Thomas Nagel in his recent book Mind and Cosmos rightly shows that scientific materialism—despite its many strengths—is powerless to explain the most fundamental fact of existence: the existence of Self. (He has recently summarized the book.) Consciousness is essential to everything that we as human beings are. When we think, feel, intuit, want, or experience, we do so through consciousness. Even the observations of science come only through human perception, and our hypotheses, insights, and interpretations are also cultivated within the conscious mind. And yet materialistic science utterly fails to account for the nature or origin of consciousness. This is a serious gap in an otherwise powerful explanatory system.
Nagel attacks the materialist view that would reduce all of existence to the physical. He points out that consciousness—our sole conduit to reality—cannot be dismissed as a coincidental “epiphenomenon”. It cannot be described in physical terms—it is not itself material. And yet it is too important and too bizarre for us to simply ignore it. If we are to have a coherent view of reality, we must explain consciousness.
At this point Nagel makes a remarkable assertion. He recognizes that the existence of God is often invoked as an explanation for the origin and nature of human consciousness. Yet he dismisses it. He does not argue against it—he makes no argument. He simply casts it off. Theology is the “dreaded” explanation, he notes. He recognizes that it is “consistent with the available scientific evidence” but answers only, “I don’t believe it.” There is no logic to this. Rather, he finds himself “drawn”—as if by instinct or some irascible force—to another option: a “naturalistic, though non-materialistic, alternative.”
So what is this compelling alternative? Nagel can’t quite say. He is enthusiastic about it but he’s not sure what it is—only that it is “naturalistic” (that is, requiring no explanation outside of nature), and yet “non-materialistic” (not explained purely in terms of physical processes).
Nagel puts himself in some danger of being accused of subscribing to an oxymoron. It’s not clear that “naturalistic” and “materialistic” aren’t, in practice, synonyms. Perhaps there is some view of nature that transcends the physical, yet avoids the supernatural. Nagel hopes so. But what a vague hope it is! Nagel waits for a solution that centuries of philosophical endeavor has never uncovered, for which there is no evidence, and that cannot clearly be expressed to begin with.
What is the attraction? What is the “draw”? Why does Nagel dismiss all other options—materialistic and theistic—when this solution is so vague? Surely this is a remarkably optimistic (one might even say “faithful”) choice for an intelligent and logical professor of philosophy and law to uphold.
It seems to me that Nagel is not so much drawn to his favored option as he is repelled by the “dreaded” theistic option. He dismisses it without explanation, filled with such dread, evidently, that he cannot bring himself to engage squarely with it. But if he would do so, he might discover why millennia of his philosophical predecessors have found it to be not only not dreadful, but logical, potent, and satisfying.
There is a teleological element to the question of consciousness that points intently to the presence of God in creation. We must ask, “Why are we conscious?” By this question I don’t simply mean, “By what natural processes did consciousness come about?” Nor do I mean, “What is the nature of consciousness and how does it relate to the physical?” These are both interesting questions, but they overlook what is perhaps a more obvious one: a question any child would ask. Why am I here at all? Why is there an I to be asking this question? Why does consciousness exist in the first place?
It’s certainly easy to imagine an alternative universe in which life never appeared. As many have noted, the most miniscule change in our universe’s properties would have made life impossible. Yet our universe, improbably, conceived life.
It’s easy to imagine a universe in which the only life that ever appeared was the simplest kind of life—proteins, protozoa, and the like. But in our universe, life climbed mount improbable and became more complex. Mechanisms aside, why should just such a universe as would facilitate this climb be the one to actually come about?
It’s easy to imagine a universe in which complex life forms appeared but were devoid of consciousness. They were simply complicated machines, chasing and scratching and procreating. But despite what materialists would have us believe, our universe went beyond this. The machines became conscious. Ghosts moved in. In defiance of all physical explanation, the universe produced creatures that were aware. Yes they chased and scratched and procreated, but they knew they were doing it, they experienced it, they felt what it was like to chase and scratch and procreate.
This awareness was no mere footnote to creation. It seems to be the one thing that gives creation meaning. The conscious creatures are far and away the most interesting ones. The mechanics of physical bodies scratching in the wilderness is intriguing, but when their scratchings become intermingled with and driven by dreams, romances, fears, ecstasies, and yearnings, you have a whole new kind of universe. In the physical universe you get star formation and antibodies and iridescent beetles—fascinating machines—but only with consciousness comes music, poetry, passion, and story.
