Science, Religion & Culture Research Article Metaphysics for a World in Evolution Joseph Andrew Bracken Xavier University, USA Abstract | Metaphysics as theoretical framework for more empirically oriented research in science and in the humanities seems to be either ignored or regarded with great suspicion at the present time. Natural scientists, for example, by and large employ an instrumentalist approach to the study of the laws of nature. Their aim is to deal, not with things in themselves (the Kantian noumena) but with their empirical manifestation (Kantian phenomena) via tentative hypotheses subject to empir- ical verification. In the humanities, there is deep suspicion of so-called “meta-narratives” that offer a comprehensive vision of reality on the grounds that their authors are consciously or unconsciously trying to control the thinking and behavior of others. Yet, as Colin Gunton points out, human be- ings, thus faced with an enormous diversity of options in virtually every area of human life, end up making important decisions simply on the basis of momentary personal preference. In this article, I first review the classical philosophical understanding of the relation between the One and Many in which the One is conceived as ontologically prior to the Many as their necessary principle of unity and intelligibility. I then propose a new paradigm for the relation between the One and the Many in which the Many by their dynamic interrelation from moment to moment initially co-create and then sustain the One not as a higher-order individual entity but as their conjoint energy-source and ongoing field of activity. The One can then be readily integrated into a hierarchical ordered system of fields within fields at all levels of existence and activity within nature. In the final part of the article, I indicate how this new field-oriented understanding of the relation between the One and the Many may help to solve controversial issues in natural science and Christian systematic theology. Editor | Gregg D. Caruso, Corning Community College, SUNY (USA) Received | March, 30 2014; Accepted | May, 24 2014; Published | May, 25 2014 *Correspondence | Joseph Bracken, Xavier University, USA; Email: [email protected] Citation | Bracken, J. A., (2014). In Metaphysics for a World in Evolution. Science, Religion and Culture, 1(2): 73-82. Introduction man experience, and noumena, things as they exist in their own right. Abandoning the claim to objective Classical metaphysics, indeed metaphysics in any knowledge of the workings of the noumena, they set form as a legitimate field of academic endeavor, seems forth in mathematical formulae their human under- to have fallen on hard times. Natural scientists, for standing of the laws of nature governing the phenom- example, seem by and large to have adopted an in- ena. Kant, of course, thought that he was providing in strumentalist approach to the study of the laws of na- the Critique of Pure Reason universal apriori structures ture. That is, like Emmanuel Kant in his celebrated governing all forms of human cognition everywhere. Critique of Pure Reason, they recognize the difference Further anthropological research into the different between phenomena, things as they appear to us in hu- cultures of the world, however, has led anthropologists Smith & Franklin August 2014 | Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Page 73 Academic Publishing Corporation www.smithandfranklin.com Science, Religion & Culture and other social scientists to conclude that different modern philosopher, coined the term “meta-narra- ethnic groups have significantly different experiences tive” or grand narrative in order to claim that efforts of physical reality and as a result make different value to provide an objective overview of human history judgments on the basis of those culturally conditioned are doomed to failure (Lyotard 1984, xxii-xxiv). Con- experiences. Kant himself acknowledged the inevita- sciously or unconsciously, the authors of meta-narra- ble subjectivity of human cognition: “reason has in- tives are trying to control the thinking of others in sight only into that which it produces after a plan of favor of their own convictions and values. Finally, its own” (Kant 1956, B xiii). But as a child of the En- Jacques Derrida, using a deconstructionist approach lightenment in Western Europe, he still believed that to the analysis of language, claimed that the meaning he had restored the objectivity of human knowledge in of words in speaking and writing is never fixed but al- the face of David Hume’s skepticism about the reality ways “deferred” through reference to still other words of the self as organizing principle of its own percep- by way of explanation (Derrida 1982, 3-27). As I see tions (Hume 1967, 207-08). Natural scientists today, it, all of these thinkers are representative of a modern however, are more modest in their claims to objectivi- tendency within the humanities as well as within the ty. They proceed on a hypothesis-verification basis to sciences to distrust the alleged objectivity of human the