Autor: Mehrere Autoren: Theological Studies; 01-SEP-06

Buch: Theological Studies; 01-SEP-06

Titel: Byrne, Patrick H., Evolution, randomness, and divine purpose: a reply to Cardinal Schonborn

Stichwort: Evolution; Lonergan: Fragen in Bezug auf die Totalität der Evolution, Kompatibilität: Evolution - Gott; Sein als vollkommen intelligibel

Kurzinhalt: ... particular question : particular insight :: the human unrestricted desire to know : X ... This X, so defined, is what Lonergan called "the unrestricted act of understanding."

Textausschnitt: TRANSCENDENT PURPOSE AND GOD

5a To say that the actual course of evolution is random from the perspective of the combined natural sciences does not necessarily rule out the possibility that it may have an intelligibility, value, and purpose that transcends those sciences. In particular, the late philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan proposed exactly this possibility. He proposed a way of thinking about the compatibility of a divinely authored transcendent purpose and a radically contingent, randomly evolving universe that is comparable to neo-Darwinian understandings.1 (Fs; s. Fußnote 16)

5b Lonergan's approach begins by asking a different kind of question than that pursued by the traditional forms of the design argument. While the latter attempt to show that this or that intelligible pattern in the natural world can be explained only by postulating the intervention of a divine designer, Lonergan shifts the focus by asking whether the entirety of the evolving world itself has an explanation. This, I believe, is a more fruitful path toward a valid argument from design. (Fs) (notabene)

5c Any particular organism or pattern may very well be explainable by virtue of a series of transmutations and propagations. Yet each and every series of transmutations that explains this or that design is but a component of the whole of the course of evolution. To ask about the entirety of this course of evolution itself is to ask questions very different in kind from questions about the origins of this or that pattern. These further questions are not about how this or that complex pattern evolved from a predecessor, or even how it is related to a series of predecessors. Rather, questions about the whole of evolution are questions such as: Why does the natural, living world evolve at all? Why is it not static, with every living being present and perfectly adapted from the start, as was assumed for so many centuries before Darwin? Why does it actually evolve in the ways that it does? Why does it evolve according to neo-Darwinian rather than Lamarkian mechanisms? Such questions do not ask for an explanation of this or that pattern or organism within the evolutionary history of the world; they ask for an explanation of the contingency of the actual evolutionary history of the world itself. (Fs) (notabene)

5d As I have argued above, these questions cannot be answered solely by the natural sciences. The methods of the sciences rightfully and legitimately answer the question, "What are the laws of science?" by appealing to empirical evidence. Neo-Darwinism enjoys widespread acceptance because of the diversity, breadth, and depth of empirical evidence that it makes intelligible.2 There are other possible, conceivable intelligible explanations of nature; neo-Darwinian principles happen to be the ones that enjoy the best empirical support. In this light, to ask why these and not some other principles govern the transformation and propagation of organisms is to ask why the evidence is the way it is. The actual course of evolution provided the data that formed the empirical basis for accepting the principles. If we ask why those are the facts, why evolution occurred in this way rather than some other, we cannot appeal to neo-Darwinian principles as the explanation. Neo-Darwinism would then become an a priori dogma, explaining the existence of data upon which it itself depends for empirical justification. Ultimately, even to ask why the principles of evolution are the way they are comes down to again asking about the whole, contingent pattern of evolution itself. (Fs) (notabene)

5e Lonergan, by contrast, proposes that such questions will have answers if one conceives of God as the "unrestricted act of understanding," that is, as the act that "understands everything about everything."3 Such a conception of God is not derived from scientific methods. Neither is it a direct intuition of God. A human being would have to understand everything about everything in order to directly understand what it is to be an unrestricted act of understanding. Since humans do not have complete knowledge, it is only possible to conceive of unrestricted understanding by extrapolation. Hence Lonergan's approach is based on analogous understanding, an "imperfect understanding." As he puts it, "Our grasp is not an unrestricted act of understanding but a restricted understanding that extrapolates from itself to an unrestricted act." 4 (Fs) (notabene)

5f The analogy that Lonergan develops is based on his own discovery of the importance of insight and inquiry in human knowledge. The human act of understanding (insight) forms the basis for this imperfect, analogical understanding of the unrestricted act of understanding. That analogy is:

particular question : particular insight :: the human unrestricted desire to know : X

In this analogy, X is determined by its analogical relationship to the other three terms. As Lonergan argues, human insights are no mere matters of placing experiences under concepts. Much more fundamentally, human insights always come as answers to prior questions. Insights "relieve the tension of inquiry."1 Hence, there is a dynamic relationship between a question and its answering insight. Yet, each human question is always particular in some measure. Our questions arise in limited, particular circumstances and seek finite insights. Still, at the heart of Lonergan's philosophy is his contention that each particular, restricted, finite question arises from a more fundamental, unrestricted desire to understand, and indeed from a desire to understand correctly. According to Lonergan, this unrestricted desire to know is intrinsic to the consciousness of every human being: Everyone desires to know everything about every thing. While there are limits to what any human being can actually know, there is no limit to what human beings can ask about. Based on the analogy, therefore, to conceive of X is to conceive of what would have the same relationship to the human unrestricted desire to know, as a finite insight has to its occasioning particular question. Just as a particular insight would satisfy a particular question, so also X would be what is sought by the unrestricted, restless longing of the human mind and heart. This X, so defined, is what Lonergan called "the unrestricted act of understanding." (Fs) (notabene)

5g In itself, this analogy is only the basis of a conceptual possibility. As such, it is comparable to a possibility conceived of by a theoretical scientist. But, in proposing this analogy, Lonergan has not yet addressed the question of whether or not there is such an X (i.e., an unrestricted act of understanding). This further question he addresses later.2 Meanwhile he explores the implications of this analogical conception, at the end of which he proposes that all the things that could be said about this unrestricted act of understanding are attributes that traditional theists would ascribe to God. Among other things, everything and every detail is included within its understanding. In addition, Lonergan also argues that this unrestricted act of understanding is unique, all good, all loving, and would be both self-explanatory and explanatory of every merely contingent fact.3 (Fs)

5h Of particular relevance to this article, Lonergan argues at length that God, conceived of as an unrestricted act of understanding, would be the author of a transcendent purpose for a contingent, dynamic, randomly evolving natural world that in its crucial aspects is comparable to the world of neo-Darwinian scientific theories. As he puts it, an unrestricted understanding would intimately understand the actual, evolving world in all its myriad of details, despite its unique random pattern of intricate twists, turns, transmutations, and dead ends.4 "So it is that every tendency and force, every movement and change, every desire and striving is designed to bring about the order of the universe in the manner in which in fact they contribute to it."5 In other words, God brings about each particular pattern and organism by bringing about the entirety of evolution, in which each particular pattern is a component. Only an unrestricted act of under standing could do what no human mind can do--understand the entire universe and thereby intimately understand each and every one of the myriad details and connections in the actual course of evolution.6 Because of its unrestrictedness, it would also understand every other evolutionary course that could have been picked out of the grab bag of "all the possible sequences of events compatible with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology." Too, an unrestricted act of understanding would understand how to actualize the design of the course of the evolving world that is actually being realized. (Fs) (notabene)

5i Most importantly, however, an unrestricted act of understanding would understand why this design is being realized. That is to say, it would know the transcendent value and purpose that would make it worthwhile to realize this design of sequences out of all others that could have been selected. Because of its unrestricted understanding of that value, then, God's creative choice would not be arbitrary or absolutely random. What would be properly regarded as random, as far as the methods of the natural science are concerned, would be comprehended as special, important, transcendently valuable, and worth realizing by the unrestricted act of understanding. (Fs)

5j As Lonergan puts it, God's unrestricted understanding "is the ground of value, and it is the ultimate cause of causes for it overcomes contingence at its deepest level."7 In other words, God brings about each particular design and organism as a part in something larger: the entirety of the actual, contingent course of evolution. God brings about each particular design and organism as a contribution to the realization of the whole of evolution. Because God comprehends the value of the evolving world, each design within that world derives its ultimate purpose from its contribution to the realization of that transcendent value. Those are indeed components in God's purpose, but the ultimate purpose is shrouded in the mystery of the unrestricted understanding and valuing that God is. Ultimately, then, the full purpose of any particular design is something that only an unrestricted act of understanding, and not any merely human mind, can comprehend. (Fs) (notabene)

5k Lonergan shows, therefore, how it is possible to reconcile the affirmation of divine purpose with an evolving world shot through with scientific randomness and contingency. The ultimate design, meaning, purpose of the evolving world is a transcendent meaning and value. To comprehend that value and purpose would require an unrestricted act of understanding. For all human understandings, since they fall short of that attainment, the design or purpose of creation will remain the "mystery of mysteries," Darwin's claim not withstanding.8 Other approaches to the question of divine design and purpose pale by comparison. (Fs)

5l Although Lonergan's approach is most fruitful, what I have presented thus far is only a hypothesis about divine design and purpose. Lonergan does proceed to argue from the contingency of the evolving world as a whole to the existence of the unrestricted act of understanding. In doing so, however, he recognizes the need to introduce a further, absolutely crucial and indeed much more significant premise, namely: "Being is completely intelligible."1 This claim is at the heart of what he later came to call "intellectual conversion,"2 and it may in fact be the most important claim in all of his philosophy. However, doing justice to this claim and to Lonergan's form of arguing the existence of a designer of evolution involves greater detail than is possible in this note. For the present it will have to suffice to merely conclude that Lonergan provides a framework for reconciling the contingent, randomly evolving universe with a divinely authored transcendent design and purpose. (Fs)

5m My concern here has been to keep open the possibilities for legitimate intellectual endeavors in the realms of both science and Christian faith. Science and reflection about God are complementary. Each profits by understanding and respecting its own methods and competencies as well as those of the other. Each side also profits when the other side calls it to task for excesses that ignore and transgress proper boundaries. Scientists follow the standards of scientific methodology and therefore have rightfully resisted the introduction of intelligent or divine design as strictly scientific hypotheses. In turn, Schonborn rightfully resists the claims of some scientists and others who have used the scientific randomness of evolution as the basis for going beyond the limits of their methods and denying all claims about transcendent reality, design, and purpose. Unfortunately the manner in which the cardinal advanced his criticism of their excess falls victim to an excess of its own, and thereby posed an unnecessary obstacle to fruitful exploration of the relationships between faith and natural science. I hope that my clarifications of the key ideas of design and randomness and raising the possibility of a distinctly different kind of argument from design will promote that fruitful exploration. (Fs)