What philosophical objections based on irrationality have been put forward against the Creationist belief?

Question

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created in six days as some interpret is stated in the Bible.

I have been following the Creationist/Evolutionist argument for some time, and it appears that the Creationist point of view draws its arguments from the Biblical text and an interpretation of it.

While this may be sufficient to dismiss Creationism as a sicentific theory, I am not sure if the concept of creationism is really irrational or self-contradictory.

how to create something out of nothing? Is that not irrational? — Swami Vishwananda, Dec 30 '16 at 05:31
@SwamiVishwananda. Since you can't prove that it's irrational, there's no reason to suggest that it is. — , Jan 02 '17 at 15:08
@PédeLeão Proofs lie in assertions, not in negations. He has asserted that the Creationist belief is rational. — Swami Vishwananda, Jan 02 '17 at 17:27
Are you saying the objections are irrational or the objections are saying that creationism is irrational? Creationism is based on a belief in Christianity (and possibly Judaism, but don't quote me on that), which means creationists believe in a God. Evolution is based on atheism and the desire to get away from belief in God. Whether or not there is a God (I'm staying neutral on that one), evolution wants to part from the idea of a deity and prove that a deity is not necessary for the existence of the physical world. Both sides use science to pursue their own goals, for better or for worse. — American Patriot, Jul 09 '17 at 16:56

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Dec 28 '16 at 15:01

2

Well you're right that (at least in my opinion) there isn't any proof for dismissing creationism entirely. Whenever scientists make a new discovery that was previously explained by god, you could always say that god created the universe to function logically, and so it's necessary that we would be able to discovery how it works. One problem with your question though, is that you appear to be mixing up the burden of proof. If I told you that Harry Potter came into my house last week and killed a mouse with magic, then took the mouse and left, it wouldn't be your responsibility to come up with a proof that what I'm saying isn't true. The burden of proof is on me to provide sufficient justification for believing that what I said is true.

That said there are plenty of contradictions about god. God is omnipotent, meaning he is all powerful and can do anything. So can god create a round square? Can god create an object too heavy for god to pick up? God is also supposed to be omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent(all loving/infinitely good). These things are inconsistent with the world we observe. If god is really omniscient and omnipotent, then he created the world knowing exactly what would happen at every moment (this also provides a huge challenge to explaining free with under abrahamic religions), and he had the power to create the world in any way. He intentionally chose to create a world with immense suffering, knowing that there would be immense suffering, and being perfectly able to create a world with absolutely no suffering. This means he cannot possibly be omnibenevolent. Alternatively he might be omnibenevolent and omniscient, but not omnipotent. Meaning he is all loving and all knowing, but not all powerful, so he created the world with suffering because he was unable to do otherwise. You could also change it around so he's not omniscient. Regardless, there's no way that doesn't raise a blatant logical inconsistency.

Like I mentioned briefly, god being omniscient creates a big challenge for free will. If god knows exactly what choice you will make at every instant, are you really choosing? Essentially, an omniscient god necessarily makes determinism true. There are arguments that might save determinism, such as compatibilism (a theory that tries to reconcile free will with determinism). However generally creationists try to justify free will by using god to disprove determinism. Again this is irrational because they simultaneously believe that god is omniscient, meaning he knows exactly what choice you will make always, which means that it's impossible for you to make a choice that god doesn't know you will make. Further, god created everything according to creationists, so he actually created things in the way he did knowing from the very beginning exactly how every instant of your life will play out. Knowing how everything will play out, which is really just a theistic determinism.

That's all I can think of right now, I hope I was helpful. Or at least interesting haha.

answered Dec 28 '16 at 15:01

monster319

311
1
9

2

I wouldn't call the contradictions about God a "blatant logical inconsistency". The first one is solved by changing the definition of God to a one that cannot do the logically impossible. The second one is the problem of evil, which has many proposed solutions. And the last problem you raised can be solved by accepting some form of compatibilism. – APCoding Dec 28 '16 at 17:14
1

