>
>Suppose we posit that no argument is going to PROVE the existence of God.
>Then what should a Christian be looking for in nature to add apologetic
>strength to his/her faith? I would argue that these fine-tuning arguments
>actually do an excellent job of lending apologetic strength.
>
I tend to go round and round with myself on this question. Most
of the time I tend to agree with what Gordon has written here.
Every once in a while I'll read where someone greatly abuses
the AP principle and I start to have my doubts. Just a few days
ago I was reading through a book that our church (Southern
Baptist) uses in discipleship training. This book discussed the
AP and tried to use it to prove the existence of God. There were
many other mistakes, for example that the universe is finely
tuned for humans specifically. My revulsion to this type of abuse
influenced what I wrote earlier.
Another pet peeve of mine is an apparent lack of appreciation
for the fact that the "intelligent design" involved with the AP is
quite different from that generally referred to by creationists
in the design argument. Most of the fine-tuning is that required
for life to evolve in the universe according to (finely-tuned)
natural laws. Why would fine-tuning of natural laws be necessary
if God was going to circumvent said laws with supernatural
intervention?
I don't mean to imply here that it is only Christians that
abuse the AP. The AP is greatly abused on t.o for example
when the weak AP is replaced by the "we're here because
we're here" argument.
Putting such things aside, I still generally agree that the AP
can be used apologetically provided one is very careful not to
distort what it says. Even so, I think it is most useful for
building up the faith of believers rather than convincing
nonbelievers. Just last sunday an elderly lady in our church
mentioned to me that she had seen Hugh Ross on TV and
was so excited she could hardly stand still. As an example
she mentioned how Ross had proven the Trinity using science.
Now, I wasn't going to spoil her day by saying that this isn't
quite what Ross did :). She also mentioned to me that she had
been teaching Youth since she was 20 years old (for 50 years!).
Whenever she speaks to me I want to be quiet and listen
in the hopes that I might learn something of real value.
Along these lines, John Leslie wrote:
Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument
from Design with a grim determination that their churches
shall not again be made to look foolish. Recalling what
happened when churchmen opposed first Galileo and then
Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has
demonstrated that Design Arguments lack all force.
I hope to have shown that philosophy has demonstrated
no such thing. Our universe, which these religious
leaders believe to be created by God, does look,
greatly though this may dismay them, very much as if
created by God. ...
-- John Leslie, <Universes>, Routledge, 1989, p. 22.
This is a nice message for believers I think. You believe God
created the universe. Guess what, it does actually look like
it was created. Not a proof, but certainly a strong suggestion.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |