Ulanowicz’s Process Ecology, Duality and Emergent Deism

doi:10.4236/ojpp.2013.33062

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Philosophy

2013. Vol.3, No.3, 422-428

Published Online August 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.33062

422

Ulanowicz’s Process Ecology, Duality and Emergent Deism

Robert K. Logan

Physics Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Email: [email protected]

Received February 9th, 2013; revised March 10th, 2013; accepted March 17th, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

The different forms of duality in Robert Ulanowicz’s (2009) book A Third Window are compared to the

notion of neo-duality found in Logan and Schumann (2005). The influence of Heraclitus on the formula-

tion Ulanowicz’ duality is described. It is argued that the origin of language, which led to conceptualiza-

tion and emotional intelligence, also gave rise to human spirituality, cooperation and altruism all of which

contributed to human survival. The four mysteries of the existence of 1) matter/energy, 2) life, 3) human

intelligence, and 4) human spirituality are identified. It is suggested that physics and chemistry deal with

mystery number one; that Ulanowicz’s process ecology describes mystery number two and the relation of

life to energy/matter. Mystery number three entails process ecology and consideration of the effects of

language. The emergence of the fourth mystery of spirituality and/or a belief in God is shown to have

emerged from two uniquely human attributes, namely the abstract form of language-based intelligence

and altruism. It is suggested rather than as an agent that influences events in the universe God, an idea that

arises in the minds of humankind as a metaphor of all that is good in humankind.

Keywords: Newton; Darwin; Ulanowicz; Altruism; Spirituality; God; Language; Mind; Duality;

Emergence

Introduction

I am neither a theist nor an atheist nor am I agnostic, I be-

lieve in the essential goodness, sacredness and spirituality of

humanity and that forms my idea of God.

Ulanowicz’s (2009) book, A Third Window, surveys the evo-

lution of modern science from Newton’s mechanics revolution,

the first window, through Darwin’s Origin of the Species, the

second window to today’s theories of chaos, complexity and

emergence with his own additional twist of process ecology, the

role of aleatorics (or chance), self-reference and the importance

of a system’s history, the third window. Not only does he un-

derscore the importance of understanding the history of living

systems but he also provides us with a history of science itself

from the thinking of the Pre-Socratic philosophers through

Newton, Carnot, Darwin, and quantum mechanics to the latest

ideas in ecology, systems theory, cybernetics, complexity the-

ory and information science.

His book has literally and figuratively opened up many new

windows of thought for me giving rise to new insights, which I

will report in this essay. His book has also caused me to rethink

and reinterpret some of my earlier work on the origin of lan-

guage (Logan, 2007), media ecology (Logan, 2010, 2013a),

neo-duality (Logan & Schumann, 2005; Logan, 2006), and the

nature of information (Kauffman, Logan et al., 2007; Logan,

2013b). I will attempt to link up my earlier work with the ideas

I encountered in Ulanowicz’s fascinating and stimulating book

with its emphasis on process rather than law and systems think-

ing rather than atomism. Ulanowicz has not only impacted my

thinking about science but also about things transcendental and

spiritual allowing me to formulate a notion of Emergent Deism

in which I believe that the idea of God and spirituality arose

from that which is good and altruistic about humankind.

One of the interesting features of Ulanowicz’s (2009) ap-

proach, which I particularly enjoyed, perhaps because it paral-

lels my own thinking, was his embrace of dualism or dialecti-

cism (ibid.: pp. 7, 12 & 92-93). Throughout his book, he identi-

fies contrasting dualities often associated with the views of the

first and third windows. In the preface he (ibid.: p. xxii) makes

a distinction between mechanical and ecological ways of mod-

eling nature indicating the superiority of the latter approach. At

the very beginning of his Introduction he (ibid.: p. 2) refers to

the C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures of those who believe and those

who do not believe that science will provide the solutions to the

problems facing humankind (ibid.: p. 2). He (ibid.: pp. 2-3) then

introduces us to Bateson’s dualistic division of nature into “ple-

roma, those entities that are homogeneous, continuous and gov-

erned by matter and energy–the normal ‘stuff’ of science” and

‘creatura’—“living systems and similar physical analogs that

were characterized more by individual differences (information)

