But I fear we could get into a rut quibbling over which analogy is the most appropriate. Would you like to unpack the argument further in light of your chosen illustration?
WHY WOULD GOD CREATE A HOSTILE UNIVERSE?
Justin: Yes, perhaps we should set aside these analogies for now. One way to get at our core disagreement here, even if in a roundabout way, is to abstract away all the information we have and just think about theism, its conceptual contents, and what we could expect to discover about God's creative powers. If theism were true, what are some of the most plausible candidates with regard to the reasons why God might choose to create?
Randal: For starters, since we agree on the concept of God as perfect, this would seem to preclude God creating out of need.
Justin: Okay, that makes some sense to me. There is nothing external to herself that God requires in order to go on. God doesn't require food, water, companionship, etc.
Randal: Right, so God doesn't create because he's lonely and needed a friend or he's bored and needed something to do. But God can still create out of love, the love of the creation he has brought into being.
Justin: Well, okay, but shouldn't we distinguish between divine needs and divine desires? We might say that God doesn't need friends but that's not to say that she wouldn't desire to have friends. Relationships are a good thing, after all.
Randal: I suppose it depends on the relationship, but I agree that some relationships can be a very great good.
Justin: Okay, but what does it mean to say that God creates out of love? I can make no sense out of that. To my point about divine needs versus wants, people create because they find the state of affairs in which there is this new thing to be preferable to the current state of affairs. They desire it to be the case. Assuming the creation acts are intentional, we cannot avoid the fact that this was to fulfill God's desire for a state of affairs she found preferable. So, part of explaining why somebody did x instead of y is knowing what desires they were driven by prior to that act.
Randal: When I think of a great artist producing a work of art, I might ask a similar question: why would the artist create that painting (or sculpture or whatever)? While I may not know precisely why, I could at least say that it is in the artist's nature to produce great works of art like this.
Similarly, I might say that it is in God's nature to produce the creation he has produced. That may not tell us all we might like to know as to God's reasons for creating, but if I can't understand the mind of the artist in such matters, why should I presume to know the mind of God?
Justin: Well, artists aren't exactly silent as to their motivations for creating their works. Very often we are told that their paintings and sculptures are motivated by a deep desire for self-expression or to challenge those persons who might view it. Moreover, we can often tell something about the artist by looking at their artwork.
That said, I'm not sure it's in your best interest to say that we are without any substantive access to God's motivations.
Randal: Always looking out for my best interests! Thanks, buddy!
Justin: Just being a pal. To make that claim would be to forfeit the purpose of positing God and her creative power as a substantive explanation for what we observe. After all, if God exists but we can't know what God would be likely to do, how could positing God's existence purport to explain anything we actually observe?
But you said that God's creative act was out of love. Could you expound on that a bit more? What does it mean?
Randal: God is a maximally great being, and thus the acts he undertakes and the entities he brings into being (including the universe itself) are consistent with that perfect and loving nature.
Immanuel Kant famously observed, “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”5
I couldn't agree more. As I was arguing earlier, I believe the moral law points to God. And I'd say the same about those starry heavens. When I contemplate the vast, majestic, and severe expanses of deep space, I am in awe of the hand of the artist and my miniscule, and yet still significant, place within this staggering scape.
Justin: Okay, so then is there anything within the concept of God and her desire to create out of love that would ever lead you to expect that this love-infused creation act would result in a plane of existence that is 99 percent hostile to human beings so capable of love? Moreover, how does one create something out of a love for something (or someone) that doesn't even exist until the point in time at which it is created?
To be clear, my argument is not asking whether our current universe is logically compatible with something a maximally great being would create. Rather it's asking how likely it is that the output of a love-inspired creation act would be so thoroughly hostile to God's created beings so capable of love.
Randal: Let's return to Adam's cozy bungalow overlooking the ocean. His father secured him a safe place to live, and that much we would expect. God, likewise, has provided us a safe planet on which to live. More specifically, he's secured a planet with safe environs for us to live in. Granted, the peaks of the Himalayas and the bottom of the sea are not that hospitable! But all of earth's various environments work together to produce a whole that is broadly hospitable to our species. As I have said, I don't see any reason to think that God would be expected to secure more than this.
But enough with my playing defense. I can also envision good reasons why God would place human beings within a universe that is mostly hostile to our existence. This universe provides the human species (and whatever other intelligent civilizations there may be) an extraordinary challenge to explore and discover. As Neil Armstrong famously observed, one small step for a man (or woman) might constitute a giant leap for the species. In short, a universe both severe and glorious offers unending possibilities for the enormous goods of human ingenuity, courage, and selflessness as we undertake discovery and exploration. And in that regard we're just getting started.
