Meyer’s regressive ‘god hypothesis’….A Covert Nod to Meyer’s “God Hypothesis”? | Evolution News

Meyer has jumped the gun, it seems. The ID camp has long been plotting the final stage of their intelligent design campaign, a sort of theological time machine to go backwards. Their final coup is premature–in a debate that never ends.
There is no mystery in the return of the ‘god hypothesis’. It is the same mystery as the return of the ‘atheist or no-god’ hypothesis. None of these propaganda peddlers on the right (or left) have the nerve to read or cite Kant (they have read him and he lives in a theological taboo zone of cancel culture). Evidence of design and the issue of god are antinomial issues and have no real solution. The evidence is clear, more or less, but they invite a metaphysical trap, god hypotheses being one. The Kantian take is simple enough, in my version: the debate goes back and forth and never ends. We cannot use evidence of (intelligent) design as proof of the existence of god. Or vice versa. Darwinists created a huge hole through which ID theologicans have been able to drive a huge truck on the way to a conservative revival of Christianity. The natural selection theory, used to replace design arguments is so idiotic that if you claim it as true and/or as a path to atheism you hand victory to the simple question of design in nature and design in cosmology.
You can posit that design, if not ‘intelligent’ design, speaks to a higher level of lawfulness that generates lower-level design, but you can’t really ascribe that to a mind, as far as we know. Mind belongs to that lower level. STill, the argument is compelling for some. In that case you must start over and not use worn-out terms like ‘god’ which are so entangled in antique theologies that generate total muddle.
One of the clearest ways to break through this confusion is to shuffle the deck with Buddhist memes: buddhas reach enlightenment beyond mind. So would a mind behind the universe reach enlightenment beyond mind? In fact, a sort of god hypothesis takes shape in the belief of a god realm, not the one god to be sure, and then the realm of titans,etc, and it is clearly indicated that the buddha’s enlightenment goes beyond the ‘god realm’. So, who knows? The design speculation can as well reach polytheism. (or else a short circuit via all this nonsense).
The mystery behind design eludes our concepts. We can indeed consider that design in nature ‘seems’ ‘intelligent’ but we can’t close the case without entering a swamp of fallacies. And the idea of the ‘existence’ of god is equally flawed because ‘god’ would be beyond existence or else be a pagan zeus of some sort.
The evidence of design might well lead an atheist to reconsider his views, but reconsider to what? He must invent new terminology and be wary not to fall into ancient confusions or empower reactionary religions. If we speak of design we can become entangled in biblical myth, for example. The ID camp on the right wishes to use design arguments to buttress conservative culture politics. But we cannot move into a future of ‘design considered’ and then use that to affirm the god of the old testament. And we can’t any longer cover over the ‘mess of memes’ with faith, that ancient tactic to make the non-beliver first stupid, then a believer. The return of the god hypothesis would be an hypothesis, therefore, and can’t be taken on faith.
All this said, putting ‘god’ on the hypothesis spectrum is a valid gesture,  but you can’t put new wine in old bottles. The world is struggling past Christianity and its ambiguous history. It has turned rancid as a poison. There is no going back, using a design argument.

Source: A Covert Nod to Meyer’s “God Hypothesis”? | Evolution News

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 )

Connecting to %s