Nature: God’s Artifact

The Fifth Way teaches us that the telos in nature does not come from matter but from mind.  Thus, the matter that makes up a human being does not have, on its own – of itself – the goal of sustaining a human body.  That telos, that goal is the product of the divine mind.  That is the lesson of the Fifth Way.  So, in this way, nature is no different from the artificer’s watch whose pieces do not, of themselves, have a propensity for timekeeping.  Just as the watch’s form or final cause is imposed upon it by a designer’s intellect, so too the form and final cause of nature’s wonders are imposed on them by the Designer’s intellect.

Now the argument (made by many Thomists - including Edward Feser) against this is that – although they ultimately come from God – these forms, natures, or essences are inherent in natural things and thus are not cobbled together artifacts like the watch.  But is that really the case?  Let me ask two questions:  Is the form of the watch a product of its parts?  Is the form of a worm the product of its parts?   I think we can safely answer “no” to both questions.  So the form of something – be it human artifact or natural – does not depend on its constituent parts but rather on an idea, a concept of mind. 

But, it is argued, the constituent parts of a worm do have it in their natures to sustain the overall well-being of the worm while the watches parts do not.  Yes and No.  Although the constituent parts of a worm have it in their nature to sustain the worm, they do not do this on their own.  Their natures are imposed on them by the form of the worm – which is ultimately the product of the divine mind as well.  The arrow (to use Aquinas’ example) does not move toward the target unless shot there by an agent.  Why does matter obey form?  It does so because it is “shot there”.  In this way, the constituent parts of the worm are no different than the constituent parts of the watch – both are “shot there” by an action of mind.

Now the term “artifact” carries with it the connotation “artificial” and man’s artifacts are artificial in that they are natural objects with unnatural forms imposed upon them.  So what of God’s artifacts?  What would be “artificial” to God?  Well, God is immaterial and exists supernaturally (that is, outside of nature) so for God, nature itself – the material world – is, in a sense, “artificial” and the natural world can, in this light, be called God’s artifact. 

Ultimately this discussion boils down to the differing capabilities of the supernatural mind vs. the natural mind.  A natural mind can only take that which is natural and develop it into some other form.  A supernatural mind can form nature itself however it sees fit.  A natural mind is limited – it can only work within nature.  To be sure, a natural mind can impose new forms on natural objects – as it does on the natural elements it shapes into a watch.  What it cannot do is impose new natures on objects – because the natural mind itself exists within the confines of nature.  The supernatural mind is unlimited – it can impose forms on nature from outside nature.  The supernatural mind can instill new natures into substances.  It is not limited by nature – in fact it sets the limits of nature.  Still, what’s behind all of it are ideas, concepts, planning, goals – mind. 

Nature is God’s idea (and life is just God showing off a bit!)

Why I'm Starting to HATE the Republicans!

Even though I am (tentatively) a registered member of the GOP, I'm really starting to hate Republicans!  Why?  Because they're a bunch of pansies - that's why!! 

Think about it... when the Democrats were in power, they rammed through health care, they rammed through stimulus, they stuck to their ideology in spite of public opinion, in spite of the ramifications (which were all too real.)   Many of them lost their jobs over it, but they felt that this was the opportune time and they weren't going to miss it.  And now, for better or worse, they may not have their jobs but they have a legacy.  Health care is law!  Stimulus is spent!  When the liberals had a chance to advance liberalism in government - they took it!  In short, the Democrats had the balls to put ideology before re-election.

Now take the Republicans...  Voted into office vowing to stop debt, reduce spending and shrink the size of government, and---with the debt limit hit---given the perfect opportunity to do just that, what do they do?  They immediately start to cave!!  They're knocking each other over trying to come up with new ways to compromise with the Democrats!  They're offering plan after plan that all end up raising the debt ceiling when they have, in their hot little hands, the silver bullet to kill the government debt beast!!  All they have to do is nothing.  All it would take to stop debt, reduce spending and shrink the size of government is for the Republican controlled House to stick to their guns and refuse to raise the debt ceiling no matter what.  If they were true conservatives, they'd ignore the "impending doom" stories of government default and bad credit ratings, ignore the opinion polls, ignore everything that contradicts their conservative ideals and just take a principled stand for cryin' out loud!

If the Republicans in the House stand their ground, the government would not default, nor would it shut down, it would (get this) be forced to prioritize spending to exist on the $200+ billion that comes in every month.  The debt would (by law) be paid first - so there's no danger of default.  Social Security, the troops' salaries and Medicare could be paid next - so that part of the scare tactics melts away also.  And then---with what's left over---the rest of the government gets paid for on an "essential services only" basis.  Budgets would have to be slashed.  Agencies would be discontinued.  Government would shrink down to a manageable size that makes sense.  Isn't that what conservatives want?  Why then the rush to throw away the advantage and just give up?

Come on Republicans - get some balls!!

J.Lo Hints at Divorce... Stock Market Reacts!

Why do news organizations constantly report some random news story then follow it by saying "the stock market reacted to the news in such and such a way" - as if the two events are connected?  Who decides what news causes the stock market to react?  If the Obama administration decides to have a press conference on debt, does that cause a bunch of random traders to go "I need to buy some Dell stock"?  How can anyone say the entire market reacted to some news story?  Who decides such things?  How do they know it's not something as random as J.Lo hinting at divorce?  I mean really.

Is it Time for a Libertarian President?

