Secular humanism: Is the Universe Rational?

[Flabbergasted]

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

TANER EDIS

Is the Universe Rational?

To believers in God, our universe must look like it is a product of intelligence. Sometimes this leads to varieties of creationism, as in the current intelligent-design movement. But advocates of divine design need not object to evolution. They can argue that intelligence manifests itself at a deeper level. Some say that we live in a rational universe: the world is intelligible, and this can only be because intelligence and purpose pervade the structure of reality. On this view, our very ability to reason and do science signifies the existence of a God.

The idea that the universe is rational invites all kinds of mystical and metaphysical reflections, by scientists and philosophers as well as theologians. For example, Albert Einstein said that “a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” Einstein made it clear that this led him toward a Spinoza-like pantheism rather than any idea of a personal God. Still, his sentiments are more at home in a theological way of thinking compared to any scientific naturalism.

Indeed, the notion that the universe is rational can be fashioned into a handy atheist-bashing tool. Conservative Catholic intellectual Michael Novak argues against the “new atheists” by presenting a picture of a universe suffused by an intelligence that underlies the intelligibility of all things. He tells a story about his daughter who found atheism “in the air” when she went to college:

Yet it didn’t take my daughter long to see through the pretenses of atheism. In the first place, the fundamental doctrine seemed to be that everything that is, came to be by chance and natural selection. In other words, at bottom, everything is irrational, chancy, without purpose or ultimate intelligibility. What got to her most was the affectation of professors pretending that everything is ultimately absurd, while in more proximate matters putting all their trust in science, rationality, and mathematical calculation. She decided that atheists could not accept the implications of their own metaphysical commitments. While denying the principle of rationality “all the way down,” they wished to cling to all the rationalities on the surface of things.

Novak thinks that we live in a rational universe, so denying a rational mind at the bottom of it all is a fatal flaw of atheism. Novak’s version of intelligent design does not directly challenge the practice of science, though he remains suspicious about the more ambitious claims associated with Darwinian evolution. Indeed, Novak accepts seemingly chance elements and apparent contingency in creation. His God is an artist, not an engineer.

This is an attractive view, appealing to our intellectual desire that everything should ultimately make sense, even if we only dimly apprehend this in our current state of ignorance. Still, though thinkers such as Novak prefer to argue at the level of armchair metaphysics, talking about the fundamental nature of the universe inevitably raises questions about physics. From the perspective of physics today, with all due deference to Einstein, the idea of a rational universe looks odd.


Read the whole thing...

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=edis_30_2

I think the author misunderstands Einstein's statement and further misinterprets the significance of the probability physics he describes.

A debate over the rationality of the universe is akin to the rationality of your dinner. Any rationality is a product of, what the author would call, anthropomorphization. The universe is neither rational nor irrational .

[dimbear]

1. Dr. Einstein was known to express anger when his remarks were misused by theologians.

As we have discussed here and elsewhere on DU, Einstein only made clear sense in his first language, German. He deserves at least enough respect to only quote him in that language.

IMHO, the idea that he would have been 'more at home in a theological way of thinking' would have given Einstein a conniption.

Good catch, Flabbergasted!

[humblebum]

23. He was also quick to point out that he was not an atheist.

“I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”


― Albert Einstein

[dimbear]

31. In case for some reason humblebum's citation does not appear on your browser,

be aware that that often quoted bit is from an interview conducted c 1930 by G S Viereck.

Judge Herr Viereck's character by the fact that he spent about 5 years in US prison for being a Nazi agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sylvester_Viereck

The buzz is that he lied to Einstein, convincing Einstein that he, Viereck, was himself a Jew.

Also note that various and sundry altered versions of the quote are floating about. Not exactly the marker of historical integrity.

[humblebum]

32. But what if it does appear on your browser. It is hardly the only quote that

provides some indication of his personal views on the subject.

"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer"

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Hardly, the sayings of a confirmed atheist. Also I noticed that you rush to Wiki as YOUR source, So Let's try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

[dimbear]

34. Perhaps we can agree that theologians would do better to quote Dr. Richard Feynman,

a man who spoke and wrote delightful English, and had some clear insights into religion.

[humblebum]

35. Perhaps.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. Bah humbug

Barring any falsifiable theory, it's all just a bunch of idle speculation.

I've no problem with someone presuming an intelligent designer behind the universe so long as he doesn't presume to tell me what that invisible prime mover thinks about what happens in my bedroom. If God wants to tell me something, he could do a damn sight better than you for a mouthpiece. (Directed at religious jerks.)