and reflexive actions”. He then reports and argues for Bateson’s

notion that “ecology was not merely a derivative science, one

wholly dependent on physics and chemistry. Rather…ecology

afforded a truly different way of perceiving reality”. So here we

have a dialectic within science. An important distinction is

made between the reductive sciences of physics and chemistry,

as seen through the first window, and ecology coupled with

complexity theory, emergence, and autocatalysis, as seen

through the third window. Darwin’s evolutionary theory, the

second window in this scheme contributes to the transition from

the first to the third window by introducing history into the

R. K. LOGAN

description of the evolutionary process but it does not make it

to the third window because Darwin’s notion of natural selec-

tion operated with “Newtonian regularity, linearity and gradu-

alism (ibid.: p. 36)” and did not incorporate chance, a key in-

gredient for the view from the third window.

Another dualistic element in A Third Window is the division

of the universe into systems and processes versus laws and

material things or particles [billiard balls (ibid.: pp. 22-23) as

Ulanowicz calls them metaphorically], i.e. systems thinking

versus atomism and processes versus laws. Also Ulanowicz

created a duality between the nodes and linkages or flows of a

networked universe (ibid.: p. 9). The sum of all these forms of

duality either identified by Ulanowicz or formulated by him I

chose to denote as Ulanowicz duality.

Ulanowicz makes an extremely important distinction be-

tween his form of process duality and Cartesian duality likening

his form of duality to the thinking of Heraclitus and Hegel.

Yet one other important change in thinking is demanded

by process ecology: recognition that development is the

outcome of dual and opposing tendencies…Patterns and

forms in the living realm result from transactions between

agonistic tendencies. Processes that build organized ac-

tivities are continually being eroded by dissipative losses.

While these tendencies oppose one another in the near

field, they are seen to be mutually obligatory under a

wider vision (ibid.: p. 118).

We can also formulate Ulanowicz duality as chance and ne-

cessity duality or law and process duality where law is Newto-

nian-like and process is emergent-like, autocatalytic-like or

cybernetic-like (involving both feed forward and feed back).

Newtonian-like law entails efficient cause and is bottom up

whereas emergent processes entail final cause and are top down.

So we also have the duality of bottom up and top down causal-

ity. Perhaps a table is called for. Let us call it the Table of First

and Third Window Dualities.

Logan-Schumann Neo-Duality

One of the reasons that Ulanowicz’s dualistic/dialectical ap-

proach resonates with me is that it parallels some earlier work

of mine in collaboration with John Schumann. In a paper pub-

lished in Semiotica Logan and Schumann (2005) introduced the

notion of neo-duality. We combined Schumann’s (2003) notion

of the Symbolosphere, the non-physical world of symbolic re-

lationships which includes language and the human mind with

Logan’s (2000 & 2007) Extended Mind model in which the

mind and the brain are distinguished as different entities, which

in itself entails a form of dualism. The mind emerges as distinct

from the brain with the emergence of verbal language. Within

our neo-duality framework we formulated a dialectic distinction

between the symbolosphere, which includes the human mind

and all its thoughts and communication processes such as lan-

guage, on the one hand, and the physiosphere, on the other,

which is simply the physical world of both abiotic and biotic

matter and hence includes the human brain, which is carefully

distinguished from the mind.

First Window Third Window

Mechanical models Ecological models (xxii, 3)

Science culture ala

C. P. Snow

Humanistic culture ala

C. P. Snow (2)

Pleroma ala Bateson Creatura ala Bateson (3)

Reductive science of physics

and chemistry

Constructive science of

ecology and complexity (4)

Time reversal History—time has a

direction (25, 33)

Newtonian mechanics

Entropy and Carnot’s

Second Law of

Thermodynamics (34)

Things, particles (billiard balls) Processes (22)

Atomism Systems (22)

Nodes Links or flows (9)

Laws-deterministic-predictable

Processes that are emergent,

Non-deterministic and not

Predictable (4, 23, 29)

Universal Laws of Physics No universal laws for

Biology (50)

Forces Propensities (55)

Bottom Up Causality Top Down Causality (x, 5)

Efficient Cause Final Cause (19-20)

Objects create processes Processes create objects (75)

Homogeneity Heterogeneiry (48-50)

Algorithms Dialectics (92)

Overhead Ascendency (89)

Bottom Up Causality Top Down Causality (x, 5)

Table of First and Third Window Dualities (page numbers

in parentheses refer to page location in Ulanowicz’s A Third

Window).

