is the one that appears in David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Here is Hume's summary of the believer's position:

Look around the world, contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivision to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to end throughout all nature resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the production of human contrivance, of human design, thought, wisdom and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble, and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a deity and his similarity to human mind and intelligence. [1]

The arch-skeptic Hume, of course, presented this argument as a preliminary to demolishing it. And demolish it he did. Hume's critique floored the Teleological Argument for good. Although it is revived from time to time in theological circles, philosophically the argument is a refuted argument. We will be following Hume's critique very closely here.

Hume's Demolition of the Teleological Argument

The Analogical Reasoning is Weak

It is important to note that the Teleological Argument is an argument from analogy. It assumes that the orderliness in the world; physical, biological and chemical; resembles closely the orderliness of man-made artefacts such as houses, watches and cameras. This resemblance shows itself strongly in the way each part of the whole works together to achieve some purpose. And as man-made contrivances result from design and intelligence, so it must be, by analogy, that the natural world results from design and intelligence.

As a first step in his critique, Hume reminds us that the argument from analogy is as strong as the closeness of the resemblance. The less the cases resemble one another, the less strong the analogy and the less convincing will be the inference based on it:

Whenever you depart, in the least from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionately the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty. After having experienced the circulation of blood in creatures, we make no doubt that it takes place in Titus and Maevius. But from its circulation in frogs and fishes it is only a presumption, though a strong one, from analogy, that it takes place in men and other animals. The analogical reasoning is much weaker when we infer the circulation of sap in vegetables from our experience that blood circulates in animals, and those who hastily followed that imperfect analogy, are found, by more accurate experiments, to have been mistaken ... If we see a house, ... , we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder, because this is precisely that the species of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can pretend is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider ...[2]

Hume has brought out a very important point. From the fact that we have seen houses built by man, whenever we see a particular house, though we have not seen it being built, we can conclude from analogy and with certainty that this house too was planned, designed and built by human beings. Now the whole process of analogy become less certain when, say we come across a cave that is vaguely shaped like a door and beside this are small holes that resembled windows. Obviously it is possible that the holes and caves could have been formed naturally, perhaps by erosion, or it could have been carved out by primitive cave dwellers.

Here because the effect is different, our inference as to the cause become less certain. In the case of universe building, or creating, we have never seen a universe being created, unlike the house, hence our inference on the cause lies solely on how closely it resembles human creations. And that to Hume, is precisely what is wrong with the Teleological Argument. The natural world we see around us does not resemble man made things so closely that we can be certain of similar kinds of cause, i.e. design and intelligence. We see cameras being designed and made in factories but human eyes are not made in factories. In fact, human eyes are made in a so completely different way that it is important to ask the believer, just where is the analogy? Hume asserted that for all we know there are numerous causes of order and design [a] other than intelligence and thought. [3]

We have the benefit of two hundred years of scientific progress since Hume and he is shown to be right here as well. Animals and plant species are not created but evolved from simpler ancestors. Even for the fundamentalist, the fact that evolution can be used as an alternate explanation to the formation of new species show that there are possible causes of order and design that is different from intelligence and thought. It is, in fact, very pretentious of people to reason that because in a small corner of the universe there exist some man made artifacts, the whole cosmos must have a designer and maker similar to himself. Hume concluded that the fundamental premise of the Teleological Argument, that the human creations are similar to the universe is flawed and unconvincing:

And will any man tell me with a serious contenance that an orderly universe must arise from some thought and are like human because we have experience of it. To ascertain this reasoning, it is requisite that we had experience of the origins of worlds, and it is not sufficient surely that we have seen ships and cities arise from human art and contrivances ... Have worlds ever been formed under your eyes, and have you ever had the leisure to observe the whole progress of the phenomenon, from the first appearance of order to the final consummation? If you have, then cite your experience and deliver your theory. [4]

The Attributes of God Can't Be Derived from the Argument

With the fundamental premise of the Teleological Argument shown to be unconvincing it seems that Hume had succeeded in his purpose. But it was not enough, Hume wanted to further show that even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is a similarity between the natural world and man made artifacts, the argument would still not prove what its proponents want it to prove.

First Hume reminds the supporters of the argument just how the principle of analogy works:

But to show you still more inconveniences ... in your anthropomorphism, please take a new survey of your principles. Like effects prove like causes. This is the experimental argument ... Now it is certain, that the liker the effects are, which are seen, and the liker the causes, which are inferred, the stronger the argument. Every departure on either side diminishes the probability, and renders the experiment less conclusive. You cannot doubt this principle; neither ought you reject its consequences. [5]

And then, Hume declares, if houses, watches and all other human contrivances are finite, we conclude that the designers are finite creatures. And the world, so long as I can observe and comprehend it, is not infinite. Hence the Teleological Argument forces one to conclude that the Grand Designer is not infinite.

