Metriology

Metriology (from Greek: μέτριος - middling, mediocre, unremarkable + λόγος - cause) is the notion that the introduction of a perfect being into explanations for the universe we find ourselves in is not just a pleasing fiction but a leap that is contrary to experience.  Every advancement in our understanding of the universe seems to support the notion that nothing is truly exceptional, so why would god be?  If the cosmos originated in a realm beyond our understanding and experience, is it not as likely to be filled with even more inconceivable challenges to excellence for the artisan than that everything for the creator is a snap?  This is not to suggest that there necessarily is an actual mediocre author behind the universe, merely that introducing an author into the explanation at all adds complications that, given the unsettlability of the matter, require desperate credulity to overcome.  Requiring the author to be not merely adequate but perfect makes the story less likely, not more.

Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury's Ontological proof for the existence of god is approaching the end of its first millenium, and it is still regularly proffered as a show-stopper in theological arguments. The proof runs like this:

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

6. God exists in the mind as an idea.

7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Painfully clever though this argument is, it is the textbook illustration of "Begging the Question." Kant, for one, took issue with the concept that Existence is a given as a quality of Perfection.  I would argue that a merely existing God is inferior to a God whose Existence is Incontrovertibly Manifest to All of that God's Creatures.  Speaking for myself, that greater imagined god does not exist.  Substitute for "God" in the above, as Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo of Marmoutier did, the made up concept of "Piland" - the island than which none greater can be imagined - or, I don't know,  "Giscuit" - the biscuit than which none greater can be imagined - and you experience very vividly the ho-hum quality of Anselm's pleading.

1. By definition, Giscuit is a biscuit than which none greater can be imagined.

2. A biscuit that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a biscuit that does not necessarily exist.

3. Thus, by definition, if Giscuit exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine some biscuit that is greater than Giscuit.

4. But we cannot imagine some biscuit that is greater than Giscuit.

5. Thus, if Giscuit exists in the mind as an idea, then Giscuit necessarily exists in reality.

6. Giscuit exists in the mind as an idea.

7. Therefore, Giscuit necessarily exists in reality.

As awesome as Giscuit would be right now, I'm not convinced it exists.

If there is a creator, why would we assume that it is perfect?  If a single entity were powerful beyond what any of us could achieve, but we are the achievement, where does it follow that that being is unique and flawless?  I mean look at us.  Isn't it far more likely given everything we know about life, the universe and everything in it that if there is an entity responsible for everything we see that it is pretty average as responsible entities go?  It's not good enough to say the bible tells us that god is perfect.  It would say that, wouldn't it?

Make no mistake, my issue is not with the universe, of which I'm generally a fan, and of which I am moreover at certain profound moments in awe.  My problem is with the impulse to ascribe to a conceived of being sole authorship to it, and not just responsibility for it, but perfection in the execution of it.  Is it to god's glory that we exalt god? Or is it to make us feel better about ourselves, who were reported (suspiciously by us) to be created in the epic author's image?  My money is on the second option.  How typical of us would that be if I'm right!