Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Assigning "Weight" in the God vs no God Debate

In the previous post and the comments that followed, I started to notice a pattern that I can now recall is often present in this discussion. Evidence categories that would be acceptable in almost any other area of inquiry are dismissed totally in this debate. The emotional stake is often so high that evidence is either totally acceptable or totally unacceptable. Normally, evidence is given "weight."

Maybe the most important question in this age-old point of contention is the issue of complexity implying design and thus designer. So, if I find a watch on the beach, my assumption will be that something this complex must have an intelligence behind the design. It seems impossible to image that the watch just came together by natural causes without the hand of an intelligent creator.

Those who are either predisposed to naturalism or who have rejected God and thus must find a natural cause for every natural thing reject the designer argument. But they reject it, totally. Because, if ANYTHING was created by a supernatural being, then the debate is over. Similarly, God proponents are loathe to agree that any complex natural item or creature is the result of a natural process. If we can believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then it isn't too difficult to take a next step to monkey and humans. (It does get a little harder to figure out non-living matter to living matter.)

So the line is drawn in the sand. Here is where I propose that intelligent beings are not being honest in their argumentation. It is far more reasonable to assert design and intelligent designer to complex elements of the universe from crystals to roses. While a Christian would be intellectually dishonest to assert 100% certainty to this conclusion (large number theory is not without some merit), the atheistic naturalist is far more dishonest if he asserts that he is 100% certain that all complexity in the universe arises without design. Just for the heck of it, lets say that it is 92% likely that God did it.

You can apply this weighting approach to each of the subjects under the truth of God debate. Is the Bible God-inspired? The amazing amount of evidence would certainly put the weight well above 50%. Is there a spiritual realm? Was Jesus God? etc.

Has anyone seen this line of argument before? What do you think?

No comments: