The Argument "For and Against" Agency and Creative Intelligence (Human and Divine)

[Counterpoint]

I. The Argument “Against” Agency and Creative Intelligence (Human and Divine)

Random variation and natural selection can fully explain the apparent design we see in biological organisms. So, there is no need to invoke divine agency or creative intelligence. We need only invoke genetic evolution.

“The whole point about evolutionary theory is that you do not need anyone to direct it, least of all consciously.” (source: pg. 239, “The Meme Machine” by Susan Blackmore)

Random variation and natural selection can fully explain the apparent design we see in human artifacts. So, there is no need to invoke human agency or creative intelligence. We need only invoke memetic evolution.

“The word meme is…a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.” (source: Wikipedia: Meme)

“We once thought that biological design needed a creator, but we now know that natural selection can do all the designing on its own. Similarly, we once thought that human design required a conscious designer inside us, but we now know that memetic selection can do it on its own.” (source: pg. 242, “The Meme Machine” by Susan Blackmore)

II. The Argument “For” Agency and Creative Intelligence (Human and Divine)

A truly random act or event is something that is spontaneous - even “magical.” Why? Because a truly random act or event defies a naturalistic explanation. It has no physical explanation. So, if truly random acts or events are occurring, then indeterminism holds true.

Merriam-Webster defines “indeterminism” as “a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes” and “a theory that holds that not every event has a cause.”

The above definition implies libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilist free will). Libertarians must reoncile self-determinism (will) with randomness or spontaneity (freedom). How do they accomplish this? By invoking the “two-stage model of free will.”

The following is an excerpt taken from Wikipedia that explains the two-stage model of free will:

A two-stage model of free will separates the free stage from the will stage.

In the first stage, alternative possibilities for thought and action are generated, in part indeterministically.
In the second stage, an adequately determined will evaluates the options that have been developed.

If, on deliberation, one option for action seems best, it is selected and chosen. If no option seems good enough, and time permitting, the process can return to the further generation of alternative possibilities (“second thoughts”) before a final decision.

A two-stage model can explain how an agent could choose to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances that preceded the first stage of the overall free will process. (source: Wikipedia: Two-stage model of free will)

Please note that the two-stage model is based on the same two principles as Darwinian evolution - namely, random variation and natural selection. The first stage involves random variation because the possibilities for thought are generated, at least in part, randomly or spontaneously. The second stage involves natural selection because the possibilities are selected by a determined will. Also note that random variation serves the same purpose here as it does in evolution,namely, to generate novelty and creativity.

Question: Do we have any scientific evidence for truly random or spontaneous events?

Answer: Yes. It’s called quantum indeterminism.

Question: Why is this relevant?

Answer: Because “classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, while quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain’s function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.” (source; Wikipedia: Quantum mind) Also, quantum effects are directly linked to genetic mutations.

“Quantum effects are directly related to mutations. Therefore, indeterminism originating in the subatomic world can impact genetic variability.” - professor Anatoly Ruvinsky, pg. 37, “Genetics and Randomness”)

Ken Miller, evolutionary biology and prominent opponent (not proponent) of intelligent design, writes:

“Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay.” pg. 241 “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth R. Miller

Question: Are you seriously implying that “God” is involved in quantum effects?

Answer: I’m arguing that “consciousness collapses the wave function” is the most parsimonious explanation to account for the quantum measurement problem. Such a position would imply an all-pervasive consciousness or mind (human, divine, and otherwise).

“Even an electron has at least a rudimentary mental pole, respresented mathematically by the quantum potential.” (source: pg. 387 “The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory” by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I. The Argument “Against” Agency and Creative Intelligence (Human and Divine)

Random variation and natural selection can fully explain the apparent design we see in biological organisms. So, there is no need to invoke divine agency or creative intelligence. We need only invoke genetic evolution.

Random variation and natural selection can fully explain the apparent design we see in human artifacts. So, there is no need to invoke human agency or creative intelligence. We need only invoke memetic evolution.

II. The Argument “For” Agency and Creative Intelligence (Human and Divine)

A truly random act or event is something that is spontaneous - even “magical.” Why? Because a truly random act or event defies a naturalistic explanation. It has no physical explanation. So, if truly random acts or events are occurring, then indeterminism holds true.

