Naturalism: Laws Without A Lawmaker
Fri, 01/25/2008 - 17:13 — admin
MICHAEL: But there are those who would have us believe that such a natural lawmaker does not exist. Take, for instance, the naturalists. Naturalism is Theory or philosophy that the material energy is self-sufficient. It states that the laws of physics and chemistry are ultimately responsible for everything which we can perceive within the universe., including the architecture of the universe itself. Naturalists declare that there is no outside agency, guiding force, creative intelligence, or supreme directing personality responsible for the harmony and order we see within the universe, but that all of this is going on as a result of blind, natural laws-laws which, according to the naturalists, have come into existence of their own natural accord and not through a lawmaker.
TEACHER: Yes, naturalists view the universe as a sort of perpetual motion machine which is capable of operating indefinitely without the existence of an overseeing operator or engineer. In their eyes, it is analogous to some sort of tremendous self-sufficient computer which programs, operates, services, and repairs itself. All of this is going on quite unconsciously, the naturalists assert, and simply as a result of natural laws. But they cannot say how these laws came into existence, nor can they explain why man, with all of his technological know-how, is unable to build a similar computer, even on a very small scale. Even the most well-designed computers built by man require constant human supervision, because despite built-in safeguards and emergency back-up systems, they tend to go out of whack very easily.
You may recall Hume's argument that the best analogy is one which has the most similarities with that to which it is being compared. The naturalists compare the universe to a tremendous, self-sufficient computer, but where is that computer within our experience which is self-sufficient? Where is that computer which can program itself, service itself, and repair itself? And where is that computer which operates under the jurisdiction of cause-less laws? Therefore, we reject their argument. Every computer within our experience has a cause and operates according to rules or laws imposed by its designer. Also, every law within our practical experience has a lawmaker behind it. Why should we consider that natural laws are any different?
MICHAEL: I feel comfortable with that conclusion, as the odds for the existence of self-manifesting and self-governing laws seem infinitely small.
So a person's entire lifestyle can be dovetailed with his deep purpose in life. Such a person is the controller of his body, not a slave of his senses. Most people are servants of their senses and minds — they are godas (go means “senses”; das means “servant”). A bhakti yogi, however, strives to be a goswami (swami means “master,” and so goswami means “master of the senses”). A goswami is not dragged around by his senses, but instead uses his senses for his own desired purposes. Although goswami is also a title, in fact the real meaning of goswami is controller of the senses, whether one is externally with the title goswami, brahmachari, householder, or whatever.Naturalism: Laws Without A Lawmaker
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
MICHAEL: But there are those who would have us believe that such a natural lawmaker does not exist. Take, for instance, the naturalists. Naturalism is Theory or philosophy that the material energy is self-sufficient. It states that the laws of physics and chemistry are ultimately responsible for everything which we can perceive within the universe., including the architecture of the universe itself. Naturalists declare that there is no outside agency, guiding force, creative intelligence, or supreme directing personality responsible for the harmony and order we see within the universe, but that all of this is going on as a result of blind, natural laws-laws which, according to the naturalists, have come into existence of their own natural accord and not through a lawmaker.
TEACHER: Yes, naturalists view the universe as a sort of perpetual motion machine which is capable of operating indefinitely without the existence of an overseeing operator or engineer. In their eyes, it is analogous to some sort of tremendous self-sufficient computer which programs, operates, services, and repairs itself. All of this is going on quite unconsciously, the naturalists assert, and simply as a result of natural laws. But they cannot say how these laws came into existence, nor can they explain why man, with all of his technological know-how, is unable to build a similar computer, even on a very small scale. Even the most well-designed computers built by man require constant human supervision, because despite built-in safeguards and emergency back-up systems, they tend to go out of whack very easily.
You may recall Hume's argument that the best analogy is one which has the most similarities with that to which it is being compared. The naturalists compare the universe to a tremendous, self-sufficient computer, but where is that computer within our experience which is self-sufficient? Where is that computer which can program itself, service itself, and repair itself? And where is that computer which operates under the jurisdiction of cause-less laws? Therefore, we reject their argument. Every computer within our experience has a cause and operates according to rules or laws imposed by its designer. Also, every law within our practical experience has a lawmaker behind it. Why should we consider that natural laws are any different?
MICHAEL: I feel comfortable with that conclusion, as the odds for the existence of self-manifesting and self-governing laws seem infinitely small.