---------------------------------

Joseph asked:

I have a two-part question:

*A good many years ago, I came to the conclusion that the universe is a purely natural system which
creates intelligent life forms to play a functional role in its overall development, which is to say that our
presence here will lead to a state of the universe or to an event of definitional significance in the
scheme of things that could not occur without our being a part of the system..

*In terms of a specific functional role, I have come to the conclusion that we will most likely turn out to
be a required, purely natural link in the reproductive process of the universe.

— I would like to know what philosophical precedents there are for such a positions.

============

What you have given is a pretty accurate account of the theory held by the twentieth century
philosopher Samuel Alexander, in his monumental two-volume work, Space, Time and Deity
(Macmillan 1920), based on his Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh 1916—1918.
Alexander is a deep and original thinker, and also a fine writer. I recommend that work to anyone who
is serious about metaphysics. Sadly, Alexander's work came to be eclipsed by A.N. Whitehead's
Process and Realitypublished only a few years later. Whatever chance there may have been for
Alexander to influence the course of British philosophy was snuffed out by A.J. Ayer's Language,
Truth and Logicand the rise of logical positivism.

I was lucky. While I was a graduate student, I came across an approving reference to Alexander in a
book by Leslie Armour Logic and Reality(Van Gorcum 1972). Then not long afterwards I found the
two volume Macmillan 2nd edition, dating from 1927, in an Oxford second hand shop. By that time,
the work had been out of print for nearly two decades. — I have to admit it is a long time since I last
read Alexander, though writing this answer has certainly whetted my appetite for giving the text a
fresh look!

Alexander set the precedent, later followed by Whitehead, for a realistas opposed to an idealist
theory of the nature of reality. His teacher, the idealist F.H. Bradley, author of Appearance and Reality
(1893) was a strong influence. Alexander's achievement was to see that something like Bradley's
Absolute could be reconstructed on realist lines: his solution was ingenious and original, as we shall
see in a moment.

Incidentally, Alexander was one of the few philosophers of his day to make a serious attempt to
understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity. His anti-representationalist account account of perception
within a realist framework was also way ahead of its time — anticipating the work of Austin and
Wittgenstein. It is fair to say though, that by the 60's, when the last copies of Space, Time and Deity
left the press, metaphysical treatises that attempted to solve the great questions of Existence were
out of fashion.

Now for Alexander's theory. Two key concepts for Alexander are those of an 'emergent quality' and
the idea of 'evolution'. The task, as in any metaphysical theory, is to account for every aspect of
existing reality on the simplest and most economical basis. Alexander's idea was to start with Space
and Timeeach of which he regarded as inconceivable without the other. But how do we get from
there?

Space-Time, the universe in its primordial form, is the stuff out of which all existents are made. It is
Space-time with the characters which we have found it to reveal to experience. But it has no 'quality'
save that of being spatio-temporal or motion. All the wealth of qualities which makes things precious
to us belongs to existence which grow within it...It is greater than all existent finites or infinites
because it is their parent...

Op. cit. Vol. I, p. 342

Out of pure space-time emergethrough a process Alexander describes simply as 'motion', the stuff
and matter that make up our material world. Then, at a later point in the evolution of the universe,
Mind, or conscious awareness emerges from material structures that have achieved a sufficient
degree of complexity. The final stage of this process has not yet been reached, however. At some
point in the future history of Mind there will emerge the thing Alexander calls 'Deity', thus revealing the
ultimate purpose and destiny of the universe.

Fully consistently with his revisionist theology, Alexander interprets the activity of prayer and worship
as aimed at the future, rather than at something that exists in the present. Any metaphysical theory of
a Deity, Alexander argues, must satisfy the requirement that the Deity so revealed should be worthy
of worship. Alexander sincerely believed that his theory of the Deity who is yet to evolve satisfied that
requirement.

I personally have my doubts. One can trace a direct line to another Jewish philosopher, Spinoza, who
had a vision of a Deity as the one Substance in which all finite things inhere. Like Spinoza, Alexander
offers a radical reinterpretation of the religious attitude which some may see as a defence of religion,
while others may legitimately feel that what is essential to their faith has been thrown out in the
process.

Geoffrey Klempner