The Argument from Consciousness

KT's argument unfolds as follows:

1. We perceive the universe as comprehensible, indicating that it can be understood by intelligence.
2. This intelligible universe and our capacity to understand it arise either from intelligence or from random chance.
3. It is not a product of random chance.
4. Therefore, this intelligible universe and our understanding of it stem from intelligence.

KT suggests that their reasoning resembles the design argument, viewing the harmony between consciousness and a comprehensible world as evidence of intelligent design. While the first premise is largely accepted, KT spends significant effort defending the third premise, implying a false choice between intelligent design (theism) and random chance.

Before exploring alternative explanations, let's examine KT's defense of a related premise in their design argument: “Either this intelligible order is due to chance or to intelligent design.”

They argue that if this order is not the result of intelligent design, then it must be the result of chance, implying purposelessness. If it’s not the outcome of random forces, it must derive from a purposeful design, which they equate with intelligent design.

However, the focus on the denial of chance distracts from the more significant issue of the limited choices presented. This framing resembles marketing tactics where options are manipulated to exclude alternatives, suggesting a binary choice between “God did it” and “It just happened.”

The False Dichotomy

KT presents the choice as one between “God's design” and “random occurrence.” Yet, the concept of chance is multifaceted, defined in various ways:

• An unpredictable element that influences outcomes.
• The absence of a discernible cause for events.
• An unforeseen event, particularly a fortunate one.

Thus, KT’s core argument posits that the universe's intelligibility—and specifically the alignment of consciousness with it—must either arise from divine design or an inexplicable event.

This leads to significant complications. There is little distinction between asserting that the universe or consciousness was created by “God” and claiming that they emerged from unknown causes. In essence, attributing creation to God acts as a euphemism for an inexplicable phenomenon.

The appeal to “intelligent design” serves as a pseudo-explanation, misrepresenting the nature of human creativity. If God were analogous to a human designer, such as in drafting plans, it would render the concept of God incoherent. Thus, the theist must abandon the analogy and acknowledge that God's processes remain mysterious.

This illustrates that KT's arguments do not provide a genuine alternative to the dichotomy they present. The mysteries of God and chance are framed as the only options available.

However, a third alternative is readily apparent: science.

Scientific Perspectives on Consciousness

What insights do scientists offer regarding consciousness and the universe's intelligibility? They suggest that consciousness evolved in organisms that needed to interpret their surroundings to survive. This adaptation, honed through natural selection, enabled organisms to persist long enough to reproduce.

In essence, the third option beyond “God did it” or “Chance did it” is “Nature did it.”

Limits of Human Understanding

KT's claims about the universe being “graspable by intelligence” and the suitability of “finite minds” raise important questions. How well do we truly understand the universe? Is it possible to attain objective knowledge, or does our understanding inherently simplify complex subjects? Our perspectives are often filtered through human experience, as different species perceive the world uniquely.

Despite our capacity for knowledge, we must approach the complexity of the universe with humility, recognizing the extensive time required for evolution to shape consciousness. KT's portrayal of this process as miraculous overlooks the harsh realities of evolutionary history.

Moreover, our grasp of reality is limited by our human-centric perspective. Each species interprets the world through its unique lens, emphasizing that our models may not accurately reflect the universe's true nature.

Once this premise collapses, the argument from consciousness loses its foundation.

Naturalistic Explanations of Existence

Returning to intelligent design, while it may be argued that nature “designed” consciousness through eons of evolution, it is problematic to assert that “Nature did it” in reference to the universe as a whole, as this implies nature creating itself, leading to an infinite regress.

Some theoretical physicists, such as Roger Penrose, propose infinite cycles of cosmic events, suggesting that the notion of “Nature creating nature” could hold some validity.

Assuming the Big Bang represents the end of our scientific understanding, we must consider how intelligent design relates to established scientific cosmology. Is the choice really between intelligent design and “chance”?

Current cosmological understanding suggests that a synthesis of relativity and quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the universe's early conditions. Einstein’s theory elucidates macro-level phenomena, while quantum mechanics addresses subatomic interactions. These theories must converge because the Big Bang occurred under unique conditions.

Science has made significant strides in elucidating the universe’s complexity, identifying prior events, conditions, and forces that shape its evolution. The universe's complexity emerges from simpler layers, which prompts further inquiry into the nature of these foundational layers.

Assessing Chance and Intelligent Design

Chance comes into play when scientific methods fail or when phenomena cannot be interpreted as natural occurrences. KT's portrayal of chance as the antithesis of intelligent design misrepresents scientific cosmology and raises concerns about the limits of scientific inquiry.

If we hypothetically accept that a theory of quantum gravity will never materialize and the Big Bang marks the boundary of human understanding, we can juxtapose the idea of an inexplicable singularity creating the universe “by chance” against the theistic perspective.

In both scenarios, the origin of the universe appears rooted in a form of magic. Thus, the argument for intelligent design becomes illusory. If reason fails to provide answers, relying on reason to validate this notion becomes paradoxical. The theist’s reliance on a divine architect is a precarious stance that ultimately rests on miracles rather than rational discourse.

Moreover, the characterization of a deity as “intelligent” is problematic. Does such a deity possess a mind? Is it a living entity? The terms we use to describe intelligence are inherently anthropocentric and falter when applied to a non-embodied being without distinct characteristics.

The distinction between “chance” and “intelligent design” is ethical rather than cognitive. The scientist endeavors to explore the mysteries of the universe, while the theist resorts to outdated narratives that misrepresent knowledge as sound reasoning. This reflects a cultural divergence rather than a genuine cognitive difference.

The Limits of Reason

Ultimately, we must question why we expect reason or science to elucidate an event as profound as the universe's inception. Reason, a tool honed through evolution, aims to enhance our understanding, yet it remains constrained by our human limitations.

Rational knowledge serves to control our environment, yet assuming that everything can be fully explained is naive. This belief overlooks the vastness of space and time and the humility required to acknowledge our position within it.

A third option not considered by KT is the acceptance of our ignorance. We lack definitive answers regarding the universe's origins and the nature of existence. Scientists may never uncover the ultimate causes, while religious narratives merely provide a facade of understanding.

In contrast, scientists aim to objectify the unknown, while theistic narratives humanize it. Both approaches are fundamentally anthropocentric, with scientists striving to maintain their dominance while theists seek comfort in familiar myths.

The philosophical truth lies beyond these frameworks.