Metaphysics - Ch. 8

(Originally written July 8, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Ch. 8 - The place of rational beings in the world: design and purpose

What is the purpose of man? What is his meaning?

The church of Scotland: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" (van Inwagen, 132).

The teleological argument does not prove the existence of an all-powerful being, only that there is a designer. And if man has been created or designed, man's purpose or meaning will be found in the designer's intentions. The teleological argument cannot pinpoint what exactly man's purpose is, but it does tell us that he does in fact have some purpose.

If man has a purpose man's existence has a meaning.

While the teleological argument implies that we serve some purpose, does it prove that the cosmos was designed rather than formed by chance?

Some philosophers argue that the chance situation that has produced the life we know should not come as a surprise because it was as equally likely to not have happened by chance. The only difference is that since we do exist by this chance we can comment on how surprising it is that we exists. Van Inwagen calls this "one of the most annoyingly obtuse arguments in the history of philosophy" (van Inwagen, 135).

Another reply to the teleological argument denounces the teleological argument's presumption of many radically different possible cosmos (cosmos - multiple cosmos).

Aristotle, Kant, Descartes and Einstein searched for evidence that this is the only possible cosmos. (Linehan - at this point I am in agreement with these men).

If this is the only possible cosmos then we must have an enormous (seemingly ridiculous and absurd) number of necessary truths.

Van Inwagen contends that the possibility of only one cosmos being life-sustaining is improbable and does not have a solid scientific backing.

Another argument against the teleological argument is that simply because the cosmos is fine-tuned it does not follow that it is fine-tuned for the existence of man. Example: If mice lived in the walls of a house (and were capable of rational thought) they could conclude that the house was created for them even though the humans living in the house had built it for themselves. Man could be wrongly assuming that the cosmos was created for them as the rational mice wrongly assumed the house was created for them.

Sidenote: these mice would then have theologians/philosophers and these theologians and philosophers would be extremely troubled by the Problem of the Cat. That's funny! Actually this could be the premise for a very humorous short story: "The Mice and the Problem of the Cat"

The Darwinian account of evolution or even the possibility of the account being true has been stated to refute the teleological argument. But, van Inwagen claims that this is not true. The teleological argument deals with the cosmos as a whole and not a living being; the Darwinian account deals with living beings and cannot therefore be applied to the cosmos as a whole.

Darwin did show how though how it was possible for chance to produce something that would initially be ascribed to the creation of a rational being. Darwin showed that chance provides a number of situations and necessity eliminated the situations not beneficial enough or outright detrimental to existence.

To disprove the teleological argument demands that one provide an explanation of why the cosmos work in the fine-tuned way they do that is at least as good as the fine-tuned argument.

Here is an 'at-least-as-good' explanation:
1. the cosmos is only one of a vast number of actual cosmoi
2. there are so many actual cosmos that is not surprising that there is at least one capable of producing us (statistically probable)

Van Inwagen claims that this explanation is just as good because it explains the cosmos' existence and does not rest on any known falsehoods.

Interestingly though he claims that the rational beings in any of the individual cosmos would only be able to know the insides of their own cosmos. So if we can only know our own cosmos how does it follow that supposing multiple unknowable cosmos existing is as good as knowing, very partially a designer and our own cosmos? I don't see how unknowable is as good as very partially knowable.

He states that (aside from divine revelation) "we have to regard the following two hypotheses as equally probable: this is the the only cosmos, and some rational being has (or rational beings have) fine-tuned it in such a way that it is a suitable abode for life. [And] This is only one among a vast number of cosmoi, some few of which are suitable abodes for life" (van Inwagen, 145).

"We do not know whether the apparently purposive fine tuning of the cosmos is reality or mere appearance" (van Inwagen, 145).

The fine tuning of the cosmos has been established by modern physics and cosmology.

The cosmos does not exist on its own. We know that there is an Arche. The Arche (ar-KAY) accounts for the existence of the cosmos. Arche is a Greek word used for the beginning of all things, "or that which is the foundation on which the existence of all things rest" (van Inwagen, 145).

Metaphysicians cannot say anything about the Arche other than that it in fact exists. The most important question it cannot answer is "is the arche a chaos or logos?

Chaos - the origin of the cosmos is due to fluctuation in some pre-cosmic quantum field.
Logos - usually translated as 'word' but means 'that which goes forth fro a speaker' or 'reason'

If the Arche is Chaos our existence has no meaning. If the Arche is Logos our existence has purpose.

The metaphysician might not be able to say anything other than each position mentioned has an emotional appeal to certain types of individuals.

Arthur Hugh Cloud said,
"There is no God, the wicked saith,
And truly it's a blessing,
For what he might have done with us
It's better only guessing" (van Inwagen, 146).

Existence via chaos frees us from the demands of a God or Logos. If we have a meaning assigned to our existence there are necessarily consequence when we do not meet those standards.

If the Arche is Logos then man's existence is not as high as it would be if the Arche is chaos. Man would be lower than the Logos.