| > >
Copyright © Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science.
No part of this article may be reproduced, stored in a retrievial system or transmitted without the prior permission of the Editors.
To refer to the content of this article, quote: INTERS – Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science, edited by G. Tanzella-Nitti, P. Larrey and A. Strumia, http://www.inters.org
 Universe
Juan José Sanguineti
I. The Term “Universe” – II. The
Common Metaphysical Notion of Universe. – III. The Universe
from the Scientific Perspective – IV. The Universe as a Philosophical
Question. 1. A Manifold and Ordered Unity. 2. The
Cosmos and the Transcendentals of Being. 3. Ontological Degrees.
4. The Place of Human Beings in the Universe. 5. The Primacy of
Person. 6. Finality and Purpose in the Cosmos. 7. The
Future of the Universe. – V. God and the Cosmos.
I. The Term “Universe”
The term “universe” is generally used for the physically ordered
whole of all of nature’s material realities. The Latin etymology of the word alludes
to the fact that the universe is constituted by many different things, that is, by an unum
in diversis. This means that the universe is a collective entity or that which
encompasses all existing material things in nature. This notion must not be confused with
the logical-mathematical understanding of “the collection of all
things”, which is obtained by the simple extension of the concept
“thing” by means of the quantifying operator “all”
(that is, everything). The concept of universe is not limited to set theory logic.
Consequently, it does not submit to the well-known paradoxes of the idea of the set of all
sets (which comprehends and does not comprehend itself). In other words, the universe is
not simply “the whole”, but “the whole physically
ordered”, such that the accent is placed particularly on the open physical
order (not, then, a purely logical order) observed in nature (this concept will be
more fully explained in section II).
The synonym “cosmos” alludes to such an order. Of Greek
origin, the word cosmos contains a connotation of order, beauty,
and harmony. The Latins translated the Greek kósmos with
the world mundus, world, which suggests the idea of a reality
that is ordered, right, and beautiful. While the concept “world”
acquired a preferentially humanistic meaning (the world as a reality
of social relationships in general or in particular, with which
are associated terms such as “mundane” or “secular”,
often tied to a moral or religious meaning), “cosmos”
and “universe” in general retained a more naturalistic
meaning. As the cosmos initiaaly presents itself in the starry sky,
we are led to ignore the reality of earth or “our world”,
and think that cosmos or universe primarily means the collection
of celestial bodies which constitute the object of 
astronomy or, more amply,
cosmology. The term macrocosm is adopted for the cosmos in terms
of its widest dimensions, and microcosm for microphysical objects,
that is, those objects which are not within reach of ordinary perception.
The terms “nature” and “creation” may be considered
similar in meaning to cosmos and universe. In the Bible, the universe
is often referred to with the expression «the heavens and
the earth».
II. The Common Metaphysical Notion of Universe
The notion of universe as the physically ordered totality of
natural things corresponds to the common knowledge of all people,
a sensible but also metaphysical knowledge of ontological import.
Every other notion of the universe rests on this original basis.
With our senses and intelligence we perceive the existence of natural
things or entities, including ourselves. The rational perception
of the existence of particular, ordered sets of things, such as
a city, an island, or a forest, leads us little by little to the
conclusion that everything in our experience participates in reciprocal
relationships (spatial, temporal, and causal). Hence, in a very
natural way, we arrive at the notion of universe as indicated above.
In some sense, the universe “is visible” in as much as
it manifests itself in the theater of terrestrial nature and in
the observation of the astronomical heavens. Only the human being
“comprehends” all that as a universe, that is, as a totality
of entities in reciprocal relation. This concept, then, is tied
to the first metaphysical notions of reality, such as being, order,
relation, cause, space, and time, although different peoples added
embellishments of a mythical, religious, scientific, or philosophical
nature to the concept of universe, according to the different cultural
nuances appropriate to each geographical area and historical epoch.
The idea of “universe” always remains “open.” We
perceive only a part of the universe, that which is directly accessible to our experience,
and may not presume to exhaust the direct or indirect observation of the cosmos, even at
the scientific level. We cannot know with certainty how much of the universe remains
unobserved. This fact, to be expected given the limitations of our observational capacity,
does not diminish the validity of the notion under consideration. To understand what the
universe is, to perceive that it exists, we do not need to know it in every detail. We
need not know, for example, whether it is finite or infinite, or ascertain its precise
structure. Common experience gives us a metaphysical idea of the universe, imperfect but
sufficient, so that the cosmological propositions of philosophy and the sciences, as well
as religion, are true and meaningful. Today, we are sure that the most sophisticated
cosmological theories take nothing away from the open character of the cosmos known to us
(“open” in the sense that we can always learn more about its aspects and
parts). In this way, we can overcome the apparent paradox we encounter when we sometimes
speak of “other universes” or “other worlds” (
MANY-WORLDS MODELS). If they truly exist in relationship with “our
world”, even in a minimal way, they constitute all together one true universe, of
which what is most directly known is only a part. The existence of other universes
completely disconnected from ours cannot be excluded but this hypothesis is completely
irrelevant to a common philosophical definition of the universe as such.
At this point, we can more easily understand an often noted peculiarity concerning our
notion of the cosmos, that is, that “we know only one case”. In other
words, that “cosmos” is a universal notion with only one possible
realization (for us). The order and structure of the universe could be different from what
they are; no a priori motive allows us to conceive the known universe as exhausting
every structural possibility or including every possible form of the natural order (an
idea often called “principle of fullness”). Our knowledge of the
universe is empirical and a posteriori. We can always think of other laws of the
cosmos or of nature that are unknown to us at both the theoretical and observational
levels. From the theological point of view, the idea that God, as almighty Creator, is
able to create an infinite number of universes, completely different and separated from
the one we know, serves to affirm the existence of an Omnipotence that does not exhaust
itself in the creation of our world. This thesis is traditional in theology. The idea that
God could create only our world is tied to a rationalistic view and undermines the freedom
and transcendence of God.
