In The Cavern
Stories or parables are helpful for explaining abstract concepts, particularly if you can use a parable to show concepts from alternative viewpoints. This parable should exercise your imagination with another viewpoint of the universe. It's a bit like Plato's Cave if you're familiar with it. If you don’t like parables then I suggest you skip this chapter.
Imagine a self-sufficient ecosystem deep under the ground in a fully enclosed cavern. It has water, plants, and animals perfectly balanced to sustain human life much like our planet has the same. The cavern has humans in it who are very much like us except for one key difference. These humans have senses of touch, hearing, smell, and taste but lack the use of sight because the cavern is completely devoid of light. They can feel their eyes but they believe they’re as useless as tailbones and tonsils.
The ancestors of these mysterious people were sealed in the cavern and didn’t share the secret of sight with their offspring because they believed their future was going to be forever without sight. They also didn’t share the truth of their previous existence outside of the cavern and taught their children the cavern was the complete physical universe. Eventually the first generation died off and everyone who remained was content with their sightless existence in the cavern. This is a story of three of those humans.
The “More Than This” Hypothesis
Life inside the cavern was simple with plenty of time to ponder the environment they could touch and smell. Fred has developed a new hypothesis about their universe and wants to present it to his friends Chuck and Alex for their feedback.Fred says, “We’ve explored our universe and have touched and smelled the walls surrounding us. I’ve put aside for the moment what our ancestors have taught us and now propose our universe exists somewhat like a fruit. I believe we are inside the fruit and there might be more things outside our universe just like we can touch all of the things outside a fruit. I’ve listened against the walls and I think I hear the sounds of things that aren’t inside our universe. Sometimes I think I can make out talking voices.”
Chuck replies, “You only hear the echo of our known universe. Your hypothesis doesn’t make much sense because our universe feels complete as we’ve explored it. There can’t be anything outside of it because where would the universe end if the walls weren’t that outer boundary?”
Alex offers, “Maybe it goes for a while longer and we could feel another wall just like a piece of fruit can be closed inside the walls of my mouth. Perhaps there are multiple universes outside of each other and there really is something more than what we know.”
Fred continues, “Well, that’s not my complete hypothesis, but I guess we could start there. I feel there’s more than this universe and it makes sense something should be beyond the walls around us. An alternative would be it’s just wall material forever outward. Another possibility is if the walls are the end of the universe then we’re still in a limited space like a fruit and I think it must be surrounded by something else. It isn’t logical to think of anything like a fruit to be suspended in a void, so that should apply to our universe as well.”
Chuck retorts, “We can’t pass through the wall so the wall is simply the end of the universe. There’s no reason to develop a hypothesis that there’s anything beyond it without observations to suggest it’s true. You’re imagining a reality beyond what is perceptible to our senses here so you’re proposing there’s a metaphysical reality beyond it. Your hypothesis is invalid because it’s beyond our experiences and scientific experiments. There’s no point in having an untestable hypothesis concerning the existence of the metaphysical so I reject the hypothesis.”
Alex concludes, “Well, I think there’s logic to support having a ‘More Than This’ hypothesis. I can’t conceive of a way to prove the metaphysical from our physical universe but I also don’t think it can be disproven that there isn’t more than this out there we’re incapable of experiencing with our senses. Our inabilities may be overcome some day or it may be a permanent limitation of our physical bodies. I think it’s a valid hypothesis but you won’t be able to test it and turn it into a theory. What’s the rest of your hypothesis?”
The “First Mother” Hypothesis
Fred continues, “We can feel the size of our universe like the size of a fruit. I didn’t think of the possibility for multiple universes like Alex just did, but I did think of the problem of anything outside the universe continuing on forever even if it’s just the rock wall. I thought of questioning where our bodies came from as a possible explanation for the origin of our universe. We know we come from our mothers and our parents came from their mothers, but could that origin go back forever in time? That isn’t logical to me, so I propose a hypothesis that it isn’t possible and there must have been a first mother at the start of it all. I also think the universe can’t go outward forever even though there might be more than this universe we can feel. I think there must be a ‘First Mother’ out there in what you call the metaphysical and the First Mother explains how this entire physical universe came to be.”Chuck simply replies, “That makes even less sense on top of your first hypothesis and there’s no point in offering a rebuttal since there aren’t observations to support any of it.”
“Then where did humans and our universe come from?” Fred challenges him.
Chuck thinks about this and replies, “I don’t have an answer or a testable hypothesis to answer those questions other than to say there must be a natural origin for it all. I must reject your hypothesis because it’s not based on any evidence or observations.”
