Friday, May 08, 2009

Argument by Parable

I’ve been involved in a discussion at Pensees regarding the cosmological argument and Paul penned out this parable:

Long, long ago in a land far, far away there were two friends named Matt and Theo. One day while hiking through the forest they happened upon a clearing. In that clearing, to their utter amazement, was a shiny red machine, which we moderns would know as a corvette.

Upon inspection Theo's reaction was to appeal to some sort of magic to explain the machine. Matt, however, held out for a further look and managed to find and work the door handle. Viola! It had seats in there! It must be a carriage of some sort. Matt then proceeded to discover the key and started it up. He discovered the pedals, the steering wheel, the gearshift: soon he could drive it!

Matt's confidence grew even while Theo invoked sorcery to explain each feature and effect. Matt even found the hood and began to unravel something of the workings of the engine. Theo was mystified and skeptical at every turn that a mechanical explanation could be found. Matt spent the next week reverse-engineering the car. He was quite pleased with himself and equally annoyed with Theo.

By this time Theo's skepticism had lost all credibility — so much so that Matt failed to see the gravity of his final concern. Asked Theo, "By what natural means did such a finely crafted machine arrive here? Surely there must be some creator, beyond the simple means of this world, that brought it here." But Matt dismissively offered all kinds of explanations, from popping out of nothing, to growing from a heretofore unknown seed, to the forces of nature randomly forming it. In Theo's mind some of the explanations seemed no less objectionable than the sorcery that Matt was hoping to avoid.

In the end, Matt was completely unconcerned with the question. He had been so successful in explaining the magical workings of the corvette that his faith was strong that he should never have to appeal to sorcery or fairies. Surely there is some natural explanation out there, even if he never finds it. On the other hand, Theo is humbled by all the wondrous knowledge and possibilities opened up by Matt's investigation, but he can't help thinking that there's actually something to his last question.


I admit…upon reading it, I thought, “THAT is supposed to be an argument FOR theism?” Am I missing something here? Do you notice how many times Matt turned out to have the correct answer using his methodology? Every time! Do you notice how many times Theo turned out to have the correct answer using his method? Not once!

Is the theist arguing, “Gee, I have been wrong in every other instance in the past, but surely this time I have it right when faced with the same question, using the same method to find a solution”? Would you accept this concept in any other facet of your life?

Imagine going to a doctor who says, “I am not sure what you have. So I will prescribe Medicine Theos. Now, I should let you know, every single time in the past when faced with an unknown ailment, I prescribed Theos, and it later turned out Medicine Matt was the proper medicine. But this time I think I may have it right.”

I don’t know about you, but I would be saying, “How about we try Medicine Matt first!”

Or if your lawyer said, “Not sure how the judge will rule. I am going to try relying upon People v Theos. Now every time I have relied upon Theos the judge has told me I should have used People v Matt. But this time, maybe Theos will work.”

Would you have any confidence in such a lawyer?

Can anyone point out anywhere else in their life where using the same method, getting the same wrong answer, means the next time they use the same method, it will work?

I understand why the parable might work on a theist who already believes in a god (trying to convince them there is a god is like convincing me chocolate tastes good!) but how is this parable supposed to convince a non-theist? How is it supposed to generate any reliance on a method with such a poor track record?

13 comments:

  1. Notice too that Paul conveniently has Matt abandon his own methodology and give superstitious answers to the question about the origin of the car.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dag,

    It seems that you missed my lead-in to this parable. As I said, this is "a little parable that might serve to capture the points that we are each trying to make." I am trying to be sympathetic to your view on this. Theo is representative of your characterization of how we Christians are supposed to have treated science all these centuries. My earlier comments spoke to that issue, but I thought that even on your own terms you might see that poor, naïve Theo might have stumbled upon a fairly obvious point: explaining the workings of the car says nothing about its origin. It is similar to a response I might make to a parable that Antony Flew made about the garden in the jungle. Even though there was no gardener ("Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from ... no gardener at all?") the garden was still left unexplained.

