Articles and Papers

The Argument from Design

Order within the universe exists in infinite levels: From the invisible single-celled bacteria to the bright-blue comet blazing across the night sky, all are governed by the same laws of nature.  These natural laws work in a predictable fashion–revealing through our experiences of them a presupposed order or design to the universe.  As gravity maintains the form of the bacteria and compels the comet in an orbit around the star or planet, so too do we believe that the effect of gravity was designed for these purposes.  As we observe that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, and positioned so that plants and all manners of life can be sustained, we may reach the conclusion that the position of the Sun or Earth was intentional. Therefore, it follows that this intention implies order, and that the one who ordered everything was intelligent.
William Paley best illustrated the argument from design with his descriptions of the watch.  Just by the nature of the mechanism–with its gears, levers, springs, and coils–one can infer from the design of a watch that it was manufactured for a certain purpose.  Purposeful acts require some level of intelligence.  It is logical to believe that all the parts of a watch came together on their own accord, without human or mechanical intervention.  But this remains an impossibility because it requires an intelligent being (or a mechanical device operated by a human) to assemble these parts into a practical and trustworthy device.  Paley made this same inference with the order of the universe.  Because the universe exhibits order and is regulated by constant laws, the universe was created by none other than an intelligent being.  According to Paley, had the universe simply come into existence haphazardly order could not be prevalent.   Paley’s analogy works because it draws on many relevant similarities. His conclusion, however, has drawn much objection.
The most convincing of these objections comes from David Hume.  Hume thought it ridiculous to infer that design implies purpose.  Through his persona Philo, Hume asserted that it was impossible for one to confidently discern the causes of any effects in the world–for there are simply too many variables that one must account for.  In challenging the order of the universe one might ask “Why should I believe the universe is ordered at all?” or “Even if the universe does seem to exhibit order, why should I believe that this design was the product of an intelligent being?”; and, as Hume said, ” …it must still remain uncertain whether all the excellences of the work can justly be ascribed to the workman.”  In short, because of doubt, one cannot know the order of the universe was intentional or even if its creator was intelligent.
Overall, I believe the argument form design is valid but not sound.  It is valid because its conclusion supports its premises; but not sound because we cannot know without an inkling of doubt the true intentions of the great Creator that composed the universe.  Perhaps the universe was created with purpose and perhaps it wasn’t.  Perhaps everything spontaneously fell into place–and that the order we perceive to regulate the heavens and the earth is, quite simply, the way things came to be.

*

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument for the existence of God was put forth by St. Anselm.  What has intrigued philosophers and theists alike is that the ontological argument relies completely on a priori proofs—that empiricism is not required to discover the existence of God or Her attributes. St. Anselm proposed that since it is logical to imagine a deity whom nothing greater can be conceived, then in order for such a deity to possess these attributes She must inevitably exist outside the realm of imagination as well.  In short, if the Deity was confined only to the mind alone then She cannot, logically, said to be that which nothing greater can be conceived.
The monk Gaunilo who was a contemporary of St. Anselm has given a controversial objection to the ontological argument.  Gaunilo disagreed with St. Anselm by putting forth the idea of a perfect island–one that has all the pleasures and perks one can imagine.  Gaunilo stated that just because one can envision a state of perfection it does not follow that such perfection must necessarily exist.  In his rebuttal to Gaunilo, St. Anselm explained that the idea of a perfect island and a perfect deity are incompatible: as with the island, one can add infinite pleasures; one can imagine this island not existing, but that it is impossible to imagine God not existing.  Immanuel Kant raised a similar objection in his A Critique of the Ontological Argument when he said that “philosophers have always talked of an absolutely necessary being…” The gist of these objections is this: it does not follow that God must exist based solely on our will to imagine Her presence.
Personally, I find the ontological argument hard to digest.  Logically, I can see how it would follow for God to exist outside and within the mind based solely on Her attributes; but, I cannot agree that this means She must exist.  What the ontological argument does do, however, is raise the possibility of God’s personality.  Yet, this is only a possibility with perhaps a vast or nonexistent probability.  In my view, arguments for the existence of God cannot forgo experience.

In Search of the Promised Land

The narrative of Sally Thomas as told In Search of the Promised Land opens windows onto the “multifaceted, ambiguous nature of slavery and the complicated and peculiar nature of freedom.”  Born a slave, Sally Thomas saw her three sons gain their freedom in a world where blacks were stripped of all rights and humanity, where freedmen feared their “quasi” free status under the law, and where the judicial system of the United States persistently culled their liberties.

