ID as ‘Science of God’ (aka Theology)

_{Steve Fuller

August 6, 2012

Cosmology, Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A piece of mine has been just published in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC’s) excellent Religion and Ethics website.

It provides a larger context for my own theologically positive approach to ID, which I realize is not everyone’s cup of tea.

However, like Gregory Sandstrom, I welcome johnnyb’s intervention, which raises the issue of which companies an ID supporter would invest in (or not). I personally find the choices a bit on the Rorschach side of plausibility — i.e. it tells us more about the beliefs of the proposer. So Eric Holloway is happy to regard ‘gamers’ as ‘human’ in a way that has not been contaminated by the AI ideology of Kurzweil et al., so he doesn’t see their ‘gamer’ status as already inching in the direction of the Singularity. Whatever…

I don’t believe that such neat distinctions can be maintained under close scrutiny. Perhaps Kurzweil has slippery sloped us to a place where we don’t want to be, but attempts to draw a sharp distinction between ‘human’ and ‘artificial’ beg too many questions without further elaboration. There are people — I think of Susan Greenfield, the Oxford chair in neuropharmacology — who believe that gaming is re-wiring people’s brains so as to de-humanize them. I think she’s bonkers, and have said so publicly, but her attitude is emblematic of people who believe that you’ve left humanity even once you become a gamer. So where to draw the line? I don’t think there is a principled line to draw here. Anyone who believes otherwise is bound to kill the ID project with a moralism that comes from somewhere other than ID.

If we’re honest, the anti-ID people are right about one thing: Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein. To be sure, these beliefs cover quite a wide spectrum but so far there is little appetite to discuss positive visions of ID, for reasons that range from the perceived privacy of religious belief to the fear of public opprobrium from a wider secular culture. My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.

Comments

johnnyb, I was replying to Upright BiPeds statement:
"Yet there are those who have apparently become disinterested in the material nature of ID methodologies, and they mistakenly see no future in them. They instead wish to expand ID into theology, theodicy, etc. This is an amateur mistake."
I don't see how ID can be "expanded" into theology. Theology is essentially where the argument for the existence of God, from the perspective of 'design', came from. I look at ID as a view that has been expanded out of theology, not into it. If ID did not grow from 'spiritual' roots, then where did it come from? Definitely not from the Darwinian/materialist perspective.John W Kelly_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

John Kelley - How do you mean? There is an "argument from design" for the existence of God. It is also true that ID is one of the many inputs for this argument. However, the "argument from design" is not equivalent with ID any more than the argument from design is equivalent with physics (which it also uses) or designer clothing (which also includes design). Or did you mean something else?johnnyb_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed - Why? Chemistry is the study of chemicals and elements and causes. Does that "assume its conclusion"? ID is the study of mental causation. We study causes, effects, forms, structures, and the like related to mental causation. By knowing about what mental causes look like, we can then infer from evidence whether or not something was caused by a mental cause. To be a science, one must have an object of study. ID is the study of mental/purposeful causation. ID is properly a science because it has an object of study, and attempts to describe and characterize the activity of its object rigorously. I'm not sure how that's controversial.johnnyb_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Yet there are those who have apparently become disinterested in the material nature of ID methodologies, and they mistakenly see no future in them. They instead wish to expand ID into theology, theodicy, etc. This is an amateur mistake. Those who support such transformations should study the nature of opposing force, and once having come to an understanding of the issues involved, they should then substantiate their objectives on those grounds.
uhh, didn't the 'design' argument develop from theological perspectives?John W Kelly_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Hello johnnyb,
ID is a science of *mind*.
With all due respect, if I was your opponent (which I am not) I would likely call you on that comment. As an investigation of causes, that comment comes very close to assuming its conclusion.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

In a world where criteria for design inferences and irreducible complexities have been described with hard-to-argue-against rigor, I’d say that ongoing discoveries which show that those criteria must be applied to the living world are beginning to qualify as anything but boring. More like earth shaking.