I think so.  Yes.  The Republicans had their shot with the middle-of-the-road, compassionate conservative, George W. Bush and the debt rose and government got bigger.  Then the Democrats gave us their messiah, the Marxist/Leninist, throw-money-at-everything, government-is-the-solution, Barack H. Obama and the debt rises and the government gets bigger.

Now, even the Republicans are waving the white flag when it comes to the debt ceiling saying things like "we have to raise it" - as if it was a moral imperative to saddle our grandchildren with more debt just to keep their careers afloat.

Meanwhile, Libertarian candidates for President (on the Republican side) Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only ones saying "NO!" to more debt. 

We've tried the "radical middle" Republican way, we've tried the "radical left" Democrat way, why not give the "radical right" a shot?

A Fool's Philosophy

So, I'm having this ongoing conversation with "Thought Provoker" in my Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas thread and I'm trying to explain to him how you must counter philosophical arguments by disputing the premises or by showing that the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises.  Now Thought Provoker (like most atheists) doesn't have much use for philosophy, so he brings up the following "philosophical" argument and then challenges me to "try to prove my premise is false or that my conclusion doesn't follow the premise".  So here goes...

Premise - I think, therefore I am.

The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality.

Conclusion - whatever I conclude is correct.

So let's examine this one statement at a time:

"Premise - I think, therefore I am."  First off, this isn't a premise, it's a conclusion based on a condition - one frought with unintended implications.  "I think, therefore I am" implies that thought is necessary for existence, and that "whatever doesn't think, doesn't exist".  Perhaps he didn't mean it that way though.  Perhaps our friend Thought Provoker just meant that thinking is evidence of existence?  So, when he says "I (Thought Provoker) think, therefore I (Thought Provoker) am" he's essentially just saying "I (Thought Provoker) exist".  Well, since I know he exists, I'll grant his first premise:  "Thought Provoker exists".

Thought Provoker's second premise then is: "The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality".  Well, not in a rational universe it isn't.  In a rational universe, truth is demonstrable.  If someone gets drunk and sees pink elephants in the room, the rest of us can be sure that he is delusional.  That's because, in a rational universe, just because he sees pink elephants it doesn't mean those elephants are actually there.  We can see that there are no pink elephants in the room and we know from biology that pink elephants don't exist (unless painted that way).  However, in an irrational universe, truth is not demonstrable.  We can't know, in an irrational universe, whether there really are pink elephants or not.  That's because, in an irrational universe, everything can be true and nothing can be true (remember it's irrational!)  So Thought Provoker's second premise is only true in an irrational universe.

So what of his conclusion: "whatever I conclude is correct"?  Well let's restate his argument and see if the conclusion logically follows:

"I (Thought Provoker) exist in an irrational universe, therefore whatever I conclude is correct."

Wow!  What do you know?  His conclusion does follow from his premises!

Why I'm for the Legalization of Marijuana (maybe)

I've heard lots of arguments pro and con today on the bill introduced in Congress by Barney Frank and Ron Paul to allow the states to legalize marijuana without federal interference, so I thought I'd throw my two cents out there.

I think the best argument for the legalization of marijuana is not the civil liberties one, nor is it the "it's only fair" argument.  To me, the best argument is that it takes money out of the hands of the drug cartels and puts it into American coffers.

In the 1920's America experimented with prohibition - the illegalization of alcohol - and all it did was make gangsters richer and make average citizens criminals.  It's the same today with marijuana.  Back then, once the country wised up and re-legalized alcohol, the gangsters got out of the liquor business and had to find another source of revenue (for most it was drugs.)  So (the argument goes) let's legalize marijuana and give today's gangsters one less source of revenue.

It's a powerful argument - one that almost has me convinced!

 

Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas, (arguably Christianity's foremost intellect since the apostle Paul), famously submitted five proofs of Gods existence.  (See Article 3. "Whether God exists?" here)  Of the "Five Ways", my favorite - and the one most relevant to ID - is the Fifth Way.

In Aquinas' own words:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

What Aquinas is saying here, put simply, is that:

A) We observe in nature, things with no mind or intelligence, acting as if they have intention, purpose or goals.

B) It is a truth that only a being with a mind can truly have intentions.

C) Therefore, an intelligent being must be responsible for the intentionality we observe in nature.

There, in just a few sentences, Aquinas submits a rational proof that all of nature is intelligently designed!  There is no need to argue, as most ID proponents do, that it is complexity and sophistication in nature that requires design.  No, to Aquinas; even the rocks cry out "Design"!  And this is true of nature everywhere we look!  Everything we see, everything made of matter, has bits and particles within it whose job seems to be simply to maintain and sustain that very thing that they are a part of.  There is absolutely no materialist explanation for this.

It's a beautiful thing.  What's more, if one understands the full implications of Aquinas' simple proof, the designer must itself be outside nature.  You can't cite nature to explain all of nature - so the explanation must be something separate from nature.  Hmm... an intelligent being outside nature... I wonder who that could be?

Which leads me to the other attractive aspect of Aquinas Fifth Way: the fact that it points explicitly to God - not some other being who "may or may not be" God (as ID theory is so fond of saying.) 

It's refreshing to be able to unequivocally say that all of nature (not just the complex stuff) is designed and that this designer must be God.

The further implications of this is that it reduces questions of evolution and abiogenesis strictly to scientific inquiry.  Whether or not nature can produce a lifeform from non-living material has no implications philosophically or theologically.  Either way, God was behind it.  The same goes for the evolution of new biological types.  It's all design, all the way down.