When Thomas Acquinas wrote Summa Theologica in the 13th century, he sought to provide a foundation for a belief in God using the Socratic method as outlined by Aristotle and Plato. The Catholic Church filled a substantial power void in Europe after the Fall of Rome. In the centuries that followed, Western civilization back tracked a bit in terms of knowledge. Many early figures in the Church worried about the usefulness of the pagan philosophers. Acquinas was the one who brought the philosophers of ancient Greece into the new Christian Age. His work was as much to prove the Christian worth of thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle as to suggest the likelihood of God's existence.
Ultimately, Acquinas' argument came down to a simple assertion: That everything we see in reality seems to have a cause - a bird eats fruit from a tree, then passes the seeds which fall to the ground and grow new trees. If the Universe exists as an objective reality, it follows that the Universe has a cause.
Acquinas also considered whether matter could be brought into existence. While Acquinas believed that matter was brought into existence by God, he did not see this as being integral to justifying a belief in God. Acquinas said that even if all the matter in the Universe were eternal, something had to have set it in motion. This opened the door to a new idea about creation: Not creation in terms of making something from nothing, but by arranging already present elements to bring about something else.
This is the foundation for my approach to the God question: Not that the existence of material suggests a single point of origin, but that a rather delicate balance needs to be sustained in order for life to emerge - and that an even greater delicate balance needs to be sustained in order for that life to develop consciousness. Given that most of the Universe is unadulterated chaos, it seems strange to me that there is this place we call Earth that had all the right ingredients at just the right instant to bring about, not just life, but a life bearing the intelligence to explore the unfathomable depths of the very same Universe. I find that to be a remarkable thing to consider.
To be fair, the opposing view is just as logical. Suppose that life is just some bizarre accident; that it is the product of insurmountable chaos rather than an organized system. It's entirely possible. Suddenly, the cliche of the glass being half-empty or half-full becomes quite profound. The Universe is simply too large for us to assert the degree of its chaos or orderliness. Instead, we must rely on inclination. If you're inclined to see the Universe as chaotic and life as an accident, you're likely to be an atheist. If you believe it is orderly, you probably adhere to some religious viewpoint. I happened to be inclined to see things as reflecting a kind of order. Others are inclined to see chaos.
One of the questions I get is: How do you know that life is a rare occurrence? The Universe could be boiling over with it, but because of distance and time, it's impossible to detect. Rationally speaking, this is a valid point; even if I do find it a simple-minded appeal to ignorance. Fundamentally, we have no way of knowing whether life exists beyond what we can detect. All we know is it has not yet been discovered elsewhere - at least not in any verifiable way. And since science limits itself to that which can be perceived, this claim cannot stand alongside the claim that God doesn't exist because God is beyond perception.
But there is a heretofore unresolved paradox which addresses just such a point: the Fermi Paradox. I encourage readers to follow the link. Essentially it argues that if intelligent life were common in the Universe, where is it? Over the time span of the Universe, there has been ample opportunity for intelligent lifeforms to colonize our galaxy...so, why haven't they? Interesting stuff, at least to me.
I don't intend to convert anyone to a theistic view of the Universe anymore than prove God's existence. I am the first one to admit the incredibly subjective nature of this viewpoint, so let me get to the heart of it here. If we look at the Book of Exodus where Moses talks to the burning bush, the burning bush claims to be the God of Abraham and Isaac. When Moses asks God's name, he gets the reply: Yahweh, a Hebrew word roughly translated into "I am, who am." Strange response to say the least, but if we consider the reply in the most basic linguistic sense we see that the word "am" constitutes a stative verb - or verb of being. To me, this is the same as saying: "I am existence, itself."
Think back to your earliest memories. There is something constant within you, something that has remained as it was despite all the changes you've experienced. It's your consciousness, but it's also the thing that recognizes itself as consciousness. You may have changed in physical appearance, you may have gained more knowledge about the world, you may have changed opinions - perhaps more times than once, but something within you has remained constant. That is what I perceive as the foundation of all that I am, all I've been, and all I'll ever be. Like the proverb of Buckaroo Banzai: "Where ever you go, there you are." The only way I can consider the perception of my consciousness, is by seeing it as a piece of something larger - an ultimate consciousness so powerful that existence itself would perish without it. I can only call it God.