Alex adds, “I have to agree with Chuck that even your logic is a stretch on this one because you’re adding guesses and feelings on top of an already hypothetical explanation. Our knowledge and senses are limited. The ‘More Than This’ hypothesis has merit simply because it’s an acknowledgement of the limits of our knowledge and abilities. However, this additional ‘First Mother’ hypothesis relies on ‘More Than This’ being proven true. It just isn’t valid to develop an untestable hypothesis based on another untestable hypothesis.”
Outside The Cavern
One day, a part of a wall crumbles to reveal a passageway to the surface of the planet. The friends venture out and their eyes are opened for the very first time as a new sense in their lives. They look up at the sky and their new sense of sight extends their experience even further than touch and sound could ever provide them. They find themselves alone in this expanded universe.Fred exclaims, “There is more than this out there! The metaphysical is real!”
Chuck is in awe but remains grounded to a natural existence. “This is just more of our physical universe we didn’t yet know. I was wrong that we hadn’t reached the outer boundaries of our universe but there really isn’t any more than this.”
Fred isn’t deterred. “This outside realm is a part of our physical universe now, but there could be even more than this if we continue to keep our minds open to the possibilities. We just found a sense of sight to experience what was a metaphysical realm. We could have a sixth sense and beyond that we haven’t tapped into yet. The ‘More Than This’ hypothesis continues to hold and this test has supported it as a theory.”
Alex looked up at the sky with wonder and concurred, “I agree the hypothesis continues to hold that there could be more than this as well since this was the type of expansion to our known universe I imagined, though I had no idea what it would be like.”
“Since you see that hypothesis is proven then I propose my ‘First Mother’ hypothesis is now based on a proven theory,” Fred eagerly offers.
Alex replies, “No, it’s still based on guesses and feelings instead of any logical observations. The ‘First Mother’ hypothesis remains untestable. Finding even more beyond this physical universe around us remains a challenge we may not be able to overcome again. I propose a ‘We Don’t Know’ hypothesis in place of your hypothesis. It says there may be proof of a first origin for this universe and our bodies in a metaphysical unknown, but to develop a more specific hypothesis isn’t possible from this physical universe since the metaphysical is beyond our experiences by definition. The test for this can be seen in what we just experienced. We knew nothing about this fifth sense of sight or this strange new world we now see outside the cavern. We had to cross over into what we previously saw as a metaphysical realm to understand any of this. I have to say your hypothesis was falsely developed because of the truth we see in my hypothesis. The results of the test are that we didn’t know anything about this new aspect of our universe until we experienced it for ourselves.”
Chuck adds to Alex’s thoughts, “I can only trust in our physical universe and don’t agree with the ‘We Don’t Know’ hypothesis since it implies ‘More Than This’ continues to be true. We’ve only discovered more of our physical universe and to say our sense of sight and this new world outside the cavern is a proof for the metaphysical is just playing with the semantics of our knowledge. We only expanded our ability to experience a greater physical universe and it proves nothing. There is no ‘First Mother’ or any other link to such an idea here. Until we expand our understanding of the universe there’s no logic in saying there might be anything more beyond it.”
Fred sadly concludes, “I’m disappointed with both of you. You both disagree with my ‘First Mother’ hypothesis and that’s the one that matters most since I believe our First Mother must be all powerful and eternal in order to have caused everything else to exist. Alex, I had hope for your ability to reason on this problem since you seemed to be open to my ideas. You believed the basic premise that there was more than this out there. We found out its true and yet you continue to disbelieve my other ideas. I agree with the basis of the ‘We Don’t Know’ hypothesis but I see no other possible answer besides a supernatural origin for how we came to be. We couldn’t have magically appeared out of nothing without a supernatural cause or mother of it all. Chuck has rejected my ideas the entire way and is completely close-minded. In the end, you’re both the same since you reject the most important answer I believe I’ve discovered. I imagine the First Mother probably wouldn’t be pleased you both refuse to acknowledge what has to be true. I’ll teach my hypothesis to my children so they may continue to seek the proof and understand our First Mother.”
Chuck laughs, “Now you’re turning a hypothesis into a fairy tale. Where did the First Mother come from if we couldn’t have magically appeared out of nothing?”
Fred answers, “The logic is obvious to me since something can’t come from nothing. Everything had to come from something. If there ever was a time that only nothing existed then something couldn’t come into existence in that complete void. This means there couldn't have been a time of absolute nothing so there had to have been one everlasting thing to cause everything else in the universe. Creating things implies design and thought which means the everlasting thing is an intelligent being. This means the First Mother must be the one uncaused being who created everything else.”
