In the Universe, But Not Of the Universe?

I have a hard time rejecting causal determinism [1], which is essentially the idea that every result (including our choices and actions) depends on a chain-reaction of cause-and-effect relationships stretching back to the origin of the universe. And throwing a spirit into the equation doesn't seem to help because in Mormonism "all spirit is matter." So whatever that matter consists of, it will have laws that govern it. This leaves us with the prospect that our personalities, decisions, etc. are the combined chain of cause-and-effect relationships of physical and spiritual matter. This shouldn't be all that shocking in as much as our very existence is dependent on the existence of the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) and its laws and properties. If we have no right to exist apart from the universe, should we be shocked that everything we think and do is an extension of the universe?

But what people really seem to care about are issues of agency and responsibility. If we aren't truly making free choices (i.e. choices that are somehow not dependent on the configuration of matter in the universe--I guess), can we be held responsible for anything? And in a Mormon setting, what is the point of the plan of salvation if we are all simply acting out the consequences of the laws of the universe?

I have two responses to this [2]. First, as long as there are conscious beings with subjective experience, they will have a stake in regulating the behavior of other conscious beings. I don't want people stealing my stuff, for example, so laws and punishments are useful for deterring poor behavior and encouraging good. Second, if free will (i.e. the type that somehow makes decisions independent of the state of matter in the universe) does not exist, then we are all in the same boat--presumably including God [3]. There's no need to worry about Laplace's demon; he doesn't exist.

It seems to me that if causal-determinism is true, existence in the universe remains an unpredictable adventure [4], and we go right along on our merry way.

Notes:

1. ...which is different than saying I'm confident it is true.

2. I don't claim to have thought this through all the way. Whether by free will or determinism, I don't find the wrangling over definitions and thought experiments inherent in free will discussions to be worth my time and interest. I'm just giving you my two cents.

3. In Rational Theology, John A. Widtsoe wrote: "There can be no rational discussion of the details of God's life or nature. To him we give the most complete devotion, for to us he is in all respects infinite and perfect. His Godhood, however, was attained by the use of his power in simple obedience to the laws he discovered as he grew in experience." Maybe the universe favors the development of gods because they have a Darwinian advantage (i.e. scum bags are self-destructive).

4. Well, some things are predictable even now. I just mean that nobody can predict every detail of the course of the universe.

---

Continue reading...

Updating Sexual Development

One of the things I have always liked about biology is the propensity of nature to violate rules that people think are inviolable. This week's example comes from a news article, Sex Redefined, in the journal Nature. It covers current understanding of sexual development in humans--something most of us thought we understood by the time we finished high school biology. But it turns out that there are multiple stages to it, each of which can produce a variety of results. The basic outline is as follows:

That the two sexes are physically different is obvious, but at the start of life, it is not. Five weeks into development, a human embryo has the potential to form both male and female anatomy. Next to the developing kidneys, two bulges known as the gonadal ridges emerge alongside two pairs of ducts, one of which can form the uterus and Fallopian tubes, and the other the male internal genital plumbing: the epididymes, vas deferentia and seminal vesicles. At six weeks, the gonad switches on the developmental pathway to become an ovary or a testis. If a testis develops, it secretes testosterone, which supports the development of the male ducts. It also makes other hormones that force the presumptive uterus and Fallopian tubes to shrink away. If the gonad becomes an ovary, it makes oestrogen, and the lack of testosterone causes the male plumbing to wither. The sex hormones also dictate the development of the external genitalia, and they come into play once more at puberty, triggering the development of secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts or facial hair.

Not having a developmental biology background, I found that my understanding was a little out of date in that I was still under the impression that female development is the default track. That the developmental process can be altered and lead to surprising results isn't particularly new, but some of the examples given in the article are still impressive (e.g. womb discovered in 70 year old man).

As for how any of this fits (or doesn't) with Church doctrine, I previously laid out a few thoughts here. As a side note, I've only ever heard vague hearsay that special gender cases have gone to the First Presidency. Given the statistics involved (at least 1 in 4500 people), I would imagine that disorders of sex development are not uncommonly considered by Church leadership, but that's just my guess. I would also guess they are handled on a case-by-case basis, but if anyone out there has insight into that aspect, please chime in.


Notes:
For more, see Duane Jeffery's article, "Intersexes in Humans," for a nice LDS-oriented discussion of this topic. It seems to have held up well since it's publication in 1979. See also Jeffrey Keller, "Is Sexual Gender Eternal?"

---

Continue reading...