COMPASS MATTER AND MIND A non-theist exploration. CATHERINE BYRNE This essay explores two non-theist approaches to mind and matter— and Hu- manism. It examines these differing views in relation to Paley’s ‘design argument’ for the existence of God from a philosophical and biological perspective. While tracking along a path similar to one which a theologian may travel, this essay does not refer to theist doctrine.

THEISM IS A world view that rejects ing the ‘best of the one life we have, by creat- the idea of God. Non-theism rejects ing meaning and purpose’ and by taking ‘re- Athe importance of the choice ‘to God sponsibility for our actions’ and working ‘in or not to God’. The Oxford Dictionary (2009) mutual respect for the common good’. It noted noted that atheism combines the Greek ‘a’ that Humanists ‘make sense of the world using (meaning ‘without’) and ‘theos’ (meaning reason, experience and shared human values’. ‘God’). Humanism and Buddhism provide two For the Humanist, morality is not based on different examples of systems of belief that do any doctrine or sacred text. It is derived and not rely on a God as a basic premise, although measured by utility (Singer, 1981). In other adherents differ in the extent to which such an words, what is ‘good’ is that which contrib- idea is fundamental. Some Buddhists, for ex- utes to the greatest communal human welfare. ample, prefer the term non-theism, since the Humanists balance individual freedoms and an Buddha would not be drawn on the question Epicurean delight in the good life with social of deity one way or the other. While both claim responsibilities and justice born of a commit- independence of divine agency, they have vari- ment to human rights and equity. ant perspectives on the relative importance of Humanist reverence is reserved for the humans in the scheme of life, the function of natural world. For the Humanist, the primary the mind and its emotions, the limits of na- function for the mind is to weigh up empirical ture, and even the importance of the God ques- evidence in pursuit of scientific truth that can tion itself. be methodically examined. The humanist’s mind is thus a tool to perceive the world as it Humanism actually (materially) exists. Humanists there- Humanism is a rational belief system. The la- fore have a belief in a structured universe that bel is a 19th century construct, however ren- can be perceived. This belief system has no aissance ‘humanists’ were inspired by the 5th need of, nor rationale for, the existence of a century BCE Greek philosopher, Protagoras deity. It explicitly denies God’s existence and (Cline, 2009). He sought natural explanations, charges religions with abetting ignorance. valued free inquiry and placed humans at the Regarding nature, the Humanist’s world is centre of moral and social concerns. As a be- bound by the senses. With no belief in any- lief system, it has contemporary expressions thing beyond sensory limits—no soul, no in various Humanist Manifestos (Bragg, 1933; spirit, no afterlife—there is no realm of the Kurtz, 1973; IHEU, 2002). super-natural. Whatever exists must be, by its According to the British Humanist Organi- nature, natural. Mystical experience is akin to zation (www.humanism.org.uk, 2009), Human- madness. Humanists argue that everything has ists believe that people can live good lives ‘with- a scientific explanation. Regarding emotion, out religious or superstitious beliefs’, by mak- Rifkin (2008) noted that Humanists do not let