As is known, in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant posed some objections to the
“transcendental” idea of the cosmos, considering its scientific and
philosophical use as problematic in a realistic sense. The idea of the cosmos lacks
sensible intuition, which is an intuition confined only to the particular phenomena of
nature. Taken in a realistic sense, the concept of universe produces, according to Kant,
the cosmological antinomies, by which it is possible to prove, for example, that the
universe is finite as well as infinite, both in time and in space (first antimony), or
that it is composed of parts which are at once simple and infinitely divisible (second
antinomy) ( GOD, I.3). In this way it is no longer possible to distinguish natural,
cosmic processes, marked by determinism, from human freedom, and, above all, a
cosmological argument to demonstrate the existence of God is no longer meaningful
(conclusions deriving from the third and fourth Kantian antinomies). According to Kant,
the idea of the cosmos would have to have a regulative and heuristic use in the natural
sciences, and only a polemical-dialectical use in philosophy (today one would say a
“weak” use, that is, characterized by a weak rationality) (cf.
Sanguineti, Scienza aristotelica e scienza moderna, 1992, pp. 190-199).
Kant’s critique is based entirely on a rationalistic view
of the cosmos, understood by him as a “closed totality”
of things. In fact, the natural perception of the cosmos which I
have described, being open, contains a metaphysical and realistic
value. Kant, aware of the ad infinitum openness of our perception
of the cosmos, does not see in it a realistic, epistemological value,
thus reducing it to a purely phenomenological plain. Certainly,
the common notion of the universe enjoys adequate empirical support
( COSMOLOGY,
IV.3), even while it is recognized that no intelligible aspect of
sensible reality can be expressed by means of sensible perception
alone. Consequently, it is not necessary to resolve the question
of the finite or infinite character of time and space, much less
arrive at a definitive solution on questions such as the existence
of the ultimate constituents of matter or the ultimate laws of nature,
in order for the idea of cosmos to have realistic, metaphysical
import. The cosmos, understood as the open order of all that is
known, is something that really exists. We have imperfect, though
sufficient, information about it in order to ascertain its metaphysical
characteristics, which are open, in turn, to philosophical arguments
on the existence of God as its universal cause.(cf. Sanguineti,
1986, pp. 178-181; Sanguineti, 1994, pp. 368-376).
III. The Universe from the Scientific Perspective
The scientific study of the cosmos as a universal system of bodies
in interrelation, susceptible to physical-mathematical description,
is the task of
cosmology, a discipline strongly related to astrophysics and, more
amply, to the other branches of physics. On the critical difficulties
of thinking about the universe as a scientific object, see E. Agazzi
(1991) The Universe as a Scientific and Philosophical Problem.
From a philosophical perspective, we have resolved such difficulties
in the sense explained in section II. Certainly, the scientific
study of the cosmos is particularly connected to philosophy: «For
that reason we must say that the very concept of the universe
is a typical philosophical concept, and the fact that science has
brought it under its scrutiny necessarily brings science to that
interplay with philosophy, which it had known at the beginning,
but which has been thought to have been dismissed in more recent
times» (Agazzi, 1991, pp. 33-34).
Before the modern scientific revolution, the scientific study of the universe (here
understanding “science” in a broad sense) belonged to astronomy.
In particular, I refer to the Greek representation forged in the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic
system, which imposed itself upon Hellenistic culture and was later transmitted to the
medieval world. This view was finally overturned by the astronomy of Copernicus, Kepler
and Galileo, and by the mechanics of Newton. The Greek-Medieval conceptualization of the
cosmos focused on geocentrism and the great division between celestial and terrestrial
worlds. The universe was conceived of as a series of rotating, superimposed spheres, to
which the stars belonged, with the earth at the center. The celestial world was made of an
ethereal matter thought to be indestructible, unchangeable, and subject to a local motion
that described perfect circles at uniform velocity. The immobile earth, on the other hand,
was the place of beings subject to generation and corruption, according to natural,
perpetual cycles. In the Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic view, the cause of celestial
motions was derived from the non-mechanical influence of an intellectual nature (celestial
or spiritual intelligences, world soul), above which God was acting as First Cause.
Because of the lack of a dynamics of the celestial bodies, the cinematic description of
their motions in the Ptolemaic model partially accommodated the phenomena known at the
time and, therefore, in spite of the arbitrariness of this explanation, was held to be
scientific. Considered in its entirety, the ancient universe was conceived of as a great
rotating finite sphere. Its center, the earth, was not the most important place since it
was the home of beings subject to corruption and mortality. The Christian vision, however,
along with the notion of creation, introduced the primacy of the human being, not only
regarding dominion over the earth but also regarding the intellectual and spiritual
superiority of the personal being, who is the image and likeness of God, over all
irrational creatures.
Cosmological knowledge based on Newtonian physics and the astronomy of the 17th - 19th
centuries proposed a universe constituted by stars which were dispersed throughout an
infinite space (cf. Koyré, 1957). Only the theory of general relativity allowed
Einstein to propose, in 1917, the first model of the cosmos that could give a reason for
the overall unity of the gravitational field, making it equivalent to the geometry of a
curved space-time filled with matter and energy. Since then, many cosmological models
based on Einstein’s theory of relativity have come along, having in common a rather
rigorous method of taking the cosmos as an object of scientific description, computing
properties such as its volume, curvature, and mass, through the mathematical solution of
the gravitational field equations ( COSMOLOGY, V). The discovery of the recession
velocities of galaxies, interpreted as an expansion of the universe, renders these
cosmological models evolutionary in time. In this sense, one can say that today we have a
rather precise, unitarian, scientific picture of the evolutionary structure of the cosmos,
based on both observation and physical theory. Thermodynamic studies and the various
discoveries concerning elementary particles (atomic nuclei and, later, the standard
model of particles) are now consistent with the scientific description of the development
of the cosmos, from the so-called Big Bang onward. We can describe the successive
appearances of different kinds of particles, the separation of the four fundamental forces
of nature (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces), starting from
a unique initial superforce, the formation of nuclei, atoms, the first atomic
aggregations, and, later, the development of galactic and stellar structures. The
discovery of “cosmic background radiation” (1965) permitted tracing the
cosmic evolution of radiation after its separation from matter, which occurred around
300,000 years after the Big Bang (according to the usual estimate), usually called
the “time of decoupling” of matter and energy.
