Basic Contra-Theism
Originally posted
on Incinerating
Presuppositionalism
An age-old ploy in the attempt to validate god-belief involves the
supposition that the universe needed a creator. Arguments to this end have been
formalized in numerous variations, but the basic argument makes the claim that
the universe is something that "began to exist," and ends by positing
a deity which is said to have created the universe, allegedly by speaking
or wishing it into existence. This conclusion we are expected to accept
as knowledge. Unfortunately, most if not all variations of this kind of
argument that I have come across, do not state the working definition of
'universe' they assume in their premises, even though this is one of the key
terms at issue in such arguments. Of course, if one is hoping to defend a
position that is rationally indefensible, it's best to veer away from
committing oneself to firm definitions. Nevertheless, the argument that the
universe needs a creator, and that creator happens to be the one which
defenders of such arguments worship, serves as a typical fall-back position
when the going gets rough after other apologetic devices have been deployed.
In the
comments section of a blog recently posted by Steve
Hays of Triablogue, we find an exchange, between
John Loftus of Debunking
Christianity and a commenter who has chosen to remain anonymous, on this
very issue. The anonymous commenter rolled out a stripped down version of this
argument, shorn of the sophisticated embellishments that modern apologists
usually heap onto it. With this we find the customary false dichotomies that
usually accompany the deployment of such arguments. And as is all too typically
the case, the defender of this argument does not provide a working definition
for the concept 'universe'. After reviewing arguments like this, even those
which are far more sophisticated than the one presented here, I'm convinced
that such arguments are not defensible on a coherent definition of 'universe'.
Below I will show that a coherent definition of 'universe' invalidates such
arguments. I will also show that such arguments, whether their defenders
realize it or not, commit them to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics,
which invalidates itself.
Let's look at the exchange.
John Loftus wrote:
What I'm saying is that I have never seen an event
in my expereience which requires a supernatural
explanation--that is, something which science cannot explain based upon the
laws of nature.
An anonymous commenter responded:
Sure you do, you see it every day, it's called the universe, which science has no explanation
for. It's called life, which science has no explanation for. If you claim they
do then you obviously don't understand the proper use of the term. Unsupported
foundational assumptions are philosophy, not science. Also principles of
operation are not an explanation of causes.
Consider John’s statement: he stated that he has not witnessed any event
“which science cannot explain based upon the laws of nature,” i.e., an event
which necessitates a leap beyond nature to explanation by reference to the
so-called “supernatural.” The anonymous commenter, presumably a theist, pointed
to the universe as such a candidate. But the universe is not an event,
and it is not science’s task to produce an explanation for the universe as
such. I will touch more on this individual's misconceptions about the universe
below.
For the present moment, observe that the anonymous commenter also pointed to
life as a example of something “which science has no
explanation for.” It’s not clear what content the anonymous commenter is
looking for in a satisfactory explanation, but the science of biology has given
men great understanding about the nature of life, and new discoveries are
constantly being made. He suggests that the claim that science has an
explanation for life means “you obviously don’t understand the proper use of
the term.” So apparently there are underlying assumptions here which are
serving to reinforce the anonymous commenter’s
presupposition that science cannot offer an explanation for life, regardless of
what discoveries scientists actually make. What specifically those underlying
assumptions might be are anyone’s guess, for the anonymous commenter does not
identify them. At this point it has become obvious that there is in theism a
vested interest in seeing ignorance of science prevail, for therein lies the
gap that theism finds its opportunity to pontificate. Without that gap of
ignorance, there's no footing for theistic nonsense. And still theists insist
that they do not oppose scientific developments.
To preempt a common countermove by theistic apologists (e.g., "Biologists
can't create life in a laboratory!"), we should keep in mind that there is
a profound difference between having an explanation for X and being able to
repeat X. Seismic geology, for instance, can explain the causality behind
earthquakes, but this is not the same as being able to recreate them. So while
science enables us to formulate rational explanations for many things having to
do with living matter, this is not tantamount to the claim to being able to
recreate living organisms in a sterile test tube. If the question is as simple
as “Where did life come from?” I have a simple and incontrovertible answer:
life came from existence. Anyone who wants to claim that life came from non-existence, is free to present his case any time.
