TABLE OF CONTENTS:
2.00000 Philosophical Presuppositions of Religion
2.00001 Introduction
2.10000 Hegelian Approach (Principal Caird)
2.10100 Essence of Religion
2.10200 Criticism of Caird's Rationalism
2.10300 Significance of Intuition
2.20000 Pragmatic Approach (William James)
2.20100 Utilitarianism
2.20200 Catholicity
2.21000 Limitations of Pragmatism
2.30000 Naturalistic Approach (J.H. Leuba)
2.30100 Utilitarianism
2.30110 Criticism of Leuba's Approach
2.30120 Limitations of Leuba's Approach
2.40000 Psycho-Analytic APproach (S. Freud)
2.40100 Analysis of Primitive APproach
2.40200 Father-Son Relationship
2.40300 Religion as Illusion
2.41000 Criticism of Freudian Approach
2.50000 Materialism
2.50010 What is Materialism?
2.50100 Greek Materialism
2.50200 Materialism in Europe
2.51000 Characteristics of Materialism
2.52000 Arguments in Support of Materialism
2.53000 Criticism of Materialism
2.60000 Naturalism
2.60010 Distinction from Materialism
2.60100 What is Naturalism?
2.60200 Positivism
2.60300 Physicalism
2.60400 Mechanism
2.61000 Criticism of Naturalism
2.62000 Conclusion
2.70000 Mechanism
2.71010 Descartes's View
2.71020 View of Spinoza
2.71030 View of Herbert Spencer
2.71040 Theory of Charles Darwin
2.72000 Critics of Mechanism
2.72300 Conclusion
2.80000 Teleology
2.80010 Conflict between Mechanism and Teleology
2.80100 Consistency of the Law of Nature with Teleology
2.81000 Contradictions in Mechanism and Teleology
2.81100 Conclusion
2.82000 Is There a Purpose in Creation?
2.82100 Conclusion
2.83000 Theology in History of Philosophy
2.84000 Conclusion
| 2.00000 | Philosophical Presuppositions of Religion |
|---|---|
| 2.00001 | Introduction The aim of the present philosophical discussion on the nature of religious experience is to enquire into the essential truth of religion, to see how far reason goes in this particular realm, and to assess its moral, psychological and spiritual value in the attainment of evolutionary purpose. |
| 2.10000 | Hegelian Approach (Principal Caird) |
| 2.10100 | Essence of Religion It is the Hegelians who have most strongly emphasized the value of reason in religion. Hegel placed Philosophy above religion and art. According to Principal Caird, Whatever is real is rational and does not deny the limits of reason but points out that these limits have been imposed by reason itself. Those who absolutely exclude reason from the field of religion must advance reasons for doing so. Again, the very fact that reason limits itself also shows that it transcends the limit. There is nothing above reason. Hence, whatever is supra-rational, in the sense of being beyond reason, is irrational or nonsensical.
Caird does not mean that religious experience is a matter of logical deduction. In religion, there is no ignorant wonder, blind submission and paralysis of thought before an insoluble enigma, but an intelligent admiration, love and assurance that the realm of the infinite is open to us and that to know God is to acquire an eternal life. Philosophy presupposes religion and makes no claim to produce it. Feeling is necessary element in religion, though this feeling must be clearly distinguished from other is, through reason. Not intensity of feelings, but an intelligent basis and coherence in the organic whole, is the criterion of true religion.
|
| 2.10200 | Criticism of Caird's Rationalism According to Caird, It is not possible for one and the same consciousness to be purely relative and conscious of its relativity. Such a statement is valid so far as it points out to the element of the infinite in man, but the identification Universal Consciousness with mental consciousness, only exhibits confusion. Again, Caird derogates intuition in his enthusiasm for reason. The significance of a direct knowledge of God is not fully realized when it is argued that, as in order to the attainment of relation between the two terms there must be a third term by which they are mediated, it follows that immediate knowledge must virtually include a process of thought; that is, it must include all that is objected to in mediated or rational knowledge. The fundamental error underlying such a view is the confusion of consciousness and self-consciousness. Self presupposes not-self, only for its consciousness as a subject; otherwise it shines in its own effulgence even in dreamless sleep and unconscious state, Consciousness of God is not unconsciousness, not a consciousness of an object, but an identification of essence with essence. Return to Index |
| 2.10300 | Significance of Intuition Caird fails to distinguish between various grades of intuition, when he says, That which distinguishes between true and false, irrelevant and significant intuitions can not be mere intuition hut must be sonic higher principle. This higher principle is no other than spiritual intuition, the coherence in which decides the truth of any particular intuition. Reason fails to judge the truth of even the physical and vital intuitions of animals. Spiritual intuition is certainly not without reason, since it is based on the principle of integration and coherence, yet it is more than reason. It includes also the effective and conative aspects of our being.
While saying What lies beyond reason in this sense is simply the irrational or nonsensical, Caird identifies the supra rational with unknowable, as if mind is the only instrument of knowledge. It sometimes does appear, that what Hegelians understand by reason is not intellectual reason alone. But the use of same concept for widely different phenomena only breeds confusion. Reason does not include conative and effective aspects and hence cannot be a fit instrument for religious experience, which is attained through our whole being. In other words the criterion of the validity of any experience is not its logical consistency but authenticity. Not reason but spirituality is the essence of all religion.
|
| 2.20000 | Pragmatic Approach (William James) |
| 2.20100 | Utilitarianism The criterion of the Truth of any particular religious experience, according to Pragmatists, is its workability, its pragmatic value for life. God is real since He produces real effect, says William James. Religious faith brings with it most vital good for the individual. Faith is scientific, critical and self-verifying. Its choke is living, unavoidable and momentous. The skeptic loses much due to suspension of belief. In religion, says James, we are supposed to gain even now, by our belief and to lose by our non-belief, a certain vital good. God satisfies the whole of our being, the mind, heart and will. At a single stroke, it changes the dead blank it of the world into a living thou with whom the whole man may have dealings. Return to Index |
| 2.20200 | Catholicity About the nature of the object of religious experience, James has a catholic approach characteristic of a pragmatist. Each of us must discover for himself the kind of religion and the amount of saint ship which best comports with what he believes to be his powers and feels to be his truest mission and vocation. Though the essence of religion is universal, the form changes according to the individual needs, because evidence for God lies primarily in inner personal experiences. Kant subordinates religion to ethics. James subordinates religion to life. Religion is a biological and practical necessity. The complete mystic, according to Bargston, participates in the creative activity of God, without any material obstacles for the super abundance of vitality which it demands flows from a spring which is the very source of life. Religion is on a par with mental therapeutics. Both science and religion are equally effective keys to unlock the treasures so valuable to man's life. Return to Index |
| 2.21000 | Limitations of Pragmatism Pragmatic approach has its truth in the fact that religious experience is not only super-normal but refines, develops, integrates and spiritualizes the vital, physical and the mental aspects of man. And yet religion is not a mere means to life, nor a sort of safety valve to provide an outlet for extra biological energy. The reality of God does not depend on the effects that it produces in the world though they may be good arguments to convince some common-place persons. On the other hand it is the reality of effects which depends on their being caused by God. By reducing God to mere means both James and Kant equally miss the true nature of Divine. Higher explains lower, Spirit explains life. God explains man. Not life but God is the summum bonum. The broad characteristics of religion, pointed out by James, are only its causal results. God is loved for Him and not for any worldly good. Social utility is merely a bye-product and not the essence of religions. Religious man seeks no reward through religion, even if it may be immortality.
True love and complete surrender, the acme of higher religion, do not wish any thing in return. The sole concern of the devotee is giving, sacrifice, surrender and identity with the object of worship. The overt similarities between the science and religion do not prove either the identity of methods or ends. The essence of religious experience cannot be detected by collection of data, its classification. and comparison and formation of some general hypotheses, nor is it the common element of various types of religions. In religion, the end explains the beginning. The purpose of mystic union with God is a direct experience of the Divine inflatus and not to secure more vitality for life.
|
| 2.30000 | Naturalistic Approach (J.H. Leuba) |
| 2.30100 | Utilitarianism In collaboration with his master James, says Professor Leuba, God is not known, he is not understood, he is used. Thus Professor Leuba also emphasizes the pragmatic and biological aspect of religion. Religion, according to him, is an anthropopathic behavior of man. As a psychologist, he draws freely on sociology, anthropology and psychology. His is a typically utilitarian view. The essence of religion according to him, is the satisfaction of certain fundamental needs as he points out.
To realize the presence of the God of love is the mystic's method of securing the satisfaction of his essential wants. Everywhere man seeks gratification of his desires. Only in religion, he fulfills them in what he calls Divine or God or some other supreme power. Nothing else is new In religion and hence no new categories are required to explain this particular type of, human behavior. As a scientist Professor Leuba applies the law of parsimony and explains religion in terms of life. Religion implies a belief in a great and superior psychic power, whether personal or impersonal and a dynamic relation, formal and organized or otherwise, between man and some higher power resulting in increase of life. Man requires religion because the needs of life are not only physical but also spiritual.
|
| 2.30110 | Criticism of Leuba's Approach In this book, on religious mysticism, Leuba has given an elaborate, psychological analysis of mystic phenomena such as methods, motives, presence, trance, levitation, etc., but everywhere he denies their ontological significance. The God of mystics is not the real Absolute of Philosophy. The direct address characteristic of rituals of every existing religion would no longer be possible should the Absolute of metaphysics replace the God of religion. But rituals do not constitute the essence of religion. Again, if the God of religion is not ultimate Reality, all religious worship is merely a make-belief, an auto-suggestion, or at best a psychological process of mental cure. God's grace and mercy do not cause Him imperfection. Leuba's conception is riddled with anthropomorphism. Return to Index |
| 2.30120 | Limitations of Leuba's Approach Leuba does not wish to denounce religion or to diminish its value for human life. He rightly hopes that, Religion and science would work hand in hand for the production of a better and happier, a diviner-man. But, it is difficult to understand how such a hope may be fulfilled, if religious experience is merely a make belief without any objective basis, it appears sometimes that Leuba is only against the traditional view of a personal God and not the Divine itself. But in trying to make religion scientific, Leuba missed much of its essence. Religion seeks a personal union, a direct communication with some other. The phenomena of grace, love, worship, sacrament, etc., which are closely knit around the personal aspect of God are too valuable to be discarded. The interpretations of religious experience, as advanced by Professor Leuba, suffer from psychologist's fallacy, only a religious person having first hand direct experience of God as well as a perfect training in psychology can give a true account of religious experience. The essence of religion can not be understood by mere biographical study or observation of the mystics. Human language is too inadequate to describe these higher experiences. The symbols and imagery used by mystics, if taken in their literal meanings are bound to derogate religion to any common-place experience. The physical and vital imagery widely used by mystics, does show that the physical as well as vital parts of man are strongly affected by religious experience, but that must not obscure the higher elements which remain unexpressed, though externally unconscious in divine trance, the mystic is spiritually more conscious than ever, since the experience continues to be the most valuable memory which guides him to march with an evergreen hope to the unknown though not unknowable land. Again, if For the psychologist who remains within the province of science religious mysticism is a revelation not of God but of man, it only exhibits the limitations of the methods of science in the field of religion.
The explanation of the mystic trance as a succession of mental states which grow more and more simple and end in total unconsciousness, simply exhibits ignorance. Leuba, no less than his master James, admits the difference between mystics and psychopaths, but while using the same categories to describe widely different type of experience, he often comes perilously near to reducing the religious phenomena mere psychopathic behavior or at the most, not more than psychotherapy, the purpose in both being the enrichment and enhancement of live. What Leuba analyses is only a primitive lower form of religion and mysticism, but as Principal Caird rightly remarks, In religion it is not in the beginning, but in the end that we must look for the true origin and explanation of its history. Again, Leuba confuses the idea of God with His reality. His explanation at best touches the fringe and not the focus of religious experience.
|
| 2.40000 | Psycho-Analytic Approach (S. Freud) |
| 2.40100 | Analysis of Primitive Approach Psychoanalysis has strongly affected almost all psychological explanations of religious experience. According to Freud, religion has important relation with the historical incident of the murder of tribal father in ancient times and the consequent sense of guilt, resulting in the re-establishment of the Father in the shape of a most magnificent all powerful God to whom men surrender as a token of acceptance of their guilt and in the hope of getting expiation. In his 'Totem and Taboo', Freud traces the psychological development of the religion of totemism. This is the historical beginning of religion. This totem is soon replaced by God. God was first half-animal, half-man. After it, He was conceived as a powerful man. Religion gradually passed from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism. Only then, as Freud points out, the grandeur of the primeval father was restored, the emotions belonging the him could now be repeated. Return to Index |
| 2.40200 | Father-Son Relationship Freud traces religion to the ambivalence of father-son relationship. As he says, Thus religion would be the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity. As in the case of the child, it originated in the Oedipus complex, the relation to the father. The feeling of guilt of the original sin manifests in various forms of moral purism, asceticism, escapism, hatred of flesh and innumerable devices of self control and tormentation of body. It was to deliver men of this guilt that Jesus gave his life at the cross. Return to Index |
| 2.40300 | Religion as Illusion Freud calls religion an illusion. As he says, Thus we call a belief an illusion when wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation, while disregarding its relation to reality. Such a view, however, does not apply to higher forms of religions, though Freud will not admit a religion based on philosophical truths, Now, if the traditional so called religion be the object of the Freud's criticism there is nothing to dispute, but as one goes through the pages of the. Future of An Illusion, one finds him denouncing religion as such. He paints in guy colors the picture of society without religion, established purely on scientific grounds. The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to man, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief, at first only of the obsolete and objectionable expressions of the same, then of its fundamental assumptions also. In these words Freud clearly rejects all religion.