analysis of empirical data (phenomena) and subject reason as necessary critique and eventual replacement the results of their research to critical evaluation by for arbitrary pronouncements coming from external their peers in the same field before concluding that authorities, religious or secular. the hypothesis in question is in all likelihood true. Yet this understanding of scientific method also tends to Yet there are voices coming from both the contem- exclude any speculation about the noumena in terms porary scientific community and from the humanities of an overarching metaphysical scheme. that lament the loss of a cosmic worldview or phil- osophical cosmology to govern human thinking and Likewise in the humanities, appeal to metaphysics as behavior. For example, a well known philosopher of an overarching world view for the analysis and cri- science, Stephen Toulmin, published in 1982 The Re- tique of traditional textual sources (e.g., classic works turn to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of literature, the Bible and the sacred texts of other of Nature in which he claimed: “The world view of world religions, schematic overviews of human his- contemporary, postmodern science is one in which tory) seems to be giving way to a deep distrust in the practical and theoretical issues, contemplation and objectivity of human knowledge. For example, Mar- action, can no longer be separated; and it is one that tin Heidegger in his celebrated book Being and Time gives us back the very unity, order, and sense of pro- claimed that classical Western metaphysics is not portion – all the qualities embraced in the classical the study of being but the study of God as the Su- Greek term cosmos – that the philosophers of antiquity preme Being in God’s relation to the finite beings of insisted on, and those of the Renaissance destroyed” this world (Heidegger 1962, 19-35). Hence, theology (Toulmin 1982, 264). That is, the ongoing special- with its inevitable grounding in subjective faith is ac- ization of scientific disciplines for the sake of more tually “onto-theology,” not (as alleged) the analysis of pointed research and accurate empirical results must reality in terms of objective reason. Some years later, not be allowed to destroy the possibility of a tentative Emmanuel Levinas in his book Totality and Infini- but still working model of the natural order within ty critiqued what he called the totalizing character which all these scientific disciplines have a place vis- of traditional metaphysical schemes. That is, these á-vis one another. Similarly, the English systematic thought-systems, however unintentionally, subordi- theologian Colin Gunton published in 1993 The One, nate all the individual persons or things of this world the Three and the Many in which he first laid out the to the logic of an apriori scheme which alone gives ills of contemporary Western culture in terms of an them enduring meaning and value (Levinas 1969, exaggerated emphasis on particularity and individual 21-30). Infinity (the mysterious character of life in uniqueness in conscious opposition to the rules and this world) is rather to be found in the “face” of the regulations of life in society today. Then, by way of Other, the objective manifestation of an individual’s response, he appealed to the notion of perichoresis in subjectivity here and now that cannot be fully com- the doctrine of the Trinity among the Greek Fathers prehended by reason alone (Levinas1969, 51). Along of the Church as an apt paradigm for a more bal- the same lines, Jean-Francois Lyotard, a French post- anced relation between particularity and universality Smith & Franklin August 2014 | Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Page 74 Academic Publishing Corporation www.smithandfranklin.com Science, Religion & Culture in modern life (Gunton 1993). in the understanding of the classical paradigm for the relation between the One and the Many in the history That is, in Gunton’s view human beings are at present of Western philosophy from the time of Plato to the overwhelmed by the enormous diversity of lifestyles present day. Then, in the third part of the article I set and perspectives to be found in modern life. As a re- forth an alternate process-oriented understanding of sult, they find themselves unable to make a decision as the relation between the One and the Many based to what is true and good except in terms of individual on the metaphysical system of the English-American preference (Gunton 1993, 101-25). Yet perichoresis, philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead. Finally, in part total sharing of existence and activity among the three four, I briefly sketch how this new process-oriented divine persons of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, paradigm for the relation between the One and the makes clear that in God corporate unity and com- Many could be helpful in other fields of academic re- plete diversity of individual parts or members are ful- search and speculation: first of all, for natural scien- ly compatible with one another.