‘NATURE’ and ‘NATURAL’
Perhaps the Most Abused Words
The Role of Nature
Nature's role seems to be exaggerated. The word ‘nature’, as I will argue in this article, represents something that does not even exist. 'Nature' seems to have assumed, or been made to assume, a position it was never meant to have. It has been credited with developments and phenomena for which it was never responsible. Additionally, it has been endowed with characteristics it never possessed. In the following lines, you will understand why.
You may wonder, why is there any confusion at all regarding this?
Well, with our deep fascination for mythology, which has cleverly found a permanent place in our psyche (from novels and movies to intentionally addictive computer games), we have unwittingly allowed a significant amount of mythological data to blur the lines between reality and fiction. It seems as if corporate commercial interests (as well as other institutions) have muddied the waters that were once quite clear. Riding on the back of all this, nature seems to have taken on a mythological form of its own, assuming an almost mystical and divine persona.
Mother Nature
During my school days, I remember that whenever someone posed a somewhat challenging question on this topic, our teacher consistently responded with the phrase: 'Mother Nature is amazingly intelligent and had it all planned out for us.'
And it wasn't just my teacher who was prefixing 'nature' with the word 'mother,' as I later realised. This phrase is part of the English language, defined as "the personification of nature as a maternal figure or as a powerful and nurturing woman."
I am certainly not suggesting any conspiracy here, as it is perfectly fine to use the above phrase linguistically, as such phrases exist in all languages. However, the problem arises when its metaphorical aspect is used to obscure and conceal the actual reality.
Manifestation of 'Injustice'
In simple terms, we have ascribed consciousness and intelligence to nature, an essentially non-conscious and unintelligent entity (if it even is that). This reinforces the belief that we already internalise through other channels, making it an integral part of our cognitive system, something our minds accept without question or consideration. The only thing this accomplishes is to reinforce the anomaly and aberration that it actually is. To elaborate, by assigning 'nature' the ultimate role, perhaps subconsciously and inadvertently, we are acknowledging all the necessary attributes that rationally explain existence (pre-existence, consciousness, will, intelligence, and power). Yet, we conveniently dissociate these attributes from their true origin and misdirect them where they do not belong. This, in essence, defines (and manifests) 'injustice,' placing something where it doesn't belong and unjustly removing attributes from their rightful owner.
Have Your Cake or Eat It!
We have limited choices here regarding whom we bestow the above-mentioned necessary attributes, which underlie rationally explicable existence. We either accept nature as a perfectly intelligent force, in which case we must clearly define it, acknowledging its consciousness and intelligence (which we clearly do not); or we attribute the underpinning intelligence (alongside other otherwise inexplicable qualities) elsewhere, again in a lucid manner.
We can then either attribute it to the bearer of intelligence, i.e., the living entity itself. In this case, the question that arises is, 'Was the living entity itself the creator of its own life and intelligence, or was it another entity?' The former is an absurdity that asserts self-creation, while the latter brings us back to square one, which is 'nature.' The blind forces of evolution do not lend themselves to intelligence and rationality either. The problem is that you can either acknowledge intelligence and rationality, in which case you have to move away from ascribing them to non-conscious and unintelligent conceptions, such as nature (and ascribe them to a rational force), or deny rationality and intelligence that exists within the world and the universe at large altogether, in which case you are denying the obvious!
Particulars vs. Universals: Unpacking the Concept
Before delving further into this realm, let's understand the terms 'particulars' and 'universals.' While they may sound complex, trust me, they are not. These concepts help us explore how we perceive and categorise the world around us. In this article, we'll break down 'particulars' and 'universals' in simple terms to help us grasp their significance.
Let's start with 'particulars.' Think of particulars as the unique, individual things or entities that exist in the world. They can be tangible objects like a book, a dog, or even a specific tree in your backyard. Particulars are distinct from one another, each with its own characteristics, such as shape, size, colour, and location.
Universals, on the other hand, are general concepts or qualities that multiple particulars can share. These are the common characteristics or properties that help us categorise and understand the world. Think of universals as the shared traits or attributes that different things have in common. To illustrate this concept, let's use the universal concept of 'colour.' Colour is universal because it is a quality that can be found in many different particulars. For instance, the redness of an apple, the green of grass, and the blue of the sky are all instances of the universal concept of colour.
Key Differences
Now that we've introduced both particulars and universals, let's highlight their key differences:
Uniqueness vs. Commonality: Particulars are unique and individual, while universals are shared qualities or concepts that multiple particulars can have in common.
Concrete vs. Abstract: Particulars are concrete and tangible, like specific objects or entities. Universals are abstract concepts or qualities that exist in the realm of ideas.
Diversity vs. Generalisation: Particulars represent the diversity and variety in the world, while universals allow us to generalise and categorise these diverse particulars based on shared traits.
In essence, the concepts of particulars and universals help us make sense of the world around us. Particulars are the unique individuals, and universals are the shared qualities that allow us to understand and classify these individuals. By grasping this fundamental philosophical distinction, you can gain a deeper insight into how we perceive and organise the vast complexity of our universe.
