Proving the existence of God using the "From Design Argument” is dangerous. We know that there is a non-contingent Entity out there but we have no way of knowing neither what that entity is nor how that entity functions. For that entity to be non-contingent, it has to be by definition a singularity. When we say that God created the world, God knows, God wills and so on, all we are saying is that we see that things exist and therefore, in our own context, for such an effect to result we would have to do certain things, act in certain ways. We therefore attribute a similar action to God but in reality, it is just that – words without real meaning. We have no idea how He does anything. Saying therefore that there must be a designer is meaningless. The fact that our existence is so complex does not necessarily mean that there is a Designer or even a design. That is how it would have been had we been responsible for it, but God is another matter. He “is”, the word “is” is itself equivocal, a singularity and none of the rules we know apply to Him. All we know is that there is an entity. That is why Rambam says in the first Halacha in MT:
יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון
The foundation of all foundations is to know that there is out there (שם) a First Existent.
The word שם is used by Rambam throughout his MT when he talks about God. It is, to me, meant to convey this idea of singularity, to remind us to keep it in mind as we talk about God and His actions.
In MN 3:19 in a discussion about what it means God “knows” we read:
“We see here necessarily design in nature, as has been shown by all physicians and philosophers. However as nature is not an intellectual being, and is not capable of governing [the universe], as has been accepted by all philosophers, the government [of the universe], which shows signs of design, originates, according to the philosophers, in an intellectual cause. According to our view it is the result of the action of an intellectual being that endows everything with its natural properties.”
Based on our experience there must be a design. The fact that there is a design does not necessarily mean that it comes from a Designer. Logically it could be just so – laws of physics and nothing else – an intellectual cause. It is however “our view”, in other words an ontological explanation that we accept, that an Entity is responsible for the design.
It is important to keep these distinctions in mind otherwise one risks falling into the anthropomorphism trap.
> The fact that there is a design does not necessarily mean that it comes from a Designer. Logically it could be just so – laws of physics and nothing else – an intellectual cause. It is however “our view”, in other words an ontological explanation that we accept, that an Entity is responsible for the design.
ReplyDeleteDoes RJM agree to this? I don't think so. Is there a schism in the community of Rambam Fanatics?!
>Does RJM agree to this?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you ask him? GH youmay be surprised.
Re the Rambam thing I am greatly honored and flattered to be considered a rambam fanatic! I wish it were true and that I understood what the great man thought. Unfortunately his writing was so deep that there are about as many Maimonideans as readers of his writings. In fact I suspect that he was such a great teacher that he led you to a way of thinking leaving it to each to figure out on his own at his level of apprehension.
This is kind of the point where I wish you would go further and show your readers that Maimonides does not accept arguments from design. For him the natural order is logical without God. And design arguments are inherently anthropomorphic.
ReplyDeleteHe presents a causal argument at the start of book II, Yet, his commentators already pointed out that it violates his own principals. When he discusses creation he labels the position of the of Sadyah/Rihal – as the incorrect masses. His position on creation remains shrouded in his esoteric approach but he either holds 1] A continuous Platonic creation – nature points to a need for volitional element to prevent one from accepting that everything is either extreme of necessity or chance. This is the point where he says that he can accept any philosophic-scientific position as long as there is an element of volition. It does not prove any personal deity because that would be anthropomorphism. 2] or he accepts Aristotle and denies creation as Ibn Tibbon thought. Hence, no design argument. One knows God as the Aristotelian first cause who has a volitional element. 3] He holds that one cannot have any certainty on matters of metaphysics and we only know nature and the natural order and cannot prove God.
If you were to do this, and work it through for you commentators, then you would give XGH Maimonidean ammunition against the “vulgar masses.” Then they might come to appreciate Maimonides, the merciful God willing.
Technician