I guess that means the burden of proof is on you to prove that life magically arose out of some primordial soup. And you seem to be confusing people's misunderstanding of doctrine with contradiction. When properly understood, it becomes clear there is no contradiction. – Dec 28 '16 at 20:17
@APCoding So just quickly I want to dismiss the completely irrelevant claim you made. About my last point, of course compatibilism would resolve the issue of free will in a deterministic framework(I stated that very clearly). But most creationists use god to explain how the universe is non-deterministic, so it's irrelevant to them that compatibilism could solve the free will issue with determinism. They're arguing that god provides free will through his nature, which is incompatible with god being omniscient and omnipotent, even if he is defined as unable to do logically impossibilities. – monster319 Dec 28 '16 at 20:24
@APCoding Also, could you elaborate on why you wouldn't call the contradictions "blatant logical inconsistencies", even though the very first solution you proposed was "changing the definition of God to a one that cannot do the logically impossible." I don't see how that could be a solution to anything unless I was describing logical inconsistencies.
I do agree that defining god as limited to the logically possible makes sense. But I was demonstrating irrationality in creationist arguments, not with more nuanced philosophical arguments, since that was the original question I was answering.
– monster319 Dec 28 '16 at 20:34
monster319, given the existence of whatever God, non-omnibelovenant and omnipotent and so on, what are the contradictions regarding creation by that God? What you have stated are rational objections to the existence of God, what about objections to the existence of divine creation? – stackex555 Dec 29 '16 at 08:53
@monster319 Yes, I guess the answer makes sense in the framework of creationists. Obviously, the universe can't be deterministic if there is a God that knows everything. With the logically impossibilities, that is true also. – APCoding Dec 29 '16 at 17:25
monster, just as Creationists grossly over-represent their authority regarding the nature of God and the history of the universe (and they do that by succumbing to an idolatry regarding scripture written by human hands, the Young-Earth Creationists are the worst), it is not impossible your either you or me or anyone else present to over-represent our authority over knowledge of reality and existence. God need not submit himself (or herself or itself) to whatever constructs of logic that you or I or other humans have cooked up. We mortals don't know shit. – robert bristow-johnson Jan 05 '17 at 07:40
@robertbristow-johnson I completely agree. I wouldn't call myself an atheist because I think it would be incredibly arrogant of me to claim I know for certain that there isn't a god, or even that I know for certain that any specific god isn't real. I was merely saying that it would be a logical impossibility, not that god HAS to follow the rules of logic. Arguably, if we live in a deterministic universe, god would HAVE to be able to operate outside of the laws of logic. Otherwise how could he seemingly have libertarian free will in a deterministic universe. – monster319 Jan 05 '17 at 09:34
@monster, i think your response more accurately means that you don't agree with me. – robert bristow-johnson Jan 05 '17 at 16:41
@robertbristow-johnson I was agreeing that we don't know shit. My answer was just providing common objections to creationism in response to the original question. I personally don't really have any beliefs regarding a god or any sort of divine being, because I think it would be absurd to presume I could understand such a thing if it exists. I do however think it's equally silly to assume such a thing does exist just because an ancient non-academic, mythological book says so. – monster319 Jan 06 '17 at 08:41
You are correct. Absolute power is a contradiction. But omnipotence is not absolute power. Creating a square circle is absolute power, not omnipotence. This objection is born of a misunderstanding of what divine omnipotence is. – American Patriot Jul 09 '17 at 17:00
You are correct. For a human (or any creature in time, for that matter) to see what he will do at each moment is a contradiction, thus impossible. However, God is outside of time. Instead of being on the timeline as we are, He is looking down upon it. Being outside of time, He does everything and sees everything at the same "time", for lack of better word. – American Patriot Jul 09 '17 at 17:03
Watching something and controlling something are two very different things. If you watch a movie, you can see everything that happens, but you are not controlling it; the movie goes on without your interference. Free will does not contradict omniscience. – American Patriot Jul 09 '17 at 17:05

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Jan 04 '17 at 10:11

Put simply, creationism is hermeneutic and not heuristic. Knowledge is not obtained from hermeneutics, only agreement (or disagreement).

Without getting into the obvious problems with deity (incoherent, imponderable, unfalsifiable and non-sensical) the simple matter is that paradigm, world-view, "a way of looking at things" and such interpretations do not advance knowledge claims. This is not to disparage literary interpretation, poetry, fiction nor the psychological benefits of religious participation and faith (writ large, not just faith in deity). This is merely to point out the distinction between observing the world (what is, states of affairs, the case, etc.) and making the world fit a way of looking at it. Such is the distinction between what is true and what is "true to ..." (true to you, to me, to us or them.) Note that truth is mundane; it is simply a condition of statements and the truth condition is satisfied when what is said is is, e.g. the statement "Obama is President" is true as I write this but in some three weeks after January 20th, 2017 the statement will no longer correspond with (fit or match) what is (the case, states of affairs, the world) and will simply be false. This will become important in a moment.

Back to biology: the thing to be careful with is the difference between "evolution" and biological evolution (per Darwin, Wallace, et. al.). Evolution is a broad concept which is roughly the same as change over time. The distinction of biological evolution is that it offers an alternative logical structure to teleological explanations from the study of life. (Note, not theo- but teleo- logical).

For example:

Teleological biology: 1) This plant photosynthesizes in order to survive.

Evolutionary biology: 1) This plant is photosynthesizing. 2) These plants species which photosynthesize have an increased likelihood of survival.

Survival is still a factor, but purpose is not presumed, i.e. the question is not begged (as it is with teleology and some varietals of creationism susceptible to teleological deities creating stuff teleologically).

So what objections does philosophy raise when considering creationism? First consider that philosophy is the love of wisdom, i.e. respect for obtaining knowledge and knowledge is simply empirical (observable or hypothesized/deduced from observation) verification of what is (else how do you even know what is?). With respect to deity, philosophy is ignostic. If the deity in question that has "created" the world - everything from quantum decoherence to event horizons of black holes - is synonymous with "everything" then philosophy will just point out the redundancy. If deity is some nebulously intuited idea beyond empirical falsifiability and verification then what can be known or said to be true about it and hence, it is only a matter of interpretation and solicitation to agreement. That statements of creationism often come off as crises of significant assertion is just a fun coincidence. So, if you want to advance or verify knowledge claims which can be rationally assessed a truth value and confirm hypotheses, then creationism simply is not playing in the same ball park as biological evolution.

" Knowledge is not obtained from hermeneutics, only agreement (or disagreement)." Yaaay!! So Mr. K, is knowledge obtained from what? Empiricism? All knowledge? Can knowledge ever be obtained from revelation? Or introspection? — robert bristow-johnson, Jan 05 '17 at 07:46
@robertbristow-johnson knowledge is empirical verification of what is (else how do you know what is?) Wisdom obtains knowledge of which there are three kinds, axiomatic, empirical and self-knowledge. No, knowledge is not obtained by revelation nor introspection. You would do well to distinguish verstehen from weltanschauung and what is true from what is "true to [me; you; us; them]". Note that empiricism is distinct from empirical (observational) verification. "Is knowledge obtained from what?"? Using your senses. — MmmHmm, Jan 05 '17 at 07:59

What philosophical objections based on irrationality have been put forward against the Creationist belief?

2 Answers2