Such a view is based on the assumption of the antagonism of religion and science, Yet, not many thoughtful persons have seriously discarded religion. The conclusion of his Future of An Illusion, seems out of date, when Freud says, No, science is no illusion. But it would bean illusion to suppose that we could get anywhere else what it cannot give us. The explanation of the origin of the higher values of human life has been especially inadequate. Genesis is not a criterion of validity. Even if religion originates in the return to the repressed wish for the father, or a sense of guilt, that is no argument against its value for spiritual regeneration of man, nor against the reality of its object. The history of religion clearly shows a development, an evolution in its more and more subtle forms. As religion grows in spirituality, it becomes more and more free from dross. Freud's explanation is an over-simplification of the phenomena. The philosophical, ethical and even the higher emotional aspects have been either missed or explained away.
|
| 2.41000 | Criticism of Freudian Approach Freud's approach is too analytic, utilitarian and pragmatic. As he says, There is no appeal beyond reason. And if the truth of religious doctrines is dependent on an inner experience which beam witness to the truth, what is one to make of the many people who do not have that rare experience? Though the rejection of via negativa is in tune with the consciousness of our age, the denial of the truth of mystic intuition is unwarranted. Reason, whether in science or philosophy, works on the fundamental, postulates which are supplied by intuition and of which the most comprehensive is the mystic one. Mysticism is the acme of all religion. We only need to universalize it. Return to Index |
| 2.50000 | Materialism |
| 2.50010 | What is Materialism? Materialism, as is clear by the name, is the philosophical doctrine that all is matter and matter is all. Thus, this philosophical doctrine is exactly opposite to that of spiritualism or idealism according to which, matter has no existence. Materialism has been known since ancient times and even today many philosophers believe in it. Return to Index |
| 2.50100 | Greek Materialism In ancient Greece, the philosopher Democritus and his teacher Leucippus advocated materialistic philosophy. According to Democritus the body is made of innumerable material particles. The chemical structure of different bodies is the same and they differ only in external forms. Democritus does not believe in any purpose in the world. Regarding the question of purpose in the world, materialism is mechanism. The motion required in the making of different objects is already present in the atom constituting them. According to Democritus, not only things but also the souls are made of atoms, not only things but also the souls are made of atoms, the only difference being that the atoms constituting souls are refined and smooth. After Democritus, Epicurus advocated a materialistic philosophy. The ideas of Epicurus are found in the poems of the Roman poet Lucretius. Return to Index |
| 2.50200 | Materialism in Europe Materialistic philosophers were presented by Thomas Hobbes in England, J. O. L.. Mettne, Denis Diderot, Baron, P. D. Holbach and Cabanis in France, Karl Vogt, J. Moleschott, L. Buchner and Earnest Haeckel in Germany. The definition of materialism as presented by Newton is considered to be most satisfactory. Bertrand Russell has presented this definition in these words:
The Newtonian system started with schematic simplicity... is an follows. There is an absolute space, composed of points, and an absolute time, composed of instants. There are particles of matter, each of which persists through all time and occupies a point at each instant.
The explanation advanced by Newton was gradually found to be inadequate and hence rejected. In the modern times, the analysis of atom has presented a new picture of nature in / which the matter as explained by materialistic philosophers hardly finds any place. In fact, as a contemporary philosopher has pointed out, we know too much of matter to be materialists any more.
|
| 2.51000 | Characteristics of Materialism The above historical review of the development of materialism shows its following characteristics: |
| 2.51010 | Matter is the basic substance in the universe. As has been already pointed out, according to the materialists, matter is the basic substance in cosmos. Matter has motion in it. This matter and its motion constitute all the things and living beings and mind in the world. |
| 2.51020 | There is no qualitative difference. As has been pointed out in the explanation of materialism given by Newton the materialists do not accept any qualitative difference between different things. All things have been made of atoms and the distinctions seen in them an. due to material atoms. Wherever one finds qualitative d4fferences among different things, they are solely due to quantitative differences. It is hence that in scientific experiments electrical and mechanical movements can be converted into one another. |
| 2.51030 | Life is a modified form of matter. According to the materialists the living beings are made of material atoms. They are born due to biological and chemical process. Thus, the materialists reject the religious theory that the man has been specially created by God, and that life is something quite different from matter. It is because of this materialistic opposition to religious faith that the religious philosophers in the West have condemned it in order to uproot atheism. The materialists claim that though the biologists could not so far discover the structure of life and trace its origin, the successful explanation of many physical processes gives us the hope that in future the principles of birth of life from matter may be discovered. |
| 2.51040 | Mind is a developed form of matter. Mind, according to the materialists, is not a substance nor is there any soul in the body. The unity which we find in human personality is temporary. Everybody has brain in it which is made of material substance. The cessation of this brain leads to disappearance of mental activities. Therefore, there is no mind besides this brain. The materialists present a mechanical explanation of behavior. This is found in the contemporary psychological school of Behaviorism. According to materialists, there is hardly any problem in mind-body relation because in fact mind is brain which is part of the body,. |
| 2.51050 | Mechanism and determinism. Thus regarding the explanation of behavior, the materialists are mechanists, They have no place for free will in their theory. Watson the founder of behaviorism was environmentalist. According to him, whatever man does is absolutely determined by his environment. Each of our activities is a response to a stimulus. Thus, the materialists arc determinists and do not believe in any purpose in evolution. |
| 2.51060 | Materialistic explanation of society. According to materialism, society is material in nature. All relationships arc due to physical contact. In human society, all activities arc performed through physical instruments. The materialists have not accepted even the complex phenomena like war to anything more than mere dance of atoms. |
| 2.51070 | Hedonistic ethics. In morality, the materialists are hedonists. We naturally seek to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. From this psychological fact, the materialists arrived at the moral judgment that we ought to seek pleasure. According to the materialists the only ethics worth the name is hedonistic ethics. A subtle analysis of the different types of human relationships will show that their root causes are in the physical needs, and the influence of environment on them. The materialists have given a mechanical explanation of other values like beauty and truth also. |
| 2.51080 | Substitution of God by matter. As has been already pointed out, materialists are atheists According to them, God is a creation of man's mind. There is no need of any God to explain the creation of the world because this can be done on the basis of physical laws. If there is a creator it is nothing other than matter. In fact, the attributes described in God by religious persons have been alluded to matter by the materialists. Thus, the material substance is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, beginningless, creator, omniscient, ultimate good and the source of everything. It is the true, the good and the beautiful.
