God and the Meaningful Life

[spetey]

Hi again DC&R debaters, I have another puzzler for you. I think it's an important one to consider.

In my experience, many people say they believe in God because God gives their lives meaning. This reason to believe involves two important claims that should be separated:

1. If God did not exist, life would not have sufficient "meaning".
2. This previous claim, if true, is itself reason to believe that God does exist.

(I should make it clear I mean, here, the traditional God of Abraham--the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims--the one who gave Moses the 10 Commandments, and sent the flood, and who Christians think sent Jesus to die for our sins, etc.)

I think both of these claims are false. That is:

1. I think that life has plenty of "meaning" even though I think there is no God. For example: I still think the world is beautiful, that there is reason to be good to other people, that there is often reason for awe and humility in the face of nature, that life is a precious thing, and so on. In fact, I often think a life with a God would have less meaning, just as I think an adult life spent living with your parents has less "meaning" than when you strike out on your own.
2. Even if it were true that life would not have sufficient meaning without God, I don't think that would itself be reason to believe that there is a God. Compare this: even if it were true that without $1 million I can never be happy, I still don't think that alone is reason to think I have $1 million. That is, even if I really do need $1m to be happy (something I doubt), maybe the truth is I just don't have enough money to be happy. To believe I have that money just because I need it is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.

Now I should say, I do think there are lots of good things that belief in God can do for people. For example, off the top of my head:

• It can bring people together in a community, for contemplation, celebration, and grieving.
• It can get people thinking about ethical issues.
• It can get people thinking about spiritual issues.
• It can encourage calm reflection and meditation.

But I think all of these can be had without belief in God. You could go, for example, to a Unitarian Universalist Church, where belief in God is not required, but where people think morally, reflect spiritually, grieve and celebrate, and so on.

Meanwhile I think belief in God encourages some very bad things:

• For many, it encourages faith--which is just belief without reason, and which many seem to agree is irresponsible (as in this thread).
• In particular, such faith appeals lead to impasses and intolerance when encountering cultures that disagree. As we have seen throughout history, this is a common cause for war and terrorism and the like.
• Belief in a non-material intelligence promotes a kind of magical, non-scientific thinking.
• It historically has promoted, and continues to promote, confused ethical values based solely on particular leaders' readings of "what the Sacred Text says".
• It has hindered, and continues to hinder, the progress of science (by resisting the Copernican revolution, or evolutionary theory...).

...and so on.

Well, that's plenty to start discussion. What do you think? Is life meaningless without God? Even if so, would this alone be reason to believe that God does exist?


spetey

[QED]

But doesn't this ring out to us that it is all just a question of degree??? I think that the issues are obscured by the higher degree of complexity involved in human affairs. We can have micro-intent and micro-meaning linking events at the molecular level to the same properties at the macro level. The path between the two is on a continuum, it's just that it's so utterly complicated that we cannot track it.

[harvey1]

But doesn't this ring out to us that it is all just a question of degree??? I think that the issues are obscured by the higher degree of complexity involved in human affairs. We can have micro-intent and micro-meaning linking events at the molecular level to the same properties at the macro level. The path between the two is on a continuum, it's just that it's so utterly complicated that we cannot track it.

I would imagine that they are on a continuum. I think that was the reason why Menant et al. have approached this subject from that of a paramecium. The issue, though, is whether the universe is meaningless if there is no God. My contention is that it must be meaningless since a lack of such a God would reduce all intent in the universe to a type of operationalism. If there were a God (even a weak pantheist version of God), then all meaning that exists in the universe can be traced back to the original meaning bestowed on the universe by God.

However, if the meaning was a micro-intent as you suggest, then technical there's meaning to the universe and, hence all events that happen as a result, but it is not meaning that most humans could appreciate.

[QED]

However, if the meaning was a micro-intent as you suggest, then technical there's meaning to the universe and, hence all events that happen as a result, but it is not meaning that most humans could appreciate.

Well for once you've actually put together something that sounds rational enough to me. It's a pity I can't get you to explore the real problem that I have with the macro god you worship. Maybe if you cut him back to a micro-god like you did with meaning there, you could chalk me up as a convert

[harvey1]

Well for once you've actually put together something that sounds rational enough to me. It's a pity I can't get you to explore the real problem that I have with the macro god you worship. Maybe if you cut him back to a micro-god like you did with meaning there, you could chalk me up as a convert

I don't think you've converted to pantheism! This is what micro-intent would translate into since in order for micro-intent to be possible, the universe would have to be an IGUS having intent. If you have converted to pantheism, then expect an earthquake and the heavens to rent open.

[QED]

I don't think you've converted to pantheism! This is what micro-intent would translate into since in order for micro-intent to be possible, the universe would have to be an IGUS having intent. If you have converted to pantheism, then expect an earthquake and the heavens to rent open.

Well, I can construct an IGUS using the bits and pieces in my electronics shop and I dare say I could get it to react to stimuli every bit as well as the Paramecium. There's an argument that consciousness is something special (god given) that isn't present in other animals. I don't buy this at all. Where on the continuum between Fly Brains and our own brains does this magic dust get sprinkled? I can easily visualize any network of sensors and processes coming together in a mind-like state that would be familiar to us -- if sufficiently complex. What I mean by this is that we find it hard to picture what a tiny amount of consciousness would be like, but that's what every IGUS has to a degree.

I find it strange that some people are incredulous about this, but I think it's only because they fail to comprehend how the vastly higher degree of complexity found in brains allows consciousness to be expressed in the way we are used to it. Of course I don't find anything particularly magic about all this complexity -- the map of blood-vessels in a 110 feet long, 100 ton Argentinosaurus is another example of extraordinary complexity but nobody gets too carried away about it.

So how many Pentium-4 (duh da de dahh!) processors do we think it would take to yield the same amount of data crunching that goes on between our ears? Estimates vary but figures of around 100,000,000 3GHz processors have been offered. This is based on the number of neurons (10^11), their average number of interconnections and their firing rates. It seems to me that the extraordinary network that could be created out of all these computers would be able to confer specific areas of an appropriately coded, distributed, program a conscious mind every bit as tangible as our own.

Because of this, I can accept that our latest definition of micro-intent and meaning might well be there to be found in the universe. Infact, if it is true that consciousness is present by degree in every IGUS (as I believe it to be) then I can also agree that the universe might therefore be conscious to a degree, although you will note that without the benefit of more than 10 billion years worth of evolution, this consciousness would be comparable with the same sort I can brew-up in my own workshop. Now if that makes me a Pantheist then I think you'll agree that we've got a problem with the definition.

[harvey1]

Because of this, I can accept that our latest definition of micro-intent and meaning might well be there to be found in the universe. Infact, if it is true that consciousness is present by degree in every IGUS (as I believe it to be) then I can also agree that the universe might therefore be conscious to a degree, although you will note that without the benefit of more than 10 billion years worth of evolution, this consciousness would be comparable with the same sort I can brew-up in my own workshop. Now if that makes me a Pantheist then I think you'll agree that we've got a problem with the definition.

You're a pantheist, absolutely. Pantheists are especially known for attributing just an inkling of consciousness to the universe. However, in what way is the universe conscious? How does it achieve a minimum degree of consciousness (e.g., paramecium)?

[QED]

You're a pantheist, absolutely.

That's nice

Pantheists are especially known for attributing just an inkling of consciousness to the universe. However, in what way is the universe conscious? How does it achieve a minimum degree of consciousness (e.g., paramecium)?

Maybe you didn't get my drift. I was trying to make the point that most people see consciousness as something very, very, special such that even possessing a tiny bit implies all sorts of mystical, magical, wonders taking place. I see it totally the other way around -- that a little bit of consciousness is what a thermostat possesses and it's no more wonderful than that. Scaling this up by brain-sized proportions of complexity makes it no more wonderful when viewed in this way. So that should answer how I can happily attribute an inkling of consciousness to the universe.

Naturally, to explain how the advanced type enjoyed by humans (or even higher forms) could arise by somehow short-circuiting 10 billion years of evolution is the challenge I would pass back to you.

[harvey1]

Maybe you didn't get my drift. I was trying to make the point that most people see consciousness as something very, very, special such that even possessing a tiny bit implies all sorts of mystical, magical, wonders taking place. I see it totally the other way around -- that a little bit of consciousness is what a thermostat possesses and it's no more wonderful than that. Scaling this up by brain-sized proportions of complexity makes it no more wonderful when viewed in this way. So that should answer how I can happily attribute an inkling of consciousness to the universe.

What I want to know is how the universe can have intent. I accept your point that consciousness is just a continuum of properties with a paramecium on one side of the scale, and our human brains on a slightly more advanced side of the scale. However, this does not answer my question. In order for you to attribute any conscious property to the universe, you have to show that the universe has some kind of intent. That means it must be an IGUS. What I want to know from you is how can the universe be an IGUS. This requires the whole system working in some kind of unity (at least for all practical purposes, FAPP) such that it can respond to some constraint imposed upon it.

