The Existence of an Intelligent God in the Natural World
The Second Article of Faith: An Intelligent God
Refuting Materialism
After refuting materialism, the concept of a second article of faith is introduced: the movements of matter, according to certain laws, suggest a supreme intelligence. The regularity of nature’s laws leads to the idea of a Supreme Intelligence. The argument unfolds as follows:
The World’s Order and Harmony
Paragraph 46 expresses marvel at the world’s order and harmony using the metaphor of a clock (the world) and a watchmaker (God). A clock may appear to strike the hours and move its hands independently, but its activity originates from the watchmaker who winds it. Thus, an orderly, harmonious, and functioning world implies an intelligence behind it, even if its purpose remains unclear.
Intuition of an Ordering Intelligence
An intuitive feeling suggests an ordering intelligence behind nature.
The Absurdity of Random Order
Paragraph 47 reduces the materialist thesis to absurdity, arguing that the observed order cannot be random or a result of elemental combinations. The odds against such a random occurrence are infinite. Furthermore, a mere clash of atoms cannot generate organization and life. Paragraph 49 reinforces this by stating that the universe’s harmony demonstrates an intelligence, not accident.
Critique of Evolution from Chaotic Structures
Paragraph 47 also criticizes the possibility of evolution from chaotic structures, rejecting chance as the driving force behind existence. The absence of fossil traces is cited as evidence.
Distinct Species and Ordering Intelligence
Paragraph 48 argues that the existence of distinct, non-communicating species indicates an ordering intelligence that not only planned but also maintained this order.
Conclusion
Therefore, given the perceived flaws in the mechanistic-materialist view, the conclusion is that the world is ruled by a powerful and wise will. This being, capable of willing and moving the universe, is called God.
Review
Rousseau lacked the insights of 19th and 20th-century science. Darwin’s evolutionary theories, supported by evidence, demonstrate the existence of transitional beings and chance as a driver of natural development. Physical theories like quantum mechanics and chaos theory also highlight randomness in universal laws, contradicting Rousseau’s critique.
Created or Eternal?
Uncertainty remains about the world’s creation or eternity, the number of principles involved, and the nature of matter. Whether matter is created or eternal, a passive principle exists. While the nature of God remains undetermined, God’s presence is felt in all works. This knowledge is sufficient to guide behavior, avoiding excessive reason and idle questions that lead to metaphysical subtleties. The procedural rule remains: emotional intuition guides inner conviction, preventing one from getting lost in convoluted arguments, contrasting with Descartes’ intellectual-mathematical intuition. Inner conviction and sincerity of heart provide sufficient guidance on moral issues and practices. Feeling is knowing.
Catholics, in speaking of God’s unity, seem to jeopardize it by implying two distinct substances: spirit and matter. Two ways to conceive the origin of things are: two different causes (one lively, moving, active, efficient, and the other dead, moved, passive, instrumental) or a single cause from which everything originates. The question of creation is not whether the world was created but whether it was created ex nihilo or is eternal. From a rational perspective, the latter explanation seems more consistent, though not necessarily denying creation. (See diagram below).
Two Principles or One?
A. The first case involves the eternal and necessary existence of matter, which presents difficulties. Supposing two principles, as the Vicar does, does not imply two gods unless, like the Manicheans, these principles are considered equally active. This contradicts the Vicar’s view, which allows only one First Intelligence, a single active ingredient, and therefore, one God. The coexistence of two principles seems more consistent in explaining the universe’s constitution, including the origin of evil. Rousseau doubts both explanations but believes opting for eternal matter wouldn’t reject Scripture but perhaps some translations (Church authority). The meaning of ‘creation’ in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew is unclear. Lucretius uses the term to explain the universe’s formation while denying creation. The concept of creation in ancient Jewish theology is also different. Thus, the Bible’s translators may have misinterpreted the original Hebrew text.
B. The second case, creation, presents greater difficulties. Supposing one eternal principle, simple in essence, it is not composed of matter and spirit but is either matter or spirit. According to the Vicar, this principle cannot be subject, and if mind, it cannot have received material being, as that would necessitate creation. The idea of creation ex nihilo is highly contradictory and incomprehensible to the human mind. Philosophers have unanimously rejected it, except for a few who prioritized authority over reason, perhaps to ensure their safety.
Sabme’s Work and the Profession of Faith
Sabme’s work emphasizes the role of the spirit in the profession of faith. Bajol’s explanation of the natural text seeded in human hearts counters desolating doctrines. The Vicar demonstrates God’s existence and explains it further. Four trips establish the feeling of God’s presence, stemming from feeling, not reason. God cannot be known through sensations or rational intellect but is felt. Our understanding of God is clouded, and our intellect is insufficient. God’s intelligence, power, will, and goodness are intertwined. God is intelligent, establishing order; powerful, having established the universe; willful, acting with liberty; and good, being a good and intelligent being.
Evaluating Rousseau’s Arguments
With the Enlightenment, a shift occurs from traditional anthropocentrism (God as an infinite personality, grace, revelation, and nature as divine creation) to a physiocentric vision: a process of secularization returning humanity to its natural state. Rousseau’s radical orientation critiques two aspects of exterior nature:
The probative value of the universe’s laws is preferred over exceptional miracles. The unalterable order of nature demonstrates the Supreme Being.
In the religious field, the divine book of nature is preferred over human books. This grand and sublime book teaches us to serve and worship the divine author.
Rousseau doesn’t advocate completely divinizing nature but using it to serve the conception of divinity. He confronts contemporary philosophers who use nature as a self-sufficient entity, explained by its inherent laws, supplanting divinity. He affirms that nature, the physical universe, cannot explain itself and acquires meaning only in relation to a being. Thus, the characteristic of Rousseau’s God is being the God of nature. He retrieves nature for religion. The Profession of Faith responds to this philosophical movement.
Rousseau’s natural religion, unlike materialism, inaugurates a new way of understanding science and religion. It’s a set of minimal, essential, universal, and invariable principles accessible to reason, not opposed to religion. Rousseau’s conception of God reflects dispassionate intellectual reflection, avoiding complex metaphysical proofs of God’s existence. The importance of religious matters for Rousseau lies not in proving God’s existence but in the meaning it gives to human life. This highlights the role of reason in the context of integral human nature. While reason is important, it shouldn’t act independently of other aspects of human personality (feelings). It must resist the influence of passions. To free reason from passions, it must be reintegrated into its true function: discovering truth not from its own resources but by clarifying the feelings and intuitions upon which human life rests. Argument is less important than deep-rooted convictions and firm beliefs. For Rousseau, inner conviction is paramount. More important than rational proof is the conviction that an intelligent will lies behind the external world, capable of awakening strong emotions in those who contemplate it. More important than strictly rational arguments is the spontaneous response of human sensibility to nature, not as a Parclean ordered system.