That really gets to the heart of it.

[immoderate]

3. I agree with your summary.

Asking if the universe is rational makes no sense. If it exists, in whatever form, it has to display some property that would seem rational to an observer. (How can something irrational exist? ) And having an observer completes the circle. Why else would there be a observer except to attest to how rational the universe is?

--imm

[Flabbergasted]

4. That's a very elegant way of saying exactly my thinking. Thanks.

In fact the entire piece hinges on the effect of the observer, from Einstein's statement to quantum physics.

[MisterScruffles]

5. Fundamentally Flawed

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

"Yet it didn’t take my daughter long to see through the pretenses of atheism."
And there your argument goes down like a (R) congressman in an airport bathroom. Atheism does not have any pretenses- it is a rejection of unfalsified and undemonstrated claims which we are asked to accept without or contrary to evidence.

"In the first place, the fundamental doctrine seemed to be that everything that is, came to be by chance and natural selection. In other words, at bottom, everything is irrational, chancy, without purpose or ultimate intelligibility. What got to her most was the affectation of professors pretending that everything is ultimately absurd, while in more proximate matters putting all their trust in science, rationality, and mathematical calculation. She decided that atheists could not accept the implications of their own metaphysical commitments. While denying the principle of rationality “all the way down,” they wished to cling to all the rationalities on the surface of things."
Nice strawman there. Let's take it apart in bite sized pieces.

"In the first place, the fundamental doctrine seemed to be that everything that is, came to be by chance and natural selection."
Natural selection is the opposite of random chance, and only applies to evolution. Random chance would be a pan-dimensional genie deciding one day to create a series of worlds.

"In other words, at bottom, everything is irrational, chancy, without purpose or ultimate intelligibility. What got to her most was the affectation of professors pretending that everything is ultimately absurd, while in more proximate matters putting all their trust in science, rationality, and mathematical calculation."
Err, no. A vast majority of Atheists do not argue that. Dishonest preachers, like Michael Novak, use it as a strawman in an effort to distract from the weakness of their own arguments.

"She decided that atheists could not accept the implications of their own metaphysical commitments."
It would either require dishonesty, stupidity, or sheer ignorance to suggest that Atheists hold a common set of "metaphysical commitments." You can be an Atheist and believe in the supernatural, or believe that the supernatural is impossible, or decide to withhold judgement for now. The only position all atheists take is that the evidence for a divine being is insufficient for them.

"While denying the principle of rationality “all the way down,” they wished to cling to all the rationalities on the surface of things."
This is a very good example of projection. When a sect of Christianity faces a set of propositions that contradicts its dogma, they simply revise their dogma if the evidential support for the propositions renders them undeniable in practice (while saying "See! We knew that all along! Isn't god great!&quot , and deny the propositions otherwise.

[Flabbergasted]

6. Thanks. Nice analysis. Nt

[tama]

9. Why do you think

atheism gets so often (wrongly) confused with materialistic belief system / metaphysical commitments?

[MisterScruffles]

18. An explaination

Many atheists will describe their personal political/philosophical positions without first pointing out that these are their personal opinions, not what they believe reality to objectively be. To anyone who listens to/reads the full context of their arguments this will be obvious. Dishonest preachers, such as Novak, will attempt to quote mine their opponents in order to make atheism appear to be a set of beliefs.

Here's how to edit videos in order to make your opponent say whatever you want. It's even easier with text, since you can just add ellipses.

[tama]

19. So you make distinction

between atheism and how it relates to religion, and e.g. materialistic belief system and how it relates to what it considers rival belief systems?

And do you think that people like Dawkins etc. always make clear when they are speaking as atheists and when they are speaking as representatives of materialistic belief system, when they criticize religious belief systems?

[MisterScruffles]

20. RE:

"materialistic belief system and how it relates to what it considers rival belief systems? "
Atheism is merely the assertion that the evidence that you have been shown for the existence of any god is insufficient for you to believe that such a being exists. It is not a belief system in and of itself. Belief systems can include atheism as part of their beliefs (Communism, Randianism, LaVey Style Satanism, Raelianism) but the inverse is not possible.

"And do you think that people like Dawkins etc. always make clear when they are speaking as atheists and when they are speaking as representatives of materialistic belief system, when they criticize religious belief systems?"
Many of the representatives of the atheist communities do not stress that atheism is not in and of itself a belief system, as this is assumed to be a well known fact. It isn't. On top of that, there is a great deal of confusion as to how atheism should be defined, even within atheist communities. Throw in a couple of dishonest preachers looking for quotes to mine to affirm their own position, and you have a wonderful recipe for confusion.

