Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GPLindsey · 10-02-2002, 05:21 PM

The Intelligent Design supporters focus almost all their attention on proving that the universe and everything in it was designed, but they focus little attention on what the design was for. A watch found in the woods may prove the designer created it so that it would tell time. But what if you found some other contraption in the woods that was clearly not naturally made, yet it seemed to serve no purpose? Can something be designed yet serve no purpose, or is that a contradiction?

I ask this because much of the physical universe seems to me to serve no purpose, even if it were designed, if the Biblical account is to be believed. At most, Genesis 1:14 says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." But God only needed the sun to separate the day from the night, and only a few hundred stars to come up with a zodiac for signs and telling the seasons. We could not even see much of the universe until the last hundred or so years, until the advent of large telescopes.
Even if you believed the universe had an intelligent designer, what need was there for billions of galaxies, quazars, pulsars? Or stranger still, why create a universe that is 95% dark matter and dark energy?

I have not come across a clear ID argument on this point, but I would like to throw out my own explanation for debate--God is creating Art. He created much of the universe, not because he wants it to do anything or change into something better, but simply because it pleased him to do so and finds it beautiful. Art for its own sake! No need for a greater purpose!

I think many religious types would embrace this idea. Is it flawed?

pz · 10-02-2002, 05:38 PM

It's just another "god can do anything he damn well pleases" argument. It doesn't have any predictive power, and can be used as an excuse for observations you might make, no matter what they are.

RBH · 10-02-2002, 06:56 PM

GPLindsey wrote

Quote:

He created much of the universe, not because he wants it to do anything or change into something better, but simply because it pleased him to do so and finds it beautiful. Art for its own sake! No need for a greater purpose!

Sorry, GP. Richiyaado and charlie d beat you to it, even naming the 'art for art's sake' position "purposeless teleology." <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000262#000018" target="_blank">See this thread on ARN.</a>

RBH

Camaban · 10-02-2002, 07:12 PM

Then why Pluto/Charon?

RufusAtticus · 10-02-2002, 07:14 PM

Sure, the personal, all loving Christian God, created us just to look at. It's amazing how they are willing to scrap core beliefs of their religion to get it into public schools.

Is a little consistancy too much to ask?

Neruda · 10-02-2002, 07:15 PM

Okay, so here's your argument.

1) there are millions of galaxies in our universe, each containing billions of stars, that we can't see and that serve no purpose here on Earth.

2) God must have had a reason for creating them, otherwise they would not have been created.

3) Therefore God created them for art's sake.

There is no rational reason for that conclusion, especially since you're assuming God exists in the first place. If anything, the incredible vastness of the Universe makes the idea of a god who is for whatever reason interested in what happens to each indavidual here on earth seem naive and utterly rediculous. I once heard someone argue that God made the universe so vast to overwhelm us and give us no excuse but to believe in him, but I had two answers: first off, he obviously didn't do a very good job since so many people still don't believe in him, and secondly, the vastness of the universe would have made no difference to the millions of people that lived and died without any real knowledge of its size.

anyway, I'm not yet impressed with your theological explanation for the universe. one could come up with all sorts of other theological explanations, and each of them would have just as little evidence for them as your theory. I mean, when it comes to god, you can pretty much make up whatever you want because we all know that he won't come down and clarify for us, will he?

By the way, genesis 1:14 is wrong, because the stars are still around during the daytime; we simply can't see them. They do not divide between the day and the night, they just happen to appear during the night because the light from the sun is not overwhelming them.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]</p>

Doubting Didymus · 10-02-2002, 10:41 PM

This argument implies that god gave us appendixes because he likes to watch them pop.

He made the male urethra pass through the prostate gland rather than to the left or the right because it gave a better sense of symmetry and balance.

What about nonfunctional DNA? God just has a thing for long useless rows of the letters A T G and C. It gives the veiwer a profound sense of the absurd.

Maybe god is one of those terribly bad conceptual artists whose idea of cutting edge 'movements in modern art' is a bowel movement carefully placed in the corner? That would go some way towards explaining a few things.

GPLindsey · 10-03-2002, 04:30 PM

I find beauty in dividing God's acts into two categories--(1) those that were designed to achieve some specific end, as part of his Great Plan, and (2) those that were created for artistic expression, and serve no greater purpose. These two explanations satisfy everything. For those of who attack some of God's art work--such as the appendix, or exploding galaxies, or the tapeworm--well, you might as well attack my preference for the color green over the color blue! Taste in art is always subjective, so why attack God's artistic musings?

Anyway, he's a second theory on how you could have a universe that was designed but without a purpose--God is a savant. He created the universe all right, but he had no real comprehension of what he was doing.

Doubting Didymus · 10-03-2002, 04:49 PM

So far we have

1: God is an artist, who produces rather a lot of really really awful art that causes pain misery and death to a lot of innocent mud sculptures, but that's okay because taste is subjective.

2: God is an idiot, who didn't know what he was doing.

Personally, I like it! One of the best theological theories I have ever seen.

