Emergent Spiritual Purpose: Reconciling the Rift Between Purpose and Nature Through Buddhism Joshua Evan Schlachet August 8th 2006 Evolution and Design

1

“Waves do not exist apart from water; Within the mind are the objects of mind. If plants and trees are devoid of Buddhahood, Waves then would be without humidity.” - Kūkai (Kobo Daishi)1 The question of purpose and design in nature has long been framed in a context beyond the realm of the answerable. From the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species up through the most current of biological discoveries, many of evolution’s most devoted supporters have claimed that the combined engines of descent with modification and natural selection,2 along with newly introduced genetic and phenotypic theories, are able to explain the emergence of all biological organisms we observe in nature. In other words, empiricism, observation and reliance on purely natural causes characterize the science of evolution as it is currently defined, thus rendering any discussion of purpose or design unnecessary. Within this framework, it is easy to understand the reluctance of the scientific community to accept the theory of intelligent design on faith alone. Rightfully so, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate the views expressed by the leaders of the intelligent design movement from those of faith-based interests. Central figures in the movement including Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer and even William Dembski have articulated their views on the implications of ID hypotheses for Christian beliefs. When coupled with clear inferences to a preexisting religious agenda at the core of their funding organization, the evidence suggests a substantial link between the roots of the intelligent design movement and a religious worldview based on Judeo-Christian concepts of an all-powerful God. Because the intelligent design movement is the overwhelming advocate for design and purpose in nature, these concepts have also been entangled within the same religious belief system. As I will explain in the following sections, this stance creates fundamental problems for the ID movement. By viewing the ‘designer’ within the confines of a western monotheistic tradition, many central figures of the intelligent design movement have defined this ‘entity’ within a restrained mold that is simply irreconcilable with what we can observe in nature. This inconsistency between the empirically observable world and Judeo-Christian concepts of God does not, however, exclude the possibility of purpose or design from nature. In fact, it does not even rule out purpose viewed through a spiritual context, only a supernatural one. All that is required, which thus far has not been achieved, is a spiritual system that relies less on supernatural intervention than laws of causality. By removing the roots of the intelligent

2

design movement from Judeo-Christian monotheistic conceptions of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, a broader concept of purpose can be applied to, and witnessed in, the natural observable world. To illustrate this point, I will examine the concept of purpose in a Buddhist context, showing how the traditional criticisms of intelligent design become less problematic when broader alternative standards of purpose are applied. Additionally, I will argue that the central foundations of Buddhism, when examined through this particular worldview, are almost entirely congruent with the observable world. There is indeed room for spirituality, though not a Judeo-Christian God, in the working of evolution that we observe in nature. In the first section, I will present evidence to defend my claim that the roots of the intelligent design movement are embedded in a Judeo-Christian ideology, including a brief explanation of why the primary scientific studies of intelligent design have thus far been unable to produce conclusive support. In the second section, I will pause to discuss why I believe it is still important to consider purpose in nature despite claims that evolution renders it unnecessary. The third section will briefly address the problematic issues that render Judeo-Christian concepts of a designer irreconcilable with the observable world. The bulk of my argument in section four will outline five central principles of the Buddhist spiritual system that describe a version of purpose and design more congruent with empirical evidence in nature. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the space for purpose and spirituality in nature as well as speculating on the potential nature of that purpose. I. Intelligent Design in a Christian Framework: How the Foundations of the ID Movement are Rooted in Judeo-Christian Ideology The basis for the apparent incompatibility between intelligent design theory and the observable world stems not from the impossibility of general purpose in nature but instead from limits on ID’s perception of the ‘designer.’ The very roots of the intelligent design movement are embedded in the Judeo-Christian concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, which restricts the possibility of reconciliation with nature. I am certainly not implying that all those who support intelligent design do so for religious motivations. There are also fully rational ID supporters who prefer to seek indications of design and purpose in nature on purely scientific levels without speculating on the nature of the designer. However, researchers and supporters at

3

the very foundation of the intelligent design movement as a whole have directly expressed their religious motivations for seeking design in nature and their intention to use ID to support Christianity. Phillip Johnson, though not a scientist himself, was described by William Dembski, one of ID’s leading scientific minds, as the “ID movement’s chief architect and guiding light.”3 In the body of his work, Johnson has conveyed a clear agenda of using intelligent design to undermine the Darwinian theory of evolution and replace it with Christian religious beliefs as our basis for understanding nature. In his views, the presence of design in nature clearly points toward a Christian God. As he put it, “God created us. At one level that is a truth we can’t not know, and at another level it is a truth we repeatedly deny.”4 If Johnson is a true precursor and guiding light to the scientific minds of the intelligent design movement as Dembski suggested, it is reasonable to assume that his call for scientific evidence to support the Christian God’s role in nature did not go ignored. In Darwin’s Nemesis, a book honoring Johnson’s achievements, Dembski confirms this suspicion and reveals a religious motivation in both Johnson’s arguments and in his own: “To a generation that regards God as increasingly distant, with nature as all there is and humans as mere appendages of nature, Johnson the prophet points us to the true God, the one in whose image we are made and to whom we must ultimately render an account.”5 At this most basic level, the intelligent design movement’s “chief architect” and “prophet” exhibits a clear Judeo-Christian agenda. William Dembski, cited in out class as one of two exemplars of the intelligent design movement’s trend toward empirical science, has also been candid in his publications about the nature of the relationship between intelligent design and Christian religiosity. As he expressed in an article, undermining Darwinian evolution through intelligent design allows the potential for Christian views of nature to remerge: “Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology…I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option…Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”6