Let's take the example of a hat. Suppose 20 different types of hats were shown to a child, and then the child was shown the 21st, which was completely different (in every aspect) from all the others. The child will invariably label the 21st as a 'hat.' This is because the child has identified the last one (21st) with a 'universal' that they have now created in their mind. That 'universal form,' however, exists only in the child’s mind and does not have an actual existence in the world.
Difference Between Distinct and Indistinct Universals
Distinct universals are labels for a group of particulars that are bound by a common characteristic. They can be referred to as the genus or class, such as 'humanity' and generic nouns such as 'justice.'
Conversely, indistinct universals are intensely vague ideas we have become accustomed to accepting, as they are widely (and wildly) generalised to fit into many and all types of existences and phenomena, and cannot be defined in a specific manner. It seems like we are trying to escape from the reality that certain particulars point in the direction of.
The socialisation aspect complicates our efforts to break free from this pattern, even in the face of obvious and undeniable evidence. 'Nature' has, in effect, concealed the marvels that unmistakably suggest an external form of intelligence.
'Nature of the Gaps'
The concept of 'nature' is more than just a concept in the mind without actual existence. It is more than just a universal like any other. It is essentially an indistinct universal; that is a universal of universals. When particulars are lumped together shared by a characteristic, we label the group as a universal; however, 'nature' represents not the group of particulars but of universals, and many universals for that matter. If universals themselves have no actual existence, what would you say of an ambiguous amalgam such as 'nature'?
It seems that anything we observe empirically, can rationalise, but fail to comprehend the cause of rationality, we almost reflexively attribute it to 'nature' and label its operations as 'natural’. The question is: Is this an escape route from the actual source of rational and intelligent operations of the observable phenomena that we have been schooled not to accept any other way? I say this because 'scientism' is forced to seek explanations by randomness owing to the belief that no rationality and intelligence can ever underpin any existence.
The Magic Word
Scientism needs a magic word. A word that would encapsulate the inexplicably rational and intelligent phenomena and ascribe all intelligence and rationality to it, yet in a very abstruse manner, almost making it mysteriously esoteric and sacred. Subsequently, we have intelligent people who would normally never make such irrational judgments but are perfectly okay with attributing countless purely rational actions to an apparently irrational conception.
Hence when a person is given the example of a phenomenon and they attribute it to 'nature,' they are essentially referring to an abstract concept and not to the tangible reality before them.
This seems to be the most egregious form of misdirection. Our minds look at things in a particular way. The fact that this helps us group things mentally is fine; however, it becomes a problem when we begin to consider it a reality that exists in its own right and invest unwarranted powers in it. Had we grown up on an island free from modern societal influences, this is surely not the way we would have reacted.
Putting the Cart Before the Horse
To sum up, particulars are real, and universals are not; they are simply concepts that our minds create to facilitate comprehension. Particulars, along with their rational underpinnings, inevitably lead to conclusions that are too obvious to be denied. However, if the mind, from the outset, is repeatedly tricked into jumping to other distant conclusions, that is what it will continue to do.
Looking at a 'particular' and attributing it to nature or to an automated system like evolution (without acknowledging an external programmer and designer) is a dishonest way of understanding the intricacies and complexities that underlie the existence and development of life forms. It disregards the potential for purposeful creation and instead limits the perspective to purely mechanistic processes, omitting the existence of a higher intelligence or guiding force behind the design and function of the natural world. This approach, though it may offer insights into the mechanics of things, overlooks the profound questions of origin and intention, ultimately resulting in an incomplete and potentially misleading interpretation of the broader narrative of existence.
This narrative purposely moves in the wrong direction. It traces a 'particular' back to an 'indistinct universal' when asked about its origin and design. It employs a tactic that artfully sidesteps the actual response. It is akin to asking, 'What is the source of a car's coherent and intelligent design?' and receiving the reply, 'It all boils down to the remarkable transportation system,' where 'transportation' stands as the 'universal.' Clearly, this response addresses a question but not the one posed, skillfully bypassing the actual answer and pointing to something that has no existence in real form.
What also needs to be understood is that 'particulars' precede 'universals' in human minds. In fact, there can be no universals without particulars, as the former can only come about as a result of the latter.
'Particulars' Are The Deal
Suppose you were an artist and had created a fine piece of art after much time and effort. How would you react if someone saw it and remarked, 'This is truly an amazing creation of nature!' associating the artistry with the non-existent 'universal' of nature and taking all credit away from you?
Reflecting on particulars is what drives a person to directly trace the Creator, just as someone would when they see a perfect piece of art.
This is what all the previously revealed Divine Revelations, as well as the Qur’an, repeatedly remind us. They ask us to look at the 'particulars' and unshackle our minds from the deception of society-constructed 'universals,' especially those that are vague and indistinct - much like 'Nature.'
Recommended Reading: