|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Some Important Issues in Philosophy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Wonder of Matter - Page 2 The Relevant Question The question we hope to answer before the end of this article is: In the light of the data of modern science, what position or adaptation of the preceding two positions ought to be taken today? I do not wish to anticipate here the scientific data that I will present in the third part of this article. But at this point, I wish to suggest that according to the scholastic tradition (which did not have the knowledge of present day science) all existing instances of matter necessarily involve the following: a principle of activity (called "act" or "substantial form") and parts (which imply "potency" for determination and diversification). The first outward manifestation of matter (understood in the terms just described) is localized or extrinsic quantity, which is the first accidental category listed by Aristotle and which is not to be confused with "intrinsic" quantity in the more fundamental sense of "parts." For a further clarification of the points at issue in this article we must briefly take up the question of the limited nature of material being. According to Thomistic principles the limitation of matter is twofold. On the one hand, a material thing's "act" of existence is limited by its "essence" which is composed of matter and form. On the other hand, within the essence of each material thing, matter itself is a limiting factor for form. Furthermore, quantity (which for St. Thomas is a necessary adjunct of matter) is itself a limiting factor because it designates "so many parts" and no more. For St. Bonaventure, the limiting aspect of matter is more pronounced since quantity is of the very essence of matter. In any case, matter implies limitation. Origin and Finality of the Material Universe Before concluding this section, we ought to point out that in the explanation of matter, St. Thomas deals not only with the intrinsic causes of matter (essential and existential) but also with the origin and finality of matter. Here we will very rapidly summarize the main points that will prove relevant for our eventual discussion. The origin of the material universe is creation by God. Creation is a free act of God -- a free act that is continuous. From this point of view creation is called conservation in being. Furthermore, creation and conservation are completed by concurrence. God concurs in all actions of individual creatures and holds all things in creation together by their common relationship to Him. God is thus present (immanent) to all creation. All creation remains "in God" without becoming a part of God, and God is immanent to creation without undergoing change in Himself. This requires that the relationship of creation to God is very real, even though not a "real relation" in the Godhead as such. The end of creation is the glory of God. The material creation is directed to man, and the glory of God consists in man's knowledge and praise of God through the material creation. The divine finality of the universe cannot be frustrated. God's direction of the course of creation towards its end is called Providence, which extends to the whole universe and every part of it. What are the implications of all these teachings, if seen against the background of the data of modern science? This question, too, must come under our consideration as we seek to unravel the enigma of the material universe against the available scientific data. But first we must turn our attention to a thinker closer to our own times. Before proceeding to consider the data of modern science, we propose to adapt some relevant points of interpretation of material reality as suggested by the 20th century Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin. It is not our intention to enter into any controversial aspects of Teilhard's thought but merely to gather some insights from his understanding of the material universe and of matter, which do not oppose the basic orientation of the thought of St. Thomas, but which were arrived at from a different perspective. These observations may serve as a link in bringing together the synthesis that I am presently attempting. It was the hope of Teilhard de Chardin to alert the Christian world to the need for a more dynamic understanding of the universe and of material reality -- one that would be neither too static nor too passive. On the other hand he alerted scientists to the need not only for a physical explanation of matter and mind. Too often mind was reduced to matter or vice versa, and the "divine milieu" of the material universe was not sufficiently taken into account. Teilhard referred to the "hyperphysical" -- the realm of reality that lies beyond the immediate grasp of the senses. It is a realm one step beyond the scientist's ordinary interest, but which Teilhard wanted science to take into account. Yet the hyperphysical is not yet "metaphysical" in the traditional sense of Aristotle and St. Thomas -- a sphere that Teilhard did not feel was his own interest and mission. What is the difference between the two? We might say that the metaphysical concentrates on the "abstract" (derived from reality, but considered as static), while the hyperphysical concentrates on the dynamism of the concrete, yet not on the physical as verifiable through the senses. It sees the implications of the physical, discernible