The standard model of the Big Bang, developed in the 1970’s, furnished a
rather coherent picture of both the fundamental structure of the cosmos, particles and
radiation, and its evolution, especially in the first moments of its existence. Hence, the
cosmos manifests itself as unitary, in principle as finite in matter and energy,
originating in the distant past from a microscopic, high density structure, and evolving
towards macroscopic situations, which, under certain conditions, allow the appearance of
life, today known with certainty only to exist on our planet. From the point of view of
gravitation, the cosmos manifests that it is expanding. It is debatable whether or not in
the distant future the fate of the cosmos will be an indefinite expansion or a contraction
with a consequent gravitational collapse (recent observations seem to indicate that its
expansion is likely to continue forever). From the thermodynamic point of view, the future
of the cosmos appears characterized by a progressive and irreversible increase of entropy
that, in the distant future, would no longer allow the organization of matter as giving
rise to stellar structures and living organisms ( COSMOLOGY, VI.1).
Quantum-gravitational theory seeks to explain the Big Bang within the framework
of a unification of gravitational force with the other three fundamental forces, seeking a
correlative unification between the theory of relativity, suitable for gravitation, and
quantum theories. Until now, theories of unification were successfully applied on the
formal and mathematical level to nuclear strong, nuclear weak, and electromagnetic forces.
From the experimental point of view, the unification of electro-weak force has been
confirmed thanks to the discovery of the corresponding exchange particles, while the
unification between the electro-weak and the strong nuclear interactions is still awaited
(Grand Unification Theory, GUT). The problem of the unification of forces is a
challenge for future theoretical physics and will have great consequences for our view of
a cosmos in evolution (cf. Isham, 1993).
The picture of a cosmos that has been expanding since the Big Bang and
manifesting little by little the capability of being progressively structured in a
determined way is now a clear and linear framework. It is, however, subject to certain
doubts and perplexities which are currently matter under discussion. We could mention, for
example, how to determine in a more precise way the Hubble constant (H0, rate of
the expansion of the cosmos), a value linked to the measurement of cosmic super-distances
and to the “age” of the universe, as well as the question of the precise
ascertainment of average density of the universe. A contradiction between observed data
and theoretical calculations relative to the cosmos in general, or a lack of coherence
among some critical numerical parameters that operate in cosmological theories, would lead
to a crisis for certain versions of the Big Bang. More problematic is the question
of the “first moments” of cosmic expansion, when these are described in
terms of “inflation models” and attempting a partial
quantum-gravitational unification ( COSMOLOGY, III). For the most part, the thesis,
until now highly speculative, of a universe originating in a quantum-gravitational event,
often called in scientific circles “creation from nothing” or from the
quantistic vacuum ( CREATION, 1.2), or other hypotheses that speak of a proliferation
of universes ( MANY-WORLDS MODELS, III), one of which being our own, are as yet
without much scientific testing. Hence, it would not appear prudent to ask philosophers at
this point to advance conclusions or speculations in their regard. The terrain at this
level is still open to discussion and in the years ahead we can expect new discoveries
that could upset cosmological research in an unforeseen way.
To sum up, from a modern scientific perspective, the cosmos can
be defined as “the universal system of bodies in interrelation,
submitted to identical scientific laws”. Up to a certain point,
the framework of the structure and evolution of the cosmos is well
known to us. However, questions concerning its ultimate origin,
its ultimate destiny, and the ultimate laws that command its overall
dynamics, remain unanswered. In other words, what we lack is precisely
an “ultimate” scientific knowledge of the cosmos, which
is precisely a deficiency that characterizes all scientific knowledge
as such (
COSMOLOGY, VI). Another way of expressing this concept is to affirm
the radical incompleteness of scientific knowledge, a notion that
stands poles apart from a rationalistic-reductionist conception
of science (
REDUCTIONISM).
IV. The Universe as a Philosophical Question
The critical difficulties of the common metaphysical notion of
the universe, considered in section II, are not an obstacle for
the elaboration of a philosophical theory of the cosmos. This theoretical,
metaphysical conception — or whatever one wants to call it
— is ordinarily not lacking in many cultural approaches, at
least at a certain speculative level. Scientific research, geographical
or space exploration, predominant philosophical interpretations
in the culture, as well as religious doctrines, contribute to the
definition of a conception of the cosmos. Further, the cosmos projects
itself onto nature as the background of the daily sphere in which
our lives unfold. To ask ourselves what the cosmos is and what our
role is within it (cf. Scheler, 1961) corresponds to the very heart
of philosophy which, not without good reason, almost always begins
as cosmology. These questions are essential to our dignity as human
beings and distinguish us from the animals. From the beginnings
of civilization, every human culture has adopted a cosmology and
expressed it in art, religion, science, and philosophical speculation.
The question of the universe is also part of human questioning about
ourselves.
