Senseless Divinity

Yesterday, I showed that despite what Cootsona thinks, some arguments are not better than others. Today, let’s look at another of his arguments.

First of all, let’s get this out of the way:

Best of all: if science could prove God’s existence.

In the two articles I’ve read by Cootsona, he’s careful to point out that he’s not actually talking about proofs for his God. What he says he’s talking about are interesting scientific facts that kind of, sort of, make you think that maybe, there’s his God. Or some god, Or a Designer. Or theism. It’s like he wants to say it, but doesn’t because he knows that would be a step too far. These wishy-washy articles also give him an out; you see, he’s not actually saying his reading of the science definitively might be or might not be, proof for god. Rather, Cootsona believes:

science can present intriguing convergences with religious belief

but that only comes by mutilating or ignoring the science he’s using. Let’s look at how this article is another collection of modals that he hopes suggest the reader thinks science supports God.

Justin Barrett, through his work in developing a Cognitive Science of Religion, uses the findings of the cognitive sciences to argue that evolution has developed human beings so that we implicitly see purposes in events, or are predisposed toward teleology.

Cootsona complains that:

atheists can use this tendency to impugn belief in God—i.e., we cannot help but believe, and it starts at such an early age!

and then to his credit tries a counter argument:

Let’s try a suppositional argument. Suppose we are created by God, wouldn’t it be consistent to find an openness to belief as endemic to our cognitive structure?

Which leads me to ask, when were we created by God? If Cootsona is going to show, in his own words, “a convergence between scientific insight and theism” then leading with this is a very strange way to do it. His supposition that we were “created” flies in the face of science. Science doesn’t say that we sprang into existence, but that we evolved over millions of years. For his supposition to hold weight, he can only alter one parameter at a time, and he’s chosen to alter the source of our cognitive structure. If he needs to alter our whole creation to do that, then he’s ventured out of his original supposition and into a magical fairy tale where anything goes.

So to keep him consistent, let’s stick with evolution. Which then leads me to ask, when in our evolutionary process did God endow us with this cognitive structure? When we widen our view to look at the animal world, this question becomes moot. We are not alone at having this cognitive structure; we’re just the best at it. In terms of Cootsona’s supposition, certainly it’s an amazing coincidence that other animals have the same ability as us. And it’s an even more amazing coincidence that there is a definite scale to that ability through the animal kingdom. Because it doesn’t take into account any of these points, Cootsona’s supposition hasn’t evolved a leg to stand on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s