God the Farmer?
by BilboMike Gene has pointed out that the identity of the designer need not be God. However, for theists, if living organisms were designed, the most likely agent is God. Many modern theists have objections to God directly designing organisms. Some see it as "tinkering" and beneath God's dignity. Others think that it means God would be forcing His will on the universe, and contrary to His nature, which allows as much freedom to His creation as possible. And others think the idea of God directly designing organisms is more vulnerable to the philosophical problem of evil than a God who leaves the universe alone.
I think there are satisfactory answers to all of these objections. However, I think there is an underlying problem that is more basic, which has more to do with aesthetics. I think we have an innate sense that reality should appeal to our sense of the beautiful and the elegant. The idea of a God continuing to intervene in the universe in a nonsensical hodgepodge repels our sense of the way things should be. That is why in the past I offered an analogy that might help make aesthetic sense of God as designer: a duet. I proposed that we see it as a dance between God and Nature, where God is Fred Astaire, and Nature is Ginger Rogers. Most of the time, Ginger dances on her own two feet, and God merely leads her, invisible to the probing eyes of science. But just as occasionally Fred might pick up Ginger and twirl her around, so might God do the same with Nature, when designing organisms. It's an analogy that might help us make more aesthetic sense of what might be God's relationship with the universe.
But there may be another analogy that might make even more sense of God's action: the image of a farmer planting seeds. In this case, maybe only two or three seeds. The first seed would have been the universe itself, which we are told started out as a very small thing, much smaller than a mustard seed. Yet it has grown into a giant tree, that all the stars and planets can find shelter in. The second seed would be the first microorganisms planted on our planet, billions of years ago. If Mike Gene's hypothesis of front-loaded evolution turns out to be correct, this is all the direct design intervention that may have been necessary. And from this tiny seed grew the huge tree of life that we see around us today.
(The New Testament suggests that there may have been a third seed, planted about two millenia ago. But that's another story.)
So perhaps the proper analogy of God's action in the universe is that of a farmer, planting seeds in his field.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Good thoughts. I think the pervasive nature of this common aesthetic notion is rooted firmly (no pun intended) in the Genesis account, where God did the "hard" work of creating the first stuff and left it largely at that. Of course, I think the divine role so often overlooked - after all, God as typically proposed is both Creator and Sustainer - accords nicely with the farmer analogy.
As far as aesthetics are concerned, I think it's a relatively normal assumption for us to think that the best way of designing a given thing will also be aesthetically sound. I don't think it's one that need be maintained, though, in all cases.
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 19, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hey dudes. The Designer can still be God, and not be the Hebrew or Christian God.
Look,
It could be Anthony Flew's Designer, a kind of amoral Aristotelean God. It could be some kind of Platonic World-Soul, or Brahma like. Vedantic Mind.
Who knows.
Probably not aliens or anything natural though, because how do you explain cosmological fine-tunning then? Unless, we are universe is some kind of experiment by alien ubermensch from another universe.
Comment by Dr.Bingo — February 19, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Or maybe it's us- you, me, and all the rest. Maybe, like the "Q" of Star Trek Next Generation, we were bored super-cosmic entities who created this universe for our own amusement, with potential for all the good and evil experiences, and then incarnated into these forms (i.e, attached are consciousness to human brains) for the sheer "drugged" novelty of limited experience. People in this life drink and take drugs, over-eat, and over-sex, to escape from boredom. Maybe super-cosmic entities build universes and incarnate in them as a "drug" of escape.
Exactly.
What would be the practical difference from our standpoint from an alien ubermensch from another universe, and "God"
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 19, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Or…. you might be able to explain natural evil through some theodicy.
http://www.designinference.com...
I'm not a Baptist (Episcopalian actually), but Dr. Dembski had written the best theodicy I have ever seen. The man, you cannot deny is brilliant.
Comment by Dr.Bingo — February 19, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Kornbelt, you may enjoy reading Frank Tipler's THE PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY.
Check it out, it may be your cup of tea.
Comment by Dr.Bingo — February 19, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
More to the point, even if there is a designer, and the designer really is God as seen by western theism - it cannot be demonstrated. Not by direct appearance or communication, not by anything else. Faith is in play always and forever, under the best conditions.
Though insofar as ID goes, I hope to see development based on the assumption - 'if so, then how?' Even though I feel the limits of detecting or ruling out design go beyond science, I could see that particular endeavor as being scientifically fruitful.
As for Tipler - I think he introduces some interesting ideas all on his own. Namely that, whatever one may think about God being at work in our/the universe's origin, the existence of God (or something remarkably God-like) in the future may well be treated as a distinct question. I don't think the full ramifications of that have been explored yet.
Comment by nullasalus — February 19, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
Are you watching the discussions Oleg and I are having?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 19, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
TP,
Been away for a few days. Glanced at it, but for as much as I love QM, there's not enough movement on the subject (or Orch-OR) to keep my interest long. At least Stapp regularly updates his files, busy beaver that he is.
I'm thinking more along the lines of MikeGene's views, but from a different tact - Assuming a designer exists and wants to accomplish feat X, what knowledge would they need, what avenues could they pursue, what advantages/disadvantages would those avenues present, etc. Theoretical engineering on a grand scale. Or along Tipler's lines, just how many ways you can picture a functionally maximally powerful/knowledgeable being.
That's one more reason I keep a close watch on ID, despite the philosophical divide - regardless of whether Dembski's filter works or can work, or Behe's edge is where he says it is, I see a whole lot of interesting thought it can provoke (ha ha), and who knows, maybe even perspectives/modes of investigation it can provide, as the concept grows.
Comment by nullasalus — February 19, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 11:38 am
And how, precisely, is this different from deism? Just curious…
–Allen
***************************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
***************************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
***************************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
***************************************
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 20, 2008 @ 11:38 am
February 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The same way the deism of Anthony Flew is different from the deism of Tom Paine, and in turn different from the deism of John D Barrow. When does deism become full-blown western theism? It's not like questions like these have been anywhere close to open, shut, and decided.
Comment by nullasalus — February 20, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Precisely; and as nearly any theologian would be happy to tell you, deism is functionally indistinguishable from atheism, in that the deity of deism is either constrained (or distains) from intervening in significant ways with the universe following its creation. Not a deity with whom one can get up close and personal, nor one that can do anything at all except perhaps observe our foibles with a jaundiced eye…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 20, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Furthermore (and as more than one commentator has pointed out), deism and its close relations have intractable problems with theodicy, as I pointed out in an essay at my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
If ID theory is valid, then the deity of deism is not only a crypto-atheist Himself, he is also a utilitarian Who gives not a whit for individuals nor their welfare. Makes Him kind of a tough sell, no?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 20, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
And as for Dr. Dembski's essay on theodicy, it's both incoherent and sophomoric (not to mention corrosively anti-human and surprisingly anti-intellectual). I can be more explicit if you want; just email me for the details.
–Allen
***************************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
***************************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
***************************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
***************************************
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 20, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Allen,
Huh? God as Farmer/Caretaker/Seedplanter = Deism?
You lost me somewhere…
Comment by chunkdz — February 20, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
So what implications do you attach to this?
I don't see the logical connection there. Why would a one time input, via a creation event, infer an impersonal deity?
Comment by Bradford — February 20, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I'm sorry, but that's entirely and utterly wrong. Maybe you could make a hesitant claim in that direction with regards to pantheism - and even there, problems begin to arise.
But among deists, you see many beliefs about natural law and right of man, ideas of destiny and purpose, and so on. God isn't necessarily 'hands off' in the deistic view out of a detachment or lack of care, but a lack of need - and when it's argued that God isn't directly intervening in the world past creating it, it's usually coupled with the justification of 'because that implies God created something imperfect that needs tuneups'. In other words, because it's an insult to majesty.
Why, there have been and still are christian deists. Shocking, no? It's very hard to draw the line between deism and western theism.
Not at all. You just (willfully or accidentally) vastly mistake the scope and basics of deism.
Comment by nullasalus — February 20, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Bilbo wrote:
I don't think that the analogy that Bilbo is making is necessarily a deistic one. In fact I will argue that it is actually very consistent with Biblical theology; it's all of matter of how many seeds. If you carefully (and allegorically) read the opening chapters of Genesis you'll see that the Creator revealed there is not a micromanager, but someone who creates and intervenes episodically and occasionally. For example he doesn't create everything all at once but does so over a span of six "days." Even his interaction with "˜un-fallen' mankind is occasional. He isn't hanging around all the time instead he comes to visit the man and his in the cool of the evening. He grants human being free will, but also moral responsibility. Of course on the seventh "day" he rest
In my thinking there are probably several other seeds we need to consider: what about multie-cellularity, plants, animals and sexuality, or the Cambrian explosion? What about consciousness and self consciousness? (Or the emergence of what we call mind and intelligence?) In my mind explaining how conscious and mind arise out of matter is even more difficult than explaining how life originates from non-life.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 20, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
The following is the only materialist candidate for the designer I've heard suggested:
"all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; "¦ the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."
It is the only designer that doesn't include some form of intelligent, purposeful organization.
