At the Metaphysical Epicentre of the Climate Change Discourse
God is not an indifferent clockmaker, or dependent on the world for His own perfection. Creation is a gratuitous gift and, therefore, nature merits a new relationship with mankind.
We would like to wish all our subscribers a happy and fruitful new year! Here is the first AfroDiscourse article of the new year.
(reading time: about 11 minutes.)
Introduction
Science originates from nature. This principle would sit comfortably within the Corpus Aristotelianus (the Complete Works of Aristotle). I am yet to encounter it within his immense writings and if any reader happens to come across it, please accept my misgivings. For now, two key notions are important: science and nature. Both these terms represent entire realms of reality; they are in fact two worlds. At the bedrock of science lies metaphysics as prima scientorum (the very first among the sciences).
But before we follow this train of thought, let me revisit my short journey in exploring climate change. I first got into climate action around ten years ago when I made a semi-academic presentation of the newly published encyclical letter by Pope Francis, Laudato Si’ at a university in Nairobi. It was in Laudato Si’ that most people discovered the relevance of intellectual and moral conversations surrounding ecology and planet Earth, our common home. Previously, science already held certain insights about the changes occurring in the natural world (see part II of this article). However, the encyclical, broadly theological in design, introduced us to topics like “cultural ecology,” “human weakness,” and “ecological conversion.” I remember a quote from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov was and remains particularly striking:
“Love all God’s creation, both the whole and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of light. Love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing. If thou love each thing, thou wilt perceive the mystery of God in all; and when once thou perceive this, thou wilt thenceforward grow every day to a fuller understanding of it: until thou come at last to love the whole world with a love that will then be all-embracing and universal.”
The almost personalized attention to the natural world that is now being asked of us is somewhat new. Historically, humanity has thrived in the universe through deeply ingrained survival psychology (very observable in animals, for example) which has ensured that, by striving to dominate and use the resources of the universe, man can progress as a species, or perish and vanish from the face of the earth. This has happened to other species in the past—they are now only pre-historic relics. The phenomenon of existing in constant competition with the rest of the natural world to survive and thrive led the early 19th century English naturalist and biologist, Charles Darwin, to formulate the theory of evolution by “natural selection”, and he coined the ubiquitous term “survival of the fittest”. More recently, survival psychology has been applied to other fields, such as economic analyses of human behavior.
This survival psychology can be condensed into two main points:
Man is in constant competition with his environment for survival.
Man is in a quest to dominate, use, and even abuse the ecosystem to emerge as the superior species in the natural world.
The above, coupled with the emergence of large-scale industrial human action in the 19th century, meant that over time, the entire ecosystem would begin to feel the negative effects of human activity around the globe—as indeed, it did.
For this reason, we are now called upon to change our view of the universe. We are summoned to have a new relationship with nature. In large part, this new relationship is hinged on the fact that nature does suffer from the drastic effects of massive, modernized, and commercialized human action. Nature suffers. When Darwin was carrying out his experiments (and in the preceding eons), human activity had not actualized the industrial possibilities that would become reality mere decades later. Disproportionate carbon dioxide emission, large-scale generation of non-biodegradable waste, soil and water exploitation and exhaustion—all this has become commonplace, something that was unimaginable when human life was subsistence-based.
As thinkers, it is our task to uncover reasons and principles that can explain common experience. This article aims to unravel the fundamental principles that can guide an intellectual approach to the suffering of the natural world from extreme human action. I aim to speak for the universe in ways that it cannot speak for itself. Does the universe have an internal structure that determines how it should operate, the failure of which could lead to irreversible damage, or even to destruction of all that lives and exists in it? Can we rationally speak of having a new relationship with Nature as human beings?
First, we delve into the origin of the universe to determine if it has a structured order of operation and merits a new relationship with mankind.
The universe: created or randomly existing?
Philosophy is the love of wisdom (“sophia” in Greek). Wisdom is a type of knowledge of the ultimate causes and ends of things. A statement or thought is considered wise if it delivers the ultimate meaning of and fully understands the matter at hand. Philosophy can, therefore, provide profound insights (wisdom) about things that have been said and discussed, including climate change.
This brings us back to our two key notions: science and nature. Science is traditionally defined as knowledge through mediate causes. The subject matter of scientific knowledge is the natural world (nature). It is from nature that we derive physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc., and all their constituent specializations. In a prior research work, I was able to study a fundamental principle of Nature that directly opposes any sort of opinion along the lines of accidental existence, which is that it is a created universe. I was able to address the fact that our living planet is linked in a timeless way to its giver or Creator from which it does and will always attain its intellectual and moral content:
“Contemporary studies robustly reveal the rationality of the material constitution of the Universe. So articulate is this revelation that cosmological science simply cannot concur with the [affirmation] that the world originates from nothingness. … Aquinas's recourse to the … study of [universal movement or change] … [demonstrates] that the very rationality of this movement encloses certain metaphysical tenets that guide us to the original divine attribution of such motion. God is the author of all being.”1
The universe is created in both space and time (although Aristotle could only fathom it as being eternal and necessary, i.e., inevitable). The Philosopher’s position of the eternal and necessary universe is based on the view that the universe is in perpetual motion and the Prime Mover only sustains this movement. This Prime Mover, however, does not account for the origin of the existence of the universe. In our introduction, we alluded to the fact that mankind needs to establish a new relationship with nature. Now, by getting down to the fundamental origin of the universe from God as the author of all being, we can see how this kind of relationship can even begin to exist. The environment is not a simple inanimate and random existence whose yesterday and tomorrow are widely unknown. It is well-crafted and rationally made because its author is rational. There is some sense to everything that we interact with through our sense perceptions.