Ultimately, Acquinas' argument came down to a simple assertion: That everything we see in reality seems to have a cause - a bird eats fruit from a tree, then passes the seeds which fall to the ground and grow new trees. If the Universe exists as an objective reality, it follows that the Universe has a cause.
Acquinas also considered whether matter could be brought into existence. While Acquinas believed that matter was brought into existence by God, he did not see this as being integral to justifying a belief in God. Acquinas said that even if all the matter in the Universe were eternal, something had to have set it in motion. This opened the door to a new idea about creation: Not creation in terms of making something from nothing, but by arranging already present elements to bring about something else.
This is the foundation for my approach to the God question: Not that the existence of material suggests a single point of origin, but that a rather delicate balance needs to be sustained in order for life to emerge - and that an even greater delicate balance needs to be sustained in order for that life to develop consciousness. Given that most of the Universe is unadulterated chaos, it seems strange to me that there is this place we call Earth that had all the right ingredients at just the right instant to bring about, not just life, but a life bearing the intelligence to explore the unfathomable depths of the very same Universe. I find that to be a remarkable thing to consider.
To be fair, the opposing view is just as logical. Suppose that life is just some bizarre accident; that it is the product of insurmountable chaos rather than an organized system. It's entirely possible. Suddenly, the cliche of the glass being half-empty or half-full becomes quite profound. The Universe is simply too large for us to assert the degree of its chaos or orderliness. Instead, we must rely on inclination. If you're inclined to see the Universe as chaotic and life as an accident, you're likely to be an atheist. If you believe it is orderly, you probably adhere to some religious viewpoint. I happened to be inclined to see things as reflecting a kind of order. Others are inclined to see chaos.
One of the questions I get is: How do you know that life is a rare occurrence? The Universe could be boiling over with it, but because of distance and time, it's impossible to detect. Rationally speaking, this is a valid point; even if I do find it a simple-minded appeal to ignorance. Fundamentally, we have no way of knowing whether life exists beyond what we can detect. All we know is it has not yet been discovered elsewhere - at least not in any verifiable way. And since science limits itself to that which can be perceived, this claim cannot stand alongside the claim that God doesn't exist because God is beyond perception.
But there is a heretofore unresolved paradox which addresses just such a point: the Fermi Paradox. I encourage readers to follow the link. Essentially it argues that if intelligent life were common in the Universe, where is it? Over the time span of the Universe, there has been ample opportunity for intelligent lifeforms to colonize our galaxy...so, why haven't they? Interesting stuff, at least to me.
I don't intend to convert anyone to a theistic view of the Universe anymore than prove God's existence. I am the first one to admit the incredibly subjective nature of this viewpoint, so let me get to the heart of it here. If we look at the Book of Exodus where Moses talks to the burning bush, the burning bush claims to be the God of Abraham and Isaac. When Moses asks God's name, he gets the reply: Yahweh, a Hebrew word roughly translated into "I am, who am." Strange response to say the least, but if we consider the reply in the most basic linguistic sense we see that the word "am" constitutes a stative verb - or verb of being. To me, this is the same as saying: "I am existence, itself."
Think back to your earliest memories. There is something constant within you, something that has remained as it was despite all the changes you've experienced. It's your consciousness, but it's also the thing that recognizes itself as consciousness. You may have changed in physical appearance, you may have gained more knowledge about the world, you may have changed opinions - perhaps more times than once, but something within you has remained constant. That is what I perceive as the foundation of all that I am, all I've been, and all I'll ever be. Like the proverb of Buckaroo Banzai: "Where ever you go, there you are." The only way I can consider the perception of my consciousness, is by seeing it as a piece of something larger - an ultimate consciousness so powerful that existence itself would perish without it. I can only call it God.
No comments:
Post a Comment