WHY
IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
Copyright, 7th
January 2002, Dr. A.B. Kelly,
A
self-existent entity is the best explanation of the existence of contingent
entities. I will call this self-existent entity X, and call contingent entities,
collectively, Z.
What
motive could X have for initiating anything at all? The most reasonable
supposition is that X wants there to be another entity similar to X. However Z
is not similar to X. There is a significant difference between them. The
essential dissimilarity is in their mode of existence, X being spirit and
self-existent and Z being matter and totally contingent. Can this gap be
bridged?
The
only possibility of bridging the gap is for X to initiate Z in such a way that
Z, or more accurately some part of Z, has the potential to become engaged in a
process through which it could develop a similarity to X. X must therefore
initiate time as well as matter. Time is a necessity for any process.
Such
a process has to open the possibility of the development of a third mode of
existence, one that is closer to the self-existent mode of X than to the
totally contingent mode of Z. Self-creation would be such an intermediate mode
of existence. As nothing can be self-created ex-nihilo,
the only possible intermediate entity between X and Z is therefore an entity
that is partly contingent and partially self-created. Call this
semi-self-created entity Y.
As
there is a significant ontological distance between X and Z, any process that
could bridge this distance, and possibly produce Y, would probably entail a
series of stages of ever increasing self-creation. The final stage, or stages,
would have to freely self-create in relation to the particular characteristics
that identify X, if Y was ever to be able to become similar to X.
I
use the symbol X rather than the word God, as the concept of God always carries
a lot of baggage. Let us not carry any more of that baggage than necessary, and
accept only that X is spirit, self-existent, creative and good. Y would have to
be able to freely become similar to X in mode of existence, in spirit, in
creativity, and in goodness.
The
first stage of the cosmic process is Z, the stage of matter. The physical and
chemical laws of matter are deterministic, but they interact to produce
contingency. At some stage, given unlimited time, a planet that is capable of
supporting life will develop from this contingent process.
Additional
information then has to be inserted into the process of the cosmos to initiate
life, and to provide it with the potential to freely evolve more complex forms,
including the evolution of rational consciousness. As we are aware, primitive
Homo sapiens, an entity with a rational potential, eventually evolves from this
process.
Homo
sapiens then evolves culturally. It is self-evident
that the cultural process involves free self-creation. Humans make cultures and
cultures, to a significant extent, make humans. Human cultures have the ability
to increase in rationality. As free processes, all cultures develop
differently. The responsibility for the type of development that occurs rests
solely with the people of the culture.
When
and if, through this cultural self-creation, any human culture achieves a
sufficiently high degree of rational consciousness, the people of the culture
can begin to develop their moral, or spiritual, consciousness. They can then
further develop both their creativity and their moral standards, through the
process of cultural self-creation. Moral development is probably the most
important aspect of this process of self-creation, as it is essential if
humanity is to become like X. Moral development is a fully free stage of
self-development, as moral imperatives command but cannot compel.
The
historical development to date indicates that there is a cosmic process that
operates through a series of stages. Each stage is initially relatively simple.
Each stage then appears to increase in complexity, ultimately providing a
platform for the next stage. While the process appears to have a direction
towards greater complexity at each stage, it does not appear to be externally
directed. It seems to be a free process, involving increasing self-creation at
each stage. There may be other explanations of the historical evidence, but a
process involving free self-creation appears to be the most likely explanation
of the evidence.
The
greatest barrier to the acceptance of this simple explanation of the process of
the Cosmos, comes from traditional Theology.
Theologians remain attached the ancient idea that God intervenes in the world.
But clearly any interference by God in the process of human self-creation would
frustrate the possible achievement of a self-created entity similar to God. To
achieve the apparent purpose of the cosmos, both evolution and cultural
self-creation have to be able to operate freely and without external assistance
or constraint. Why then should Theologians adhere to an interventionist idea of
God? Trevor Ling suggests an answer.
In
his “History of Religion East and West” (1968) Ling argues that the Jewish,
Christian and Islamic ideas of God have all been adversely affected by a
concept of God that is based on the actions of an arbitrary oriental potentate.
He traces the development and growth of this concept of God within
Ling
has distinguished three main types of religious beliefs, the “theology of the omnipotent”,
typified by Islam; the “anthropology of the awakened” typified by Buddhism; and
the “Christology of Jesus, or the new man” typified by Christianity. In the
first two types there is little or no sense of historical development. It is
only in Christianity that the time-process is “of primary importance”. (1968,425) But it is clear that the “theology of the omnipotent”
is still alive and well not only in Islam but also in Judaism and Christianity.
Ling
Trevor (1968) A History of Religion East and
Kelly
A.B. (1999) The
Process of the Cosmos: Philosophical Theology and
Cosmology
Kelly A.B. (2001) “An Evolutionary Christology: Teilhard de Chardin and
Beyond” in The
Examined Life Vol. 2, Issue 7, Fall 2001.