Big Questions

Just what are ‘The Big Questions’? How do we know what constitutes a ‘Big Question’? Are they questions that we are unlikely to find an answer to, or are they questions whose answer could have the most profound consequences for humanity? Perhaps there is something of both in the really Big Questions.

The question ‘Why is there anything at all’ is often taken to be the most fundamental Big Question. If what there is, the ‘universe and everything’, lacks a sufficient reason for existing, if everything just happened by chance, then our existence is largely futile. If on the other hand there is a sufficient reason for everything that exists, then we exist within a rational order, and that should make a difference to how we live.

There is another question we have to ask about the Big Questions. How are we to judge a proposed answer to a question such as: ‘Why is there anything at all?’ This is not a question for physical scientists, whose job is to answer ‘How’ questions about the physical world, rather than ‘Why’ questions. Despite this, some physical scientists, particularly Cosmologists, can’t help bumping up against the ‘whys’, as they unravel the ‘hows’. Physical scientists pursue physical entities or things, such as atoms or quarks, which are usually proposed by speculation long before they are shown to exist. These speculations are `entity theories’ which can be proven by the discovery of the entity.

An answer to the question `Why is there anything at all’ is not going to be an entity or thing. Any answer will also be the result of speculation. But it is going to be a different type of speculative theory. It will propose a scenario or a particular perspective, a way of looking at the world. We could call it an expository theory. The theory of Evolution is such an expository theory. An expository theory stands to be judged on its coherence and on its explanatory power with reference to known facts. It can not be proven, as can an entity theory, but it can stand as the `best explanation’, until a better explanation comes along.

Here is a list of some really Big Questions. They are all questions of the type which have puzzled people for a long time, and the answer to each one could have profound consequences for humanity.

Why is there anything at all?

Is the Universe a process?

Why is there evil in the world?

Why would a perfect God make an imperfect world?

Does the Universe evolve?

Does mankind have a purpose?

How could we know it?

What could it be?

These are some of the questions I answer in my book, ‘The Process of the Cosmos: Philosophical Theology and Cosmology’ (1999) USA.

The Kelly Thesis, as set out in the 'The Process of the Cosmos' meets the criteria set out above for an expository theory. it is a coherent theory which has considerable explanatory power, answering questions which have stood unanswered for over 2,400 years.

The Kelly Thesis argues that with the advance of scientific knowledge, particularly in cosmology, Natural Theology can now provide an answer to the question as to the reason for the existence of man and the world. Aristotle had reasoned from the contingency of the world to the necessity of a God. He had also concluded that the world was unworthy of God's concern, as God could not be concerned with a world which was significantly different from God himself. Aristotle's reasoning from the world up to God, together with his inability to reason down from God to the world, established an antinomy.

The history of subsequent attempts to avoid this antinomy, and to provide an explanation for the existence of the world, is considered. No such attempt is found to be successful. A hidden assumption in Aristotle's reasoning is exposed. Aristotle's conclusion that the world was not worthy of God's concern followed from his unstated assumption that the world was complete, rather than in process. The thesis argues that the world we know represents a stage in a process towards the possible self-creation of an entity which is similar to God, and so worthy of God's concern. Only a process of self-creation could produce an entity which would be self-existent, and so not significantly different from the self-subsistent God. Each stage of such a process of self-creation, before the final stage, would necessarily be less than perfect.

Early in the 20th Century the Emergent Evolutionists had sought to explain the emergence of the biological and mental levels from the material level, without success. Nicolai Hartmann's subsequent ontological investigations made clear the stratified nature of reality. Hartmann's ontology is brought to bear on the problem of Emergence. Hartmann's analysis of ethics and his phenomenology of human nature are also brought to bear on the problem of the nature and role of man in the world.

The thesis argues that the world can be understood as a process involving the possible self-creation of an entity like God. In the series of the emergent ontological strata of reality, the physical, biological, conscious and spiritual strata, each stratum is less rigidly determined, and exercises greater freedom than does the previous stratum. The laws of nature vary from stratum to stratum, becoming less deterministic at each new stratum. The present human moral-cultural, or spiritual stratum, exercises complete freedom in relation to the law of this stratum, the moral law. The moral law commands but can not compel. The possible outcomes of this process of Emergence could be either the self-creation of a stratum which is not significantly different from God, or the self-destruction of humanity. In this context, Christ could be considered to be a proleptic exemplar of the final emergent stage.