Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
The Evolution of God Evolutionary Teleology Robert Wright
Journalist, Philosopher
“The Story of this Evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity”
Post 108.March 08, 2020 continued . . .
The Evolution of God
Teleo-Logos
The Logos, or guiding principle, of evolution was an ancient pre-scientific theory intended to explain the obvious order and organization of the natural world. Wright uses the term as a metaphor, but he still thinks it has rational validity. He asks, “where does the order come from?” His tentative answer said that we no longer need to imagine a miracle-working inter-ventionist deity, “because here on earth, everything is under control, in accordance with the original plan, the Logos”. That may still sound like a religious belief, but “in this worldview, there is little difference between a scientist’s faith — faith in the orderly laws that govern the world — and religious faith”. Both sides can agree that evolution has progressed from simplicity to complexity, but is that a sign of intention, of purpose or design, or is that hierarchy an accident of randomness? Could Random Chance have worked in reverse order? Not likely, because the prior Cause6 must possess potential for the later Effect. Moreover, the regressive law of Thermodynamics converts order into disorder (Entropy). But the progressive law of Teleo-Logos (what I call Enformy7) creates order out of chaos, just like an intentional design.
Lest anyone dismiss Wright’s Logos as a biblical reference, he says, “the whole point of the Logos, remember, was to get rid of the need for a hands-on, interventionist God. . . . The Logos was supposed to be less like a personal god and more like the laws of nature or of a computer program”. Yet it seems to be a natural law or inherent program with a teleological mission : perhaps to increase complexity & intelligence in order to create moral beings — like little gods. He doesn’t dwell on that imputed implication, but he explains, “All the Logos does is create situations in which ever larger circles of moral inclusion make rational sense.” To that extent, we could say that this non-god is Good. So, he addresses the goodness question in an Afterword : By The Way, What Is God? He asks rhetorically, “what good does a ‘god’ this abstract do for traditional believers?” The notion of Logos provides a rationale for ontological reality, but not much emotional relief for existential anxiety, or for unfulfilled desires. Apparently, the average human will just have to suck-it-up and become more rational like Scientists and Buddhists.
This hypothetical invisible force, presumably pushing the world toward a better future, does not seem to do special favors for individuals, or for a chosen people. Hence, the impartial Logos may only be “good” for the world as a whole system. The rest of us minor role players will have to become less self-centered, and more altruistic — which is the point of most moral systems anyway. Buddhism even denies the existence of an individual Soul, and its Heaven is the non-existent state of Nirvana (becoming one with the whole). Although the Logos possesses some of the characteristics of a traditional God, Wright carefully avoids committing to any religious notion of deity, except possibly the Buddha’s implicit assent to the Hindu creator god, Brahman, who is necessary to explain bare existence. Wright does attribute the property of creativity to Evolution, but remains ambivalent about any other god-like features. He says progressive Evolution is “the kind of physical system that wouldn’t ‘just happen’ : it must be the result of a creative process that imbues things with functionality”.
Post 108 continued . . . click Next
Teleological Stairway of Evolution
Moral Imagination
Where, for example, is the actual scientific evidence that people possess a mental faculty corresponding to the moral imagination? Where is the evidence that this faculty was built by natural selection or that it stopped evolving after our days on the savanna?
Can Science Explain Religion?
H. Allen Orr
The New York Review of Books
The existence of “objective” Moral Values is not a physical phenomenon detectable by scientific methods. Instead, it is an inference from human history. And some recent historians have concluded that there is philosophical evidence for, not only an innate moral sense, but moral progress over time. Non-theists Steven Pinker and Michael Shermer have written best-seller books documenting their inference that morality is a real “mental faculty” and a historical fact.
5. Causation : Our concept of causation is based on the observation that certain phenomena almost always occur together in a specific order : event A precedes event B, therefore we conclude that A is the cause of B. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. So we must keep in mind that some sequential order can be random. Correlation does not prove Causation. But if the relationship is consistent, we can safely assume the prior event is the cause of the later event, until proven otherwise. Modern science can detect exchanges of invisible energy, which is defined as the causal agent of all physical change. But we know it only by its effects on matter.
6. Enformy : In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypo-thetical, holistic, meta-physical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
NEXT
BACK
Forum