Logan-Schumann Neo-Duality

One of the reasons that Ulanowicz’s dualistic/dialectical ap-

proach resonates with me is that it parallels some earlier work

of mine in collaboration with John Schumann. In a paper pub-

lished in Semiotica Logan and Schumann (2005) introduced the

notion of neo-duality. We combined Schumann’s (2003) notion

of the Symbolosphere, the non-physical world of symbolic

relationships which includes language and the human mind

with Logan’s (2000 & 2007) Extended Mind model in which

the mind and the brain are distinguished as different entities,

which in itself entails a form of dualism. The mind emerges as

distinct from the brain with the emergence of verbal language.

Within our neo-duality framework we formulated a dialectic

distinction between the symbolosphere, which includes the

human mind and all its thoughts and communication processes

such as language, on the one hand, and the physiosphere, on the

other, which is simply the physical world of both abiotic and

biotic matter and hence includes the human brain, which is

carefully distinguished from the mind.

The Extended Mind Hypothesis

Logan (2007) in the Extended Mind Model proposed that

R. K. LOGAN

before hominids acquired verbal language that the brain was

basically a percept processor. With the emergence of verbal

language the brain bifurcated into the brain plus the mind capa-

ble of conceptualization. It was with this development that fully

human Homo sapiens emerged as a species distinct from their

hominid ancestors.

What developments in hominid evolution gave rise to the

complexity, the information overload, and, hence, the

chaos that led to the bifurcation from perception to con-

ception—and the emergence of speech. No single devel-

opment or breakthrough triggered this event but rather the

accumulation of developments that included the use of

tools, the control of fire, the larger social settings fire en-

gendered, the social organization required for large group

living, food sharing, group foraging and co-ordinated

large scale hunting that resulted from the larger living

groups and the emergence of non-verbal mimetic commu-

nication as has been described by Merlin Donald (1991)

in The Making of the Modern Mind…

One thing is clear, however, percepts no longer had the

richness or the variety with which to represent and model

hominid experience once the new skills of hominids like

tool making and social organization were acquired. It was

in this climate that speech emerged and the transition or

bifurcation from perceptual thinking to conceptual think-

ing occurred. The initial concepts were, in fact, the very

first words of spoken language. Each word served as a

metaphor and strange attractor uniting all of the pre-ex-

isting percepts associated with that word in terms of a

single word and, hence, a single concept. All of one’s ex-

periences and perceptions of water, the water we drink,

bathe with, cook with, swim in, that falls as rain, that

melts from snow, were all captured with a single word,

water, which also represents the simple concept of water

(Logan, 2007: p. 49).

The emergence of verbal language that made us human led to

social intelligence or perhaps vice-versa social intelligence led

to verbal language; actually most likely a combination of the

two. One could even invoke Ulanowicz centripetality as a way

of explaining the emergence of language. The important thing

is that verbal language, social organization and co-operation

reinforced each other and arose as emergent phenomena. The

creation of new forms of co-ordination and social cohesion met

the infinite variety of challenges life presented including the

navigation through different forms of social conflict, the variety

of which is endless.

The connection between language and social organization

and intelligence is also made by Merlin Donald (1991) and

Terrence Deacon (2007). Donald who regarded mimesis as the

pre-adaptation for the generative grammar of spoken language

connects mimesis with the creation of new social structures,

which led in time to human altruism.

Mimetic skill represented a new level of cultural devel-

opment, because it led to a variety of important new social

structures, including a collectively held model of the soci-

ety itself. It provided a new vehicle for social control and

coordination, as well as the cognitive underpinnings of

pedagogical skill and cultural innovation. In the brain of

the individual, mimesis was partly the product of a new

system of self-representation and mostly the product of a

supramodular mimetic controller in which self-action may

be employed to ‘model’ perceptual event representations.

