More design
Given that one is supposed to have faith in God without proof, plenty of effort is expended on proving he exists. Richard Swinburne's argument from design is one of the better efforts, but all it boils down to is that he insists the order that we see in the world must be explained. Why is the universe not chaotic? Why are there "laws" that particles etc obey?
(Actually, his argument depends on its being true that science cannot explain itself, which is true, but he has no answer to the suggestion that God cannot explain himself either.)
I think the problem stems from the words we use to describe the universe. We say laws, and people think we are talking about something that a judge creates. They think that laws are something that must be obeyed. In this case they are not. They are simply what everything does obey. We don't know why they do, and it's distinctly possible that it might be unknowable.
I think Swinburne does show us something interesting though. He shows that our need to have the universe explained is fierce. It hurts to think it is, and we are, pointless. I have more time for the Swinburnes of this world than the Dembskis, btw, because Swinburne is clear that he's talking about metaphysics (despite his quasiscientific blather) but Dembski pretends he is a scientist.
posted by Dr Zen @ 1:08 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home