Return to Index |
| 2.51100 | In the modern times, the materialist philosophy has found wide circulation because it explains the world through physical laws and also because its ideas are realistic, practical and pleasant to hear. Not much intelligence is required to understand the materialistic explanation of the world. There is no dualism in it and one gets success i1i following its principles in everyday life.
Return to Index |
| 2.52000 | Arguments in Support of Materialism The materialist philosophers have advanced several arguments in support of their contentions. Of these the main arguments are as follows: |
| 2.52010 | Supported by perception and experiment. Whatever we perceive in our everyday life appears to be due to matter. Besides matter the self and God are not objects of perception. The scientific discoveries through experimental procedure have supported the materialistic explanation of the world and the life. And where scientific discoveries have failed to conclusively prove anything, it is hoped that in future the invention of more subtle instruments might lead to the achievements of this goal.
Return to Index |
| 2.52020 | Simplest explanation. It is a scientific principle that in the explanation of anything categories should not be unnecessarily multiplied and that the simplest explanation is the best. For example, in his explanation of human behavior, the psychologist uses the same principles which are utilized in the explanation of animal behavior and does not think it necessary to bring in any new principles. In the simplest explanation we leave everything which is not proved by experience. Therefore, being the simplest and most real explanation of the universe and different natural phenomena materialistic explanation should be considered to be the best.
Return to Index |
| 2.52030 | Mental phenomena are mere modifications of physical phenomena. It has been proved by many scientific discoveries that mental phenomena are the results of physical activities or the activity of brain. Modern psychologists try to give a psychological explanation of mental phenomena. This proves materialistic hypothesis.
Return to Index |
| 2.52040 | Support by comparative physiology. The materialistic contentions have been supported by comparative physiology. According to comparative physiology, the development of our mind takes place along with that of nervous system. If we study the brains of animals of different species we find that as we study the brains of animals of different species we find that as we move to higher levels, the size and complexity of the brain increases. Thus, in comparison with other animals man's brain is bigger in size, heavier and more complex proportionate to his body. It is hence that man has maximum brain power in animal kingdom. Among human beings again, the more intelligent a man is, the more complex is his brain. Besides, it has been noticed that physical injuries to different parts of the brain result in the disappearance of different types of mental powers partially or wholly. Many scientific discoveries have pointed out to the localization of mental functions in the brain. All this goes to prove that the hypothesis of the existence of a mind apart from the brain in untenable and mental activities have their origin in the brain.
Return to Index |
| 2.52050 | Support by theory of conservation of energy. According to the scientific principle of conservation of energy, the quantum of energy in the physical world remains constant. Different types of physical changes change only the form of physical energy, which does not increase or decrease by these physical changes. Thus, according to this theory, the mental activities should not be separated from physical activities.
Return to Index |
| 2.52060 | Support by the theory of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, current in the modern time, life has born out of matter. In the per-historic age material things preceded the advent of life. This evolutionary theory supports materialistic contentions.
Return to Index |
| 2.53000 | Criticism of Materialism In spite of the above mentioned arguments given in favor of materialism, the theory has been rejected by many philosophers. The main arguments in this connection ire as follow: |
| 2.53010 | Rejection on the Basis of Modern Physics. Though the materialists have tried to support their theory with the findings in physics, modem physics does not support the existence of matter. The analysis of matter has led to the conclusion that it is formed of energy whose nature is not known to us. Again, researches in the physics of atom have shown that the movement of electrons and protons in an atom is not mechanical and predetermined and therefore not subject to prediction.
Return to Index |
| 2.53020 | Rejection by psychological and social sciences. The materialists have tried to support their contentions by means of physics without any reference to psychological and social science. These sciences along with philosophical sciences have now rejected the mechanistic explanation of psychological and social phenomena. This leads to rejection of materialistic theory.
Return to Index |
| 2.53030 | Rejection by theory of evolution. Though the materialists have tried to support their theory by the theory of evolution, a deeper analysis will show that in fact evolutionary theory condemns materialistic hypothesis because according to the materialists the matter is eternal and absolute and no development takes place in it. According to the materialists, all change is determined by a pre-conceived scheme. This view is against evolutionary principle in which new elements evolve on new levels. Thus either the materialist can advocate materialism or he can support evolution, he cannot do both.
Return to Index |
| 2.53040 | Difference of opinion regarding the nature of matter. The materialist philosophers have themselves presented different explanations regarding the nature of matter. Some people believe in three elements in the beginning of creation; the material atoms, space and time. Here also there is a difference of opinion whether the atoms are active or inactive. For example, according to the Greek philosopher, Democritus, the atoms are active while according to ancient Indian materialists the atoms are inactive. Thus, while according to some materialists there is motion in the atoms, according to others, the motion is outside the atoms. Secondly, where as some materialist philosophers think all the motion of atoms to be pre-determined, according to others, everything is accidental in this world. Again, some other philosophers adopt a middle path between absolute determinism and absolute accidentalism, according to which though the world generally moves by mechanical laws, there are some accidental factors working in it.
Return to Index |
| 2.53050 | Absence of perception in support of mailer. Though the materialist thinkers seek to support their theory by observation in the world but a deeper analysis will show that the matter itself cannot be proved by perception because it is not subject to it. The materialist philosophers do not accept the existence of anything which is not perceived, then how can they establish the existence of matter?
Return to Index |
| 2.53060 | Refutation from the principle of conservation of energy. The principle of conservation of energy is a postulate which has not been proved by testimony. Then, how can the materialists base their philosophy on the foundation of such a principle? Modern psychologists do not have one opinion whether the mental and physical processes are one or two. If these are considered to be different the principle of conservation of energy does not prove materialism.
Return to Index |
| 2.53070 | Absence of synthesis between unity and multiplicity. By admitting the creation of the universe by atoms materialists give more importance to multiplicity than unity. Thus, no object made of atoms can have real unity. On the other hand, by admitting the atoms to be undivided units the materialists have been unable to leave the idea of unity. Thus, in their philosophy, the relation of unity and multiplicity has not been properly defined.