Chuck just shakes his head. Alex replies, “But if an uncaused thing which must be eternal has the intelligence and power to create everything else, can’t that same uncaused trait be attributed to the entire universe. The universe could be that eternal thing creating us by just having the conditions for us to develop?”
Fred replies, “Something as complicated and amazing as us couldn’t have just happened by chance.”
Chuck is growing tired of these arguments concerning things well beyond human abilities and knowledge. He offers, “Given an eternal universe and adaptations over time then we could have developed in that environment. I’ll gladly work on some hypotheses to show how we could have evolved in this universe since we don’t have all of the answers for that.”
“I think that’d be useful since there’s still so much we don’t know about our physical development even though Fred keeps trying to claim a First Mother did it.” Alex concludes.
Fred replies, “It probably won’t matter what you discover since it all comes from the first cause in my hypothesis. If you both reject that then you’re both missing the most important answer for the biggest question of the universe.”
The Point
What’s the point of this odd story? If our ancestors can write parables then why not try a modern agnostic parable? I wrote this to illustrate the meanings of theism, atheism, and agnosticism since some people think they’re three distinct viewpoints to answer the exact same question without overlapping. I used to share in that misconception so I wrote this story to illustrate what each one means.The story also illustrates the possibility of higher dimensions for reality which we might not be able to detect or experience. Higher dimensions may provide additional explanations of the surroundings for our existence. Anything imagined to be supernatural now may just be a natural reality we don’t fully understand.
Fred and Alex both believe there could be more than this physical universe based on their agnosticism saying we don’t know. Fred developed his First Mother belief from this and it’s an example of theistic belief masquerading as a reasoned scientific hypothesis even though it’s more imagination than scientific observation.
Alex and Chuck both lack a belief in the First Mother hypothesized by Fred so they’re both without theism and are considered atheist. More specifically, we could describe Alex as a weak atheist because he agrees with the basic premise there could be more than this even though he didn’t develop a theistic belief from it. Chuck is a strong atheist or anti-theist because he believes there isn’t any reason to think there could be more than this.
What do any of them actually know in comparison to what they could know? There was a giant leap in knowledge gained in the story that changed their entire universe and how they could experience it, but they each held true to their beliefs in the story. Both Fred and Alex saw it as proof for the possibility there could still be more we don’t know. Fred believed in that idea so much he developed a faith that it must be true since he couldn’t imagine the universe is all there is.
Can we really know if there’s anything more to reality than the natural physical universe we currently experience? This question of metaphysical knowledge can be answered as yes, no, or maybe and is the reason it might seem like agnosticism is mutually exclusive from atheism. However, atheism doesn’t answer this question at all since it only concerns disbelief in theism.
The question of our possessing metaphysical knowledge is answered by the gnostic as yes and the agnostic as no. If we were to experience something beyond our universe and add that to our experiences like this story, then was it really metaphysical? The agnostic position leaves it as a possibility there could be a metaphysical realm beyond this universe which isn’t dreamt of in our philosophy. An answer of “maybe” adds to this an idea the possible metaphysical could be transcended in the future. We could learn about it someday even though we have no knowledge of it today.
In contrast, it’s not the theistic position to just say there could be something outside the physical universe. The theistic position states a belief in a supernatural first cause for the universe. The atheist counter to that is simply there’s no reason to believe in anything beyond our physical existence without evidence. The agnostic addition to that disbelief is we shouldn’t believe in a specific supernatural first cause or theistic belief because we don’t know if there is one and if it would be natural or supernatural.
If Fred were to say he doesn’t have knowledge of a supernatural being and only has faith in his belief, then he’s acknowledging he holds his belief despite the fact it’s not a justified true belief or knowledge. Adding agnosticism to the theism claimed by Fred is countered by a blind faith that he can describe some specifics of a knowledge which isn’t actually known. The agnostic theist sees knowledge of the metaphysical as unimportant since it’s replaced by faith and they simply don’t deal in knowledge. Agnosticism doesn’t mean anything to faithful believers.
Both the agnostic and atheist viewpoints lack any justifiable reason to believe in a supernatural first cause even though their reasoning for the lack of justification comes from different viewpoints. The agnostic view comes from our lack of knowledge on the subject and the atheist view comes from the lack of validity for the belief claims. All disbelievers share in agnosticism concerning metaphysical knowledge and atheism concerning theistic belief. Has your head exploded yet with these many ways we can say god is probably just imagined?
No comments:
Post a Comment