Skip to main content

Shermer attempts to defeat theism by appeal to extra terrestrials

Shermer brings up ETI (extra terrestrial intelligence) as a defeater to theism.  That is, any purported evidence of God, says Shermer, can also be explained by positing extra terrestrials or ETIs.

Such an argument actually makes theism look more rational than atheism.  For two reasons.

First because in order to avoid a theistic explanation of miracles (including those that might be posited by ID theory), one may have to posit fantastic creatures for which we have no particular evidence.  Granted, an ETI would be sufficient to account for the phenomena in question.  But since there is no evidence of an ETI, isn't this more like an ad hoc appeal to hidden magic when the hypothesis of God would be simpler?  And it would leave science MORE intact than appeal to ETIs.  For one could just as easily suppose that there are water nymphs, etc. as one could suppose that there are ETIs.  In other words, science could break down once we invent finite agencies that intervene in the world to explain its unexpected features.  One who posits the one infinite and unchanging God. on the other hand, posits a being that is not part of nature but is the source of nature's existence.  Theism allows nature to be lawful rather than whimsical (think ET, the movie or Q, the character in Star Trek.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more