Sunday, June 15, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Argument from Purpose and Contingency
Argument from Purpose and Contingency
I have many friends who have read my take over the Argument from Purpose and have disagreed with my view which I expressed (though most scholarly atheists do not) that without God there can be no purpose to life. The following essay is me laying out that claim in a much more technical way by essentially viewing the differences between necessity and contingency in the hopes that it makes this claim easier to understand. As I mentioned in my previous writing over the Argument from Purpose, this will not prove that God exists but simply prove that He must exist for purpose to.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
That's Leibniz' Argument from Contingency.
Contingency: the absence of necessity; the fact of being so without having to be so.
This argument is used to explain that this whole universe is contingent, meaning that it is not logically necessary that this universe be here. The universe very well could have never come about. It's contingent, and therefore everything in it must then be contingent as well. If the universe is not logically necessary then the things that compose the universe (i.e. every material thing) must not be logically necessary as well. For if something in the universe is necessary, then the universe itself must be necessary since this thing is dependent upon the universe for it's existence (since it is composed of the material found in the universe). If the universe or anything in it is necessary then the universe as a whole is necessary and furthermore the entire structure of the universe is necessary. If you are to claim that the universe must exist, then you must also defend that the universe must exist the way that we see it and couldn't possibly exist any other way. For if it could exist any other way then the universe is contingent because changing it's structure or it's anatomy is changing it. If my body was composed of atoms with the atomic number 1 then it wouldn't be my body, but hydrogen; it would be something else entirely. Therefore if the universe could exist any other way it would fail to be the universe and must then not be logically necessary.
Now all of that is essentially to say that everything in this world, including ourselves, is contingent. My argument that I'm making today is that purpose can not stem from contingency. Purpose must be rooted in something that is logically necessary. If you say your purpose is to help others but others could very well have never existed at all then your purpose can not come from them. If you say your purpose is to play poker but the game of poker could have never been invented then your purpose could not come from playing poker. If you say your purpose is to be happy but the feeling of happiness or you yourself for that matter could have never existed then that feeling can't bring you purpose nor can you bring yourself purpose. The idea that we can make our own purpose when humanity in and of itself has no purpose is the equivalent of saying a corpse can give itself life.
So, purpose can only come from something that is logically necessary. Purpose can come from anything in this universe if and only if this universe is logically necessary. Otherwise purpose must come from something that is non material (for all matter composes the universe) or else purpose must not exist at all. Furthermore, if you are to claim that some nonphysical entity is necessary then it must also be the origin of all material entities. If there is a necessary thing then all contingent things spur from it. So do we have anything or know of anything that is nonphysical and necessary? The answer would be God, because that is the very definition of God; God is a immaterial, necessary being. It then concludes that purpose can only come from God or else there must be no purpose.
Again this doesn't prove that God exists, but it does prove that He must if your life is to have any bit of purpose, meaning, or significance to it at all. It should, at the very least, prove that the (possible) existence of God is nothing to brush off lightly and must be carefully scrutinized by each and every one of us.
I have many friends who have read my take over the Argument from Purpose and have disagreed with my view which I expressed (though most scholarly atheists do not) that without God there can be no purpose to life. The following essay is me laying out that claim in a much more technical way by essentially viewing the differences between necessity and contingency in the hopes that it makes this claim easier to understand. As I mentioned in my previous writing over the Argument from Purpose, this will not prove that God exists but simply prove that He must exist for purpose to.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
That's Leibniz' Argument from Contingency.
Contingency: the absence of necessity; the fact of being so without having to be so.
This argument is used to explain that this whole universe is contingent, meaning that it is not logically necessary that this universe be here. The universe very well could have never come about. It's contingent, and therefore everything in it must then be contingent as well. If the universe is not logically necessary then the things that compose the universe (i.e. every material thing) must not be logically necessary as well. For if something in the universe is necessary, then the universe itself must be necessary since this thing is dependent upon the universe for it's existence (since it is composed of the material found in the universe). If the universe or anything in it is necessary then the universe as a whole is necessary and furthermore the entire structure of the universe is necessary. If you are to claim that the universe must exist, then you must also defend that the universe must exist the way that we see it and couldn't possibly exist any other way. For if it could exist any other way then the universe is contingent because changing it's structure or it's anatomy is changing it. If my body was composed of atoms with the atomic number 1 then it wouldn't be my body, but hydrogen; it would be something else entirely. Therefore if the universe could exist any other way it would fail to be the universe and must then not be logically necessary.
