Intelligent Designer of the Universe - Essay Example

Intelligent Designer of the Universe: Discussion Jean Jacques Rousseau and David Hume expended their philosophical reflections to explore the question of God in ways that converge and diverge on many concepts. They probed into the possibility of the existence, and nature of an intelligent designer of the universe. Their opinions were situated into both rational and phenomenological perceptions but in varying ways. In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar, the Rousseau looks at the question of God through the eyes of fictional characters that create hypothetical discussions that are meant towards moments of epiphany, or the awakening of their seeming ignorant selves into the glorious knowledge about the creator. Hume on the other hand projects his thoughts on the subject of God through the minds of the three characters, Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea in his work Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion. Rousseau looks at the problematic existence of man as a symptom that shows he cannot govern himself or protect his kind as well as he should. Implicitly he suggests that only divine order can protect man from self destruction. He traces the development of man from the age primordial barbarity until the modern times and sees through a continuum of strife that needs divine remedy. Rousseau would therefore suggest that the natural order as reflected at the early forms of society is enough proof for the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe. This is because this creative and almighty designer could only make the universe in form of his own image of perfection, peace, tranquility, and perhaps most of all, conflict free. Most probably the philosopher would have imagined the answer of the intelligent designer through his trade mark irony that seems to mock at the Hegelian dialectical progress of society. The progress of mankind as concerns society has moved through history from the epoch when he adjusted himself to his natural setting to a point in time when he wanted to benefit from the same environment. It might be deduced in line with this thinking that this movement preceded alongside the transformation of man’s society from good to evil. The disorders that accompanied man after the societies he created degenerated into skirmishes that resulted from primitive competition and accumulation of nature’s resources would therefore align with the departure of Godliness. The structures of the universe as created by the all-knowing and perfect designer no longer held. Instead in its place was man’s own chaotic world order that could only yield more chaos. Rousseau would therefore defend the possible existence of a perfect designer of the universe with the argument that the current chaos, which afflicts mankind, is direct consequences of man’s own attempt to rival, distort, and replace this grand architectural work of his maker. In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Rousseau suggests that true happiness of man only existed at the ages when he was content with the needs of food, rest, and sex. And that all his problems began the moment he began to appropriate nature as his own property. These forms of occupations quite literally align with the rhythm of natural life. Besides, the intelligent designer as Rousseau argues, did not intent that his creation be appropriated by man. That man was only to live coexist with other forms of life within this grand design and at all times endeavor to keep his place without upsetting the scheme of things. From the disorder that Rousseau argues resulted from this takeover of what belonged to the designer, there resulted chaos. This chaos, according to him, is symptomatic of the corruption that reigned after the fall of nature. It might be argued that man’s weaknesses are deliberately exposed in this discourse by Rousseau so that he might create a Cartesian kind of divide that would reflect the designer’s intelligence and perfection against man’s weaknesses and clumsy pursuits. The kind of weaknesses that Rousseau seeks to expose in the progressive forms of mankind is quite parallel to the vicar’s moment of awakening after the experiences he undergoes in his formative years as a thinker. Comparatively Hume might want to locate his answer to the question of the possibility of the existence of the intelligent designer of the Universe in three dimensions. These are the dimensions that reflect his thoughts through the dialogue of three characters Cleanthes, Demea and Philo. Hume approached the question of God in his work Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion in a dialectic version that sought to cut through the columns of metaphysics towards some clarity of concept. But as shall be argued here, the philosopher concludes with some form of ambivalence that leaves his exact dimensions on the subject lost in dialogue. Perhaps this was Hume’s method of hinting at the problematic nature of this question. The Character Demea insists that there is no possibility of comprehending any particular aspect of God. His argument is that the physical and limited nature of man lacks sufficient tools to navigate the metaphysical terrain that hides the colossal nature of God’s might (Hume 79). Demea argument relies heavily on orthodox Christianity that disallows entry into such matters on accounts of righteous indignations. Cleanses backs up Demea’s standpoint and seeks the analogy of a machine which he says explains the universe to the extent that its perfection presupposes the existence of a perfect inventor. He finds the force of his reflections in empiricism. Demea attempts to prove the intelligence of the designer of the universe also courses through the natural order of things in the world around him (Hume 81). He uses the examples of vegetation and the orderliness of nature to illustrate the certainty in the existence of this intelligent designer. The thrust of Hume’s argument is anchored in the reflections of Philo. This character exposes the fundamental weaknesses in Demean ad Cleanses argument saying that there are never strict reasons to prove or refute the possibility of the existence of the intelligent designer of the universe. Philo argues that Cleanses analogy of the machine cannot hold because the universe and the machine are not completely independent entities since one is apart of the other. Philo also argues that the fact that there exists some order in parts of the universe is not sufficient reason to back the existence of a possible designer. His position is that there is so much evil in the universe that does not imply any aspects of perfection (Hume 57). He adds that drawing from this chaos the true nature of the creator can never really be adjudged as perfect. His position is that id indeed there exists a designer then he must be morally neutral given the flux of moral forces; evil and good that define the universe. Philo however concludes that it is possible to trace a genuine analogous of the God through the body of man and his heart or soul (Hume 63). This position reveals