4

In this statement, Dembski, whose mathematical model for complex specified information has been a cornerstone of the scientific aspect of intelligent design, implies that the science of ID should be viewed as a tool for allowing the reemergence of Christian ideals. This use of science to further a religious agenda illustrates a link between the foundations of the intelligent design movement and Judeo-Christian motivations. In addition to the views expressed by individual central ID supporters, the movement’s primary funding organization, the Discovery Institute, can be linked to Christian motivations through both funding sources and overarching goals. Clearly stated in a subsection of the organization’s mission statement, “The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reasons and the permanency of human nature.” In other words, the science solicited by the Discovery Institute begins with the initial encouragement to support conclusions based on Judeo-Christian religious conceptions of the operations of nature. I do not intend to imply that all science behind intelligent design is inherently tainted with a religious agenda, but given this proposed mission, it is difficult to expect all science conducted through the Discovery Institute to begin as entirely objective. As Stephen Meyer, a vice president of Discovery put it, “Science, done right, points toward God.”7 Funding sources for the Discovery Institute have also come into question for their possible religious motivations. Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., Discovery’s main contributor and member of its board of directors, has been accused of funding the Institute to gather evidence that supports Christian ideology. As Church & State Magazine explains, admittedly within their own bias, “Ahmanson is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.”8 If this is the case, then this funding source again suggests a connection between Christianity and the Discovery Institute, the organization at the root of the intelligent design movement. When considering the views of the aforementioned central ID figures and the position of the Discovery Institute, I believe the evidence indicates a substantial link between the roots of intelligent design and a religious worldview based on Judeo-Christian ideology. It is because of entanglement within this framework, as I will articulate further in coming sections, that the intelligent design movement has thus far been unable to reconcile their claims for purpose and design in nature with the observable world.

5

II. Scientific Shortcomings: Why Biology's Improper Reliance on Physics and Mathematics Should Not Deter Questions of Purpose in Nature I would like to pause here to address an important question that drives to the heart of my argument. If all that we observe in nature can be explained by purely natural means, such as the Darwinian theories of descent with modification and natural selection, without the need for supernatural intervention of any kind, then why is it necessary to discuss purpose or design in nature at all? I believe there are two reasons why purpose and design in nature should still enter into any complete discussion of evolution. First, the scientific method of evolution has historically created arbitrary boundaries that render legitimate, spiritual lines of thought ‘unscientific’ while simultaneously using the same types of rationalizations in place of empirical evidence. Second, there are also types of spirituality-based purpose that operate within the realm of the empirical, which warrant our attention even within current scientific boundaries. I concede that it is necessary to create a set of common boundaries within science for the sake of having a universal framework for understanding and evaluating the natural world. However, when new lines of questioning are raised, we must either universally respect those boundaries or accept their shortcoming and reevaluate them in light of new problems. Many of the arguments for evolution and natural selection are still made by analogies and imaginary examples. This is likely because of the great difficulty in gathering conclusive evidence for natural selection due to its slow operation. Surely certain engines and outcomes of evolution can be observed in action, especially sexual selection, but analogy and rationalization are still used as primary explanations for those that we cannot observe at this timescale. If intelligent design supporters are guilty of arguing beyond the realm of the empirically supportable, then the metaphysical leaps of Dawkins, Provine and some other evolutionary biologists must be evaluated by the same standards. This statement is certainly not meant to question the accuracy of the claims made by either of these accomplished scientists. My point is simply that the supposedly direct implications of their arguments move beyond the established boundaries of the empirical that scientists expect everyone to follow. However, it is possible that our scientific boundaries can lead us farther from the knowledge we seek. During the height of the modern synthesis, as an example, the central thinkers including Fisher, Haldane, Wright and others assumed that all evolution could be viewed through a

6

reductionist mathematical microscope, attributing all phenotypic changes to individual variations in allele frequencies within a population. One purpose of this was to establish evolutionary biology as a strictly empirical science. In doing so, however, they tended to ignore the observable evidence at the level of phenotype in favor of mathematical functions and imaginary adaptive landscapes. Current leading ID scientists William Dembski and Michael Behe tend toward a similar reductionist mentality. By seeking intelligent design at the minute level of mathematical formulas and biochemical pathways, it is easy to miss the observable forest for the inferable trees. In light of these developments, we need to ask ourselves, ‘At what point do the strict boundaries of science cease to serve our empirical search for evidence and begin to limit our understanding?’ Stephen Meyer of the intelligent design movement, regardless of potential religious motivations, has expressed relevant arguments concerning the usefulness of scientific boundaries. “To say that science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting because that statement in itself cannot be tested by scientific method. It’s a self-defeating philosophical assumption.”9 In this regard, any evidence that the boundaries of science have been placed appropriately would be verifiable only from beyond the boundaries of science. If this is the case, then these arbitrary boundaries should not be used to prevent the rational discussion of purpose or design in nature. As Michael Ruse put it: [The limited nature of our perceptions] does not necessarily mean that God is on the other side of the divide, but it does mean that Darwinians should not sneer at those who think that possibly he is. Perhaps there are things beyond—forever beyond—our ken. Perhaps therefore a little modesty or skepticism about our nihilistic position is in order, along with a little more tolerance for those who might wish to make something more of the mystery of life.”10 I argue that specific references to a monotheistic God in the Judeo-Christian tradition are irreconcilable with the observable world. However, as Ruse implies, we must also keep in mind the possibility that there are elements of spiritual-based systems that are worth discussing when we chose to be rightfully skeptical of the enclosed system science has created. In some cases, these spiritual elements can be empirically observed. If we take the above example of reductionism-run-wild during the modern synthesis as an indicator, then this form of straight-

7

forward empirical observation of processes that may initially appear beyond the realm of science may lead us to new insights on nature. According to Professor Provine, “You have to check your brains at the church-house door if you take modern evolutionary biology seriously.”11 Regarding my second point that spirituality-based purpose can exist within the realm of the empirical, my chosen example of Buddhism may show that the temple door does not require such a rational relinquishment. Setting up arbitrary boundaries is not the only available method for creating a sphere of discourse about our world. Provided that the dialogue remains within the realm of the observable, even if not the traditionally scientific, then a universal framework can still be established that also permits questions of spirituality and mystic-based purpose. As Sam Harris, an expert in world religions describes: “Spiritual intuitions are amenable to intersubjective consensus, and refutation. Just as mathematicians can enjoy mutually intelligible dialogue on abstract ideas, just as athletes can communicate effectively about the pleasures of sport, mystics can consensually elucidate the data of their sphere. Thus, genuine mysticism can be ‘objective’—in the only normative sense of this word that is worth retaining— in that it need not be contaminated by dogma.” In the spirit of this convincing definition of objectivity, I believe it is necessary to address the question of purpose within these broadened boundaries, allowing for potential spiritual explanations provided that they do not extend completely beyond observation into the realm of supernatural intervention. III. The Problem with the Swiss Watch Problem: An Imperfect Designer and Other Aspects of the Observable World at Odds with ‘Christian Intelligent Design’ The search for purpose and design in nature, especially in the direct debate with avid Darwinians, has been structured within Judeo-Christian notions of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God at the roots of the intelligent design movement. These notions stem directly from the supernatural, beyond the realm of the observable. The very concept of a God who operates outside of natural law is, by definition, unsupportable by the types of observations

8

humans are able to make. Because of this framework, purpose is often discarded as an option due to the incompatibility between this God and observable nature. Though this should not deter questions of purpose on a broader scale, this section will discuss why this particular ‘designer’ cannot be reconciled with current observations concerning nature and evolution. This discussion will illustrate the need to expand our views of purpose beyond this Judeo-Christian construction. The Swiss watch problem is an analogy commonly cited by intelligent design supporters to critique the idea of accumulated random variations creating the diversity of form and function visible in nature. It states that if you open the back of a watch and strike it with an ice pick— essentially creating a random change—it is highly unlikely that the watch’s ability to tell time will be improved. When taken at different scales in a biological context, this is analogous to saying that any random variation is highly unlikely to improve the fitness of any individual organism, group, or the biological system as a whole. Regardless of its merit, this logic includes a fundamental assumption that undermines the concept of an omnipotent God. It assumes there is a possibility, however minute, that a strike to the gears could improve the function of the ‘watch,’ in which case the watch was not functioning optimally to begin with. This inconsistency begs the question: ‘If God is omnipotent and thus infallible, why would he create an imperfect, incomplete world with imperfect, incomplete organisms that require ongoing change?’ What’s more, why can we not observe him changing them? Within our realm of understanding, there are two possible explanations, neither of which is reconcilable with Judeo-Christian notions of a designer. The first possibility is a detached creator God who no longer exerts influence over the workings of the world, which is known as Deism. In other words, God infused purpose and design into the world at its inception and has sat back ever since. When defined without reference to the identity of the designer, Deism becomes almost synonymous with ‘front-loaded intelligent design.’ However, many ID supporters have been generally unwilling to accept Deism, likely due to its religious implications concerning the nature of God. If Deism is the case, then God becomes an inherently unfulfilling force: “The source of all existence becomes a source only at the beginning of the universe and not a source of new forms of existence on our planet, in human history, and in our daily lives. God thus becomes like an absentee landlord, or a developer that leaves the scene. Religiously, that is no God at all.”12

9

As I will show in the following section, Buddhist thought has an answer for this dilemma. The second possibility is a flawed God, incapable of perfecting his own creations—or a God who chose to create an imperfect world and never fix it, which for the purposes of my argument are the analogous. Needless to say, both these religiously unrewarding implication of observable evolution cannot be reconciled with an omnipotent Judeo-Christian God. Another conflict between these particular notions of God revolves around the cycle of suffering, death and extinction perpetuated by natural selection and other natural processes. If the God described in the Torah and Bible is presumably benevolent and merciful on a general basis, then why would he sit idly while suffering continues on a massive scale and an overwhelming number of species go extinct through natural workings? Sam Harris would say, “A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow—capricious, petulant, and cruel—and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness.”13 However, I doubt that many western monotheists would agree with this brash statement. He also cites a more appropriate response from Bertrand Russell: “Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H bomb.”14 The only counterargument that occurs to me is that God does intervene—through destructive means such as floods, asteroid collisions and other mass extinction events. After all, there is record of Noah’s flood in the Bible. However, there are three problems with this argument. First, the conclusion that these events were the ‘Hand of God’ is strictly beyond the realm of the observable. Second, Noah’s flood, the primary religious record of such an event, can be assumed to not have caused any major extinction at all because, according to the story, Noah brought two of every species onto his arch to repopulate the world. Third and most important, we are still left without evidence of positive intervention. Steering evolution and nature through increased suffering and extinction does not solve the problem of why God would allow these cycles to occur and continue. For this reason, the cycle of suffering and extinction we see in

