Friday, November 7, 2014
Animal, Vegetable -- Or Machine?
In Parts VI & VII of the Dialogues Philo argues that the analogy between the universe and a machine that is so central to the design argument is not the only plausible analogy. In fact, he argues that their are similarities between the universe and an organism (either animal or vegetable) that are at least as likely. Yet if the universe is like an organism, no designer or intelligence (that is no deity) is requried. Is he correct? Are there relevant similarities between the universe and an organism (what about the similarities that Philo himself discussess)? Is the analogy to an animal or vegetable as likely as, more likely, or less likely than the machine analogy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In parts 6 and 7, Philo argues the idea that machines and the universe work alike. He believes that like a machine, the universe must be created and constructed by a number of beings, not only one. This rules out monotheism. Since we have no evidence that supports the idea of God that religions have proposed, we can't rule out the possibility that the infinite nature of God that works like a machine is not finite like a human God. We have no evidence therefore the idea that the universe works like a machine could be true. There are thousands of parts to the universe, just like there are thousands of parts that work together in a machine. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that the universe can operate on a system that keeps working infinitely, just like a machine.
ReplyDeleteLater, Philo argues that the universe can also operate like an organism or a vegetable. All of the life functions that you see in an animal, you see in the universe. There must be some connection between the two because of this fact. The world could also work like a vegetable, since the two are similar as well.
The machine argument is more possible to be true than the vegetable/animal argument since machines are a systematic object. Animals and vegetables may have similar functions as the universe does, but it is possible that this is true because both stem from the same central point. This cannot work because for both to be the same, there must be a greater being that created both similarly, yet the organism argument concludes that there is no need for a deity.
The machine analogy is more supportive and is more likely to be true because everything has a systematic way of happening. There are endless amounts of combinations and permutations that allow this to be true. A machine will keep working on energy forever if possible, just like the universe will keep going forever as well. Both could abruptly stop working if fuel runs out. It makes more sense for the machine analogy to be true than the animal/vegetable analogy because live beings are a part of the universe, while it is possible that machines emulate what the universe is like. We are the creators of machines therefore we created them to work and the reason they work is because they are like the universe, which has proven to work.
In Hume’s Dialogues, Philo ends up arguing that the world is just as likely to be an animal or vegetable as it is to be a machine. One of Philo’s arguments is that if the world were to be a vegetable, it would spread its seeds in the forms of comets or other worlds and those would mature and then end up sending out their own seeds in the same form. Philo argues that this is just as plausible as the argument that the world is like a machine. That argument is saying that the world is like a machine with an infinite amount of systems of machines, all of different sizes and functions and the only thing that could create such an intricate system of machines would be god. Philo responds by saying that if the world is simply a vegetable, then god need not be responsible for it.
ReplyDeleteThis comes down to an argument of likelihood. The question is whether it is more probable that the world is an intricate system of machines or a vegetable that spreads its seed through meteors. Logically, one would say the former is far more likely. How this world that we experience on a daily basis can, filled with all of its complicated systems of things that the human eye cannot see or even fully understand, simply be a vegetable seems preposterous. But, when you take a deeper look, even a vegetable or animal have similar intricate systems inside them that they don’t understand. Any vegetable is similar to a machine in the idea that it has complex systems working in sync, and while those systems aren’t necessarily beyond the faculties of man, they are still present. Therefore, while we cannot conclude either is full truth of the situation of the world, we must acknowledge the similarity in the two arguments and say that they are both as likely, for we can never tell exactly how complex this world is.
In order to achieve the end game that proves the universe has a designer and that designer is the classically defined God, it makes sense to argue that the universe is analogous to a machine; indeed, in many senses, the universe appears to be very similar to a machine. For example, the universe has parts that are ordered for a particular function, just like a machine’s parts each have a specific function. However, as Philo points out, this analogy has some serious flaws, namely that much of the universe is unobserved and hence conclusions cannot be draw about it or about its creator. This reasoning renders the machine analogy wildly improbable and incapable of proving the existence of God.
ReplyDeletePhilo then continues on to lay out two more analogies that compare the world to organic and living material; he argues that the world is like the “economy, action, and nourishment of a finished animal,” and hence the world was created by other worlds just as an animal arises from its animal parents (20). In the same way, the world could be seen as a vegetable, having been created from the fruit of other vegetable-like worlds. Philo correctly reasons that in these analogies, which are based on the same observations that the machine analogy arises from, no divine creator is required to be the cause of the world’s creation. However, these analogies can be proved to be just as unlikely as the machine analogy because they are based on the same narrow scope of observations as the machine analogy. Hence, the existence of a godly Divine Creator cannot be proved from analogies.
Though proving that there are other likely analogies certainly undermines the machine argument, all the other analogies seem to come back to the same principle. Further, it would not be valid to assume that there is no designer if the universe is like an organism.
