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.