- November 14th, 2022, 9:34 pm
#428386
METHOD
1. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is intelligent, then the Creator would use evolution as a tool.
2. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is conscious and wise, then:
2a. The Creator would not use a tool that does not meet the Creator's goals.
2b. Therefore evolution produces results that meet the Creator's goals.
Hence, rather than deciding on 'evidence' for a Creator whose intent we've already defined, we should deduce the nature of any conscious Creator from the way evolution works as a tool.
Result: The 'Bored Creator Theory' (VERSION 3)
If there is a Creator who intentionally used evolution as a tool, then it was 13.8 billion years before we showed up. Before us, there were oodles of stellar phenomena to experience. But the physical laws are rather automated. It would be pretty for a while. But like a baby watching clothes flop around inside a front-loading washing machine, eventually, a Creator would just get 'bored' of the swirling pretty colors around black holes and whatever. Here I put 'bored' in scare quotes, because this does not mean the Creator necessarily experiences boredom in any way we understand. Rather it indicates that consciousness has limited interest in completely predictable events after they have been observed some number of times.
A Creator would therefore want to see the actions of beings capable of making choices that are at least somewhat independent of physical mechanics. WHAT IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY FOR THAT? The creation of life is really the long pole, after which everything is fairly automatic. In 1925, Engels observed that a herd species only needs opposable thumbs connected to a brain for civilization to evolve. According to Marx's theory of dialectical materialism, after the physical evolution of our species, a new selection process starts, 'social evolution.'
* On dialectical materialism : Please note there is a difference between 'dialectical materialism' and 'historical materialism.' I am referring to dialectical materialism (see picture) While Marx proposed an entirely new political ideology based on it, and whatever opinions you have of the ideology, history to date completely substantiates Marx's dialectic.
If the purpose of a Creator was merely to create a herd species with hands and a brain, then quirks of evolution that otherwise could appear disproof of intelligent design become irrelevant. When one combines evolution with Marx's dialectical materialism and Engel's biological naturalism with evolution, a herd species with hands and a brain becomes all that is necessary and sufficient for a progressive civilization to develop that continually increases the freedom of choice for its individuals. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that the nature of any Creator, whether one exists or not, would be simply to enable that much development: a herd species with hands connected to a brain. There is an additional consideration for a complete dialectic: the social evolution of altruism. However, that introduces issues of what one ought to do. That is much more complicated, because as per Hume's Guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy, there is no necessary connection between the way the universe physically is, and what free individuals should do. That is a deontological issue, and cannot be explored until the ontological basis for it.
Counterargument: Of course, one could argue that a Creator would not get 'bored' watching spinning lights in accordance with the laws of physics. That would be contrary to our own experience of consciousness, but that is the counterargument to the 'Bored Creator' argument.
That leads to the final question: how much more enable the development of a herd species with hands and a brain does a Bored Creator need to do, in order to find more of interest in the Universe?
A wise intelligence doesn't do unnecessary work
And here is the crux of the matter. To be of interest to divine consciousness, how much would it matter exactly what life is like on our planet, or how the rest of creation is manifest?
Consider for example, the periodic table. After constructing valences to enable organic molecules and heavy matter, there are some slots left over, and additional energy levels. So maybe a Creator played around with noble gasses so they would have pretty colors when energized, for example, but at some point of adding any such features, the consequences of the rest of the periodic table become arbitrary additions. How much would a 'bored' Creator, seeking something interesting in a universe, actually want to plan its nature? Would it not be more interesting to such a being to leave some parts of the universe not entirely planned, to increase later enjoyment in seeing how the design works out?
Similarly, regarding galactic phenomena, a Creator might enjoy making black holes and nebula, but again, a wise creator wouldn't bother adding too much detail, and let much of it be arbitrary, so the results are actually unexpected, and therefore of more interest.
That would make far more sense in the universe as we know it. After all, wise people use tools so they don't need to do unnecessary work. The amount people credit even a hypothetical Being with the power to create a universe with less intelligence than a chimpanzee and less wisdom than an idiot are truly amazing.