[tama]

21. Thanks

I'n the light of what you say I honestly don't know if what you referred to was dishonest quote mining or genuine and understandable confusion, and I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a sound ethical principle.

[MisterScruffles]

22. Both

In many cases, atheists do a poor job of explaining their beliefs, and theists do a poor job of understanding what atheists actually believe. This Problem is exacerbated by men like Novak, who attempt to exploit and spread this confusion.
"innocent until proven guilty" is a sound ethical principle.
This a good practical example of the reasoning that leads to atheism. In a court of law, the judge/jury is presented with a proposition- and until the prosecutor can demonstrate that the person is guilty, they are presumed not guilty. They may not be innocent-but until the prosecution demonstrates that the proposition (defendant is guilty) is true, they are presumed not guilty. Likewise, until someone demonstrates the existence of a god of gods, he/they are presumed to have insufficient evidence to assume their existence.

[tama]

25. Well, thinking about it

also the whole judicial system is based on underlying presuppositions that are as difficult or impossible to prove as existence of a god or gods. E.g. category of "person" or "subject" in itself and as morally responsible for its actions.

[trotsky]

13. Very nice smackdown. n/t

[cleanhippie]

16. ^^^THIS^^^

[cprise]

7. There is a sort of cultural blindness that many

on all sides exhibit when speaking on questions such as this. The myopia prevents people, like Novak's daughter and even some of her professors, from seeing past the 'atheist' designation and in fact loading it with a great deal of weight. Observations about the peculiarities of a social clique (Novak's professors) containing atheists then become ascribed to atheism itself.

But atheism, however true or untrue, is too narrow a position on which to hang all this social baggage and meaning.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I sometimes wonder about the promotion of 'Big-A' or 'positive' atheism around the web, for instance, as being a misguided front in the culture wars. They usually seem like a bunch of badasses who can't be bothered with mamby-pamby humanism, who don't like anything that cramps their personal styles and postmodern attitudes. And oddly enough, they lack non-Americans among their numbers which gives the wannabe world view a distinct whiff of myopic shoddiness.

[safeinOhio]

8. My question is

who was the intelligent designer that designed the intelligent designer that designed the world?

[tama]

10. Platonism

From the article:
"Such views still find echoes, sometimes even in physics, such as when mathematical Platonists talk about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. But again, such mystifications of reason are out of step with modern science. Platonism validates our intuitions about the solidity of mathematical truths, but it is useless in explaining what flesh-and-blood mathematicians and theoretical physicists actually do. If there are causally impotent Platonic realities, our knowledge of them has to come our way by some kind of revelation, even if it is dressed up as a deliverance of Reason. But we have a much better prospect of understanding mathematics and physics if we pay attention to how communities of mathematicians and physicists construct their knowledge and how their brains actually embody reason."

So lets ask a flesh-and-blood mathematician informant of community of mathematicians and physicists. A quote from Gödel:

”mind, in its use, is not static, but constantly developing, i.e., we understand abstract terms more and more precisely as we go on using them…though at each stage the number and precision of the abstract terms at our disposal may be finite, both…may converge toward infinity…”
http://guidetoreality.blogspot.fi/2006/12/gdels-platonism.html

So in Gödel's view the "embodying of reason" is a kind of evolutionary relation between finite body-minds and potential infinity of rational wolds of Platonia. Which is in a way reflected also by the landscape-problem of string theories describing a vast multitude of universes (but failing to predict this particular universe).

So what does the author mean by "causally impotent" Platonic realities? What does he mean by causality? Billiard balls bumping to each other, no doubt, but does he include e.g. spontaneous symmetry breaks falling in the category of "causally potent"?

[Jim__]

11. On Mathematical Platonism.

Some thoughts from Massimo Pigliucci on mathematical Platonism - the column also talks a little bit about Godel's thoughts on the subject:

...

Mathematical Platonism, instead, is a much more metaphysically circumscribed notion about the ontology of a particular category of abstract objects, those of concern to mathematicians (like numbers, sets, and so on). To be precise, Linnebo defines mathematical Platonism as the conjunction of these three theses:

Existence: There are mathematical objects.

Abstractness: Mathematical objects are abstract.

Independence: Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices.

more ...

As Pigliucci goes on to point out, the real issue boils down to independence. My thought is that mathematical objects do not exist independent of intelligent agents; but, the article makes the point that reasonable people can disagree.

