Paper 1 - Philosophy in Religion - March, 2010
As I breath life into my human awareness each morning, I am overwhelmed by the (recently identified) fractal construction of the universe around me. In the trees and the leaves, the water and the light, molecules and atoms, our social structures, family dynamics, and human thought, everything seems to break down further and further, beyond the realm of human understanding into the never-ending replication of pattern that is a fractal.
Thusly I can certainly relate to the teleological theory of the universe: the idea that the universe has similarities to that of a manmade machine, in its composition of other smaller parts working together to create a desired result, though I believe the universe transcends human creation or comprehension. Anyone who spends time observing nature, reaping its serene benefits, can see the reciprocity, the symbiosis, the general workability of the natural world. Flowers benefit the bees with food and the bees benefit the flowers in pollination. Every organism seems to play a role in the life of the universe, though I am not sure that is a point I could ever prove.
However, where my understanding differs from Paley’s teleological argument is in the conclusion that the cause of the order of the universe resembles human intelligence. First of all, I am uncertain of the cause of the universe, the idea that a big finger was necessary to push the first domino that fell on the second that fell on the third. Maybe the first one just fell on its own accord? Secondly, perhaps I am mistaken in the communication of this argument, but it reads to me as though Paley is asserting the idea that human intelligence is somehow superior to other natural processes and consciousnesses, and somehow specially divine in its uniqueness because only then could it reflect the creator of our universe: “that which can contrive, which can design, must be a person” (Paley, 65). He seems to neglect the capabilities of other organisms’ designs, such as the bee hive and the spider web. The ability to create does not qualify humans unique or superior to any other organism in the universe.
I have always felt confused at man’s steadfast belief in his authority over the rest of the natural world. It seems quite apparent to me that our existence parallels the existence of most other life on earth: we evolved to adapt to our surroundings, we rely on the same resources, we breath the same air, and up until the sweeping influence of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, humans utilized (and in some places still do) the same techniques of other predatory animals. The way humans are brought to life, our reliance on groups for survival, and our methods of adapting all mirror the complexity of the rest of the natural world. Therefor I came to the conclusion that human intelligence must be a result of the mighty force that is nature. Our sensory faculties evolved out of natural selection, as did our reasoning and logic, as survival tools in the natural world. The way we perceive the world must be a direct result of its existence.
So if indeed the existence and “uniqueness” of humanity is dependent on the influence of the natural world, it would follow that we are susceptible to the patterns occurring in nature. And if nature is ever-evolving, one adaptation or mutation leading to another adaptation or mutation, then the idea of determinism would have to apply to human mentality as well. Though I am only vaguely familiar with the concept, the idea that everything is caused by something else, is caused by something else, is caused by something else, rings true with my understanding of the universe, for no other reason, admittedly, but my instinctual belief. I see it as ever changing though, without an end result in mind, simply following the laws of cause and effect.
It seems to me that if this is the way of the natural world, then the human mind would replicate it in a sense, as our forms of creation and knowledge attempt to replicate the order of the natural world. What I am trying to communicate goes much deeper than the physical manifestations of humanity, like our social structures for example, but into the depths of our minds. What I propose is that human understanding and perception is a huge accumulation of previous causes, relating to the idea of determinism, and relating similarly to the infinite breakdown of the natural world, the fractals of our mind. This can be seen in group mentality over time, but also within the span of one’s individual life. For example, the death of one’s father as a child will have a serious impact on that person’s life forever more, as does their birthplace, parental situation, financial situation, schooling (or lack thereof) and all things of that genre. But even those events can be broken down a thousand times: how one experiences the event, the context in which it happened, the age and circumstantial mentality of the person when the event happened. It is like a person is born an untouched blob of clay, and throughout their lives events (causes) shape and shift the blob at the whim of the seeming order of the universe to manifest a constantly evolving sense of identity, set of beliefs, behavioral habits, etc.
Just as the natural world is constantly being molded by natural causes, human awareness maintains the same unknowable complexity. Because causes can be so little (Butterfly Effect) understanding the inner workings and thus ultimate reason behind it all is impossible.
I have no religious background. I took a Bible Literature class my senior year of high school and attended an Easter service at a Roman Catholic church once that scared the shit out of me. I am constantly developing my understanding of the universe through observation of the effects I see in people, families, countries.
In short, my understanding of the universe stands as such: the universe depends on symbiotic relationships, like that of a machine, though the relationships are unknowable by man in their complexity and seemingly infinite breakdown. But the relationships are also in constant flux, as that which does not change dies, and the reasons for their change are the effects of previous causes which are also unknowable by man because everything that ever happens causes an effect and it is impossible to know, to perceive, to understand everything. I also believe mankind’s tendency to remove itself from nature is a result of our ignorance as we exhibit natural determinism within our own perceptions and moralities and eventual political movements, wars and construction of governments. I am uncertain of how the universe began and I doubt I will ever claim to know the truth of creation. I am also sure of my eventual change of heart concerning these current beliefs. In the meantime I enjoy various Native American creation stories for their simple rationality and creative construction.