10

nature is irreconcilable with Judeo-Christian concepts of an all-powerful and benevolent God. Again, the Buddhist example presents a clear alternative explanation of this problem. III a. Reducing Complexity and Generalizing Specification: Why the Current Arguments of the ID Movement Fail to Fully Conform to the Observable World Beyond these immediate inconsistencies, the currently prevailing explanations of purpose and design, presented by the scientific minds of the ID movement, are not entirely supported by observable nature either. William Dembski, who I have already cited as a supporter of Christianity’s role in intelligent design, is responsible for the concept of complex specified information, one of the two pillars of ID. In its simplest form, Dembski’s argues that by applying the laws of probability using a complex mathematical equation, a design inference can be made if the resulting number is appropriately high.15 However, this attitude again illustrates a type of reductionist thinking that can impede empirical observation. Additionally, Dembski does not suggest a specific threshold at which design can be inferred, which has caused critics to assert that his formula is not applicable to real life. Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity is the second pillar of ID. In it, he states that certain biochemical pathways are irreducibly complex, meaning they cease to function when any component is removed. By extension, these systems could not have been produced by gradualistic natural selection because it would have ceased to function when any modification was made.16 Though Behe muddles the terms evolution and natural selection, he claims that his argument does not conflict with Darwinian descent with modification (evolution). However, when viewed from a historical standpoint, such systems are irreducibly complex only in their current forms. Intermediate forms of the same systems, which may have performed the same function but not quite as well, could still have existed, each of which would considered irreducibly complex at its given point in time. By these standards, the intermediate forms can be traced backward through time back to the point of origins, which is beyond the scope of the theory of evolution and natural selection. This example also seems less than conclusive for inferring design. These examples beg the question: ‘How successful has the ID movement been at inferring purpose and design in nature? According to William Dembski, their achievements should be measured on the following criteria:

11

“Whether its arguments are sound, whether its evidence for design is solid, whether its critique of materialistic accounts of evolution holds up, whether it is developing into a fruitful scientific research program, and whether it is convincing to people with no stake in the outcome of this debate.”17 As shown above, the arguments do not appear entirely sound, nor does the evidence seem solid. Evolutionary theory, thus far, has been able to repel ID’s attacks, though only within their scientific boundaries. Scientists are researching intelligent design, though their results do not yet seem to be fruitful. As to whether is convinces people with no stake in the debate I cannot speculate. By the combined weight of these self-imposed indicators, it is difficult to say that the ID movement has been successful in their quest to infer design and purpose in nature. I believe this problem is also in some way embedded in the constraints at the roots of the ID movement that conform to Judeo-Christian ideology. At the very least, the current evidence appears inconclusive for the goal of inferring a supernatural designer. Because the prevailing evidence for intelligent design does not fully support this type of designer in its current form, it is necessary to consider forms of purpose beyond the scope of a Judeo-Christian framework. This does not mean that spirituality-based explanations of purpose are not possible. To the contrary, I argue that at least one—if not more than one—spiritual system exists that conforms strikingly well to empirical observations of nature when considered within its prescribed worldview. With Buddhism as my example, I will demonstrate how empirically seeking purpose beyond the constraints of Judeo-Christian ideology can be much more fruitful than one might imagine. IV. Buddhism & Purpose in Nature: Reconciling Spirituality with Observable Natural Processes As I discussed in section II, it is possible for spirituality to be empirical and its evaluation to be objective, provided that the discussion does not spiral entirely into the realm of the supernatural. Buddhist accounts of nature for example, when considered within the structure of its prescribed worldview, can be no less rational or empirically observable than scientific explanations are within the boundaries of science. This is not to suggest that Buddhist cosmology on the grand scale is any less supernatural than Christian ideology. However, Buddhist claims regarding processes in the observable world do not rely on these supernatural elements for endorsement. When broadened beyond a Judeo-Christian monotheistic God, the possibility of purpose in nature becomes much more congruent with the observable world.

12

Though there are many varying beliefs and practices among the various schools of Buddhism around the world, I will focus on the widely accepted theories of Mahayana Buddhism as well as the original preaching of the historical Buddha through Theravada Buddhism. I believe it is a safe statement that the core topics discussed below are applicable to the majority of Buddhist schools. In the footsteps of current evolutionary theory, I have confined my argument to after the point of origin, as this is a distinctly different question from the one that evolution and Buddhist purpose address. The central pillars of anitya (impermanence), anatman (no self) and dukha (suffering)18 comprise the core of the basic Theravada Buddhist spiritual system. Within this structure, similar to scientific reasoning, all events, processes and beings operate by the natural laws of causality. The Bodhisattva ideal and the cycle of karma, the Buddhist notion of causality as tied to the actions and intentions of sentient beings, motivate altruism in the Buddhist system. The Four Noble Truths reconcile the suffering and extinction witnessed in nature with the Buddhist spiritual system. The trikaya (three bodies) theory lends new insight to the problems of Deism, front-loaded intelligent design and an imperfect God. Taken together, this Buddhist system reveals the potential for a surprisingly comprehensive reconciliation of purpose in nature. Impermanence, Skandha Theory and Anatman: The Core of the Buddhist Worldview According to Buddhism, everything in the universe including all life is comprised of five aggregate elements—matter, sensation, perception, mental/karmic formation and consciousness—known as skandhas. 19 Because these elements constantly rearrange and realign themselves within all things, everything we perceive is considered inherently impermanent, thus arising from perpetual chaos (anitya). Anatman, the principle of ‘no self’ can be viewed as a logical extension of anitya. For the same reason that there is no permanence in the natural world there can be no eternal self or soul.20 Our own delusions that drive us to cling to the transient world and self, according to Buddhist understanding, are the root of the suffering (dukha) that we experience on the earth. These basic concepts form the core of the Theravada Buddhist worldview. It is important to note that none of these basic principles make any significant leap into the supernatural. When viewed within the framework of Buddhism, these processes are no less congruent with nature than scientific explanations. For the Buddhist who accepts skandha theory