Camaban · 10-03-2002, 06:26 PM

Quote:

For those of who attack some of God's art work--such as the appendix, or exploding galaxies, or the tapeworm--well, you might as well attack my preference for the color green over the color blue! Taste in art is always subjective, so why attack God's artistic musings?

Yes.

Why criticise some dictators for "creating" midgets (by amputating people below the knees) and things like that?

It's just art.

Pretty god damn (no pun intended) warped and disturbing art, though.

10-02-2002, 05:21 PM	#1
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	A theological explanation for Design without Purpose The Intelligent Design supporters focus almost all their attention on proving that the universe and everything in it was designed, but they focus little attention on what the design was for. A watch found in the woods may prove the designer created it so that it would tell time. But what if you found some other contraption in the woods that was clearly not naturally made, yet it seemed to serve no purpose? Can something be designed yet serve no purpose, or is that a contradiction? I ask this because much of the physical universe seems to me to serve no purpose, even if it were designed, if the Biblical account is to be believed. At most, Genesis 1:14 says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." But God only needed the sun to separate the day from the night, and only a few hundred stars to come up with a zodiac for signs and telling the seasons. We could not even see much of the universe until the last hundred or so years, until the advent of large telescopes. Even if you believed the universe had an intelligent designer, what need was there for billions of galaxies, quazars, pulsars? Or stranger still, why create a universe that is 95% dark matter and dark energy? I have not come across a clear ID argument on this point, but I would like to throw out my own explanation for debate--God is creating Art. He created much of the universe, not because he wants it to do anything or change into something better, but simply because it pleased him to do so and finds it beautiful. Art for its own sake! No need for a greater purpose! I think many religious types would embrace this idea. Is it flawed?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2002, 05:38 PM	#2
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	It's just another "god can do anything he damn well pleases" argument. It doesn't have any predictive power, and can be used as an excuse for observations you might make, no matter what they are.

10-02-2002, 07:12 PM	#4
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	Then why Pluto/Charon?

10-02-2002, 07:14 PM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Sure, the personal, all loving Christian God, created us just to look at. It's amazing how they are willing to scrap core beliefs of their religion to get it into public schools. Is a little consistancy too much to ask?

10-02-2002, 07:15 PM	#6
Neruda Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 80	Okay, so here's your argument. 1) there are millions of galaxies in our universe, each containing billions of stars, that we can't see and that serve no purpose here on Earth. 2) God must have had a reason for creating them, otherwise they would not have been created. 3) Therefore God created them for art's sake. There is no rational reason for that conclusion, especially since you're assuming God exists in the first place. If anything, the incredible vastness of the Universe makes the idea of a god who is for whatever reason interested in what happens to each indavidual here on earth seem naive and utterly rediculous. I once heard someone argue that God made the universe so vast to overwhelm us and give us no excuse but to believe in him, but I had two answers: first off, he obviously didn't do a very good job since so many people still don't believe in him, and secondly, the vastness of the universe would have made no difference to the millions of people that lived and died without any real knowledge of its size. anyway, I'm not yet impressed with your theological explanation for the universe. one could come up with all sorts of other theological explanations, and each of them would have just as little evidence for them as your theory. I mean, when it comes to god, you can pretty much make up whatever you want because we all know that he won't come down and clarify for us, will he? By the way, genesis 1:14 is wrong, because the stars are still around during the daytime; we simply can't see them. They do not divide between the day and the night, they just happen to appear during the night because the light from the sun is not overwhelming them. [ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]</p>

10-02-2002, 10:41 PM	#7
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	This argument implies that god gave us appendixes because he likes to watch them pop. He made the male urethra pass through the prostate gland rather than to the left or the right because it gave a better sense of symmetry and balance. What about nonfunctional DNA? God just has a thing for long useless rows of the letters A T G and C. It gives the veiwer a profound sense of the absurd. Maybe god is one of those terribly bad conceptual artists whose idea of cutting edge 'movements in modern art' is a bowel movement carefully placed in the corner? That would go some way towards explaining a few things.

10-03-2002, 04:30 PM	#8
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	I find beauty in dividing God's acts into two categories--(1) those that were designed to achieve some specific end, as part of his Great Plan, and (2) those that were created for artistic expression, and serve no greater purpose. These two explanations satisfy everything. For those of who attack some of God's art work--such as the appendix, or exploding galaxies, or the tapeworm--well, you might as well attack my preference for the color green over the color blue! Taste in art is always subjective, so why attack God's artistic musings? Anyway, he's a second theory on how you could have a universe that was designed but without a purpose--God is a savant. He created the universe all right, but he had no real comprehension of what he was doing.

10-03-2002, 04:49 PM	#9
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	So far we have 1: God is an artist, who produces rather a lot of really really awful art that causes pain misery and death to a lot of innocent mud sculptures, but that's okay because taste is subjective. 2: God is an idiot, who didn't know what he was doing. Personally, I like it! One of the best theological theories I have ever seen.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.