One argument I’ve seen around for years goes something along these lines: Art, music, and other such pursuits confer little to no biological advantage. Darwinian evolutionary biology affords no adequate explanation for these elements of life, as they aren’t adaptive behaviors. Furthermore, elements such as art, music, etc. possess a metaphysical nature which transcends mere physical, biological functionality and involves abstract, mental components of consciousness that deviate from normal animal behaviors. Therefore, theism is a better explanation for such abstract pursuits and states, as they make more sense if they’re the design of a metaphysical creator deity.

To some, this sounds very intuitive. This argument attempts to strike at the heart of mainstream evolutionary biology’s conception of life, and in the argument’s course, it portrays life as having artistic, abstract, and, in the parlance of some observers, metaphysical components that aren’t, it is alleged, adequately explained by evolutionary biology. I will take the first part of this post to address this argument. I will then detail a distinct but similar argument and address that argument last.

First and foremost, the notion art, music, etc. confer no biological advantage, benefit, or function is false. For the purpose of simplicity, I’ll group all of these pursuits into the category of art. Art, for one, can confer financial benefits to artists, who can sell their artistic creations to others, such as for entertainment value. Financial gain, of course, confers biological advantages in terms of personal resource stability. Art confers other biological benefits as well, such as relaxation, expression of feeling, and embodiment of principles through artwork, such as philosophical principles. Art, mathematics, philosophy, wonder, and other abstract pursuits and states all confer potential biological benefit. More importantly, I find none of what I just said is relevant, because the theistic argument in question operates under the premise that evolutionary biology does not adequately allow for the existence of naturally evolved life forms who can, under certain conditions, simply choose to engage in artistic/abstract pursuits for any personal reason whatsoever, or who are otherwise innately compelled to do so by their very nature. In fact, evolutionary biology does allow for this contingency, as the concept of evolution as it’s generally articulated only in essence implies that natural biochemical processes generate mutations, some fraction of these mutations results in survivors, some fraction of survivors are intelligent beings, and some fraction of intelligent beings can pursue artistic or otherwise abstract ends for a variety of reasons by the power of their minds. Evolutionary biology also allows for such contingencies as intelligent organisms who willfully commit suicide, willfully engage in destructive behaviors, or otherwise deviate from survival-oriented schemes. Evolution describes a process by which life forms mutate and attain complex states. It does not mean intelligent organisms such as humans cannot willfully deviate from survival-oriented schemes for purely personal purposes. It does not mean brains cannot have very complex, impulsive natures.

Evolutionary biology does not actually place hard limits on what intelligent life forms can pursue and what their brains enjoy. Brains have a certain nature, varying between individuals. Evolutionary biology does not imply brains cannot enjoy artistic pursuits or abstractions, it does not imply brains cannot have a form of will, and it further does not imply that life forms never engage in non-adaptive, non-essential behaviors. Life forms can and sometimes do engage in behaviors that aren’t conducive to their survival. Nothing in any rational biology states that life forms must universally be strictly concerned with normal, adaptive pursuits. Evolution as a concept only describes a process that leads to intelligent life, which has its own innate complex nature.

My argument here is twofold: 1) evolutionary biology as a concept logically allows for artistic or otherwise abstract pursuits and cognition which develop as a result of complex biopsychological mutations and the emergence of intelligent desire and enjoyment; 2) the existence of artistic pursuits and abstract components of consciousness in no way implies a creator deity. What these theists essentially reason is that, because complex human brains enjoy art and other abstractions and because, in their view, art (etc.) serves little to no biological function, it cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary biology even in theory, despite the fact that, in theory, evolution can account for art/abstraction as a biopsychological mutation of complex brains which both enjoy benefits of such elements and have innate cognitive impulses. Remember, evolution does not mean every single life form adapts, survives, and is strictly concerned with survival. Atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionary biology ultimately views organic life as a process of complex mutations, which generate forms of consciousness who may then alter those mutations and engage in other activities that may or may not be conducive to survival. Under an atheistic biology, the cosmos simply has a certain innate nature, which in some cases leads to complex intelligence.

