Theism Part Four: The Arguments from Design and Consciousness

This post continues the prior post concerning teleology.  Having established that science, on its own, cannot be expected to answer the teleological question (why is there order in the universe?) or cosmological question (why is there something rather than nothing?) we are, by deduction, left with only two possible answers to these questions:

1) Things simply are the way they are.  No explanation exists.

2) Something made things to be the way they are.

As established with the Kalam argument and argument from a finite past in an earlier post, we cannot accept an infinite chain of causes extending backwards into an infinite past.  Rather, there must be a first or initial cause.  In other words, the order we observe in the universe is either caused or it is an occurance of blind chance.

This is the essential starting point of the argument from design.

Dr. Kreeft and Dr. Tacelli make an excellent presentation of the basic argument from design in their book Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (which I highly recommend).

It goes like this (paraphrasing page 60):

1. The universe displays tremendous intelligibility (order, predictability, minute systems of complex interlocking parts, incredible fine-tuning of cosmic laws without which the universe would not be able to maintain existence).  To quote the text: "The way [things] exist and coexist display[s] an incricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder" (60).
2. "Either this order is the product of chance or intelligent design" (60).
3. It is not a product of blind chance.
4. "Therefore, the universe is a product of intelligent design" (60).
5. Intelligent design necessitates a designer with intelligence.
6. Conclusion: the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Two things are critical to observe right now.  First: if true, this argument disproves any idea of "monism" (that everything stems from and belongs to one ultimate, underlying, impersonal force).  The designer has to be intelligent for the design to desplay intelligibility.  No impersonal (non-sentient) force could possess such intelligence.

Second: this argument hinges entirely on the 3rd premise: it is not a product of blind chance.

How might we go about proving such a thing?  The basic argument from design does so simply through the incredible amount and improbability of the universe's intelligibility.  In other words, we can argue for it from a "reasonibility" standpoint.  Since the "blind chance" camp (the camp to which atheists, agnostics, and monists belong) cannot, by definition, offer any explanation for the universe's apparent intelligilibity, it stands as more reasonible that the MORE intelligibility exists in the universe the MORE likely it is that blind chance doesn't sufffice as an intellectual answer.

If we saw 80% of the universe as utterly random and chaotic - totally unpredictable - then perhaps the 20% that shows order and predictability could be explained as a mere product of that chaos.  The classic analogy is "an infinite number of monkeys typing on typewriters, typing for an infinitely long period of time, will eventually produce Hamlet."

But if we saw 100% intelligibility - if EVERY ONE of those monkeys produced Hamlet - that would have to give us pause.  We'd have to question "Why?" as it doesn't seem immediately obvious that it should be so.  That is the universe we find ourselves in.  100% ordered.  Not just sloppily - but precisely.  With precision so refined that the slightest change in the underlying forces in the universe would have, at its outset, caused utter collapse or prevent stars from ever forming or a million other myriad things necessary for life to exist to have never happened.

To sit back, in the face of that, and insist on "blind chance" (on a non-answer) is highly irrational.  It would excusable if no other explanation were plausible.  But there IS a plausible explanation: there's a designer.  In the face of a plausible explanation which accounts for observable phenomena, a person who rejects that explanation merely due to confessional bias is being irrational.  So "blind chance" appears to be an irrational answer and, by elimination "not blind chance" (premise 3) holds.

This doesn't always satisfy people, though, as it depends on a probability.  SO FAR we've not discovered any disorder in the universe.  Or rather, our BRAINS don't discern any (but we all know the limitations of the human mind).

So can we make the argument deductively?  Can we prove, beyond logical possibility, that the universe is ACTUALLY intelligible and, therefore, designed?

Yes we can.  This argument is called the "Argument from Consciousness" and, like the argument from a finite past complemented the Kalam argument, it serves to complement and complete the argument from design.

Its a bit complex, but goes like this:

P1: If the universe is a product of blind chance, then everything in the universe is a product of that blind chance.
P2: Our cognitive faculties belong to the category of "everything in the universe," so our brains are a product of blind chance.
P3: Our cognitive faculties produce all of our thoughts and ideas, including metaphysics.  So our metaphysical convictions are a product of blind chance.
P4: Things that are a product of blind chance are not dependable.
P5: Our metaphysical convictions are not dependable.
P6: The assertion "everything is a product of blind chance" is a metaphysical conviction
C: The assertion "everything is a product of blind chance" is not dependable.

Allow me to explain.  IF it is true that everything is a product of blind chance, then so is our brain.  That means our ability to know true things about the world around us (through our senses interpreted by our minds) depends on BLIND CHANCE.  That means we cannot answer, if we accept the assertion of blind chance, the question: "why should I trust my senses?" or "why should I trust my thoughts?"  We cannot warrant our confidence in scientific reasoning, our powers of observation - nothing.  We certainly cannot warrant any metaphysical claims (claims about the ultimate nature of things).

Since "blind chance" is a metaphysical claim, IF it is true it cannot be warranted.  It therefore cannot be rationally believed.  So IF it is true, we ought not to believe it.  If it is false, obviously, we ought not to believe it.

So when we get to premise three of the argument from design, we always pick 'not blind chance.'  We have to.  Since blind chance is mutually exclusive with "not blind chance" AND (according to the argument from consciousness) we can NEVER pick "blind chance" we, by deduction, have to agree with premise three of the argument from design.

And if we grant that premise, then we grant that the universe has an intelligent designer.

So, to recap parts 1 to 4, we have established the following:
1) We have solid argumentation in favor of a First Cause above time and above change
2) We have reason to believe that there is no "God of the gaps" because there are critical questions science cannot answer
3) This First Cause is also both intelligent AND a designer (creating with intentionality).

This is enough for us to call this being 'God' in the traditional sense.  Why?  Well, design and intelligence implies personhood.  We have a being above time and space, powerful enough to create both and everything in them, who does so intentionally.  That's God.  God exists.

Some might object: how does belief in a God not cause you to fall into the same trap as the "blind chance" folks (i.e. how can we trust our senses or thoughts?).  The answer, actually, also forms an argument against DEISM (the belief in a creator God who is uninvolved in the universe after the moment of creation).

Theists assert that God CARES about the universe, and designed us to know God.  In other words, the intelligent designer (in a theistic world view) gave us the ability to comprehend the universe's intelligibility.  Our brains are NOT a product of blind chance, but of the same designer whose intelligence permeates our world.  The deist cannot warrant any reason for a deistic God to give us this intelligence, but the theist CAN (since God cares about us and is involved in the universe in an ongoing basis).

Thus, the argument from consciousness effectively eliminates blind-chance (atheism, agnosticism, monism) AND deism.  By elimination, the only metaphysical options left are polytheism and monotheism.  More on that later.

In Christ,
Macarius