Spirituality, Religion, Nature

Nature, Meta-physics, Metaphysics

Metaphysical Questions. There are the so called “metaphysical questions,” those dealing with the origin and foundation of being: What things are? Where they come from? Is there something “behind” the world, or “beyond” the physical universe? What is it? Atheists deny the existence of anything metaphysical if it is considered supernatural. Religion is the main defender of metaphysics. We have the right to wonder where does this entire world comes from; where Nature comes from; who made the natural laws, or where they come from; why we are here, and so on. These are metaphysical questions; they cannot be answered by science because in metaphysics there is no place for observation, measurement, or experimentation.

I have wondered these questions myself from my youth, and the answer that I have hold in the course of my years has been changing, from God the Creator to God-Nature or Nature-God. The latest is the most reasonable conclusion that I have been able to ascertain.

God and Nature. Under the light of reason we may identify Nature—the whole Nature in the sense that I will explain—with the concept of God. In this case God-Nature is a natural God and not the supernatural God of theism. Philosophers and scientists are right when they call Nature God because Nature has the power and characteristics that are associated with the idea of God. God does not have to be supernatural; the entired Nature could be God because its essence is to be. Nature entails the whole being, physical as well as non-physical.

Wholeness of Nature. Nature is a comprehensive noun; it encompasses everything that is, and entails the whole of being. Nature well understood explains its own existence, because the concept of Nature includes the very principle of being, from which everything that is, comes. To have a complete view of Nature Dr. Simon Altmann [1] distinguishes what he calls nature_1,nature_2, and nature₃.

- Nature₁ is the Being itself—which I used to call “The Existence” per se, infinite; immanent into the world, and also transcending space and time. It is Kant’s noumenon, the substance or thing in itself.

- Nature₂ is what we ordinarily call nature, that is, all objects and happenings that we observe and experience. Nature₂ is the once remove of nature₁ as in a family generation. It is the physical expression or manifestation of the invisible, untouchable nature₁. The being of nature₂ is not separate or distinct of nature₁, because nature₂ does not have existence by itself (this is the essence of nature₁) but exists by nature₁. This is a key point in this view of the universe and of human life: that everything is Nature₁.

- Nature₃ on the other hand is—according to Dr. Altmann—the laws of nature, a second remove of nature₁ of models of nature₂. He says that physical laws are not nature₂ because the laws of nature are like enunciations of observations made on nature₂; that they exist only in our imagination; that they are like “fiction” compared with what science considers true. [2]

Other theory regarding the physical laws is that they exist eternally as a kind of “forms” (as Plato said) in nature₁, and are objective things. My view is that nature₁ is infinitely comprehensive, and that there is something in the universe by which everything is one within itself: to be. Instead of seeing distinctions and differentiations in Nature, to look at its last and deepest ontological view: its unity as a whole. In this “monistic” view of the universe it is easy to find God in Nature, to see Nature as “identified” with God. (Natural is the opposite of artificial, made or produced by men or by human invention.) Everything is a whole being, Nature, Deus sive Natura, God or Nature, as Spinoza said. Nature: the Total Being, everything that is, physical, non-physical, mindful, spiritual.

Is there in Nature a Metaphysical Principle? The question is then if there is in Nature a metaphysical principle. This question cannot be answered with certainty because of the lack of evidence; there are no-evidences of metaphysics. The reason for this question is that nature₂ does not explain its own existence, unless there is a principle for its existence, nature₁, which must be uncaused, and Principle of Itself.

Meta-physics. According to Dr. Altmann, the relationship between a first event or cause, and a second event or effect, is called the principle of causality; and, although the principle of causality is physically grounded, it is not observable; it is a normative principle, not a law of the physical world. This principle may be called meta-physical, to distinguish from the first principle, nature₁, the cause of all, which is metaphysical.[3]

A disputable matter. A major disputable matter in philosophy and theology has been whether the metaphysical principle is, or not, something different and independent from Nature. Two main directions of thought dispute the principle of all:

1. The theistic position affirms that there is an essential distinction between Nature and its originator; theism affirms that there is a supernatural being that intervenes directly in the origin and conservation of the world.

