15.12.04

The Argument From Design

Matthew Yglesias makes the same sort of reply to the argument from design that I made to the cosmological argument in the previous post -- simply proving that God did something in the distant past tells you nothing of much relevance to life today. Commenter Dan Duffy disagrees, claiming that the argument from design is at least able to refute nihilism:

While I can easily conceive of a universe without a Creator, my first argument is that such a universe would be nothing more than a meaningless (if fortuitous) accident. Accidents by definition have no meaning or purpose. Only a universe fashioned by a Creator with a particular purpose in mind has meaning. This is grand nihilism of an absurd universe that occurs unavoidably if there were no God. And yes, a Creator is necessary to give the universe meaning since a "meaningful accident" is an oxymoron.

I'll leave aside for the moment whether it's possible to have meaning in the absence of God. I don't think Duffy's reasoning for the presence of meaning in the presence of God works. It draws on a common fallacy that the meaning of something is determined by the intent of creating it. On the one hand, we see this in the claim that authorial intent is the arbiter of what a poem or story "really" means, and that anything else one might get out of it is somehow false or illusory. On the other hand, we see it in conservative arguments that modern marriage is bound by the purposes for which our ancestors originally created the institution.

(Note that Duffy's argument would not apply to the cosmological argument -- the argument from design is a subset of the cosmological argument that posits a specifically conscious and intentional first cause.)

I think one of the most wonderful things about our world is the way that existing objects and systems can be repurposed -- either blindly, as in the case of a leg evolving into a wing, or purposefully through the application of creativity. Indeed, I find the idea of a God who wants to see what free-willed beings make of his creation to be a much more appealing one than a God who demands strict adherence to his own vision.

One possible response is that "meaning" is some sort of objective fact that God created in the same way that he created matter and the physical constants. That would explain how we can be bound by God's intentions in creating the world. But the argument from design offers no support for the existence of objective meaning. It's perfectly consistent with the idea of a designer who subjectively attributes meaning in the way that humans do.
Stentor Danielson, 11:39, ,

Supermarket Sin

Supermarkets Still Feel Pain Of Long Strike And Lockout Nearly 10 months after the end of the bitter Southern California grocery strike and lockout, the three companies and the union that waged the longest labor standoff in U.S. supermarket history are still in turmoil. Profits at Albertsons Inc., Safeway Inc.'s Vons and Pavilions stores and Kroger Co.'s Ralphs are being pinched by the price cuts they've made to woo shoppers alienated by the 4 1/2 -month dispute. The stocks of all three companies have fallen since a new contract was signed in February. The chains maintain that they'll rebound, largely because the two-tier contract allows them to give new hires significantly lower wages and benefits than veteran workers. -- via Kevin Drum

I find the second paragraph encouraging. Consumers are apparently realizing that when they shop at a particular store they're buying not just Oreos and instant rice, but also a set of employment policies. Unfortunately, it looks like the stores are not getting the message -- in fact, they're trying to save themselves by digging in even deeper.
Stentor Danielson, 10:53, ,

14.12.04

The Cosmological Argument

Abiola Lapite disputes the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God -- the claim that there must have been a first, uncaused, cause for the existence of the universe. Lapite's argument is that there's no reason to suppose that there must be a cause for the origin of the universe but that God needs no cause.

Another problem with the cosmological argument is that it doesn't prove very much. Even if we accept it as valid, all we know is that there was a first cause. The argument doesn't tell us what that cause was, whether it's still around, whether it ever caused anything else, whether it has intentions for humanity. Need the first cause even have been conscious of what it was doing? As an apologetic for a particular religious doctrine, or even for religion against atheism, the cosmological argument is exceptionally weak even if it's successful.
Stentor Danielson, 21:45, ,

12.12.04

Site Maintenance

1. I've stepped down from Open Source Politics. I did so for two reasons: first, because I simply didn't have the time to write for both OSP and debitage. Second, OSP is being reformulated as more of an activism-centered site. There's nothing wrong with that focus, but it's not where my strengths as a blogger lie.

2. I'm adding a link to my Amazon.com wishlist to the sidebar. Note that this is not an attempt to get people to buy me things. I've been using the wishlist not so much as a wishlist per se, but as a record of all the books that people have recommended to me over the years. Since it's primarily for my own benefit, I remove books from it once I've read them. But I figured it couldn't hurt to share the aggregated wisdom of people whose opinions on reading material I find worth listening to. (There is a mix of actual wishlisting in there as well -- any item marked with a "1" is something that I actually want to own, as opposed to getting from the library.)
Stentor Danielson, 20:32, ,