Francis Bacon, in his work “The Four Idols”, talks about the nature of words and their inexact and sometimes confusing meaning. He states that people have a false belief that words specify and explain reason and logic but in reality, they are mere approximations of what exactly takes place. Even though words are used to describe and attribute meaning to things and phenomena, they are also an opposition to our understanding and expression, limiting the definition of concepts, thoughts and ideas. There are two types of words, those that describe something far from explaining and true understanding-things that are not human made and there are words that imprecisely define everything that is present in the world. The descriptions and meanings of reality are very vague, in the end, being very individual to the situation that is taking place.
Stephen Jay Gould writes about “Nonmoral Nature” of the world and its seeming cruelty. This is true only from the perspective of humans and our limited understanding of the natural order and the living things that exist in the world. People have long wondered, what is the reason for such cruel things to exist in nature, and the answer lies in the fact that there is no “human” reasonable explanation, as it is nature that defines its existence. In reality, it is not cruel at all because it is the way things are and always will be and the fact that it does exist, means that it must be and the question “why” is simply out of place. There is no real answer in human terms because people are limited in their understanding. He mentions an example of ichneumons, how they lay their larvae on other insects, inside or outside and use the insect as food, which eventually dies. This is far from cruel, as it is natural.
Both Francis Bacon and Stephen Jay Gould question the nature of things in the world and the human understanding of the concepts that are all around. The common theme that is shared by both thinkers is how human understanding of the world is different from the reality of things and true meaning and reasons for existence. Often, people mistake their own conceptualizations and ideas, as being universally true and attributive to all things that are. But in reality, human thinking and morals are much different from those that exist in nature. Francis Bacon explains this by bringing up the examples of concepts and words, to which people attribute their own limited explanations, without really figuring out and focusing on the real properties of the concepts and subjects. Thus, people believe that their understanding of the surrounding world is the only true one, which defines it in certain frames and reasonable criteria. Stephen Jay Gould talks about the same limits of human generalizations and the nature of things. He brings up an example of the parasitic wasp that paralyzes its victim in order for the offspring to slowly feed on a still living insect, eventually killing it. This fact is looked at from human perspective and human qualities are attributed to insects and nature itself. But this is incorrect, as human understanding cannot be applied to something as great as nature. Both Bacon and Gould are correct because it is simply impossible for humans to comprehend and figure out all the details of existence and universal order. People’s common mistake is to apply own thinking to other people but also to nature and all the living things. But that which was not created by humans, cannot have the same qualities as human-created or defined morals. To reasonably assume that there was a time on Earth when there were no humans, only animals, the natural order of feeding was already in place. So, if there were no humans around to define these events as immoral, would they still be as such? The logical answer is that nature has created an order, which is balanced by its own criteria and standards, and human understanding or definition of this order is at fault, as it can only quantify the human perspective. It is probably impossible for people to grasp the whole vastness of nature, so to understand all the complexities that came into being. Stephen Jay Gould talks about religion and the controversy that it creates in relation to the benevolence of God, the ideal world and the presence of cruelty and evil in the natural order. How can God permit such things to happen? The answer is that ethics that are present in the natural or animal world are non-existent, where as religion and God propose ethics for human world. It is interesting because this leads to the fact that animal world does not need ethical framework in order to exist. The definition of good and evil is not necessary for animals, insects and plants because it is not in their nature to choose, they simply do what is natural and the natural order is defined by strict rules that are not cruel nor evil, they simply are governed by the needs to survive and nothing more. Whereas people’s morals, are often governed by more than needs—that is greed, overkill and luxurious wants. This begs a question—did God know that people have a tendency to become immoral and that is why he “presumably” put in place “rules” to govern human lives?
Francis Bacon also makes the difference between religion and human realization very distinct. As human concepts are poor and shallow enough to explain the heavenly creations and purposes, it would be extremely difficult to use the limited words of human thinking to try and explain something as supernatural and far away as nature and its order. This reminds that religion and human rationally must stay separate because they are two different entities. One is natural and hard to grasp and the other one is very earthly and human, with human morale and understanding. This form of thinking proves that in relation to the ichneumon he would come to the same conclusion as Stephen Jay Gould. The properties of nature’s world and human world are somewhat different. Even though people came from nature, our realization is limited by the greatness of knowledge and things that exist. People are unable to see and comprehend very many things and thus, are forced to attribute own understanding and explanations to the environment. This logic is faulty because in order to think like an animal or insect, one must become it, which is impossible to do to this day. Both thinkers have made the distinction between God or Nature and humans very specific, where people are limited by their inability to see beyond their own transgressions, while God and Nature are all-seeing, governed by balance, order, truth and justice in their own sense and not in humans.