چکیده مبسوط

Extended Abstract

1) Introduction

The teleological argument is one of the oldest philosophical frameworks for proving the existence of a wise designer. Throughout history, it has been continuously reconstructed to address developments in empirical sciences and philosophy. A prominent recent formulation is the “Psychophysical Harmony Argument,” introduced by Brian Cutter and Dustin Crummett in 2023. Instead of focusing on the cosmic fine-tuning of the universe, this argument highlights the astonishing harmony between conscious phenomenal states, physical brain processes, and the behavioral tendencies of organisms. In this harmony, phenomenal states are perfectly paired with the physical states they seem inherently suited for. For example, the sensation of pain is not only subjectively unpleasant but corresponds precisely with the physical behavior of avoidance. This argument possesses three key advantages over traditional arguments from consciousness: first, it does not require an a priori refutation of physicalism—even if physicalism were true, the harmony requires explanation; second, it is immune to the multiverse hypothesis; and third, it relies on the qualitative value of the outcomes rather than mere complexity. However, Cutter and Crummett formulated this argument as an “inference to the best explanation” within a Bayesian probabilistic framework, yielding a strong probability but not certainty. The primary objective of the present study is to demonstrate how this argument can be epistemologically and ontologically elevated from mere probability to logical certainty.

2) Methodology

This study employs an analytical-critical methodology. Initially, it conceptually delineates four main levels of psychophysical harmony (hedonic, epistemic, cognitive, and semantic) based on contemporary philosophy of mind. Following this, the paper evaluates the Bayesian formulation of the argument and its explanatory power against naturalistic and reductionist alternatives. To robustly defend the argument, the study addresses two fundamental challenges: the alleged logical circularity in defining harmony in value-laden terms, and the problem of evil. Finally, by incorporating two foundational principles from Islamic philosophy—the epistemological theory of “Cumulative Evidence” (analogous to the logic of Mutawatir) and the ontological “Principle of Congruity” (Asl al-Sinkhiyyah)—the research models and proves the epistemological transition of the argument from statistical probability to causal necessity and logical certainty.

3) Discussion & Results

The analysis reveals that psychophysical harmony exists across four distinct domains: 1) Hedonic harmony (the correlation of pleasure/pain with survival-appropriate behaviors); 2) Epistemic harmony (the alignment of sensory perception with the justification of true beliefs); 3) Cognitive harmony (the compatibility of phenomenal thoughts and desires with rational actions); and 4) Semantic harmony (the systematic connection between judgments and phenomenal states). According to the Bayesian framework, since the vast majority of logically possible psychophysical laws would result in chaos or mismatch, the probability of this harmony arising under aimless naturalism is virtually zero. Conversely, under theism, which values meaningful agency and rationality, such harmony is highly expected (P("Harmony"∣"Theism")≫P("Harmony"∣"Atheism")).

To achieve logical certainty, two objections must be resolved. The first is “logical circularity,” which claims that defining harmony through “good” or “bad” outcomes presupposes God’s values. The findings show this stems from conflating description with explanation. By applying the Principle of Congruity, the argument relies strictly on the objective scientific and teleological structure of the phenomenon, not subjective evaluations. The second objection is the “problem of evil” and seemingly gratuitous pain. The study responds by distinguishing between “structural wisdom” (which harmony proves) and “absolute benevolence.” Predictable natural laws, even with inevitable painful byproducts, are necessary for a comprehensible world and higher goods. Thus, the existence of some suffering does not negate the structural proof of a wise designer.

The pivotal finding is the elevation of the argument to logical certainty through a two-step process:

First, the application of Cumulative Evidence. By utilizing the logic of cumulative argumentation, the convergence of the four independent layers of harmony drastically reduces the probability of chance to a point nearing zero. In rational logic, this constitutes “customary impossibility” (analogous to undeniable historical consensus or Mutawatir), leading to definitive psychological and logical certainty.