13

as an underlying assumption, the biological world becomes as objectively explainable as it is to the scientist within his own set of assumptions. Sam Harris even argues that some central tenets of this spiritual system, such as anatman are scientifically testable: “The absence of ‘self’ can…be pointed out with some effort, though this discovery tends to require considerabl[e] training on the part of both teacher and student. The only faith required to get such a project off the ground is the faith of scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis is this: If I use my attention a certain way, it may have a specific, reproducible effect.”21 By this logic, Buddhism becomes another way of viewing the world by natural processes, simply different ones. As described above, the boundaries set by science provide us with a universal framework within which to view the world around us, but this framework is only valid within itself, as it makes the underlying assumption that we are viewing the world as it actually exists. When nature is viewed within concepts based on that assumption, we are conducting science. When it is evaluated free of this constraint, we are considering empirical Buddhist spirituality. To take this statement a step further, the ultimate question for an applied science is: ‘does our model accurately describe what we observe?’ In the Buddhist spiritual system, as in the evolutionary system, I believe the answer is yes. Dependent Origination and Causality: The Root of Buddhist Spiritual Purpose The basis of western thought on causality stems from the Platonic-Aristotelian concepts of material, efficient, formal and final causes. By this model, all things are the way they are because of the physical ‘stuff’ they are made of (material), because of the way their predecessors were (efficient), because they are imperfect examples of an idealized form (formal), and because they exist in order to do what they do (final). In the modern scientific method, we reject formal and final causes as supernatural explanations that cannot be supported empirically. In the Buddhist system, causality is separated differently, and has a profound effect on thinking about purpose. The doctrine of dependent origination, another central tenet of Buddhism, proclaims the overwhelming importance of causality in the functioning of the physical world and the entire universe. In its simplest form, dependent origination can be expressed as ‘when this exists, that arises—or, when this does not exist, that cannot arise. In

14

other words, all universal operations are linked in a cycle of cause and effect that many western scientists would likely find analogous to Newtonian physics. In this sense, Buddhism is so empirical that it has been guilty of making some of the same metaphysically-exterminating implications that some evolutionary biologists have made: “The important corollary of [dependent origination] is that there is nothing that comes into being through its own power or volition, and there are therefore no entities or metaphysical realities such as God or a soul that transcend the causal nexus.”22 Similar to evolutionary biology, what would be a fair statement is that Buddhism renders supernatural explanations of causation unnecessary. Buddhist natural causation is divided into two categories as opposed to the western four. Substantial cause—which can be thought of as a combination of material and efficient cause— refers to the ‘stuff’ that something is made of and the ‘stuff’ its predecessors were made of. Contributory cause describes all other aspects of the surroundings and environment that dictate what it will become.23 Dependent origination, coupled with skandha theory, immediately eliminates formal cause within this worldview. If everything is made of the same impermanent skandhas, then any ideal form would also be impermanent, subject to causality and thus, by definition, not ideal. To address the remainder of causality, I will borrow our class example of blue butterflies. According to Buddhism spirituality, the butterflies are not blue simply because they're made of blue stuff and their parents were blue (substantial cause), they are also blue because the contributory aspects in the environment caused them to become blue. They are not blue in order to survive as final cause would dictate, but they are blue because being blue is environmentally conducive to survival (i.e. conducive to continuation of the cycle of cause and effect). In this sense, the butterfly’s purpose arises through environmental design. Causality is where the concept of purpose expresses itself and the specific type of purpose becomes directly tied to cause. The traditional western Platonist view, which has come to be associated with the mentality of ‘Christian ID’ explanations of nature, would expect a circumstance to occur in order to produce an outcome—birds, for example, have wings in order to fly. The fact that a bird has wings, in this worldview, is due to its pre-destined final cause. The modern western evolutionary biologist would view the exact same circumstance and assign no pre-destiny to it whatsoever. The feathers were exapted from a previous body-warming function and, along with other random variations, formed a wing that allows birds to fly. The wing itself is made of nothing beyond material and efficient causes. I believe the Buddhist, when viewing

15

the bird, would likely say that it has wings both because of its individual niche in the laws of causality themselves and because the contributory cause of its surroundings dictated and drove the development of wings. Each of these three explanations, to some degree, contains a type of purpose. The fundamental difference between these three possible explanations is that only two are free of supernatural influence. The Christian neo-Platonist view lies beyond the realm of the observable and exhibits a preexisting purpose and design that cannot be measured (unless you are one of the few who considers Dembski’s equations empirically feasible in the real world). According to this view, the purpose of wings was there before the wings were. Purpose in the scientific and the Buddhist systems is emergent, in that it emerges from the results of a process as opposed to being pre-loaded into anything.24 Birds have wings for the purpose of flight, but wings were not created for the predetermined reason of allowing birds to fly.25 When contrasting the views of science and Buddhism on the subject of emergent purpose, the single difference is not one of empiricism versus supernaturalism like when contrasting evolution and intelligent design, but purely a question of boundaries of worldview. The Buddhist’s conclusion on emergent design is the same as the evolutionary biologist’s, and both are equally rooted in objective observation. The sole departure point is what color glasses you view the world through, which set of boundaries you choose to adhere to. If we, in our objective tradition are willing to admit that the expanded boundaries of spiritual empiricism I detailed in section two might be worthy of consideration, then the Buddhist view of emergent purpose in nature becomes highly reconcilable with the observable world. Karma and the Bodhisattva Ideal: Altruism in Sentient Beings Karma specifically is the force by which sentient beings are bound to the cycle of cause and effect. This is an important distinction to draw, as karma and causality are not one in the same. As the Dalai Lama explains, “we must distinguish between the operation of the natural law of causality, by which once a certain set of conditions are out in motion they will have a certain set of effects, and the law of karma, by which an intentional act will reap certain fruits.”26 I think it is helpful to view the karma as ‘cause and effect with action and intent.’ In the Buddhist system, the ultimate purpose of all sentient beings is to break the cycle of karma by achieving enlightenment and recognizing the impermanent nature of the world. As the Dalai Lama asserts,

16

“In Buddhism, this karmic causality is seen as a fundamental natural process and not as any kind of divine mechanism or working out of a preordained design.”27 Again, Buddhism’s emergent purpose is rooted in the empirical. With the Mahayana advent of merit accumulation and the Bodhisattva ideal, the Buddhist concept of purpose in nature truly took shape. In Mahayana Buddhism, a sentient being can accumulate merit (often poorly translated as ‘good karma’) not just for himself, but for the entire Buddha field (the world). The Bodhisattva is one who has accumulated merit to the point of enlightenment, but chosen not to fully achieve it. Instead, he vows to remain within the physical world and ‘donate’ his merit to help other sentient beings reach enlightenment as well.28 This self-sacrifice has been described as a definitive form of altruism. Regardless of whether we choose to believe that enlightenment exists, we can be quite sure that altruism exists in the natural world. This is empirically observable. Additionally, current evolutionary explanations for altruism cannot fully describe the level of self-sacrifice we see in some natural examples. Evolutionary biology defines altruism primarily by two mechanisms. Kin selection describes self-sacrificing behavior for the sake of genetic relatives, but this does not apply at all to cross-species sacrifice. The evolutionary explanation for this, presented by Robert Trivers, is reciprocal altruism in mutually symbiotic relationships. Using the tit-for-tat strategy in game theory, Trivers showed how these relationships can be beneficial to both organisms involved.29 However, reciprocal altruism is not altruism. Interacting in a cooperative way for your own selfish purposes requires no philanthropic self-sacrifice of any kind. Reciprocal altruism is simply an extension of the concept that selfishness is evolutionarily superior. This concept is rooted in the restrictive assumptions of science. Here, the Bodhisattva ideal presents another possible explanation for the altruism we see in nature: it is actually there! Here, the Dalai Lama reflects my previous statements regarding the boundaries of science: “I feel that it is unacceptable to reject altruism on the ground that selfless acts do not fit within the current biological understanding of life or are simply redefinable as expressions of self-interest…This stance is contrary to the very spirit of scientific inquiry. As I understand it, the scientific approach is not to modify the empirical facts to fit one’s theory; rather the theory must be adapted to fit the

17

results of empirical inquiry. Otherwise it would be like trying to reshape one’s feet to fit the shoes.”30 As he implies above, the possibility of true altruism across species is empirically supportable because it happens. Cleaner fish sanitize the gills and mouths of larger fish species, some ants live within the thorns of certain trees, host birds raise baby cuckoos left in their nests.31 When considered within the Buddhist worldview, an emergent purpose of altruism seems quite reconcilable with observable nature. The karmic cycle and accumulation of merit for overall betterment, when seen within the Buddhist worldview, are conducive to the altruism we observe in nature in the same way that tit-for-tat is in the scientific mindset. These organisms do not need to interact, but they do anyway. It is worth at least entertaining the possibility that these actions are not entirely selfish. This is a self-contained explanation with no need for supernatural intervention. If the karmic explanations of altruism for accumulation of merit toward enlightenment for the Buddha field does not seem scientific to you, that is because it is not. We cannot see merit being accumulated with our own eyes on our timescale. However, we can infer it through our observations of how altruism is taking place in nature right now. In my opinion, this is no less objective than inferring natural selection by our observations of how life looks and acts right now. When viewed within their respective mindsets, Buddhist spirituality with its emergent purpose is no less plausible than science with its evolutionary theories. This statement is not meant to undermine evolution, only to suggest that spiritual purposes are also worthy of consideration. Dukha & the Four Noble Truths: Reconciling Suffering and Extinction with Buddhist Spirituality Buddhism, as my continuing example, contains theories much more reconcilable with nature than those of the modern ID movement. Instead of introducing the concept of an allpowerful God, Buddhism explains the suffering and extinction we observe in the world by means of natural processes of causality and impermanence. As detailed above, Buddhists consider suffering (dukha) a result of clinging to an impermanent physical existence.32 All existence is suffering (dukha) is the first of the Four Noble Truths preached by the historical Buddha in his first sermon after his enlightenment. This perpetual cycle of suffering