Now all of that is essentially to say that everything in this world, including ourselves, is contingent. My argument that I'm making today is that purpose can not stem from contingency. Purpose must be rooted in something that is logically necessary. If you say your purpose is to help others but others could very well have never existed at all then your purpose can not come from them. If you say your purpose is to play poker but the game of poker could have never been invented then your purpose could not come from playing poker. If you say your purpose is to be happy but the feeling of happiness or you yourself for that matter could have never existed then that feeling can't bring you purpose nor can you bring yourself purpose. The idea that we can make our own purpose when humanity in and of itself has no purpose is the equivalent of saying a corpse can give itself life.
So, purpose can only come from something that is logically necessary. Purpose can come from anything in this universe if and only if this universe is logically necessary. Otherwise purpose must come from something that is non material (for all matter composes the universe) or else purpose must not exist at all. Furthermore, if you are to claim that some nonphysical entity is necessary then it must also be the origin of all material entities. If there is a necessary thing then all contingent things spur from it. So do we have anything or know of anything that is nonphysical and necessary? The answer would be God, because that is the very definition of God; God is a immaterial, necessary being. It then concludes that purpose can only come from God or else there must be no purpose.
Again this doesn't prove that God exists, but it does prove that He must if your life is to have any bit of purpose, meaning, or significance to it at all. It should, at the very least, prove that the (possible) existence of God is nothing to brush off lightly and must be carefully scrutinized by each and every one of us.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
The Plague of Modern Society
The Plague of Modern Society
"I know not who sent me into the world, nor what the world is, nor what I myself am. I am terribly ignorant of everything. I know not what my body is, nor my senses, nor my soul and that part of me which thinks what I say, which reflects upon itself as well as upon all external things, and has no more knowledge of itself than of them.
I see the terrifying immensity of the universe which surrounds me, and find myself limited to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am set down here rather than elsewhere, nor why the brief period appointed for my life is assigned to me at this moment rather than another in all the eternity that has gone before and will come after me. On all sides I behold nothing but infinity, in which I am a mere atom, a mere passing shadow that returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I understand least of all is this very death which I cannot escape.
As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go. I only know that on leaving this world I fall for ever into nothingness or into the hands of a wrathful God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be everlastingly consigned. Such is my condition, full of weakness and uncertainty. From all this I conclude that I ought to spend every day of my life without seeking to know my fate. I might perhaps be able to find a solution to my doubts; but I cannot be bothered to do so, I will not take one step towards its discovery."(Pascal)
Pascal writes this as a form of satire as he describes the people who refuse to look into the truth of their current situation, the people who don't care to search for the answers as to whether or not there is a God or whether or not this life has purpose. 6 years ago that was me, and unfortunately, that is now most of my generation.
I've quoted Tolstoy before as he said "The question brought me to the edge of the abyss. What will come of what I do today and tomorrow? What will come of my entire life? Or expressed differently, why should I live? Why should I wish for anything or do anything? Or to put it another way, is there any meaning in life that will not be destroyed by my inevitably approaching death?
My deeds, whatever they may be, will be forgotten sooner or later, and I myself will be no more. Why then do anything? I therefore could not attach a rational meaning to a single act in my entire life. The only thing that amazed me is how I had failed to realize this from the very beginning. How could anyone fail to see this? That’s what is amazing. It’s possible to live as long as life intoxicates us, but once we’re sober, we cannot help seeing it’s all a delusion. There’s nothing funny or witty about it at all. It’s only cruel and stupid." (Tolstoy)
We, the whole of humanity, no longer care to look into the deeper questions. We refuse to venture out into that darkness and unknown for we fear the answers that may lie there. As Pascal put it we are faced with either nothingness or a wrathful God. With nothingness comes the inconsequentiality and bleak emptiness of our lives and with a wrathful God comes the recognition of our decrepit nature and the corruption and evil in our lives we ignorantly believe to be nonexistent. These answers don't suit our taste so we ignore them and the questions they answer. We sweep them under the proverbial rug and with it our entire purpose and meaning for life in the first place. As Tolstoy put it we intoxicate ourselves in this delusion.