Why did such a remarkable universe—out of all the possible universes that might have popped into existence—happen to be the one that actually appeared? Why does consciousness exist at all? 1
That is the teleological aspect to the question of the nature and origin of consciousness. Many people find that the existence of God is at least a worthwhile candidate for an answer to this question. Rather than a source of dread or a readily-dismissed afterthought, the existence of a loving and relational God would handily explain the appearance, in a cold clockwork universe, of conscious relational creatures.
In this scenario, God has fashioned the universe in such a way that it does produce conscious creatures, precisely because the existence of conscious creatures is one of God’s chief goals for making a universe at all. Conscious creatures are desirable, presumably, because without consciousness you really do have nothing but machines. Only a conscious creature has the intellectual richness, the capacity for moral choice, and the ability to love and be loved that are necessary to relationship. God wants relationship—so the explanation goes—so he made a universe producing creatures capable of relationship.
So far this is hardly a compelling argument. It is a speculation as to what may have happened. To believe that it is the correct explanation for the existence of consciousness (among other things), we would need further evidence for the existence and nature of God: observed miracles, perhaps, and/or documents that convincingly express God’s thoughts and intents for creating the universe. For my own part, I’m convinced that this evidence exists and is compelling, but that is a much larger argument. My point here is only that the existence of God would be a satisfying explanation for the origin and nature of consciousness, and that both the origin and nature of consciousness are startling enough that a potent explanation of why they exist is demanded.
A theistic explanation for consciousness, if supportable on other grounds, is intellectually satisfying because it recognizes the obvious peculiarity and importance of consciousness and offers a consistent, logical explanation for why it exists.
So why does Nagel find this explanation dreadful and dismiss it without comment?
Notes:
- Subscribers to the Anthropic Principle respond by saying that many randomly-generated universes exist, most of which have no conscious beings. Therefore all the universes of which anyone is conscious are precisely those universes that happened by chance to produce consciousness. The existence of consciousness, then, is unremarkable—a product of chance rather than divine intent. By this rather brittle argument they hope to avoid God as an explanation for why consciousness exists. The argument is trivially defeated by two observations. First, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of multiple universes: it is pure speculation, a leap of faith. Second, even if the Anthropic Principle were true, it would only push the teleological problem back by one step. Rather than asking, “Why did this one remarkably consciousness-producing universe come about?” we would now ask, “Why did this remarkably consciousness-producing set of universes come about?” Consciousness is improbable in any state of affairs. Considering the myriad possible universes we can conceive of, the fact that consciousness appeared by whatever mechanism will always be remarkable such as to require an explanation. The nature and improbability of consciousness both smack of intent. ↩
14 Comments
I love Jeff Wofford. Capable of rendering such great pearls like Computers Shouldn’t Just Say No. Great writing, invincible logic. Instant fan.
Now comes superstition, like black treacle oozing from the page. Suddenly Jeff transforms into blinkered hedgehog in fox county.
Jeff I find the concept of Self the most titillating of all the unknowns. One must relish these things. Without wonder we really are just machines, like Descartes’ machina-animata. But this post can be summarized as follows: 95% = This atheist is too terrified to even consider the metaphysical! He doesn’t even have his own theory to put forth! He “goes right up to the point of dealing with God, then shrinks from the evidence” (evidence?). The last 5% = Therefore, Jesus.
Wait, what?
Jeff I respect you. I don’t want to lose that!
Hi Peter. I’m glad you love me. 🙂 And I certainly want your love to be free of contaminants. So perhaps I can help. What is it exactly that you see as “superstition” or “black treacle”?
Surely you don’t think that belief in God is “superstition.” As I mention in the article, the philosophical case for the existence of God is extremely well established (in the sense of having been carefully considered by smart people for a long time) and very strong (in the sense of having many rationally compelling features). There is a great deal of evidence of all kinds—logical, scientific, experiential, and historical—for the notion that God exists and is involved in human life. Belief in God might be incorrect, but it’s certainly not “superstition.”