Many of the cognitive features usually identified exclu-

sively with language were already present in mimesis: for

instance, intentional communication, recursion, and dif-

ferentiation of reference (Donald, 1991: pp. 199-200).

Deacon (2007) makes a similar connection between language

and human social development by linking symbolic communi-

cation and social dynamics. He wrote,

The near synchrony in human prehistory of the first in-

crease in brain size, the first appearance of stone tools for

hunting and butchery, and a considerable reduction in

sexual dimorphism is not a coincidence. These changes

are interdependent. All are symptoms of a fundamental

restructuring of hominid adaptation, which resulted in a

significant change in feeding ecology, a radical change in

social structure, and an unprecedented, (indeed, revolu-

tionary) change in representational abilities. The very first

symbol ever thought, or acted out, or uttered on the face

of the earth grew out of this socio-economic dilemma, and

so they might not have been very much like speech…Mar-

riage is not the same as mating, and not the same as a pair

bond. Unlike what is found in the animal world, it is a

symbolic relationship....Symbolic culture was a response

to a reproductive problem that only symbols could solve:

the imperative of representing a social contract…The

symbol construction that occurs in these ceremonies is not

just a matter of demonstrating certain symbolic relation-

ships, but actually involves the use of the individuals and

actions as symbol tokens (ibid.: 400-1 & 406).

To conclude, there is ample evidence from Donald (1991),

Deacon (2007) and Logan (2007) to suggest that verbal sym-

bolic language led directly to human co-operation, altruism and

spirituality and these uniquely human qualities are products of

our minds.

Contrary to a commonly held notion that the brain and the

mind are the same, neo-duality entails the notion that the brain

and the mind are distinct and that they belong respectively to

the physiosphere and the symbolosphere (Logan & Schumann,

2005). The physiosphere in a certain sense corresponds to Des-

carte’s Res Extensa and the symbolosphere corresponds roughly

to Descarte’s Res Cogitans. No distinction is made between

substance and property dualism, hence we characterized our

form of duality as neo-duality. In our original paper we (ibid.)

suggested that our neo-dualistic approach was justified on the

basis that at our current understanding of neuroscience is un-

able to connect the functions of the mind with the actions of the

brain and hence it makes sense from a practical point of view to

distinguish between these two levels of phenomena. However

in light of Ulanowicz’s A Third Window I would now argue that

the brain is a thing, quite a complex thing but a thing neverthe-

less and the mind is a process. I would also argue that the mind

is basically an emergent phenomenon possessing properties not

possessed by its two main components, namely the brain and

verbal language.

Building on Ulanowicz duality the physiosphere defined wi-

thin the context of Logan-Schumann neo-dualism can be further

subdivided or dualized by making a distinction as does Ulano-

wicz, Deacon (2012) and Kauffman (2010) of abiotic matter

and the biosphere. The abiotic or material sphere of particles

424

R. K. LOGAN

and their forces are governed by laws whereas the biosphere is

governed by processes as Ulanowicz has pointed out.

The Heraclitean versus the Parmenidean or

Eleatic Point of View

Just as work in biology can be categorized as investiga-

tions into either biotic form or function, studies of the sur-

rounding physical world focus either on content or on

flow. These dualities reflect the ancient dialectic between

the Eleatic and Heraclitean schools of Greek philosophy,

which continues to influence science today (mostly through

its emphasis on the former perspective). Of course, it is no

mystery why contemporary biology emphasizes form and

content over function and flow—the former are much eas-

ier to quantify (Ulanowicz, 1991).

One of the key influences of Ulanowicz’s process ecology is

Heraclitus’ notions of flux, perpetual change and strife as ex-

emplified by the oft quoted metaphor of the river representing

change and the notion that all is in flux. There are a number of

versions of the quote that incorporates the river as a metaphor

of change. The Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy claims this

to be the closest to the original based on the agreement of sev-

eral scholars:

On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and

other waters flow. (B12)

Other versions include:

Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same

rivers.

We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are

and are not.

No man ever steps in the same river twice.

