The Argument from Ugliness

he general problem for theistic teleological arguments is that the world is a mixed bag. Yes, there is order, pleasure, goodwill, and beauty aplenty. But there’s also disorder, suffering, hate, and ugliness. Now, if we are reasoning from effects to a cause, then the cause of the mixed-bag universe must be a mixed bag as well. But God can’t be a mixed bag.

Contrary to how it might appear, I don't really pick fights with the religious. (Okay, maybe sometimes.) But it's an activity I recommend highly: it is almost never boring, and never a waste of your time, even though it can be awfully tedious and frustrating. Atheists generally repeat each other in their arguments, because the position is always more or less the same; so even at the risk of being called predictable, we don't mind sounding like broken records. The primary pleasure of debating religion with its most ardent believers is that you never — never — know what they're going to say next.

But there are a couple of things you hear regardless of whom you're debating and when, and one of them is a lengthy oral dissertation on the beauty of the world. They seem to assume that a lack of religious feeling demonstrates a lack of appreciation for nature (what atheist hasn't been asked if they've seen the sky on a clear night?) and that this is somehow a valid argument for the existence of a creator. Neither preposition is true, of course. It obviously hasn't occurred to those who advance an argument for God based on the beauty of His creation that you can't credit the deity with only the beautiful things.

All your work is still ahead of you.

(Image via NASA)