[tama]

14. Interesting article

Intelligent agents is a vast category not necessarily limited to humans. Honeybee dance follows the mathematical structure called "alpha flag manifold" (http://discovermagazine.com/1997/nov/quantumhoneybees1263#.UObuZm90k9I). How did bees learn to use such deep and complex mathematical structure for linguistic communication? Ramanujan described his relation to mathematical ideas as "thinking god's thoughts". Original Platonic and Academic interest in mathematics was motivated by search of language and structures not as transient and mutable as phenomenological world of external senses or "space-time sheets", but deeper than categories of space and time and movement, deeper in the sense that mathematical physics implies well founded belief that space and time can be generated from mathematical relations and structures (note that I'm on purpose avoiding the term 'objects' here, as object is just certain kind of relation). I recently came by article about human time sense called 'On the Cyclotomic Quantum Algebra of Time Perception' (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0403020v1.pdf) which uses math developed/found by Connes in relation to Riemann Hypothesis (which as you know concerns prime numbers - as did Gödels proof of Incompleteness theorem) to describe biological time perception.

It's interesting that the article mentions Ladyman and Ross 'Every Thing Must Go' (http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093), interesting and promising attempt to naturalize metaphysics from currently available scientific knowledge:

their contention is that even what we think of as physical objects are nothing, at the bottom, but loci of relational properties (hence the title of their book, every thing must go). If that’s not a problem for physical objects it is hard to see why it would be for abstract ones.

To conclude, if also world and worlds of Platonia - mathematical relations - is evolutionary in some sense, the evolution would happen (also) at deeper level than time and space, at the level of creative potentiality, in the generative creation of time-space actualities also beings like us would participate. And the level of creative potentiality could be also called "intelligent agent" in some sense and be based on ability of self-reflection which we consider defining aspect of consciousness.

[Jim__]

28. I haven't read Ladyman and Ross' book.

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)

So, I'm not sure of the exact argument they make. However, based on the quote that you cite from Pigliucci:

their contention is that even what we think of as physical objects are nothing, at the bottom, but loci of relational properties (hence the title of their book, every thing must go). ...

it sounds like relationalism. The most succint argument I've heard against relationalism is relations require relata. From William Seagar's The Intrinsic Nature Argument for Panpsychism:

A famous – at least within structural realist circles – argument by the
mathematician Max Newman (1928) originally directed at Russell’s claim that
science provides only structural information about the world can be deployed to put
some real meat on the bones assembled above. The conclusion of Newman’s
argument, when interpreted to bear on relationalism, is that the existence of a
system of relations is trivially true of a set of objects, so unless there is something,
as Newman says, ‘qualitative’ (I read this as involving intrinsic properties) about
the relata, relationalism says exactly nothing about the world, beyond an assertion
of cardinality8. This is because, assuming there are enough entities it follows from
pure logic that any system of relations over those entities is instantiated. How can
that be? Because, conceived apart from considerations of the intrinsic properties of
the relata, relations are simply sets of ordered sequences of entities (e.g. a two place
relation is a set of ordered pairs) and, given the entities, those sets and
sequences will automatically exist. Newman puts it thus: ‘any collection of things
can be organized so as to have the structure W, provided there are the right
number of them’ (p. 144).

I don't know how to copy from the paper but, Mr Russell's Causal Theory of Perception is online - it's 13 relatively short pages. It makes a strong case against relationalism (although it doesn't directly reference it).

[tama]

33. From what I understand

in mathematical physics physical "objects" or "observables" as is preferred terminology in the field of quantum physics, are only defined by their intrinsic mathematical qualities. So assuming physicalist continuum to explain consciousness as part of the universe described by theory of physics, what is still missing is mathematical description of consciousness:

The case of consciousness really does seem to be
uniquely different. While it is not hard to see how neural activity could possibly
underlie all sorts of complex behavior, we have no clue how it could be that certain
patterns of neural activity could constitute phenomenal consciousness. One of the
nice features of panpsychism is how it evades this problem by being able to assert
that the patterns of neural activity have consciousness already built in to them.
Still, as we shall see, the width and depth of the explanatory gap depends upon
how intrinsic natures are deployed in the anti-emergence argument.

Whether such theory would or will turn out to be panpsychist or materialist-emergentist, while interesting and meaningful question in many ways, it would still be based on math and state that consciousness has fundamental mathematical nature and character.