The notion of constant change and flux as process is also

contained in the following Heraclitean fragments:

This world-order [kosmos], the same of all, no god nor

man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: ever-

living fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in

measures. (B30)

We must recognize that war is common, strife is justice,

and all things happen according to strife and necessity.

(B80)

War is father of all and king of all; and some he mani-

fested as gods, some as men; some he made slaves, some

free. (B53)

Opposing the Heraclitean embrace of change and constant

flux was Parmenides of the Eleatic School who argued that

nothing changes suggesting if something changed from A to B

then A would not be but non-being cannot be. He further main-

tained that nothing could come into being but always was and

nothing could be extinguished but always will be unchanging

because non-being cannot be. Parmenides was perhaps the first

or one of the first thinkers to make use of deductive logic when

he argued that being cannot be as is the case in the following

fragments:

It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is,

but nothing is not. (B 6.1-2)

How could what is perish? How could it have come to be?

For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is go-

ing to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and de-

struction unknown. (B 8.20-22)

[What exists] is now, all at once, one and continuous…Nor

is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there any more or

less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding

together, but all is full of what is. (B 8.5-6, 8.22-24)

It is in this fragment that Parmenides argues for the power

and self consistency of logic, which he denotes as logos:

For this view, that That Which Is Not exists, can never

predominate. You must debar your thought from this way

of search, nor let ordinary experience in its variety force

you along this way, (namely, that of allowing) the eye,

sightless as it is, and the ear, full of sound, and the tongue,

to rule; but (you must) judge by means of the Reason

(Logos) the much-contested proof which is expounded by

me. (B 7.1-8.2)

The conflict between Heraclitus and Parmenides repeats it-

self in the conflicting view of the physicalist and the advocates

of strong emergence as the Ulanowicz quote, which begins this

section, proclaims. The physicalists or the reductionist monists

argue that all reality including abiotic, biotic, mental and spiri-

tual phenomena can be explained in terms of the basic laws of

physics. The strong emergentists like Maturana, Varela, Kauff-

man, Deacon and Ulanowicz (and if I may include myself in

this august group of thinkers) argue that biology cannot be re-

duced to physics and that self organization and processes are

the key to understanding the biotic domain. For the physicalists

nothing new emerges in this universe of ours in the sense that

everything can be reduced to the four basic forces of nature,

namely gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear or strong force

and the weak force. For the emergentists new phenomena arise

as the components of a complex systems self-organize giving

rise to properties not possessed by those components. Ulano-

wicz is quite explicit about making use of arguments developed

by Elasser (1969 & 1981) that rogue or complex chance play a

role in the processes of the universe as is the case with the ori-

gin and evolution of life. “The operation of any system is vul-

nerable to disruption by chance events (Ulanowicz, 2009: p.

47).

Change is ever pervasive to anyone who observes the proc-

esses of nature. There are those that can go with the flow and

enjoy the process and challenge of some thing new and those

that find change upsetting and need something that does not

change. Heraclitus embraced change and Parmenides of the

Eleatic School rejected it. Emergentists embrace change, proc-

ess and complexity and physicalists/monists are uncomfortable

with them.

The challenge of science and philosophy is to explain the

world of change with universal laws that did not change. Hera-

clitus took up this challenge by embracing change but suggest-

ing that this change was, nevertheless, ruled by Logos. The

word logos, which originated with the Greeks, is derived from

the Greek verb legō (λέγω) and had the common meaning of

word, tale or speech. It was first used in philosophical discourse

by Heraclitus, where it took on the extra metaphorical meanings

of reason, rationality, measure and ruling principal based on the

R. K. LOGAN

context in which he used the term as these fragments of his

demonstrate:

This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable

to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first

heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with

this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they ex-

perience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each

in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other

people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they

forget what they do while asleep. —Diels-Kranz, 22B1

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But

although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they

had their own private understanding. —Diels-Kranz, 22B2

Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that

all things are one. —Diels-Kranz, 22B50 (Translations from

Richard D. McKirahan, Philosophy before Socrates, Hackett,

1994.)