Return to Index |
| 2.53080 | If intelligence is the function of the mind how can the intellectual laws explain the world? According to the materialists, the world can be explained in terms of mathematical and mechanical laws. The laws of mathematics are intellectual and do not appear to be exactly operating in the physical universe. Then how can the materialist philosopher explain the world in terms of mathematical laws. The fact is that the intellectual laws can explain the world only when the ultimate reality is intellectual in nature. On the other hand, the materialists consider it to be material in nature.
Return to Index |
| 2.53090 | Matter is different from the atoms. On the one hand the materialist philosophers attribute all the qualities of God to matter and on the other hand they admit the existence of innumerable atoms at the root of creation in the world. Both these things are contradictory in nature because if matter has the qualities of God it is different from the innumerable atoms.
Return to Index |
| 2.53010 | Argument by Hegel. Criticizing materialism the German philosopher Hegel has pointed out that even if it is admitted that mind has its origin in matter we must admit that mind was already implicit in matter because whatever is not implicit in a thing cannot originate from it. Therefore, in fact, the materialists must admit that the mind was always present in matter in an implicit form and only became explicit later on. And this admission will refute materialism.
Return to Index |
| 2.53011 | Distinction between mental and physical activities. Modern psychological discoveries have shown that while there is much parallelism between the mental and physical activities all the mental activities cannot be explained on the basis of physical activities. Therefore, it is difficult to consider mind and body as the same substance. Mind has many characteristics which are not found in the matter. As Indian philosophers have shown, on can control his body by controlling the mind though it is not possible to fully control the mind by merely controlling the body. Thus, in the attempt to control mind or body one should proceed both ways.
Return to Index |
| 2.53012 | Mechanical laws are not applicable in human sphere. Freedom of will is characteristic of man. It is the basis of ethics and religion. Therefore, the processes of human world cannot be explained by means of mechanical laws. This fact has been proved by discoveries in social sciences as well. For example, the mechanical principles of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest do not exactly apply in human society. It is characteristic of man that whereas he is influenced by the environment, he also influences it. Therefore, a materialistic explanation of the human world is one-sided.
Return to Index |
| 2.53013 | Purpose cannot be explained on the basis of materialism. As has been already pointed out the modern scientist is not in favor of a mechanical explanation of the world. If change is merely an accident or the mechanical process it does not serve any purpose of evolution. Therefore, the purposivist philosophers condemn materialism. In fact, it is difficult to give a final answer to the question whether the world has any purpose or not but there are definitely some pragmatic advantages in accepting purpose in place of blind accidents.
Return to Index |
| 2.530134 | Materialism hits at the root of faith in values. The greatest argument against materialism is that it hits at the root of our cherished values and such a philosophy can not be acceptable to us. In the words of Patrick, Life is much more real, so are love and desire and longing and poetry and friends and society and work and play and beauty. Just what do we mean by the word reality when we say that matter and atoms are more real than these other things? Browning's line:Sun trader, I believe in God and truth, meets with more response than the legend of the materialist who says, I believe in mass particles in motion.Why not say that the interesting things in life are the real things? The fact is that even if other arguments are left aside materialism ought to be rejected on this ground alone, that it does not provide any solid foundation for our values and on the other hand presents a picture of the world in which there is no place for our cherished values. Therefore, in our time the materialist philosophy should have only a historical importance. Return to Index |
| 2.60000 | Naturalism |
| 2.60010 | Distinction from Materialism The discoveries in physics and other physical sciences in our age have proved that a materialistic explanation of the world is far from being adequate. In the field of physics recent discoveries have rejected the concept of matter all together. There is nothing like material substance in this world. On the ether hand, the modern scientists explain the natural phenomena on the basis of energy, motion, natural laws and causal relations. Thus, naturalism has taken the place of materialism. Naturalism, therefore, is a modified form of materialism. Return to Index |
| 2.60100 | What is Naturalism? Naturalism, as is clear by its name, explains all the natural phenomena on the basis of natural laws. According to this view, Nature itself is the ultimate reality. Nature has been explained by means of motion and energy. The different phenomena in nature occur due to the motion and waves of electricity. Naturalism also accepts the principle of motion. It is also known as energism because of its acceptance of energy. According to energism. all the natural things are only different forms of energy. Return to Index |
| 2.60200 | Positivism Naturalism is also known as positivism. Positivism means that the natural phenomena come with in scope of some or the other positive sciences and can be explained by means of scientific laws. In modern times, positivism was established by a French thinker August Comte. The nature of atom has been analyzed in our time. Therefore, modern scientists do not believe in atomism. By the analysis of atom it has been found that it is not made of matter but consists of energy and its motion.
Thus, the concept of matter has been rejected due to the analysis of atom. This analysis has also led to the refutation of mechanism and determinism, because it has been found that motion in an atom cannot be absolutely predicated. There are electrons and protons in an atom which are organized on the pattern of our solar system. These electrons and protons are always active, and as has been already pointed out, the scientists have so far failed to discover definite laws of their motion and there accepted it as unpredictable.
|
| 2.60300 | Physicalism In the beginning the naturalists believed that the different natural phenomena can be explained on the basis of physics and chemistry. Modern naturalists distinguished between the laws operating in life and those determining the vegetation and immovable things. Therefore, the fields of psychology and biology has been separated from that of physics and chemistry. According to modern naturalism, there is not quantitative but also qualitative difference in different levels of evolution and no new level can be explained by the laws applicable to the level preceding it.
Naturalism is also a type of physicalism. Therefore, there is no place for soul, God or other world in it nor does it believe in freedom of will, though some philosophers have tried to prove freedom of will as scientific on the basis of the refutation of determinism in the structure of atoms. Because of its being physicalism, naturalism has been the target of all the objections which have been leveled against physicalism.
|
| 2.60400 | Mechanism Because naturalism support science or is based on it, its form changes along with new discoveries indifferent sciences. Therefore, some philosophers prefer to call their naturalistic philosophy by the name mechanism. But the claim of mechanism to be universally applicable has also been rejected now-a-days. According to naturalism, the natural laws are universal and necessary. Thus, the naturalists believe in the principle of uniformity of Nature. According to it the different natural phenomena occur mechanically without any purpose. There is no power of any God or other being behind the natural laws. Thus, naturalism leads to atheism. An example of naturalism is the evolutionary theory of Darwin which is believed by many scientists but which cannot be applied to human life without raising many difficulties. Return to Index |
| 2.61000 | Criticism of Naturalism The above mentioned discussion of naturalism shows that the following objections can be raised against it: |
| 2.61010 | No definite meaning of Nature. Different natural philosophers do not give any one definite meaning to nature and have presented different views in this connections. Thus even the basic concept of Nature is not clear in Naturalism. |
| 2.61020 | Changing. Naturalism remains changing along with changes in the field of science. Thus, is has nothing of its own and becomes a mere hand maid of science. |
| 2.61030 | Physicalism. Because Naturalism is a kind of physicalism all the arguments raised against physicalism are applicable to it. |
| 2.61040 | Opposed to Faith. The naturalistic explanation of the universe is opposed to religious faith and ideas. Therefore, it cannot explain our religious experiences. |
| 2.61050 | Relativism. It is not proper on the part of naturalists to believe that the natural laws are necessary and universal because they are merely probable. |
| 2.61060 | Energism. Naturalism is energism but it does not explain as to what is this energy? If we accept this energy to be conscious in nature, there will be no dispute between naturalism and idealism due in spite of having no argument in the favor of materialism, naturalism does not accept this energy to be conscious.
