Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Sunday, October 25, 2009, 17:58 (5507 days ago) @ Frank Paris

First of all, welcome to Frank, and thank you, Matt, for the introduction.-Matt has discussed process theology with us, but it will be extremely helpful if you can make certain ideas a little clearer than they are at the moment. For me, two of the great (interconnected) mysteries are the origin of life and the source of consciousness, and I'd be grateful if you could give us your slant on these.-Like Dawkins you are "convinced that the world is exclusively physical", and you believe that "All is One". As far as we know, our universe began with a Big Bang, Earth was born, and eventually life appeared here. So far, so physical. But this is where it gets complicated, and where my scepticism begins. To say that "the natural laws are "smart enough" on their own" and "the natural laws are grounded in the divine nature", and "everything is "made out of" God-stuff" explains nothing about the process that led to life and evolution. I'll try to summarize the argument here, as it's been by far the most common area of disagreement on this forum. The simplest, earliest forms of life were so complex that they could not only reproduce themselves, but they also contained within themselves the potential to change and adapt, reproduce those changes and adaptations, and eventually even "invent" new organs. We all agree that it happened. Some say that the early forms were simple enough to assemble themselves. Others, myself included, find this incredible and wonder why, if it's all so simple, our conscious, intelligent scientists are still unable to figure out how it happened.-This is where I need something more precise than "the natural laws". David Turell has asked what you mean by "divine". I would like to link this to consciousness. If your mystic "All is One" has no consciousness of itself, I see no alternative to belief that life and potential evolution were initially the product of random combinations. In that case, what is the role of the "divine"?-I accept your criticism of the term "Intelligent Design", as it has become tainted, but "design" is too useful to jettison. However, you say it implies: "divine intervention that contravenes the laws of nature: periodically working miracles to move things forward." Although many religious people believe that, I don't think any of our current contributors do. My own concept entails a possible designer using the laws of nature which it has established. It could have set up the whole code which governs evolution. And it could even have intervened by experimenting with that code (e.g. exeunt dinosaurs, or enter hominids). By science, not by magic. There need be no difference between the theist and the atheist view of the process: life began, evolution happened. But a theist will believe that God set it all up. My view ... just to avoid any misunderstanding ... is that I haven't a clue. I don't believe that life and the codes for evolution could have come about by accident, and I don't believe in a designer.-I'd now like to come back to your "All is One" (which, incidentally, is in line with BBella's thinking), and bring in a point made by Matt under "Lost Marbles" (24 October at 03.45): "The supernatural assertion means that it is separated from nature. Otherwise the word "supernatural" wouldn't exist." We've discussed this before, but I think it's worth repeating in this context. Science is constantly discovering more and more about nature, and for this reason I dislike the term "supernatural". There may be dimensions of existence in nature that are inaccessible to us, at least for now. I've previously mentioned the examples of "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are just expressions for something we know nothing about. If they exist, they too are part of nature. This links up with the belief you share with Dawkins that the world is "exclusively physical", as one could argue that since most of the physical world is unknown to us, it could take any form. In fact, everything outside the realm of human volition might be called nature, and whatever its substance, it might be called physical. Similarly, if there is a god of whatever kind, it too is part of nature and could be an unknown physicality. We just don't know what constitutes "nature", and so with our present, extremely limited state of knowledge, we can only speculate on what it and the physical world might be. Up to this point, I'd say theism and atheism can travel along the same road. The divergence begins with consciousness. I will again summarize my subjective view:-1) atheism: Nature has no consciousness; life came about by accident; all species evolved through random mutations and combinations, environmental influences, natural laws.
2) theism: God (perhaps another name for Nature) has consciousness; life came about by design; evolution followed. (Forget the established religions. Consciousness is the only attribute I'm concerned with for the moment.)-And so, after this very long build-up, we come back to the two questions I'd like to put to your process theology: 1) At what point does consciousness begin? 2) What is its source?