38 MATTER AND MIND emotions dominate cognitions. The heart re- Catherine Byrne is a sides below the head. Secular humanists speak PhD candidate at of sublime experiences such as ‘the grandeur Macquarie University’s of the universe, the wonder of being alive, the Centre for Research on mysteries of existence’, but ‘the resplendent Social Inclusion. She is also undertaking a does not entail the transcendent’ (Rifkin, 2008, graduate Diploma in p. 57). Eller (in Rifkin, p. 58) argued that, what Religious and Values some call spiritual experiences are rather ‘ul- Education. Her interest tra-human’…‘the best, the strongest, the most is in pedagogies of profound human experiences, (are) human religion, particularly in nonetheless… (and that) we impoverish our- public primary schools. selves when we credit these soaring feelings may be considered quasi-theist. For example, and capacities … to realms … unknown, and Surya Das noted that ‘the Ultimate in Bud- almost certainly unreal’. dhism and the Ultimate in theistic religions may just be two sides of the same thing’ (2009, Buddhism np). Buddhists neither deny nor confirm the Like Humanism, Buddhism also has a rational existence of God, but find the whole argument outlook. Established in the 6th century BCE, an irrelevant distraction, since (in their belief) in northern India and based on the teachings no being outside of oneself can reduce suffer- and practices of Gautama Sakyamuni, it has a ing. Harvey (1990, p. 36) claimed that Bud- variety of contemporary forms. Its basic aims: dhism sees no need for a creator. He com- to understand suffering; abandon its causes; mented that Buddhism ‘postulates no begin- experience its cessation and develop a path for ning to the world and regards the world as sus- self and others to a state of being beyond suf- tained by natural laws’. Bikshu (2008) noted fering, present (in many versions of Buddhism) that, Buddhist teachings are non-theistic as as psycho-philosophy rather than religion. opposed to atheistic. There is no reference Emotion (both positive and negative) is con- made to God’s existence or otherwise. How- sidered simply one of the many distractions ever, the notions of God and consciousness and obstacles to the enlightened state beyond sometimes merge. suffering. Buddhists differ from Humanists in the The Buddhist’s mind is both a tool for per- recognition of a higher order of consciousness ception and the source of creative being itself. and a broader function for the mind – one that Buddhists believe that the world is constantly lies beyond the sensory-limitations of rational in creation and that the mind and the senses empirics. There is reference (especially in participate in this process, and therefore the Buddhism) to a super-mental prin- world cannot be studied purely objectively (as ciple, variously referred to as ‘divine presence, Humanists aim to do). Where Buddhism and infinite wholeness and all-inclusive complete- Humanism concur is on the importance of in- ness’ (Surya Das, 2009). The Dalai re- dividual practical experience. Buddhist mo- ferred to this principle as ‘clear light’. He noted rality is highly self-referent. In a very Human- (2005) that this light can be perceived at the ist approach, the Buddha himself undertook moment of death and that practised monks can an empirical enquiry into the nature of con- remain voluntarily in the clear light state for sciousness to establish Buddhism’s fundamen- several days after death without their bodies tal tenets. According to Mishra (2004, p. 29) decomposing. the Buddha was ‘more of a trenchant thinker Sogyal (1992, p. 46) claimed that and psychologist than a religious figure’. the nature of mind is that which ‘Christians Buddhism sees no need for an Abrahamic- and Jews call God, Hindus call the Self, Shiva, style God. However, some forms of Buddhism Brahma and Visnu, Sufis call the Hidden Es-

39 COMPASS sence, and Buddhists call the Buddha nature’. perhaps to zero. He displaces ‘God’ with consciousness, since Dawkins positions natural selection as the ‘Mind is revealed as the universal basis of only plausible, ‘workable alternative to (the) experience—the creator of happiness … and statistical improbability (p. 120)’ of life on suffering, the creator of what we call life and earth. By emphasising the implausibility of what we call death’. In this sense, the Bud- both deity and chance, he opens the way for dhist ‘mind’ becomes untouched by concepts an alternative - the likelihood of a systematic of theism or atheism since it is the very arena process for life (evolution by natural selec- in which such conceptions and arguments take tion). As such, Dawkins highlights the lack of place. While Humanists are, first and foremost, a need for a divine creator. Lennox (2007, p. thinking beings, the act of conscious thinking 262) noted that Dawkins’ view of life’s origin makes the Buddhist a creator-being. requires no intelligence - that it arises ‘by the Regarding morality, the Buddhist’s ethic spontaneous accidents of chemistry’. appears to stretch wider than the Humanist’s, Australian scientist, Robin Williams to encompass all creatures and to not view (2006) extended this argument by pointing out humans as the most important. The Buddhist the apparently clunky solutions that life has notions of karma and reincarnation (where a produced via evolutionary experimentation. being can return as any kind of animal) urges For example, Williams took issue with the a holistic view of ecosystems and a sense of upside-down design of human nasal passages responsibility for all beings. In this, Buddhists – which he claimed resulted from the recent generally differ from the one-life Humanists. development of an upright posture. He noted However, in some streams of Buddhism the nature’s upside-down koala pouches, human doctrine of is recognised as a cultural hernias, bad breath, tail bones and appendixes accretion, rather than a central Buddhist tenet. and the less than ideal co-location of sexual and waste-removal functions. In Smith (2006) How does Atheism counter Paley’s ‘design he claimed these flaws provide a case against argument’ for the existence of God? intelligent design which argues that certain Vice President of the British Humanist biological features (such as the eye or wing) Association, Richard Dawkins, had little to say are too complex to have evolved by Darwin- of Buddhism in his book The God Delusion, ian increments. other than that it might be viewed as a ‘her- Both Dawkins and Williams claimed that bivorous memeplex’ (2006, p. 200). He de- with modern science, humans no longer need nounced any position other than that which God as an explanation to life’s wonders. Not argues strongly against the existence of God only that, but life’s weird and wonderfuls show and placed karma and reincarnation in the that there must not be a central intelligence fairy-tale category. agency. Dawkins claimed that ‘life’s improbabil- ity’ provided the strongest logic against God’s What are the strength and weaknesses of existence. He went so far as to say it ‘comes the non-God argument? close to proving that God does not exist’ (p. Theists counter Dawkins’ improbability 113). This argument relies on the incredible argument by flipping it - by saying that the odds against life existing at all on a ‘speck of incredible occurrence of life is so astounding debris from the cosmic explosion’ (p. 117). It that it must therefore have a controller. This is postulates that good design would not have left the classic 18th century ‘Design Argument’ of such a narrow margin for error and as such Paley, a Christian theologian. He positioned could not have been produced by an omnipo- the question of God’s existence in the scenario tent being. Dawkins claimed that this lack of of a person finding a watch. In contrast to the finesse reduced the omnipotence of God— simple, natural rocks and grass of the forest

