FREE ESSAY ON COSMOGONY

COSMOGONY

What is cosmogony? Cosmogony can be defined as a study of the physical universe in terms
of its originating time and space. In other words, cosmogony is the study of the universe
and its origins. The origin and the nature of the universe have been one of the most
debated topics throughout history. Both the scientific and theological communities have
yet to ascertain a common ground on how the universe came into being and whether it was
an act of God or merely a spontaneous and random phenomenon. New discoveries in the
scientific world provide new viewpoints on the creation of the universe and its relevance
to a supreme intelligent Creator. Due to mankind's constantly changing perspective of the
world by scientific means, the argument on the origin of the universe is also forced to
progress and develop itself. Through the analysis of the works by Thomas Aquinas, David
Hume, and John Haught, the development of the theory on the originating cause of the
universe, through the course of history, can be easily identified. A very early
interpretation on the origin of the universe and the existence of a Creator can be found
in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, indirectly
offers his own views on the origin of the universe. The term indirectly is used because
his arguments are found in his five proofs for the existence of God and are not directly
targeted at establishing a viewpoint on the origin of the universe. Aquinas' first
implication on the origin of the universe can be found in his first proof. Aquinas states
that in the world some things are in motion. Anything that is in motion, therefore, must
have been placed in motion by something else. This chain of movement, however, can not go
on to infinity for there would be no first or any intermediate movers. Therefore there
exists a first unmoved mover that is the cause of all in motion (Aquinas, Q.2, art.3, I
answer). Aquinas, in mentioning the first unmoved mover, is referring to God. Although
Aquinas' first proof can be read in a literal sense one must analyze it figuratively in
order to deduce his viewpoint on cosmogony. The act of the first unmoved mover putting
the first object into motion is symbolic of Aquinas' belief that God created the
universe. God, in putting the first object into motion, created the universe.
Consequently, other objects were put into motion within that universe. This is the chain
of motion discussed in Aquinas' proof. In other words, to Aquinas, the existence of our
universe in motion is a result of an act of God (the creator of the universe). Several
observations can be made in examining Aquinas' viewpoint on cosmogony. First of all, the
argument takes a very linear path. The proof is too simple for such a large task as
proving the existence of God. It does not take into account complex ideas that obviously
declare this proof erroneous. For example, it is common knowledge today that all things
are made of atoms and that all atoms are in constant motion. Therefore, there is no such
thing as an inanimate object in existence. Another problems with Aquinas' viewpoint is
that it does not consider the possibility that motion, and not rest, is the natural order
of things. For if everything is in motion, would it not make more sense to declare motion
as the natural order? (Hume, VIII.4) Although a seemingly dysfunctional argument on
Aquinas' part, one must take into account the time period in which this proof was
constructed. Aquinas lived and wrote in the 13th century, before the existence of atomic
science and other scientific theories. In this, one could easily see how the lack of
science and other future knowledge contribute to a very primitive insight on cosmogony.
Furthermore, with the development of worldly knowledge, the argument on the originating
cause of the universe is also forced to develop in order to accommodate such changes.
David Hume, for example, in Dialogues and Natural History of Religion, discusses
cosmogony in a modern 18th century light. In the text, Hume creates three characters each
representing a different viewpoint of religious belief. Demea represents the orthodox
believer, Cleanthes represents the modern 18th century deist, and Philo represents Hume's
position, the skeptic. By using the three characters, Hume is able to argue all sides of
a certain issue, and through the character Philo, is able to voice his own views. Hume
employs this method for the discussion of cosmogony as well. Hume voices the opinion of
the deist empiricist on the origin of the universe through Cleanthes. The order and
arrangement of nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and
intention of every part and organ; all these bespeak in the clearest language an
intelligent cause or author. (Hume, IV.7) For the 18th century deist, the order of
nature, the final causes produced in the universe, and the specific purpose of everything
in existence, is enough evidence to assume an intelligent being created the universe. For
example, the way in which the food chain maintains all of nature's beings in balance or
the way that every organ on our body has a specific and purposeful use. These
accommodations could not possibly be a coincidence or accident. On the contrary,
everything works out because the Creator meant it to work out. Cleanthes views the
universe as a well oiled machine that was built by God with all the intentions present in
nature. Hume/Philo, however, is reluctant to put any fine point on the origins of the
universe.  The discoveries by microscopes, as they open a new universe in miniature, are
still objections, according to you (Cleanthes); arguments according to me. The farther we
push our researches of this kind, we are still led to infer the universal cause of All to
be vastly different from mankind, or from any object of human experience and observation.