…cohorts of ID-convinced and fully-funded PhD’s in lab coats are not necessarily needed to move the debate ahead.
Hello jstanley, I certainly agree that the data is not boring. Yet there are those who have apparently become disinterested in the material nature of ID methodologies, and they mistakenly see no future in them. They instead wish to expand ID into theology, theodicy, etc. This is an amateur mistake. Those who support such transformations should study the nature of opposing force, and once having come to an understanding of the issues involved, they should then substantiate their objectives on those grounds. Re: “hard-to-argue-against rigor”. Howard Pattee (a materialist to the best of my knowledge) argued that life was matter controlled by symbols. That was forty years ago, and was built upon the observations of von Neumann, Turing, Polanyi, Crick, etc. Now, forty years later, using nothing more than logic and reason, it can be demonstrated that the transfer of recorded information (which makes all biological life possible) requires an irreducibly complex core of symbolic representations and rules. Given that these observations are made only at the level of matter, they can be performed without the slightest deviation from garden variety materialist reductionism. Having in hand these logical necessities, you can then turn to the material evidence, and lo and behold, again without the slightest ambiguity, are the aforementioned logical necessities fully instantiated in matter, operating just exactly as they must in order to accomplish what must be accomplished. These facts are ignored at the wholesale level by mainstream biology and physics. A subset of researchers, biosemioticians, are allowed to speak of them, but only if the disavow any connection to intelligent design – which they have done. ID needs all the PhD’s they can get.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

What can we say about Dr. Fuller’s perception about the relationship between science, philosophy, and theology? Is it reasonable? In order to answer that question, we must consider reason’s rules about unity and diversity as they apply to multi-disciplinary analysis First, let’s discuss unity. Truth is, in fact, unified. Yes, there are many aspects to the one, unified truth, but only one truth exists. In that context, no single branch of knowledge can logically claim its own truth or even its own brand of truth. Science, philosophy, and religion each present smaller elements of a larger truth that cannot be divided. In large part, that is what it means to live in a rational universe. Given the principle of unity, any truths arrived at from one domain will always be compatible with truths arrived from another domain. Conversely, any apparent truth arrived at in one field must be false if it contradicts a known truth in another field. In principle, then, we must rule out any notion of “Non-overlapping Magistgeria,” which is, ultimately, an argument for multiple truths and against reason. Now, let’s discuss diversity. Each discipline, in order to maintain its capacity to arrive at one aspect of the truth, must remain true to its own methods. Philosophical methods (as opposed to philosophical principles) cannot normally (perhaps not at all) be used to arrive at scientific truths. Each discipline maintains its power to illuminate and provide specialized confirmation for the other only to the extent that it remains true to its own methods for arriving at knowledge. In making these distinctions between disciplines, then, we must refrain from the extreme of trying to separate them totally, as if one had nothing to do with the other, and from the other extreme of exaggerating their complementarity to the point of trying to merge their methods, The word to describe the relationship we are looking for is not the “separation of discinplines” or the “union” of discinplines, but rather the “intersection” of disciplines.” Sociology, for example, is not a totally different field of study from anthropology, nor is it precisely the same thing; each discipline intersects and overlaps with the other. It appears to me that Dr. Fuller wants to avoid the extreme of total separation (the error of saying science and theology are not related), by falling into the other extreme of total union (the error of saying that science can be theology), while ignoring the only reasonable option, which is ‘intersection” (science and theology are related). By suggesting that a faith-based methodology can be integrated with an empirically-based methodology as part of the same analytical process, he is proposing something that seems impossible to me. If he thinks such a combination is, indeed, possible, I would like to know how it can be done.StephenB_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Steve - I agree with you entirely on Gould. NOMA is a terrible place to be. Another interesting approach, though, is to show the extent to which science has adopted the theological view, rather than the popular notion that science excludes the theological. I have given several examples of this in physics, biology, and medicine. It wasn't just that theological views (like the orderliness of God and nature) played a role in the shaping of these disciplines, but rather specific content from religion has been used time and again in shaping these disciplines, and it would be helpful if people understood the extent to which theology informs science.johnnyb_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Steve Fuller - I think you got it close but missed it. ID is a science of *mind*. That is, mind as a distinct causal mode. To the extent that God's actions can be understood as "mind actions", one could use the science of ID to understand God. However, there are many theologians who disagree with this, and, thus, for them, they could use ID just the same, but would disagree as to whether or not it applied to God. What unites them is the rejection of materialism - the idea that mind is equivalent to a complex configuration of matter. ID is the science of this. It takes extra-scientific reasoning to link ID to God - it is not included in the science. I think this move is perfectly valid - I don't think that science corners the market on reason - but one must be clear what one's reasoning is, and the extent to which each part applies. For example, ID could show that two species share a logical connection where they couldn't show a historical one. Thus, there is evidence of mental causes. Absent other evidence, there are a variety of locations where one could place that cause - it could be God's creation, it could be "the universe" (which is often used as a modern stand-in for a demiurge), it could be the organisms themselves, using some non-material aspect intrinsic to them, it could be external manipulators, such as human geneticists or alien geneticists. And, I'm pretty sure I haven't exhausted the possibilities. The point is that Intelligent Design isn't a science of God, but rather a science of mind. For those theists (such as myself) who view God's actions as most correlating with those of mind, this leads to similar results. However, since I don't limit God's actions to those encapsulated by mental models, I don't think it is wholly appropriate, though it can be insightful. For a look as to how one might be able to use ID in a more practical model of the human mind, you might check out my presentation two months ago on the subject.johnnyb_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

