The Miracle is not the Exception, It is the Rule

The contemporary world is trying to come to terms with an understanding that is in one way, shape or form affecting and influencing a lot of people. This ‘new’ understanding is called ‘naturalism’, which generally holds that everything is a part of nature, ‘nature’ being that which can be fathomed by physics. This is actually, ‘strict’ naturalism. There is also, a ‘broad’ naturalism that seeks to “preserve consciousness and values” (Stuart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2008, p.71) amidst this scientifically understood, natural world.

This is a huge movement in human understanding, before which even the gods are steadily disappearing. For instance, when we explore the subject of ‘consciousness,’ is consciousness a matter of brain? Or is it more: if it was more, then perhaps men and women might have a soul. And might this soul not go to heaven? If the soul is gone, however, if all that remains is brain…

I concur with John Searle (Mind: A Brief Introduction, New York, Oxford University Press, 2004; The Mystery of Consciousness, New York, New York Review of Books, 1997), that consciousness is emergent. I understand this, however, possibly differently than Searle, as consciousness resting on biological and physical properties. We are not talking about strict biology and physics. Searle writes that “consciousness is caused by microlevel processes in the brain and realized in the brain as a higher level or system feature.” (Searle, quoted in Goetz and Taliaferro, p. 72) It is this ‘higher level’ or ‘system’ aspect that appeals to me, the brain being a ‘platform’ upon which consciousness takes shape.

To see a higher level or system, as I understand these, does not necessitate seeing in complete detail each and every one of its integrated micro-processes. Photosynthesis and digestion, for instance, are processes of life. Life is an emergent quality, something that depends on a pretty substantial ‘platform’ of contingencies.

Photosynthesis alone requires at least light and carbon, not to speak of a zillion other matters, all integrated successfully. To see photosynthesis or digestion, on the other hand, is not seeing the higher order of observation of ‘life’ itself. We might witness a cessation of life, such as when a plant, pulled from the soil, slowly dies on the ground. We may stop to touch the leaves, and note that even then, some photosynthesis may still be taking place. However, most plants with their roots exposed to the air and sun cannot sustain life for very long. Though it may be still trying, the contingent ‘platform’ is not in place to sustain it.

On one level, when I get into my car to head to the corner market, it ‘seems’ that there is one thing going on: me, sitting in the seat, intentionally pressing the pedals and rotating the steering wheel. However, this is missing those thousands upon thousands of little processes beneath the dashboard and engine hood that must be happening simultaneously in order for this ‘thing’ (me driving) to occur. We are looking at different levels of beingness. Consciousness is the same.

Jeffrey Gray’s argument is that “nothing we know so far about behavior, physiology, the evolution of either behavior or physiology, or the possibilities of constructing automata to carry out complex forms of behavior is such that the hypothesis of consciousness would arise…” (Jeffrey Gray, The Contents of Consciousness: A Neuropsychological Conjecture, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, v. 18, no. 4, p. 660) I disagree: reach a certain level of complexity, and it may.

Of course, I am holding this possibility because of the innumerable human beings I have met who appear to maintain a consciousness, and I believe this is possible because their complexity allowed for a secondary phenomenon of consciousness to emerge.

I may be entirely wrong with this, but my sense is that Goetz and Taliaferro are trying to save God. To do so, they seem to feel a need to take issue with this steadily growing understanding people are having about nature. It is reasonable, from their position, to be so nervous about an increasing secularization shifting towards a ‘nature is all there is’ worldview. After all, if nature is all there is, and God was supposedly super-natural (above the workings of nature, i.e. not answerable to the laws of physics) then where’s God?

Therefore, issues such as consciousness become from their perspective, crucial. If consciousness, for instance, was simply a function of brain, then the whole 'humanity has a soul which wants to return to God' thing becomes awkwardly specious. Here, the nature of what we are looking for is crucially important. Can consciousness exist without a supporting platform? Is there a necessary correspondence between consciousness and the minute processes that pulsate beneath it?

I have to shrug: well, yes and no. ‘No’ in the sense that the phenomenon of consciousness is not necessarily dependent on the biological underpinnings of the brain, for a moment of consciousness may be secondary to the consciousness moment that preceded it, not dependent on (and secondary to) the brain-platform upon which it stands. However, I would have to see for myself at least one example of a consciousness without such a platform – any kind, be it automaton or physiological – that supports it, if I was to consider this as a viable possibility.

Thomas Nagel (Conceiving the Impossible and the Mind-Body Problem, Philosophy, 73:337-52, 1998) stated brilliantly: “An obviously systematic connection that remains unintelligible to us calls out for a theory.” (Ibid., p. 345) It is the very absence of our understanding that should focus our criticism towards the paradigms and their concepts with which we reach for intelligibility.

Consciousness is just such a matter. But it doesn’t end there: that’s just the beginning. We also have a long ways to go before we are capable of comprehending what is ‘physical’. Scientists are often the first to point out the “eerily insubstantial ether” (Hofstadter, quoted in Goetz and Taliaferro, p. 25) quality of our universe. Hofstadter sees beneath nature's surface, the 'eerie,' perhaps even seemingly supernatural, as yet indescribably complex phenomena that dance within.

Interestingly, according to theism, “the origin and continued existence of the cosmos are explained by the basic or fundamental intentional activity of an omnipotent, omniscient, good being God.” (ibid. p. 83) Oh my gosh. Did I hear what I thought I heard? Are we proposing a theistic causal link? Is God (or gods, depending on your spirituality), then, a ‘natural’, at least causal phenomenon? If gods are natural, and science is eerie, perhaps indeed a (yet) unintelligible theory bridging and reappraising the two, calls out to be named.

With all that goes on in our day-to-day lives, it is probably not the larger number who fret about the crisis of theism that faces humankind. We have demands at work, too many things to remember to pick up at the store, and the kids still need to be fed. It is probably lower on our ‘to-do’ list to think about how we are going to go about discerning moral values and the meaning of life, than paying the mortgage. However, as a secular, naturalist world view increasingly permeates our lives, our world that had hitherto been religiously informed, drifts towards the demise of theism. This, in turn, will bring on an increasing existential realization of loss, unless, it is supplanted with a spirituality that can successfully contain both scientific discovery and moral and teleological meaningfulness.

Personally, I don’t think that the loss of the gods will be all that important. They never did anything for us anyway: just the belief in them got things done, and not all of that was good. Without their God, some might wring their hands and cry out for a miracle. Actually, I don’t think finding a miracle will be too terribly difficult. In fact, to me it’s all-too-apparent: the ‘miracle’ is not the exception, it is the rule. We don’t need exceptions. The miraculous is all around us.