(Hume, V.4) In this passage Hume displays his own viewpoint that mankind can not
comprehend the power in which this universe was created by. He neither denies nor
advocates the existence of an original being. Instead, he takes the agnostic position in
that all we are capable of learning only leads us to more questions, and that by human
experience it is impossible to comprehend the true divine power. The agnostic approach
taken by Hume is characteristic of the 18th century Enlightenment. In contrast to
Aquinas, Hume advocates an empiricist method in which all knowledge must be traced back
to an original sense perception. The employment of the empiricist principle is the prime
reason we can not know anything about God or the creation of the universe. The
acknowledgement of different religious viewpoints, the establishment of the agnostic
position, and the use of the empiricist principle, are new ideas used in the argument for
the origin of the universe. The 18th century Enlightenment values are highly evident in
Hume's text. It is obvious how the 13th century argument presented by Aquinas has changed
in order to accommodate the new viewpoints available in the 18th century. Through the
analysis of Hume's work, and put in comparison with earlier views, the development of the
argument for the origin of the universe is easily identifiable. John F. Haught in Science
and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, further develops the cosmogonical argument.
In the text, Haught discusses to great extent, the relationship between the scientific
and the theological communities. Similarly to David Hume's dialogue approach, Haught
employs four different viewpoints in which science and religion can be related. These can
be identified as Conflict, Contrast, Contact, and Confirmation. Conflict- the conviction
that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable; Contrast- the claim that
there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to
radically different questions Contact- an approach that looks for dialogue, interaction,
and possible consonance between Science and religion Confirmation- the ways in which
religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprises. (Haught, p.9)
Employing these four viewpoints, Haught discusses our current 20th century views on
cosmogony. Perhaps the largest part of Haught's argument comes from the Big Bang Theory.
The big bang is hypothesized to be the cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the
universe and the beginning of time. Haught acknowledges the big bang as a possible cause
of the universe and moves even further to state that the big bang would justify the
biblical idea of divine creation as depicted in Genesis. (Haught, p.101) However,
similarly to Hume, Haught also acknowledges the possibility that the universe may not
have come into existence at all. He states, Perhaps the universe always was and always
will be. (Haught, p.101) This point of view would seriously challenge large portions of
Christian doctrine. Haught employs the four relations in order to clarify and mediate
between the two extreme views of cosmogony. The conflict argument states that it is not
at all self-evident that just because the universe had a beginning it also had to have a
creator?Ethe cosmos may have had a beginning, but it could have burst into existence
spontaneously, without any cause. (Haught, p.106) Haught brings up the possibility of
nothing having existed prior to the big bang. The idea of a spontaneous explosion
creating the universe is not characteristic of either Aquinas' or Hume's eras.
Furthermore, Haught's explanation puts the purpose of our existence into question. If the
universe is a product of a Creator than we exist for the purpose of carrying out the
Creators expectations. This is similar to how a clock maker puts every single gear and
spring into a specific position in order for the clock to run. However, if we are merely
a result of a random cosmic explosion than we are all products of a gigantic cosmic
accident. Haught concludes the Conflict position by stating that although the big bang
theory seems to smooth over religious/scientific conflicts, the constant changing nature
of science discredits the validity of the relation. (Haught, p.109) Again it is obvious
that 20th century science and observations has contributed in the development of the
cosmogonical argument. Haught, in demonstrating the Contrast relationship, brings up the
idea that the big bang physics provides no new ammunition for theology. (Haught, p.109)
He goes on further to say that creation is not about chronological beginnings so much as
it is about the world's being grounded continuously in the graciousness of God. (Haught,
p.111) Haught discusses the idea that the big bang actually has no basis for a
theological proof and that it has entirely nothing to do with creation itself. Instead,
we exist in a universe that is solely dependent on God and that above the importance of
creation itself we should show gratitude for our existence. Without the knowledge of the
big bang or other scientific evidences, this idea on the nature of the universe could not
be conceived. Thus we can say that Haught's Contrast relationship is a product of 20th
century thinking and that it further puts the argument of cosmogony into development.
Haught's Contact relationship, however, differs slightly from that of the Contrast and
Conflict relationships. The Contact relationship states that Although we do not wish to
base our faith directly on the scientific ideas, our reserve does not mean that the big
bang cosmology is theologically irrelevant. (Haught, p.114) Haught states here that the
big bang, although not the sole aspect of creation, is still a large piece of the
cosmogonical puzzle. He also brings up the idea that according to scientist the big bang
is not over and done with. It is still happening. (Haught, p.117) It is the idea that the
universe is in constant creation by God, and that although the big bang may have been the
beginning, it can not be defined as creation itself. This is yet another demonstration of
a scientific bullet in a theological gun. Once again, this development of the
cosmogonical argument accurately reflects the time period it was conceived in. Thomas
Aquinas, David Hume, and John Haught all posses their own ideas and beliefs on the
origination of the universe. Their arguments reflect the knowledge and logic of each
person's era. The cosmogonical argument is constantly in development as the world changes
in terms of the knowledge at hand. With Aquinas we see a linear and logical argument,
with an absence of scientific foundation. Hume develops three different arguments with
the empiricist principle at hand. Haught, similarly to Hume, uses different viewpoints in
order to convey his opinions on the originating cause of the universe. He incorporates
the big bang theory with the theological argument of Genesis. As history progresses, our
knowledge of the world progresses, and thus our views on cosmogony progress. This
development of the cosmogonical argument can be easily traced through the works of
Aquinas, Hume, and Haught. Undoubtedly, new discoveries in our near future will lead us
to new insights on the origin of the universe.