Return to Index |
| 2.62000 | Conclusion
The above discussion shows that naturalism is not more satisfactory than materialism and mechanism.
Return to Index |
| 2.70000 | Mechanism |
| 2.71010 | Descartes's View Mechanism, as is clear by its name, presents a mechanical explanation of all the phenomena in the universe. In modern Western philosophy, mechanism had its beginning in the thought of French philosopher Descartes. According to him, philosophy must be exact like mathematics and therefore it should mechanically explain the world. All the things in the world other than soul and God have their origin in matter and its motion. All the things are mere modifications of matter. In the words of Descartes, If I get matter I can create the whole universe. Return to Index |
| 2.71020 | View of Spinoza Whereas Descartes does not explain the soul mechanically Spinoza has done so and he does not give any freedom to the soul. According to Spinoza, man and his actions are as much determined by mechanical laws as the phenomena of the physical world. There is no purpose in the universe. Substance and its modifications, conscious and unconscious; all types of phenomena are governed by mechanical laws just as in the field of geometry a triangle is governed by its attributes. Return to Index |
| 2.71030 | View of Herbert Spencer Beside Descartes and Spinoza, Herbert Spencer presents a scientific mechanism. According to Spencer, there is an unknown reality in the world whose forms are the matter, motion and energy. It is through these forms that the whole world has developed. In the beginning matter was pervading the whole universe in the forms of clouds of gases. These clouds were gradually solidified and created in the solar system and planets. After our planet gradually cooled down it developed oceans, continents, rivers and mountains. Then gradually life originated on this planet, and in due course evolved living beings with mind and consciousness. This was the most complex form of the evolution of matter. Return to Index |
| 2.71040 | Theory of Charles Darwin But the most mechanical explanation of the world has been presented by Charles Darwin. He presented mechanical laws of biological evolution. According to Darwin, the evolution of living beings in our world happened according to mechanical laws and the hypothesis of any external power like God to explain it is unwarranted. Thus mechanism explains every change in Nature by means of mechanical laws. Nature follows certain laws and acts like a huge machine. These laws arc known as natural laws and these are responsible for all the changes in Nature. This change hardly requires any external power for its examination because it has no purpose in it. Everything originates in material substance. Thus the mechanists are materialists. According to materialism all living beings have evolved out of matter. Not only this but all the culture, religion, art, literature etc., found in human society have developed out of material atoms due to certain mechanical laws. Return to Index |
| 2.72000 | Criticism of Mechanism In the modern times, mechanist interpretation of the universe is not accepted even in the field of science. In the field of philosophy, the following objections have been raised against it: |
| 2.72100 | Mechanistic explanation is not satisfactory. Mechanists have failed to justify their claim that their explanation of the world is the most satisfactory because it does not explain phenomena peculiar to biological and human levels. The fact is that the mechanistic explanation is applicable to a very limited field of natural phenomena and most of it cannot be satisfactorily explained by it.
Return to Index |
| 2.72200 | Mechanism does not explain system in Nature. It has been pointed out that the structure of Nature is so much complex and systematic that it does not seem proper to accept it as a creation of some material substance. In our daily life, we imagine the presence of intellect even behind a minor, complex and systematic activity. Then what objection can be there in imagining the presence of a conscious power at the back of our so much complex and systematic Nature. In fact, the mechanist philosopher Spencer has admitted that the motion and energy of Matter is directed by some unknown power. The natural phenomena can be explained more satisfactorily by accepting this unknown power to be conscious instead of assuming it as blind.
Return to Index |
| 2.72300 | Mechanism does not explain the world of living beings. As has been already pointed out, the mechanical laws cannot explain the phenomena of the world of living beings because there arc certain fundamental distinctions between the mechanism and the living beings. Of these the main are as follows: |
| 2.72310 | Creation. While machine is the creation of man, living being is the creation of Nature. |
| 2.72320 | Relation. While there is external relation in different parts of the machine, the different organs of a living organism are internally related. |
| 2.72330 | Operation. While a machine is operated by some external power living being moves by his own internal motivation. |
| 2.72340 | Purpose. While the machine has no purpose of its own, the living being achieves his own purpose through his different activities. |
| 2.72350 | Procreation. While there is no procreation in the machine, procreation is characteristic of a living being. |
| 2.72351 | The above mentioned distinctions between a machine and a living organism make it amply clear that the two should not be confused. It has been proved by modern scientific findings that the physical and mental activities of man cannot be explained in terms of mechanical laws. Not only the social sciences like sociology, psychology, economics, aesthetics, ethics, etc., but even the physical sciences like biology and botany are not in favor of mechanical explanation of the different phenomena of the world. Therefore a mechanical explanation of the phenomena in animal and human world is untenable.
Return to Index |
| 2.72400 | Mechanical explanation will not be possible even in the future. Presenting a mechanical explanation of human behavior, the psychologist Watson has argued that with the invention of more subtle instruments in future it will be possible to explain even those activities to be mechanical which have not been proved to be so until now. Similarly, other mechanists have also hoped that in future scientific discoveries might unravel more facts in their favor. But the discoveries in social and physical sciences referred to above in the last fifty years have presented facts which go to contradict the claims of mechanical principles to be universally applicable. Therefore, the hope of the mechanists that in future they might gather more evidence in their favor appears to be without foundation.
Return to Index |
| 2.72500 | Mechanism has failed in biology and psychology. According to mechanists just as mechanical principles have been successful in explaining different phenomena in the field of physics and chemistry, similarly in future they will be able to successfully explain biological and psychological facts. This argument is fallacious in so far as it confuses the qualitative distinctions between the physicochemical and psycho-biological levels with quantitative distinctions. The biological and psychological levels differ from the physical and chemical levels not only in quantity but also in quality. Therefore, the two cannot be explained by the same laws.