It seems to me that you are combining two issues. You are combining the entities in the universe that have intent (e.g., parameciums) with some kind of intent that is being transcribed for the universe as a whole. That's a confusing step for me because the universe is not aware of what parameciums are doing unless there is some metaphysical function residing as part of the universe that is capable of this function. If you are postulating such a metaphysical function then tell me what it is. If not, then it seems you just mean that the universe is capable of producing creatures with intent. If that's what you mean, then that would strike me as very obvious (we have intent, afterall, and we're in the universe). So, I need to know why you would apply that kind of individual intent to a property of the universe as a whole. Pantheists indeed do this by saying that there is such a pantheistic property that guides the universe to unity. It might be a very stupid function (i.e., the function itself cannot reason much better than a paramecium), but pantheists believe the evidence from the universe calls out for such a function. What do you say?

[QED]

I accept your point that consciousness is just a continuum of properties with a paramecium on one side of the scale, and our human brains on a slightly more advanced side of the scale.

I must make it clear that the Paramecium is already quite a long way up this scale. I consider the thermostat I mentioned is nearest the lower end of the scale. I would also class something like a bi-metallic thermostat an IGUS as it gathers information from temperature and utilises it to make a decision to switch on a heating or cooling system. This is a perfect example of micro-intent and answers the following question:

However, this does not answer my question. In order for you to attribute any conscious property to the universe, you have to show that the universe has some kind of intent. That means it must be an IGUS. What I want to know from you is how can the universe be an IGUS. This requires the whole system working in some kind of unity (at least for all practical purposes, FAPP) such that it can respond to some constraint imposed upon it.

In the universe as a whole, every phase transition and threshold-crossing is a product of information utilization. Don't forget that consciousness is just a continuum of properties -- most people get hung-up on regarding the immutable nature these reactions as divorcing them from our "higher" properties, but we have evolved systems with sufficient complexity to render them mutable.

It seems to me that you are combining two issues. You are combining the entities in the universe that have intent (e.g., parameciums) with some kind of intent that is being transcribed for the universe as a whole. That's a confusing step for me because the universe is not aware of what parameciums are doing unless there is some metaphysical function residing as part of the universe that is capable of this function. If you are postulating such a metaphysical function then tell me what it is. If not, then it seems you just mean that the universe is capable of producing creatures with intent. If that's what you mean, then that would strike me as very obvious (we have intent, afterall, and we're in the universe). So, I need to know why you would apply that kind of individual intent to a property of the universe as a whole. Pantheists indeed do this by saying that there is such a pantheistic property that guides the universe to unity. It might be a very stupid function (i.e., the function itself cannot reason much better than a paramecium), but pantheists believe the evidence from the universe calls out for such a function. What do you say?

I say that the pantheist is missing my point about our levels of consciousness and intent being the product of a bazillioin little thermostats.

[harvey1]

it clear that the Paramecium is already quite a long way up this scale. I consider the thermostat I mentioned is nearest the lower end of the scale. I would also class something like a bi-metallic thermostat an IGUS as it gathers information from temperature and utilises it to make a decision to switch on a heating or cooling system.

One problem with using instruments as your example is that humans created those sensors, and the data processed by those instruments is meaningful simply because a human designed them. The intent is originally due to a human(s). So, I would not consider man-made products to be a real example of an IGUS since we are part of the IGUS in that example.

In the universe as a whole, every phase transition and threshold-crossing is a product of information utilization.

Of course, I believe that but for different reasons than you. In your case, what is the IGUS in this example? What is the thing that is adapting to some constraint because it is actually processing data and generating useful information? I don't see how an atheist can identify an IGUS in phase transitions. Is boiling water, a first order phase transition, a collection of data and using that data to create meaningful information? I hardly see how.

Don't forget that consciousness is just a continuum of properties -- most people get hung-up on regarding the immutable nature these reactions as divorcing them from our "higher" properties, but we have evolved systems with sufficient complexity to render them mutable.

I said I accepted that, but what I do not accept is that you have identified an IGUS as the universe without showing the properties of an IGUS. I would ask that you look at Chris Menant's paper again and read about the information processing properties of paramecium. This will help you to understand why I have to reject your argument unless you can demonstrate such capabilities for the universe as a whole. If you wish to appeal to some metaphysical function (e.g., pantheism), then that's fine too.

I say that the pantheist is missing my point about our levels of consciousness and intent being the product of a bazillioin little thermostats.

I don't think they do. Pantheists are some of the most sophisticated thinkers in this arena, and I do think that their concept of consciousness is very similar to what you are advocating. The difference, though, is that a pantheist has an IGUS in mind when advocating the information processing that they do.