|
May 10, 1984 Dear John Clayton, I do want to say that the discussion is helpful because it forces me to verbalize and make some kind of a presentable order out of the questions and doubts and criticisms that I have had over the past year. For this I appreciate the time you are putting into this discussion. Also, this letter will simply be a reiteration of the last two letters I have written (dated March 13 and April 6 hereafter referred to as T3 and T4). We are discussing the two major arguments you present in The Source that supposedly demonstrate the existence of God. I have not strayed from this subject at all in my last two letters. All I have been doing in these two letters is showing why the cosmological and the modern teleological (argument from design) arguments do not work. The cosmological argument is insufficient and the teleological argument is simply wrong to begin with.
Here is a general outline of the letters:
(I have counted the quote from Eldredge and my introduction to it together as one paragraph.) I have stated in both letters that I agreed that the universe had a beginning and a cause, but I stated that this does not in any way show God (letter T3, paragraph 8 and letter T4, paragraph 11). It allows for God, I agree, but, by the same token, it allows for lots of different ideas, the idea of God being simply one of them. Your argument from cosmology does not by any means demonstrate the existence of God (T3:4,9,9 and T4:2,9,11), it only allows for this. Your argument from design is full of problems (which I believe to be insurmountable) as I have discussed at length. Your last letter mentions, in the fifth paragraph, the idea of chance. Just what do you mean by this word? Are you referring to it as creationists do or what? You further state, "We can look at those two choices [intelligence or chance] from a mathematical and logical standpoint and see that it is impossible to believe that chance is the total cause." I have discussed the weaknesses of this statement in both letters (T3:16,17 and T4:18-21). Hoyle's, Eden's, and Crick's statements about this same idea are, of course, just as weak for all the same reasons, and Hoyle and Crick have both been specifically criticized by several scientists and philosophers for their statements on this topic. When I quoted Eldredge I said, "He is specifically referring to evolution, but I think the ideas can also be applied generally." Maybe I should have been more specific and said, "...but I think the ideas can be applied to the design argument." And after the quote I emphasized the point I was trying to show with the quote: "the argument from design 'amounts to nothing more than a simple assertion that naturalistic processes automatically cannot be considered as candidates for an explanation of the order and complexity we... see in nature,' ...this is why the teleological argument...degenerates to the 'scapegoat' argument you speak of" (T4:23). Am I really missing something? How can what I'm saying possibly be any more relevant to discussing the so-called arguments for the existence of God than they already are? And, incidentally, after I mailed my last letter to you, I thought that maybe it would be a good idea if I were to take a look at the criticisms that atheists and agnostics themselves have written about the arguments for the existence of God. Though it may seem strange to you (it did a little to me), I had never done so before. I got hold of three different authors and found that each of them make criticisms that are identical to the ones I have come up with independently. On the question of the cause of God: My question is rhetorical and is only meant to bring out the realization that in whatever way we wish to answer it we can always "save a step" as Sagan puts it and apply it to the cosmos in general (T3:9,11 and T4:4,B). So to summarize: The cosmological argument can only require a cause for the universe — nothing more. It tells us nothing about the cause. The design argument is flawed to begin with because of the vagueness of the initial concept and the misapplications used in the argument. I have not seen anywhere any solutions to the problems in the design argument that I have pointed out. Progress in our discussion cannot be made without these solutions. What is imperative is that these solutions be found; if they cannot be, then the whole design argument collapses because of its weak foundation and its bad structure.
In the spirit of Job 33.32, April 18, 1984 Dear Todd: I appreciate your letter of April 6. Unfortunately, your letters are so long that by the time we get to the end of one subject and get onto another I think both of us have forgotten what the initial discussion of the letter was really all about. I am going to try and reduce that to a more brief discussion because I think that it is imperative that we do so. Your allegation that a scapegoat argument is being used in The Source leads me to question whether you have really studied carefully what is being said, When we talk about the question of beginnings and no beginnings — cause and no cause — design and no design, we are not talking about any kind of a substitution. We are dealing with the basic question of the choices that are available on each of those questions. Those choices inevitably lead to the concept of a Supreme Being. The articles that I have sent to you make it clear that there was a beginning. The expanding universe; the second law of thermodynamics; the energy systems in the universe all prove conclusively that we had a beginning and, therefore, that the atheist's position that there was no beginning is inconsistent with known scientific fact. The reason that the atheist is forced to assume that the universe was not caused is because his only other way to function is to assume that the universe was caused and that leads his logically to have to choose between the cause being one of design or being one of chance, therefore, many atheists, including the statement by the American Humanist Association, known as the Humanist Manifesto, specifically state that the universe was uncaused — that it was not created, and that statement is I believe consistent with all professional atheist publications. If we establish that there was a cause, then the question that follows is "What was the cause?" The two choices, as I have said, are an intelligence as one choice, and chance as the other. We can look at those two choices from a mathematical and logical standpoint and see that it is impossible to believe that chance is the total cause. The book by Hoyle, the article by Eden, the work that has been done by Francis Crick, all demonstrate the illogic of assuming a chance hypothesis. You continue to bounce back on the question of the cause of God, without recognizing the fact that we have dealt with that in "The Nature of God" material. The atheist is totally incapable, in most cases, of understanding anything that is explained beyond a three-dimensional framework, and yet virtually all of quantum mechanics and a huge amount of material that has been done in relativity functions in that same area. For you to refuse to consider that on the basis that it is too abstract is, I believe, an intellectual cop-out on my argument. The last several pages of your letter, once again, got into things that I don't believe are relevant to our discussion right now. You continue to confuse the Baptist Creationist with the Bible, and quotes from Eldridge and others serve no purpose in this discussion. First of all, Evolution does not deal with the existence of God; secondly the inconsistency of Creationists has nothing to do with God's existence or with evolution. You miss the point in many of their arguments such as the monkey argument, but that really is not the question that is involved. I urge you to stay on the subject. Let's deal only with God's existence. Once we establish that there is a God, then we can talk about the way in which things might have been changed once they were created, but to continue to jump back and spend three or four pages arguing a non-issue is I think a very poor use of either my time or yours. I believe we have established God's existence but I find that you are not staying with me either on my logic, or on the subject matter that I am attempting to point out to you. Changing subjects and jumping in logic rather than dealing with a specific issue is not only causing a lot of extra writing, but is also I think, leading us away from our basic thesis. I urge you to read the works of Hoyle and others to see that good, acknowledgable scientists are dealing pragmatically with these issues and that we are not scapegoating or in any other way detracting from a logical, scientific investigation of the issues involved. Thank you for your letter. I do want you to know that you are in my prayers.
Sincerely in Christ, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||