Return to Index |
| 2.72600 | Causal relationship does not work necessarily in all rite phenomena of' the universe. Discoveries in the field of different sciences have proved that the causal laws are not invariable and it is not necessary that whatever happens in the future is a result of present conditions. As has been proved by many philosophers there is much novelty in future. Every new level is not merely a resultant of the past but has much novelty in it. The mechanical explanation, therefore, is far from being adequate.
Return to Index |
| 2.72300 | Conclusion The above mentioned arguments against mechanism prove that this principle of the explanation of the world is successful both in the field of philosophy and science and even in future it can not be successful. Return to Index |
| 2.80000 | Teleology |
| 2.80010 | Conflict between Mechanism and Teleology In the explanation of the phenomena in the world one finds two mutually conflicting views-mechanism and teleology. According to mechanism, the phenomena of the world occur mechanically, while according to teleology, there is some purpose behind them. Both these conflicting philosophical views have been prevalent since ancient times. And arguments in favor and against have been presented from both the sides. The teleologists believe in a conscious purpose working in the world and try to prove that everything is happening for the realization of this purpose.
Though modern scientific discoveries have presented much material against mechanistic explanation, its greatest disvalues, whether the world has any purpose in it or not is very difficult if not impossible to prove conclusively. In fact, the understanding of the final purpose of the universe is beyond the limited intellect of man. In such a situation, he has to choose between mechanism and teleology. The criterion of such a choice will be to find out as to which of these presents a more satisfactory explanation of natural phenomena and also a world view in which our cherished values may get a proper place. From this pint of view teleology definitely proves to be better than mechanism. And when none of these can be finally proved it will be better to accept teleology because it makes human life better, supports our faith in life and presents an environment in which we get more motivations and energy to attain our cherished values of truth, the good and the beautiful.
|
| 2.80100 | Consistency of the Law of Nature with Teleology The mechanists have claimed that teleology is inconsistent with the laws of nature. The law of nature refers to a law which is necessary and universal but, as has been proved by many scientific discoveries and accepted by modern psychologists and philosophers, no law can be said to be necessary and universal. Therefore it is wrong to present a mechanical explanation of natural law. On the other hand, the natural law is consistent with teleology. Teleology does not mean that there is no law governing the sequence of facts. In it also the facts are ordered and lawful but they are not mechanical. Therefore, the natural law and the order in the universe do not refute purpose in the cosmos. Return to Index |
| 2.81000 | Contradictions in Mechanism and Teleology In the history of philosophy, the followers of mechanism and teleology have been constantly waging a war of arguments against each other. At the root of this constant conflict there are some mutually contradictory characteristics in these two philosophical viewpoints. Of these the important characteristics arc as follows: |
| 2.81010 | Explanation. While mechanism presents a mechanical explanation of the world, teleology presents teleological explanation. |
| 2.81020 | Distinction in Levels. While according to mechanism, there is only quantitative distinction between different levels, teleology also accepts qualitative distinctions. |
| 2.81030 | World of living beings. While mechanism gives a mechanical explanation of the world of living beings, teleology explains it Ideologically. |
| 2.81040 | Nature. While according to mechanism nature is a huge machine, teleology believes it to be conscious. |
| 2.81050 | Values. While mechanism lacks qualitative distinctions between values, teleology presents such a distinction. |
| 2.81060 | Organism. While mechanism does not distinguish between a machine and an organism, teleology has distinguished between the two. |
| 2.81070 | PhiIosophy. While mechanism is based on materialistic philosophy teleology is generally supported by idealist and spiritualist philosophers.
Return to Index |
| 2.81100 | Conclusion The above mentioned distinctions between mechanism and teleology make it clear that one has to choose either of them. As has been already pointed out, none of these can be finally proved. Therefore, teleology is definitely a better alternative. Return to Index |
| 2.82000 | Is There a Purpose in Creation? In the creation of the world, a question arises whether it is mechanical or purposive. In other words, is there a purpose in nature? What is the purpose of creation? Is ii a mere human concept? This can also be put in the form of the question as to which of the two theories do we rind more satisfactory? In the history of philosophy different philosophers have thought over the purpose of the world and given arguments in its favor. The main arguments are as follows: Return to Index |
| 2.82010 | In the Nature there is harmony between the means and end. If we look to the nature around us, we shall see that there is a harmony between the means and end in it. For example, man takes in oxygen and exhales carbon-dioxide. Thus, we need oxygen. Now, suppose if there is no means to increase oxygen or to decrease carbon-dioxide will it not make human life impossible? But nature has arranged things in such a way that the supply of oxygen is kept constant and carbon-dioxide is reduced. In contrast to living beings, the vegetables, plants and trees take in carbon-dioxide and give out oxygen. Thus, there is a wonderful harmony between the animal kingdom and the vegetable world. This harmony supports the contention that there is purpose in nature.
Return to Index |
| 2.82020 | Evidence from natural adaptation. One finds different types of living beings and vegetation in different geographical environments. The structure and form of living beings and vegetation is in adaptation with the particular geographical environment. For example, the color of the skin of most of the animals and birds, insects and reptiles is such that they cannot be all at once detected in their natural environment and therefore, escape the eyes of the enemy. The color of the skin of a lion is like the sun coming through the leaves. In the snow clad polar regions, the white bear cannot be detected in the snow. In the hills and colder regions there are long and profuse hairs on the skin of animals which protect them from cold. In the desert the camel can live without water for days together and his neck is long enough to reach the leaves of high trees. A question arises here as to whether this harmony in nature and living beings is merely mechanical? Is there no purpose in it? The answer is clear that this physical adaptation makes life protected and comfortable. Therefore at least Nature has a purpose in making life more protected and comfortable by means of natural adaptation. This shows purpose in nature.
Return to Index |
| 2.82030 | Evidence from sequence in cosmic evolution. If we look to the different levels of evolution in the universe, we may find a sequence in it. Grossly, in the beginning of evolution, first of all there were material things, gradually evolved vegetation and then finally living beings. By the gradual evolution in living beings, man has evolved. In this sequence of evolution, it can be noted that every next level is more complex, subtle and refined. It is clear that in the evolution of Nature, there is a tendency from simple to complex, gross to subtle and unrefined to refined. This is the purpose in Nature and the testimony for it is the sequence in evolution.
