Not only is arguing from the appearance of design to a divine designer fallacious [1], but it also can have additional errors when people try to argue for a loving deity based upon the order they observe in nature. It may be popular natural theology, but it is highly unsound and invalid logically. This will be a short post because of the simple nature of its content.
If the perceived beauty and design in the natural world confirm that God is loving and kind, then the presence of death and suffering confirm that God is cruel and sadistic. But this clearly does not follow. A malevolent deity could preside over an orderly world and a loving deity can coexist with a cruel world. Neither set of divine characteristics actually follows from either observed category in the material world; I am just pointing out how if a loving God is "proven" (it isn't!) by the stability and order of nature then a cruel God is "proven" by the suffering living organisms face.
Theists are intentionally selective when they argue for God's goodness or loving nature from perceived design. That is all I am demonstrating here. It is not true that design means God is loving or that suffering means God is cruel, but if design did mean God is loving then suffering would mean that God is cruel.
I hope that what I am claiming and not claiming is clear. This is not a difficult concept. Christian apologists often rely on fallacies that are rather easy to avoid, and I want to point out how to expose the errors in their arguments and how to replace their petty fallacies with genuine rationality. As always, the folly of an apologist's arguments and beliefs does not mean the worldview he or she represents is also folly. I hope that those who have recognized the error addressed in this post will remember that Christianity itself is not irrational in any way just because some of its vocal adherents are.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
No comments:
Post a Comment