First, by this method of reasoning, you renounce all claim to infinity in any of the attributes of the deity. For the cause ought only be proportioned to the effect, and the effect, so far as it falls under our cognizance, is not infinite; what pretensions have we, upon your suppositions to ascribe that attribute to the divine being? [6]

And what is more, says Hume, the Teleological Argument can't even prove that God is perfect. Hume shows that perfection of the deity is not something which can be deduced from the analogy used in the argument:

Second, you have no reason, on your theory, for ascribing perfection to the deity, even in his finite capacity; or for supposing him free from any error, mistake, or incoherence in his undertakings. At least, you must acknowledge that it is impossible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether this system contain any great faults or deserve any considerable praise if compared to other possible or even real systems. Could a peasant, if the Aeneid were read to him, pronounce that poem to be absolutely faultless, or even assign to it its proper rank among the production of human wit, he who had never seen any other production?

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain whether all the excellence of the work can be justly ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea we must form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel when we find him a stupid mechanic who imitated others and copied an art which through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched or bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labour lost, many fruitless trials made, and a slow but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world making. In such subjects who can determine where the truth, nay, who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst a great number of hypothesis, which may be proposed, and a still greater which may be imagined.
[7]


Hume's argument is simple. We do not have enough knowledge about the cosmos to pronounce it a faultless design. We are like the peasant being shown a work of literature; how are we to pronounce judgment on things we have no knowledge of? Furthermore, even if we can pronounce the cosmos a faultless design, we still cannot conclude that God is perfect. Following our analogy, sometimes good designs come from copying other designs and through trial and error. A good design does not necessarily imply a great designer.

Hume then pointed out another flaw in the Teleological Argument; you can't prove that there is only one God:

And what shadow of an argument ... can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the deity? A great number of men, join in building a house and a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth. Why not several deities combine in contriving and forming a world? This is only so much similarity to human affairs. [8]

Hume showed that by applying strictly the rules of analogy we can't say that there is only one Grand Designer, for human affairs point more towards teamwork in designing and building.

There are many more problems with the Teleological Argument. If we can discover a watch in the desert, we can be certain that it had a designer but how do we know if the designer is still alive? The same question applies to the Cosmos. And since all human designers make things out of pre-existing material, the Teleological Argument can't conclude that the Universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing). [9] We can conclude that the basic analogy asserted by the Teleological Argument between nature and man-made artifacts is unconvincing. And even if the analogy is accepted, for the sake of argument, we cannot conclude that God is infinite, perfect, one or even if he is still alive. We let Hume conclude this section on the Teleological Argument:

In a word, ... , a man, who follows your hypothesis, is able perhaps, to assert to conjecture, that the universe, sometime, arose from something like design: But beyond that position he cannot ascertain one single circumstance, and is left afterwards to fix every point of his theology by the utmost license of fancy and hypothesis. [10]

Conclusions

Hume showed that:

* The analogical reasoning used in the teleological argument is weak and not convincing.
* Even if we accept the analogy, the argument from design cannot show that:
o That the "designer" has infinite attributes.
o That the design is "faultless" and a sign of the greatness of the designer.
o Even if the design can somehow be shown to be faultless, we cannot conclude that the designer is great or faultless.
o That there is only one designer.
o That the designer(s) is (are) still alive.

The Teleological Argument is hereby confined to the scrap heap of philosophy.

Notes

a. Hume was writing close to a century before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species which showed that indeed, there are other cases of design-like structure, that is evolution by natural selection, formed without intelligence and thought.

References

1. Alston & Brandt, The Problems of Philosophy: p29
2. Ibid: p29
3. Popkin & Stroll, Philosophy: Made Simple: p146
4. Ibid: p146-147
5. Knight, Humanists Anthology: p39
6. Ibid: p39
7. Ibid: p40
8. Ibid: p40
9. Olscamp, Introduction to Philosophy: p332
10. Knight, Humanists Anthology: p40

Unknown said...

Greetings Friends: I hope this message finds all well and in favorable states of mind

An additional thought occurred to me regarding Mr JK Jones reply to The Standing Dragon.

Mr Jones wrote in reply to The Standing Dragon:

TSD: "…the evidence for God's existence is not exactly plain.”

JKJ: "It is plain enough."

The argument from design assumes that all instances of species are the result of a special act of creation that is a miraculous violation of the uniformity of nature. This is in contradistinction to the basal presumption of the argument from the Anthropic Principle and Coincidences wherein it is asserted that existence is the way it is for the Teleological purpose of allowing life to develop by natural means. This later argument maintains that large scale structures like galactic clusters, galaxies, nebula, solar systems, stars, planets, giant molecular clouds as well as life formed by natural means in accordance with the uniformity of nature. As such, it is an argument for a non-personal deity or general creative force of nature rather than a personal God such as Vishnu or Yahweh. The argument from design is generally deployed in an effort to assert some particular personal theistic god is responsible for the alleged "miracle" of existence. The two arguments are then incompatible because they argue for different notions of deity.

