by Scott Cherry
Chapter 13
Peony Gardens, Butterflies and Design
All of these functions, of course, are aspects of reason and logic. They are dependent on, indicative of and resultant from rational thought. No other living creature on earth has this power as far as we can tell, thus no other could have achieved this admirable task, nor even cared to (precisely why the animals were disinterested). Moreover, as we observed earlier in this discussion, not only does the human capacity of reason give us the power to achieve all this, it gives us the expectation of it, or belief. Human reason entails the belief —conscious or unconscious—that reality is ordered and is subject to rational inquiry and analysis. If it were not so we would not have science or philosophy and other disciplines; but we do have them because of this truth.
This is intelligibility which is the main point I’m driving at. Intelligibility is the object of the predicate that is reason. This means that reason works because the objects of our reason—nature and all things designed by other humans such as the Grand Mosque, and everything else—are to a large degree penetrable by reason rather than impenetrable. Just as the pieces of a puzzle conform to the pre-determined order of the assembled whole, all things have a similar order that renders them assemble-able, even when some or many of the pieces (information) are missing for a long time. (We can even assemble a puzzle if some of the pieces are never found.) Indeed, science believes that nature is much like a puzzle that possesses this kind of pre-determined order. Why? Because Reality is actually this way. Therefore, through our penetrating powers of reason and logic we actually can make sense of things, discover and understand and replicate things that were previously undiscovered and unknown. In a word, they are intelligible to us. But why are they?
Using our imaginations (within limited boundaries) we can think of the world in other ways. The world could be disordered, undiscoverable—and unknowable, and then where would we be? In that case, 10 or 100 times our power of reason and logic would make no difference. There could be no science, no assembling puzzles, and no making sense of anything at all. Just as there must be both subject and object to a complex sentence, so too there must be in Reality for us to even attempt to make sense of it, much less achieve it; hand-in-glove. Thankfully, Reality is this way. However and for whatever reason this Reality exists, it is intelligible to intelligent beings. This is incredible. If it doesn’t seem so to you then I don’t think you’re getting this. Given the relationship between our sense of well-being (i.e. happiness) and the present amount of intelligible order in the world, what chaos and hopelessness there would be if the world were not intelligible, or if we did not have the power to intelligize it. (Yes, I just made up that word.) We should not glibly dismiss this as a result of serendipity; there just may have been a Mind behind all this.
What I am suggesting here is that reason and intelligibility are complements. This is why we expect reason to work and also why we trust it. Further, half of the reason there is Reason is that there are things to reason about—which, inexplicably, can be rationally understood by intelligent beings. By the same token we have this rational power that logically requires an object or it makes no sense. And that there are things about reason that not only requires Reason but gives purpose to it. The same is true for logic. Part of the reason for the human capacity to use logic must be, first, that there are laws of logic. As we have already noted, they are both axiomatic and inexplicable in naturalistic terms. The laws of logic simply exist as brute facts. They are a form of Order. Reality, because it is rational by every indication, demands our adherence to them, and thankfully we can comply. Conversely, I assert that part of the reason for the laws of logic is to give us something by which to do logic, or ‘logicize’ if you will. And of course, all logicizing requires stuff to logicize about, either physical or metaphysical.
What we have now identified are what I call ‘Rational Complements’. In terms of geometry, angles that fit together to complete a larger one (e.g. 180 or 360 degrees) are called complementary because they are complements. I am saying that Reality is complementary because it is replete with Rational Complements, and this is why there is such a thing as intelligibility. It’s fascinating to me that we humans seek out complementary things, and equally fascinating that we can find them. (This too is complementary). Indeed, we are driven by this quest, and we might even say that it is the essence of reason itself. The main point, however, is that Reality is intelligible, and again, why should anything at all be intelligible to mere “biological machines” such as naturalists say we are?
Part of the reason must be that there are Rational Complements in every sphere of Reality. But why are there? Do they just happen by random chance? Or must there be an Intelligent Someone who also likes complementary things and has wired them into the very essence of Reality? It is one of the defining characteristics of intelligence (mind) to create, identify and utilize complementary things, like puzzle pieces, interlocking engine parts, and the components of a DNA strand, etc. By the same token when we observe the pervasiveness of complements in the whole of Reality, (e.g. reason and intelligibility) shouldn’t we reasonably infer an Intelligent Mind as well? The ancient Greeks called this the Logos, as did the Apostle John. We shall return to this.
Clara Ford’s Peony Garden
Now let’s return to the Henry Ford Estate which I introduced already. I love this place because of the enchanted natural setting and its walking trails. Here is a description from its own website:
Fair Lane, located in Dearborn, Michigan, was the beloved family home of Clara and Henry Ford from 1915 until 1950. Upon Clara’s death, it was given to the Ford Motor Company, and in 1957 Ford donated the estate and the farmlands to the University of Michigan for construction of the Dearborn campus. In 1966 it was among the first [buildings] in the nation to receive the prestigious designation as a National Historic Landmark from the National Register of Historic Places.
Most of what I said about the Grand Mosque can also be said about the mansion of Henry Ford, so we need not discuss this. However, there is one particular feature on the grounds of the estate that I want to highlight. In the yard not far from the mansion to the NW is a beautiful flow-er garden in an otherwise open space. It was designed in the 40s for Clara Ford by their gardener, Jens Jansen, and covers an area about 50x50ft. There are two interesting things about this garden relevant to our discussion. First, it’s a peony garden, a type of perennial whose flowers resemble roses (with no thorns). These days there are only peonies in the garden that come up every summer with minimal tending or none at all. The second thing is more relevant: the garden is in the shape of a giant butterfly. But nobody ever had to tell me that, I recognized it as a butterfly the first time I saw it. Does that surprise you? Of course not. You know in your mind that you would recognize it too, and most people would (but no animals would). Similar to the kinds of features we identified in List 4, this garden has certain features which are complementary to our powers of visual recognition and reveal to the observer things about its nature.
Aside from the kind of flowers in it (which might be telling) I think there are two, the shape and the symmetry. That is to say, the shape of this garden is one we would not expect to see in untended nature, even if we do find patches of peonies in some places. Indeed, the curves would seem way too perfect for a patch of any kind of flowers in nature (which we would not call a garden at all). Although we have not seen all flower patches in the world, inductive reason allows us to know that natural, uncultivated patches of flowers do not have such well-defined curves and do not exhibit elements of design. Among other things the edges of a flower patch are always random and variegated. Second, the two sides of the entire shape are perfectly symmetrical to each other. Now, we do find symmetry and other patterns in nature but only in some things such as crystals and snowflakes, not in uncultivated flower patches. Third, the entire shape of this flower “patch” closely resembles the shape of a generic insect we know as the butte
rfly, or moth.
Because we have a mental image of such an insect stored in our brains we can instantly recognize and associate the shape of this garden with the insect. This is a visual function of reason that is amazing to me. Because we have all seen one or many insects like this the mind stores a mental image of its distinctive body plan, and we intuitively group all insects that have this body plan into the category of butterfly/moth. Thereafter, when we see any insect with this basic body plan we know it as some type of butterfly/moth. Further, once we learn certain facts about them (e.g. their unique way of morphing from caterpillar to winged insect by way of the crysalis) we rationally infer by inductive logic that every one we see possesses these same developmental characteristics. We also rationally distinguish other winged insects such as the dragonfly from this particular category.
Because its basic body plan is different, a dragonfly is not in the butterfly/moth category. But that’s not all. When the basic visual features of the living insect are represented in non-living images or models of this insect with this body plan, such as the peony garden, the rational function of the mind enables us to associate them with the actual insect category. When asked to identify the image/model we normally and casually call it a butterfly. But the rational mind also gives us the power of visual differentiation. We know the peony garden, or pictures or plastic toys, are not real butterflies because the mind easily distinguishes the mere representative features of the butterfly-like things from those of the real insect by virtue of “visual reason”. Again, this is amazing. The very same functions apply to a great many things in human experience, without which life as we know it would be impossible. This is yet another aspect of intelligibility.
Back to the main idea: The visual features of the peony garden immediately tell us that that this is not just a natural flower patch; it is a garden, designed and cultivated by an intelligent being—a human, not by any other creature. It was designed deliberately, not by chance, to resemble the contours of a butterfly to be immediately recognized as such by other humans, not animals. That is to say, humans design most things for other humans, especially things with aesthetic intent. We do so with the full expectation that our aesthetic designs will be intelligible to other intelligent beings that can recognize, appreciate, and understand them as such. Therefore, when we see something with obvious design (especially with aspects of beauty) we know with near certainty that it is the product of an intelligent mind with an artistic flare for the pleasure of human beholders that can recognize and appreciate the beauty and forethought of its design.
In 20 summers of coming to the estate I have never seen the Ford's master gardener, Jans Jensen, or any gardener working in this garden. The only reason I know about him is because of a placard that talks about him near the peony garden and other ones. (That's what we can think of as revelation; I take these signs by faith.) But I don't need to see a gardener, or even a sign. For most of us it doesn't matter if we never see the gardener. We do not need to. The Jansen peony garden, because of its artistically designed features, is intelligible to us by virtue of the same kind of reason that exists in all of Reality—Rational Complementarity.