The Four Mysteries

In my Poetry of Physics course, which I have taught to hu-

manities students at the University of Toronto since 1971, in

order to make the students aware of what physics can and can-

not describe, I identify for them what I consider to be the four

basic mysteries of our universe, namely the phenomena and

existence of

1) matter/energy, the domain of physics and chemistry;

2) life, the domain of biology and ecology;

3) mentality/intelligence, the domain of cognitive science

and neuroscience; and

4) spirituality, the domain of philosophy and theology

Reductive physics and chemistry deals with mystery num-

ber one, matter and energy. Ulanowicz deals beautifully with

mystery number two, life and ecology in A Third Window,

carefully showing what distinguishes mysteries one and two

from each other and at the same time showing how they are

related. He deals with a certain aspect of mystery number

three, intelligence or cognition in the sense that intelligence

and cognition are closely associated with living systems in the

sense that even the simplest organism must respond correctly to

resources such as energy or nutrients by finding and acquiring

them and to toxins by avoiding them. A description of intelli-

gence, an essential part of life, however, requires another level

of explanation above and beyond that of an explanation of life

especially as it concerns human intelligence. This is not an area

that Ulanowicz has dealt with in A Third Window. I believe that

the consideration of the origin of language, media ecology and

Logan-Schumann neo-duality developed above within the con-

text and framework of Ulanowicz’s treatment of life and ecol-

ogy provides a richer picture of intelligence and cognition and

complements his achievement.

The Fourth Mystery—Spirituality and Things

Transcendental

Not every aspect of human behaviour, however can be ex-

plained in terms of physics, biology and cognition. There is

another dimension to human existence that cannot be explained

only in terms of intelligence and that pertains to human altruism,

morality and spirituality and even to the transcendental catego-

ries such of the sacred, the soul and God.

This area is not in the domain of science, which as a disci-

pline is agnostic with respect to things spiritual and/or tran-

scendental. There are even a significant number of scientists,

usually reductionists and monists, that are hostile to and even

deny the existence of anything spiritual or transcendental. And

those that are agnostic with respect to these putative phenom-

ena would still claim that any explanation of this realm is to-

tally outside of the purview of scientific consideration. Given

Popper’s criteria of the need for a proposition to be falsified if it

is to be considered a scientific proposition I have to agree any

discussion of spiritual matters cannot be construed as science.

Nevertheless stimulated by my reading of A Third Window I

would like to attempt to offer a naturalistic philosophical ex-

planation for the emergence of human altruism and spirituality

as well as the universal inclusion in all human cultures of some

form of transcendentalism and the notion of a deity or deities.

God as a Metaphor of All That Is Good in

Humankind

The following thoughts might prove offensive to traditional

believers in orthodox religion that envisage a God living in

heaven and watching over each and every one of us. My idea of

God is quite different and is consistent with my understanding

of modern science. I am respectful of the religious beliefs of

others and the purpose of these reflections is not to criticize the

religious thinking of others but to argue that one can be both

secular and spiritual at the same time. My spirituality and my

understanding of God reflect the Jewish values of my upbring-

ing. I do not accept the stories of Hebrew Scripture as literal but

they have real meaning for me metaphorically as do many of

my religious traditions that I pick and chose to observe because

they make sense to me. I do not attend synagogue regularly but

I am moved when I do, as I am in the holy houses of other re-

ligions. My family due to intermarriage celebrates both Jewish

and Christian holidays.

I believe in God but I do not believe that there exists a God

that controls every event in the universe. To my way of think-

ing how could such a Being if He or She existed, allow such

things as the Shoah (the Jewish Holocaust) or the senseless acts

of violence, ethnic cleansings, murders, tortures that occur far

too often perpetrated by those among us who have lost their

sense of humanity and are totally depraved. I still take comfort

in and believe in the goodness of humankind despite the exis-

tence of evil people who commit such atrocities. These people

who do evil are a small minority of humankind. I believe in the

intrinsic goodness of humankind and that forms my belief in

God.

Spirituality and/or a belief in God requires two attributes that

are unique to humans, namely an abstract form of language-

based intelligence and an altruistic spirit of loving and caring

for others as the final cause that motivates one’s actions. The

altruistic values that motivates human behaviour is often but

not always formulated in terms of a Deity. Many believe that

altruism is derived from God. I believe that human altruism that

emerged in the speciation from our hominid ancestors to Homo

sapiens is the source of our notion of God. God is a symbol, an

example, of how we believe humans should behave. God and

transcendence is a way of describing the complexity of human

altruism. God is a metaphor that represents all that is good

within the human sphere.