40 MATTER AND MIND floor, such a complex machine must have a creator to consciousness. Ward claimed that: maker. He likened the watch to the complex …ultimate mind is the actual basis of all pos- systems in the natural world, including humans sible states… uniquely self-existent, … It can and argued that the grand order and purpose be spoken of as omniscient, in the sense that it of the cosmos oblige us to believe God exists. conceives or generates all possible states, knows However, this argument assumes order must what they are and knows that there are no more have purpose. Scottish philosopher David than it conceives… it brings whatever is actual Hume, (writing prior to Paley) had already into existence from the realm of possibility. raised objections to this leap of logic (see Nothing that comes into being can have more Crowder, 1993). power than ultimate mind, since the latter is the Modern ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents source of all actuality’ (2006, p. 132). (such as Behe, 1996 and Dembski, 1998) claim Ward presents consciousness as self-evident that natural selection is God’s way of enabling proof that ‘something must exist eternally and design, a kind of deist auto-pilot. Evolution necessarily’. Interestingly, he defines God as itself explains some apparently unintelligent ‘mind-like’, rather than ‘being-like’. design. For example, Smith (p. 2) noted that In reviewing Ward’s The Big Questions in koalas evolved from wombat-like marsupials Science and Religion, McGrath (2009, p. 235) with backwards-facing pouches so that digging noted that the God hypothesis ‘seems to be at did not sand-blast their babies and that inverted least as good as the available alternatives, koala pouches did not indicate that God was though this alone will not intellectually com- heartless to small furry critters. Evolution as pel anyone to believe there is a God’. Accord- God’s remote seems a reasonable idea – ing to Ward (2006, p. 242), science has not though it raises the question of which forces made religion obsolete but rather offers a way are now in control, the natural or the divine? for both religion and science to engage in con- It seems that any attempt to answer is purely versation about possibilities undiscovered. He speculative. claimed that for such dialogue to benefit hu- Crowder (1993, 1994) critiques the theist manity, both theist and atheist must set aside side of the Design Argument on account of its their certainties. inductive reasoning and in deference to Hume’s questions regarding its mechanistic Conclusion (the watch) analogy, its exaggerated scope (a watch is on a different scale to the universe) Atheism has various strands and underlying and its problematic hint of infinite regress (who rationales. Buddhism and Humanism provide made God?). Crowder noted other issues some insight into the logic of those who do raised by Hume’s analysis. For example, even not rely on the existence of a creator God. if the Design Argument concluded in favour There are strengths and weaknesses in their of God, there is no rationale for what kind of, arguments. Regarding Improbability, I tend to nor how many Gods. The questions of ‘deist?’ think with Hume, but not Dawkins. The awe- or ‘monotheist?’ or ‘polytheist?’ or ‘panthe- some complexity of life need not demand a ist?’ are no closer to being answered. Crowder deity. Nor does it rule one out. The intricate (1994, p. 54) concluded that the Design Argu- dance of natural selection through the ages ment ‘still points us to a shadowy cosmic ar- explains many things, but gives little reason chitect, not a creator’. for human love, mystical experience or the British theologian Keith Ward argues faith- fortifying nature of faith. However, these in- fully for God, but takes an almost Buddhist nately human traits ought not be simply yoked (psychological and holistic approach) to re- to meta-human forces. As many of the Eastern futing Dawkins’ improbability argument. Like traditions suggest, great power and insight , he appears to equate the might be attained by human endeavour.