Justin: Atheism would suggest that a majority of the universe would likely not be life-friendly for the reasons I've already mentioned. On the other hand, with theism, we must address the question of God's moral nature (which you have) and God's motivating purpose in creating in a non-ad-hoc way. At least, that is what we must do if we are to address whether or not the kind of universe we have is to be more surprising or expected on theism than it is on atheism.
This is part of why I think it's extremely important to get much clearer on what you believe to be the reasons behind God's creation act.
Randal: And have I addressed your concerns?
Justin: I worry that I'm forced to answer this question in the negative. I'm afraid nothing about being motivated to create out of love even hints that there would be this distinction between a life-friendly place and a life-hostile place as a product of such a creation act. Why even have such a distinction? Moreover, there is a huge moral difference between setting a technological or intellectual challenge before one's child and actively and intentionally crafting a place that is positively deadly to that child.
So, you need an argument for the conclusion that the hostile-to-friendly distinction (and mind-boggling proportion) is as probable or more probable on theism than on atheism, which, as I've argued, is rather high.
Randal: Justin, you said that “atheism would suggest that a majority of the universe would likely not be life-friendly.” That statement looks ad hoc to me. Why do you stop at the majority? Why not go the whole way and say that on atheism you would expect that the totality of the universe would be hostile to life? And, if you would say that, then it would seem that the fact that the universe isn't totally hostile to life, that it includes such hospitable environs as planet earth, is a major problem for your view, no?
Justin: That's an important question. Presenting arguments informally in this way can cause me to fail to be explicit on some important details.
>
Randal: I agree. It's one thing to read off a written argument to a passive audience. It's another thing to have a rough-and-tumble, on-the-fly dialogue and debate over cocktails and goblets of barley wine.
Justin: Right. So, recall that we began this part of our conversation with a skyscraper analogy in which Adam's existence was a part of the background information. The question at the end of that story was regarding how the observation in question (the poison gas) should affect Adam's views of his father's moral character.
Now, with regard to the facts about the hostility of the universe toward life, the question is whether these facts should constitute, for us humans, some evidence for or against God's existence. In the argument then, our very existence is taken as background information—we are the Adam of the argument. But, if human existence is being taken as background information, then it follows that the universe is, at least in part, capable of supporting life and is therefore not thoroughly hostile to it. I should have made that more explicit.
Randal: Darn right you should've!
Justin: So, no, I do not consider this to be a major problem for my view. I don't consider it to be a problem at all.
DOES ATHEISM PREDICT A UNIVERSE LESS HOSPITABLE TO LIFE?
Randal: Very good. That's helpful. (But then, you're always helpful eventually, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised!) I certainly agree that human existence is background information in your argument, from which it follows that the universe isn't completely hostile to life. After all, if it were completely hostile to life, we wouldn't be having this conversation!
But I don't see that this negates my response. You see, you want to present the fact that the universe is largely hostile to life as a problem for theism. I, on the other hand, am suggesting the fact that the universe is not completely hostile to life is a problem for atheism.
Justin: Okay, fair enough. Could you further unpack that line of thought so I know exactly what you're claiming and why?
Randal: No problemo compadre.
You believe that if theism is true then we should expect the universe to be more hospitable to life than it is. I'm countering that if atheism is true then we should expect the universe to be less hospitable to life than it is.
You might call it a tit-for-tat response, in which my clever rejoinder negates the strength of your original point since the precise balance of hostile to hospitable conditions is neither what a theist nor an atheist would expect at first blush.
Justin: Okay. So, I've argued that, given the fact that life exists, the hostility to life of the vast majority of the universe is more easily explained on atheism than on theism.
Your claim is that the fact that life exists at all is more easily explained on theism than on atheism because you think, on atheism, the universe would be entirely hostile to life.
In essence, you're apparently not denying that my argument contains evidence against theism. You're just saying it's not the whole story, and of course I agree. There are a ton of arguments on all sides to consider on questions of the existence of God.
However, if your point here is to, as you claim, “negate the strength of [my] original point,” the onus is on you to show that your “hostility argument” for theism is stronger or equal in strength to my “hostility argument” for atheism.
Randal: But why is the onus just on me? Shouldn't it be on both of us? We're both looking at the same data, the relative balance of hostile to hospitable elements in the universe, and we're drawing very different conclusions from it. You argue that it favors atheism. But I don't agree.
Justin: Perhaps we're talking past each other. If all you're claiming with your use of negate here is that, when we ignore the fact that life does exist, the very existence of some life-friendly parts of the universe constitutes some evidence favoring a theistic conclusion, that's fine. I've never argued it was impossible for other facts to point in the other direction.
Randal: As I said, theists need not think God created the universe primarily for human beings, or any other sentient life for that matter. So we shouldn't expect the universe to be on the whole hospitable to human beings.
