Theological Musings
by C. Grey Austin, Ph.D.
Installment VIII -- October 1992
In the beginning there was a void -- a curious
form of vacuum, a nothingness, neither time nor space, neither stars nor
planets -- neither rocks nor trees, neither animals nor human beings. There
were, however, in place the laws of nature, or so we believe. And these
laws dictated that the curious vacuum would explode, and in this initial
incandescence there were created space, time, and a hot plasma of primordial
particles. As the universe cooled and grew less dense, particles coagulated
and forces differentiated. Pristine symmetry gave way to evolving complexity.
Protons and neutrons formed, then nuclei and atoms and huge clouds of dust,
which, still expanding, condensed locally here and there to form the galaxies
and the stars and the planets.
On one planet -- this one, a most ordinary planet, following precise mathematics,
orbiting a mediocre star, one speck on the spiral arm of a standard galaxy
-- turbulent landmasses and more turbulent oceans organized themselves, and
out of the oceans an ooze of organic molecules reacted and built up the protein,
and eventually life began. Plants and animals evolved out of simple organisms,
and, in time, human beings arrived.
This is "Genesis" in the words of Nobel Laureate
Leon M. Lederman in the Phi Beta Kappa Sidney Hook Memorial Lecture, 1991.
Each religion has a cosmology -- a cosmic creation story of how the universe
came to be, how it is organized, and how humankind fits into its scheme --
and each cosmology offers the prospect of a religion. That is to say, each
portrayal of the universe identifies humankind in its relation to the cosmos,
places humankind in some line of continuity, suggests patterns of reverence
and ethical behavior, etc. It is only in the last half of the twentieth
century that science has been able to posit the cosmology stated by Lederman.
Those of you who have been with me as I seek to get my head and my heart
together around a concept of God will understand how I am attracted by a
scientific cosmology. This is a statement with an empirical base; and if
there is truth in my assumption that reality is all of one piece then, perhaps,
the universe can teach me what is "supremely significant and ultimately real,"
i.e., what is God. The universe can teach me, if I am open to it, how the
universe works, what my identity is within it, and what my role is in creation
and evolution as they continue.
When I was growing up, the image that gave me meaning and purpose and that
defined ethical standards was "the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood
of God." For that time the image was a positive force, but now I recognize
it as patriarchal, hierarchical, and even if it were more gender inclusive
I would find it difficult to respond positively to a parental image of God.
In addition, if we are to communicate with one another, words must have
a substantial degree of common meaning. "God" means so many different things
to different people that I am uncomfortable using the term without adding
a definition.
The cosmology presented by Lederman is accepted by, among others, Brian Swimme,
Thomas Berry, David Darling and Matthew Fox who ask about the human place
in such a cosmos. It is based on the best knowledge that scientists can
furnish about what happened after the Big Bang, and hypotheses are clearly
understood for what they are -- best guesses to be verified or corrected
as further data are discovered. Does that cosmology help us to answer questions
of human identity, values, purpose, and ethics? I think it does.
Cosmology has been of interest to religious thinkers for some time. Teilhard
de Chardin worked at reconciling science and religion around cosmological
issues; Thomas Berry, a Roman Catholic priest, as was Teilhard, was greatly
concerned about ecological problems and discussed them within the context
of cosmology; Brian Swimme, a mathematical cosmologist and colleague of Matthew
Fox, has identified cosmic dynamics that have special relevance for the role
of humankind in the universe.
This, then, I have come to believe (at least to hypothesize):
1. The essence of reality is wholeness. Reality is a unity in which humankind
is interconnected not only with every living thing but also, through participation
in the creative/evolutionary process, with aspects of reality whose processes
move at the pace of geologic time.
2. Wholeness of self, of society, and of the planet are interwoven and are
the responsibility of humankind.
3. All that has gone before from the beginning of time is part of us, and
we are part of all that will happen in the future.
4. We are dependent upon the natural laws and processes that provide the
binding energy of all reality and life -- gravity, electromagnetism, chemical
bonding, genetic coding, photosynthesis, homeostasis (and others, like the
second law of thermodynamics that deals with expansion and entropy).
5. Our connectedness with all humankind is also reflected in Jung's concept
of the collective unconscious in which the shared archetypes of all peoples
are to be found. When we are most completely our deepest selves, we are
most in touch with that cosmic connectedness. (This concept is not included
in the cosmologies I have read, but it makes sense to me to include it.)
6. Humankind provides the self-aware, imaginative and co-creative element
of the universe.
7. All elements of our experience come to us as gifts for our learning,
our health and our wholeness.
8. These gifts include forces for health and wholeness, both within us as,
for example, dreams are generated, and outside us in the forms of food, air,
water, and human community, as well as the natural laws and forces mentioned
above.
9. Our appropriate response to these gifts is gratitude, awe and wonder,
followed by (in Matthew Fox's terms) meeting pain and emptiness, responding
to life creatively, and acting in compassion, celebration, and justice-making.
10. This is both a mystical (right-brain) and a rational (left-brain) process.
One of the forms of wholeness to be attained is the balance of right and
left brain activity.
11. Evil, pain, suffering exist. There are natural predators and natural
processes of life and death. There are natural disasters. There are also
those who seek gain from a perspective that is too narrowly confined to give
attention to the consequences for the larger whole. People have a great
capacity to hurt one another, as they have a great capacity to love one another.
12. The universe teaches rules to be followed in the quest for health and
wholeness. For me, Jesus was the best teacher and example of these. He
lived the epitome of a human life, and in his complete humanness modeled
divinity.
13. All facets of human experience in and with the universe have been built
into the great religious traditions. I can readily see how people in earlier
times, experiencing the universe without the benefit of modern science, but
with the expectation that spirits inhabit everything, constructed belief
systems to explain the mystery and to account for the learnings that they
derived from their intimate daily contact with the natural world. And those
systems -- those that survived -- were refined in subsequent generations
and have come down to us as the world's religions. They offer alternative
patterns for understanding ourselves and our relationships with one another
and with whatever we deem to be ultimate.
I don't believe that all of the world's religions say the same thing (though
there are many important parallels) or that one religion is just as good
as another. "By their fruits you shall know them" seems to fit here. If
a religion supports discriminatory or exclusivist behavior, then it is not
worthy. But in this pluralistic world, several religions have something
for me: Native Americans give me a much needed ecological reverence; Taoists
teach me to let go, to give up trying to control, to let it be; Christians
offer the life and teachings of Jesus and the sense of that spirit continuing
in community.
The approach through scientific cosmology offers another alternative, and
while it is just as metaphoric and analogical as the others it comes to me
fresh and free of the weighted meanings that traditional Judeo-Christian
words carry for me.
I can, to my satisfaction, translate between the new cosmology and Christianity:
I can say "God" and mean creativity, binding
energy, healing forces, wholeness, love, etc.
I can understand the continuing presence of Jesus' teachings and example
of unconditional love in community as "Christ" (or "Holy Spirit").
I can call healing "salvation."
I can call the gifts I receive "grace," as I recognize that life is improved
when all experiences are received, in gratitude, as blessings.
I can understand the moral and ethical force in my connectedness and in
the power to affect the continuation of the creative/evolutionary process
and call it "God's will."
I can do that translating, but I don't feel any great need
to. For now I want to continue to look for personal meaning in the new cosmology.
I will be reading both those authors who approach it from a Christian perspective
and those who write about it without a mention of God. Interestingly, I
have found representatives of both approaches who respond to the cosmos with
gratitude, awe and reverence, who see in it great beauty, who find in it
an ethical imperative -- who are, in short, mystics and prophets and spiritual
guides.
* * * * *
There is the question of WHY? Why the cosmos? Why the creative/evolutionary
process that has culminated (so far) in humankind? What caused the Big Bang?
What super-intelligence created such a marvelous complexity of conditions
for sustaining life? Scientists have projected their knowledge back to within
micro-seconds of the first explosion, but not earlier. Stephen Hawking suggests
that the Big Bang was not a beginning but a continuation of the cosmic process
by which black holes (the void, the nothingness) explode as super novas.
Does a creative process presuppose a creator? I don't think so, but as
Leon Lederman in presenting his statement of cosmology noted, there is room
in it for divine intervention.
(Copyright 1997 by C. Grey Austin, all rights reserved.)
Click here
to return to Grey's Musings menu.
Click here
to return to the Food for New Thought menu.
Click here
to return to the Unity East Main Page