As for the question is mathematics fully "relationalist", or are there a priori "natural" mathematical objects/observables that are not derived axiomatically, a Category Theorist might answer yes for relationalism (or no, dunno), but Gödel, Connes et. alii could be inclined to consider primes as such, together with the idea of cardinality. While pure math still considers the proof and provability of Rieman Hypothesis unresolved conjecture, math that physics uses is based on assuming that RH holds, ie. as natural/physical axiom of universe which allows and predicts observers like us. Also transcendentals like pi and Eulers number would fall in the same category of "given" axioms of math of physics.

There are also other ways to approach the question of panpsychism vs. materialist emergentism besides academic theoretical speculation, perhaps most importantly from ethical axioms. A strong argument could be built that panpsychist world view and way of experiencing influenced by it, which extends theory of mind to whole of world and each part of it, would not be causing such self-destructive environmental destruction as world view of materialist emergentism (and/or materialist eliminativism) allows to do.

[Jim__]

12. Is the universe intelligible?

I take that to be the real question.

The human universe, the part of the universe the humans actually interact with, is intelligible. Our brains have evolved to make sense of this universe, and our domination of the earth indicates that this evolution has been somewhat successful. Of course, the human universe is a mere speck in the complete spectrum of spacetime. I don't think we have a clue, nor are we equipped to learn, whether or not the larger universe is intelligible - which is not to say that we should not try.

[deutsey]

17. Nice reply.

[patrice]

26. You said what I was thinking better than I.

I'm not an expert, but it seems pretty obvious that, whatever else we are or are not, we are embodied. We are a coherent set of phenomenologies which have developed a certain set of functional filters, pattern acquisition, that result in something that has acquired the English label "order". Just as that word is an emergent, and relatively valid, property of apprehended patterns, so might there be other more or less emergent properties that are more or less valid extractions of whatever is. I personally feel those possibilities alone are sufficient to themselves, so I find them quite motivating.

The debate appears to be whether anything would be without our apprehension of it. I have trouble asking that question, because it's self-referential. How can I say there is anything outside of order, anything that is not order/mind on whatever scale, when I need order to ask that question. Even if there is something independent from our apprehension of it, something that isn't just another emergent property of the basic facts, it doesn't necessarily follow that it does or doesn't matter to me, although I might indeed be quite curious about it.

[Odin2005]

15. This is just a re-wording of the "First Cause" argument for God.

Different wording, same old 2,350 year old argument.

[humblebum]

24. But still a very rational argument. nt

[Odin2005]

36. The First Cause Argument for God is bad reasoning.

It assumes all order has to have a creator, a projection of ourselves as toolmakers.

[humblebum]

37. By what standard do you call it bad reasoning? Your own opinion?

Everything in our natural world displays evidence that something predated it and everything that was made by man had a maker. Therefore, it is certainly not an unreasonable assumption that the process extends back to a cause and a first cause.

Your assumption that there was no first cause is pure speculation and far less credible. Little basis for such reasoning, except to establish group think. Now if your argument is that it is bad reasoning to assert that there was a decision made to initiate a first cause, then even that opinion is more supported by the human world around us than not. There really is no bad or good, but only educated guess work.

The label of bad reasoning is pure opinion.

[intaglio]

27. The question boils down to the question "Is the universe rational?"

If you accept that the universe is rational then the argument from faith is that this rationality must, of necessity, be the product of a conscious, rational mind. This strikes me as being dubious reasoning of the worst sort for it assumes that what we see as rational is such a product. In fact it is the apparent capriciousness of the universe that lead to the proposition that there is a deity. Equally that deity is utterly dependent upon the ultimate irrational act - the miracle - to enact its will within the the universe. Even the creation of the universe is irrational, beyond explanation, in this scheme of things.

The difficulty is that the faithful seem to have such a distaste for chance that they see chance as irrational - which it is not, chance merely makes things either difficult or impossible to predict with certainty. To that sort of mind everything happens for a reason and all that occurs, good and bad, can be salved with the mantra "it's all for your own good," which I see as a way of dodging any responsibility or any need to act. On the other hand to deny that there is some ultimate purpose or reason for living is to dive into a vast sea where the only navigation possible is with your own awareness and the aid of others.

[deucemagnet]

29. Just some friendly advice on the TOS for quoting copyrighted material...

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

I've noticed that you've exceeded the four-paragraph limit on this and one other occasion. You seem to argue from an honest position and have something to offer, so I'd hate to see your posting privileges revoked over a technical issue.

[ZombieHorde]

30. "The universe is neither rational nor irrational."

I agree. I think rational and irrational come from the observer, and not the thing or situation being observed.