For me God exists in the minds of humans; but not as a king

sitting on a throne in heaven surrounded by cherubim. God

426

R. K. LOGAN

exists in the millions of acts of kindness and sacrifice humans

make to benefit their fellow humans. God is charitable acts,

kindness, love, caring, and giving to others both materially and

spiritually. For me God arises or emerges as the result of the

final cause of those that act in the service of others. God’s

nemeses, the devil or devils, are those humans who through

their selfish behaviour exploit and/or harm others. Those that

cheat six days a week and go to their respective house of wor-

ship on the seventh day have no real notion of God and are

devoid of decent values. They are hypocrites and they are the

real devils not the ones that some believe dwell in Hell. Athe-

ists who deny the existence of God are in denial of how values

and caring defines us as humans. It is those humanistic values

and caring that is the focus and source of our belief in God,

which is backed up by action, service and good deeds. Some

atheists are in denial because they take the formulations of God

literally. Many are often angry because of the many instances

they observe where people take advantage of others using God

and religion as a cover to exploit them

I do not believe that God created the universe as we know it

but rather it emerged by chance. It is a matter of chance that our

universe is composed of matter and not antimatter according to

our understanding of how our universe arose out of the Big

Bang 15 billion years ago. Perhaps there is another parallel

universe of antimatter or, even as some cosmologists speculate,

an infinite number of universes. For me this universe is para-

dise enough and we should try to get it right. Perhaps the matter

and antimatter universes had to separate just as Isaac and Ish-

mael were separated in Scriptures. It was by chance that more

matter was created than antimatter and it was also by chance

that life emerged and it was by chance that human life emerged

with the gift of speech and conceptualization, and as a cones-

quence the ability to conceive, to care, to love, to be spiritual,

and to be altruistic. It was in this way that human life created

the notion of God. I do not believe it was the other way around

as it is told in Scriptures that God created us and placed us in

the Garden of Eden. I believe, we humans that arose by chance,

created God or gods as a metaphor for that altruistic spirit that

arose in us by chance and in all likelihood caused us to thrive

through communal autocatalysis and grow as the community of

humankind. In other words the idea of God arose from humans

as a way of expressing their spiritual and altruistic nature,

which served as a survival tool for humanity.

I therefore would conclude that God did not create us in his

image rather we created God in our image, the image of what is

best in us as humans—our image of the saintly, the altruistic,

the charitable, the kind and those who are considerate of there

fellow humans. God is an example of how humans should be-

have: caring, forgiving, loving, and slow to anger. God has the

qualities that a good parent should possess. Perhaps this why

we call God, Father.

Perhaps this also explains why God or the gods are repre-

sented as humans as is the case in so many traditions. Jesus was

human; Krishna was human; the Buddha was human; Zoroaster

was human. Lao Tzu and Confucius were human. In China and

certain other cultures one worships one’s ancestors. The gods of

polytheistic religions such as that of the Greeks and the Ro-

mans were basically human possessing both that which was

inspiring but also in possession of many of the foibles of hu-

mans.

To sum up I believe my theology might be described as

Emergent Deism—God is not nature but God arises out of hu-

man nature. Having acknowledged the contribution of my reli-

gious traditions I must also acknowledge that my formulation

of my religious views here were influenced by three books

written by scientists. They are in the order in which I read them:

Stuart Kauffman’s Reinventing The Sacred, Terrence Deacon’s

Incomplete Nature and Robert Ulanowicz’s A Third Window.

Paradoxically, I was also influenced by a highly religious per-

son, namely, Marshall McLuhan with whom I frequently at-

tended Catholic Mass at lunchtime. He prayed for his salvation

and I prayed to understand what we had discussed that morning.