A relatable universe has deep and intrinsic metaphysical and ethical implications for Ecology. Our planet is not an unconditional apparatus or tool at the hands of human beings to exploit as they deem fit. Planet Earth exists with an intrinsic design from its Maker. Our primary task as components of this universe is to discover how the Universe works. Fundamental to this quest of discovery is a deep-seated respect for the mind and intention of the Creator. Climate, the environment, and the natural world possess a moral and intellectual inherency. We can speak of good conduct and bad conduct concerning the environment. Conversations around man’s self-destruction due to the overexploitation and abuse of nature do not necessarily have to take on an “apocalyptic” outlook, but can have a scientific and logical basis.
Going forward, we derive metaphysical insights about the origin of the universe to find a firmer base for the moral and intentional physiognomies of the climate change dialogue.
What, how, and why does God create?
Post-Hellenistic Thought, enlightened by Judeo-Christian principles, was a great plus to philosophical exploration. Creatio ex nihilo (Genesis 1-2) is not the metaphysical description of how nothingness becomes something, as if nothingness itself was the basis of action, but rather the nature of the action of the Pure Acting Being, God Himself. St. Thomas Aquinas describes God as the subject of the creative act; not nihilum as a sort of object which represents the raw material or prime matter or even the departing point of the action of God. There lies the fine line of logic that changes the entire discussion: “It is not that nothingness is the origin of universal being. Rather, God creates from nothing”.
As Aquinas attests, the reason why God creates from nothing is that the nature of His action is Pure Act, absolutely perfect, needing no activation or motivation from outside itself: “And because of this He can make something from nothing”. Aquinas affirms that God acts without any intermediary (De potentia, q. 7 a. 10 co.). And because creation is an outpouring of the Divine Goodness, we can say, in the words of St. Augustine: “Because God is good, we are. / Because He is good, we are; and in so far as we are, we are good” (Augustine of Hippo, De Doctrina Christiana I, 32).
Creatio ex nihilo as the new category of causality is such a condensed principle that it carries with it several non-exhaustible sub-postulates. Due to the nature of the present article, I am not able to elaborate in a fully speculative way on the various premises and conclusions that are elucidated by the notion of the act of creation, but I will, in summary, emphasize that:
God is not simply the detached nature of a common being and creatures do not simply share in God’s act of being. No, the Divine Being is the unique separated act of being while all created being is composed in an intelligent, intended, and free manner by God. They are two totally different ways of existence. This also reveals that, with respect to the universe, God is not an indifferent clockmaker, or dependent on the world for His own perfection, as if the world and all that were within it were mere instruments for His own self-satisfaction. God is perfect in Himself, and creation is a free gift or bestowment.
Created being is endowed with those perfections that pertain to their respective act of being—in a participative and effective (real) kind of way. These perfections are distributed according to the nature of being of the creature (essence) which somehow defines or limits their possession of these acts and perfections.
Implications for Modern Ecological Science
The fact that the Universe has a personal origin in God forms the basis for the new relationship that human action must develop with nature. Our interaction with the natural world is not purely mechanical. Herein lie the metaphysical and ethical implications of the notion of creation to positive sciences, such as ecology.
Now, science is often too technical to come to terms with philosophical principles and ecology is no exception. Many a time, in my experience, when ecological scientists are asked why human behavior toward the environment should change, they will simply respond: “We change or we perish!” This is indeed true—but it is not the entire truth. Hence, we begin to see philosophy’s unique contribution to the discussion about why humankind should establish a new relationship with nature. The fundamental reason why the human ecological approach must change is not only the possible destruction of nature, but also that we need to align ourselves with the truth, with God’s intended purpose of bringing reality into existence. The natural world is not an unpremeditated entity but a well-thought-out, created gift that bespeaks the Creator. This realization can steer the approach of scientific study and provide the ground and focal point for optimism in ecological studies.
Mankind has a formidable journey ahead of him: he must change his perspective and purpose in this world from simple survival to the conservation and betterment of our common home.
Moreover, while lying outside the scope of technical ecological science, the perspective outlined in Laudate Deum (LD) is vital: ecological concerns are intimately connected to the dignity of human life. Our care for each other and care for creation are bound together. The personal dimension of the climate conversation once more comes to the forefront. “What is being asked of us is nothing other than a certain responsibility for the legacy we will leave behind, once we pass from this world” (LD, 18).
Conclusion: Philosophy and the Foundations of Ecological Science
In the first letters of the introduction above, I highlighted the fact that science is pre-conditioned by nature. Ecology as a science also applies this principle. Ecological studies, for the most part, are based on the observation and recordings of the climate phenomenon over a considerable amount of time (around 35 years or more). However, research and technology are tools in the hands of people. What matters most is the attitude and mindset of the researchers and technologists, their philosophical disposition.
As we have seen, the universe is not a random or arbitrary existence. It is inherently rational. It is intentional. Therefore, we must look at ecology with new eyes. Our natural home and planet is not an unconditional apparatus or tool for human beings to exploit as they deem fit. Planet Earth exists with an intrinsic design. Our primary task is to discover how the universe works. Only then can we safely dominate it (the Creation mandate–see Genesis 1:28). Fundamental to this quest of discovery is a deep-seated respect for the mind and intention of the Creator, for which philosophical reflection plays a crucial role.
 | A guest post by
|