withallyourmind.net

In a previous post I commented on a series of lectures by Dr. James Hall, philosopher at the University of Richmond. In his evaluation of arguments for the existence of God, he found them to be less than satisfactory. The ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments all fall short of “closure” according to Hall. I think one would be tempted to agree if one listens to his comments closely. However, his lack of satisfaction with these arguments seem to hinge on a definition of God I had never heard used in such an evaluation. God, for Dr. Hall’s purposes was defined as “that which deserves to be worshipped”. To deserve to be worshipped one must be all powerful and all good…morally perfect.

By defining God in this manner, for example, I suppose the cosmological argument is weakened. It is one thing to be convinced that there must be a first cause which itself was uncaused. It is another thing to reason that that first cause must be morally perfect. This was Dr. Hall’s primary rebuttal of the various arguments. I think, however, that this asks too much of the argument. If one accepts that there is an uncaused cause of all that is, then one can investigate the nature of the cause by various other arguments. The cosmological argument may fall short of proving a morally perfect divinity, but I’m not sure it must, unless one claims that a first cause must necessarily be such.

He rejects the teleological argument for the same reason. While one may identify design in the universe and attribute these wondrous findings to God, one must also attribute all the evil and sadness in the world to this God. Such a God, if he created the universe, cannot be the morally perfect divinity that deserves to be worshipped. Again, I think he asks too much of the argument. One can certainly argue that design is evident, therefore there must be a designer without commenting on the moral perfection of the designer. Other arguments may be used to arrive at some conclusion on the morality of the designer.

This all reminds me of recent comments on a post from April 21 which was a part of a series on design arguments. A commenter agreed that design was evident in the universe, but found it arrogant that some might claim to know who that designer is or that the designer is personally interested in us. Once again, this asks too much of the argument from design. From a Christian perspective, that designer has spoken to us and has revealed himself to us so that we might know him. While nature may point us to the existence of a designer, we need more help to know who that designer is.