Born into bondage, Sally Thomas understood the importance of gaining freedom for her three sons, John, James, and Henry.  At the time that Sally lived, the rights of blacks were severely curtailed and, in the case of slaves, regulated to the status of mindless, working cattle–especially the women.  Oftentimes, women slaves “like the men, rolled logs, split rails, and put up fencing…shucked corn, sewed, cooked, knitted, and dealt with the difficulties of pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing” while at the same time having to endure inadequate housing, “long hours in the rain and cold” and the painful possibility of “severe punishments for breaking plantation rules.” (13)  In effect, blacks, even if they were indeed free, were simply viewed by landowning whites as born for hard labor and custodial services.  There was always the constant threat of being sold off, like property.  Sally Thomas always feared of her and her sons becoming separated and being “disbursed with other chattel property.” (p.48)  Being sold off was a damaging blow to the psychological welfare of slaves and free blacks.  Some slave master were even so cruel as to sell off a child “in order to discipline the mother, or a mother was sold to punish her child.” (52).  Considering that slave masters practically held their slaves’ lives in his hands, this in effect robbed slaves of all their autonomy and humanity.  Women were simply viewed as breeders and men appraised as to the value of strength and endurance.

If the status of slaves was blatantly horrific, that of freedmen was filled with much uncertainty.  In the case of Sally, she bought herself with the help of Nashville businessman G.M. Fogg; however, “if for some reason…Fogg ever needed to dispose of a portion of his property, Sally and James might be legally sold.” (p.25)  In other words, despite her efforts, Sally Thomas and her son James were still considered as slaves under the law, and being the property of G.M. Fogg (p.25).  In some cases, slaves were able to pay off their own price, only to have to wait an extended period of time to receive their official papers declaring them as freedmen—“an ambiguous and contradictory position to be in.” (p.16)  The term applied to blacks in this condition was “quasi-free”, they had bought their freedom, but were not able to show for it.  Considering that they were viewed as slaves under the law, it would have been illegal for Sally to have started her own laundry business, for the law did indeed forbade slaves from negotiating contracts, buying and selling items, and possessing their own property (p.16).   These laws in effect stopped many free blacks from opening their own businesses and, in the case of Sally, was only permitted if whites “did not care or might not have known” that they were in fact slaves.

Perhaps the most constricting institution that limited the liberties of slaves and free blacks was the United States judicial system.  Throughout Sally Thomas’s lifetime, the United States Supreme Court did much to cull rights from quasi-free slaves, as such in the case that led to the Dred Scott decision, where it was written in the majority opinion that the “Negro is a savage and has no rights that a white man is bound to respect.”(p.178)   The outcome of this case determined that slaves taken to free territory were still to be considered slaves and must be returned to their owners.  A law in 1852 “declared that free black children whose parents could not support them should be bound out to a suitable white person” and even went far as to state that any free black adult that did not wish to hire her or himself out would be “imprisoned at the discretion of the court.” (p.93)  Perhaps the law that struck the greatest amount of fear in “quasi-free” slaves was the Fugitive Slave Act, which explicitly stated that “any person held to service or labor” and who managed to escape freedom would have to be returned “to whom such service or labor shall be due.” (p.97)  One of Sally’s children, Henry Thomas, who had ran away to freedom in the North, spoke out against the Fugitive Slave Act, stating that it was simply designed to “encourage the kidnapping of freedman.”(p.98.)  In Arkansas, the law their even recommended that free blacks be “remanded to slavery or forced to leave the state.” (p.195)  This law was written into the book in several states.  In Missouri, there was proposed a bill that would expel free blacks out of the country, and blacks were gathered, “in expectation of the bill’s being passed.” (p. 195)

Outside of laws, blacks also faced intimidation on being educated.  James Thomas’s school teacher was actually “taken out by a gang of ruffians and whipped nearly to death.” (p.26) Despite these limitations, Sally Thomas saw education as the true means for gaining some sort of freedom for her sons.  Literacy among slaves was actually more common than perhaps thought, for in South Carolina, “a group of slave owners observed that there were literate blacks on virtually every plantation in the state.” (p.254-255).  Sally Thomas did much in the way of aiding her sons and grandchildren’s education by supporting them financially and providing them with room and board. (p.255)  Determined as she was, Sally Thomas would have stopped at nothing to provide her sons with the power of an education and literacy.

In conclusion, the life of Sally Thomas and her three sons and grandchildren is filled with jarring detail about the life of blacks during the pre-Civil War and Reconstruction era.  It showcases what blacks were subjected to at the time, how they were demeaned as human beings and basically stripped of every natural, inalienable right God had granted them.  Slaves were forced into life-long bondage, and the women especially were given over to menial, hard labor.  Apparently, the discretion and consideration of some slave masters did not go very far in regards to separating tasks by gender.  Those blacks who were free, were so in a “quasi” state.  Since they had not received their papers they could not officially document that they had in fact been bought into freedom.  That second-class citizenship of slaves and free blacks was constantly being chipped away by state courts and the Supreme Courts.  Yet, through these tribulations, Sally Thomas did not give up on her dream of seeing her children educated and free.