    As far as Matt abandoning his methodology, this is where the parable became awkward for me, since naturalistic explanations were a bit hard to concoct (as per my point). Even so, Matt's answers were not so "superstitious" in reality. In fact, they have some analogs to materialistic explanations given for the appearance of the cosmos and the first lifeform as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Woohoo! 3 posts in 3 days! I like this trend.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems to me that the essence of belief in "God" is an inability or unwillingness to confess "I don't know" when it comes to the question of why/how life as we know it came to be.

    But regardless,'I don't know' is the ultimate wall one runs into with the "first cause" argument. You simply cannot use the same method of logic that leads to the conclusion of "intelligent design" beyond the so called intelligent designer... you still only shift the "I don't know" factor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, if it's "I don't know" in both cases, then the willingness to confess it is not the defining factor. I would say instead that it is the inability or unwillingness to allow for a personal cause to ever be on the table, no matter how many "I don't knows" its presence would play to.

    Even if we had materialist answers all the way back, there would still be an "I don't know" point in the equation, since something like how an infinite regress of causes could "begin" or why an eternal quantum vacuum existed would only be unquestionable brute givens. For this reason, the materialist cannot begrudge any "I don't knows" that are inherent in the theistic model, just as they cannot begrudge a self-existent first cause that is just a brute given. At least theism resolves the final cause up front. Atheists have only a big bang to stare at and wonder where their final cause lay.

    As far as "I don't knows" regarding the personal cause, if we were left with only the Cosmological Argument as indicator of its existence and nature, then we would certainly not have much to add to the conversation. However, we believe that "it" has spoken and revealed something further in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regardless of how a story is laid out, people tend to read into it via the beliefs already held.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul: I would say instead that it is the inability or unwillingness to allow for a personal cause to ever be on the table, no matter how many "I don't knows" its presence would play to. -

    But why should you think that personal causes should be off the table to scientists? The scientific position is that the sort of personal causes theists typically propose are contradicted or not supported by the actual evidence — when they are even scientifically meaningful in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For this reason, the materialist cannot begrudge any "I don't knows" that are inherent in the theistic model -

    We don't begrudge specific unknowns. The problem is that the theistic model lacks a "how do I know" for all of its statements.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paul,

    If the parable was meant to capture the points I was trying to make I must have been horribly unclear. Let me try it again.

    Throughout history we haven’t known everything. There have been “We don’t know’s.” Two (of many) methods I observe that attempt to answer the question are the theistic and scientific means. The theist method has been “We don’t know—so God must do it.” And they stop.

    The scientist rolls up their sleeves and gets to work. They experiment and postulate and propose and test and observe and research. And in many cases (not all; never all) they have found answers to the questions. Answers even the theist agrees is a natural explanation for what was formally a claim by the theist for a supernatural explanation.

    But then there is another “I don’t know.” Again the theist claims “God did it.” Again the scientist does all the work. Again the scientist finds a natural explanation and again, the theist agrees they were wrong before.

    Again.

    Again.

    Again.

    Up ‘till now your parable is accurate regarding my position.

    Now we reach the cosmological argument. We enter the same dance routine so familiar the floor is grooved. Again the theist proposes “God did it” and stops. And currently the scientist is working on an explanation.

    I look at the method. The one the theist proposes has been wrong over and over and over and over and over…and over. And has never been demonstrated as correct. The one the scientist uses has proven pragmatically useful (SO useful, even the theist agrees!) over and over and over.

    Yet now the theist (again) claims I must accept their method, because surely THIS TIME it is right? Why would I find a method do poor in track record to be of any use?

    A perfect example of this—how many Christian cosmologists are looking for a cause for the Big Bang? NONE—they already have the answer! “God.” Yet if science did prove mutliverse (or some other theory) the theist would pick up their goalposts, move it back a step and repeat the same rotten method again.

    I was writing to explain why naturalists do not find theistic explanations, given the poor track record, to be persuasive.

    Theism doesn’t resolve the final cause. Theism doesn’t resolve anything. Theism proposes an unverifiable, indeterminate, undefined entity and acts as if we should ignore how many times in the past this unverifiable, indeterminate undefined proposition has been demonstrated as incorrect.

