Philosophy

by Sharon Kaye

  Spotlight

  Three engineering students were sitting around talking between classes, when one brought up the question of who designed the human body.

  One of the students insisted that it must have been an electrical engineer because of the perfection of the nerves and synapses.

  Another argued that it had to have been a mechanical engineer because the system of levers and pulleys is ingenious.

  ‘You’re both wrong,’ the third student said. ‘The human body was designed by an architect. Who else would have put a toxic waste pipe through a recreation area?’

  Evolution

  Aquinas’s argument hinges on the claim that God is the only plausible explanation for the design we observe in the natural world. There is another explanation, however – one that Aquinas was dimly aware of.

  Aristotle reports an idea proposed by one of his predecessors, Empedocles, that has come to be known as the theory of evolution through natural selection. Why do animals have sharp teeth in front and flat teeth at the back, Empedocles asks. His answer? Because this works best for survival. Those whose teeth didn’t happen to grow this way died out. Empedocles talks about unsuccessful species that have disappeared, leaving the successes that we see around us.

  It wasn’t until the nineteenth century, however, that compelling evidence for this theory came to light. The English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–82) showed that the wonder of the natural world is exactly what we should expect to see, given the four basic principles by which it operates:

  1 Replication: Organisms reproduce themselves, passing their characteristics on to their offspring.

  2 Random mutation: Replication is never perfect. Each generation brings new characteristics, some better and some worse for survival.

  3 Harsh conditions: In the fight for survival, those with even a slight advantage will be more likely to reproduce, causing small changes in the species.

  4 Aeons of time: Small changes in the species add up from generation to generation, resulting in new species.

  This process, evolution through natural selection, creates the appearance of intelligence in the natural world. It looks as though someone must have programmed the squirrel to take care of her family. But replication, random mutation, harsh conditions and aeons of time can programme a species just as easily as an intelligent designer can.

  Given that there is now so much scientific support for evolution, fewer and fewer people reject it the way Aquinas did. It’s more common now to combine the theory with theism, insisting that God works through the fourfold process described above.

  Note, however, that, in order to function as an argument for the existence of God, the teleological proof needs to show that there is some crucial role for God to play – something evolution cannot explain about the natural world. Otherwise, evolution alone is enough – there is no justification for the inference that God must exist.

  Anthropic considerations

  In the search for something only God could have accomplished, some theists raise the question, why is the universe just right for life? If just one of the constants that govern nature, such as the strength of gravity, were different, then human beings could never have evolved. It seems extraordinary that so many coincidences (known as anthropic coincidences, from the Greek word for ‘man’) combined to make a warm, hospitable planet possible within the vast, cold expanse of outer space. Isn’t it more likely that someone deliberately arranged things?

  The problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts the other way as well. It may at first seem amazing that the strength of gravity is exactly right for you to be here, reading this book right now. But, on second thoughts, given that you are here, reading this book right now, it would be amazing if the strength of gravity weren’t exactly right. That is, if the earth weren’t hospitable, then we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it. This insight has been developed into the anthropic principle, according to which observations of the universe have to be compatible with the observer.

  Considering that the universe is so big (perhaps infinitely big) and so old (perhaps infinitely old), it seems highly likely – even necessary – that the conditions for a hospitable planet would come together somewhere, sometime. It’s a bit like the lottery. Don’t buy a ticket, because it’s extremely unlikely that you’ll win. But someone or other has to win.

  Perhaps a more promising line of defence against Darwin’s challenge concerns essentially anthropic qualities, such as ‘true love’. If there is no God, and everything is the result of natural necessity, then human attachments can be explained purely scientifically. Are you willing to accept that the strong feelings you have for your lover are nothing but hormones geared for reproduction? Needless to say, arguments can be developed on both sides and the jury is still out.

  Key ideas

  A priori: Knowledge that is prior to, or independent of, experience

  A posteriori: Knowledge that is after, or dependent upon, experience

  Anthropic coincidence: The universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range compatible with human life

  Anthropic principle: Observations of the universe have to be compatible with the observer

  Big Bang: The cosmic explosion that started the universe

  Brute fact: The event at the end of the explanation

  Cosmological proof: Aquinas’s argument for the existence of God based on empirical considerations about the universe’s basic operative principles

  Eternal: Enduring in a single moment without beginning or end

  Everlasting: Enduring in a succession of moments without beginning or end

  Evolution through natural selection: The ‘design’ in nature is produced by the four principles of replication, random mutation, harsh conditions and aeons of time

  Oscillating model: The theory according to which the Big Bang is the result of a prior universe collapsing, the latest in an infinite chain of expanding and collapsing universes

  Teleological proof: Aquinas’s argument for the existence of God based on design observed in nature

  Fact-check

  1 What does it mean to be eternal, according to Boethius?

  a To endure in a succession of moments without beginning or end

  b To endure in a single moment without beginning or end

  c To exist timelessly without changing

  d To exist in time without changing

  2 Which of the following is not one of the four principles by which evolution operates?

  a Rapid speed

  b Replication

  c Random mutation

  d Harsh conditions

  3 Aquinas’s First Way conceives of God as which of the following?

  a A man on a mountaintop viewing a caravan on the road below

  b Supreme being

  c Everlasting rather than eternal

  d The unmoved mover

  4 According to the oscillating model…

  a The universe has no beginning

  b The universe has to have just the right conditions for life

  c God is eternal rather than everlasting

  d Species have to adapt to harsh conditions in order to survive

  5 Which of the following asserts that observations have to be compatible with the observer?

  a Evolution by natural selection

  b The anthropic principle

  c The cosmological proof

  d The teleological proof

  6 Which of the following found evidence for the theory that challenges the teleological proof of God’s existence?

  a Empedocles

  b Anselm

  c Thomas Aquinas

  d Charles Darwin

  7 Which of the following would challenge the theory of evolution by natural selection?

  a Dinosaur bones

  b Free will

  c HIV/AIDS

  d Nuclear war

  8 Aquinas argues that natural bodies, like squirrels…

&nb
sp; a Are intelligent

  b Act for an end

  c Exist in reality

  d Are a priori

  9 Aquinas’s Five Ways are…

  a Innatist

  b Idealist

  c A priori

  d A posteriori

  10 A brute fact is…

  a An indisputable point

  b An explanation of evil

  c The end of the explanation

  d A fact about violent animals

  Dig deeper

  Ralph McInerny, Aquinas (Polity Press, 2004).

  Eleonore Stump, Aquinas (Routledge, 2003).

  John Wippel, The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being (Catholic University of America Press, 2000).

  5

  Descartes and the soul

  ‘Doubt is the origin of wisdom.’

  René Descartes

  In this chapter you will learn:

  • about Descartes’s method of doubt and its connection to rationalism

  • why there is just one thing of which you can be absolutely certain

  • how Descartes attempts to escape solipsism

  • the meaning of dualism

  • about the mind-body problem

  • the challenge qualia present

  • the meaning of folk psychology and why materialists reject it.

  Thought experiment: the matrix

  You open your Internet browser and a man’s face appears on your screen. He addresses you by name.

  ‘These pop-up ads are getting out of control,’ you mumble to yourself as you attempt to click to a different screen. The face does not budge. He calls your name again. You hit the power button on your computer in frustration. It does not turn off.

  ‘I have some very important information for you,’ the man says. His eyes follow yours when you move. He can see you.

  ‘What the hell is going on?’ you exclaim.

  ‘There’s no reason to be alarmed,’ he reassures you with a small smile. ‘It’s good news, actually. I’m here to tell you that you’ve been selected for a unique experiment.’

  ‘Not interested,’ you snap.

  ‘On the contrary – you’ve already volunteered,’ he responds. ‘You just don’t remember.’

  The man goes on to tell you that, when you volunteered for the experiment, you were given drugs that put you in a deep and long-term sleep. You were then attached to electrodes that connected your brain to a sophisticated virtual-reality program.

  You sit dumbfounded.

  ‘Look around you,’ says the man. ‘Nothing you seem to see is real.’

  You look around you, trying to picture everything you see as virtual reality. You examine your hand and rub your fingers together.

  ‘We are able to simulate all five senses,’ the man adds. ‘Nothing you touch is real. Nothing you smell, or taste, or hear is real.’

  You sit silently for a moment, weighing the possibility he presents. ‘Why don’t I remember agreeing to this?’ you ask.

  ‘All your memories have been replaced,’ he replies. ‘Think of what you did yesterday, or what you were like as a child.’ He gives you a moment to think of these things before continuing. ‘All of those thoughts have been supplied by our program.’

  A shiver runs down your spine. ‘My family…’

  ‘…doesn’t exist. That is, you may or may not have a family, but, if you do, it certainly wouldn’t be the one you seem to remember. All of your memories about where you come from are part of the program, as is your physical appearance.’

  You look down at your body – it seems so familiar. The old shoes on your feet, the mole on your arm… You put your hand to your head, feel your face and run your fingers through your hair.

  ‘You don’t really look like that…’ he says. ‘You’re actually not even human. We made up the human race, and the entire planet Earth.’

