{"id":5627,"date":"2017-04-08T16:03:13","date_gmt":"2017-04-08T16:03:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/04\/08\/nature-signs-and-religious-experience\/"},"modified":"2017-04-08T16:03:13","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T16:03:13","slug":"nature-signs-and-religious-experience","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/04\/08\/nature-signs-and-religious-experience\/","title":{"rendered":"Nature, Signs, and Religious Experience"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reader P. J. offers us for delectation and analysis the following quotation from Brother Lawrence<\/a>, The Practice of the Presence of God<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

[Brother Lawrence] was eighteen at the time, and still in the world. He told me that it had all happened one winter day, as he was looking at a barren tree. Although the tree's leaves were indeed gone, he knew that they would soon reappear, followed by blossoms and then fruit. This gave him a profound impression of God's providence and power which never left him. Brother Lawrence still maintains that his impression detached him entirely from the world and gave him such a great love for God that it hasn't changed in all of the forty years he has been walking with Him.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

P. J. comments that<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

. . . nature is sometimes said to serve as a 'signpost' to God's existence, without<\/em> the need for auxiliary premises such as the complexity of things, the orderly patterns of substances as described by the laws of nature, the intelligibility of the world, and so on and on. It is almost as if — at least for Br. Lawrence — nature, just by being there<\/em>, served to point toward God in a primitive<\/em> or non-inferential<\/em> way. Nature, for him, pointed not simply to God's existence, but to a more positive account of God as the providential orderer of nature.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
I admit that I don't know where to take this idea, or how far it can be taken, but it strikes me as an interesting topic to research in natural theology: the way(s) in which nature, without the aid of auxiliary premises<\/em>, can point to God's existence, and to a more content-rich account of the divine attributes.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
I agree that the question is interesting and important. Perhaps we can formulate it as the question whether nature can be taken as a natural sign<\/em> of the existence of God, and certain features of nature as natural signs of certain of the divine attributes. I will consider here only the first question.  Whether nature as a whole can be taken as a natural sign of the existence of God will depend on what we understand by 'natural sign.' Suppose we adopt Laird Addis<\/a>' definition: <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
An entity is a natural sign<\/em> if by its very nature, it represents some other entity or would-be entity, that is , if it is an intrinsically intentional entity<\/em>. (Natural Signs: A Theory of Intentionality<\/strong>, Temple UP, 1989, p. 29)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
I don't doubt that there are intrinsically intentional entities, thoughts (acts of thinking) being an example. Intrinsic intentionality is to be understood by contrast with derived intentionality. The intentionality or aboutness of a map, for example, is derivative, not intrinsic. A map is not about a chunk of terrain just in virtue of the map's intrinsic properties such as physical and geometrical properties.  Suppose a neutron bomb wipes out all minded organisms. Maps and chunks of terrain remain. Do the maps in this scenario map anything, mean anything? No. This is because there are no minds to give the maps meaning.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
Consider the contour lines on a topographical map. The closer together, the steeper the terrain. But that closer together<\/em> should mean steeper<\/em> is a meaning assigned and agreed upon by the community of map-makers and map-users. This meaning is not intrinsic to the map qua<\/em> physical object. Closer together might have meant anything, e.g., that the likelihood of falling into an abandoned mine shaft is greater. The intentionality of the map and its features (contour lines, colors, etc.) is derivative from the intrinsic intentionality of minds.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
So our question becomes this: Could nature be a natural sign in virtue of being intrinsically intentional?  I don't think so. Nature can be taken or interpreted<\/em> or read<\/em> as pointing to God, but that would be a case of derivative intentionality: we would then be assigning to nature the property of pointing to God.  But there is nothing intrinsic to nature that makes it point to God.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
But of course one might mean something else by 'natural sign.' Fresh bear scat on a trail is a natural sign that a bear has been by recently.  A natural sign in this sense is a bit of the natural world, or a modification of the natural world, that typically has a natural cause and that by its presence 'refers' us to this cause.  The scat is the scat of a bear, but this 'of' is not the 'of' of intentionality.  Similarly with the tracks of a mountain lion.  They are typically caused by a mountain lion but they are not about a mountain lion.  <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
Note the difference between the subjective and the objective genitive. The tracks of a mountain lion<\/em> are a mountain lion's tracks (genitivus subjectivus) whereas the hiker's fear of a mountain lion<\/em> is not a mountain lion's fear but the hiker's fear (genitivus objectivus). Both genitives can occur in one and the same sentence. My favorite example: Timor domini initium sapientiae<\/em>. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A second example: Obsidis metus mortis magnus est<\/em>. The fear of death of the hostage is great. The hostage is the subject of fear; death the object. Analysis of this example in German here<\/a>.    <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
But I digress.  <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
Could the natural world point to God in the way mountain lion tracks point to a mountain lion?  Yes, if the natural world is the effect of a divine cause. But how do we know this?  One cannot tell that the natural world is a created world just by observing it. Even if it is created, its createdness cannot be 'read off' from it. It can only be 'read into' it.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
Now let me try to answer my reader's question.  I take him to be asking the following question:<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
\n
Q. Does the the natural world, by its sheer existence, directly show (i.e., show without the aid of auxiliary premises), that there exists a transcendent creator of the natural world?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
 <\/div>\n
If (Q) is the question, my answer is in the negative.  This is invalid: the universe exists; ergo, God exists. This is valid: the universe exists; the universe is contingent; whatever contingently exists cannot exist as a matter of brute fact but must have a cause of its existence; nothing can cause its own existence; ergo, God as transcendent causa prima<\/em> exists. Whether the second is a sound argument and how one would know<\/em> it to be sound are of course further questions; it is, however, a valid<\/em> argument.  <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
But we had to bring in auxiliary premises.  And similarly for this question:<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
\n
Q*. Does the apparent designedness of the natural order directly show the existence of a transcendent designer?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
 <\/div>\n
And this one:<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
\n
Q**. Does the beauty of "The starry skies above me" (Kant) directly show that this beauty has a transcendent Source which "all men call God" (Aquinas)?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
 <\/div>\n
Closely Related: Overbelief and Romans<\/em> 1: 18-20<\/a><\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reader P. J. offers us for delectation and analysis the following quotation from Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God: [Brother Lawrence] was eighteen at the time, and still in the world. He told me that it had all happened one winter day, as he was looking at a barren tree. Although the … Continue reading “Nature, Signs, and Religious Experience”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[143,100,139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-god","category-intentionality","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}