If anyone thought it was, I’d suggest that their belief in the implausibility of the existence of God is itself a superstition (in the sense of a strongly held belief based on thin or socially-inherited evidence). It’s also a pretty recent superstition, made popular through various cultural memes and books by angry and outspoken atheists.
The idea seems to be that belief in God is so beneath rational consideration that anyone who accepts it is silly, stupid, crazy, or wicked. Thus these atheists make religious believers into a kind of witch and appoint themselves as witch hunters. But who is more superstitious (to paraphrase Obi Wan), the witch or the one who hunts her? A little philosophical study will show that both belief in God and disbelief in God are rational positions with substantial logical merit, and neither is a superstition. Only the offhand dismissal of either view—only witchcraft or witch-hunting—is truly silly, “black,” or “superstitious.”
So, if I came across someone who believed this superstition—the superstition that belief in God is a superstition—I would point them to any number of deep thinkers who could help them clear up their misconceptions. Antony Flew’s There is a God is a nice introduction, because it is written by one of the leading atheist philosophers of the 20th century who later came to see the logic of God’s existence, it is brief and readable, and it cites various other thinkers who shaped Flew’s thinking.
But I’m shooting in the dark. Perhaps this isn’t what you meant by “superstition” or “black treacle”, or by questioning my use of the word “evidence.”
All that said, if what you love about my writing is logic and clarity, I flatter myself that it’s on display in the blog post above as much as anywhere I’ve written. If, on the other hand, an essential part of your love for me is that I view belief in God or in Jesus as silly, intrinsically illogical, or beneath the dignity of intelligent discussion, then I’m afraid I must—tearfully—lose your love.
Happy Valentine’s Day, by the way. 🙂
Politically motivated humans have invented at least three thousand different gods, created in their own image, and most have become incredibly ugly fictions. The idea that any of them, as literally defined, would exist is pretty dreadful.
That said, the idea that a supreme creative force (a God) exists I find neither objectionable nor “dreadful”. I would welcome it, and it’s reasonably likely to be true.
It’s the false gods invented by political religion that are dreadful. The good news it that most believers in them tend to reject the other 2999 emerging from other ethnicities and societies (many extinct) out-of-hand as purely mythical, which is good cause to reject all of them.
Years ago, Sky & Telescope magazine published an article outlining the latest cosmological theories. The article stepped incrementally backward in time approaching the Big Bang and described what we believe the universe to have been like at each step. Eventually, very close to the Big Bang itself, the writer said “Beyond this point we are in the realm of wild speculation,” and then he described the various speculative theories. Some of those theories described a “multiverse,” a something beyond that just keeps spawning universes, and ours is just one of those universes. Others included the universe being created in an alien laboratory, and this wasn’t meant as a joke. What was remarkable to me was the fact that even in the “realm of wild speculation,” a creating God wasn’t considered as a possibility.
Yes indeed. And I’m horrified to think that magazines like Sky & Telescope, and scientists generally, avoid the theological option not because it isn’t intellectually sound—millennia of philosophical discourse on the question have shown that it’s at least plausible and worthy of rational contemplation—but because it is simply “uncool.” Verboten. Anathema. It’s frustrating because it means that the discussion is impaired not by rationality but by social pressures.
There’s a good side to the reticence. If a chemist’s experiment turns the solution red at an unexpected time, and the chemist turns to you and says, “Ah well, I guess God did it,” then this does seem like an inappropriate invocation of the Almighty. It is the faith of science that the Almighty has made the universe consistent enough that we can discern rules that at least seem to have a general autonomy from God’s direct action, such that they gain predictive power, and the scientist’s task is to keep at these rules. But when we reach back to the rudiments of the universe—the “whens”, “hows”, and “whys” of creation—there can be no shame in at least recognizing God as an option.
Hi Jeff,
As someone with a scientific background, I’m by default drawn to materialistic explanations for everything. I however, also find the materialistic explanation for consciousness unintuitive and unsatisfying. My issue is that I really don’t understand what the “theistic alternative” is. To me it seems that there are two schools of thought:
Materialism: a bunch of non-conscious components come together, something something something, TA-DAH! Consciousness.
My understanding of the theistic alternative: God created humans, something something something, TA-DAH! Consciousness.
