h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Belief and Inference - A953705
Author: BillSD - U188502

This is being submitted by me on behalf of BillSD, who authored this superb entry. It is a part of the university project on belief, and *was* written before the deadline (promise).

Ste

"We can infer that if cosmic reality is intelligible to our minds, which are themselves the evolutionary product of the cosmos itself (we are all some kind of star dust), then somehow the cosmos itself is rooted in intelligence."

Would it not be rather an odd kind of evolved intelligence that didn't include making sense of the cosmos which is its own environment? It's rather like saying that if we can see the stars, then they must be rooted in vision!

This is a very good entry; it's well written and makes its case well.

It happens to be a case that I don't agree with, but in context that's not important.

Still, I can't resist making one point to ponder.



But does foundational intelligence without intelligibility make any more sense? The point is not dissimilar to Toxx,s and could make for a good discussion sometime.

Noggin

I like this entry, and it goes some way towards balancing the predominantly neutral or actively atheistic tone of the rest of the project.

B

Howdy, Ben. Contrary to this entry's assertion, there is nothing remarkable about the Anthropic Principle per se. The following clip makes the point quite succinctly, I think.

"This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle. Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special."

Source: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

Noggin. Although a detailed consideration of the Anthropic Principle is beyond the scope of this entry, you might be interested in at least scanning the following link: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html

Toxx wonders “If we can see the stars are they rooted in vision?” Well, not exactly, but…vision is a precursor to intelligibility. It is one of several means by which an organism acquires data about the environment. The ancient philosophers held that: “nothing is in the intellect unless it first comes through the senses.” The organism organizes and interprets the data, including whatever comes through seeing. This interpretation of data requires consciousness & subjectivity. So we are right back to the question I raised. The power of seeing is a component in the ensemble of cognition, so the question remains: does the cosmos that evolves capacities of cognition from within itself not point to some kind of grounding beyond itself? Those who favor a materialistic reductionist descriptive explanations say no, the universe just exists and that’s all there is to it. They say we cannot go beyond this. But I think those who hold this reductionistic position have arbitrarily restricted both the full range of the human capacity to understand and the scope of the methodologies by which we know things.

It is very true that nothing happens apart from the cosmic/biological evolutionary process. It is also true that no image, impression, memory, thought, etc. occurs apart from the chemical-biological activity of the brain—which activity can be measured. But so what? Though we have not had the science to measure accurately until very recently, even as far back as Aristotle it has been known that intellect always operates in every way through the organism itself. Science since the 17th century has added an organized and systematized explanation of how things occur. This is a tremendous achievement. The problem is that the methods by which the various sciences operate still do not encompass the entire range of the human capacity to know.

The classic point—again going back at least to Aristotle—is that the cosmos is comprised of countless entities all of which are themselves contingent open other entities within the cosmos. The entire cosmos is thus itself contingent upon a being whose existence is in no way contingent but is “necessary.” Put another way—and this is a huge issue which I can’t really develop fully now—there is such a thing as “cause and effect.” Every effect must have a cause. Obviously causality within the cosmos is reciprocal, interrelated and interdependent, but the universe itself requires a cause. This is the so-called “primary cause” approach. Yet again: the universe demonstrates a marvelous design. Therefore, it requires a designer. Each of these statements has been the subject of volumes, but briefly my point about intelligibility requiring intelligence is related to this kind of philosophical thinking—which is not only still valid but is making a comeback.

Intelligibility, which presupposes consciousness and subjectivity, arises as a contingent process within the universe. Through this process we are able to apprehend and understand something of the marvelous design present from the very first nanosecond of cosmic existence. Why is this so? Contemporary science can answer a lot of questions about this, but not the “why” question, but then science isn’t supposed to answer such questions and science don’t attempt to. Scientists, engaging the wider philosophical scope of inquiry, do address such questions. When they do so, they are going beyond the realm of their specific scientific methods.

Maybe the question can’t be answered, but the various notions mentioned, i.e., that contingent being is grounded in a non-contingent necessary being; that various reciprocally related causalities require a primary cause and that the intricacies and complexity of the universe require a designer--these at least do not evade the fundamental, ancient questions which have arisen in new and contemporary forms.

