Chapter 10: Existence, Free Will, and
Self-Causation
Existence and Self-Causation
Perhaps the greatest mystery that we encounter in contemplating the universe is that of its origin: how - and perhaps why - the universe came to exist.
It seems to many people that there is no compelling necessity for the universe to exist, that is to say, that it is logically possible that the universe could have not existed. If so, the fact that the universe does exist seems to require an explanation.
If the universe is not eternal, then it did not always exist, and its existence would therfore seem to have been the result of something which changed the status quo. That is, the universe would seem to have been caused to exist by some agency.
This agency can be non-physical, but this involves the mind-body problem of the interaction of the physical and the non-physical. In addition, by appealing to a non-physical entity as the originator of the universe, one is led to the question of where that entity originated. The answer that a non-physical entity (for example God) need not be originated is a possible answer, but as soon as one admits that something can exist without it being originated, one can apply this to the universe itself, and claim that although events within the universe are 'physical' and always are originated and follow along a chain of cause and effect, the universe as a whole has a 'non-physical' nature in that it need not have been originated.
On the other if we limit ourselves only to the physical, and define "the universe" so as to include "all that is", all of space-time-matter-energy, 'laws of nature', and anything else which may physically exists, then there is nothing physically existent other than "the universe" which could have caused the universe to exist - so that if the universe was caused by something, it could only have been caused by itself. That is, the universe is either uncaused, or paradoxically, "self-causative".
We will see that the causal paradox of the origin of the universe is very similar to the paradox involved in free will.
Self-Causation, Free Will, and the Emergence into Existence of the Universe
As we saw, free-willed choice must be acausal or self-causative. The paradoxical phenomenon of self-causation in free will is paralled by that of the self-causation of the emergence into existence of the universe itself. In this fundamental sense, the mystery of existence is tied into the mystery of free will.
The two paradoxes are related not only in their form, but they may also actually point to a fundamental relationship between the underlying processes of free will and emergence into existence.
For example, perhaps a self-causative mechanism similar to that behind free will could account for the origin of the universe. Alternatively, perhaps the fact that the universe originated in a meta-causal or self-causing manner could explain how it could possibly contain a meta-causal self-causative phenomenon such as free will.
It may also be possible that the existence of the universe and that of free will are intimately related, and perhaps even cause each other. The existence of one perhaps resolves the paradox of the existence of the other - that is, as explained by quantum metaphysics, the existence of the universe owes its origin to an act of will, while will can arise only within the framework of the existence of a universe. And, as it is the free-willed consciousness which evolves from the big bang which then provides retroactive existence to that very big bang, this interaction of free-willed consciousness and emergence into existence takes place in a paradoxical self-causative manner, and in this it is similar to the self-causation involved in free will and emergence into existence themselves.
With hinsoght it almost seems that one could even perhaps 'predict' the existence of a phenomenon such as free will, given the results of quantum metaphysics. If the universe is self-caused, via a causality-transcending self-referential act of consciousness, one can perhaps expect that consciousness will itself exhibit self-causing, causality-transcending, self-referential characteristics - for example what we call free will.
Quantum Metaphysics, Self-Causation, Creation and Eden
This connection of free will and the very existence of the universe provides a link between the creation account, which tells of the emergence into existence of the universe, and the Eden account, which recounts the emergence of free will in the universe.
From the Biblical perspective we have expounded here, the purpose of creation is related to the existence of moral choice, and only moral activity is truly meaningful. Therefore since moral choice can exist only if there exists free will, it is free willed-consciousness which allows the existence of meaning and purpose.
It is most appropriate that the very characteristics of man which allow the emergence of the universe into reality - free-willed consciousness - are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning, so that there is a fundamental inter-relationship between meaning, purpose, existence, free-will, consciousness and the very nature of reality.
This connection is then reflected in Genesis via the juxtaposition of the creation and Garden of Eden accounts, the juxtaposition of the universe emerging into existence via purposive creation, and the emergence in this universe of free-willed conscious moral humanity.
The Tree of Knowledge, Ex-Nihilo Creation, and Self-Causation
The basic paradox of self-causation not only ties the creation and Eden accounts together, but it is also present at the most fundamental level of the creation and Eden accounts themselves.
Self-Causation and the Eden Account: It is one of the fundamental premises of the Eden account that the eating from the Tree was that which granted the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Yet if man could not distinguish between good and evil, then he clearly cannot be held responsible for his choice to eat from the Tree.