So my question is: can you throw any more light on what the “theistic alternative” is? Or point me in the direction of someone who does?
To date the only solution to this issue I’ve encountered that resonates with me is the Buddhist one: recognise that attempting treat consciousness as a question that has an “answer” is a cause of suffering. Note the reaction of your own mind when confronted with this. See that all answers are right and are also wrong. Sit down. Be calm. Breathe. Move on.
Hi Bernie. Great question. It inspired me to write a pretty extensive reply, so I made it into a post. Please read!
Sure. In that context, I get it a lot more clearly. Obviously Nagle and I disagree on the nature of consciousness. His line “But someone who finds (a) and (b) self-evidently false” is, obviously, a point of severe contention.
‘Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”‘ -Douglas Adams
I’ve seen this quote used as a metaphor for the idea behind the Anthropic Principle. What I can’t believe is that anyone would find this a compelling defense of the Anthropic Principle. It simply isn’t clear that an imaginary puddle waking up in a hole has anything to do with conscious beings waking up in a material universe. What are the connections and disconnections between the metaphor and the reality? It’s a cute image, but this isn’t what convincing arguments are made of.
Half your post fits the same criteria.
Look, I can’t argue with you on this. I literally don’t think we will understand each other at all. I disagree with the most base premises of your point.
I disagree that materialistic science utterly fails to account for consciousness.
I disagree that consciousness gives creation meaning. (I disagree that ‘meaning’ is a term with any validity or usefulness in this discussion, on top of that.)
I disagree that the Anthropic Principle suggests the existence of multiple universes.
I disagree that consciousness is improbable at all. According to a materialistic interpretation of consciousness, it’s not such a big deal.
I disagree that the nature of consciousness ‘smacks of intent’ whatsoever.
You may as well be speaking French to me.
But Malky, evidently you understood enough of my French for it to have motivated you to post a comment. Something has gotten under your skin here.
Yes. I just listed the things that frustrated me.
I think most people find it irritating when others dismiss their worldview as offhandedly as you did when you said, ” And yet materialistic science utterly fails to account for the nature or origin of consciousness.”
It’s like, man, no one told me I utterly failed to account for the nature of consciousness! Damn! All this time I spent figuring it out, turns out I was just dicking around. Jeez.
In fact, I think that’s not even what you really mean to say. I think (and just bear with me) that what’s really happening is that materialistic interpretations of consciousness aren’t satisfying to those who see consciousness as being important.
Because I don’t. It’s more of an accident. Something cobbled together by the mish-mash of brain functions that have evolved over the millennia. Hell, our conscious mind spends most of its time pretending that it’s in charge, when in truth, our unconscious mind drives most our behavior. (See Daniel Kahneman’s work.)
Dismissing this interpretation so off-handedly seems… well, I dunno. Obviously I think it’s correct, so I think dismissing it is one hell of a mistake.
That actually makes perfect sense to me.
Please keep in mind that my post is in response to Thomas Nagel’s article. Nagel belongs to that class of philosophical atheists who agree that (1) consciousness is startling and important and (2) materialism fails to account for it, but who won’t consider theism. I find his perspective frustrating much like you find mine frustrating. It seems to me that he has gone up right to the point of dealing with God, and yet he shrinks from the evidence. Why? My article targets his particular breed of atheist: those who see that consciousness is a fly in the ointment but won’t face the implications.
But that’s not you. You’re a different breed of atheist from Nagel. You don’t perceive consciousness as a fly in the ointment, and so my arguments simply don’t connect with you. I can see why that would be frustrating.
Maybe this will help. Please don’t take my assertions about consciousness as arguments but as premises—premises that I share with Nagel. And don’t take my denial of your view as dismissive; rather, I’m assuming a denial of your view because I’m following on from Nagel’s denial of your view. I think Nagel is “more correct” than you are—I think that consciousness is a fly in the ointment in the sense that it is surprising (especially to a materialistic view), important, and meaning-creating, and the arguments for this view are very strong—but that’s not really the nub of my argument. I’m arguing with Nagel, and if you want to argue about the problems of consciousness and materialism, I’d suggest you argue with him too.
One Trackback
[…] Rumors of Wars 10¢ Contact « The Most Dreaded Explanation for Mind […]