We had a special bond despite our different ways of under-

standing spirituality. When we wrote a paper entitled Alphabet

Mother of Invention (McLuhan & Logan, 1977) in which we

linked together alphabet, codified law, science, deductive logic

and monotheism McLuhan had no trouble with my suggestion

that the idea of monotheism arose among the Hebrews. I do not

think he would have a problem with my unorthodox interpreta-

tion of how the idea of God arose. If it helps atheists see the

importance of and accept spirituality then it should be accept-

able to theists who naturally will see things differently than me.

While I am on the topic of prayer let me share my thoughts

about its efficacy. Although I do not believe in the agency of

God I do believe that prayers work. I believe it is the power of

self fulfilling prophesy that makes prayer effective. The term

“self-fulfilling prophecy” was coined in 1948 by Robert K.

Merton, who drew upon W. I. Thomas’s (Thomas & Thomas,

1928: pp. 571-72) well-known dictum: “if men define situations

as real, they are real in their consequences”

Given the environmental crisis with global warming that the

human community is facing it is imperative that a common

ground of spirituality is created among the secularists especially

those that are scientists and the community of believers. Whe-

ther one formulates their spirituality in a traditional way or in

an unorthodox way we must find a common cause and learn

how to work together. The resolution of the challenge we face

cannot be achieved by science alone. It will require a spiritual

dimension as well. There is no guarantee that this precious

moment in the history of the cosmos in this small corner of the

universe that allowed human culture to thrive will long endure.

We have become so powerful with our technologies that we

risk destroying the conditions that make our existence possible.

What I find so dangerous about the monist reductionist position

is the hubris that science can solve any problem that we create.

The book Collapse by Jared Diamond (2007) documents how

societies in the past collapsed through hubris. A danger exists

on the other side as well among the traditionalists in the reli-

gious community who believe that God would not allow the

collapse of the conditions for human life on the planet. I remind

those skeptics of three things. First, that God helps those who

help themselves. Second, in both the Christian and Jewish tra-

ditions the end of days is spoken of. And third as is related in

Scriptures God had no problem flooding the planet once before.

Who will be today’s Noah if global warming melts the ice caps

and floods the planet once again.

REFERENCES

Deacon, T. (2012). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter.

New York: Norton.

Diamond, J. (2007). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed.

New York: Penguin Books.

Elasser, W. M. (1969). A causal phenomena in physics and biology: A

R. K. LOGAN

428

case for reconstruction. American Scientist, 57, 502-516.

Elasser, W. M. (1981). A form of logic suited for biology. In R. Rosen

(Ed.), Progress in theoretical biology (pp. 23-62). New York: Aca-

demic Press.

Kauffman, S. (2010). Reinventing the sacred: A new view of science.

New York: Basic Books.

Logan, R. K. (2000). The extended mind: understanding language and

thought in terms of complexity and chaos theory. In L. Strate (Ed.),

2000 Communication and speech annual (pp. 63-80). New York:

The New York State Communication Association.

Logan, R. K. (2006). Neo-dualism and the bifurcation of the sym-

bolosphere into the mediasphere and the human mind. Semiotica, 160,

229-242.

Logan, R. K. (2007). The extended mind: the emergence of language,

the human mind and culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Logan, R. K. (2010). Understanding new media: Extending Marshall

McLuhan. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Logan, R. K. (2013a forthcoming). McLuhan misunderstood: Setting

the record straight. Toronto: The Key Publishing House.

Logan, R. K. (2013b forthcoming). What is information? Toronto:

DEMO Publishing. doi:10.1515/semi.2005.2005.155.1part4.201

Logan, R. K., & Schumann, J. (2005). The symbolosphere, conceptu-

alization, language and neo-dualism. Semiotica, 155, 201-214.

McLuhan, M., & Logan, R. K. (1977). Alphabet, mother of invention.

Et Cetera, 34, 373-383.

Merton, R. K. (1968). Ch. 3: The self-fulfilling prophecy. In Social

theory and social structure (2nd ed.) (pp. 475-490). New York: Free

Press.

Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behav-

ior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.

Ulanowicz, R. E. (1991). The ecosystem structure of Lake Annie, High-

lands County, Florida: Preliminary research needs.

http://www.archbold-station.org/station/documents/publicationspdf/

Ulanowicz-1991-LkAnnie-visinvrep.pdf

Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A third window: Natural life beyond Newton

and Darwin. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.