    It adds questions; it does not resolve any. It may move the question back one level, but nothing more.

    Maybe this will help clarify my position. Your parable is fine up until the last two paragraphs. Re-writing it (as best I can to keep with the original) to what my position is, I will bold in where I would replace your words:

    “By this time Theo's skepticism had lost all usefulness. — so much so that Matt failed to even bother including Theo in the questions. Matt already knew Theo would answer “Magic” or “Sorcery” and it would be up to Matt to figure out the problem. Realizing once Matt did, Theo would be only too happy to accept Matt’s solution. Asked Theo, "By what natural means did such a finely crafted machine arrive here? Surely there must be some creator, beyond the simple means of this world, that brought it here." But Matt found the question intriguing, and (as before) began utilizing the same methods he had utilized before to determine everything else learned about the car. In Theo's mind some of the explanations seemed no less objectionable than the sorcery that Matt was hoping to avoid.

    ”In the end, Matt was clearly MORE concerned with the question than Matt, since he began to earnestly look for an answer. Whereas Matt did…well…what Matt always did. Nothing. Because Matt felt he already had the answer. Matt had been so successful in explaining the magical workings of the corvette that his method was strong that he should never have to appeal to sorcery or fairies without evidence.. Surely there is some natural explanation out there, even if he never finds it. On the other hand, Theo is humbled by all the wondrous knowledge and possibilities opened up by Matt's investigation, but he can't help thinking that there's actually something to his last question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. More thoughts on Parables as Arguments. In line with The Rambling Taoist’s last comment.

    “Parable” is a transliterated word (not translated) word from the Greek parabole--a combination word of para and ballo or “thrown beside.” A story that is “thrown beside” life. These were tales of common situations meant to prove a point. The Christian catch-phrase of “An earthly story with a heavenly meaning” is surprisingly accurate.

    The authors of the Synoptics included parables to make a point. They used these stories to ingrain a point they were attempting to make to the recipients. But understand at least Matthew and Luke were in-group writers writing to in-group recipients. These were not to evangelize, or be used for arguments to non-believers. They were to make a point to people who already believed.

    The parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-31) was to explain to the Christian Jews why the Gentile Christians were allowed in the Kingdom. The people reading them were supposed to say, “Hey—the ‘lost son’ is talking about me.” “Oh, I see I am acting as the ‘older son.’”

    The people reading the parables were intended by the authors to “get the point.” To “see themselves” in the parable and modify their behavior.

    An argument by parable fails for the reason The Rambling Taoist aptly implies. (I think. Not to put words in Taoist’s mouth!) I don’t see my argument in Paul’s parable. Quite the opposite—I see a bunch of straw. I see how the Christian is considered “humbled” by asking the question of where the universe came from, whereas the evil, hardened naturalist is dismissive of the poor, victimized theist for being wrong so many times in the past.

    Anyway…your Greek for the day.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "At least theism resolves the final cause up front. Atheists have only a big bang to stare at and wonder where their final cause lay."

    I don't know that I can respond to you any better than others have already done. But I'll grab hold of this statement because it pretty much makes my point. When it comes to first cause, those using scientific method are indeed in the position of "stare[ing] and wonder[ing]". That's a position of openness. inquiry, of investigation. It's a position of, 'I don't know, let's see if we can find out.' The scientist calls "big bang" "theory" while the theist calls "God" "truth." Both employ faith. Outside of arithmetic we can only make best guesses about the truth. Faith in science is reasonable because of the depth of it's theoretical explanations and the use of empirical evidence that supports them. Religion is in a completely different domain and these considerations don't arise.

    For the person putting their faith in scientific method, the theist has "resolve[ed] nothing "up front." The theist takes theory and calls it truth. That's an absolute conclusion without an absolute method of substantiation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Both [the scientist and theist] employ faith. -

    Only in the most trivially broad sense of "faith".

    Outside of arithmetic we can only make best guesses about the truth. -

    No. Scientists at least can do more than merely make guesses: We guess and then we can tell the difference between accurate and inaccurate guesses. Theologians can only guess, and theologian's guess is as good as another's.

    ReplyDelete