18

and death, spurred by the force of karma, is what ties sentient beings to the physical world.33 The parallel to extinction and what Darwin referred to as the ‘struggle for life’ is immediately apparent. Animals suffer and die at all times due to environmental constraints, and an overwhelming percentage of species that have ever existed are now extinct. This basic premise of Buddhism can be easily seen in nature. This alternative explanation for what we observe in nature is not only empirical, it is also spiritual. This example appears to offer a much stronger description of our natural world than that offered by the current intelligent design movement. Again, Buddhism seems to be an example of a spiritual system that allows for potential purpose while still reconciling with nature. Trikaya Theory and Questions of the Nature of God I will preface this section by saying it is intentionally speculative. The complex metaphysical question of a designer god is beyond the scope of both scientific and spiritually empirical boundary sets. However, Buddhist cosmology does present an account of an ultimate body, notable only for its potential place within the cycle of causality. First, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are not gods. Buddhism states that any sentient being has the potential to become enlightened, and many schools claim it is possible to achieve enlightenment to the same degree as the historical Buddha. However, the trikaya (three bodies) theory of Mahayana Buddhism states that all Buddhas have three separate but simultaneous forms as represented at different levels of being. The first of two that concern this topic is the nirmanakaya (emanation body), which is the physical person of the Buddha in the real world. By means of enlightenment, however, all Buddhas are inherently interconnected with the second relevant body, the Dharmakaya (truth body) which is as close as Buddhism gets to naming a specific designer. The Dharmakaya, in Buddhist tradition, is not an entity, but rather a force that can be roughly defined as ‘absolute reality’ or ‘ultimate truth.’ This force did not create the universe—to the contrary, it acts within it.34 The importance of trikaya theory for understanding purpose is not to imply that this force is what really exists, but to raise questions about what the Christian elements of the intelligent design movement take for granted. Is it necessary for God to be sentient or even be an entity at all? If it is not, then the perfection of God no longer becomes a problem. If a designing force

19

such as truth and reality were to operate within the cycle of causality, does this appear less problematic than a preexisting God who was incapable of creating an ideal world? I believe it can. Is it essential for purpose to have been assigned before existence? Not necessarily. If God did not front-load purpose into the world but it instead unfolded through emergent processes, would this reconcile the problem of Deism? Again, I believe it could. I refuse to take a position either way on the nature or even presence of any possible designer, but it does appear to me that the Buddhist concept of the Dharmakaya both presents insights into the possible shortcomings of the current intelligent design system and points to the potential for an intricate link between all forms of existence. Through their connection to the Dharmakaya, those who achieve enlightenment are exposed to the notion that all beings, objects and processes are elaborately interrelated. As elaborated in the doctrine of emptiness, arguably the most important precept of Mahayana after the Bodhisattva ideal, nothing is empty or meaningless. Objects and people, according to this doctrine, are empty of inherent existence, meaning they lack anything that makes something uniquely itself. Instead, they are full of interrelationships, revealing how everyone is connected to everything else through our impermanence and the suffering it generates. We are all bound to the same world. Any organism or item’s function and being changes based on its current circumstance, relation to the world and organization of skandhas.35 In this sense, though all things are impermanent, they share a link of mutual impermanence that joins them with the Buddha and all other things in a spiritually lasting manner. This is the point behind the poem that opened this essay. A common spirituality emerges as a natural result of the causal processes binding all beings. When applied to our evolutionary understanding of common descent, this doctrine presents the possibility for what could be called emergent purpose in nature. In Dancing with the Sacred, Karl Peters writes: “Exploring what it means to be religious in the context of a scientific worldview [means] using insights from Darwinian evolutionary theory and from an ecological understanding that we are all part of an interdependent web of existence woven by a sacred process.”36 Though all sentient beings are caught in a perpetual cycle of suffering, death and rebirth according to the Buddhist standpoint, a type of purpose emerges from this bleak succession, as in

20

the Bodhisattva ideal: all sentient beings have an obligation to contribute to the overall betterment of this interrelated network. Again, this points toward a potential purpose that emerges in natural processes when considered through a Buddhist worldview. Conclusion: Empirical Spirituality and Its Implications for Emergent Purpose What we are able to see in nature is not conducive to the concept of a Judeo-Christian omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God as expressed in the roots of the intelligent design movement. The concept of purpose on a broader scale, however, is worth discussing because the boundaries set by modern science arbitrarily exclude the possibility of empirical spirituality. Because the tool of observation, I believe, is our most powerful for analyzing what we see in the natural world, we must always consider alternative explanations within its scope of feasibility. Beyond these scientific boundaries, there lies the potential for empirical spirituality that can be reconciled with observations of nature. Any theory for explaining nature, even a spiritual one, that is naturally observable, self-contained and does not venture into the supernatural must be considered empirical and, therefore, worthy of our attention. By the same logic, the concepts of purpose carried within such spiritual systems also deserve serious consideration. As I believe I have illustrated with the example of Buddhism, spiritual forms of purpose when considered within their particular worldviews can be reconciled with the natural world more readily than those based on the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I must again stress that this is in no way meant to undermine any direct assertions of evolutionary biology. However, I believe it does challenge the implication made by some avid evolutionists that because supernatural accounts are not necessary, purpose cannot exist. Buddhism demonstrates that there is at least one—if not potentially more than one—exception to this limiting implication. By applying Buddhist concepts to our notions of evolutionary biology, Darwinian theory and the potential for purpose in nature, we can see that self-contained spirituality-based purpose with no need for supernatural intervention certainly can exist. In the Buddhist system, this purpose is emergent from the very cycles of causality and karma that govern the workings of the entire universe. As a final thought, I am about to make a leap into the metaphysical, though hopefully not a metaphysical leap. Should I choose to speculate as to the nature of the emergent purpose in Buddhism based on the research I have conducted, I believe the purpose within the Mahayana