In response to the anonymous commenter’s statement,
John Loftus wrote:
Anon, good points, because it is astounding to me
that this universe exists. But to call it a miracle is prejudicial in favor of
a God. How about we call the existence of this universe
strange or unexplainable as of yet. Heidegger said "the fundamental
philosophical question is why does something exist
rather than nothing at all." That would include your God or the universe.
Why does something exist? You can only call it a miracle if you can also
explain why it is that an eternal uncreated God exists. but
since you can't, then this universe is....is....strangely wonderful.
An anonymous commenter (perhaps the same as above) wrote:
Well, you're either left with an uncaused effect,
or a Creator who made it from nothing. Either way it's not natural; hence must
be supernatural. Matter does not create itself. So one is
left with the problem of the inability of natural laws to explain its
existence. If left with a choice between self-generating matter and an
intelligent Creator the rational one is decidedly not matter generating itself. That's a pretty big argument in favor of God. So
rationally the preference would be in favor of God.
The procedure of the case presented here is quite simple: First, present
two options, namely theism and an alternative to
theism. Then construe the alternative to theism to be so implausible that
theism prevails by default (rather than on any actual demonstrable merits in
its favor). If one accepts the premises implicit throughout the case, then
theism will surely seem the better of the two. But are the premises which this
procedure assumes rationally defensible? I submit that they are not.
The first point that needs correction is the characterization of the universe
as an “effect.” Just as the universe is not an “event,” the universe is also
not an effect, whether caused or uncaused. The universe is the sum totality of
all that exists. (Compare Merriam-Webster’s
definition of universe: “the whole body of things and phenomena observed or
postulated.”) By virtue of the universe’s inherent all-inclusiveness, it would
be self-contradictory to assert that something can or does exist “outside the
universe.” Since existence exists and only existence exists, to suppose that
something exists outside the sum totality of existence is necessarily
incoherent. Consequently there can be no “outside” the totality, and thus
nothing “outside the universe.”
Another reason why the notion that the universe is an "effect" is
invalid has to do with the concept 'effect' itself. The concept ‘effect’
necessarily implies a cause which would have to precede the effect in question
in order to bring it about and make it a part of reality. But causality
necessarily presupposes existence. It would be incoherent to assert that
something is caused while denying the existence of any thing or things which do
the causing. So existence is a precondition to causality, not the other way
around. Therefore, by implication, rather than being an "effect"of some prior cause, the universe - that is,
the sum total of existence - is preconditional to any
cause and effect to begin with. Thus to call the universe an “effect” commits a
logical reversal. That is, to call the universe an effect is to posit causality
outside the context of the universe, which means: to use the concept
‘causality’ while denying or ignoring its genetic roots, namely existence. This
error is known as the fallacy of the stolen concept, and it is the fundamental
error of theistic creationism.
It is true that matter does not “create” itself. Indeed, what necessitates the
supposition that matter is “created” in the first place, if not the mystical
premises borne on stolen concepts like the one assumed above? Moreover – and
topical to theistic apologetics – we should ask: What validates the claim
that matter was created by an act of consciousness? This is the basic
presupposition of theistic creationism, but can those who endorse such a notion
present any evidence in support of it? Yes, we can imagine something
popping into existence at the whim of a consciousness which possesses powers
which our imagination can attribute to it with abandon, such as we might see in
a cartoon.
But imagination does is not a substitute for fact, and what the theist needs in
order to validate this presupposition which is so integral to theism, is not
merely what he can imagine (for it is readily granted that the religious
imagination is abundantly fecund), but facts which bear on the matter at hand.
Since there are no empirical facts which can serve as evidence conclusively
supporting the theist’s claims, and since the facts that do bear on the matter
in fact show theism to be a contradiction, theists have no choice but to resort
either to appeals to emotion, psychological or physical threats, or a semblance
of argumentation to defend their faith stance. And this is where they open the
door to frequently undetected cognitive errors, such as the stolen concept
pointed about above.