2. The other position, mostly of scientists and philosophers, states that the very Nature is the principle of its existence, nature₁, the ground and principle of all existence. This principle is common to all objects of Nature.

Religion, Leader in Metaphysics. Metaphysics is a field where human minds unleash the imagination as we see in many fiction books, and mainly in religion. Religion has been creator and leader of metaphysics. Theistic theologians have elaborated voluminous treatises about the unknown (God, afterlife, etc.) with surprising details; they have had the temerity to give details of absolutely unknown subjects. They do not tell the readers that what they say are hypotheses (imaginations), not facts; only that they justify their statements by faith, which in last term is a belief, similar to the belief in the planet that was mentioned at the beginning of these commentaries. When they quote the Bible to support their statements, they forget that what must be proved in the first place is the truthfulness of the Bible, and this proof must be by an authority outside the Bible.

What a Belief Is. Allen Taylor defines belief as “any set of propositions held to be true by the possessor of those propositions separated from any epistemological standards or rationale.” The believer holds some propositions as true, aware or not that there is neither demonstration nor rationale to believe what they are believing. Religious beliefs refer to a state of mind in which faith is placed in a creed, usually regarding a supernatural God, his intervention in the world, and life after death. There is also the belief in the efficacy of prayer. There is no proof of any of these beliefs.

Will the Belief in God Stand? Some metaphysical propositions have the probability of enduring, some others have the opposite. Regarding the belief in God the probability of enduring depends on the interpretation of God. There is a major improbability that the idea of a super-nature-God will stand; this is what the statistics show. It seems that the God-Nature has a better chance or probability of subsistence; although, now, the universal tendency is stronger toward atheism than to God.

God as the Very Existence of Nature. Brilliant scientists and philosophers have elaborated on the subject of existence, and have presented reasonable explanations about the ontological meaning of Nature-Existence. I have written several essays on this subject in particular “My Name is Existence: I AM.” I invite the visitor to read this essay. [4]

The Inexplicable Attitude of Theistic Theology. We cannot think with the mentality of philosophers and theologians of the IV century (Aristotle, Augustine), or posterior doctors of the XIII century (Aquinas); they were luminaries of theism in their days, but, as they were completely ignorant about the universe, and the intelligence and power of nature, they interpreted the world the best they could in their days; but that interpretation cannot be our guide. I think that to be guided by such a kind of centenary ignorance would be insane We could be almost sure that, if they would have known Nature as we know it now, their philosophy and theology would have been completely different. However, the “infallibility” of the Bible was always an obstacle to understand reality.

After we have considered what science has shown us, logic tells us that we cannot be indifferent to a change regarding the view of the universe, the concept of God, and thereby religion. We cannot close our eyes, and keep the same beliefs as before the great discoveries mentioned above. Interpretations of God and of the universe according to the creeds and the theology of past centuries are inadmissible. If we want to believe in God, we must find an interpretation of God that would be scientifically sound, objectively real, and logically rational. Interpretations of God that do not fit these principles are unacceptable; we’d have a “God” contrary to reality which is no God at all.

Go to Content

HTM NATURE / MATAPHYSICS 03-07-11 11-06-11

[1] Simon L. Altmann, Is Nature Supernatural? – A Philosophical Exploration of Science and Nature (New York: Prometheus Books, 2002) 189-190.

[2] Perhaps some visitors want to know what Dr. Altmann says. “The question is that if we want to talk about laws of nature at all, the nature that we mean is a different one, nature₃, a mapping of nature₁ at second remove, in which most of the objects of nature₂ are replaced by models, because it is only for such models that laws of any kind can be enunciated. The art of science, of course, consists in constructing models that as far as possible retain the most significant features of their physical counterparts, but models do not exist in nature (that is, nature₂), except in an indirect way as belonging to our imagination.” Ibiden, pages 189-190.