One of the modern arguments against the wider philosophical tradition has been that everything can be explained by chance events occurring over an immense period of time. But we now know that chance over however long a time operates within a lawlike context of necessity. So necessity has by no means been ruled out by chance, but it has come back as a constituent within the cosmos. The “bootstrap” theory that particles create the force that holds them together—hence everything consists of everything else and the cosmos just holds itself in existence--isn’t particularly productive as a theory and still evades the fundamental question. I can’t hold myself in the air by pulling on my own bootstraps. Neither can the cosmos. Chaos theory shows that physical systems operate in nonlinear and reflexive ways so that their behavior is “intrinsically unpredictable” but not completely haphazard. Of course we already knew something of that from quantum physics. So we now know that there is “ordered-disorder,” There is a kind of controlled haphazard range of events. So randomness itself is constrained in some ways.


So in this context, for these reasons and for many others, I still hold that the intelligibility of the cosmos to us who dwell within it indicates a foundational intelligence in which the cosmos itself is rooted. The theistic hypothesis holds that the universe is grounded in a necessary, non-contingent, intelligent reality which not only to designs it but continues to hold it in being. This position in no way diminishes the inherent value of universe or the dynamic processes within it. The universe is simultaneously fully autonomous and completely dependent. The theistic position, of course, can be neither proved nor disproved by any scientific method, but requires philosophical thinking and a wider epistemology than that allowed by reductionists. The philosophical tradition is able to deal with nonlinear shades of meaning. We are, of course, learning more all the time about how nonlinear a place the cosmos really is.

Cosmic and biological evolution are intrinsic to the universe and are immensely creative processes. This has further enriched the theistic hypothesis and deepened reflection upon the designer/primary cause. What we now know about the reflexive ability of the system to act upon itself as through consciousness and subjectivity shows how profound is the relationship between intelligence and the cosmos. Even in quantum physics, for example, the attempt to know something or to measure it alters the transaction. The intelligibility of the cosmos is not just a correlate or a product of the intelligence that arises from within it, but somehow a central feature of existence. In my view this remarkable and even relentless intelligibility points beyond the cosmos to an overarching intelligence.

One final thought. My comment: “Intelligibility without foundational intelligence makes no sense.” Noggin's question: “does foundational intelligence without intelligibility make any more sense?” There is a theological insight in this question that I hadn’t thought about for years. Strictly speaking intelligibility is the capacity to know consequent upon the existence of intelligence. An intelligent being is at least partially intelligible to itself. In the theistic hypothesis God’s being would be completely intelligible to divine intelligence even apart from the universe. So I suppose a rigorous philosophical answer to this question would be yes. But from a biblical Christian perspective the answer may very well be “no it doesn’t make any sense.” In the biblical context the “fullness” of God is poured out in profusion into creation. The New Testament Greek word used for this is “pleroma” and this is one of its meanings used with reference to God’s activity in the cosmos. So, I would now say, given what we know from contemporary science and also from recent biblical studies, God’s foundational intelligence makes far better sense because of the profusion of intelligence and the various kinds of intelligibility within the cosmos.

Dagnammit Bill, I'm not going to be able to do justice to all that after just staggering back from the pub (well after midnight here). Wonderful stuff but kinda mixed genres.

I know I was taking a certain position in opposition to what you wrote, but I was taught by Richard Swinburne of whom Bill Craig is probably the natural successor. I've spent hours defending the kalam argument. Hope you checked out the reference I addressed to Noggin. I remain agnostic though, which is a position that isn't necessarily as you describe it.

I think you conflate the cosmological argument and the argument from design in a way which weakens or, at least, confuses your case. Guess that's little more than a stylistic point. We must get seriously down to business pretty soon, but not tonight when I'm just a touch too laid back.

Noggin and I are regularly on the 'God; fact or fiction' thread as Ste will confirm.

G'nite!

Hope the pub was good. I love them myself but haven't had a recent visit. You're right, the two arguments are conflated by the fact that I just mentioned them in passing. All are worth volumes of discussion.

This correspondence is making me a bit thirsty.

Wonderful stuff Bill. You know, one day you might even convince me...

"Hope the pub was good. I love them myself but haven't had a recent visit."
Are you trying to hint or something Bill? Anyone on this thread is welcome to pop over to the Shakespeare in San Diego for a pint on Thursday.



Ste

Author has elvised - flea market?

Seconded

Not the flea market. This ended up as an edited entry and part of the last University Project of All. The entry point for the University Project is here: A855371. This conversation should go back to the entry it is a part of.

Ben

This entry is in the Flea Market. So, which entry in the project did it become, and why isn't BillSD credited?

<BB<