ReplyDeleteThe first alternative analogy that Philo presents is that of the animal. He says that all the life functions seen in an animal are also seen in the world. Specifically he says, “Each part or member, in performing its proper offices, operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole” (39). From this it can be said that the universe operates more like a human being rather than a product of human contrivance, as the machine analogy suggests. As an extension of this analogy, Philo proposes that perhaps the Deity is the soul of the world rather than its creator – “actuating [the universe], and actuated by it” (40). This analogy does allow for the existence of a Deity, but implies a reason for religion that we discussed on the first day of the Hume unit: we create God in order to explain things we do not understand. The flaw in this argument, though, comes from the fact that it ignores something vital about animals: they come from other animals. Therefore, there must be some designer that initiated the creation of the world, whether that creator is God or something else that we have no concept of.
The vegetable argument is significantly more convoluted, but I will try to make logical sense of it for the sake of being thorough. According to Philo, a comet is like a seed of a new world. As it flies along on its journey, it ripens until it is able to sprout a new world. Philo goes on to say that the comet operates “in like manner as an ostrich lays its egg in the sand, which without any further care hatches the egg and produces a new animal” (45). The problems with this analogy, I believe, are more obvious than those of the animal analogy. Seeds still have to come from some original organism, so maybe God is a giant pomegranate throwing seeds out into the metaphorical garden to see what happens. In fact, there’s a name for this problem: The Principle of Sufficient Reason. Everything needs a cause, especially animals and vegetables.
Philo provides many analogies of the universe, all coming back to the same point that the universe is made up of many parts all interconnected. The universe’s parts connect in ways similar to those of a human or an animal. Philo explains the universe as an animal. He explains this animal’s parts to be working to be successful for itself but also for the animal as a whole. Without all the smaller parts working, the whole animal would be unable to function. In a similar way to this, he describes the universe to be a machine. This machine is made up of subdivided parts, all interconnected that both work individually and collaborative. Philo uses false reasoning to assume further into the argument. Such as, if I were to see an arm, I would assume that the part I cannot see if that the arm is attached to a human head. This type of reasoning can lead to invalid conclusions of the bigger picture. In Philo’s case, he assumes the universe to be a machine, even though he can only see the smaller parts. In the same way, he assumes that an animal is subdivided into working parts that work towards the well-being of the whole animal. This false assumption leads me to conclude that there is a designer of the universe. How could a machine like this complex exist without a designer, such as God? Philo thinks this cannot exist because the machine analogy cannot work when God is the designer because God cannot create something so complex. I think God is fully capable of creating this great machine. Furthermore, I think that Philo’s claims of the universe being an animal or a machine without a designer are absurd. In order for this complex universe to exist, God must be the designer.
ReplyDeletePhilo claims that the universe closely resembles an organic or animal body. His argument is as follows: The universe appears to be driven by the same source of life as organisms. This universe circulates matter, the different parts of the universe seem to act in harmony, and every part of the universe is doing its job, looking out both for itself and and the universe as a whole just like the parts of an animal. Philo states that the mind of this world as an animal is God, who still drives the world but is still effected by it. This argument is more effective than the machine argument for it includes god as a changing object. As opposed to god in the machine argument, god is changing and makes decisions that the rest of the body follow, while still looking out for themselves. This projection of god as a constantly changing ruler who is effected by the world is more likely, for it does not constrain god to have certain qualities, and gives freedom to interpret events in the world from more than gods choices alone. The argument for god as the mind of the universe gives god more flexibility and allows for a more likely situation than a god that just presses a button on a machine.
ReplyDeleteIn Parts VI & VII, Philo argues for the notion that in terms of the universe’s modus operandi, it mimics that of a machine, or further, an animal or vegetable. This idea is simply based upon the idea that within the universe are an infinite number of parts working together to form a whole. Within each of these parts, is yet another set of infinite parts, and within each of these, yet another. This process itself also continues infinitely.
ReplyDeleteAlthough conceptually, a very complex notion, Hume metaphorically compares this idea to that of an Animal or a Vegetable, centered around the reality of an object comprised of an infinite number of compatible parts working as a whole.
This also poses a dilemma towards questioning the necessity of a deity in a seemingly self-sufficient system. If the parts of a machine or an animal or a vegetable are infinite and constantly working together in coherence, then is it truly necessary for a deity to dictate the ebb and flow of life?
A solution to this question can be found in the previously expressed argument of an infinite casual chain. With free will, it is argued that after our creation by God, we are beings who function upon our own power. Devising such a complex system of infinite parts analogous to that of the universe seems to me to be beyond the capacities of the human mind, and thus I find the analogy of the universe to an vegetable, or more specifically an animal to be more accurate than that of the analogy to a man-made machine. To me, Hume’s argument of a the universe functioning as a self-sufficient entity operating as a sum of its own parts can be used to discredit the importance of a supreme God, however, this does not account for the creation itself of such a complex system, and thus should not be used as an argument to solely discount the existence of God.