The Reason of Reason_How Reason, Logic, and Intelligibility Together are Evidence for God

by Scott Cherry

  Architecture is a fascinating field of study, especially with consideration of examples we consider to be art. Of course, nearly every city and town has their unique structures, Dearborn, Michigan being no exception, which is where I reside. There are two interesting buildings that I have in mind for my analogy; I will tell you about both but I will only choose one. First, the Henry Ford Mansion known as Fair Lane is situated in a wooded location on the banks of the Rouge River ½ mile northwest of Michigan Ave. and Evergreen Rd., but not visible from either. The second is the Islamic Center of America, also known as the Grand Mosque, situated prominently on the north side of Ford Rd. on the west side of its intersection with the Southfield Freeway. Both are unique in their own right but in very different ways. Yet both share all the same kinds of qualities that I want to examine. As to the former, there are lots of mansions in the world but only one that was home of the late Henry and Clara Ford with its adjacent features such as his private power plant and once well-manicured gardens.

  But what makes the Grand Mosque a unique candidate for my analogy? After all, there are many mosques in Dearborn and even more in the metro-Detroit area, and still more in the Middle East were the first one was conceived. In at least one sense the Fair Lane mansion is more unique, but in another sense the Grand Mosque is more unique for different reasons. First, it is the largest mosque in Detroit and possibly in the U.S. (it is debated). Second, as a modern building (2005) it is visually exotic and architecturally impressive with its characteristically Islamic forms. If you could see it you would know what I mean, of course, but if you’ve seen pictures of mosques maybe you can imagine it. It has a gold-painted dome at the top-center and two tall towers called minarets on either side with gold-painted points. To me it looks like a spaceship that has landed right on Ford Rd next to four churches. For these reasons I have selected the Grand Mosque for my architectural analogy, but we will return to Fair Lane to talk about one of the gardens on its grounds of which gardens the mosque had none.

  When you come upon a building—any building, really, but especially an architectural jewel like the two examples I have highlighted, what do you think? Do you think nothing at all as though you were walking through the woods and you come upon a non-distinctive stand of trees, an open field, a pond, or grass on a prairie? (No.) Or, do you approach it as though it were a natural feature like a dune in the desert or along the lakeshore and think to yourself, “The wind has been blowing hard here”? (No.) Or even, do you observe it as you would a beaver dam with beavers going in and out and think, “How industrious the animals of this area are to produce this interesting mound of natural materials”. (No.) Rather, unless your vision and other senses are non-functional, or your cognitive powers impaired, encountering a building should elicit a very standard set of thoughts in you, often unconscious ones, or what we can call “no-brainers”. That is, 1) you observe and perceive a building as a designed, non-natural thing and, 2) you recognize it such. Your mind then 3) identifies and classifies the building as something made by a living creature (with either instinct or intelligence) because a non-natural thing is by definition one that was not and could not be produced by natural forces. Why?

  Your mind knows that natural forces can produce things with a limited set of features outside of which it belongs to a different category of things with a different set of recognizable patterns. So already your mind has moved its conception of the building from one basic category (natural) to a second category (non-natural). Then the mind easily determines whether the building belongs to one sub-category (A) of things that can be produced by some animals such as beaver dams and beehives, or a much larger sub-category (B) of things that can only be produced by a vastly more intelligent kind of being, humans. This is a very basic cognitive process. Once all this brain activity happens, within the space of about a nanosecond, the mind need apply no further effort to the perception, recognition, identification, and classification of the building. And if you know in advance you are going to see a building the mind does all this beforehand because of its pre-conception of what qualifies as a building and what doesn’t. Then only verification is needed.

  But what qualifies something as a building? In other words, what are the qualities a building usually has that we recognize as non-natural, or intelligently produced? Let’s generate a short list of them with the Grand Mosque in mind, though you can imagine almost any other building.

  List 4

  1. The location of the structure is likely to appear inconsistent with the natural features of the surrounding landscape.

  2. The position of the structure is likely to appear inconsistent with the positions of the natural features and terrain around it.

  3. The surrounding landscape of the structure is likely to appear altered, such as the ground leveled or trees removed, etc.

  4. The size, shape and height of the structure are likely to appear inconsistent with those of the natural features around it.

  5. The geometry of the structure—external and internal—is likely to include unusually flat, perpendicular surfaces that appear inconsistent with the natural features around it, as well as horizontal ones.

  6. The uniformity and symmetry of the structure includes multiple surfaces and features that appear unusually “perfect” and consistent with each other as compared natural features. (*The Grand Mosque is quasi-symmetrical with four “perfect” domes of three sizes and two cones.)

  7. The materials of the structure may be uncharacteristic of those of the surrounding area, and/or clearly pre-fabricated and assembled very consistently with each other.

  8. There appears to be a high degree of organization (order) to the materials, with very specific measurements and uncharacteristic textures.

