The problem with this, and with the entire concept in the article is that “reason” (design, purpose, whatever) depends on choice, the concept that we are able to decide to act a certain way, or believe a certain thing. But there’s no basis for choice in nature—physics at every level is either random (probabilistic) or deterministic (cause and effect), and neither can be considered “choice.” Therefore, there is no fundamental difference scientifically between a wristwatch, or a beehive, or the pattern of raindrops in a storm, or an atom of Hydrogen. If ANY of those things are considered to be “designed” the one making that claim has to explain how humans (or intelligence) somehow transcended the laws of nature to go beyond the “blind idiot god” that describes all other phenomena.
Design, purpose, choice, reason, the ability to “think and choose”—THESE are the things that only a God can really explain. The real question for theology is “since we design things, how can we exist or come from a universe which is so clearly and totally not designed?” Only something outside of that nature could explain the existence of Reason itself.
In short, the author is looking for God in the wrong place. Or else, we all are just living an illusion that we can choose to agree or disagree with he or I.
But there’s no basis for choice in nature—physics at every level is either random (probabilistic) or deterministic (cause and effect), and neither can be considered “choice.”
Er, no. Choice is part of the way your (and my) brain works; brains operate, as do everything else, within the laws of physics, being implemented on them (as is everything else).
I am a subsystem of the universe; I am deterministic. I consider possibilities; each one was found by my brain as it proceeds according to physics. I choose; the method of selection is part of my brain as it proceeds according to physics (as does everything else).
I am deterministic. I choose. You are deterministic. You choose. These are not incompatible: they are at different levels.
The problem with this, and with the entire concept in the article is that “reason” (design, purpose, whatever) depends on choice, the concept that we are able to decide to act a certain way, or believe a certain thing. But there’s no basis for choice in nature—physics at every level is either random (probabilistic) or deterministic (cause and effect), and neither can be considered “choice.” Therefore, there is no fundamental difference scientifically between a wristwatch, or a beehive, or the pattern of raindrops in a storm, or an atom of Hydrogen. If ANY of those things are considered to be “designed” the one making that claim has to explain how humans (or intelligence) somehow transcended the laws of nature to go beyond the “blind idiot god” that describes all other phenomena.
Design, purpose, choice, reason, the ability to “think and choose”—THESE are the things that only a God can really explain. The real question for theology is “since we design things, how can we exist or come from a universe which is so clearly and totally not designed?” Only something outside of that nature could explain the existence of Reason itself.
In short, the author is looking for God in the wrong place. Or else, we all are just living an illusion that we can choose to agree or disagree with he or I.
Er, no. Choice is part of the way your (and my) brain works; brains operate, as do everything else, within the laws of physics, being implemented on them (as is everything else).
I am a subsystem of the universe; I am deterministic. I consider possibilities; each one was found by my brain as it proceeds according to physics. I choose; the method of selection is part of my brain as it proceeds according to physics (as does everything else).
I am deterministic. I choose. You are deterministic. You choose. These are not incompatible: they are at different levels.