to the intelligence. Teilhard's contention was that the scientist, who freely speculates about the "verifiable" in nature, cannot intelligently overlook other underlying "data." Now the principal datum of nature, according to Teilhard, is that the material universe and material things have a "within" as well as a "without." Science ordinarily studies the "without" or what the old scholastics called the "accidents" or accidental. Metaphysics, indeed, according to Teilhard, emphasizes the "essential" but too often abstracted from the dynamism present in reality and in the universe. In the meantime, both Science and Metaphysics often fail to take into sufficient account the dynamism of God's presence in the world. In practice this amounts to relegating God to nebulous regions far from human contact, reminiscent of Aristotle's God -- transcendent and totally taken up with Thought, not involved in the world. Energy Teilhard de Chardin was very much aware of the emphasis that modern science places on energy in its accessment of matter and material things. However, he insisted that we ought to distinguish between two kinds of energy corresponding to his previous distinction between the "within" and the "without" of things. Contemporary science explains matter in terms of energy. However, Teilhard insists, this is "tangential" or measurable energy, which is indeed the proper domain of the scientist; but it is not sufficient to explain the total dynamism discernible in the universe. Beyond "tangential" energy, underlying the "without" of things, is "radial" energy which he calls "spiritual" energy, but which might better be called "supersensible" energy -- energy which, though understood to be present and active, cannot be explained in terms of mathematical quanta (as can "tangential" energy). This energy is "the other side of the coin" of material things and of the material universe, too often neglected by both Science and Philosophy. The first energy that we must taken into account is the original outburst energy at the very beginning of the universe calculated as occurring 15 to 20 billions of years ago. What was the cause of the manifestation of energy, which science generally traces back to a big bang or immense explosion of a primordial atom? It was from "within," from the "radial" energy inherent in the original creation. But where did such power come from? Here we meet an Ultimate "Within" of the universe, viz., God (Alpha). Thus the very first energy in the universe which we must reckon with is the "energy" of God in the world at large. God Within According to Teilhard God is very much "involved" in the world, although not in a pantheistic way. It is one thing to see the world as intimately related to God (a "divine milieu") and quite another to identify God with the world. Teilhard strove often to make this distinction clear. In Teilhard's terminology God is the first "Within" of the universe, because we can never explain the total creation (inclusive of spirits and matter) without reference to God's creative presence, total involvement, and directive influence. Teilhard is not speaking here in scholastic terms of the "active power" of God identical with God Himself, which the human mind can abstract from the notion of Pure Act. The "active power" of God must be translated into the real world of matter, without confusing God with matter nor matter (as observable with the senses) with God or the various forms of energy that he has set a foot in the world. From a Thomistic point of view, it is in terms of "participation" that we can understand Teilhard's contention, as explained below. Participation When we say that a creature "participates" in God, or that creation is a "participation" in God, we ought not to miss the implications of such statements. No creature exists alone, but "coexists" with God in the sense that without God it could not exist at all. Hence it follows that every creature involves a "real" relation to God. Beyond the relation of each individual to God, by which it coexists with God, creatures coexist with one another by the creative power of God. And God is present to the creation as a whole without becoming a part of it. In this way, God remaining intact, the whole creation coexists "in God" by an all-embracing, real relationship, without which the whole creation would vanish into nothingness. It is in virtue of this relationship that we speak of God's immanence to the world and the creation's participation in God. These are two sides of the same coin -- the Universe is ONE because of this all-embracing relationship or link by which the creation is bound to God immanent to it. We may call this relationship the very "subsistence" of the universe. Through it the whole universe of spirit and matter is related to God, but not in a static sort of way, for God is here and now relating the universe to Himself in myriad ways, appropriate means, and inscrutable designs. The relationship of the world to God leaves God intact, as it were, but very much changes the condition of the world. The relationship of the world to God is consequently very real; it involves the presence of God at work in the universe and it is the bond that holds all things together -- the "divine milieu" in which creation lives, moves and has its being. The relation of the parts of the universe to each other -- says St. Thomas -- exists in virtue of the relation of the whole universe to God. In the preceding few paragraphs we