All thoughts about the identity of the designer will remain speculative; I'm confident its nature will never be known with certainty. However my favorite speculation is that the designer is an intelligence and volition innate to reality. The universe has designed itself. Each piece of living matter, down to individual cells, has some limited ability to respond, intelligently and purposefully. Living matter makes limited, non-automatic choices when stimulated to do so. Since I don't believe in miracles, I doubt this intelligence suddenly popped into existence with the creation of life. I suspect it was always an aspect of reality, but too weak to be detected in inanimate matter by our present measuring methods (except perhaps at the quantum level). However most living systems can be observed sometimes overriding automatic mechanisms, and responding creatively, intelligently and purposefully. I have no objection to religious people attributing the creative intelligence to a deity, but if intelligence of any form is involved, life is intelligently designed.
The universe has designed itself. The laws of nature are entrenched habits. The laws governing inanimate matter are quite entrenched by this time, but living systems are still, to some extent, a design in process.
Questions about Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — February 20, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
and now for some pot….
…calling a kettle black:
Some people just don't seem to have an imagination.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 20, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
As something of a Christian, Naturalistic Intelligent Design Advocate , and Panentheist (the most logical conclusion of course
:wink:) I see God as perfectly personal, even though He "merely" engineered the universe to such fine tuned precision that it unfolded according to his plan. It seems rather obvious to me, IMO, that God operates through the creation of laws — both spiritual and natural. Those laws, once created, operate "of their own accord." Does this mean God is impersonal? Of course not. As a panentheist, I see God as actually *being* those laws and also existing far beyond those laws at the same time. If God truly is God, how can anything exist apart from him?
How does this fit into me still being an ID advocate? Well, it is obvious, IMO, that we can scientifically determine the effects of intelligence. IOW, a mere random set of laws and variables (absent intelligence) acted upon by chance will not produce information processing systems or CSI. Thus an intelligence is necessary to cause the production of life within an overarching program.
Comment by CJYman — February 20, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
CJYman,
A christian and a naturalist? I can already hear the brains exploding.
I say that as someone who may well be classified as the same, mind you. Naturalism was more palatable as a philosophical position to take in opposition to religious views back before QM, the big bang, computation, etc - as in, back before realizing what the 'natural' is actually capable of. So sayeth I, anyway.
Comment by nullasalus — February 20, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Professor MacNeill wrote:
Ehhhh…what's up, doc? Before I answer your question, I have a question of my own: Have you read Mike Gene's book, yet?
Now, back to my analogy: I'm suggesting that we might view God's creative acts as a farmer planting seeds. And — as far as natural history is concerned, if Mike's front-loaded hypothesis turns out to be correct, there may have been only two such acts: the initial creation of the universe, and the initial creation of life on earth.
The New Testament suggests that there was a third creative act: the Incarnation, where the Word of God became flesh. One need not believe the New Testament in order to accept the farmer analogy. It's just that I got the farmer analogy from the New Testament, which made me think it might help interpret God's acts of creation.
I think God very much cares about each and every human being (and sparrows, too). And I think God intervenes in the universe, beyond what may have been only two or three creative acts. So, perhaps I should make a distinction between divine acts of creation and other divine actions.
I think there might be a hint in the New Testament about how to understand the problem of evil. I'll try writing that up sometime.
Comment by Bilbo — February 20, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Comment on "God the farmer"
kernest135.
If God did create the world and all the basic life forms, as the Bible claims then why? What purpose?
If you are prepared to accept that God is real, for long enough to read the article, then try:-
http://www.creationtheory.8k.c...
It seems to be a logical possibility since the Bible has many prophesies that have come true, and some from more than 2000 years ago that are coming to pass in our time. So someone knew or was confidant they could control the future. Apart from the many completed about Jesus, one obvious one from the Old Testament, is of Israel becoming a nation again in what was then the distant end times, and being a "cup of reeling" to the nations around them. Now they are back as a nation and the recipient of hatred and continual rocket attacks and condemnation for defending themselves, all as predicted, showing mans hatred for other men.
kernest135
Comment by kernest135 — February 21, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:44 pm
In the vague hope that Allen will read this, I can only ask (understanding that we are talking of an analogy here), how is it that in your world a Farmer, once he has planted a seed, withdraws entirely from the scene?
What Farmer, having once cultivated the soil, plants a seed, only to leave it to the vagaries of nature?
Comment by Mung — February 21, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I guess the point of my analogy was to try to satisfy two groups: those who think God does not intervene in nature and those who do. The first group might accept the idea of God intervening twice — creating the universe and planting life in it. The second group would go on to extend the metaphor, as Mung did, pointing out how a farmer then cultivates the plants. Of course, this all depends upon Mike Gene's front-loaded evolution hypothesis succeeding.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2008 @ 7:13 pm