Return to Index |
| 2.82040 | Evidence from natural select on and survival of the fittest. The purpose of nature in the realm of living beings, appears to be the survival of the fittest so more and more fit living beings might evolve. This purpose is served by natural selection. By natural selection is meant the principle that Nature selects the fittest living beings to live. Whenever there is some natural calamity the highest toll of death is seen among the weak and maladjusted animals. If we look at the advent of different species of living beings, we find as if Nature has always been experimenting to evolve the fittest living beings on this earth.
In the beginning there were huge dinosaurs and mammoths on this planet. They could not move easily because of their heavy bodies. Hence, whenever some natural calamity occurred or the food material was finished they could not easily move from one place to another. This resulted in their extinction. Thus, many species of living beings disappeared because they could not adjust with their natural environment. This is the process of natural selection. Even now, whenever there occur natural calamities like storms, heavy rains, earth quakes, floods and famines, the maximum number of deaths is found among weak living beings because the purpose of nature is the survival of the fittest.
|
| 2.82050 | Purpose in physical evolution. Many scientific discoveries have proved that before the evolution of living beings the physical universe itself passed through various stages of evolution to become a fit place for life. Our own planet was very hot in the beginning and no life was possible on it. In the course of time, it gradually cooled down which resulted into high mountains and deep oceans. It rained heavily and the low surfaces were filled with water. Thus, in millions of years, our planet realized its present form suitable for living beings of different varieties. This physical evolution makes it quite clear that at the root of it is the purpose to make the physical environment more and more suitable for the existence of living beings.
Return to Index |
| 2.82060 | Different phenomena in biological field are mutually complementary. One finds many types of interactions among living beings such as conflict, competition, cooperation, coordination, integration, etc., which determine their mutual relationships. These interactions are both integrative and disintegrative and yet both these types of interactions are mutually complementary. For example, love and hate, friendship and enmity, jealousy and sympathy are felt even more acutely at the face of each other. What is the importance of love, if one does not know hatred? Friendship is needed because there are enemies also. One requires cooperation in the face of competition.
Similarly, all human relationships involve a two way process. Thus, the mutual relationships of husband and wife, parents and children, teacher and taught, ruler and ruled, male and female, are mutually complementary. A lot of literature has been created on the basis of the complementary nature of male and female, and this fact can be realized by any male or female, in his or her personal life. It may be that all this wonderful arrangement is accidental or it may be that it is purposive. Of these two alternatives, the second definitely appears to be more feasible. The observation of these mutually complementary relationships in human society spontaneously gives rise to faith in purpose in Nature, and it becomes difficult to accept the idea that all this is merely mechanical and accidental.
|
| 2.82070 | Testimony from organic structure. Though the mechanists have tried to explain organic structure in terms of mechanical laws but a deeper thought will make it difficult to believe that this organic structure has been made without any purpose. The different organs in an organic structure are internally related and together fulfill the purpose of the total organism. Just look at any child engaged in play and you will find that the different organs of his body wonderfully adjust with one another in carrying out the child's impulses. These different organs are never in conflict with each other. It is clear that organic structure is purposive. At least the different organs of animal body serve the purpose of satisfying his needs. This is also proved by the reference to the structure of different living beings in the context of natural adaptation. Can any scientist make a machine like human organism? No. simply because the organic structure is not mechanical.
Return to Index |
| 2.82080 | The causal principle itself exhibits purpose. The mechanists have argued by the necessary and universal nature of the causal principle in refuting purpose in Nature. But a more intimate observation will show that the causal law itself supports purpose in Nature rather than refuting it. According to the law of causality the different phenomena in Nature are not accidental but bound b:' a law of cause and effect. This law shows a system in natural phenomena. This system itself is the purpose in creation, and it has been acknowledged by all the sciences.
Return to Index |
| 2.82090 | Evidence from the vertical movement of universe. Patrick has presented an argument in favor of teleology. Most of the thinkers admit that in the world there is not only change but vertical progress. Now, what is the cause of this vertical movement? According to the mechanists, its cause is the pushing onwards of the universe by mechanical powers. According to teleologists, it is the attraction of spiritual power, purpose and ideals.
As to which of these two alternatives is more satisfactory can be determined by our own experience. Why do we sometimes work so hard to achieve some purpose? Why does a student burn the mid-night oil in the pursuit of his studies? Why is an artist lost in the world of art in complete oblivion of the real world? It is all this simply because a scientist, a student and an artist are pushed onwards by mechanical powers' From our own experience, we know that this is a far fetched idea. The student works hard to achieve knowledge and success in the examination. The artist works to create beauty while the scientist toils to discover new facts. At least on the human level, the vertical movement everywhere is due to the attraction of ideals, values and goals. Therefore, the hypothesis of purpose in the vertical movement in nature is more adequate than the mechanist's alternative.
|
| 2.82100 | Conclusion The above mentioned arguments in favor of teleology prove that it is not a product of our imagination, but a fact of nature. There is purpose in creation. The world is not mechanical but purposive. The teleological explanation of the phenomena of the world is far more satisfactory than the machinist's explanation. Return to Index |
| 2.83000 | Teleology in History of Philosophy In Western philosophy, the teleological viewpoint has been presented in its most developed and systematic form by the German philosopher Hegel. Besides Hegel, the British philosopher T. H. Green, F. H. Bradley and Bernard Bosanquet have very well presented the teleological view point., Most of the modern teleologists believe the purpose in Creation to be internal. In ancient times sonic philosophers considered it to be external. According to this view, there is external relationship between the creator and creation as that between a watch and watchmaker. The watch maker is outside the watch. He makes the watch according to his own purpose and the watch carries out this purpose mechanically, The greatest difficulty in such a view of purpose is the absence of relationship between the creator and creation and that in this relationship the former is considered to be a Deus Ex Mechina. Secondly, it makes. God limited because the creation is outside Him. The hypothesis of internal purpose is, therefore, more tenable. This internal purpose has been accepted by Hegel, Bradley and other modern Western philosophers. One finds purpose at different levels of evolution, if there is an internal purpose in Nature, though this purpose manifests in different forms at different levels. The philosophers, like Samuel Alexander have presented a realistic and materialistic conception of purpose but most of the ideologist philosophers are idealists and spiritualists. In India, barring Charvaka philosophers, the philosophers from the Vedas to our own time have admitted a purpose in creation. |
| 2.84000 | Conclusion Though neither Mechanism nor Teleology can be finally proved but so far as human life and values are concerned, the teleological explanation is definitely better than mechanical alternative. And because ultimately the purpose of philosophy is to present a world view in which the realization of our cherished values may be all the more possible, the teleological explanation is a better explanation of the enigma of creation. |
General Reference:
Thomistic Philosophy: God
Hegel: Philosophy and History as Theology
Skeptics' Dictionary: God