Therefore the basic premise of the Eden account, that man is held responsible for having violated a command in Eden, involves a paradox - seemingly man already must have possesed an understanding of good and evil prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
It is as though the knowledge of good and evil was both a preliminary to the eating, and its result, so that in a way free-willed moral choice brought about its own origin.
Free-will is therefore not only self-causative, but in the Eden account its emergence into existence in the universe was seemingly via a self-causative mechanism.
Self-Causation and the Creation Account: The very idea of creation ex-nihilo is in itself paradoxical, since it involves the creation of space-time, giving a 'beginning' to time - something which is quite impossible. Furthermore the idea of space-time coming into existence is paradoxical - it implies that space 'began existing where there was no space before', where the words 'began' 'where' 'before' are undefined.
Similarly, the creation account itself contains an underlying thread of paradox and acausality.
Furthermore, according to tradition the final day - sabbath - was itself a creation, and it was for the sabbath that all was created. Yet, the sabbath is of course also the commemoration of the (cessation of) creation. Thus, the universe was created for the sake of commmemoration of its creation.
In addition, according to Rambam the words "and God saw everything that he made and it was very good" means that the universe was created in order that God be able to grant to all existing beings the inherent good of existence itself. That is, existence exists in order that existence exist.
Eden, Creation, Free Will and Self Causation: The creation account deals with the paradox of the self-causation of the universe by attributing its existence to the free-willed action of a causality-transcendent creator. The creator is also 'self-caused', so that the first three words of Genesis 'beginning' 'God' 'created' all refer to entities and concepts involving self-causation, linking them with each other.
The paradox of free will is dealt with by attributing the capability for the possession of free will by man to the infusion into him of the divine spirit of the causality-transcendant creator, making him into the image of the transcendent creator by connecting him to the transcendent realm which is beyond causality, beyond the limitations of determinism/randomness, granting the universe existence for its own sake, yet also for the sake of the meaning and purpose made possible by the existence in this universe of free willed moral choice.
Quantum metaphysics then links the emergence into existence of the universe to the emergence within the universe of a moral being, so that the universe achieves existence when it becomes capable of supporting meaningful activity, and fulfilling a transcendental purpose.
Chapter 11: Cosmology and Kabbalah:
Broken Symmetry and Shvirat Hakelim,
Tzimtzum and Free Will
Cosmology, Biology, and Symmetry
Recent developments in theoretical physics and cosmology show that the laws of physics are quite possibly manifestations of one unified law. This one Law appears as many due to the fragmentation of the initial universe, its loss of unity and symmetry.
In the words of Heinz Pagels:
"Here, for the first time, we see a remarkable feature of the modern theory of the origin of the universe: the further back in time we go, the hotter the universe becomes, and broken symmetries are restored. The universe and all its particle interactions are becoming more and more symmetrical as we descend deeper into the big bang. This feature holds out the hope that the universe becomes simpler, more symmetrical and more manageable in its very early history, a hope to which physicists cling in their model building.
Conversely, were we to progress forward in time, we would see that as the temperature falls, those perfect symmetries are broken. Now the physical differences between the various interactions - strong, weak, and eletromagnetic - become apparent.
The universe today, with its relatively low temperature, is the frozen remnant of the big bang. Like an ice crystal that has frozen out of a uniform water vapor, it has lots of structure - the galaxies, stars, and life itself. But according to the modern view, even the protons and neutrons - the very substance of matter - are the frozen fossils of the big bang. They too were created as the temperature fell ".
A beautiful painting is actually a collection of paint drops spread on a canvas. If one were to remove the paint drops and mix them all together one would achieve maximal unity and uniformity, but the beauty and uniqueness would be destroyed. A human is composed of cells which are composed of atoms which are composed of elementary particles. Take apart the human and mix all the constitutent particles together, and one obtains unity, but the unique properties of a living being, of a working brain, are lost. Arrange all similar particles together in individual clumps, and one obtains great order compared to the chaotic distribution of particles in the body, but the complexity of the living body is destroyed. Physical life is organized matter and energy, and is based on differentiation. If all is the same, perfectly symmetric and uniform, totally ordered, then all complexity is absent, and there can be no structure, no life, no consciousness.
If one considers the patterns formed by matter at various stages in the development of the universe, it can be seen that initially the universe was a point and contained only a relatively uniform jumble of energy. This uniformity was destroyed when the universe began expanding and the energy was transformed into a jumble of various elementary particles, and then as the universe expanded yet more, into hydrogen atoms. In the ever expanding universe these began to clump together to form galaxies of stars, with planets forming, and so on. The more that there was differentiation, the more the initial order was destroyed, the more structure and complexity there was. Eventually, there was sufficient differentiation to produce living beings, brains, consciousness.
Life consumes matter, organic and otherwise, as fuel in order to suvive, in order to build new body cells and to provide energy for blood transport, for motion, for brain function. Humans eat complex entities such as plants and animals, and besides using them to build cells, converts them mostly into less complex forms - energy and waste matter. Thus although life increases the order and complexity in its immediate vicinity, on the whole the net result is an increase in disorder, in entropy.
In sum, one can say that life can only come into being in a universe in which symmetry is not total, and can continue only by transforming pre-existent order into chaos.
Broken Symmetry in Kabbalah: Shvirat Hakelim
In Genesis, the operation of the universe in a complete and self-consistent manner begins after the creation of humanity and the onset of consciousness. In this sense, Genesis implies that the true existence of the universe begins with the existence of consciousness.
According to the Kabbalah, the emergence of the universe into existence, and its development leading to the emergence of an autonomously willed being, was a process involving increasing differentiation, fragmentation of the initial unity, and loss of the original harmony and symmetry of the cosmos.
When the universe does not exist, there was only Gd. When the universe exists, there exists other than Gd - the universe. Thus, in order to create a universe, Gd must seemingly fragment somewhat the Divine unity and unique existentiality - a fragmentation which is however real only from the perspective of the beings inhabiting this physical universe rather from the perspective of the divine unity.
However, when consciousness does not exist, the existence of otherness is not manifest as there is no awareness of the fragmentation, and therefore the fragmentation does not yet exist. On the other hand due to its awareness of its own existence, and therefore of its otherness from the divine unity, the existence of consciousness adds an element of fragmentation to that caused by the existence of the physical universe by itself, making this fragmentation a reality.
However it is the existence of free will in the universe which produces the maximal fragmentation of the divine uniqueness, since the existence of moral beings introduces not merely a consciousness of fragmentation but also an element of independence of thought and action and the existence of a will other than the Will of Gd - namely the will of man.
Free will is therefore the factor which brings the shattering effect of existence to its maximal level of fragmentation.
Prior to the existence of free willed beings, nothing was contrary to the Will of God, no consciousness of fragmentation existed, no thought or action had its source in fragmentation, whereas after the creation of existence and of free will, all this changes.
From the mystical perspective in which only God exists, the concept of creation is paradoxical since it involves the creation of that which is 'not God'. One can address this paradox somewhat by defining creation in terms of the bringing into existence of a will which is not the divine will, but which nevertheless exists only as a result of the divine will that it exist.
In this approach, only the existence of a free-willed consciousness, which feels itself to be independent of God, can define 'creation'. From the point of view of God however, all is one, and the seemingly independent consciousness is actually an aspect of the One consciousness. In this sense, the emergence of a free-willed consciousness is not only necessarily simultaneous with the 'creation of the universe', but the creation of the universe - as in the creation account - can take place, can be defined, only at the point of maximal shattering, at the emergence into existence of a free-willed consciousness - as in the Eden account.
Tzimtzum
Another fundamental idea of the kabbalah in relation to creation is that of tzimtzum - a form of withdrawal of the divine which was a necessary prerequisite for creation.
There are two basic forms of tzimtzum. One is the necessity for the divine to 'withdraw itself' in order to allow the existence of physicality, and the other is a withdrawal of the divine will in order to allow human beings freedom of choice. Thus the creation of the physical universe and the endowment of free will both required a 'withdrawal of the divine': to achieve the goals of creation, God deliberately self- limited to allow the existence of a physical universe where prior to this there was only God, and the creation by God of a being who can choose to disobey Him was a self-limitation no less radical.
Thus, in order to create a moral universe, Gd must seemingly fragment somewhat the Divine unity and unique existentiality, and must seemingly 'sacrifice' the exclusivity of the Divine Will [both are types of 'Tzimtzum']. As in the teachings of modern physics and cosmology, so too in the Kabbalah: in order for free-willed conscious life to exist, it was necessary for the initial order, unity, and symmetry to be shattered. Without the shattering of the symmetry, structure - including life - could not exist.
Due to its linking of creation and the emergence of a free-willed consciousness, the idea of tzimtzum provides us with further insight into the connection between the creation and Eden accounts.
Tzimtzum in Natural Law
The creation of the universe and the operation of free will have a commonality; both involve the withdrawal of the fundamental principle of science, that of causality.
In the sense that the unity of natural law, the very lawfulness of the universe, derives from the underlying unity of God and from the divine will, the withdrawal of causality involved in the creation of physical existence and of free will is parallel to the withdrawal of the divine, tzimtzum, involved in these very actions.
Tzimtzum and Free Will
By some definitions of what is meant by 'God' in theology and kabbalah, it is meaningless to say that there is something other than God. Nevertheless, as we stated above, if one states that God created the universe, then this of course implies that God created something other than God. Indeed, we are conscious and feel ourselves to have an independent will, and we feel 'other than' God, and therefore we can say that there is of necessity something other than God. This is a paradox.
Kabbalistically, creation can be defined as the process whereby God undergoes the restriction or withdrawal of tzimtzum, enabling some aspect of the divine to achieve an independent consciousness and will, independent from its own perspective although paradoxically not independent from the perspective of the divine.
Shvirat Hakelim
In Kabbalah, ............
Tzimtzum and Shvirat Hakelim
The two concepts of tzimtzum and shvirat hakelim in kaballah are paralleled in science by the concepts of existence and of free willed consciousness, and the connection between existence and free willed consciousness provides a link between these two kabbalistic ideas.
From both the scientific and kaballistic perspective, the physical universe and free willed conscious life can only exist when the initial order and symmetry is shattered to allow diversity and complexity. Similarly, from the scientific perspective, existence and free willed consciousness are possible only due to a withdrawal of the basic law of nature, the law of causality (see discussion elsewhere in this book), while from the perspective of kaballah, they are possible only following the withdrawal of the divine.
Existence in itself, and the existence of free willed consciousness, point to the presence of a realm beyond that dealt with in ordinary scientific endeavor. Furthermore, it is free will which provides the possibility of meaning to the universe, and which according to quantum metaphysics (see elsewhere in this book) is the catalyst which initiates the universe into full physical reality.
Introduction:
Hitpashtut (to atzilut) = big bang
The Creation and Eden Accounts
Tzimtzum is that which allows the possibility of existence and free willed consciousness, while shvirat hakelim is the process of the actualization of this potential, leading to the emergence of existence and of free willed consciousness. Also, in quantum metaphysics, these two fundamental acausal phenomena - existence and free willed consciousness - are themselves linked by an acausal connection - free willed consciousness emerges in the universe and then retroactively brings the universe into true physical existence (see discussion elsewhere in this book).
The ideas of tzimtzum and of shvirat hakelim are also reflected in the creation and Eden accounts. In the creation account, the first stages of creation are not said to take place on "the first day" - the creation account does not refer at all to a 'first day'. Instead, the initial creation is said to end with 'day one' or 'one day', implying a uniqueness - rather than 'the first day', which would imply that it was the first day of a series. Only after this is there mention of a 'second' and 'third' day and so on. The initial creation though was unique, not part of a process, with the term 'one day' perhaps a hint reflecting the unity of the creator - the divine perspective - rather than the fragmentation of the unity - the perspective of the created.
Another hint of these ideas can be gleaned from the fact that the initial creation was of 'heaven and earth' undifferentiated, also perhaps a reflection of the unity of the creator. Only on later days was this successively fragmented to form the waters above and below, the luminaries, and so on. Light was created and then there was a division of light and darkness. Even the culmination of creation with the creation of man involves levels of differentiation. First we are told of a creation of Man in the singular, and then of humanity in the plural, and the creation then concludes with the command to be fruitful and multiply.
The initial creation of heaven and earth contains within it the potential for all the succesive creation. As Rambam said:
INSERT QUOTE "........."
After the initial stage, the emergence of the universe involved the increasing differentiation associated with the actualization of the potential inherent in the initial creation. According to Rambam, the universe was created because existence is good, and this process of differentiation was designed to bring about the existence of all that was implied by the initially existent creations - a maximal existence, and therefore a maximal good.
The creation account deals with the fragmentation and withdrawal of the divine that is necessary to allow the existence of the universe, and to allow it to differentiate to achieve its maximal inherent potential for existence. In the Eden account one has the fragmentation and withdrawal of the divine will to allow the emergence of free will in man, and the fragmentation of man into man and woman.
Both the creation and Eden accounts deal therefore with tzimtzum and shvirat hakelim, causality violation and broken symmetry, with the shattering of unity to allow differentiation and complexity, and with the withdrawal of the divine to allow the existence of the physical universe and of free will.
In sum: From the singularity that is Gd, there emanated a physical universe. Beginning in a violent symmetry-shattering explosion, the universe emerged, and took physical shape. However, all the physical universe is in reality a shell - a frozen fossil of the shattered initial unity. A shattering which was made possible only via the self-willed withdrawal of the divine unity - a unity and symmetry which had to be shattered in order to allow the existence of life, and of free will in man; this perhaps is reflected in the physical universe by the requirement postulated by quantum metaphysics (see discussion elsewhere) that a free-willed being be present within the universe in order for it to emerge into physical reality.
This connection between free will and existence again underlines both the motivation of presenting the Eden account in Genesis, and the thematic connection between the creation and Eden accounts.
…………….
Ch 12: The Anthropic principle
Complexity and Design
Recent research in astrophysics, cosmology and field theory has shown that there is an intimate connection between the design of man and the design of the universe. The conditions at the big bang and the value of the fundamental constants of nature were precisely those which would allow the eventual emergence of life, and more specifically, of man. Had things been only very slightly different than they are - even in the most tiny amount - the universe could never have developed into a life-bearing universe, could never have given rise to humanity. There is thus a deep existential link between life and the universe, between the physical characteristics of living beings and the fundamental physical structure of the universe.
There seems also to be a link between complexity and design. A biological cell is a very complex entity - moreso than any known non-biological entity - and its complexity seems to be linked in some way to the fundamental nature of the universe, of its design. Because it is so complex, and only very special types of universes could produce amoebas, the specification that a universe is to be designed so as to be capable of eventually producing an amoeba would probably suffice to specify most of the characteristics of the universe - perhaps the conditions of its initial state and the value of the fundamental constants for that universe.
The more complex the entity, the more specially designed need be the universe that can produce it. The human brain is the most complex entity in the known universe, and it can only arise in very special circumstances, so that it will evolve from a big bang only if the laws of nature and initial conditions are exactly right. Thus, the specification that a universe is to produce a human-type brain is a more demanding one than that it produce an amoeba, and this demand might in itself suffice to specify (virtually) all the characteristics of the universe.
This idea is termed the 'anthropic principle'.
It may be however that there is a richer structure to the universe than that indicated by the human brain, and it may further be that there exist phenomena in the universe which exploit this richer structure, and exhibit a greater degree of complexity than does the human brain. Consciousness may be such a phenomenon.
One can imagine a universe which is sufficiently rich in structure to produce such complex entities as human brains, but are not sufficiently sophisticated so as to allow the development of consciousness. If so, then the fact that we are conscious indicates that the universe possesses a greater 'depth' than simply a universe containing brains.
Even moreso is the case with free willed consciousness. The phenomenon of free-willed consciousness is so unique that one can imagine universes containing human-type brains, even conscious brains, in which it would never arise.
To support a free-willed consciousness with a moral awareness and the ability to recognize and negotiate moral dilemmas, there must be a complex brain. Therefore, the requirement of producing a moral being is more stringent that the requirement of producing simply a human-type brain. Thus, continuing the reasoning of the anthropic principle, one can speculate that one can completely specify all the laws of nature underlying the existence of the universe via the specification that it eventually produce not merely human brains, but rather via the specification that it produce moral beings.
The Anthropic Principle and Design
Recent research in astrophysics, cosmology and field theory has shown that had things been only very slightly different than they are, the universe could never have developed into a life-bearing universe.
The fact that conscious life exists even though only very special and seemingly improbable kinds of big bangs and systems of physical law would lead to the emergence of conscious life, has been interpreted in contradictory ways. To some, this furnishes an indication that the universe was designed by a Designer, purposefully, in such a way that it would be guaranteed to bring forth life.
However, this argument can be easily seen to be fallacious. It may be that many universes have come in to being, and anytime this type of improbable big bang exists, beings will arise and eventually realize that their big bang is very improbable - it can be no other way. If the universe were not of this improbable type, there would be no beings around to notice it. Therefore the fact that the universe seems improbably suited to the existence of life is a tautology - any universe in which there is life must obviously be of the type suitable to contain life. [This is the only possibility - since we would not exist if it weren't.]
Nevertheless, some prominent scientists feel that since there is only one universe, and this universe did not have to produce life, the combination of coincidences is so unlikely that the universe must be the product of design ..
According to Stephen Hawking one of the leading theoretical phycisits of our day, and one of the co-formulators of the anthropic principle [e]:
"...a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours is immense. ..... I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."
Paul Davies wrote [f]:
"Should we conclude that the universe is a product of design? The new physics and the new cosmology hold out a tantalizing promise: that we might be able to explain how all the physical structures in the universe have come to exist, automatically, as a result of natural processes. We should then no longer have need for a Creator in the traditional sense. Nevertheless, though science may explain the world, we still have to explain science. The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."
….
This idea had been used by Brandon Carter and others to construct the "anthropic principle" which states that the strange improbable nature of our universe can be 'explained' by the very fact of the existence of beings such as us. That is, not every type of being would give rise to beings such as us - or to any life at all. Therefore, we can deduce many facts about how the universe is constituted from the fact that we have arisen within it . We can even correctly predict the magnitudes of some of the fundamental constants of physics.
As some have phrased it: "Things are as they are because we are."
Wheeler has taken this idea a very large step forwards, and has combined it with his idea of the retroactive causation of observation. Wheeler's theory is a type of anthropic principle, only it makes much stronger claims. Thus it is often termed "the strong anthropic principle"
….
It has however been suggested that there may be an infinitude of universes, or that the universe contains an infinite number of sub-universes, in each of which conditions are different, and in which most universes do not contain living beings. Only those in which the conditions are right will eventually evolve life, and some even conscious life, and these will be a tiny fraction of the total amount of universes. In these universes however, if there is no knowledge of the plurality of other universes, it will seem odd that such an unlikely universe exist, and its inhabitants might speculate that they are the only universe and therefore that it must be that the universe was designed to produce life.
Many scientists however are hesitant at proposing the existence of an infinite number of universes, and feel that this is maybe even less likely than that the universe is in fact the product of design.
The Strong Anthropic Principle
The weak anthropic principle shows us that specifying the design of the moral being will suffice to specify the design of the entire universe. The strong anthropic principle states that the universe can emerge into full physical reality only when there has emerged within it a conscious being. This principle implies that not only wasn't the form of Man left to the vagaries of evolution, but that instead - since from among all possible universes only a universe capable of eventually producing a moral being will actually emerge into existence - in some sense the laws of evolution, the big bang, and of physics as a whole were themselves determined by the form of Man.
In the language relevant to a purposive universe, one can say that the universe was created from a blueprint, and the blueprint was designed according to the specifications of the desired moral being, and the universe emerges into full physical existence at the moral stage, as determined by the parameters of the moral being itself (To paraphrase an old philosophical maxim, " moral humanity is the measure of all things'.). This understanding sheds further light onto the creation and Garden of Eden accounts, and onto their interrelationship.
Emergence of Existence: Purpose and Chance
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a Gd. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
Charles Darwin: Autobiography .
The Religionist view: According to the religionist the universe and the laws of nature were designed so as to develop living beings, and were invested with whatever inherent properties and qualities are requisite in order to guarantee that intelligent life develop from it at some stage.
One can perhaps draw an analogy between the growth of a tree and the emergence of consciousness. The combination of seed, earth, environment, and laws of nature together possess all the properties necessary for the development of a tree from the seed. Similarly the combination of singularity, space-time-energy-matter, big bang, and laws of nature would possess all the properties necessary for the development of free-willed consciousness from the initial singularity.
Further, if it was desired to created not merely a universe with life but rather a moral universe, then there would be created a big bang and appropriate "natural law" containing the ingredients necessary to ensure the eventual emergence of moral beings, .
["What is the meaning of human life, or for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious. …..." Albert Einstein.]
Purpose vs. Chance
To the religionist, the origin theories could be studied as revelations of Gd's Will and manifestations of Gd's Design. The conflict between the religionist and the atheist would center not on the origin theory itself, but rather on its interpretation - the essential issue being that of purpose vs. chance.