21

worldview lies in the altruistic accumulation of merit for the overall benefit of the Buddha field (the world). The purpose in nature is not dictated, designed or watched over by any entity upon which we could place the label ‘God’. Instead, according to this view, all beings are part of an interdependent web of relationships. By recognizing this, a purpose emerges in addition to mere survival: a purpose of altruistically driving the improvement of ourselves and others toward the overall enlightenment of all sentient beings, thus bringing our world closer to harmony and perfection.

22

References Cited: 1. Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996. 2. Dalai Lama. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2005. 3. Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. Edited by William A. Dembski. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006. 4. Dembski, William A. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 5. Dembski, William. “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.” 6. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. Vol I & II. 7. Hakeda, Yoshito S. Kukai: Major Works. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. 8. Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2005. 9. Haught, John F. Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution. Colorado: Westview Press, 2003. 10. Johnson, Phillip. The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 11.

Keown, Damien. A Dictionary of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

12. Laffitte, M. Pierre. Buddha: His Part in Human Evolution. Yokohama: Kelly & Walsh, Ltd., 1901. 13.

Law, Jane Marie. “Class Lecture”, Asian Studies 359: Japanese Buddhism.

14.

MacNeill, Allen. “Class Lecture”, History 287: Evolution.

15. Matsunaga, Daigan and Alicia. Foundations of Japanese Buddhism Volumes I & II. Los Angeles: Buddhist Books International, 1976.

23

16. Meyer, Stephen C. "Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn't Make." Discovery Institute, 1999. 17. Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dogen. Edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi. New York: North Point Press, 1985. 18. Peters, Karl E. Dancing with the Sacred: Evolution, Ecology, and God. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002. 19. Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 20. Ruse, Michael. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. 21. Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God. Michigan: Zondervan, 2004. 22. Weerasinghe, Mahinda. The Origin of Species According to the Buddha. Pannipitiya, Sri Lanka: Stamford Lake, 2005. Notes 1

Yoshito S. Hakeda, Kukai: Major Works (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), 255. Natural selection is technically not an engine but rather an outcome of the combined engines of variation, inheritance and fecundity. These together produce the outcome of non-random, unequal survival and reproduction commonly referred to as natural selection. 3 Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, Edited by William A. Dembski (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006), 13. 4 Phillip Johnson, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 153. 5 Darwin's Nemesis, 19. 6 William Dembski, “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.” 7 Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 77. 8 Steve Benen “The Discovery Institute: Genesis of ‘Intelligent Design,’” Church & State, Silver Springs: May 2002, vol. 55, iss. 5, pg 11. 9 Strobel, 73. 10 Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 284. 11 Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, 273. 12 Karl E. Peters, Dancing with the Sacred: Evolution, Ecology, and God (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002), 39. 13 Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2005), 173. 14 Harris, 173. 15 William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 2

24

16

Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996). Dembski, “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate over Evolution.” 18 Some Buddhist circles assert that ‘suffering’ is not an accurate translation for dukha, as it implies that there can be no joy found in life. Therefore, possibly a better translation of dukha would be ‘inherent unsatisfactoriness.’ Though we may smile and feel like we are enjoying ourselves in life, all experiences in the physical world are unsatisfactory at a deeper level because they bind us to a world of impermanence. 19 Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004), ‘Skandha’. 20 Damien Keown, A Dictionary of Buddhism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), ‘Anitya,’ 15. 21 Harris, 235. 22 Keown, ‘Pratitya-Samutpada,’ 221. 23 Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (New York: Morgan Road Books, 2005), 131. 24 Usually the debate between preexisting and emergent is specifically on the grounds of design, not purpose. However, I choose to discuss it in terms of purpose because I believe the term ‘design’ makes too strong of an implication towards a specific designer. Because Buddhism on the whole is not as concerned with the identity and nature of the designer, I will discuss this point strictly in terms of purpose. 25 When the design/purpose emerges as a result of natural selection, Ernst Mayr dubbed it teleonomy. However, not all emergent design is teleonomy. Purpose can still emerge by other natural means besides this specific function of evolutionary biology. 26 Dalai Lama, 90. 27 Ibid, 109. 28 Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ‘Bodhisattva’, ‘Merit.’ 29 Allen MacNeill, Class Lecture, History 287: Evolution, 1 August 2006. 30 Dalai Lama, 113-114. 31 Ibid, 113. 32 Keown, ‘Dukha,’ 81. 33 Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ‘Four Noble Truths.’ 34 Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ‘Trikaya.’ 35 Jane Marie Law, Class Lecture, Asian Studies 359: Japanese Buddhism, 2 Feb 2006. 36 Peters, 6. 17

25