In this section, I will present some fundamental elements of the
philosophy of the universe of a philosopher who is both classical
and Christian,
Thomas Aquinas. I offer these selected and simplified ideas not
as an historical key, but to formulate the problem at a speculative
level (cf. Sanguineti, 1986; Blanchette, 1992). The texts on which
I will concentrate are in good measure common to the whole Christian
philosophical tradition, though with different nuances (Dionysius
the Areopagite, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus,
Nicholas of Cusa). The vision of the cosmos found in the classics
of non-Christian antiquity are, in general terms, “naturalistic”
or, if you will, “cosmologistic”, in the sense that the
human being was subordinate to nature. This vision was overturned
by the metaphysics of Christianity, which conceived of nature as
creation and was “personalist” in character (the primacy
of the person in the cosmos and over the cosmos).
The philosophical cosmology of modern philosophers obviously followed
the directions appropriate to the different philosophical positions,
idealism,
rationalism,
materialism, etc., but this cosmology is often marked by the dualism
between “the self” and “the world” or by the
abandonment of the metaphysical perspective. The cosmology of modern
and contemporary philosophy had had to come to terms with the sciences,
concretely with the physical-mathematical layout that emerged from
the scientific revolution. Further, modern culture and techno-science
stress the active, and not purely contemplative, role of human beings
in the cosmos. In the face of these notions, the cosmological view
of the Christian classics and, in particular, that of Aquinas, is
characterized by a “relative cosmocentrism” (the human
being is implied in the cosmos and nature is seen especially in
terms of the cosmos), a “relative anthropomorphism” (man’s
pre-eminent role in the universe) and a “radical and absolute
theocentrism” (the sense of the universe, as contingent reality,
is in God the Creator).
1. A Manifold and Ordered Unity. The first aspect of the
metaphysical cosmological conception of Thomas Aquinas that I should
mention is the sense of the cosmos as an ordered unity of complexity.
Individual beings are not sufficient to themselves. Hence, it is
are necessarily to put each in order in realation to the others.
They communicate with each other through their qualities. In this
way, various structures in the different spheres of nature arise
naturally. There is order among individuals at the same ontological
level, and order among heterogeneous groups (cf. Thomas Aquinas,
In de Divinis Nominibus, lect. VII-IX). Such structures can
be based on spatial dispositions, causal communications, and temporal
succession. These three are linked and give place to the diachronic
order (that is, developed in time) of the great collective systems.
In a more universal sphere, such a system is the “universe”,
that is, material reality in its universal disposition in time and
space, taking into consideration all qualitative and ontological
differences. According to Aquinas’ view, no entity is totally
isolated in the cosmos. Each contains relationships, mediate or
immediate, with all the others, constituting together a structured
unity.
2. The Cosmos and the Transcendentals of Being. The universe
can be considered in the light of the so-called “transcendentals
of being”, concepts which express in various ways the perfections
of being (
METAPHYSICS, I.1). In the preceding paragraphs, I have considered
things from the perspective of unity. The universe is one,
not in a banal, numerical sense, but in the sense that through order
it integrates into a unified whole that which in itself would be
disparate and isolated. However, there are many ways of being one,
since the unity of an organism, a machine, or a collective entity
is not identical. All the transcendentals, applied to the universe
or to different entities that compose it, are realized “analogically”
and not in an univocal manner (
ANALOGY). The unity of the manifold is distinguished in every case
by an order and this order indicates a collection of “relationships”.
Parts which are entirely unitary are joined to each other and the
various connections are interwoven in such a way that each plays
its own role. This order is not monotonous, but varied in its modality,
since one thing relates to the others according to precise conditions
(this relationship in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas is called
“proportion”, lat. proportio).
Human intelligence grasps the relationships (and introduces new ones), so that the
universe, as well as each reality endowed with order, also possesses the transcendental of
intelligibility. The world’s comprehensibility constitutes the rational way
which leads contemplation of the universe to a supreme and originating Intelligence (GOD,
II.1). At the same time, the complex order of things manifests contingent traits and is
measured out in every form of being. The lack of “due” order, that is,
the privation and not the simple absence of order, produces “evil”. For
example, physical evil in living beings is constituted by the privation of adequate
relations among the constitutive elements of the organism. In other words, evil is born
from the lack of a due proportion that indicates an ontological privation. Consequently,
the universe is revealed as “good” (the transcendental of good).
However, in the measure in which order is lacking in the world, the good will be lessened
and will become evil if a contrary disorder is introduced into the nature of things. The
good or the right, a proportionate concordance of things in the universe, is also called
“harmony” (a term taken from music). The good, intelligibility and unity
of the cosmos demonstrate its “beauty”, that is, the goodness and
intelligibility of being as they are offered to contemplation (beauty is that which we are
delighted to contemplate).
In short, the universe as “being”, the most important among the
transcendentals, reveals its more profound characteristics in the sphere of existence,
that is to say, what it is and what type of entity it is. In this sense, we can say that
the universe is not a substance, an individual, an animated being, a person, a product of
human thought, or God himself, etc. «This world is called one by the unity of
order, whereby some things are ordered to others. […] the world is one because all
things must be arranged in one order and to one end. Therefore, from the unity of order in
things, Aristotle infers the unity of God governing all; and Plato, from the unity of
exemplar, proves the unity of the world, as the things designed» (Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 47, a. 3). From a more rigorously metaphysical
(and also theological) point of view, therefore, the universe can be seen as
«the ordered whole of every creature». The unity of the universe
proceeds from God (absolute and infinite Being) and from the fact that each (finite)
entity participates in the being and received communication of being.
I have so far pointed out the manifestations of being in the cosmos:
unity, intelligibility, goodness, and beauty, which are all aspects
immanent to it, evident before whatever level of human contemplative
regard, from the spectacle of the starry sky to the marvels of nature
discovered in science. In some cases, the static order of the cosmos
is more manifest, as happens in the observation of the starry
sky. In other cases, it shows itself in the dynamic order of creation,
as when we contemplate the disclosure of the forces of nature and
the great transformations to which it is subject. A particular scientific
development is not necessary in order to understand the ontological
reality of the cosmos, since any level of consideration reveals
it globally, though from a determined perspective. Scientific advances
increase the material to which such contemplation returns, while
philosophy augments the intensity of the reflection on that which
is properly transcendental, precisely because philosophy (or metaphysics)
studies everything from the point of view of being.
