On Order and Chaos

[Image_of_God]

I have long held the belief that order and chaos are opposed. I have also held that order is good and chaos is evil, for if we consider evil the absence of a good then chaos being the absence of order is evil. If I understand Scripture correctly, then this is a correct understanding, for St. Paul says that “God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (Corinthians 14:33). And peace as St. Augustine refers to it is nothing more than “tranquility in order”.

However, even still, I am uncertain about my conclusion. What exactly is order in the theological/philosophical sense? Is order necessarily good and chaos necessarily bad? If order is necessarily good, what then is its relation to the other qualities of the Sonum Bonum (God) such as beauty, virtue, truth, etc.?

I thank you in advance for taking part in this discourse?

 

[Hubriss]

I thank you in advance for taking part in this discourse?

I don’t know, do you? It’s always funny when someone accidentally puts a question mark after a statement.

I think you should first ask what does order and chaos mean in the real, unbiased, physical sense. I don’t think it has meaning in the theological/philosophical sense. It can certainly have some semantic meanings like the examples you gave in your post, but are they real or not?

 

[Major_Tom]

I read a book called Chaos by James Gleick that was fascinating. It was on the scientific aspect of order/chaos, not religious or philosophic. The thesis was that both order and chaos exist together. For example, if you study just about any system (say, the average temperature, sunspots, the stock market returns, occurrence of disease), you’ll likely see chaotic, or inconsistent short-term trends. However, if you look long-term, you can see tremendous similarity and even predictability. So in other words, within apparent order there is chaos, and within apparent chaos there is actually order.

Philospohically, the comparison to the yin-yang symbol is obvious…

Another interesting related point is the ‘butterfly effect’, or restated: small things can have massive consequences. A common example is that of a butterfly flapping its wings over Tokyo, combined with other, similar small natural breezes, etc. could build and build until, by the time it hits the United Sates, could have accumulated into a tornado.

 

[Image_of_God]

I don’t know, do you? It’s always funny when someone accidentally puts a question mark after a statement.

I think you should first ask what does order and chaos mean in the real, unbiased, physical sense. I don’t think it has meaning in the theological/philosophical sense. It can certainly have some semantic meanings like the examples you gave in your post, but are they real or not?

The foundation of the questions in my OP was Catholic Tradition. But since you asked, what is order and chaos mean? And yes, I believe, chaos and order do have theological and philosophical meanings, if you believe in such things. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates maintains that there is a such thing as an orderly and disorderly soul. Now, the soul is not physical, therefore order has more than just a physical meaning. What is you definition of order and chaos in a “real, unbiased, physical sense”? Are they naturally opposed?

BTW, I caught on to your joke. I saw the mistake, but by then it was too late to change it.

 

[Image_of_God]

I read a book called Chaos by James Gleick that was fascinating. It was on the scientific aspect of order/chaos, not religious or philosophic. The thesis was that both order and chaos exist together. For example, if you study just about any system (say, the average temperature, sunspots, the stock market returns, occurrence of disease), you’ll likely see chaotic, or inconsistent short-term trends. However, if you look long-term, you can see tremendous similarity and even predictability. So in other words, within apparent order there is chaos, and within apparent chaos there is actually order.

Philospohically, the comparison to the yin-yang symbol is obvious…

Another interesting related point is the ‘butterfly effect’, or restated: small things can have massive consequences. A common example is that of a butterfly flapping its wings over Tokyo, combined with other, similar small natural breezes, etc. could build and build until, by the time it hits the United Sates, could have accumulated into a tornado.

I don’t doubt that chaos and order exist together in the physical world. There is simply no doubt about that. However, let me ask: Is inconsistent behavior necessarily chaotic? Or can something be inconsistent in an orderly manner?

Now you use the yin-yang symbol and I’m supposing you use it to show that order and chaos are balanced. Am I correct?

I assume that by butterfly effect reference was used to represent the fact that chaos can come from order. Am I correct on that as well?

 

[Major_Tom]

Is inconsistent behavior necessarily chaotic? Or can something be inconsistent in an orderly manner?

Now you use the yin-yang symbol and I’m supposing you use it to show that order and chaos are balanced. Am I correct?

I assume that by butterfly effect reference was used to represent the fact that chaos can come from order. Am I correct on that as well?

Mostly, I was thinking of it in the scientific sense.

Now linguistically, I think that it also illustrates the limitations of words. Just like the example of looking at a glass of water: is the glass half full or half empty? Well, it’s both, so both answers are correct. It depends on your point of view, and the answer is subjective.

Now making the jump to philosophy (which I confess I hadn’t pondered till now)… I think that the analogies above still apply. It feels a little too simplistic to me to associate chaos with evil, and order with good. I think there is subjectivity involved in those labels.

 

[Image_of_God]

Mostly, I was thinking of it in the scientific sense.

Now linguistically, I think that it also illustrates the limitations of words. Just like the example of looking at a glass of water: is the glass half full or half empty? Well, it’s both, so both answers are correct. It depends on your point of view, and the answer is subjective.

I venture that the subjectivity comes from preference of words, not the reality being described. Whether you choose to describe a glass of water as half full or half empty, the reality is still the same in either case: the volume of the water is half the volume of the space of the glass. Both phrases express the same objective reality.

I, personally, would refer to something as chaotic in two instances: 1. It is not in the proper order or 2. It is in complete disarray. Depending on how you look at it the second could be understood to be the same as the first. Whether I choose to refer to the reality as chaotic or in bad order does not change the fact that the reality is not in (good) order. It could be argued that things in bad order have no real order at all.

Now making the jump to philosophy (which I confess I hadn’t pondered till now)… I think that the analogies above still apply. It feels a little too simplistic to me to associate chaos with evil, and order with good. I think there is subjectivity involved in those labels.

I think that I understand your position, especially when order is involved, for things can be in bad order. However, is bad order really order? I suppose it could depend on how order is defined. Yet, if something is in bad order, the it is out of order and therefore is in, in a certain sense, a chaotic state. I don’t think there is a any subjectivity where chaos is involved. If specific parts of a system are not in the correct order, how can they do the good they are supposed to do?

Of course, I could be wrong in my understanding, which is exactly why I brought the issue to the forum.

 

[Hubriss]

The foundation of the questions in my OP was Catholic Tradition. But since you asked, what is order and chaos mean? And yes, I believe, chaos and order do have theological and philosophical meanings, if you believe in such things. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates maintains that there is a such thing as an orderly and disorderly soul. Now, the soul is not physical, therefore order has more than just a physical meaning. What is you definition of order and chaos in a “real, unbiased, physical sense”? Are they naturally opposed?

BTW, I caught on to your joke. I saw the mistake, but by then it was too late to change it.

My opinion is similar to Major Tom’s. The perception of order and chaos seems to be dependent on subjective values or ideals or norms, and also can be relative to goals and definitions.

For example, you’re trying to build a model train. You open the box and pour the pieces out and they are scattered all over the floor. They can certainly be considered chaotically arranged seeing as your goal is to make the completed train, and the pieces are scattered randomly. However consider the factory worker whose job it is to assort the pieces into a completed set for every box. Once all the pieces are sorted and every box has the correct amount of pieces, everything is in complete order for him, even though the pieces are just bunched up in boxes.

Another example in the aesthetic sense. You have a gingerbread house you made during Christmas and you give it to a kid. The kid however, prefers to eat gingerbread ground up. He smashes it and smashes it until there is nothing left but an almost perfectly round mound of a former gingerbread house. It is perfectly ordered for him at that moment, even though you might think it was better ordered as a house.

Moral example. I read an article relating to this recently. A man thinks that people should dress according to certain moral norms that he values. Girls should not show too much cleavage, boys should not wear skirts, among various other clothing options/restrictions. Another man, however, values a society that allows the freedom for people to choose whatever they want to wear, how strange or wrong it may seem to anyone else. The first man enters the second man’s world, and sees everyone wearing “styles” that are revolting to him. He would think that the second man’s world is totally chaotic (pertaining to the clothing), yet the second would think it perfectly ordered.

I think order and chaos would most basically refers to the conceptualisability of things or concepts observed or conceived, seeing as “good” and “bad” tags equated with order and chaos is largely subjective, even in the strangest senses.

Like in your 1 instance in the post above mine. The “proper” order of things can surely be subjected to goals, values, definitions, etc.

 

[Image_of_God]

My opinion is similar to Major Tom’s. The perception of order and chaos seems to be dependent on subjective values or ideals or norms, and also can be relative to goals and definitions.

For example, you’re trying to build a model train. You open the box and pour the pieces out and they are scattered all over the floor. They can certainly be considered chaotically arranged seeing as your goal is to make the completed train, and the pieces are scattered randomly. However consider the factory worker whose job it is to assort the pieces into a completed set for every box. Once all the pieces are sorted and every box has the correct amount of pieces, everything is in complete order for him, even though the pieces are just bunched up in boxes.

