A nice try, but your logic is flawed...

This evening the church hosted an evening with John Blanchard, a noted Christian apologist, who was going to talk about science, atheism and Christianity, with an emphasis on the writings of Professor Dawkins. It was therefore with a large degree of tripidation and a sense of deep foreboding that I attended. I do so hate it when Christians talk about science, since they invariably get it wrong.

However, I was pleasantly surprised tonight. The speaker was very good, and he managed to avoid all the classic pitfalls of the Christian talking about evolution. He didn't, for example, employ the failed "a watch implies a watchmaker" analogy (or the can of Coke equivalent).

All in all, it wasn't bad.

However, unfortunately I was unconvinced by the logic employed. I'll get to that in a minute. First, though, I'd best recap my position on faith, science and rationality before I go on, in case you happen to have not read that particular post on Chris' blog where I outlined all this.

I take the view that the existence of God cannot be proven in any meaningful way, since the primary way by which it would be done is to demonstrate the existence of something that cannot exist through any other means, bearing in mind that this must both fail to be explained by known science but also by the full extent of unknown science. So, it's understandably problematic.

But that's okay, since I'm willing to take that on faith, declare it an axiom, and work rationally from there. It's a foundation, not a conclusion.

I also take the view that when science demonstrates that the universe is several billion years old, as opposed to the six thousand or so suggested by a literal reading of the Bible, it's probably right. We know there is a significant amount of metaphor in the Bible, and we know also that there's a difference between fact and truth. So, I see no problem is suggesting that the first ten or so chapters of Genesis are largely metaphorical. Once you get to Abraham, things are significantly more solid.

Anyway, John Blanchard took a different tack. His purpose was to demonstrate the existence of God as a conclusion, not a foundation. He had four arguments for this, one of which was unabashedly not based in science, and so is ignored here.

Looking at the other three then:

The existence and nature of the universe

His argument here was that the universe must, logically, have one of three origins: either it has always been here, or it created itself in some manner, or it was created from some transcendent reality. This is fair enough.

He then quickly discounted the first two, citing certain scientific opinion on the matter, and quoting the 'odds of the universe forming' as 1 in 10^10^124. I felt this was rather a stretch, since the scientific opinion was basically just that, while the probability was calculated without knowing all the variables, and so is highly suspect (and, besides, no matter how small the odds, unless they're 0 they don't prove anything).

Still, never mind. Let's give him that one, just for the sake of argument. Logically, therefore, the universe must have been formed from a transcendent reality.

But here's where the argument falls down: logically, that transcendent reality must either be eternal, or it must be self-creating, or it must itself have been created from another higher reality. And, the same logic used to discount the first two options still applies, so we need yet another reality. And then, logically, another.

It's turtles all the way down.

Eventually, you need either a self-creating reality, or a reality that has always been there. And, indeed, that's not a problem, since we're arguing that God is exactly that. Unfortunately, our logic has now brought us back to our original problem: how do we prove that the eternal reality (or the self-creating one) isn't this reality?

The nature of life

Here he got into evolution. If you explode a whole lot of energy and matter, and you leave it for billions of years, does that mean we're going to get life? Surely not, that's just absurd!

Fortunately, evolution doesn't say that. It says instead that if you leave it for billions of years you might get life. Which is a far cry from arguing that you will get life.

Truth be told, though, his argument here wasn't bad. Where it fell down for me is when he commented on the comparison between the human brain and a computer. He rubbished this, noting that the most advanced state-of-the-art computers we have are less advanced even than the brain of an earthworm!

What irked me about this is that Charles Babbage first conceived of his 'Difference Engine' in Victorian times. The first recognisable PCs came about in the middle of the last century. So, that's less than a hundred years of development. And, of course, computing power doubles every eighteen months, while the human brain remains broadly constant. So, the comparison is strained now... but wait a hundred years.

Although, really, I doubt we'll get that far. Sooner or later we'll invent a machine that makes people clever. And that will be our last major breakthrough, since that same machine will then be used to invent a better version of the same, and so on and so forth... whereupon all problems just become one of processing. Which is quite a scary prospect, actually.

The wondrous nature of human life

Leaving aside the discussions of the various wondrous aspects of the human body (none of which actually have any weight since they're all explicable with evolution, but all of which are certainly wondrous), we arrive at some of the softer aspects of his argument. Why do so many people have a yearning for God, if there is no God? Why do we suffer pangs of guilt, when the conscience surely has no useful purpose? And where do thoughts come from anyway?

Interesting questions, and worthy of thought, but...

It can be argued (effectively) that the yearning for God is instead a yearning for understanding. The universe is a big and scary place, that we understand poorly if at all. So, rather than accept terrifying ignorance, the void is filled...

The conscience is also explicible through evolution. See, if society holds together, this allows specialisation of roles. The blacksmith can be a better blacksmith if he doesn't have to spend his time hunting for his own food, and so he can make weapons for the hunters, and so all benefit. But, this works only if everyone (or almost everyone) plays by 'the rules'... and that's where the conscience comes in.

Where do thoughts come from? Well, there's an argument that mankind's great evolutionary advantage is not our relatively huge brains, or even our opposable thumbs, but rather that we tell stories. By doing so, and passing knowledge from one generation to the next, we are no longer obligated to learn the hard lessons our ancestors learned, and can work on other things. Combine that with a permanent record (writing), and you go far. But, of course, people who think a lot don't just think about useful things. In fact, that would be almost useless, since so much of science involves seeing the links between things, and that requires a certain flexibility of thought. In short, it requires imagination.

Of course, all these things can just as readily be explained as gifts from God. Indeed, I have long since concluded that in the absence of God there is no evidence for free will, so that is the view I take. Still, that's one of the oddities that comes about when you agree with a person's conclusions, but not the steps that got them there.

That fourth argument

The fourth argument was founded on the life of Jesus. As I mentioned above, I'm not going to discuss it further, since the argument is founded on faith rather than relying on science or deduction. Ironically, it's easier to make a strong argument about matters of faith when you build from a foundation of faith, than it is when you try to argue from science. It's almost as if you're working with the wrong building blocks.