Atheists would claim that the universe and its life are products of chance; the fact that a singularity existed, that it developed into a big bang, that this evolved into a universe, that the universe evolved life in it, would not be accepted as being due to design - instead it would be considered as the result of chance.
Religionists, on the other hand, would claim that both the universe and life are the products of careful design and deliberate creation: the system of big bang and its concomitant natural law being specifically designed and created so as to produce moral beings. Neither side would be able to refute the other since they agree on the observable facts and disagree only on the aspects which are not empirically confirmable. Thus, the religionist could maintain that man has a divine purpose in life, while the atheist would deny this.
In this connection it is interesting to read the closing paragraph of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species".
"Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
....................
Science, atheism and biblical religion: Science is a programmatic attempt to find naturalistic explanations based on cause and effect for all objectively observable phenomena. Science - as opposed to atheism - does not claim there is no God, it only seeks to find explanations which do not require invoking God; it does not seek to disprove divine intervention, but rather is an attempt to arrive at non-supernatural explanations – 'laws' (and to express these mathematically). The scientific 'origin theory' – combining the theories of the big bang and evolution - follows logically from the attempt to find naturalistic explanations for the existence and development of the universe and of humanity. The question of whether or not there is a physically-untedetectable God who designed the laws of nature and created the universe, or who intervenes in its development, is one which science leaves to people to address individually – it is an issue which has nothing to do with science.
The scientific and biblical origin accounts: Both accounts can be seen as flowing naturally from underlying assumptions, but given the differences between these assumptions it is only to be expected that they arrive at different conclusions regarding the origin of the universe.
Obviously if one seeks naturalistic explanations one will not suddenly find God popping up in the equations, and so the lack of mention of God in these theories is to be expected, and is not in any way a conflict with religion. In fact, quite likely if the creation account consisted only of the statement that God created laws of nature designed to produce humans, most religious people would find the present-day scientific origin theory quite convincing; it certainly seems to provide a logical way for our universe and life to have emerged if there had been no God, or if God had created the universe with laws of nature designed to produce life. The fact that one can arrive at convincing scientific theories without invoking God is very impressive, but it does not prove that there is no God, nor does science claim that it does; what it does prove is that the scientific endeavor has succeeded in its task of finding naturalistic explanations.
In contrast, religion assumes the existence of a God, and seeks explanations which derive from this assumption. In particular, the Bible sets out a picture of a universe designed and created by an all-powerful being, for a purpose which includes the existence of humanity and of their moral activity. Jewish Tradition does not claim there are no other types of explanations for things, and does not assume or teach that scientific inquiries will lead no where, it simply tells of a special creation of the universe and of humanity, and tells of various revelations and miracles which occurred outside the realm of ordinary cause and effect. There is no inherent conflict between an account based on the existence of a God, and another which constructs a naturalistic explanation; the programs of science and of religion are sufficiently different that the validity of one of these accounts should not be considered as negating the validity of the other. There is conflict only with atheistic belief: the belief that there is no God, and the concomitant belief that events proceed strictly according to the scientific scenario without any divine intervention.
The scientific origin theory can be appreciated by a traditionalist as a theory which logically follows from its axioms, and as the way that God could bring about the emergence of the physical universe and of life via a natural-appearing process. In the below we will wish to indicate the converse as well: why even to someone who does not believe in the Bible the picture of creation it offers can be appreciated as one which to some degree follows 'logically' from its non-disprovable assumptions, the expected way a universe and the life in it would be brought into being by the type of God implied by the Biblical accounts.
......................
DELETE OR CONDENSE THE FOLLOWING SECTION??
The Anthropic Principle and the Creation of a Purposive Universe
According to the Biblical view, since humanity plays an important role in the purpose of creation, the universe to be created is designed with humanity in mind. Consequently, the conditions of the big-bang can be derived from the consideration that it must eventually develop into a universe containing a moral being.
As in Genesis, the anthropic principle may indicate that man is not an incidental or insignificant aspect of the universe, but rather a very unique and definitive being which the universe was specifically designed to produce. If the universe is a product of design, then this points to its creation by a free-willed conscious intelligence, and if it is designed specifically to have the capability of producing humanity, then this points to the unique significance to the cosmos of human free-willed consciousness.
According to the anthropic principle in the context of a created universe, since the design of free-willed conscious beings serves to produce the design for the universe as a whole, there is an intimate relationship between the creation of the universe and the emergence of moral beings - and therefore between the creation and Eden accounts.
We define the term teleologically inherent via the following context: In a deterministic universe whatever is present at any stage is teleologically inherent in all earlier stages. In a quantum universe, there may be many possible future states teleologically inherent in any given state of the universe, but only one is actualized.
Whatever depth of emotion is experienced, whatever heights reached by the human spirit (understood physically), all is necessarily teleologically inherent in the big bang. Does this tell us something about the initial conditions (big bang etc) and the laws of nature - does it set limitations on their minimum complexity? Could a ‘shallow’ beginning have great depth teleologically inherent in it? Or must the beginning and the laws be at least as deep as what arises from it?/
We are deeply stirred by our sense of purpose, despair when we feel our lives empty of meaning. Profound feelings suffuse us when we do the right thing in difficult conditions. MRMP are not simply properties of a being or of a universe, they involve intense and sometimes peak experiences; they involve emotion (and ‘spirit’) not simply intellectual endeavor. If we are investigating the ramifications of the existence of MRMP to a universe, we cannot ignore the emotional aspect. The universe is deep not only in that it possesses MRMP, but also in that there exist such profound emotions.
Love, fear, hate, jealousy, pride,.... strong emotions. A physical universe can evolve with non-conscious entities, an exact replica of our own universe but without consciousness, or with consciousness but without emotion (i.e. we could have instinctive flight responses etc and the awareness thereof without the atttendant emotion). Is our universe not qualitatively different for its possesion of emotion, and of emotional depth? What can we learn about the initial conditions, the laws of nature, given that all this was teleologically inherent in it?
Consciousness transcends causality in tat there seems to be no causal link to physical events, yet it is correlated to them - this is the mind/body problem. Free will is causality-transcendent in its essence, as is creativity. Since creation is clearly causality transcendent it would seem reasonable to see a link between these, and so emotion, awareness, and free-willed moral responsibility seem intimately tied up with the emergence of the universe into existence.
........
Note that Genesis tells of God being angry, depressed almost, “sad to His heart” “regretful of having created ...”.
...................
Emotion: Genesis tells of God being angry, depressed almost, “sad to His heart” “regretful of having created ...”.
...........
The creation and Eden accounts tell of humanity’s relationship to its creator, to God, as well as of the relationship between man and woman.
...............
One of the unusual features of the Biblical portrayal of the human-divine relationship is that humanity is created in the image of the creator. Throughout the Bible are statements which make sense only in this light, commandments such as “Thou shalt be holy, for I am holy” “six days shall you do work and on the seventh day shall you rest, for in six days God created the universe and rested on the seventh”. And, Abraham’s ethical debate with God over the justice of God’s intended destruction of the city of Sodom, and the brit, covenant between God and the Jewish people, which obligates not only the humans involved but also the deity making the brit. It would seem that the Biblical God takes seriously the idea that humanity is created in the divine image, and that at some level what is true about the Biblical creator is true about those created, and significantly, vice versa. All this strengthens us in the feeling that some level of anthropomorphic projection from human motivations onto this creator may have validity. Specifically, that just as we would not conceive of creating a universe without a purpose, in which activity without meaning takes place, so too with the Biblical creator. We assume therefore that the creator spoken of in Genesis created because of some purpose, and is concerned with the meaning of what occurs in the universe, cares about the moral behavior of the created entities.
....
We look therefore not only for a universe which can allow for insiders to have MRMP which is validated from the outsider perspective, but is sufficiently deep to allow it to be meaningful from the outsider perspective itself.
Design, and a Designer
The anthropic principle intimates that the universe may have been designed to produce that which is its most complex component, the human brain, and to give rise to the phenomenon unique to that entity, a free-willed consciousness.
The question of design is the basis for one of the essential differences between the religionist and the atheist. The atheist denies that the universe is the product of design, and believes that it emerged without plan or purpose, and that all that evolved within it is similarly the product of chance. The religionist's position is that the universe began with a big bang or singularity designed so as to ensure that moral beings would emerge from it.
Since design is possible only for an autonomous entity, via an act of will, it can be said that the anthropic principle sees the universe as possibly having been designed by a free-willed consciousness to produce a being which can itself produce design via its free-willed consciousness - as in the creation and Eden accounts, a free-willed being created in the free-willed image of its creator.