3. Ontological Degrees. In the conception of Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas, the internal order of the universe is constructed
in a stratified way. Nature presents “layers” or “grades
of perfection” that are progressively more complex. This is
an obvious fact that has also been confirmed and extended by contemporary
scientific knowledge. The highest grades are endowed with special
qualities with respect to the simpler and more elementary grades
(cf. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, II, c. 68 and IV, c.
11). Inorganic elements are less organized than organic substances,
and so one ascends to the kingdom of life (
BIOLOGY), in which one passes from one-cell to multi-cell organisms,
from vegetables to animals, up to superior animals and, finally,
to human beings. Lower levels provide material support for those
higher up. From the first levels come the material unity of the
cosmos, made up of the same material organized in forms increasingly
more complex. For this reason, we can speak of a “genetic”
material unity of the cosmos (over which the human spirit represents
a discontinuity), since the evolutionary line points to the progressive
appearance of more organized structures departing from a potential,
pre-existing material base. Higher levels of being add new perfections
to the universe, in as much as each superior level (organisms, animal
awareness, human self-awareness) contains ever greater unity, goodness,
and operative capacity — in short, a greater ontological density.
The highest levels incorporate properties of the lower levels, in
regard both to individuals and collective entities (group, macro-group,
animal population, human community).
For this reason, many classical authors view human beings as a
“microcosm” (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 91, a.
1), in as much as physical elements of an inferior nature are concentrated in the human
body in a particular harmony. Individuals of lower spheres (particles, atoms, etc.) are
destined to constitute the great macroscopic compositions of the universe (planets, stars,
galaxies). Living individuality, for its part, lays claim to its own values (greater
autonomy in acting, a more definite finality), as is clear in the case of animals, but
enormously more evident in human beings. The capacity for communication between
individuals of the higher species finds its culmination in human beings who communicate
with others, not only physically, but through knowledge and love. In other words, the
perfection of the human being comprises a capacity to communicate which is profound and
universal and, consequently, he and she arrives at a relationship with God through his or
her own spiritual action.
As I pointed out earlier, in the great scenario of the universe the transcendental
perfections — being, unity, goodness, intelligibility, beauty — are realized
analogically in every single level of the scale of being. Each manifestation of being
contains its own way of possessing unity, goodness, active and causal power, individual
autonomy and immanence, openness to others or transcendence, and teleological dynamism.
For example, living beings already manifest a more intrinsic finality, while the human
being tends toward an end with knowledge and self-determination.
Cosmic order, then, does not lead us to think only of the distribution
of bodies in celestial space. It is more important to think of the
cosmic order in terms of ontological levels. Classical authors,
before the birth of modern science, often thought of the astronomical
universe in a mythological way, as if it were a world superior to
the earth and possessing an almost organic nature. These thinkers
were disoriented by the universe’s mathematical perfection,
clearer in the heavens than in terrestrial phenomena. In reality,
the stellar and extra-galactic universe, as a non-vital system composed
of radiation, elementary particles, and chemical elements, possesses
much less ontological content than we can observe on earth, the
planet where human life is found. The energies of the universe and
its extraordinary dimensions amaze many people, but all this greatness
does not decrease, by any means, the ontological superiority of
the earth, as the home of intelligent life, notwithstanding its
insignificant dimensions and its very small, energetic conditions.
Obviously, this fact would take a different perspective if life
were discovered in other regions of space (
EXTRATERRESTRIAL, LIFE), though, in actuality, from a certain point
of view, it would be more confirmed than denied, because of the
greater “ontological density and order” of life as such.
In fact, what counts is the superiority of life, rational life especially.
Without doubt, such superiority is limited, since that which is
higher in the physical cosmos depends materially on that which is
lower, depending, as it does, on those lower elements necessary
for the energy resources of the ecological sphere in which life
can maintain its own existence. Despite their small physical size,
the human beings are superior to the whole physical universe since
human intelligence is able to reveal many secrets of the natural
world. Material entities, such as an atom or a star, taken as objects
of scientific study, are “subordinated” to us in as much
as they are “naturally available” for whatever research
is conducted by a rational and self-conscious being. However, what
we could say next about the superiority of human beings in the universe
should not lead to a naïve anthropocentrism since the same argument
would be applicable to rational beings who might exist elsewhere
in the cosmos.
4. The Place of Human Beings in the Universe. According
to Thomas Aquinas’ view of universal order, independent of
astronomical geocentrism, the cosmos presents an “immanent”
order comparable ultimately to a “transcendent” order.
The immanent or internal order of the cosmos is constituted by the
reciprocal relationship of all beings in the universe (cf. Aristotle,
Metaphysics, XII, 10, 1075a; Thomas Aquinas, In XII Metaph.,
lect. 12). These relationships delineate a “scale of being”,
flexible but real, in the sense already explained, which is to say
that simpler and more elementary things act as a material base for
more complex and perfect realities. However, with regard to human
beings, we encounter here an essential ontological leap. Human beings
are not simply more organized and better endowed animals. With our
intelligence and freedom, we enter direct relationships with the
being of the entire world in as much as we can understand it speculatively
and control it with technology, although within certain physical
and moral limits. Moreover, human beings transcend the universe.
We are able to turn our contemplative glance and our desire of love
toward God, Creator of the universe. «The end of the human
soul and its ultimate perfection is that, through knowledge and
love, it transcends the whole order of creatures and reaches its
first principle, which is God» (Thomas Aquinas, Contra
Gentiles, II, c. 87). The human soul, therefore, belongs intimately
to the universe and at the same time transcends the whole of it.