  9. There appears to be aesthetically pleasing (artistic) features to aspects of the structure, both external and internal, that seem uncharacteristic of any natural features.

  10. There is unusually ample interior space to the structure (i.e. it is hollow), or multiple spaces, with different materials, and many of the features listed above.

  11. The structure always has entrances with doors by which one can enter and exit, and often windows to allow sunlight and air to enter.

  12. The structure often has functional systems such as electric, plumbing, natural gas, cooking apparatuses, and heating/cooling which are totally alien to any of the surrounding natural features and must be connected to sources outside the structure.

  I had never made a list like this before and it was kind of fun. There are, of course, still more features and qualities we could add to it, but you get the idea: Non-natural structures are easily recognizable by humans as buildings that required intelligent designers and builders.

  In the case of the Grand Mosque, the very moment you see this structure you know it’s a building, i.e. something that is made by humans which are the only beings on earth capable of producing buildings. Admittedly, beaver dams and beehives are impressive in their own right, to be sure, but we humans know they belong to sub-category A and not B, partly because we know that beavers make dams by instinct alone, and they can only make dams. The same is true for bees; they can only make beehives. But humans can produce a seemingly infinite array of building designs and so much more.

  Thus far it may seem to you that I am setting up the argument from design, and you are partly right, but not entirely. It’s true that all buildings are designed, especially larger and more complex ones. In addition, all true design requires information and intelligent beings to order, assemble and apply the information on the part of the designer and builder. And, if the builders are different than the designer/s, which is often the case, the information must be intelligible, or understandable and usable by the builders—those on the receiving end. When it comes to producing buildings like the Grand Mosque, the design information is remarkably intelligible to the builders, but that does not surprise us. The designer must ensure that the information he provides is intelligible, for how
else could he expect the builders to convert his concept (i.e. thoughts) into the edifice he has conceived? As long as it is intelligible he knows that those on the receiving end (properly educated and trained builders) possess the unique capacity to recognize and interpret the complex information he has ordered and provided for that very purpose. There must be a correspondence between them.

  And there is one, but does there have to be? In theory, the designer could make this impossible for the examiners, but to what end? (In that case he/she would have to rule out the rational powers of the examiners, or produce a design enigma that he knew could not be deciphered by the examiners.) Or, the designer could merely wish there to be a correspondence, but that would not make it necessarily so. In this case the designer must take pains to ensure a correspondence so his building can be constructed by others, or he must do the job himself. Now, if the designer is content to build everything himself, then there need be no correspondence. But there is. Therefore, there seems to be a corresponding relationship between those who produce information and those who consume it. The very presence of intelligible information points to an intelligent source, and presupposes it.

  There are several more levels on which we can consider this with respect to the Grand Mosque. I have touched on the relationship between the designer and builders, but let me say a few things more. It is entirely impressive to me that mere humans are capable of this kind of abstract thinking, and that only humans are; that highly complex, abstract information can be conveyed and can be made intelligible; that trained builders can take a set of highly complex drawings with all manner of symbols and figures and use it to produce exactly what was in the mind of the designer. In terms of architecture, at least, this speaks to an undeniable correspondence between give and receiver. And if there is a receiver of such intelligible information, then there is a Giver.

  Part 2: The Society for the Study of Really Interesting Things

  But I have yet to get to the heart of this analogy. Let’s imagine that a group of people including you and 6 other men and women arrive in the parking lot in front of the Grand Mosque with no prior knowledge of it. In fact, you know nothing about Islam or mosques as such, or even what a mosque is. Where you’re from there are no Muslim people, so neither are there any mosques nor anyone who has even seen one in pictures before. None of you is trained in architecture, engineering or construction per se, or in reading blueprints, but you are all reasonably intelligent, and some of you have areas of special knowledge such as math and art. Also, a few of you have animals with you, including a horse (that you rode in on), a dog, a chimpanzee, and…a beaver. The reason you are all there together is that you have come from another part of the country where you are members of The Society for the Study of Really Interesting Things which has sent you on a mission to find something interesting to study. The leaders of the society heard a rumor that there was an interesting structure on Ford Road in Dearborn and they have sent you to investigate it in hopes that the rumor it true and the thing is worthy of study. If it is you will be assigned to this project long term.

