These are the standard objections to argument #4 on the list provided here...
The authors select analogies which support a particular premise, only to switch to a different analogy to support the next premise where their original analogy would fail.
Many things exist in degrees, but it does not necessarly follow that all scales contain an orderable sequence with a greatest or least element. For example, there is no greatest integer, but there is nothing whiter than white or blacker than black. The individual colours that make white are monochromatic frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum. White is the lightest red, but also the lightest blue, green and millions of other frequencies. It is also the combination of all colours so in that respect white is not at the end of a scale at all. Things have degrees of heat and there is a minimum temperature (absolute zero) and a maximum of the Planck temperature. We can mathematically conceive of temperatures above and below this scale, but they don't exist mathematically. But does that mean they are physically impossible?
Using the analogy of maximum and minimum scales can also lead to ridiculous conclusions. Consider a scale of smell. Some people are smellier than others. The authors would have us believe there is a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist an ultimate stink*
The argument includes another false analogy whereby heat is compared to colour. The argument suggests that being lighter in colour is a result of being "closer" to white in the same way that being closer to a source of heat causes an object to be hotter in terms of radiant heat. This analogy would require the existence of a non-existent concept of “radiant colour lightness” to be valid. The analogy also assumes that hot objects are heated externally – this is untrue (consider the sun for example).
There is a false assumption that “goodness” can be compared to temperature. Temperature can be measured, goodness cannot. For example, which is more good – a rose or a daffodil? Who was less good – Genghis Khan or Hitler?
The authors assume that “our” way of being is “better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal.” But that is a purely subjective assessment which is impossible to confirm.
These premesis are then followed by the unjustified assumption that there must be a “Best being”. But life is not a linear sequence of improving beings - life evolves as a tree. So we could apply the concept of scale to any species of life and thereby it would result at millions of different things (gods) who are the maximum of each species.
The argument that degress of goodness lead to something which has ultimate goodness, necessitates degrees of badness or evil. This means there must be something which is ultimate evil and is just as powerful and profound as the ultimate good. An all powerful evil being would exist as well as an all powerful good being.
* © Richard Dawkins
No comments:
Post a Comment