The above definition implies libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilist free will). Libertarians must reoncile self-determinism (will) with randomness or spontaneity (freedom). How do they accomplish this? By invoking the “two-stage model of free will.”

The following is an excerpt taken from Wikipedia that explains the two-stage model of free will:

Please note that the two-stage model is based on the same two principles as Darwinian evolution - namely, random variation and natural selection. The first stage involves random variation because the possibilities for thought are generated, at least in part, randomly or spontaneously. The second stage involves natural selection because the possibilities are selected by a determined will. Also note that random variation serves the same purpose here as it does in evolution,namely, to generate novelty and creativity.

Question: Do we have any scientific evidence for truly random or spontaneous events?

Answer: Yes. It’s called quantum indeterminism.

Question: Why is this relevant?

Answer: Because “classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, while quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain’s function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.” (source; Wikipedia: Quantum mind) Also, quantum effects are directly linked to genetic mutations.

Ken Miller, evolutionary biology and prominent opponent (not proponent) of intelligent design, writes:

Question: Are you seriously implying that “God” is involved in quantum effects?

Answer: I’m arguing that “consciousness collapses the wave function” is the most parsimonious explanation to account for the quantum measurement problem. Such a position would imply an all-pervasive consciousness or mind (human, divine, and otherwise).

Nothing about a contingent universe happens by accident. More fundamentally, the very existence of a contingent universe is repugnant to reason. I suggest you begin a serious study of Thomas Aquinas. You can read Aquinas by Edward Feser,

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (Editiones Scholasticae)

, then follow his blogspot. Then you will be ready for Thomas Aquinas himself.

God is absolutely other than the universe.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

Nothing about a contingent universe happens by accident. More fundamentally, the very existence of a contingent universe is repugnant to reason. I suggest you begin a serious study of Thomas Aquinas. You can read Aquinas by Edward Feser,

Aquinas himself held that the universe was contingent. In fact, the “argument from contingency” is probably his most famous argument for the existence of God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aquinas himself held that the universe was contingent. In fact, the “argument from contingency” is probably his most famous argument for the existence of God.

Yes, but remember that it was a contingent universe that existed eternally. In which case God would be eternally creating a contingent universe out of nothing. Thomas discusses this in On the Eternity of the World.

I’m not certain Aristotle taught the same thing. In Book Xll of Metaphysics he seems to accept a contingent world as a bald fact without explanation. For this world, it is change/motion which requires the existence of the immutable, immaterial, transcendent God ( his notion of God is very close to what Aquinas reasons to, that is one reason why Aquinas and the Islamic Philosophers referred to Aristotle as **the Philosopher. )

One must be careful about using Wikipedia as one’s only source as these are always distilled from someone elses interpretations.

Linus2nd**

 

[Counterpoint]

Yes, but remember that it was a contingent universe that existed eternally. In which case God would be eternally creating a contingent universe out of nothing. Thomas discusses this in On the Eternity of the World.

The point is that Aquinas held that the world and everything in it is was contingent.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The point is that Aquinas held that the world and everything in it is was contingent.

No. I was responding to your post which questioned causality. " Contingent " does not mean uncaused. It implies causality, in contradiction to your post.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

No. I was responding to your post which questioned causality. " Contingent " does not mean uncaused. It implies causality, in contradiction to your post.

In the original post of this thread, I never used the word “contingent.” Nor did I at any point later in this thread argue that the word implies “uncaused.” So, I don’t know what you are referring to.

Previously, you stated that “the very existence of a contingent universe is repugnant to reason.” And I responded by commenting that “Aquinas himself held the universe to be contingent.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the original post of this thread, I never used the word “contingent.” Nor did I at any point later in this thread argue that the word implies “uncaused.” So, I don’t know what you are referring to.

Previously, you stated that “the very existence of a contingent universe is repugnant to reason.” And I responded by commenting that “Aquinas himself held the universe to be contingent.”

Well, your O.P. implies a contingent universe that exists and operates without cause. I merely countered that thought. If I missinterpreted your meaning I apologize.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

Well, your O.P. implies a contingent universe that exists and operates without cause. I merely countered that thought. If I missinterpreted your meaning I apologize.

The second argument in my O.P. implies that the universe is the result of an uncaused cause.