Another example in the aesthetic sense. You have a gingerbread house you made during Christmas and you give it to a kid. The kid however, prefers to eat gingerbread ground up. He smashes it and smashes it until there is nothing left but an almost perfectly round mound of a former gingerbread house. It is perfectly ordered for him at that moment, even though you might think it was better ordered as a house.

Moral example. I read an article relating to this recently. A man thinks that people should dress according to certain moral norms that he values. Girls should not show too much cleavage, boys should not wear skirts, among various other clothing options/restrictions. Another man, however, values a society that allows the freedom for people to choose whatever they want to wear, how strange or wrong it may seem to anyone else. The first man enters the second man’s world, and sees everyone wearing “styles” that are revolting to him. He would think that the second man’s world is totally chaotic (pertaining to the clothing), yet the second would think it perfectly ordered.

I think order and chaos would most basically refers to the conceptualisability of things or concepts observed or conceived, seeing as “good” and “bad” tags equated with order and chaos is largely subjective, even in the strangest senses.

Like in your 1 instance in the post above mine. The “proper” order of things can surely be subjected to goals, values, definitions, etc.

You note that attaching goodness and evil to chaos and order is subjective. But I think an “objective” trend in all of your examples is that order is good in that it leads to the desired end where as chaos deters such an end and in that sense is bad.

I have to go now, but I think I will continue to think about this.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Image of God,

There is definitely order and chaos throughout reality, and we can infer God’s handiwork through order. Given God’s sovereignty, though, we also have to consider how chaos relates to God. Certain things do appear chaotic, or disorderly, but even these things are intelligible. And, since intelligibility presupposes order, it follows that there is order even behind elements of “chaos.”

This is one of the features of our faith/philosophy that distinguishes it from systems like Taoism, which posit two eternally opposing principles (Order and Chaos). God is sovereign over both order and chaos. As for chaos being evil, we traditionally envisage evil as a privation of goodness, and not something positively actual in and of itself. This avoids the problem of postulating God as the author of evil.

 

[Image_of_God]

Hi Image of God,

There is definitely order and chaos throughout reality, and we can infer God’s handiwork through order. Given God’s sovereignty, though, we also have to consider how chaos relates to God. Certain things do appear chaotic, or disorderly, but even these things are intelligible. And, since intelligibility presupposes order, it follows that there is order even behind elements of “chaos.”

This is one of the features of our faith/philosophy that distinguishes it from systems like Taoism, which posit two eternally opposing principles (Order and Chaos). God is sovereign over both order and chaos. As for chaos being evil, we traditionally envisage evil as a privation of goodness, and not something positively actual in and of itself. This avoids the problem of postulating God as the author of evil.

Thank you for answering.

I suppose that your answer does make sense. In Psalm 104: 25-26 Leviathan, the symbol of chaos is shown to be incorporated into God’s created order.

However, what I was proposing was that chaos is the absence of order, much like evil is the absence of good. I was proposing that chaos like evil is not actual in itself. And as you say, even those things which we consider to be in a “chaotic” state are in order. So does that mean that chaos does not exist at all?

 

[punkforchrist]

Image of God:

However, what I was proposing was that chaos is the absence of order, much like evil is the absence of good. I was proposing that chaos like evil is not actual in itself. And as you say, even those things which we consider to be in a “chaotic” state are in order. So does that mean that chaos does not exist at all?

It’s not that chaos isn’t real. What it implies is that chaos is only real insofar as it has a relationship to order. Let’s consider some random event X. We say that X is chaotic in that it doesn’t match all of the regularities we would expect to discover. However, X is also intelligible and at least matches the laws of logic and mathematics. Based on this, we might say that X is orderly, but less orderly than some other event. This “less” is, then, a privation, but it is not an absolute privation.

Does this make sense?

 

[Image_of_God]

It’s not that chaos isn’t real. What it implies is that chaos is only real insofar as it has a relationship to order. Let’s consider some random event X. We say that X is chaotic in that it doesn’t match all of the regularities we would expect to discover. However, X is also intelligible and at least matches the laws of logic and mathematics. Based on this, we might say that X is orderly, but less orderly than some other event. This “less” is, then, a privation, but it is not an absolute privation.

Does this make sense?

I think I understand. It’s like saying that someone has a higher beatitude than another, but it would not necessarily follow that the other is sadder.

Is that correct?

 

[punkforchrist]

I think I understand. It’s like saying that someone has a higher beatitude than another, but it would not necessarily follow that the other is sadder.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that’s pretty close to what I’m saying. Nevertheless, terms like “evil” and “chaos” are still meaningful, and very helpful, since they allow us to distinguish between things with greater and lesser degrees of goodness and order.

 

[tonyrey]

I have long held the belief that order and chaos are opposed. I have also held that order is good and chaos is evil, for if we consider evil the absence of a good then chaos being the absence of order is evil. If I understand Scripture correctly, then this is a correct understanding, for St. Paul says that “God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (Corinthians 14:33). And peace as St. Augustine refers to it is nothing more than “tranquility in order”.

The order and disorder they are referring to is personal and social. Since physical order is a necessary basis for life it is instrumentally good. If order “degenerated” into relative chaos, as in an earthquake, it would lead to death and destruction - in which case chaos would obviously be evil.

What we consider opposites need not be metaphysically opposed! Darkness is the absence of light but it is not intrinsically evil. In fact it serves useful purposes. Death is the opposite of life but if it is necessary for the biocycle - or in the case of a person a transition to an afterlife it is certainly not evil. If it entailed total extinction it would undoubtedly be evil - unless perhaps a person wanted to become extinct! But that is another topic!

If chaos exists at the subatomic level there is no reason to regard it as opposed to order. It may be a valuable complement…

 

[Image_of_God]

The order and disorder they are referring to is personal and social. Since physical order is a necessary basis for life it is instrumentally good. If order “degenerated” into relative chaos, as in an earthquake, it would lead to death and destruction - in which case chaos would obviously be evil.

What we consider opposites need not be metaphysically opposed! Darkness is the absence of light but it is not intrinsically evil. In fact it serves useful purposes. Death is the opposite of life but if it is necessary for the biocycle - or in the case of a person a transition to an afterlife it is certainly not evil. If it entailed total extinction it would undoubtedly be evil - unless perhaps a person wanted to become extinct! But that is another topic!

If chaos exists at the subatomic level there is no reason to regard it as opposed to order. It may be a valuable complement…

Yes, but death is an evil. The Book of Wisdom states that by the envy of the devil, death came into the world. What you are, I think, is that God uses evil for a greater good.

 

[Hubriss]

You note that attaching goodness and evil to chaos and order is subjective. But I think an “objective” trend in all of your examples is that order is good in that it leads to the desired end where as chaos deters such an end and in that sense is bad.

I have to go now, but I think I will continue to think about this.

In the examples I gave order and chaos meant different things for different people, which is sometimes the case in real life. My point is that order and chaos are simply word labels we as individuals place on things that are agreeable or disagreeable to us, like “good” and “bad” can be used.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, but death is an evil. The Book of Wisdom states that by the envy of the devil, death came into the world.

Catholic doctrine is based on the New rather than the Old Testament:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Evil leads to spiritual rather than physical death.

If the devil were responsible for physical death God would have allowed diabolical evil to have a devastating effect on the whole of nature - which is both unjust and unreasonable. It is necessary to die because we are created to share God’s life in heaven. Death is the end of biological life and it leads to development. Without it our planet would very soon have become overpopulated and chaotic rather than orderly…

 

[Image_of_God]

In the examples I gave order and chaos meant different things for different people, which is sometimes the case in real life. My point is that order and chaos are simply word labels we as individuals place on things that are agreeable or disagreeable to us, like “good” and “bad” can be used.

Perhaps you are right. If I ask anymore, we may get into a different topic.

Catholic doctrine is based on the New rather than the Old Testament:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Evil leads to spiritual rather than physical death.

If the devil were responsible for physical death God would have allowed diabolical evil to have a devastating effect on the whole of nature - which is both unjust and unreasonable. It is necessary to die because we are created to share God’s life in heaven. Death is the end of biological life and it leads to development. Without it our planet would very soon have become overpopulated and chaotic rather than orderly…

The Church recognizes two kinds of evils: physical and moral. Death is clearly a physical evil (morality is irrelevant here). A thing does not cease to be evil simply because good comes from it for God can bring good from both good and evil alike. The Book of Revelations talks often about the final victory over death.

Even though a physical evil is not morally evil, it is still nonetheless evil because it is a defect in nature. It is part of the woes that nature inherited due to the Fall.

 

[tonyrey]

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Evil leads to spiritual rather than physical death.

The belief that the woes of nature were due to man’s choice of evil is inconsistent with evolution. There is abundant evidence that death existed in the world long before human beings appeared on the scene. The defects of nature are the inevitable result of “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to” - Hamlet

The Catechism makes it clear that only the human race was affected by moral evil:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (CCC 402-409)