You’ll notice, I have not once said any form of atheistic, naturalistic biology is true. What I have said is that the existence of art, music, and other aspects of human life in no way implies a creator deity, and can be adequately accounted for in theory by an evolutionary biology which describes organisms as complex and in some cases intelligent products of mutational processes that occur over a very long period of time. Those theists out there who peddle this notion that artistic/abstract pursuits are incompatible with atheistic evolution and imply theistic intervention are selling a conceptual lie, even if some form of theism happens to be true. This specific question is not a matter of whether theism or atheism is true. This is a matter of what artistic/abstract pursuits and states do and do not logically imply, and whether they can be adequately accounted for in theory by a given evolutionary biology. They can be accounted for by such a biology, and they do not imply any creator deity whatsoever. So then theists may ask, “Why does nature generate these life forms? Why would life forms pursue art?” Why does a creator exist, according to theism? Theism’s answer is that the creator simply exists, that it is innate. Similarly, an atheistic naturalism can attribute the same innate complexity to nature and the beings it generates.

This next part marks a point where some of my fellow atheists may diverge from me, which doesn’t deter me from making this argument. I find this next argument to be much more metaphysically significant than the debate over such ordinary realities as art and abstraction. For this section, I’d like to briefly clarify the definition of the words paranormal and supernatural. Sometimes they’re used interchangeably, though I find it useful to distinguish between them. Paranormal basically means any element which deviates from relative normalcy and, by its nature, apparently eludes definite scientific explanation. Supernatural basically means any element which transcends the normal constraints of natural systems and so exists on what we may term a metaphysical spectrum. Notably here, a paranormal element isn’t necessarily supernatural, even if it is in fact paranormal. For example, if extraterrestrials were to visit Earth in advanced spacecraft and possibly employ exotic techniques, such beings would, in a certain sense, be paranormal insofar as human science cannot definitively explain their origins, nature, capabilities, and purpose. However, they wouldn’t necessarily be supernatural, as, in principle, they could simply be natural life forms who evolved on another planet and journeyed to this sector. This is only one example. Another example is the concept of telepathy. In a hypothetical scenario where a brain can use certain purely bioneurological, non-spiritual techniques to directly communicate thoughts or detect the thoughts of others, this phenomenon, though we could term it paranormal, isn’t necessarily supernatural insofar as it’s limited to being an exotic neural phenomenon. There’s some arbitrary semantics at play here, but I do find them relevant to this discussion. Many of the concepts in the paranormal and the supernatural overlap, which leads to their interchangeability in language. Still, I would emphasize that even if a phenomenon is genuinely paranormal, that doesn’t mean it is supernatural. It could simply be an exotic natural phenomenon which deviates from normal phenomena.

There is a certain vein of thought in theism which contends, in so many words, that, if any paranormal/supernatural phenomena exist, a creator deity must exist, as such phenomena could not exist without a creator deity. Given some of the ambiguities I outlined above, let’s limit our consideration to the concept of the supernatural in particular. For this purpose, we can conceive of several supernatural concepts such as: astral projection, clairvoyance, conjuration, true magic, magical planes, telekinesis, telepathy, spirits, ghosts, fairies, elementals, and demons. In the minds of many theists, some of all or all of these concepts cannot be logically conceived of without a creator deity. If any of these elements actually exist, such theists argue that they in effect prove the existence of a creator deity, as they could not possibly exist without one. Some atheists may even be under the impression that, if certain supernatural realities exist, such as certain supernatural realities posited by theism, theism’s premise of a creator deity must be true. It is not only theists who may view the supernatural in this way.

This argument is, like the art-related argument above, illogical. We can perfectly conceive of possible worlds where, although a creator deity does not exist, the cosmos still innately contains certain supernatural elements. Belief in a creator deity is not logically required for consideration of any supernatural or otherwise paranormal concepts. The reason this is so is that, just as it is conceivable a creator deity exists and contains certain innate properties, it is also conceivable an undesigned cosmos exists and that nature contains certain innate properties, some of which may rise to the level of what we call the supernatural. Supernatural forces, in other words, could simply be higher forms of nature, in principle. I have not here claimed that any supernatural forces exist. Once more, this is a question of logic and conceptual conceivability. There are plenty of conceivable possible worlds where supernatural elements exist but not a creator deity, and it is conceivable we exist in one such world. The question here, again, is not actually whether we exist in such a world. This is a matter of logic. The logic presented by such theists is that supernatural elements cannot exist without a creator deity. That logic is not proven and is countered by the logical conceivability of a cosmos which simply contains innate complex properties, some of which are supernatural.

It is my sense that many theists cannot fathom this kind of metaphysics in part because, in many cases, they’ve been aggressively indoctrinated into a theistic worldview and cannot bring themselves to logically decouple theism from the concept of the supernatural. To theists and atheists alike: Theism and the supernatural are two separate concepts, even if some versions of theism include some supernatural concepts. It is logically possible, at least in principle, that paranormal/supernatural elements exist which do not require a creator deity and are, in essence, aspects of nature considered as a whole. Nature is not merely the limited reality we’re roughly aware of in collective waking observation. Nature, in the broadest sense, encompasses any and all aspects of reality, although some thinkers choose to arbitrarily limit nature’s definition to only include certain aspects and not others, even if those other aspects exist. Cosmos, nature, and reality are words that can authentically be used interchangeably, as, in the broadest sense, they all denote the word everything, which technically encompasses every single aspect of reality no matter the nature of that aspect. There is nothing that renders it logically impossible for us to exist in a godless cosmos which nonetheless hosts supernatural forces, even such forces as spirits, transcendental planes, and demons.

Theists tend to detract from this observation because they believe they have a metaphysical monopoly on the concept of demons. They believe only their conception of demons is true and that no other possible conception which involves an atheistic cosmos is true because demons, according to theists, require a creator deity. Atheists tend to detract from this observation because they often believe supernatural demons do not exist, they often couple the concept of demons with theistic interpretations of the demonic, and they further tend to regard ethereal entities such as shadows, nightmare entities, and others as non-demonic manifestations per the definition of demons atheists often use. In reality, there is a third path between science and religion, which lies somewhere in the occult. In this third path, it isn’t necessarily supposed there is a creator deity, nor is it necessarily supposed there are not supernatural forces even if a creator deity doesn’t exist. Again, it is not necessary to believe in a creator deity to entertain the theoretical possibility of supernatural forces. There is nothing that necessarily couples theism and supernaturalism. Even at the farthest end of the conceptual supernatural spectrum, in the domain of demonology, we need not believe in any theistic cosmology to study the concept of demonic beings and forces, up to and including external supernatural demons.

In conclusion, although there is much left unsaid, I will give my personal sense of the cosmos, which is that, by all appearances, there does not appear to be a coherent intelligent designer, if there is an intelligent designer it’s tantamount to a mad cosmic chaos magician, and yet, amidst the atheistic atmosphere endowed by this reality, I would argue there are still indications of possible paranormal phenomena, and that we may very well exist in a reality that is at once godless and yet, in some ways, magical. I emphasize there is no need whatsoever to believe in a god in order to contemplate supernatural concepts. While we’re intrinsically afflicted by a myriad of unknowns and I cannot reasonably conclude any one particular cosmology is true among all others, I will argue that, logically, a god is not necessary for any concept other than a god itself or a concept which inherently involves a god. Just as theists can contrive whatever special conditions they wish for their deity and their cosmology, atheists and others can contrive whatever special conditions they wish for their model of the cosmos. The question is not what is logically conceivable. Supernatural realities are logically conceivable without theism. The question is what is true.

As it stands, theists and atheists alike cannot adequately detail the entirety of the cosmos beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that includes the conceptual spectrum of the supernatural. I am skeptical of theists and atheists both who profess to know what reality is and isn’t capable of on a cosmic scale. This isn’t some minor grade school quiz we can fully answer in a heartbeat. We’re living in a vast, ancient mystery without definite bounds, full of strange and complex entities, realms, materials, and forces, where no one can say for sure what exists and what doesn’t, what’s possible and what isn’t. Still, I personally find theists corrupt the discourse the most when they pretend as if we cannot logically conceive of realities without their particular creator deity. Atheists sometimes corrupt the discourse too when they push questionable paradigms, but I wrote this because, although I don’t tend to speak online anymore, I see theists are still out here pushing BS and telling us what can and can’t be. I look forward to a discussion about these metaphysical matters with those who took the time to read this unnecessarily lengthy argument. I’d be curious in particular to see if any theists would be willing to concede that there are logically possible worlds which lack a creator deity but contain supernatural elements. As far as I’m concerned, this is a very basic, very axiomatic observation, which does not rise to the level of claiming any of those possible worlds actually exist. It’s simply a matter of seeing what’s logically conceivable. If you want to argue it’s unlikely, fine, but even then we both know that’s just a subjective probability assessment. I’m interested in deductive logic, in proof, and so far, no theist has proven a supernatural reality cannot exist without some form of creator deity. It is my conclusion that they haven’t proven that because it is impossible to do so. There are simply too many logically conceivable possible worlds which contain special properties innate to those worlds, just as theistic possible worlds contain innate properties.

- D.L.X.