DialecticMaterialist
12th September 2003, 01:46 PM
In philosophy there is the problem accounting for how we can have knowledge of the universe and in this day and age for this typically two answers have been given. Either that our reason is a gift from some divine agency or that there is no reason to believe we we should assume we can know the universe, that if we were able to dicern the reason for things it would be by pure coincidence(which is imporbable) because there is no divine agency; and since that is improbable we should not believe it.
There is a third option of course that the universe literally conforms to our knowledge i.e. our mind creates the universe, but that goes against many of the very axioms of all reasoning and so for purposes of this discussion will not be taken seriously.
So what is the problem explicitly? Mainly figuring out why it is we can know the universe at all. Saying that we can supposes two things: 1) That the universe in one we can indeed know about. and 2) That our minds for some reason are capable of learning about it.
The first solution is the Platonic and Christian one of purposing we know because some divine being or immaterial force has programmed us with the knowledge before hand. It(whatever sacred one believes in) has literally shaped our minds to understand the universe and shaped our universe so as to be one that can be understood.
The second position is one more popular with existentialists and relativists. Its basically the belief that there is no reason to be found in the matter. We just have minds, and the universe just is, there was no God pre-programming it, nor is there some force to shape our mind so as to be one that can understand the universe. Hence we must forever treat the universe as a great mystery, where truth is fleeting and unreal as fiction.
I maintain however that there is a probable third option, the evolutionary option. One that requires neither a sensless universe or divine providence but merely well established Darwinian mechanisms that have shaped all life.
Now for the first matter, on what makes the universe rational the answer is simple enough: intrinsic properties. The universe must then obey the laws of logic in this matter just as the square must have four sides: it is a fundamental property of existence itself.
Now God(or whatever supernatural Force) cannot supersede this nor is it necessary for this, as God Himself would then need a reason to be rational, leading either to an end point or infinite regress. If we go along with infinite regress, we fall into many, many superfluous assumptions and sink into absurdity. If we allow for the end point to be God's intrinsic nature, we can just as well establish the end point at the universe itself.
Concerning the second position, presuming a senseless universe would itself require evidence, none of which would be available, making such a position self-defeating.
Hence my first answer is an appeal to the necessary, intrinsic properties of existence itself.
This is the easy part of the issue, as there is little mystery concerning the basics. Its easy to suppose the universe works in a logical/causal manner. Its harder to propose complexity, for complex organized things are very improbable without some sort of mechanism, such as God, and hence even supposing the universe was in some way logical, one would still have to account for how a complex thing like the mind was somehow able to understand it.
My second answer is the Darwinian one, for though a working complex mechanism arising from pure chance is improbable, evolutionary mechanisms manage to create them in a blind manner, because evolutionary mechanisms are not a matter of pure chance.
One does not then have to invoke supernatural interference to explain why our minds can understand the universe, or proprose that it is mere coincidence.
Evolution would have made it far from a coincidence. For supposing our universe was a logical and causal one, organisms which could understand it and thought logically would be selected for, and those that were illogical would have been selected against.
In that sense, animals that understood on a basic or instinctive level would have been more succesful then animals which did not, and would have prospered, further honing this ability, while animals less competent on this matter died out.
Now I'm not saying they literally and consciously know about the rules of logic and such. I am saying that their brain is likely wired to be disposed to such assumptions when the animal makes perceptions.
This likely as all evolutionary developments would have started as a simple thing, raw sense data, and advanced as an animals ability to compute things in a cognitive manner advanced.
Those then that could find patterns, were disposed to think logically and hence could learn from their enviroments survived. Those that behaved or thought illogically and could not learn from their enviroment died out.
We as humans would then be the descendants of billions of years of such a process, in which case our minds would as expected, be one's that are capable of making sense of our world.
God or whatever supernatural force is not necessary then and can be discarded as superfluous on this matter.
And the existential/postmodern challenge is answered by scientific established principles.
