Is Nature Too Divinely Self-Creative to Need an Intelligent Designer?
The following is a reply to Gerald Baron’s article, “Blort, God and other Arguments Against Design from Benjamin Cain,” which in turn is a reply to my “Self-Evolving Nature and the Design Argument for God.”
I appreciate Baron’s extensive examination of my article on the design argument. I should clarify that that article of mine was part of a series I did a couple of years ago on the theistic proofs of God’s existence. Those articles weren’t meant to be comprehensive. My aim was to dive into what I take to be the underappreciated core problems with those proofs. So I wasn’t interested in rehearsing all the usual atheistic objections, and my goal was also to steer clear of philosophical jargon.
A Philosophical Tone
I should also say that Baron’s allegation that I frequently resort to a “disrespectful,” “vicious,” or “hurtful” tone in my Medium writings is either preposterous or trivial. Those who would prefer for their cherished religious beliefs to never be challenged will interpret any criticism of them as being over the line. And an atheist is free to say that by harshly criticizing religion, he or she is respecting the humanity of religious people that would be better off untarnished by the archaic delusions.
I do try to be blunt, though, in my writing. I philosophize with a hammer, to use Nietzsche’s expression against unworthy idols. If you prefer to waste time dancing around issues with watered-down, politically correct euphemisms and evasions, I don’t think my kind of philosophy is for you.
(And I’m speaking here not so much to Gerald R. Baron, but to theists like Prudence Louise who’ve explicitly complained about my “tone.” Most theists I’ve engaged with on Medium, I must say, have done no such thing. They leap into the arguments rather than hiding behind accusations of shameful wordings. Likewise, my articles target arguments and worldviews, not individual readers, as Baron admits he discovered.)
In general, I think Baron misunderstands or avoids the thrust of my arguments from the article, so his objections end up going…