Is this how we are to handle anything of real substance in our lives? Is this how we are to deal with confrontation both within ourselves and with others? Talking with a few different friends of mine who were asked out by guys they weren't interested in they told me that they just kept saying that they were busy whenever this particular guy would ask her out until eventually he got the message, leading this person on for months rather than being upfront because that confrontation is uncomfortable. Talking with my grandfather we were mentioning how my generation won't interact with people they don't know or how getting in an elevator people always immediately go to their phones because talking with strangers is uneasy for us. Talking with friends we mention how nowadays friends will tell you what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear in fear of confrontation. All of this, I believe, can be linked back to wishing to stay intoxicated with the trivialities of life, with not having to face the truth underlying it all, with not having to face ourselves.
The sad truth is that the things we intoxicate ourselves with are utterly devoid of any meaning in and of themselves. We put our entire significance into these things only to our own demise. We fill ourselves with jobs, relationships, and entertainment to name a few. But to what avail? What value or significance can possibly be weighed from these things in scope of our lives as a whole let alone in scope of eternity?
I was telling my friend how vital introspection is for me. How many times I will travel from Austin to Houston or vice versa in silence just to ponder on my life and who I am and how God fits into it all. We discussed how people no longer do that because it is horrifying. We always have music playing or the tv on or texting friends because it's white noise that fills in the silence. That's because once we are in the silence there is nothing left to distract us from the unknown and from ourselves. And because we don't know who we are anymore, facing ourselves is facing the unknown. If we can't face ourselves how then could we possibly stomach the mere thought of facing a just and wrathful God? I've already explained the detriments caused by this mentality in terms of our relationships with others but how much more detrimental is it to our relationship with our personal Creator, the very relationship that we were created for in the first place? We have become a society of toddlers who have closed their eyes and covered their ears shouting "I can't hear you" incessantly. By doing so we lose our purpose, we lose our meaning and worth, we cease our growth, and we hinder others'.
As I mentioned towards the beginning, 6 years ago this was me. I was a self identified Atheist but having grown up in a Christian household I said to myself "If I am to say that there is no God I better make damn sure that there isn't one because the consequences are too much if I am wrong." If you are a nonbeliever I challenge you with the same task. I am more than willing to have a discussion with you over the topic and/or point you towards other resources. I assure you this is no matter to take lightly. And if you are a believer I challenge you with facing the confrontation, with stepping into the dark unknown, with sitting in the silence because that is where you will grow. It is tremendously uncomfortable at the beginning but it becomes more and more natural, as it should. Furthermore, if we can't handle confrontation how then could we possibly be effective at evangelizing? The answer to such a rhetorical question is we can't.
Cited Literature
Pascal, Blaise. Pensées.
Tolstoy, Leo. A Confession.
"I know not who sent me into the world, nor what the world is, nor what I myself am. I am terribly ignorant of everything. I know not what my body is, nor my senses, nor my soul and that part of me which thinks what I say, which reflects upon itself as well as upon all external things, and has no more knowledge of itself than of them.
I see the terrifying immensity of the universe which surrounds me, and find myself limited to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am set down here rather than elsewhere, nor why the brief period appointed for my life is assigned to me at this moment rather than another in all the eternity that has gone before and will come after me. On all sides I behold nothing but infinity, in which I am a mere atom, a mere passing shadow that returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I understand least of all is this very death which I cannot escape.
As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go. I only know that on leaving this world I fall for ever into nothingness or into the hands of a wrathful God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be everlastingly consigned. Such is my condition, full of weakness and uncertainty. From all this I conclude that I ought to spend every day of my life without seeking to know my fate. I might perhaps be able to find a solution to my doubts; but I cannot be bothered to do so, I will not take one step towards its discovery."(Pascal)
Pascal writes this as a form of satire as he describes the people who refuse to look into the truth of their current situation, the people who don't care to search for the answers as to whether or not there is a God or whether or not this life has purpose. 6 years ago that was me, and unfortunately, that is now most of my generation.
