It has become more and more common to see misanthropic comments about humanity and the environment, as if it was true, probable, or anywhere near demonstrable that the world and the universe as a whole have some special moral value in the absence of a specific kind of theistic context, a value that makes humans insignificant by comparison. However, why would the universe matter in this sense when it is neither the very core of metaphysics nor capable of being anything more than lifeless array of matter unless consciousness lives within it? The only way there could be a universe at all is because of the uncaused cause (self-creation of the universe, an infinite causal chain leading to the current universe, the universe having always existed, and the universe coming into existence uncaused are all logical impossibilities, with sensory perceptions and ideological preferences being irrelevant here). Even so, the uncaused cause could not exist unless it was logically possible and necessary, so it is of course the laws of logic that are inherently at the very core of why the universe can and does exist, not matter itself.
There could be no universe if it was not logically possible and if the uncaused cause did not create it or at least set in motion the causal chain that led to its existence. The necessary truths that make some things possible (if they do not contradict logical axioms) exist without the physical cosmos, just as the uncaused cause had to exist prior to the universe to bring it into being. There is also the fact that the nonexistence of objective moral values is required for the universe to matter, and more specifically, moral values that make it so that the universe is valuable and deserves to be honored or cared for. The existence or nonexistence of morality, of course, hinges on whether the uncaused cause has a moral nature. It is plain that the laws of logic, the uncaused cause (God), and morality are prerequisites to the universe existing at all and having objective value.
Beyond the metaphysically secondary nature of the cosmos and the fact that it relies on other things to exist in any form, even when it comes to just knowing matter exists at all, the existence of the universe is not obvious: what is obvious is that one has sensory perceptions that make it seem as if a material world exists, not that they correspond with an actual external world. It is possible to know with absolute certainty that an external world exists [1], but this is not something that is easily demonstrable like the necessary nature of reason and the fact that one exists as a conscious being. Even on a epistemological level, the universe is secondary to other things. Many people who believe it exists only believe because of mere assumptions and emotional awe of nature, not the sole logical proof that can reveal its existence to humans--which parallels how many environmentalists really just believe the environment has moral value because they feel like it does or because they just want it to.
To think that the universe exists by logical necessity in the sense that it could not have not existed, that the universe matters by default and in itself, and it is epistemologically obvious that there is such a thing as matter is to dive into glaring irrationality. To think that humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment on the basis of conscience, preference, or the practical utility of environmental efforts is folly. Since the misanthropic kind of environmentalism at best is believed because of assumptions or an unmerited degree of love of the universe, as if it is the very foundation of all things (it is intrinsically impossible for this to be anything other than the laws of logic), and at worst is believed even in the context of atheism (which, if it was true, would necessitate that there are no moral obligations and nothing with true value), it takes an utter irrationalistic fool to believe that humans are meaningless or lesser compared to the universe as opposed to the other way around.
The existence of the universe is not a necessary truth that could not have been any other way in the sense that it is inherently true that some things by necessity follow or do not follow from a truth or concept. The value of the universe is likewise neither self-evident nor a necessary truth in itself. The uncaused cause is more foundational than the whole of the universe, and the laws of logic which ground all truth and possibility are even more foundational than God, so the natural world in its entirety (the whole universe with its different galaxies and any other universes that might exist) is not as metaphysically central as the God or logical truths it depends on. Just a large mass of matter with no value unless the uncaused cause's moral nature is such that the cosmos is good, the environment cannot have the all-encompassing moral and central metaphysical status that so many people seem to believe it has.
No comments:
Post a Comment