In Thomas’ view, and that of all Christian authors, the central
aspect of the internal order of the universe is that its material
dimension is ordered to intelligent creatures. It is precisely “through
such order” that the material universe reaches its end, that
is, its Creator. Hence, human beings are the “internal finality
“of the dynamism of the universe (cf. ibidem, III, c.
22).
5. The Primacy of Person. The last point to be discussed
here refers to the personal nature of men and women. In keeping
with what has been said earlier, human “individuality”
acquires a different value from that appropriate to the irrational
world. In the context of cosmic harmony each irrational being, although
one in itself, is fundamentally subordinated to the utility of the
species to which it belongs, as if it were a part of the latter.
Inferior and less complex species too, even possessing their own
proper value, are naturally subordinated to other species in the
universe. This point can be linked to the phenomenon of
evolution, since in this way the fact that a species can exist for
a limited period of time to advantage of other beings, events or
qualities later emerging in the development of nature, become more
understandable. However, considering humans beings exclusively from
this point of view, would mean subordinating them to nature. In
the Christian view of the cosmos, a view that is also philosophical,
human beings have a personal value for themselves
and not only as part of a universal totality (cf. Thomas Aquinas,
Contra Gentiles, III, cc. 112-113; see also Gaudium et
spes, 24). To have a relationship with others and with the world
does not decrease the dignity of each person. Instead, it is precisely
in these relationships that human beings are fully realized. We
find in the physical world (which is inferior to us) a reality “to
contemplate”, because of its immanent beauty, and “to
use”, because of its non-rational character.(cf. Thomas Aquinas,
Contra Gentiles, III, c. 78, on natural dominion of intelligent
beings over other creatures). At the same time, we discover subjects
for communicating and sharing life in other members of the human
family, in the reciprocity of friendship, to reach together the
finality proper to our human existence.
The primacy of person in the universe does not cancel the intrinsic
value of nature or reduce it to a merely instrumental function,
as is the case with technological ideologies (
TECHNOLOGY) which are justly criticized today by various philosophical,
cultural, and ethical-political analyses, as well as by the perspective
of Christian thought (cf. Centesimus annus, 38). Human beings
are not the absolute masters of nature. Instead, we are administrators
of creation. We must care for, and not destroy, natural reality
in its harmony and integrity. Technical dominion over material things
is expressed by human work, through which we develop the potentialities
of nature to surpass, within the limits of the possible, physical
evils and, hence, overcome the restrictions of material existence.
Technology, however, does not exhaust human beings’ “lordship”
over material creation. Such a lordship is also manifested by a
sober use of material goods, not seeing them as absolute and unconditioned
ends. In other words, before the universe, human beings exercise
our contemplative, religious, moral, artistic, and technological
capacity. The universe renders service to us — although without
volition — by showing us its ontological perfection and potentialities,
as well as its contingency and limitation. Basically, the relationship
between human beings and the universe should be “wise,”
having notable consequences also on the ethical plane (
SCIENTIFIC HUMANISM). Human beings find in the universe a natural
route towards God.
6. Finality and Purpose in the Cosmos. According to Aquinas,
the immanent order of the universe manifests an internal finality
in nature. This finality is conceived of in an analogical manner.
The internal teleology of the non-living world stands in its marvelous
and inexhaustible articulated organization and, further, in its
capacity of serving to sustain life.This concerns structures that
do not necessarily have a “determined” form and, hence,
can arise even by chance, that is, events that are not foreseen
by nature in a deterministic way, but might occur within certain
margins of probability (
DETERMINISM/ INDETERMINISM). The existence in the universe of phenomena
that are only probable implies a teleology subject to “contingency”,
that is, the possibility of defects or variations with respect to
what is expected. In the inorganic world, variability and unpredictability
are not an evil. Instead, they are considered conditions of potentiality
that render the possibility of physical action richer and more flexible.
In living beings, the possibility of disorder and deviation is understood
and evaluated in light of the aim of life itself, which is always
experienced as a value, whose affirmation (conservation, growth,
propagation) is always a good, while its negation (sickness, death)
is an evil. From the perspective of the levels of being, disorder
or evil (corruption and death) is usually manifested as a decomposition
of a superior order (predominance of chaos or of pure accidentality),
up to a fall into an inferior order (where a minimum order, nevertheless,
always exists).
Organic life in the cosmos has its purpose in itself, but in a framework of
contingency, as it remains limited in time and is conditioned by environmental
circumstances. In its totality, the universe of life is harmonious, but carries with it
the necessity of struggling against obstacles and finding indispensable resources for
survival. According to the Christian view, the natural finality of human beings finds
obstacles in voluntary or moral disorder (sin), which causes damage to created harmony and
brings about the loss of friendship with God. Not infrequentely, injustice and moral evil
have destructive consequences even in the physical domain. Sin implies a mistaken and
anti-natural relationship of people with created reality from which is born a situation of
disorder and even violence ( CREATION, II.2).
Looking at the contemporary understanding of the universe and life, it could be said
that the phenomenon of evolution, as we know it today, renders natural finality more
transparent in its temporal development. The existence of such finality has been recently
invoked by certain philosophical interpretations of the so-called Anthropic
Principle: the universe, from its first moments, appears endowed with certain initial
conditions (a kind of very narrow “mathematical window”), the only
conditions capable of allowing the appearance of the chemical base necessary to life. In
reality, life itself, even in its simplest forms, requires highly improbable internal and
external conditions: the Anthropic Principle, in fact, extends the indication of such
improbability to the realm of the cosmos as a whole. The action of self-selective
mechanisms and a kind of “creativity” intrinsic in nature
(self-organization), still in need of scientific study, are at the disposal of a cosmic
development that tends to the progressive affirmation of ever more complex and perfect
vital structures, at least in a place like the earth, notwithstanding the radical
contingency of these processes (always subject, for example, to the risk of large-scale
catastrophic events). This chain of ever more perfect ontological forms would indicate the
existence of a natural finality, which appears de facto oriented to the appearance
of human beings.