"The point has been made by Johnson, and others long before I imagine, that one’s views about whether God “did it,” or nature “did it,” or something/someone in between “did it,” bear little upon scientists’ day-to-day conduct of their work."
Yes - nor does such have any effect on what is permissible to investigate. The straw man is that presupposing God's involvement with reality precludes searching for how nature functions, or the nature of nature.Chance Ratcliff_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

"ID is concerned with making valid distinctions about material objects in this universe. It is not the goal of ID to culturally overwhelm the reductionist opposition, but to actually demonstrate they are wrong."
Exactly. However this idea is apparently too simple for many: objects designed by intelligent agents for a purpose have inarguable properties that differentiate them from objects produced by natural regularities subject to ordinary contingencies. I'd call that non-negotiable. It's either true or it isn't, regardless of anyone's motives. Personally I'm really most interested in whether anyone, speaking on behalf of or against ID, believes it.Chance Ratcliff_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 13
ID is concerned with making valid distinctions about material objects in this universe. It is not the goal of ID to culturally overwhelm the reductionist opposition, but to actually demonstrate they are wrong. If that struggle bores you, then perhaps you should point your interest in other areas.
In a world where criteria for design inferences and irreducible complexities have been described with hard-to-argue-against rigor, I'd say that ongoing discoveries which show that those criteria must be applied to the living world are beginning to qualify as anything but boring. More like earth shaking. The point has been made by Johnson, and others long before I imagine, that one's views about whether God "did it," or nature "did it," or something/someone in between "did it," bear little upon scientists' day-to-day conduct of their work. When and where, that is, said work is being carried out without metaphysical "spin." Which, setting aside climate change, I would judge as "probably mostly." Which means, for one thing, that cohorts of ID-convinced and fully-funded PhD's in lab coats are not necessarily needed to move the debate ahead. And for another, that by putting its ideas into play, the ID movement has already accomplished no mean feat.jstanley01_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein.
Definitely all anti-darwinists and neo-darwinists. But first and foremost, we want to banish them because they are just worse than useless.
My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.
And for me even more exciting when we discover the designer isn't "God".Joe_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

"Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein" You fail to make the distinction of 'to whom' you point this positioning statement. Is it at the men and women who are actually trying to produce a result, or to the generic citizen who has become attracted to conversation? If you are pointing it at the former, then you have failed to demonstrate your point, and if you are pointing it that latter, then it is moot to the methodologies of ID. ID is concerned with making valid distinctions about material objects in this universe. It is not the goal of ID to culturally overwhelm the reductionist opposition, but to actually demonstrate they are wrong. If that struggle bores you, then perhaps you should point your interest in other areas. If you envision man’s relationship with a Creator as a potential area for your interest to follow, then by all means, knock yourself out. Meanwhile, the goal of ID will continue unchanged.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

