Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Ross Douthat argues for God:
idea that the universe was created with intent, intelligence and even love explained why the world in which you found yourself had the appearance of a created thing: not just orderly, law-bound and filled with complex systems necessary for human life, but also vivid and beautiful and awesome in a way that resembles and yet exceeds the human capacity for art. …
idea that human beings are fashioned, in some way, in the image of the universe’s creator explained why [you are] … obviously part of nature, an embodied creature with an animal form, and yet your consciousness also seemed to stand outside it, with a peculiar sense of immaterial objectivity, an almost God’s-eye view — constantly analyzing, tinkering, appreciating, passing moral judgment. …
assumption that humans are material creatures connected to a supernatural plane explained … incredible variety of experiences described as “mystical” or “numinous,” unsettling or terrifying, or just really, really weird — ranging from baseline feelings of oneness and universal love to strange happenings at the threshold of death to encounters with beings that human beings might label (gods and demons, ghosts and faeries) but never fully understand. …
speculation about a multiverse in part because [we have] … repeatedly confirmed the strange fittedness of our universe to human life. … “hard problem” of consciousness: the difficulty of figuring out how physical processes alone could create the lived reality of conscious life, … our long track record of successful efforts to understand the material world — doubles as evidence that our minds have something in common with whatever mind designed the universe. (More)
So the phenomena (P) to explain are:
A) our part of the universe seems tuned to allow life, which exists here, and is ordered,
B) humans now exist, are conscious, and have particular concepts of beauty and morals
C) humans think big thoughts, and have made some progress understanding the universe
D) humans also come across some weird stuff we don’t understand
The usual “science” (S) theory says:
A) a big enough dumb universe can have many differently-tuned parts; in one life arises
B) lasting life eventually creates order and minds with abstract intelligence
C) intelligence naturally creates concepts of consciousness, beauty, and morality
D) intelligence will try to and can understand some but not all of its universe
The alternative “God” (G) theory says:
A) A “perfect” mind exists without a universe, or even time, needs no resources, has no mental limits
B) Just by thinking, this mind can learn anything and create universes, life, creatures, and minds
C) This mind has particular concepts of beauty and morals, and gave them to humans
D) This mind makes some humans see strange things for various mostly-unknown reasons
So which of theories S or G does better at explaining P?
Theory S should be discounted to the extent that it seems a priori unlikely that a dumb universe would be that enormously big. Also discount S to the extent you doubt (much more than I) the usual theories suggesting why enough dumb matter might create life, and some creatures might gain abstract intelligence, seek to understand their universe, and develop concepts of feelings, beauty, and morality. Also discount S if you think the human level of understanding vs. not of its universe differs greatly from what you’d expect from the most intelligent creatures to evolve in the particular-sized societies we have seen. I don’t, and don’t see how humans understanding some things but not understanding others can both be taken as evidence for G over S.
Theory G should be discounted to the extent that you (like me) see minds like ours as way too complex to be the primitives that one postulates for a scenario, and find the idea of unconstrained minds out-of-time that make things via their thoughts to be strange and borderline incoherent. After all, all the minds we have ever seen in detail have been in time, with a great many limitations (e.g., memory, speed, mistakes, sensor input) tied in detail to the limitations of particular complex localized physical objects (i.e., particular brains). If this perfect mind can make minds more like itself, why does it make these very limited minds tied in such detail to these limited brains?
Yes, theory S may fail to predict many details of human beauty and morality concepts; according to S some details are arbitrary and random, based on contingent features of the species involved. And yes, theory G predicts that these features come from the perfect mind. But G also fails to predict those same details; it just assumes them as part of the perfect mind.
Furthermore, I don’t at all see how strange stuff that some humans see but can’t explain is support for G over S. Under both theories, there would sometimes be strange stuff that humans find hard to understand. Some claim that particular variations of the perfect mind is the best explanation of particular strange stuff, but there are many conflicting such claims. As there are variations of both S and G that predict more strange stuff, and variations that predict less strange stuff, I don’t see how the existence of strange stuff supports one over the other.
Me, I find it far easier to believe in an enormous dumb universe than in unlimited minds that can make anything by thinking, yet choose to make minds with limits tied in such detail to the limits of particular brains. Seems far simpler to me to just see the minds we see as the activity that results from the evolved brains we see, with no non-brain-based minds existing.
Added 18Aug: I should note that perhaps the most common objection to G is the “problem of evil”. If the idea of this perfect mind sharing your moral ideals is a key part of the appeal, you can indeed be put off by their appearing not to act in the way this would suggest.
Douthat’s God Argument
What exactly is incoherent, in terms of an explanation for the existence of the cosmos, about the God described in the Quran (assuming that you've done any reading on the subject)?
Here's how Allah measures up to your interpretation of the 'G' argument (which may or may not stem from a Christian understanding):
The alternative “God” (G) theory says:A) A “perfect” mind exists without a universe, or even time, needs no resources, has no mental limits
Allah isn't described as a 'mind' or 'mentality', but if this is being loosely used in the sense of 'source of wisdom, will, and knowledge', then yeah, sure. Granted.
B) Just by thinking, this mind can learn anything and create universes, life, creatures, and minds
Again, not sure where this terminology comes from, but it falls apart for Allah at the 'learning' claim. Allah is All-Knowing, so Allah has nothing to learn. Because Allah is All-Knowing, Allah is perfectly capable of all possible (i.e. non-contradictory) creation (whether we can imagine it or not).
C) This mind has particular concepts of beauty and morals, and gave them to humans
In this case, we as humans were most certainly created with the capacity to learn about, understand, accept, apply, and incorporate beauty and morality in our limited lives. Allah gives us the tools to do this, as well as the necessary knowledge to achieve it and the guidance to maintain it. Of course, it all needs a purpose and motivation, which can be found quite clearly in Islamic theology. However, the surface concept of how this is relayed to us, what we're meant to do with it, and how we're meant to proceed in the absence of our ability to act upon it, is clear.
D) This mind makes some humans see strange things for various mostly-unknown reasons
This might be a Christianity thing? Allah doesn't do anything without a reason, but we as humans are not owed all reasons by virtue of things happening to or around us (unless you're of the position that you can make demands of Allah). 'See strange things' kind of fits, since a miracle is meant to make you acknowledge a higher power without breaking your mind, but the whole 'various mostly-unknown reasons' bit would defeat the purpose of Allah's revelation (to prophets, of course, to then be disseminated to their people. Prophets, by necessity, are chosen wisely as the most upright, truthful, and eloquent representatives of their people, all of which is in Allah's control). Anything we as creation need to know or be motivated by to fulfill our purpose will be made known to us, however 'strange'. 'Strange' phenomena that could be ignored within the purview of our purpose serve as continuous reminders and evidence of Allah, which limited humans need in order to remain upright (lotta distractions out there, which Allah has given us the tools to resist and overcome. We just have to use them).
Additionally, without life-after-death, this analysis is meaningless (my assertion, but also gleaned from Islamic theology). Therefore, anyone with a conviction that nothing happens after we die would have no reason to attempt a rule-bound existence by way of moral activity, intentions, or balance. Just live, then die. Consequences be damned. None of what I said applies without consequences after death (which asserts that Hitler, for example, and his ilk, will go unpunished).
Apologies if this came off as preaching, not my intent. I read the blog plenty and appreciate the novelty of your thinking.
Pascal's Wager, anyone? https://priorprobability.co...