What for authors such as Thomas Aquinas is affirmed in a fixed
framework and for others, such as
Augustine, is seen in terms of a temporal development, that is,
the teleological orientation of the universe towards man, is equally
applicable to a philosophic interpretation of the evolutionary development
of life in the current scientific perspective. The points emphasized
here receive a superior light from Christian theology. The biblical
Revelation shows a direct divine intention to create our first parents
after the creation of the material universe, almost as its crowning
achievement.
7. The Future of the Universe. The temporal development
of the universe inevitably leads us to ponder the future of the
cosmos (
TIME, II). Today, the thesis of an eternal cyclical recurrence of
the cosmos is practically excluded. A more sustainable thesis is
the notion of an evolving universe that would finish in a state
of final thermodynamical degradation, the so-called “thermal
death” (because of the global increase of entropy in the cosmos).
The thesis according to which the universe can continue to manifest
an unimaginable creativity and emergence, resulting also from the
contribution of new forms of life, should not to be rejected a
priori, even though for the moment it is without clear scientific
support. In reality, neither science nor philosophy can resolve,
with incontrovertible certitude, the problem of the “ultimate”
destiny of the cosmos: science because of its already noted “problems
of incompleteness” and philosophy because of its gnoseological
and speculative limits. A complete and definitive destruction of
the order of the cosmos, that is, its decline toward a state that
is increasingly more simple and elementary, seems a sort of philosophical
absurdity that contradicts the observed teleology which pervades
the cosmos and is recognized by scientists and philosophers (
FINALITY). Moreover, taking into account the dignity of human beings
and the value of the person, a total annihilation of the human species,
in the framework of a cosmic death proposed as the last word, would
appear to be something anti-natural on the very anthropological
level, apart from any further meta-physical or meta-temporal reflections.
However, philosophy cannot say what will happen to humankind in
the future of the cosmos (
CREATION, VI).
V. God and the Cosmos
Traditionally, philosophy has seen, in the marvelous order and
contingent totality of the universe, the manifestation of a transcendent
cause called “God”. The traditional “proofs”
of the existence of God are for the most part cosmological (
GOD, I.3). Just as human reason deduces, through immediate sensible
phenomena the existence of causes which are true and operating,
though hidden to ordinary vision, it seems logical to wonder about
the Cause of the universe, its unity, intelligibility and goodness,
and the cause of the graduated and evolutionary perfection in being
we see in the cosmos.
Science presupposes the existence of the universe. It limits itself to ascertaining or
hypothesizing cosmic elements or conditions that may explain its actual state and it
discovers cosmic laws that regulate the course of the fundamental phenomena of material
reality (gravitational laws, electromagnetism, etc.). The enquiry about God does not refer
to the singular processes of the cosmos, or to the concrete problems for which physical
science cannot as yet furnish a reply. The philosophical or metaphysical question of the
Cause of the universe is arrived at from another perspective independent of the state of
science in any determined epoch. Given the radical contingency of the universe (that is.,
its existence is not absolutely necessary), science will never be able to achieve a final
explanation of physical laws, because there is always the possibility that it would
exclude something more general and comprehensive which would later reveal the limited and
particular nature of those laws considered as “final” in a
certain period of the history of science.
Because an exhaustive explanation of the creation of the universe is not of a physical
nature, the natural sciences are not competent to pose such a question ( COSMOLOGY,
VI). If such an explanation were possible, the objection “then, what who created
God?”, usually advanced by some proponents of materialism against the affirmation
of God as Creator of the cosmos, would then have a foundation. Such a questioning
maintains its proper validity precisely in the physical terrain, since each physical cause
(entity or scientific law) is always subject to the question “why?”
regarding more profound levels of reality.
There are two possible philosophical responses to the radical questioning about God:
either the material universe is uncaused or it is caused by a non-material but
intellectual principle. The first response looks irrational. In fact, the universe, with
all its harmony and laws, is not a necessary reality; it is a contingent reality. Hence,
taken as a whole, it cannot give a reason for itself. Its contingency is evident if we
consider that it undergoes destruction (disorganization) or the fact that its specific
laws could be otherwise. In fact, the universe itself could be different from what it is:
we might even think “better” (for example without the perishableness
inherent in the global growth of entropy). The eventual discovery of new
“material causes” for the genesis of the cosmos would add nothing to
thi. For example, if it were discovered that the Big Bang is only a particular case
of a more general law that involves many other universes or Big Bangs or that it
arose from physical conditions different from those known today, the question would
nonetheless always remain on the physical level. On this level, the physical universe as a
whole would continue to manifest itself as a realtiy that does not have in itself the
ultimate reason for its own existence.
Another argument which claims the existence of a transcendental cause of the universe
is based on the observation of human intelligence. The human mind manifests itself as
superior to all material structures in that it is capable of thinking of the whole order
of the cosmos, of discovering its laws, and even of speculating on the existence of
infinite possible universes. Rooted in the cosmos, because it substantially depends in its
operations on the human body, the mind transcends the cosmos in as much as it is found to
be above every material reality ( MIND-BODY RELATIONSHIP). The technical dominion of
human beings over nature, even though limited, also demonstrates the superiority of
intelligence over physical reality. Consequently, it would be inconsistent to think that
the physical universe, which is non-intelligent, has been by alone the cause of the
appearance of intelligence.
For this reason, on the philosophical level, Intelligence has traditionally been seen
as the cause of the universe. On this point, ancient and modern authors have postulated
the existence of an immanent, cosmic intelligence, or a sort of universal intelligent
soul, in such a way as to make this intelligence responsible for cosmic evolution and the
appearance of man. This solution is usually called pantheism. But an intelligence
meant as “the form of the cosmos” would be, in reality, part of the
cosmos and, thus, subject to the cosmic evolution, its contingency and limitations.
