If nature is purposeful then why are some things in vain?

[fakename]

For the following things, why and how do they happen:

somethings don’t accomplish their purposes or ends or are in vain.

This seems impossible only because it is said that all things are directed to God as their end and that the whole universe is designed to realize the purposes of the things that exist in it.

I do see some way in which these facts can be reconciled but I put more trust in the combined (name removed by moderator)ut of the forum than just my own reasonings.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Some things can only be transcendentally accomplished such as the natural desire to see God. It follows from the natural desire to know the cause of effects, and the desire to see God follows from the elucidation of knowledge of the first cause, which is God. No natural desire is in vain.

 

[tonyrey]

There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex system there are bound to be unfortunate coincidences…

 

[promethius]

For the following things, why and how do they happen:

somethings don’t accomplish their purposes or ends or are in vain.

This seems impossible only because it is said that all things are directed to God as their end and that the whole universe is designed to realize the purposes of the things that exist in it.

I do see some way in which these facts can be reconciled but I put more trust in the combined (name removed by moderator)ut of the forum than just my own reasonings.

First, I think we have confusion in terms of the initial question. The church does not teach that nature has a purpose, but rather that nature is RATIONALLY describeable.

For example, we have larger capability to produce adrenaline than we will ever need. There may not exist a CURRENT purpose to this, but there exists a rational explaination: that at one time we NEEDED that adrenaline production.

Second, I think you’ve over used the idea of purpose. All people have a purpose, but that does not mean that all parts of people have a purpose. I live to my highest ideals by living up to my human dignity. My tailbone does not live up to it’s highest ideals by being the best tailbone it can be… it has no will to make such a decision. So it is not nature that has a purpose, but individuals (at the macro level of describing the whole individual) and animals (same level).

Third, I think too often we overlook purposes. Sure, the tailbone is considered vestigal… however, if you break it you will quickly learn that this can be a cripling injury. We still have a tailbone, not because we once had tails, but because it has a purpose of tying together the muscle and ligament structure for our lower back. Similarly, in extreme situations, there are people who have exibited near superhuman strength to save others. There most certainly IS a use for having hyperactive adrenal producers, even if MOST people will never use that full capacity. What we consider to lack purpose is merely a current definition based on currant usage but is not a universally binding statement.

 

[tonyrey]

Apart from the element of chance free will has to be taken into account. The effect of human activity on nature is hardly insignificant!

 

[fakename]

humans are a type of nature too though and we don’t always achieve our purpose.

The complexity of the universe is an answer that gets us closer to the true answer I suspect. But it does so by pushing the question back further: if nature is purposeful then why is nature complex (that is, why is the world designed in a rube goldeberg manner)?

One would think that if the world were purposeful then it would accomplish its ends in the most efficient movement. But it apparently accomplishes its ends in a overly complex movement such that indeed, some things are in vain, so clearly the universe is not purposeful. But we know that it is.

Any more answers?

 

[tonyrey]

humans are a type of nature too though and we don’t always achieve our purpose.

 

[fakename]

“The onus is on you to explain why the universe is an unnecessarily complicated system and how it could be simplified…”

I don’t see how the burden of proof is on me?

“The exquisite mechanisms in nature which have often baffled scientists are far more efficient than any scientific achivements. The sheer size, complexity and multiplicity of living organisms makes a certain amount of inefficiency inevitable but its subordinate role is proved by the success of evolution!”

How does this answer the argument that complexity (that is superfluity of movement) is a sign of purposelessness? After all it seems that exquisite mechanisms cited are an instance of the universe’s purposelessness?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The more elevated the truth, the simpler it is. Our intellectual process in determining the truths of the universe proceed by reasoning from principles to conclusions and the higher truth contains the perfections of all that is contained in the lower truth. This “final causality” proceeds upward to the Divine Simplicity which is God, where all truth is one and all distinctions converge into one ultimate source of truth as its transcendent principle.

It is in the denial of final and formal causality that science cannot see a teleological end to the universe but only a material end, and thus only a material basis for life and for purpose. It is only in this truncated philosophy that one loses teleology and the efficient first cause that is God, that comes from God and leads back to God… and which can be known by unaided reason.

 

[tonyrey]

“The onus is on you to explain why the universe is an unnecessarily complicated system and how it could be simplified…”

You asked:

But it does so by pushing the question back further: if nature is purposeful then why is nature complex (that is, why is the world designed in a rube goldeberg manner)?

This question implies that nature need not be so complex. It is reasonable to expect you to explain why such complexity is **unnecessary **when there is no obvious reason for coming to that conclusion. Can you design or describe a simpler one which fulfils the same purposes?

“The exquisite mechanisms in nature which have often baffled scientists are far more efficient than any scientific achivements. The sheer size, complexity and multiplicity of living organisms makes a certain amount of inefficiency inevitable but its subordinate role is proved by the success of evolution!”

How does this answer the argument that complexity (that is superfluity of movement) is a sign of purposelessness? After all it seems that exquisite mechanisms cited are an instance of the universe’s purposelessness?

Exquisite mechanisms are associated with intelligence and design rather than purposeless activity!

 

[fakename]

I stated earlier that nature should be efficient because if it was the opposite, then violence would have no distinction from nature, since violence means that which impedes nature, while if it were that nature was inefficient, then it would be impeding itself and violence would be nature which is absurd.

So again, nature should be efficient.

And again, an efficient nature is purposeful and vice versa, while from this it follows that an inefficient nature implies a chaotic state.

 

[davidv]

I stated earlier that nature should be efficient because if it was the opposite, then violence would have no distinction from nature, since violence means that which impedes nature, while if it were that nature was inefficient, then it would be impeding itself and violence would be nature which is absurd.

So again, nature should be efficient.

And again, an efficient nature is purposeful and vice versa, while from this it follows that an inefficient nature implies a chaotic state.

Nature contains both efficient and inefficient aspects, so its not clear that the bolded statement above is correct. Some inefficient things, like the slowness by which wind erodes rock, seem to be consistent with the proper order of creation.

 

[fakename]

how is the failure of nature consonant with the purposefulness of nature? If all of nature should accomplish its purpose (final cause) then why do somethings fail?

Perhaps only somethings are purposeful?

Perhaps the order of the universe is guaranteed despite or because of, the failure of some things?

 

[tonyrey]

how is the failure of nature consonant with the purposefulness of nature? If all of nature should accomplish its purpose (final cause) then why do somethings fail?

Perhaps only somethings are purposeful?

Perhaps the order of the universe is guaranteed despite or because of, the failure of some things?

Is a universe totally devoid of failure feasible? If so how could it be arranged?