On Nature: an exercice in logic
If critical thought is seriously lacking amongst the general population, we cannot say that the intellectual elites master it thouroughly. Since we are emotional creatures and not Vulcans, I guess it is understandable that sometimes we fail in our judgement of things. Let it just be no excuse for sitting on our fat brain asses and refrain from all intellectual labour.
It would make sense that our intellect is most lacking where reality would be the source of the strongest cognitive dissonance, where it would pit ourselves against our deep frailties. The «Origin of Things» would be such an exemple. A good portion of us feel disquiet at the idea of having no way to explain why we exist, why things are the way they are, and so on. God or some divinity will usually provide the answer for some, but not all.
In a scientific frame, God cannot be used as an explanation, for God's existence cannot be proved nor disproved. Science has had to look somewhere else for explanations. It quickly found one: «Nature». So nowadays, many of us speak about «Nature» in the same way that others speak about «God», as some sort of omniscient entity with plans and intentions - except with a more down-to-earth aura. So you can have this situation where someone can scorn science but hold a common entitiesque representation of God and Nature, and that one where someone scorns religion and God, but nonetheless holds a entitiesque representation of Nature.
The funniest thing with the last part, is the fact that someone who drapes him/herself in science can still do the very same thing he/she is blaming the religious folks for: creating an entity out of thin air, without any way of proving its existence.
Now, let it be told before I go further: I do not consider the belief in god to be ludicrous in itself. I just insist on the fact that in a scientific frame, there is no way we can prove or disprove its existence. In other words, saying God exists is an act of faith. I also consider myself to be a treehugger. Sunrises and forests and rivers and flowers are sacred to me. I believe it is of the utmost importance to develop ecologist practices. But this Love of «Nature» is an act of faith. It is something emotional that I cannot justify with science - apart from the measurement of the biosphere's status and actual techniques for protecting it.
So let's get on with this exercice in logic.
I often heard:
«Nature's goal is to perpetuate itself». Or «such and such a trait exists in that specimen so that it can better survive». This, ladies and gentlemen, is seen as so obvious, so commonsensical, that my bringing it up will make several people frown and snicker in annoyment. They just cannot see what is wrong with those statements.
Here is, however, what is scientificaly valid : «there is a process, amongst living beings, that allows new generations to appear».
Further frowns? Where's the frigging difference between that and the previous statements? A whole sea of difference, actually, for someone who is beyond mythification of «Nature» in science. That difference lies between «goal» and «effect».
effect = an impact one thing (or process) has
goal = an impact that is sought. It involves a will, a conscious intention of producing a certain effect. Which further involves the existence of an entity.
Proving there is an effect, and proving there is a goal are two distinct steps in analysis.
For instance, when we note that after activation of attribute X, there is effect Y,
we must first make sure there is a causality-effect link between the two. In other terms, we must get rid of all fallacies of the like of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) by verifying if other explanations can be found for effect Y. Once the causality-effect link is clearly established, we can claim that the activation of attribute X has effect Y.
Can we go on and claim the bearer of attribute X used said attribute to achieve effect Y? Noooo, let's curb our enthousiasm and wait a minute. We have to continue our inquiry before being able to claim an actual «goal» was sought. We have to prove the existence of a conscious intention that was activated in that context. If and only if that can be proven, then can we speak of effect Y being a goal.
Ex 1:
A rock falls from a wall and squishes critters.
The falling rock has the effect of squishing critters
but
The falling rock did not entertain the fantasy/goal of squishing critters.
How can I tell?
Because postulating that the rock is endowed with a will of its own and has intentions is magical thought, animism, or a leap of faith.
Ex 2a:
While I'm walking on the grass, my feet are squishing some critters. I know for a fact that my feet are part of a bigger entity whose name is Janik. An intentity who is able to have conscious intentions.
My feet walking on the grass have the effect of squishing critters.
but
The feet's owner - that's me - does not want to squish the critters, because I have not set myself the goal to do so. I am a vegetarian, I love animals, critters included, so do not wish them harm. The critter squishing feet are solely an effect of my walking, not the realization of a goal.
Ex 2b:
Still knowing I am an entity, let's say I do have the goal of squishing critters.
my feet walking on the grass have the effect of squishing critters.
and
the feet's owner - that's me - does want to squish critters. It is a goal I have set myself.
How can we know it was a conscious intention. Well, I know for myself. For others to know, I would either have to tell them or stomp the ground with glee and devotion, displaying non-verbal cultural cues that can be decoded by other members of my culture - which means us being able to communicate with each other.
but
Can we say it was the one and only goal I entertained? Who knows? I could stomp my way to the post office, having both the goal of sending letters and squishing critters. How can you tell? I either have to disclose it to you or you have to ask me - which means us being able to communicate with each other.
Ex 3:
Gravitational forces make it so that celestial bodies (moons, planets, stars, etc.) are organized - instead of just randomly going their way and bumping into each other (some do hit each other, but to a lesser extent).
Graviational forces have the effect of organising celestial bodies.
but
Gravitational forces do not have the goal of organising celestial bodies.
How can I know? Because postulating that gravitational forces have a will of their own is magical thought, science fiction, cosmic animism and a leap of faith.
Astrophysicist, at least, are lucid enough not to go from the description of an effect to the postulation of a goal.
But in social sciences, in psychology and in biology, lots of us do not have any trouble with saying that « 'Nature's 'goal' is to perpetuate herself». In other terms, we postulate, without the least single shread of scientifical evidence, that there is an entity, called Nature, that supervises and comprises all life, that makes plans about how it should proceed in its developments. Science has kicked God out of the lab to let enter an anthropomorphized and romanticized «Nature» in its place. And lots of us do not see it because we are clinging to yet another «origins myth».
Some persons, mildly annoyed, will roll their eyes and say «yeah, yeah, I know goal and effect are not the same thing, but it's not much different. Why split hair in four? Let's move on to something else». No, I'm not making a fuss about a «small detail», I'm not splitting hair in four - as we are saying in french. Effect and goal are two VERY distinct situations. Consider the third example I put forward, to see what I mean. For a physicist to claim that gravitational forces have set themselves the goal of organizing celestial bodies would be seen as the madness that it is. I posit that if lots of people are reluctant to ackowledge that goal and effect involve two distinct realities - even though they are paying some lip service to the correctness of that fact - it is because they cling to an all-encompassing explanation of things. And yes, what I just wrote is the sort of stuff that bursts happy bubles - such as the all planed-out mythified and sacred Heterosexual Destiny for all living beings. Bad me.
Of course, those who really hold the belief that God created life or Nature exists as an entity are free to do so. Who knows, it might be so. However, we have to acknowledge that such a claim is a leap of faith, nothing more.
Bursting the all mythical explanation of things can have a positive effect, though. It gives us more freedom. It allows us to see sacredness in consensual Love and desire, whatever its form, without it being a «non-adaptative behavior», an «error of nature», an «aberration», or an «abnormality» (For all heterosexuals out there, just think how you would feel if the tables were turned and those arbitrary and subjective qualifiers were thrown at your form of love).
But I will recognize my hippyish praise of consensual Love and Desire for the leap of faith that it - as well - is.