I’ve been discussing with various people the nature of “information” and how the ontology of information relates to natural theology and intelligent design. Someone suggested that “information” should be understood as a thing-in-itself apart from matter and energy. He used money as an analogy: money is separable from the commodities it can purchase.
I thought that was an interesting analogy, but for the opposite point: that “information” is not a thing-in-itself, a given aspect of creation, but rather is socially constructed. Here are the preliminary thoughts I had about that, and about how it realtes to natural theology:
Wealth as an analogy for information is very interesting. It gets right to the heart of how I’m trying to think about this. Wealth, or better, a medium of market exchange, isn’t a thing-in-itself in the same sense as matter and energy. God created matter and energy such that they are fundamental properties of the created universe. He didn’t create “wealth” or any medium of market exchange in the same way.
Rather, wealth and currency are socially constructed by people. The only reason a dollar has any value is that society agrees that it has such a value. Absent the social contract, a dollar is a worthless piece of paper. God didn’t create money in the sense that he created matter and energy; He created people who in virtue of bearing His image are social beings; and in virtue of being social beings, people construct social realities that can include things like money. But those social realities aren’t a given in the way that matter and energy are givens. People couldn’t “agree” that matter and energy no longer exist and thereby make it so; but people could (and often do) agree to construct markets without currency, and thereby make it so.
I am beginning to think of “information” the same way: as a social construction, not a given fundamental property of the universe such as matter and energy. We can only properly speak of “information” in the universe in the context of its construction in social relationships.
I think this social view of information has implications for natural theology, but I haven’t really worked this out. In short, if information is a social construction, we should not expect to be able to separate a message from its social context. God may be communicating something about Himself to us through nature, but we will only truly recognize that message in the context of relationship with Him. We can’t speak of “information,” then, as an independent property of the universe that could be detected and measured by just anyone, like matter and energy. “Information” can only be constructed in a social context; genuine information about God can ultimately only be constructed in a social context appropriate to that sort of exchange — the Church. Any effort to construct a natural theology apart from the presuppositions of faith expressed in the community of the Church will therefore fail.
Does anyone have a more “objective,” non-social view of what “information” is as a thing-in-the-universe? If so, can you think of a better, non-social analogy (other than something like money)?
2 replies on “Information and Natural Theology”
God created matter and energy such that they are fundamental properties of the created universe. He didn’t create “wealth” or any medium of market exchange in the same way.
The neocalvinists might disagree with you on that point. For example, the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd believed that God created certain laws and norms of reality that were both irreducible yet interrelated. Though the list wasn’t exhaustive, he spelled out 15 “spheres of human life and experience”: Spatial ; Kinematic, Physical (energy + mass), Biotic (life functions), Sensitive (sense, feeling, emotion) ; Analytical (distinction); Formative (deliberate shaping: history, culture, technology, goals and creativity) ; Lingual (meaning carried by symbolic) ; Social (social interaction) ; Economic (frugal use of resources) ; Aesthetic (harmony, surprise, fun); Juridical (due) ; Ethical (self-giving love, generosity) ; and Pistic (vision, aspiration, commitment, creed).
(Here’s a better explanation of his Theory of Modal Aspects)
Hey Joe, thanks for stopping by. I’m no Dooyeweerd scholar, but I wonder if your reading here is bit slim. From what I understand of his economic sphere, the key is frugality. I don’t see how this necessarily leads to money as a form of economic exchange. Frugal economic exchange is possible without money in some circumstances. Morever, the particular value attached to money — how much can a dollar buy — remains a non-absolute (and often fragile) matter of social contract. The historical proof of this is the fact that currency values in many societies and at many times in history have collapsed based on political circumstances — for example, the Confederate dollar.
Also, I’ve seen at least some suggestion that Dooyeweerd’s economic aspect might not even be completely compatible with capitalism. For example, the Dooyeweerd Pages, which you linked for the general summary of Dooyeweerd’s system, have this to say about the economic aspect:
So, I’m not sure that anything I’ve said would lie outside a Dooyeweerdian understanding of economics. I’m not suggesting there is nothing in the created order that structures economics and social relationships — there certainly is, as we are made in the image of God. All I’m suggesting is that the value of paper currency is a social constructed one.