Hume reflection as a kind that acknowledges the existence of a designer of the universe but one that is not ready to ascribe any definite character to this designer. This position exposes him as a critique of orthodox religion that appears to defend some form of straight forward conception of God. Hume would have assigned a dual nature to the designer of the universe given the conflicts he exposes within the supposedly perfect universe but holds back probably to some room to be filled by man’s own flaws. The methods of reflections employed by these two philosophers on the question of the designer of the universe show that the concept still remains a matter of philosophical reflections that is largely governed by the rational and empirical divide. Rousseau creates a definite space to place this problem and proceeds successively towards a possible solution. At the ends of both the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, and the Profession of Faith of a Savoyard, Rousseau enforces his deep seated zeal for the return of the natural order. Hume attempts to answer the question of the existence of God by drawing a wide circumference of reflection so that the all the conflicting positions on the intelligent designer are brought in his philosophical focus and in conflict with each other. At the end of his philosophical exercise he seems only to clarify the problem of the possible existence of an intelligent designer of the universe so that the gap he leaves narrows this task to a probe of the character of this designer if he exists. The quest of the natural order has earned Rousseau the title of a “philosophical Tarzan” by scholars who argue that his position remains untenable and stands against the Hegelian concepts of progress. But if this is the only way through which he believes that man might discover, and reconcile with a grand designer of the universe, then his philosophy enjoys a practical anchorage in many religious systems in which the pursuit for the natural is a fundamental practice. Indeed the Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar seems to perpetuate the same reflections founded in the Discourse of Inequality so that Rousseau is eventually judged as a possible defender of the existence of possibility of a grand designer of the universe. The Vicar’s personal weaknesses that eventually results into his tribulations are meant to expose man’s apparent weaknesses. The force of lust and the tempests that torment his emotions are a symbolically exposed by the philosopher to imply that what ever the station, and occupation, that nature of man is ultimately subject to primitive appetites (Rousseau 250). But Rousseau does not live this preposition at that. He proceeds to offer a kind of hope. Through the thoughts of the philosopher he posits that there is an inner will in man which when cultivated enough might lead him into the glorious light of this intelligent designer of the universe. Rousseau uses the predicament of the Vicar to advance his argument that man’s banal natures can always force him to militate against the grand designs of the intelligent designer. The revelation of the vicar to the young man is symptomatic of the moment of epiphany which he seems to suggest should awaken man’s zeal to pursue the orderly lifestyle as designed by the intelligent designer (Rousseau 263). In his reflection of the free will Rousseau defends the individuality of man and appears to suggest that man only gets corrupted the moment he cedes this individuality to foreign determinants. These determinants have the effect of alienating him from his real self so that he cannot perceive the world with requisite subjectivity. The plan of the universe which Rousseau thinks of as the ideal type is the one he portrays in the state of nature. This universe does not seem to depend on man’s associations. As the intelligent designer perceived of the man’s environment, the concepts of equality must thrive through individuality. The surrendering of man’s will to alternative definitions can only result in his estrangement. Over reliance on stations in life can only belittle man’s image because naturally he should never subscribe to systems outside those designed by the intelligent designer. The free will that makes the Vicar question and realizes many concepts in the world around him becomes the only liberating force (Rousseau 276). Symbolically and literally, Rousseau appears to intend this free will to be the only link between man and this intelligent architect. The conception of the intelligent designer of the universe therefore is situated in the free will. It is a system that must sustain man’s search for the natural delights of life as first created by the intelligent designer. Rousseau might therefore argue that within the fallible nature of man lies the free will which will always act as the surviving continuum that might link up the mind of man to the superstructure of though as designed by the intelligent designer. Theses David Hume philosophical reflection on the possible existence of an intelligent designer of the universe ends up in ambiguity. Whereas the building stages in his work Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion are based on conventional philosophical reflections, the ending argument that the soul and body are analogous to universe does not justify the initial dilemma. Jean Jacques Rousseau’s imagination of the designer of universe and its possible designer is utopia and unrealistic. Although his reflection unites man to a presumed natural past of order, there are evident weaknesses that fail to connect the good order with the intelligent designer. The evident limitations and conventional strengths in the arguments presented in the works of Hume and Rousseau point at a dead end of philosophical reflection regarding the possibility of the intelligent designer of the architect. Probably the position of Demea in Hume’s Concerning Natural Religion might hint at the futility or problematic exercise of uniting meaning in the complex universe. It has been argued that philosophical reflection on the precise nature of the universe ends at the feet of the colossal edifice of metaphysics. But despite these apparent loose ends in the works of Hume and Rousseau, their reflections have a jolting effect that opens up possibilities for growth of more knowledge even if equally controversial. It might perhaps add value if man in his quest concerning the possible existence of the intelligent designer of the universe were to train his focus on the silent light that the Vicar in Rousseau’s Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar says is in every man, and can and does link him up to higher reality. The continued search for the quiet rhythms of the universe might make some significant progress through sustained and constructive critique of the works of Hume and Rousseau. Works Cited Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., 2007. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar. New York: Wildside Press LLC, 2008. Hume, David. Dialogues concerning natural religion. Oxford: Oxford University, 1779. Read More