So recently, David Silverman of American Atheists was a guest on the O'Reilly Factor, and O'Reilly confronted him with the following proof of God's existence: the tide. At first glance, it sounds as if Mr. Bill needs to take a refresher course in high school geology; but it turns out that he's also used the sunrise and sunset as a similar proof, which leads one to believe Bill O'Reilly is an utter moron, or we're missing something; and as tempting as it is to think so, I can't believe anyone that influential would be that stupid. So what are we missing?
I believe that what O'Reilly is arguing isn't the event itself, but its regularity, its periodic nature which he feels is rock-solid evidence of God's existence. The fact that not only do these events happen, but they happen with a remarkable predictability. Now, there are various ways to address this -- the worst, but most relevant, being the rotation-invariance of the laws of physics -- but I will address this the way I always address a teleological argument: this is yet again an example of conditional probability causing difficulties. The question is not: what is the likelihood that the planet where we find ourselves has such nice periodic behavior? The question is, rather: what is the likelihood that some planet somewhere would have sufficient periodic behavior to allow for the formation of intelligent life; and what then is the likelihood for intelligent life to arise?
Of course, there are some subtleties involved in these questions; and there are deep philosophical questions involved with defining the terms I'm using (such as, how do we define "intelligent life" in a time before there is intelligent life to use as a benchmark?); but that doesn't matter to show why O'Reilly is wrong. The simple fact is that whereas religion is interested in establishing Real Truth, science is satisfied with a working explanation, even though it may never come close to the correct answer. Since religion is asking the harder question, the burden of proof is higher for religion, if it is to have the surety of science. That is the main difference: science asks questions it thinks it might be able to answer, whereas with some of the questions religion asks, there's not necessarily any way to make sure the questions even make sense! So surely, O'Reilly can be forgiven if he haughtily makes silly statements as a result of getting into philosophical questions that are much deeper than he can fathom, without realizing it; deep philosophy can be quite the hall of mirrors, and it takes special training just to stop and ask, "What did I just say?" (For the record, I don't have that training, and in terms of philosophical thought, mathematical training is a sorry replacement for extended analysis of deep questions, or whatever it is philosophy students do.)
I believe that what O'Reilly is arguing isn't the event itself, but its regularity, its periodic nature which he feels is rock-solid evidence of God's existence. The fact that not only do these events happen, but they happen with a remarkable predictability. Now, there are various ways to address this -- the worst, but most relevant, being the rotation-invariance of the laws of physics -- but I will address this the way I always address a teleological argument: this is yet again an example of conditional probability causing difficulties. The question is not: what is the likelihood that the planet where we find ourselves has such nice periodic behavior? The question is, rather: what is the likelihood that some planet somewhere would have sufficient periodic behavior to allow for the formation of intelligent life; and what then is the likelihood for intelligent life to arise?
Of course, there are some subtleties involved in these questions; and there are deep philosophical questions involved with defining the terms I'm using (such as, how do we define "intelligent life" in a time before there is intelligent life to use as a benchmark?); but that doesn't matter to show why O'Reilly is wrong. The simple fact is that whereas religion is interested in establishing Real Truth, science is satisfied with a working explanation, even though it may never come close to the correct answer. Since religion is asking the harder question, the burden of proof is higher for religion, if it is to have the surety of science. That is the main difference: science asks questions it thinks it might be able to answer, whereas with some of the questions religion asks, there's not necessarily any way to make sure the questions even make sense! So surely, O'Reilly can be forgiven if he haughtily makes silly statements as a result of getting into philosophical questions that are much deeper than he can fathom, without realizing it; deep philosophy can be quite the hall of mirrors, and it takes special training just to stop and ask, "What did I just say?" (For the record, I don't have that training, and in terms of philosophical thought, mathematical training is a sorry replacement for extended analysis of deep questions, or whatever it is philosophy students do.)
No comments:
Post a Comment