The only thing that causes the de-humanization of man is sin; more specifically, the influence of it and the behaviour that results from it. I don't see how gamers or companies that an ID supporter would invest in relates to "ID as Science of God". The discussion of God's nature will always orbit the center of Science until the mystery of God is revealed. Then, the discussion of God will be at the very center of Science and the topic of eternal life/immortality will no longer be science-fiction, but a reality which is made possible through the knowledge of 'Intelligent Design'. This knowledge is contained within the Holy Bible.John W Kelly_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein
Which prominent ID supporters are NOT like this? Do you think Stephen Meyer belongs in this camp? William Dembski, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe? Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Charles Thaxton, Casey Luskin? Which ID supporters are actually discussing "positive visions of ID"?lastyearon_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Didn’t you actually read the original post and link? How idle. Yes indeed I did read it. That is why I asked this question: "But Steve Fuller says, “My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.” So the designer is the deity?"timothya_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

re: Jon Garvey's #6 - actually, I'd call it 'intelligently designed' smoke from a signal fire. The big question is: can Movement-oriented supporters of ID properly interpret this kind of communication? So far, News (Denyse O'Leary) just wants to negatively label Steve time and again with 'agnostic' as if he is 'unknowing'. This is an IDM example of miscommunicating for a particular (if outwardly undefined) purpose. "Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise...but so far there is little appetite to discuss positive visions of ID." - Steve Fuller Aga - or as an Ewok from the Star Wars series would affirm - Yup, Yup (or Yub Nub)! Yes. There are IDM people who haven't thought for a second about the difference and similarity between 'human' and 'artificial,' given their focus on OoL and origins of biological infomation, highly speculative fields that they are. Whereas technology and human enhancements are a real, nearby, relevant field for people, as computing, prosthetics, social media, etc. As I'm a member of the Star Wars generation, let me note that was a huge moment in film, when the character "ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader." But of course, it would be devastating to suggest that Darth Vader was 'intelligently designed.' (Why? Because evil cannot be 'intelligently designed' according to IDM-ID, which thus far denies any open talk of ID theodicy!)Gregory_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Didn't you actually read the original post and link? How idle.Jon Garvey_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

You think your god is like you? How quaint.timothya_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Lat time I looked, imago dei was a specifically Judaeo-Christian idea. If I'm blowing smoke, it came from Steve Fuller's cigarette.Jon Garvey_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

John Garvey posted this: "Without recognition of those limits to ID specifically, and human enterprise in general, it becomes part of what caused the Fall, rather than what redeems it. It’s Babylon, not Jerusalem." Whatever limits there are to ID (and I leave it to its protagonists to explain what those limits might be), I am intrigued to know why the "human enterprise" is part of the "Fall", which is a specifically Judeo-Christian idea. People from other cultural traditions might think you are blowing smoke.timothya_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

The piece Steve links to clarifies what he means by making ID a theologically-based pursuit, and confirms (to me, at least) a thought I put in my blog on the significance of the difference between "theology" and "religion". My post prompted a healthy discussion, but most seemed to skirt round the main point I was making. Steve's theologically "monist" standpoint is that if God is like us only more so (his use of the "imago dei" motif), then ID is a field in which the very nature of God, and therefore of total reality, can be discovered. We can, potentially, work out what kind of "gamer" God is. His definition of the "Abrahamic God", then, is essentially a shorthand for "the God of the Philosophers" - the image is taken outside of the actual context of the real Abraham's God, who was apprehended through religion, not philosophy. "Abraham believed God (even when he couldn't understand him) and it was credited to him as righteousness." If the project is for humankind to overcome the false view of God's "gamesmanship" brought upon us by the Fall, by reasoning and investigating to the correct view, then it stands a Universe apart from the way back from the Fall that God offered through Abraham, through Israel and finally through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. We rightly laud the role of Christianity in making science possible, by recognising the links between our reason and God's - in Kepler's (misquoted) words, "thinking God's thoughts after him". There can be no ID without that - nor any science either. But many of those early scientists (though not all) were tempted to ignore the other strand of Abrahamic faith, the one that says: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares Yahweh. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Without recognition of those limits to ID specifically, and human enterprise in general, it becomes part of what caused the Fall, rather than what redeems it. It's Babylon, not Jerusalem.Jon Garvey_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

I must have misunderstood. I thought it was a tenet of intelligent design that it made no claims about the nature of the designer. But Steve Fuller says, "My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science." So the designer is the deity?timothya_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

I don't see a clear distinction between these, though stressing one side more than another may be useful for expository purposes in a given context. My main objection is to a strongly segregationist view (a la Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA) that puts religion and science in separate modes of beings.Steve Fuller_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Steve Fuller, "own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science. " discussion of God's Nature put in words of science (force, field, equation, measures) or religious (spirit, creator, all-see-hear-be-power) or filosofia (cause first, ground of being) or together all? thank you for response. sergiosergiomendes_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply