Tuesday, November 1, 2011
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, vegetation, 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)
Cleanthes and Philo have very different ideas as to how the universe was produced. Cleanthes is an advocate of the Design/Teleological argument that suggests that the universe is like a machine, and was created by an complex and perfect designer. Philo, in contrast, purposes that chance was what created the universe, and as long as there is infinite matter, time is infinite, and random motion, nothing else is needed to produce the universe. While I feel that both arguments are logical, I believe that both do have flaws. Nevertheless, I think that Philo’s argument is more plausible, and while I may not 100% agree, I think it is more valid than Cleanthes’ argument.
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest flaws in Cleanthes’ argument is in question to his analogy that compares the universe with a machine. To what extent does this analogy hold true? How do you explain conflicts and problems in the universe that cannot be compared to problems within a machine? Furthermore, just because two things are analogous, they do not necessarily have to share every attribute. Just because a machine and the universe have similar qualities, it does not mean they have ALL analogous qualities. Thus, it is not a legitimate claim to say that because a machine has a designer the universe MUST have a designer.
Philo’s argument in my opinion, is not as flawed as Cleanthes, and seems much more reasonable. The one objection I have for Philo’s chance argument is that the universe is to great and complex of a creation to be produced through mere chance. It seems that this argument is too simple; explaining the creation of the universe should not be this simple. Secondly, in our universe there all the demands needed to create another universe (infinite matter and time, and random motion.) Therefore, based on this argument is it possible for our universe to produce another universe? How would this even work? What would even happen? While I do question some aspects of Philo’s argument, overall I do think it is more logical than Cleanthes’ argument. While I don’t think Philo is necessarily “right”, I think it is the more likely explanation because I find it very improbable that a single designer or god created the universe. While I do not think mere chance created the universe, I do feel that certain conditions had to be exactly right in order for the earth to be formed, and whether these conditions were met by random chance or not, I do not know. So, despite the fact that I do agree more with Philo, I would in conclusion, have to take a more agnosticism standpoint, and say there is no real way to ever know how the universe was created.
* oops i meant to say a finite matter not infinite
ReplyDeleteBoth Cleanthes and Philo set forth equally rational explanations of our universe; however it is impossible for both these theories to be correct because we cannot have a universe created by random chance and a thinking being. Both these ideas can’t be right, but I believe that with the present information, there is no way to prove one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteCleanthes states that our universe is like a machine and since all machines have a creator, our universe must have a creator as well. This creator would have to be nearly (or totally) infinite in order to create something so expansive and so detailed as our universe and the only infinite being that humans know of is God. This idea makes sense, but still cannot be proven because an infinite creator is not necessarily omnibenevolent, omnipotent or omnipresent. This argument doesn’t even prove that “God” is still alive today to watch over his machine. If we were to put all this aside and try to argue that if God is infinite in one aspect (creation) then he must also be infinite in every other aspect making him omnipotent etc. we would successfully argue the current interpretation of God, but there are still other holes in this theory. The machine argument seems to make a lot of sense on the surface, but when the ideas are challenged, this theory quickly unravels.
This is also true for Philo’s argument of random creation. In this theory Philo argues that our universe (or any universe for that matter) can be created with only three things: finite matter, infinite time, and random motion. Simply put, Philo believes the universe is a game of chance. This immediately causes people to reject the argument because no one wants to be here by random chance and people want to have a purpose in life, all of which is destroyed by this argument. Luckily for these people, there are problems in this argument as well. First, how do we know there is a finite amount of matter in the universe? Even with today’s technologies it is impossible to find a starting point and an ending point of the universe so as far as we know it could continue of forever. Also, there is no way of knowing if time is infinite. Time could have started with the big bang or it could have started earlier or it could be circular with no beginning or end, there is no way to know. This same idea is also true for random motion. Is every action random or is there a purpose? This theory of randomness also fails to provide an explanation of our universe.
Both these ideas are deeply flawed and seem to be on opposite poles when describing our universe, but something must be the true explanation. By looking at these two arguments it seems that because they are so different, disproving one strongly suggests the other must be true (no god, then random universe and vice versa) but we know that neither is correct. I believe that this suggests that there is a middle ground somewhere between these two ideas such as a God who started the universe and then left everything to chance or some other idea involving the two. There is no way to prove whether Cleanthes or Philo is correct, but both their arguments seem to suggest a middle ground that could explain our universe.
I think that each argument has a little bit of truth in it. I think that Cleanthes is right in some ways because there is a very small chance that the universe could be the way it is by coincidence. Therefore, I think the theory of an intelligent creator is logical. However, there are some un-answered questions within it. First, Cleanthes assumes that the universe is made up of parts that function together and in harmony and that everything within it has order and a purpose. But how do we know that there is no disorder in the universe? For example, there are black holes which are so small and dense that they suck everything else around it into it. Also, just because the universe and machines both have many parts that function together in harmony, it does not mean that they both have the same origins. How do we know that the universe does not have multiple designers? Then Cleanthes argues that because the universe is more complex and perfect than a machine that it must have a more complex and perfect designer than that of a machine, a human. The problem with this part of the overall argument is that the universe may not be perfect, so therefore we do not know that it has a perfect creator. This is incompatible with the idea of God, who is a supremely perfect being.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for god’s existence through the principle of sufficient reason goes as such:
ReplyDelete• Whatever exists in this universe must have a cause or reason
• Either there is an infinite chain of successive beings or there is an ultimate cause
• Even an infinite chain needs a cause or reason for its existence
• There must be an ultimate cause
• Therefore that ultimate cause is created by a super being
• That super being is God and God exists
I do believe that everything in the universe has a meaning or a cause for its existence. For example, the ball floating in the middle of the woods would need to have a reason for doing so. Such an occurrence doesn’t just randomly happen; something needed to happen for that ball to end up where it was as it is floating. This is because I don’t think it is possible to produce something out of nothing. For example, if I wanted to make dinner I would need to have food to do so. I wouldn’t just be able to sit next to the oven and all of the sudden a chicken would be ready for me on a plate. That’s just physically impossible.
Yet this argument is very weak, there is no description or explanation of to how this proves that God is the reason that the universe exists. Also, nothing is mentioned about having a perfect being produce such a universe. That being said, the principal of sufficient reason could ultimately be true, but it does not in any way explain god’s existence.