have been jointly considering both the spiritual and material creation as "participating" in God. These considerations were necessary before taking up the question of the material universe as such, which will be treated elsewhere in this article. At this point I wish to make clear that there is a distinction between the unity of the whole creation (material and spiritual beings jointly considered) and the unity of the material universe. The first unity, as just indicated, is explained by the common relationship of the whole creation to God. This relationship is the ontological bond by which all things subsist or hold together in God. As we will see later the unity of the material universe is explained by the origin of all material things from the common source of original matter which has been multiplied through its parts, which are thus related members of the one whole. Thus each material reality is a singular and distinct participant of the material universe, while at the same time it is a member of the community of finite beings which all depend on God, the Subsisting Being. The plurality of the material universe is rooted in its own unity, and it is a reflection of the unity of creation in God. Comparison Now a final word is in order, comparing the points of view of St. Thomas and Teilhard regarding the nature of matter and the finality of the material universe. Again I wish to note that both St. Thomas and Teilhard de Chardin explain material reality in terms that are completely beyond the realm of the senses -- Teilhard by the "within" of things or by "spiritual" (suprasensible) energy; St. Thomas by related principles which only the intellect can grasp. Yet neither are idealists -- the material world is real both as regards its accidental manifestation (its "without") as well as its "within," or inner structure or essence (form). We have already stated the finality of the universe according to St. Thomas -- the glory of God, which consists in man's knowledge and praise of God through knowledge of the universe. Teilhard de Chardin sees the accomplishing of this purpose from an evolutionary point of view. Man's Knowledge Teilhard asks: what is the purpose of the evolution of the universe and what is the reason for the growth of human knowledge about it? What is their ultimate purpose? To answer these questions Teilhard de Chardin proposed the law of complexity-consciousness. He held that the evolution of the universe includes three distinct phases. The first was completed in the biological evolution from lower to higher and more complex forms of conscious life and reached its climax with the appearance of man. After the appearance of man, the social consciousness of mankind became the object of evolution with the rise of ever more complex societies, reaching a climax in contemporary society, when "socialization" has reached its highest peak. Both the biological and social evolution are not ends in themselves but point to the highest evolution possible -- the union of all men in love, centered in a Divine Person who has been revealed in human history -- Jesus Christ. The power of God working from within the universe is manifested in the first two phases, but the greatest power of God is in the third phase, which takes place within the universe but is completely beyond its natural power, yet destined for fulfillment. The growth of the knowledge of mankind, under the direction of God, has an important place in achieving the goal of the universe. The potentially infinite capacity of the material universe has been manifested in the evolution of the world. This evolution is a great demonstration of the power of God at work within creation, giving to things not only their singular existences and natural powers, but allowing them to operate and show forth their own intrinsic value. Man's own intelligence, which has come to know so many of the secrets of the universe through the advance of modern science, is a higher demonstration of the power of God. In creating human intelligence, God gave to each man a potentially infinite capacity for knowledge, which develops gradually not only in the individual case but for mankind at large. Man's collective intelligence and natural powers have successfully probed the deepest secrets of nature -- such is the power of God working within His universe that He not only gives existence to billions of men but providentially guides them to realize their own potential and astounding intelligence. The purposefulness of scientific progress and human development cannot be directed towards a dead end. The immanent power of God within the universe leads mankind on to a final recognition -- the actual infinity of God's own power and of His own undying love in creating the universe, and in sharing the knowledge of it with man. The very expansion of the universe, its potential infinity, and its finality are an indication of God's own presence and infinite intelligence working within the universe. The growth of man's knowledge, with his infinite capacity for knowledge, parallels the growth of the universe. But in the plan of God, the universe would have no purpose in evolving, and there would be no purpose to man's growth in knowledge unless they jointly proclaimed the same allegory -- the allegory of God's powerful love towards which all things are converging.
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|
|
Main Page & Index |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.