I've quoted Tolstoy before as he said "The question brought me to the edge of the abyss. What will come of what I do today and tomorrow? What will come of my entire life? Or expressed differently, why should I live? Why should I wish for anything or do anything? Or to put it another way, is there any meaning in life that will not be destroyed by my inevitably approaching death?
My deeds, whatever they may be, will be forgotten sooner or later, and I myself will be no more. Why then do anything? I therefore could not attach a rational meaning to a single act in my entire life. The only thing that amazed me is how I had failed to realize this from the very beginning. How could anyone fail to see this? That’s what is amazing. It’s possible to live as long as life intoxicates us, but once we’re sober, we cannot help seeing it’s all a delusion. There’s nothing funny or witty about it at all. It’s only cruel and stupid." (Tolstoy)
We, the whole of humanity, no longer care to look into the deeper questions. We refuse to venture out into that darkness and unknown for we fear the answers that may lie there. As Pascal put it we are faced with either nothingness or a wrathful God. With nothingness comes the inconsequentiality and bleak emptiness of our lives and with a wrathful God comes the recognition of our decrepit nature and the corruption and evil in our lives we ignorantly believe to be nonexistent. These answers don't suit our taste so we ignore them and the questions they answer. We sweep them under the proverbial rug and with it our entire purpose and meaning for life in the first place. As Tolstoy put it we intoxicate ourselves in this delusion.
Is this how we are to handle anything of real substance in our lives? Is this how we are to deal with confrontation both within ourselves and with others? Talking with a few different friends of mine who were asked out by guys they weren't interested in they told me that they just kept saying that they were busy whenever this particular guy would ask her out until eventually he got the message, leading this person on for months rather than being upfront because that confrontation is uncomfortable. Talking with my grandfather we were mentioning how my generation won't interact with people they don't know or how getting in an elevator people always immediately go to their phones because talking with strangers is uneasy for us. Talking with friends we mention how nowadays friends will tell you what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear in fear of confrontation. All of this, I believe, can be linked back to wishing to stay intoxicated with the trivialities of life, with not having to face the truth underlying it all, with not having to face ourselves.
The sad truth is that the things we intoxicate ourselves with are utterly devoid of any meaning in and of themselves. We put our entire significance into these things only to our own demise. We fill ourselves with jobs, relationships, and entertainment to name a few. But to what avail? What value or significance can possibly be weighed from these things in scope of our lives as a whole let alone in scope of eternity?
I was telling my friend how vital introspection is for me. How many times I will travel from Austin to Houston or vice versa in silence just to ponder on my life and who I am and how God fits into it all. We discussed how people no longer do that because it is horrifying. We always have music playing or the tv on or texting friends because it's white noise that fills in the silence. That's because once we are in the silence there is nothing left to distract us from the unknown and from ourselves. And because we don't know who we are anymore, facing ourselves is facing the unknown. If we can't face ourselves how then could we possibly stomach the mere thought of facing a just and wrathful God? I've already explained the detriments caused by this mentality in terms of our relationships with others but how much more detrimental is it to our relationship with our personal Creator, the very relationship that we were created for in the first place? We have become a society of toddlers who have closed their eyes and covered their ears shouting "I can't hear you" incessantly. By doing so we lose our purpose, we lose our meaning and worth, we cease our growth, and we hinder others'.
As I mentioned towards the beginning, 6 years ago this was me. I was a self identified Atheist but having grown up in a Christian household I said to myself "If I am to say that there is no God I better make damn sure that there isn't one because the consequences are too much if I am wrong." If you are a nonbeliever I challenge you with the same task. I am more than willing to have a discussion with you over the topic and/or point you towards other resources. I assure you this is no matter to take lightly. And if you are a believer I challenge you with facing the confrontation, with stepping into the dark unknown, with sitting in the silence because that is where you will grow. It is tremendously uncomfortable at the beginning but it becomes more and more natural, as it should. Furthermore, if we can't handle confrontation how then could we possibly be effective at evangelizing? The answer to such a rhetorical question is we can't.
Cited Literature
Pascal, Blaise. Pensées.
Tolstoy, Leo. A Confession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)