  You take a deep breath. ‘If I’m not human, then what am I?’

  ‘I can’t tell you.’

  You narrow your eyes at him. He shrugs. ‘You don’t believe me? True, I might be lying, but I might not… How can you be sure?’

  ‘What is the purpose of all of this?’

  ‘To remove all certainties.’

  You stop and think. Is there anything you can be certain of in these circumstances? Has the experiment been successful?

  Think again

  The French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) is considered the first modern philosopher. The period known as ‘modern philosophy’ runs from around the end of the Renaissance to the beginning of the twentieth century, when ‘post-modernism’ begins.

  Modern philosophy is marked by a new focus on epistemology. As we have seen, Plato and Anselm take an ‘innatist’ approach, which begins with the assumption that there are truths to be discovered deep within our minds. Meanwhile, Aristotle and Aquinas take an empiricist approach, looking for truths in the external world. Each philosopher is committed to his approach without doing much to defend it. Modern philosophers finally undertook this defence.

  Though motivated neither by Plato’s ideal world of Forms nor by Anselm’s faith, Descartes champions their side of the debate. The fundamental theme in Descartes’s philosophy is reason: we discover innate truths through the power of clear thinking. In his hands, the inward-looking approach we have seen running through Plato and Anselm becomes the epistemology known as rationalism.

  The method of doubt

  Descartes was already a celebrated mathematician and scientist when he published his most famous idea. The same idea, also featured in the thought experiment at the beginning of this chapter, became the basis of the 1999 science fiction movie The Matrix. The idea is simply this: what if we are living in a virtual reality?

  Bear in mind that Descartes had this brainchild back in the seventeenth century, long before computers were invented. He dreamed it up in a work called Meditations on First Philosophy, in which he set out to explain to his fans the secret of his intellectual success. (Ever done any analytic geometry? Well, Descartes invented – yes, invented – that. It was just one of his many ground-breaking intellectual contributions.)

  The secret of Descartes’s success was doubt – the method of doubt. Descartes argues that, if you want to discover true knowledge, your first step must be to question absolutely everything that you have ever believed.

  This may seem a strange way to begin. Wouldn’t it make more sense to build on whatever knowledge you already have?

  It would, if your alleged ‘knowledge’ could be trusted. If, however, you are like most people (just about everyone, actually), the beliefs you call ‘knowledge’ have been far too carelessly acquired – picked up along the way in life without sufficient scrutiny. You believe whatever you think you see and hear. Even worse, you believe what others tell you they saw and heard. The problem – which you will be reluctant to face! – is that your mind is riddled with falsehoods that must be rooted out.

  It’s difficult to root out falsehoods in your own mind. They feel so comfortable and familiar – just as comfortable and familiar as the truth. In fact, it’s almost impossible to distinguish between the two. The only solution is to clear-cut the forest – rid the mind of all beliefs, whether true or false – and begin again, this time carefully allowing only true beliefs to take root. But how?

  The malignant demon

  I will suppose, then, […] that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these; I will continue resolutely fixed in this belief, and if indeed by this means it be not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of truth, I shall at leas
t do what is in my power, viz. [suspend my judgement], and guard with settled purpose against giving my assent to what is false, and being imposed upon by this deceiver, whatever be his power and artifice.

  Descartes, Meditation I, Meditations on First Philosophy (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation1.html)

  Setting an example for his readers, Descartes undertakes to convince himself to let go of all of his dearly held assumptions. His line of reasoning goes like this:

  • My senses have often deceived me. For example, when I insert a stick in water, it looks bent even though it’s really straight. Why should I trust my eyes when they have lied to me so many times?

  • Moreover, I have experienced vivid dreams. While reading this book I might fall asleep and dream that I am reading this book. So how do I know whether or not I’m dreaming right now?

  • Worse yet, I’ve heard of people who have been hospitalized for mental illness. They are completely convinced that they are kings and queens … or ordinary people trying to teach themselves philosophy. How, therefore, do I know that I’m not in a hospital suffering from such a delusion?

  Just in case these possibilities aren’t worrisome enough, Descartes finally proposes the worst-case scenario, as described in the extract above. Descartes does not need computer technology to invent the ultimate test for the mind. His malignant demon (sometimes called the ‘evil genius’) does the trick. Will any of our beliefs survive?

  The cogito

  When we take Descartes’s thought experiment seriously we find ourselves in a strange, disembodied state, popularly known as the ‘brain in a vat’. You are nothing but an intellect floating in nothingness, completely severed from everything you thought you knew and loved.