If Mr Jones meant by his comment a joint reference to both arguments, then he was technically making a contradictory assertion. The religious person must use either one of the design or anthropic arguments but not both. If everything is a miraculous violation of the uniformity of nature then there is no need for existence to exhibit any particular material consistency that would allow natural formation of structures or life. If, however, nature necessarily must be amenable to structural formations that favor the natural development and evolution of life, then there is no need for any miracle whatsoever. If any alleged deity acted in accordance with both arguments, then it would violate the principle of final causation by acting in a manner inconsistent with required means to achieve its desired end.

A caveat, nevertheless, would be entailed by a speculation that an omnipotent being would not use a means to achieve any end. It would simply wish or will a certain state of affairs to obtain, and "poof" there it would be. In a sense both, design and anthropic, arguments are then superfluous as they argue from a set of means to an end, a methodology allegedly uncharacteristic of omnipotence.

Best Regards and Wishes to All

J. K. Jones said...

Robert Bumbalough,

I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments. I have had some significant personal health issues recently that have lead to a battery of medical tests, and I have been distracted.

I will respond to Hume’s detailed argument in a longer comment in the future. (I reserve the right to make this response on my own blog. If I do that, I’ll let you know here.) For right now, I would refer you to the following references.

“Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity,” by J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987) p. 62-70 (See also p. 56-62 for different forms of the design argument, some of which are based on a priori assumptions and are not vulnerable to Hume’s criticisms.)

Introduction by Fredrick Ferre’ in “Introduction to Natural Theology: Selections,” by William Paley (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1963) p. xi-xxxii.


A response to your last comment:

If an apple falls from a tree, the law of gravity being what it is, the apple will hit the ground. If an apple falls from a tree, and I reach out and catch it, then I have intervened. The law of gravity still works just fine, but the apple did not hit the ground because I caught it.

If I can intervene without violating the laws of nature, then God could so intervene in a much more dramatic way.



Making a big assumption for the sake of argument, God set up the world in such a way as to enable us to live in it. We are able, because of the uniformity of nature, to anticipate what will happen in the future and extrapolate what has happened in the past. This makes science possible, as Hume himself noted.

There are reasons why God would specifically intervene in an unusual way at certain points in his creation, the most obvious of which is to enable us to discover his presence. We can’t, after all, identify his intervention without a consistent background to see it against.

Besides, if we argue that God is sustaining the world right now, then God is technically directly intervening in the present at all points in the universe. I think that can be successfully argued, but it is a separate argument.

“…it is an argument for a non-personal deity or general creative force of nature rather than a personal God…”

The argument from design is not generally used by itself. The argument proves intervention by an intelligence(s). Insofar as I use it, that is all it is intended to prove on its own.

For this reason, I don’t usually start with it, but, since Flew mentioned it at length in the book under discussion, I decided to enter the fray at that point.

It is significant that Flew used this type of argument since he is regarded as an expert on Hume’s philosophy, having published a noted book on it.

I refer you to the book that has been discussed in this tread: “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” by Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese (New York: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 95-122.

Flew argues that intelligence proves a basically theistic deity because that deity is the simplest explanation of intelligent intervention. He also uses a valid form of the argument from necessary being, and that one provides evidence for some of the other attributes of God (p. 133-146).



None of the philosophical arguments I find convincing prove the existence of the particular God of Christianity.

I do not think that the Christian God can be proved apart from arguments that show evidence of His personal intervention in history. (Of course, I think those arguments have been provided and are convincing. For a start, see the Appendix B by N. T. Wright and Flew’s comments on pages 185-213 of the aforementioned book. Not that Flew affirmed it, but he did make some significant comments.) I do think, however, that we can provide arguments for a form of personal deity with attributes that approximate the Christian God from the things we see in nature.

It makes sense to me to prove that there is a god of some stripe out there somewhere before we talk about His special revelation in the Person of Jesus Christ, and His Word, the Bible. God must exist before He can speak, after all.

By the way, I would prefer to thoroughly discuss the argument at hand before moving on to arguments from Scripture. It will be tempting to jump into those arguments at this point, and I do expect to get 'hammered.' But I would not recommend that we proceed to all of that yet. Again, god must exist before he/she can speak.

Thank you for your carefully reasoned responses. I have learned a lot already, and I am sure I will learn more. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy from the Star Trek series, “…Jim, I am an engineer, not a philosopher.”