Above is one of the comics that had some Christians wondering excitedly whether Watterson was a Christian. Notice that it is not Hobbes, but Calvin who is making the teleological argument for God, which is a bit funny. Now, when I say the teleological argument, I do not mean the bastardized version that some creationists were trying to use in order to force the teaching of mature earth creationism in the 1990’s. That version, called Intelligent Design, was unfaithful to philosophical history in that the historical arguments for Intelligent Design did not reach any conclusions about how the universe was created, rather the original arguments reached the conclusion that the universe was created and that it showed evidence of a guiding hand. In fact, the historical philosophical arguments for intelligent design did not reach any conclusion about whether the supreme being who created was Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or none of the above. To try to use the teleological argument to try to force allowing the teaching of some form of Christian version of creationism was, therefore, to do violence to the argument. The ends may have been reasonable, but the means were not.
What is the teleological argument for God?
A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination of these — in nature. The word “teleological” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”. Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. Immanuel Kant called this argument the Physico–theological proof.
Notice that, again, Watterson reduces the entire philosophical history of the teleological argument to just three panels! The reason I say that it is funny that the argument is placed in Calvin’s mouth is that, in some sense, the teleological argument fits under the heading of natural theology. And, the strongest proponent of natural theology in European Church history was Thomas Aquinas. He was also, “The most notable of the scholastics (c. 1100–1500) who put forth teleological arguments . . . .” But, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica also represents the pinnacle of the very medieval scholastic theology that the Calvinist Reformers bitterly opposed.
So, do you catch Watterson’s joke? He places arguments voiced by Aquinas in the mouth of a character named after a Reformer bitterly opposed to Aquinas’ theology, particularly some, but not all, of his natural theology. But, he also presents the teleological argument in a non-threatening setting, a cartoon, a setting much more likely to let people consider the argument without having an immediate knee-jerk reaction against it. And, in the last panel, he lowers the pressure by having Calvin and Hobbes return to their normal wacky selves.
When I first started hearing about “Intelligent Design” I thought, “Finally–a bridge that can get both sides talking.” Next thing I knew the creationists had highjacked the theory and turned it back into young-earth creationism, with the Grand Canyon as proof (somehow Noah’s flood keeps entering the discussion).
Ironically, it was Einstein’s relativity that brought science back around to a biblical view of creation, but we never hear about that from the creationists. Before relativity (and the resulting Big Bang theory that creationists seem to despise) the science of the 18th and 19th centuries had assumed that the universe was eternal and infinite—contrary to the Bible, which attributes these qualities only to God.
With Einstein’s theories about time and space, the concepts of eternity and infinity were re-examined. Also, the universe appeared to be expanding, and this led to the Big Bang theory, which is itself a creation story. It can’t say what did the creating, but it’s much better in tune with the Bible than the science of the 18th and 19th centuries, which left the possibility of a creator God out of the discussion. So why is the Big Bang a threat to the Bible?
I prefer to call it the “Big Beginning” since there was likely no sound. Two reasons: no medium outside it, such as air, to carry sound waves; and nobody to hear it anyway, like that tree that we keep talking about. And calling it a Big Beginning might get us back to a dialogue, for it sounds suspiciously like Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” > BANG <
Would this work? Or are some people simply determined to disagree?
Einstein’s theories also destroyed the popular reductionist ideas of the day and replaced them with a science at it’s most basic level completely irrational yet completely correct. Thus faith is no longer less logical than science. In fact, quantum mechanics once again allowed science and faith to coexist perfectly as science could no longer claim to hold all the answers.
William, thanks. Your statement that “quantum mechanics once again allowed science and faith to coexist perfectly as science could no longer claim to hold all the answers” reminds me of something Lesslie Newbigin said. I don’t have that quote verbatim, but to the effect that we should not expect science to “prove” the Bible true; to suggest that would be to admit that science is an authority higher than the Bible.
If all truth comes from God, in the end there will be no disagreement between scientific truth and the Bible–paradoxes, perhaps, and misunderstandings, but no real conflict as they should complement one another.
Quantum mechanics expresses concepts that appear to be logically contradictory when we try to explain them. For instance, we can either measure the location or the speed of a particle, but not both? Paired particles respond instantaneously to each other regardless of the distance separating them?
If nothing else, quantum mechanics should have shown both Christians and secularists to be careful of insisting on absolute logical consistency, since our logic is based only on what we know and cannot take into account what we do not know.
I was raised in the Presbyterian church which was Calvinist. I married a Lutheran girl and became a Lutheran. I read that Calvin & Luther never met; however, they never quite agreed with one another. To this day, Lutherans & Calvinists offer argueable opions to one another. They both offer interesting comments, but I believe both to be devout Christians.