The point is that aesthetic intelligibility is a product and function of Rational Intelligence for beings with rational intelligence. The fact of intelligibility is a defining axiom of all Reality. Human reason, logic and even imagination work because of this axiom, and only because of it. It is so fundamental to our perception of Reality that we presuppose it as a priori in every aspect of life and in every discipline. We must presuppose it. This is the Logos. Former Pope Joseph Ratzinger agrees when he says this:
Finite being is marked through and through by intelligibility, that is to say, by a formal structure that makes it understandable to the inquiring mind. In point of fact, all the sciences—physics, chemistry, psychology, astronomy, biology…rest on the assumption that at all levels being can be known…The only finally satisfying explanation for universal, objective intelligibility is a great Intelligence who has thought the universe into being. (As quoted by Fr. Robert Barron)
Of course there are objections, which there always are in philosophy and almost everything else. Some may argue that the laws of logic are an outgrowth of language or that they pre-existed God, or even that the universe created them, so we need not attribute them to God, similar to the Euthyphro dilemma. But no argument at all can be made without first presupposing reason and logic. My intent here was not to prove God but only to articulate the case for the Logos principle reasonably well. I hope I have done that so far, but we still have two chapters to go.
Chapter 14
Conclusions to the Logos Principle
“In the beginning was the Logos. “
The Bible, Gospel of John chapter 1:1
Now let’s review and summarize my argument as I draw my semi-final conclusions. Reason, order and intelligibility exist, therefore God exists—a maximally Intelligent Being who is the Designer of the Rational Order. This is the notion of the Logos spoken of by the ancient Greek philosophers and by John the Christian Apostle. The Logos principle is strong evidence for theism over non-theism, particularly for Christian theism.
All of us make basic assumptions about Reality. We assume Order, not randomness, because of the abundant evidence for it. Order exists. It is a brute fact, or at least it is a universal assumption so strong that we (must) presuppose it and live as though there is order, both consciously and unconsciously. The existence of order, therefore, is a core belief that all humans have about Reality, even about the many things we have never encountered directly. That is, because so many things in our experience are ordered we believe there is order—everywhere. This is our power of inductive reason at work, which I would call faith. Second, we assume intelligibility. We know we can rationally function within this awareness and make sense of things around us, either easily or with a necessary amount of effort. As with language, order can be recognized and understood, i.e. it can be reasoned about, and the laws of logic can be applied to it. We know things with order have recognizable patterns and specified complexities that are intelligible to the human mind when casually observed or carefully examined. With man-made things we usually call this design; it is precisely by these patterns that we differentiate man-made things from natural things because design is an attribute of intelligence.
This leads us to the third assumption, that of intelligence itself. Design points to an intelligent source. That is to say, when we observe and recognize ordered patterns we normally infer intelligence. In point of fact, if that which we observe is actual design it always (necessarily) indicates intelligence by definition, because the very notion of design (and order itself) entails intelligence. If there is no design there is no intelligence, and if there is no intelligence there is no design. The two are complements. Conversely, if what we observe merely seems to be designed, though uncertain, then more examination is required. But usually things that seem to be designed are actually designed because we recognize design. These are the normal functions of reason and logic, i.e. rationality, all of which point to the Logos principle. These are the rational assumptions that underlie the process of analyzing something, say, a mosque. Assumptions such as these are normal and necessary components of the process of reason. They are logical premises that can either be valid or invalid, hidden or clear. If they are valid and strong we call them laws, or axioms, and without them reason could not function at all.
There are many aspects of reason and logic. They are all dependent on, indicative of and resultant from rational thought. No other living creature on earth has this power. Moreover, not only does the human capacity of reason give us the power to achieve all this, it gives us the expectation of it—or the belief, if you will. Human reason entails the belief that Reality is ordered and largely subject to rational inquiry and analysis. Intelligibility is the object of the predicate that is reason. Reason works because its objects are largely “penetrable” by reason rat
her than “impenetrable”. Just as the pieces of a puzzle conform to the pre-deter-mined order of the assembled whole, all things have a similar order that renders them assemble-able, even when some of the pieces (information) are missing for a long time, or if some of the pieces are never found. Science “believes” that nature is much like a puzzle that possesses this kind of order—because it is, and it does.
Reality is actually this way. Therefore, through our “penetrating” powers of reason we actually can make sense of, discover, understand and replicate things that were previously undiscovered and unknown. In a word, they are intelligible to us. We can imagine the world in other ways. The world could be disordered, undiscoverable and unknowable. In that case, ten times our powers of reason would make no difference. There could be no science, no assembling puzzles, and no making sense of anything. Just as there must be both subject and object to a complex sentence, so there must be in Reality for us to even attempt to make sense of it. Thankfully, Reality is this way. However and for whatever reason, it is intelligible to intelligent beings. What chaos and despair there would be if the world were not so, or if we did not have the power to intelligize it. We should not dismiss this as a result of serendipity; there may have been a Divine Mind behind all this.