The anonymous commenter explicitly repeats the basic procedure of his case when
he writes:
If left with a choice between self-generating
matter and an intelligent Creator the rational one is decidedly not matter
generating itself.
If we limit ourselves to these two scenarios - "between
self-generating matter and an intelligent Creator" - then I submit that we
have already given rationality short-shrift. As a result, affirming one or the
other horn of this false dichotomy cannot be considered rational. Rationality
is the commitment to reason as one’s only means of discovering and validating
knowledge, and his only guide to action. Reason is the faculty which identifies
and integrates what we perceive via our senses, and indispensable to this is
the ability of man's mind to form concepts on the basis of objective inputs
supplied by sense perception. Our senses are our primary and only direct means
of awareness of reality. To discover what is “out there” (i.e., in the world,
in the universe), we do not start by turning inward and consulting our
imagination. The initial inputs of reason cannot be our imagination, for our
imagination itself needs content, and this ultimately comes from what we
perceive as well. No examples of consciousness in nature are examples of
consciousnesses which create their objects ex nihilo.
But theistic creationism posits precisely this idea: that the whole universe
was created ex nihilo by an act of consciousness.
Essentially, it holds that a ruling consciousness wished the universe into
existence. But theists cannot objectively substantiate this claim; the most
they can do is disparage alternatives to their view and hope for the best –
that is, hope that their illicit premises are accepted uncritically.
Since existence exists independent of consciousness, and consciousness is
consciousness of existence, the task of consciousness is not to create
its own objects (which is the essence of metaphysical subjectivism), but to
perceive and identify them. Do we not all begin as ignorant infants perceiving
the world for the first time and constantly struggling to discover and identify
everything around us as we mature? I know I did. Can an honest man claim
otherwise? Also, since reason is the means by which we conceptualize what we
perceive, a rational worldview is one which does not attempt to fake reality by
supposing that it is a creation of consciousness; rather, a rational worldview
is the systematic application of reason to the task of discovering fundamental
truths (i.e., rational principles) and developing a comprehensive view of
reality and life. Already we should see how profoundly incongruous theism is to
this project, for it affirms the very opposite view - that the universe,
reality, and the objects we perceive are ultimately dependent on and conform to
someone’s consciousness intentions, that is, to the ruling consciousness’
wishing.
As the anonymous commenter apparently assumes, there are no good reasons to
suppose that matter is “self-generating.” But an alternative to theism does not
require that matter be self-generating. Only if we begin with non-existence
would we need to invent such notions, and since existence exists, the proper
place to start is with existence, not with non-existence. So the basic
procedure errs by limiting the alternatives to two fundamentally flawed
positions and by arbitrarily affirming one while rejecting the other. (Of
course, if one is willing to retreat so far from reason as to posit a ruling
consciousness which can materialize its wishes at will, it is unclear how one
could rule out the possibility of self-generating matter and keep a straight
face in the first place.)
As we have seen, theistic creationism itself consists of two fundamental
errors, namely that something exists "outside the universe" (that’s
one error), and that this extra-universal thing is a form of consciousness
which wished the universe into existence (there’s a second error). Thus
in the final analysis, theistic creationism is presented as an explanation on
the basis of the misguided notion that two wrongs make a right, and this simply
does not fly.
Interestingly, theists typically claim that their god was not created, that it
exists “necessarily” – which is essentially taken to mean that it does not
require an explanation beyond itself. We have only their say so on this, for
there is nothing they can point to in the world which conclusively validates
such claims. Why not begin with the universe, which we know exists, and build
our worldview on the basis of this incontrovertible and objective fact? Theists
typically do not dispute the need for a starting point, they just want it to be
some form of consciousness which serves as back-up to their feigned authority
and which is thought to have created the universe according to their preconceived
notions, ever expanding the ruling consciousness’ role as an explanatory
terminus which, like a malleable goo, can be troweled into any gap or crevice that momentarily stops the
mind in its pursuit for further discovery. The problem for theism is that, as
man’s knowledge of the universe grows, the role that theism’s ruling
consciousness can play in plausible explanations can only evaporate.
____________________________________________