Consequently, it would not be a true explanation of the whole universe. The cosmos
itself, informed by such an intelligence, would be a god, although imperfect, perhaps even
a god in evolution that would acquire his full self-awareness through the flourishing of
human life. This way of thinking is not far from mythology. In fact, in many ancient
civilizations, religious and philosophical thought made nature divine and saw the
manifestation of psychic occult powers in material forces.
The response to the philosophical question of the “cause of the
universe” is the existence of an Intelligence transcending the cosmos (God). This
is not the place to develop in detail this central point of philosophy. It is enough to
remember that the intelligibility, unity, simplicity and consistency of the universe finds
a response in light of God the Creator, transcendent but also present intimately in the
world in every moment of its temporal development (cf. Tanzella-Nitti, 1992, pp. 48-51).
The universe proceeds, thus, from the highest Being, who is spiritual and personal, and
fullness of being, intelligence and love, and not from an abstract law or an impersonal
principle. In Thomas Aquinas’ view, God freely gives existence to the world and
communicates to it those perfections of which He is the absolute and radical source,
participating them at some level. The Creator gives a particular meaning to the universe
by placing the created person at its center. The physical universe is given to human
beings so that we may “return” to God by contemplating His presence in
creation and completing the labor of creation through work, culture, the arts and, above
all, through our own moral perfection.
Christian theology adds very precise aspects to the God-world relationship and throws
light on the mystery of evil introduced into the world by sin and cured by the Redemptive
work of Christ (cf. Maldamé, 1995). Thanks to Christian Revelation, we can better
understand the plan of God as Creator of the universe and the role that He has entrusted
to human beings. In the light of Christian faith, the universe is known above all as
“what is created”, that which proceeds from divine love as a reflection
of the perfections of the Trinity. Without being conditioned by the world, God creates,
with complete freedom and wisdom, a consistent universe, endowed with secondary causes
capable of developing the potentialities which complete divine creative work. The Word of
God, in assuming human nature, places Him at the summit of the universe: «All
things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all
things hold together» (Col 1,16). God’s plan can be even better
understood on the horizon of a created world destined (and not simply juxtaposed) to the
Redemption of Christ. «Creation is the foundation of all God’s saving
plans, the beginning of the history of salvation that culminates in Christ. Conversely,
the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the
end for which “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”:
from the beginning God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ» (CCC
280). In this sense, the development of the universe is not yet finished, even if its
fulfillment is already begun in Christ risen and glorified. The universe will acquire its
final state only at the end of time, when it will receive in glory its definitive
fulfillment, not foreseeable by human understanding, but object of Christian hope. The
universe renewed will then be «the new heavens and the new earth» (cf.
Is 65,17; 2Pt 3, 13; Rv 21,1).
Juan José Sanguineti
(translated by Cinthya Nicolosi)
See also: ANTHROPIC
PRINCIPLE; COSMOLOGY; CREATION; FINALITY; GOD; LAWS OF NATURE; NATURE;
PANTHEISM.
Bibliography
A. KOYRÉ, From the Closed World to the Infinite
Universe, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore 1957; M. MUNITZ
(ed.), Theories of Universe: from Babylonian Myth to Modern Science,
The Free Press, New York 1957; M. SCHELER, Man's Place in Nature
(1928), Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York 1961; J. MERLEAU-PONTY,
Cosmologie du XX siècle, Gallimard, Paris 1969; S. JAKI,
Science and Creation, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
1974; S. JAKI, Cosmos and Creator, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh 1981; C. ISHAM, The Ultimate Fate of the Universe,
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (MA) 1983; D. BARTHOLOMEW, God
of Chance, SCM, London 1984; A.G. PACHOLCZYK, The Catastrophic
Universe, Pachart, Tucson (AZ) 1984; J.J. SANGUINETI, La
filosofia del cosmo in Tommaso d'Aquino, Ares, Milano 1986;
S. JAKI, God and the Cosmologists, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh 1989; T. PETERS (ed.), Cosmos as Creation. Theology
and Science in Consonance, Abingdon, Nashville 1989; E. AGAZZI,
A. CORDERO (eds.), Philosophy and the Origin and Evolution of
the Universe, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1991; E. AGAZZI, The Universe
as a Scientific and Philosophical Problem, in ibidem,
pp. 1-51; O. BLANCHETTE, The Perfection of the Universe According
to Aquinas, Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, University Park
(PA) 1992; J.M. MALDAMÉ, Le Christ et le Cosmos, Desclée,
Paris 1992; G. TANZELLA-NITTI, Questions in Science and Religious
Belief, Pachart, Tucson (AZ) 1992; J.J. SANGUINETI, Scienza
aristotelica e scienza moderna, Armando, Roma 1992; H. MARGENAU,
R.A. VARGHESE (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, Open Court, La
Salle (IL) 1992; R. RUSSELL, N. MURPHY, C. ISHAM, (eds.), Quantum
Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, Vatican Observatory Publications
and The Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, Città del Vaticano
1993; C. ISHAM, Quantum Theories of the Creation of the Universe,
in ibidem, pp. 49-89; R.M. GASCOIGNE, The History of Creation,
Fast Books, Sydney 1993; S. MURATORE, L'evoluzione cosmologica
e il problema di Dio, AVE, Roma 1993; J.J. SANGUINETI, El
origen del universo. La cosmología en busca de la filosofía,
Educa, Buenos Aires 1994; P. COLES, F. LUCCHIN, Cosmology: The
Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, Wiley and Sons, Chichester
1995; J.J. SANGUINETI, La creazione nella cosmologia contemporanea,
"Acta Philosophica" 4 (1995), pp. 285-313; S. HAWKING, A Brief
History of Time, Bantam, London 1998.
|
