Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Analogies and Disanalogies
Cleanthes argues that the universe is like a machine and hence likely designed by intelligent creator. Philo, on the other hand, proposes that it is equally probable that the universe is like an animal or vegetable and the order in the universe may be the result of generation, vegitation, or instinct. He even suggests that chance could produce our universe. Who is right? Given the order and seeming purpose to the universe, what is the most likely explanation? Or are none of them more likely than the other (and hence agnosticism the only rational position)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, Philo is right. Cleanthes's reasoning is flawed for several reasons. First, it is unclear that argument by analogy works in this situation. If the universe truly is analogous to the makings of a machine, that may or may not prove something about how the machine came about. What if it is completely by chance? A meteor comes down from the sky and collides with a barren rock called the earth and just so happens to make what we see today. That could be as much of a possibility as through design. Or, to take the Darwinian approach, for example, the existence of the machine may have started from a disorganized, highly imperfect form, but because more orderly systems are more likely to survive over time, that the world refined itself into an operating substrate that we have today. Both of those are not how most people design machines, so the analogy to say that God is like humans may be a bad strategy to even start with.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it's questionable whether or not the world resembles a machine in the first place. Last time I checked, a bulldozer doesn't actively change on its own as the climate, topology, etc. changes. But the world shifts a lot. From geographical upheaval like earthquakes, to biological evolution over time, the world as it is now probably isn't how it would have been as it was designed before. As Philo argues himself, the universe can be more like an animal or a vegetable, or maybe just the result of instinct and chance, so there's a lot to be said against design as the source of the world.
But I think the above two arguments, along with a few others in that part, forms the basis of Philo's reasoning, that I ultimately agree most with, which is that based on our observation, we don't have the ability to assign characteristics to God's existence. We don't know enough about reason, instinct, vegetation, and generation to definitively characterize God as conforming to any of those principles. Philo says he believes the design argument at the end of the dialogues, but believes that we cannot just place human characteristics on God--rather, the nature of God must transcend human understanding, due to our lack of observable information and capability to comprehend God (if we can fully understand God, how can we say he is truly above the level of humans?).
That doesn't make agnosticism the only rational position. You can be a theist, but you just have to refrain from characterizing God in human terms. Philo talks about how organized religion tries to rationalize religion into a set of values and characteristics that people can assign to God, but he believes that approach toward religion is the least religiously faithful because of the fact that God's characteristics are by definition indescribable because of our lack of ability to (clearly and distinctly) observe God in action. So it isn't that we necessarily can rule out the existence of God, as a true agnostic would leave as a possibility; it's just that we refrain from characterizing God as a being whose motives and power are comprehensible by human beings.
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of Agnosticism is: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."So, while I mainly agree with what Omar says, I have to disagree on the Philo as a theist point. Whether or not he clearly articulates it, Philo is basically saying God, or the origin of the world is unknowable. True, he believes in God and therefore is not a true Agnostic. However, his general outlook that God is unknowable seems much more in line with Agnostic skepticism that Theism, which basically holds that there is one god, who created and ruled the universe. By maintaining that doubt,and refusing to subscribe to concrete beliefs of who and what god is, I think Philo, while not 100% in either direction, falls closer to Agnosticism
ReplyDeleteprinceton wordnet says theism is "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods." it only posits the existence of a god or gods.
ReplyDeletemonotheism says there is one god; specific organized religions like catholicism and what not say that he rules over the world. that isn't definitional to theism: a deist perspective would claim god exists but doesn't do anything with the world, which is hardly ruling, but definitely theistic.
so i maintain he is a theist.
oh, and as for creating the universe, that's the entire point of Philo and Cleanthes's discussion. they both conclude it is rational to at least believe god created the universe.
ReplyDeleteso to get back to the question we're trying to answer here, it is rational to be a theist who just doesn't assign traits to god. agnosticism is not the only choice.
i agree with philo. however there are some truths to the universe being like vegetation. we agreed that a deity must hold it's own reason for existence within itself. therefore if the universe is like a veggie! couldn't one conclude that considering the fact that the world is covered in vegetation that it must , as a whole, be run by other vegetation. however, that seems silly. Because veggie's do not have the capacity to think. the analogy of a machine is much more likely. However, it too has it's own flaws. A Machine isn't not the creator of itself. unless there is an ultimate machine that spontaneously combusted into some ultimate being. Machine's always need a power source, an energy that allows them to operate. Just as vegetation needs natural resources, and as animals need other animals to survive. With all these idea's in mind i conclude that neither of the idea's could be correct because they fail to mention their individual source of existence.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely agree with Philo. It makes much more sense that the entire universe fundamentally behaves naturally as the smaller parts of it do (vegetation and animals), rather than that it is a machine created by an intelligent being, and as a result reflects that being (humans). Philo speculated that the universe, like animals and vegetation, is run by either instinct, generation, or reason, or a combination of all. A vegetable, for instance, could be argued to follow these principles, as it naturally grows toward the sun (instinct), has a system of reproduction (generation), and a reason for its existence (providing for life in its surroundings). So, if a mere vegetable naturally follows these principles, it would not seem too absurd that they would also apply to a larger scale form of life, i.e. the universe.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that it is possible for an internal observer to determine whether or not we exist within a machine or within a vegetable. I disagree with Omar when he uses the ability to change as evidence that the universe is not a machine. First off, there is no way to distinguish a change from a natural movement or progression of the universe. The universe may be “programmed” to work in a way that, to an internal observer, appears to be a change. Computers with the ability to grow and change are not that far off. In the near future computers will be learning, adapting, and changing of their own volition. We cannot dismiss the idea that the universe is an extraordinarily complicated machine because there is nothing keeping it from resembling a vegetable or as a matter of fact anything else. A machine, if complicated enough, may be made to resemble any other system. It is impossible for an observer that plays only a small part in this system to understand the type of system they are contained within. My conclusion is that we are unable to make any conclusions concerning the ultimate structure of the universe we live in.
ReplyDelete