Second, the reliance on the Principle of Congruity. To ground this epistemological certainty in ontology, the philosophical rule that “the provider of a perfection cannot be devoid of it” is employed. Psychophysical harmony is an effect characterized by “knowledge” (systematic order) and “teleology” (purposeful direction). According to the Principle of Congruity, it is ontologically impossible for a cause lacking consciousness and knowledge (blind nature) to produce a scientific-teleological effect. This syllogism shifts the argument from an inductive statistical correlation to an undeniable causal and philosophical necessity.

4) Conclusion

By focusing on the precise alignment between conscious phenomenal states and physical-behavioral mechanisms, the psychophysical harmony argument provides a compelling contemporary version of the teleological argument. This study demonstrated that while the original formulation is probabilistic, it can yield absolute logical certainty when combined with “Cumulative Evidence” and the “Principle of Congruity.” The accumulation of the fourfold harmonies renders the hypothesis of chance practically impossible, and the Principle of Congruity makes the emergence of teleological order from an unconscious nature ontologically impossible. Consequently, the argument transcends an inference to the best explanation, providing an enduring, certainty-based proof for the existence of a wise designer. Nonetheless, fully reconciling this harmony with absolute divine benevolence requires supplementary discussions in the realm of theodicies.

5) References

Adams, R. M. (1992). Flavors, colors, and God. In R. Audi & W. J. Wainwright (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on religious epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Al-Fārābi, M. (1988). Al-Manṭiqiyyāt [The Logical Works] (M. T. Daneshpajouh, Ed.). Qom: Ayatollah Marashi Najafi Library. [In Arabic]

Chalmers, D. J. (2018). The meta-problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(9–10), 6–61.

Cutter, B., & Crummett, D. (2023). Psychophysical harmony: A new argument for theism. PhilArchive. https://philarchive.org/rec/CUTPHA

Goff, P. (2018). Conscious Thought and the Cognitive Fine-Tuning Problem. Philosophical Quarterly, 68(270), 98–122.

Hick, J. (1993). Philosophy of Religion (B. Rad, Trans.). Tehran: Hoda. [In Persian]

Ibn Sinā, H. (2012). Al-Shifāʾ [The Healing] (M. Qawām Ṣafari, Trans.). Qom: Islamic Research Institute for Culture and Thought. [In Arabic]

Klein, P. D. (1981). Certainty: A refutation of scepticism. University of Minnesota Press.

Locke, J. (1996). An essay concerning human understanding. (K. P. Winkler, Ed.). Hackett. (Original work published 1689).

Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXIV.254.200

Moreland, J. P. (2008). Consciousness and the existence of God: A theistic argument. Routledge.

Moṭahhari, M. (1971). Uṣul-i falsafah wa rawish-i riʾālism [The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism]. Qom: Dar al-Ilm. [In Persian]

Moṭahhari, M. (1994). Tawḥid [Monotheism]. Tehran: Sadra. [In Persian]

Norouzi, A., & Mirdamadi, S. M. (2024). Explaining the Certainty of the Proof of Order Through "Accumulation Reasoning", in the Shadow of the Semantic Analysis of "Certainty". Ontological Researches, 13(25), 289-322. [In Persian] 10.22061/orj.2024.2185

Pautz, A. (2020). Consciousness and coincidence: Comments on Chalmers. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 27(5–6), 143–155.

Rabbani Golpayegani, A. (2020). The position of certainty in the argument of design. Kalam-e Eslami (Islamic Theology), 29(113), 9-31. [In Persian]

Rowe, W. L. (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335–341.

Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. The Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182164

Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 109–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-1726-6

Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press.

Ṭabāṭabāʾi, S. M. H. (1993). Bidāyat al-Ḥikmah [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]. Qom: Jami’at al-Mudarrisin. [In Arabic]

Ṭabāṭabāʾi, S. M. H. (1995). Nihāyat al-Ḥikmah [The Ultimate of Islamic Metaphysics]. Qom: Jami’at al-Mudarrisin. [In Arabic]

van Inwagen, P. (1991). The problem of evil, the problem of air, and the problem of silence. Philosophical Perspectives, 5 (Philosophy of Religion), 135–165.

White, R. (2005). Explanation as a guide to induction. Philosophers’ Imprint, 5(2), 1–29.