Aside from such idle pastime, what would be the real interest of a Creator? To design life capable of independent choice. For that, we know the periodic table needs to have carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and a variety of bits to kink molecules. So suppose a Creator went through the immense effort of producing the elements necessary for life in the Big Bang. How much does the REST of the periodic table really matter? If the Creator is wise, and therefore doesn't expend unnecessary effort, some combination of elements to permit life is all that's necessary. The rest of the periodic table would be kind of arbitrary to the necessary goal.
The 'Lazy Creator' theory thus states that a Wise Creator would only do as much as is sufficient to enable the creation of life, and the evolution of a herd species with hands (something with 'opposable thumbs') connected to a brain. There are a few more conditions for the creation of life. For example, the universe needed to provide a PLACE for life to evolve, which as far as I know means an 'Earth analog' at the moment. Some think oceans are not necessary, so there is also thought that a 'Terrestial planet' would be sufficient.
The BEAUTY of this theory is that the normal complaints about 'intelligent design' no longer apply. A Lazy Creator did just enough to create life, plus some arbitrary additions to make the universe more interesting, and threw the switch on the Big Bang....
Conclusion: The 'Wiser Designer' Argument
Hegelian Dialectic advances beyond the dialectical materialism of Marx to define a continual evolution of new conceptual ideas, named noumena by Kant. In Hegelian dialectics, the synthesis of any idea from a thesis and opposing antithesis creates a new thesis, which again has an antithesis, resulting in a new synthesis, and so on. The 'Lazy Creator' theory combines the antithetical notions of evolution and theism in a new synthesis, where the Creation is deliberately imperfect, with arbitrary characteristics beyond those necessary for the creation of a species capable of at least some choice independent from physical mechanics. Therefore, the theory produces a new thesis, and a new antithesis, and in the interests of brevity, I am ending this page as an argument, rather than another subsequent theory.
The Wiser Designer theory may produce other alternate theories based on the 'Bored' Designer argument, but the one I consider here is whether the above theory is insufficient, and would really only define a 'less wise' Designer. The likelihood of life evolving is extremely low, so a Wiser Designer might consider the evolution of life to the stage capable of independent conscious thought 'valuable,' and therefore would intercede in order to:
* Enable the development of civilization. For example, the Tyrannosaurus Rex had opposable thumbs, but was a predator, and the power of such creatures was so great, compared to the tiny primates of the time, there could have been no chance of apes evolving into humans. Of course, such evolution could still occur elsewhere, but the premise here is that a Wiser Designer would intercede after the creation of life just as much as necessary to ensure a herd species with hands connected to brains can evolve into a civilization. Thus one could hypothesize that the extinction event which ended the Jurassic Age was a divine intervention, in order that more interesting life could evolve.
* Enable unilateral freedom of will in civilization, by ensuring it evolves away from slavery. For example, the Egyptian dynasty was so powerful, a wiser Designer may have interceded by attempting to establish a rational civilization, based on justice, rather than slavery. But if the Judaic civilization was a consequence of that, a wiser Designer may have interceded to stop the Roman Empire from causing similar restrictions to freedom by its slavery too.
* Enable Natural Rights guaranteeing the abolition of slavery. Of particular current interest in this respect is Jeffersonian natural rights, which actually are based on a theistic argument from the Western Empiricist John Locke.
That is to say, while Marx and Engels together provide an argument for the development of a free civilization fairly automatically, it is still not totally automatic, and a Wiser Designer might anticipate such interventions would increase the interest of his Creation. MAYBE such a being would lazily throw a gamma ray here and there, to see if zebras with different-width stripes show up for example, perhaps not thinking about it too much or trying to be too accurate. One draws on the implication of the existence of evolution that the Creator is not interested in exact design, so intercessions beyond those necessary for independent thought would probably be deliberately imprecise, making the results more interesting.
ON THE OTHER HAND, such a 'wiser' Designer is beset with two problems:
* If the existence of God is undeniably provable, rather than a matter of belief only, then any intercession resulting in such proof would in effect place civilization in a slave condition to God, again preventing the operation of free will.
* Any intercession that restricts freedom of will more than the society in which it exists can enable is contrary to the Designer's interest. This is a more advanced consideration, needing further examination, at least from a philosophical perspective.
Thus there are reasons why some may argue that a 'less wise' Designer is the best that a Creator can achieve.
1. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is intelligent, then the Creator would use evolution as a tool.
2. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is conscious and wise, then:
2a. The Creator would not use a tool that does not meet the Creator's goals.
2b. Therefore evolution produces results that meet the Creator's goals.
Hence, rather than deciding on 'evidence' for a Creator whose intent we've already defined, we should deduce the nature of any conscious Creator from the way evolution works as a tool.
Result: The 'Bored Creator Theory' (VERSION 3)
If there is a Creator who intentionally used evolution as a tool, then it was 13.8 billion years before we showed up. Before us, there were oodles of stellar phenomena to experience. But the physical laws are rather automated. It would be pretty for a while. But like a baby watching clothes flop around inside a front-loading washing machine, eventually, a Creator would just get 'bored' of the swirling pretty colors around black holes and whatever. Here I put 'bored' in scare quotes, because this does not mean the Creator necessarily experiences boredom in any way we understand. Rather it indicates that consciousness has limited interest in completely predictable events after they have been observed some number of times.
A Creator would therefore want to see the actions of beings capable of making choices that are at least somewhat independent of physical mechanics. WHAT IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY FOR THAT? The creation of life is really the long pole, after which everything is fairly automatic. In 1925, Engels observed that a herd species only needs opposable thumbs connected to a brain for civilization to evolve. According to Marx's theory of dialectical materialism, after the physical evolution of our species, a new selection process starts, 'social evolution.'
* On dialectical materialism : Please note there is a difference between 'dialectical materialism' and 'historical materialism.' I am referring to dialectical materialism (see picture) While Marx proposed an entirely new political ideology based on it, and whatever opinions you have of the ideology, history to date completely substantiates Marx's dialectic.
If the purpose of a Creator was merely to create a herd species with hands and a brain, then quirks of evolution that otherwise could appear disproof of intelligent design become irrelevant. When one combines evolution with Marx's dialectical materialism and Engel's biological naturalism with evolution, a herd species with hands and a brain becomes all that is necessary and sufficient for a progressive civilization to develop that continually increases the freedom of choice for its individuals. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that the nature of any Creator, whether one exists or not, would be simply to enable that much development: a herd species with hands connected to a brain. There is an additional consideration for a complete dialectic: the social evolution of altruism. However, that introduces issues of what one ought to do. That is much more complicated, because as per Hume's Guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy, there is no necessary connection between the way the universe physically is, and what free individuals should do. That is a deontological issue, and cannot be explored until the ontological basis for it.
Counterargument: Of course, one could argue that a Creator would not get 'bored' watching spinning lights in accordance with the laws of physics. That would be contrary to our own experience of consciousness, but that is the counterargument to the 'Bored Creator' argument.
That leads to the final question: how much more enable the development of a herd species with hands and a brain does a Bored Creator need to do, in order to find more of interest in the Universe?
A wise intelligence doesn't do unnecessary work
And here is the crux of the matter. To be of interest to divine consciousness, how much would it matter exactly what life is like on our planet, or how the rest of creation is manifest?
Consider for example, the periodic table. After constructing valences to enable organic molecules and heavy matter, there are some slots left over, and additional energy levels. So maybe a Creator played around with noble gasses so they would have pretty colors when energized, for example, but at some point of adding any such features, the consequences of the rest of the periodic table become arbitrary additions. How much would a 'bored' Creator, seeking something interesting in a universe, actually want to plan its nature? Would it not be more interesting to such a being to leave some parts of the universe not entirely planned, to increase later enjoyment in seeing how the design works out?
Similarly, regarding galactic phenomena, a Creator might enjoy making black holes and nebula, but again, a wise creator wouldn't bother adding too much detail, and let much of it be arbitrary, so the results are actually unexpected, and therefore of more interest.
That would make far more sense in the universe as we know it. After all, wise people use tools so they don't need to do unnecessary work. The amount people credit even a hypothetical Being with the power to create a universe with less intelligence than a chimpanzee and less wisdom than an idiot are truly amazing.
