Skip to main content

need to distinguish/interrelate the epistemic and ontological ways in which one can relate God and creature

Upon hearing Bill Craig report on Unbelievable about his debate with Dawkins, it seemed to me that one needs to examine carefully how on is relating God in creature in statements like:

He initially asserts that if there is no God then there is no purpose in the universe.
From which he infers, seemingly invalidly,
that if there is a God then there is purpose in the universe.

One may rescue him by saying that he means "if and only if."  Or one might say that his inference is invalid.  One may also try to find a more basic claim that justifies both of his assertions.  The latter might be doable by distinguishing the order of knowing from the order of being. 

I'll try the third.
Let's take his original claim: if there is no God then there is no purpose in the universe.
This is the contrapositive of the following: if there is purpose in the universe, then there is a God who is the source of that purpose.

This statement, I believe, correctly conveys the order of knowing or discovery: it is BECAUSE we recognize order in the universe that we are able to infer that there is a God who gives that order.
The contrapositive mentioned by Craig is really the statement that created order is ILLUSORY if there is no God.  That's Craig's point.

He then states what seems to be an invalid inference: i.e., that if there is a God then there is purpose in the universe.
This hypothetical statement conveys the order of being, or more specifically, the order of CAUSATION.
But it is misleading as stated, for the mere fact that God exists is not sufficient to imply that the universe exists at all, let alone has order.  So it would need to be restated thus:
If there is a God, then that being is the source of whatever order may exist in the universe.
Or one might try to tie it to the question of illusion:
If there is a God, then some apparent (natural) purposiveness in the universe is NOT ILLUSORY.

But this is a sketch... must develop later.

Key to what I hope to develop is how recourse to the contrast between the descriptive/explanatory approaches to understanding may come into play in articulating the above stuff.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Daniel Dennett, disqualifying qualia, softening up the hard problem, fullness of vacuity, dysfunctional functionalism

Around track 2 of disc 9 of Intuition Pumps , Dennett offers what I would call an argument from vacuity.  He argues that David Chalmers unwittingly plays a magic trick on himself and others by placing a set of issues under the one umbrella called the "hard problem of consciousness." None of these issues is really , in Dennett's opinion, a hard problem.  But in naming them thus, Chalmers (says Dennett) is like a magician who seems to be playing the same card trick over and over again, but is really playing several different ones.  In this analogy, expert magicians watch what they think is the same trick played over and over again.  They find it unusually difficult to determine which trick he is playing because they take these performances as iterations of the same trick when each is  in fact different from the one that came before.  Furthermore, each of the tricks that he plays is actually an easy one, so it is precisely because they are looki...
Post a Comment
Read more

entropy, teleology

Perhaps the best way to understand entropy is to look at it as the tendency of things to arrive at equilibrium.  Many non-living processes head in that direction, but not all.  For an example of an exception, consider the movement of electrons around the nucleus: that movement itself doesn't seem to be heading toward any equilibrium… unless one considers the tendency of atoms to combine into molecules so as to fill the electron shells.  If reductionism is false, then isn't the fact that organisms continually create disequilibrium at one level, while seeking another equilibrium (for example a full stomach) quite relevant?   Of course, entropy as a law is about systems, not individuals…. right?
2 comments
Read more