At the same time, one would reasonably expect that God would create environments in which human beings or other sentient life can flourish. And lo and behold, that's what we do, in fact, find!
Justin: We can find agreement in that, if God exists and she has created a universe, there would be environments in which human beings—if they too were created—would be capable of flourishing.
However, your other claim—that we shouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile despite its having been created out of love—suggests to me that you use that word in a way quite foreign to most people. What about your concept of love suggests that an earth-like environment is likely to be placed in an infinitely large and utterly hostile context rather than, say, it just existing by itself or in a far more neutral larger context?
BUT WHY DID GOD CREATE AT ALL?
Randal: I've provided two replies to that question.
First, to reiterate, I've insisted that it is no part of theism to believe God created the universe just for us or even primarily for us. So it is simply mistaken to have any expectation that the universe on the whole would be hospitable to human life. Imagine, by analogy, that a mother stocks her children's playroom with toy cars and dolls. Her son might be indignant because he doesn't care for dolls. He might think, “If mom was really loving to me, surely she would include only toy cars.” The problem with the boy's thought process is that the room isn't just for him. It's for his sister as well. And she likes dolls. By analogy, the universe isn't just for humans or even primarily for humans. Thus, we should have no expectation that it should be on balance hospitable to human life.
Justin: Randal, then what was the universe created for? Can you give an answer to that? If not, how is theism supposed to do any explaining here?
Randal: I don't know all of what it was created for. I wouldn't be surprised if the universe was created for many reasons. But my rebuttal to you doesn't depend on me knowing those reasons.
Justin: That's just plain false. My argument was that this hostility is better explained on an atheistic hypothesis than a theistic one. The fact that you cannot provide God's sole or even primary reason(s) for creating the universe should not strike readers as anything resembling a rebuttal. If God's reasons for creating are mysterious, they are, at the very least, a poorer explanation for the hostility we see than is atheism.
Randal: “Plain false?!” Are you kiddin’ me? And hey, you don't tell our readers what they're supposed to think! Let them draw their own conclusions!
Justin: Okay, I'll stop with all this airtight logical nudging.
Randal: Ah, so that's what it was. Sorry, I missed that!
Anyway, I did suggest one of the reasons for God's creating this severe and beautiful universe that is broadly inhospitable to human life: it provides a unique opportunity for the inestimable goods of human exploration and discovery. But that's merely one of innumerable reasons God could have to create in the manner he did.
Justin: But if the earth already contains a nearly insurmountable number of intellectual and exploratory challenges, then compounding that infinitely is at best superfluous and at worst a distraction.
Moreover, as I've already mentioned, there is a huge moral difference between setting a technological, exploratory, or other intellectual challenge before one's child and actively, purposefully crafting a place that is positively deadly to that child in an effort to encourage exploration.
In other words, one can encourage exploration without the use of a giant death trap. This is doubly true for cosmic parents with the gift of infinite power.
Randal: Whoa, wait a minute! You think placing challenges beyond planet earth is superfluous at best and a distraction at worst? So should we think that Columbus's discovery of America was a great achievement but Neil Armstrong's walking on the moon was merely
a distraction?
I see things quite the opposite. Each step of exploration that we take is even greater than the one that came before. For goodness sake, we could join Mark Watney in visiting Mars in the next decade and achieving inestimable goods as individuals and a species as we do so. How amazing that would be! And that's just the beginning. To quote Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear, “To infinity…and beyond!” Who can imagine the goods our species can achieve by taking on these exploratory challenges in the coming decades and centuries? And all because the universe offers a challenge that is vast and hostile, like the harsh and beautiful upper slopes of Mount Everest, but multiplied by unimaginable orders of magnitude.
Justin: Heed my words more closely. I said compounding these investigations to infinity is what's superfluous. I'm all for scientific exploration, and I'd agree with you that a virtuous God would be as well. But that does no work toward explaining why 99 percent of the universe is so hostile to life. I'd like to think a good God has ways to challenge us toward exploration without subjecting us to an infinite death trap of darkness.
Randal: “Infinite death trap of darkness”?! Hah! That's so dramatic, it sounds like a Scandinavian death metal band: “Did you hear the latest album from Infinite Death Trap of Darkness? Amazing guitar work!”
Justin: A classic.
Randal: Look, I agree that God could have other ways to challenge us. But that's irrelevant. The point is that it is fully consistent with God's existence that he chose this way to challenge us.
Justin: The fact that God could have presented us the same kinds of challenges while making the universe less hostile to moral agents is irrelevant? I beg to differ. If a morally upright person is to choose between two different ways of knowingly achieving the same goal, they will, in accordance with their moral nature, choose the less harmful route.
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar Page 16