In other words no longer does one have to suppose that without God there is no reason to think we can make sense of this world. We have a third option, one arising from Darwin's powerful theory, one where reason can finally establish the obvious without presuming the spurrious.
There is a third option of course that the universe literally conforms to our knowledge i.e. our mind creates the universe, but that goes against many of the very axioms of all reasoning and so for purposes of this discussion will not be taken seriously.
So what is the problem explicitly? Mainly figuring out why it is we can know the universe at all. Saying that we can supposes two things: 1) That the universe in one we can indeed know about. and 2) That our minds for some reason are capable of learning about it.
The first solution is the Platonic and Christian one of purposing we know because some divine being or immaterial force has programmed us with the knowledge before hand. It(whatever sacred one believes in) has literally shaped our minds to understand the universe and shaped our universe so as to be one that can be understood.
The second position is one more popular with existentialists and relativists. Its basically the belief that there is no reason to be found in the matter. We just have minds, and the universe just is, there was no God pre-programming it, nor is there some force to shape our mind so as to be one that can understand the universe. Hence we must forever treat the universe as a great mystery, where truth is fleeting and unreal as fiction.
I maintain however that there is a probable third option, the evolutionary option. One that requires neither a sensless universe or divine providence but merely well established Darwinian mechanisms that have shaped all life.
Now for the first matter, on what makes the universe rational the answer is simple enough: intrinsic properties. The universe must then obey the laws of logic in this matter just as the square must have four sides: it is a fundamental property of existence itself.
Now God(or whatever supernatural Force) cannot supersede this nor is it necessary for this, as God Himself would then need a reason to be rational, leading either to an end point or infinite regress. If we go along with infinite regress, we fall into many, many superfluous assumptions and sink into absurdity. If we allow for the end point to be God's intrinsic nature, we can just as well establish the end point at the universe itself.
Concerning the second position, presuming a senseless universe would itself require evidence, none of which would be available, making such a position self-defeating.
Hence my first answer is an appeal to the necessary, intrinsic properties of existence itself.
This is the easy part of the issue, as there is little mystery concerning the basics. Its easy to suppose the universe works in a logical/causal manner. Its harder to propose complexity, for complex organized things are very improbable without some sort of mechanism, such as God, and hence even supposing the universe was in some way logical, one would still have to account for how a complex thing like the mind was somehow able to understand it.
My second answer is the Darwinian one, for though a working complex mechanism arising from pure chance is improbable, evolutionary mechanisms manage to create them in a blind manner, because evolutionary mechanisms are not a matter of pure chance.
One does not then have to invoke supernatural interference to explain why our minds can understand the universe, or proprose that it is mere coincidence.
Evolution would have made it far from a coincidence. For supposing our universe was a logical and causal one, organisms which could understand it and thought logically would be selected for, and those that were illogical would have been selected against.
In that sense, animals that understood on a basic or instinctive level would have been more succesful then animals which did not, and would have prospered, further honing this ability, while animals less competent on this matter died out.
Now I'm not saying they literally and consciously know about the rules of logic and such. I am saying that their brain is likely wired to be disposed to such assumptions when the animal makes perceptions.
This likely as all evolutionary developments would have started as a simple thing, raw sense data, and advanced as an animals ability to compute things in a cognitive manner advanced.
Those then that could find patterns, were disposed to think logically and hence could learn from their enviroments survived. Those that behaved or thought illogically and could not learn from their enviroment died out.
We as humans would then be the descendants of billions of years of such a process, in which case our minds would as expected, be one's that are capable of making sense of our world.
God or whatever supernatural force is not necessary then and can be discarded as superfluous on this matter.
And the existential/postmodern challenge is answered by scientific established principles.
In other words no longer does one have to suppose that without God there is no reason to think we can make sense of this world. We have a third option, one arising from Darwin's powerful theory, one where reason can finally establish the obvious without presuming the spurrious.