  We have already agreed, I think, that you will have no trouble at all identifying the structure as one made by fellow homo-sapiens—not as a naturally occurring one. It is both a beautiful and intriguing structure, whatever it is, and you can hardly wait to understand it better. But the animals with you seem to have no such awareness or appreciation. Your horse looks for grass to eat, the chimpanzee looks for insects or fruit, the beaver looks for trees, and the dog chases them each in turn. Not until you enter the mosque do the dog and chimp show any interest in it, and the horse and beaver could not care less either way. Meanwhile you and your six companions are collecting data and have ruled out the possibility that the structure is a spaceship. Note that I said you are collecting data. Why? Ah, but that is the first clue! Not about the building but about you and your associates. For while you are studying the mosque we (my people) are studying you (and your people). Thus my Society sends me to the site for that purpose. Here are my data:

  First, I talk to you collectively and ask what you will be looking for, and why. We discover that you are collecting the data because of your assumptions about reality, both physical and metaphysical. You assume, or presuppose, a large measure of order in reality. Indeed, you assume that all is not random because of the abundant evidence to the contrary. It is a brute fact that there is order—that order exists. This, therefore, is a core belief you have about Reality, even about things you have never encountered directly. Because a great many things (all or most) in your experience are ordered to varying degrees, you believe there is order everywhere. (This is your power of inductive reason at work which I would call faith). Second, you assume intelligibility. You know that you can rationally function within this awareness and make sense of things around you, either easily or with a necessary amount of effort. As with language, order can be recognized and understood, i.e. it can be reasoned about, and the laws of logic can be applied to it, including the makeup of this particular mosque. You know from experience and from reason that most things with order have recognizable patterns and specified complexities that are intelligible to the human mind when casually observed or carefully examined.

  With man-made things we usually call this design, which is an acceptable tautology; it is precisely by these patterns that we differentiate man-made things from natural things because design is an attribute of intelligence. This leads us to the third assumption, that of intelligence itself. Design points to an intelligent source. That is to say, when you observe and recognize ordered patterns you normally infer intelligence. In point of fact, if what you observe is actual design it always (necessarily) indicates intelligence, by definition, because the notion of true design entails the notion of intelligence. If there is no design there is no intelligence, and if there is no intelligence there is no design. The two go hand-in-glove. On the other hand, if what you observe merely seems to be designed (apparent design) but it is uncertain, then more examination is required. But often, or usually, things that seem to be designed are designed. (I argue that the very same relationship exists between the notions of design and order.)

  All of this points to rational thinking because these are the normal functions of reason and logic. Although it may seem to be my attempt to formulate a teleological argument, or argument from design, it is really not intended to be. It is my attempt to spell out the rational assumptions that underlie the process of analyzing the physical structure in this analogy, the mosque. Assumptions (presuppositions) such as these are normal and necessary components of the process of reason. They are logical premises that can either be valid or invalid, hidden or clear. If they are valid and strong we call them laws or axioms, and without them reason could not function at all.

  With these operating assumptions you and your team commence the examination of the structure. As I watch your team conduct the examination, first what I notice is your visual perusal of it. Each of you saunters about the outside and inside of the structure, looking. You look right and left, up and down, and all around. You take notes about what you see with doodles and little sketches on your notepads. One of you is a talented artist whose specific task is to makes detailed sketches. This tells me that you have another implicit assumption that did not come out in our preliminary discussion, namely that you trust your eyes. You believe that your standard vision is a reliable means by which to gather information such as the various forms of it described in List 4 above.

  Interesting. You did not bother to prove this philosophically or empirically, you just acted as though it were reasonable. It is, of course, a kind of implicit reason that most people use every day, that of collecting visual data and interpreting it, a function for which the mind seems to be very well-calibrated. Upon completion of the visual survey your team reconvenes to discuss its initial findings that in fact all of the features contained in List 4 are present. A hypothesis (a reasonable guess) begins to emerge that this structure
just may have been designed and built by an intelligent source. One of your team, being particularly astute and well-read, recalls a quote she ran across in a little book by C.S. Lewis called Miracles:

  Every object you see before you at this moment--the walls, ceiling, and furniture, the book, your own washed hands and cut fingernails, bears witness to the colonization of Nature by Reason: for none of this matter would have been in these states if Nature had had her way.

  However, your team is thorough and not contented with visual data alone. So you continue your examination. Next you measure the structure in every detail using laser tape measures, and then catalog the dimensions, and your graphic artist uses them to generate a 100:1 scale architectural drawing of the edifice. Upon analyzing the data and the drawings you conclude that they confirm the visual data. “This too adds to the weight of our hypothesis”, the astute woman remarks. “It seems highly probable that this structure is not a product of the forces of nature. It is most likely the work of architects, engineers and skilled labor—a building.” At this point it also begins to seem plausible that this magnificent structure could be reproduced in your own location.

  Finally, using small drills, saws and other tools, you conduct a comprehensive materials and systems analysis. It appears that some of the materials, such as the stone blocks, the hardened lime and sand, and the gypsum are from natural sources, but they have been highly fabricated and assembled. And you know by reason that blind natural forces cannot fabricate even its own raw materials to this degree of precision no matter how much time it is allowed. As for the systems (wiring, plumbing, heating and cooling, etc.) they are impeccably premeditated and fine-tuned. Based on what is and must be assumed about buildings, this is the product of a brilliant person. With this conclusion and all the data in-hand, you and your team return with enthusiastic plans to replicate the Grand Mosque. (No, there are no Muslims there, but your city has a taste for the Arabesque.) All the while your pets have been entirely disinterested in the whole affair.