Aside from such idle pastime, what would be the real interest of a Creator? To design life capable of independent choice. For that, we know the periodic table needs to have carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and a variety of bits to kink molecules. So suppose a Creator went through the immense effort of producing the elements necessary for life in the Big Bang. How much does the REST of the periodic table really matter? If the Creator is wise, and therefore doesn't expend unnecessary effort, some combination of elements to permit life is all that's necessary. The rest of the periodic table would be kind of arbitrary to the necessary goal.
The 'Lazy Creator' theory thus states that a Wise Creator would only do as much as is sufficient to enable the creation of life, and the evolution of a herd species with hands (something with 'opposable thumbs') connected to a brain. There are a few more conditions for the creation of life. For example, the universe needed to provide a PLACE for life to evolve, which as far as I know means an 'Earth analog' at the moment. Some think oceans are not necessary, so there is also thought that a 'Terrestial planet' would be sufficient.
The BEAUTY of this theory is that the normal complaints about 'intelligent design' no longer apply. A Lazy Creator did just enough to create life, plus some arbitrary additions to make the universe more interesting, and threw the switch on the Big Bang....
Conclusion: The 'Wiser Designer' Argument
Hegelian Dialectic advances beyond the dialectical materialism of Marx to define a continual evolution of new conceptual ideas, named noumena by Kant. In Hegelian dialectics, the synthesis of any idea from a thesis and opposing antithesis creates a new thesis, which again has an antithesis, resulting in a new synthesis, and so on. The 'Lazy Creator' theory combines the antithetical notions of evolution and theism in a new synthesis, where the Creation is deliberately imperfect, with arbitrary characteristics beyond those necessary for the creation of a species capable of at least some choice independent from physical mechanics. Therefore, the theory produces a new thesis, and a new antithesis, and in the interests of brevity, I am ending this page as an argument, rather than another subsequent theory.
The Wiser Designer theory may produce other alternate theories based on the 'Bored' Designer argument, but the one I consider here is whether the above theory is insufficient, and would really only define a 'less wise' Designer. The likelihood of life evolving is extremely low, so a Wiser Designer might consider the evolution of life to the stage capable of independent conscious thought 'valuable,' and therefore would intercede in order to:
* Enable the development of civilization. For example, the Tyrannosaurus Rex had opposable thumbs, but was a predator, and the power of such creatures was so great, compared to the tiny primates of the time, there could have been no chance of apes evolving into humans. Of course, such evolution could still occur elsewhere, but the premise here is that a Wiser Designer would intercede after the creation of life just as much as necessary to ensure a herd species with hands connected to brains can evolve into a civilization. Thus one could hypothesize that the extinction event which ended the Jurassic Age was a divine intervention, in order that more interesting life could evolve.
* Enable unilateral freedom of will in civilization, by ensuring it evolves away from slavery. For example, the Egyptian dynasty was so powerful, a wiser Designer may have interceded by attempting to establish a rational civilization, based on justice, rather than slavery. But if the Judaic civilization was a consequence of that, a wiser Designer may have interceded to stop the Roman Empire from causing similar restrictions to freedom by its slavery too.
* Enable Natural Rights guaranteeing the abolition of slavery. Of particular current interest in this respect is Jeffersonian natural rights, which actually are based on a theistic argument from the Western Empiricist John Locke.
That is to say, while Marx and Engels together provide an argument for the development of a free civilization fairly automatically, it is still not totally automatic, and a Wiser Designer might anticipate such interventions would increase the interest of his Creation. MAYBE such a being would lazily throw a gamma ray here and there, to see if zebras with different-width stripes show up for example, perhaps not thinking about it too much or trying to be too accurate. One draws on the implication of the existence of evolution that the Creator is not interested in exact design, so intercessions beyond those necessary for independent thought would probably be deliberately imprecise, making the results more interesting.
ON THE OTHER HAND, such a 'wiser' Designer is beset with two problems:
* If the existence of God is undeniably provable, rather than a matter of belief only, then any intercession resulting in such proof would in effect place civilization in a slave condition to God, again preventing the operation of free will.
* Any intercession that restricts freedom of will more than the society in which it exists can enable is contrary to the Designer's interest. This is a more advanced consideration, needing further examination, at least from a philosophical perspective.
Thus there are reasons why some may argue that a 'less wise' Designer is the best that a Creator can achieve.
- By Surabhi Rani
- By Gertie
- By Fried Egg