41 COMPASS

In a similar vein (lacking absolutes), per- ing Genesis as poetry does not mean abandon- haps evolution falls short of absolute proof that ing avenues for discovery in the unexplored there is nothing more than biology. Or perhaps realms, where the polemics of nature and spirit, we have yet to discover everything that biol- science and religion, physics and conscious- ogy has in store for us. The theory does little ness might have something to teach us. to explain the original emergence of self-rep- Either way, it appears that the need for a licating cells or the majesty of its carbon build- definitive answer on the possibility or implau- ing blocks. sibility of God cannot rely on any factor that As the Drummond character in the famous carries the weight of proof. After all, ‘When Monkey Trials play Inherit the Wind noted: we speak about what we call God, no-one has ‘Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where the last word’ (Armstrong, 2009). It seems that we could look back from where we came. But a viable alternative may be to sit for a while in for this insight, this knowledge, we must aban- a Buddhist state of enquiry and simply wit- don our faith in the pleasant poetry of Gen- ness how the Mind stirs up such interesting esis’ (Lawrence & Lee, 2000, p. 60). Accept- dilemmas for us to be distracted by. REFERENCES Armstrong, K. (2009). Why Interfaith? Presenta- Website accessed September 2009 at tion to the Royal Society supporting the Arts. 17 www.humanism.org.uk June, 2009. Accessed at http://www.thersa.org/ IHEU (2002). Humanist Manifesto 2000. Interna- events/vision/vision-videos/karen-armstrong tional Humanist and Ethical Union. Accessed Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box. Touchstone, Septemeber 2009 at http://www.iheu.org/node/356 New York. Kurtz, P. (1973) Humanist Manifesto II. Accessed Bikshu, K. (2008) Do Buddhists Believe in God? September,2009 at h t t p : / / UrbanDharma.org. Accessed Sept 2009 at http:// www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/ www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II Bragg, R. (1993) Humanist Manifesto I. Accessed Lawrence, J. & Lee, R.E. (2000) Inherit the Wind. September, 2009 at http://www.americanhumanist. Dramatists Play Service Inc. New York. org/who_we_are/about_humanism/ Lennox, J.C. (2007). God’s undertaker: has sci- Humanist_Manifesto_I ence buried God? Lion Hudson, Oxford. Cline, A. (2009). Humanism in Ancient Greece. McGrath, J. (2009) Keith Ward, Big Questions in History of Humanism with Ancient Greek Philoso- Science and Religion 9: Has Science Made Belief phers. Accessed Sept, 2009 at http:// in God Obsolete? Accessed September 2009, at atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/ http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/01/ ancientgreece.htm keith-ward-big-questions-in-science-and.html Crowder, C. (1993). The Design Argument, Part Rifkin, L. (2009). Faith and Reason - Sublime 1, Dialogue, (1) November. Naturalism. Free Inquiry—The Secular Humanist Crowder, C. (1994). The Design Argument, Part Bulletin, 29 (5). 2, Dialogue, (2) April. Singer, P. (1981). The Expanding Circle: Ethics and (2005). Philosophical questions on Sociobiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. consciousness. His Holiness the Smith, D. (2006) The gods must be crazy if they of Tibet. Accessed September, 2009 at http:// call this intelligence. Sydney Morning Herald, hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes3.html August 5, 2006. Fairfax, Sydney. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Surya Das (2009). Ask the Lama. Accessed Sep- Press, London. tember, 2009 at http://www.surya.org/ask4.html Dembski, W. (1998). The Design Inference. Cam- Ward, K. (2006). Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith bridge University Press, Cambridge. and Religious Understanding. Oneworld Publica- Eller, D. (2004). Why Spirituality Is tions, Oxford. Antihumanistic. Free Inquiry - The Secular Human- Williams, R. (2006). Unintelligent Design—Why ist Bulletin, 24, (2). God Isn’t as Smart as She Thinks She Is. Allen & Humanism Organisation UK. (2009). Official Unwin, Crows Nest.

42