|
Mocker
|
 |
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
|
|

Nov 30th, 2006, 01:58 AM
The political scientist Eric Voegelin basically says that for reality to have a knowable "order of being" that can be studied, there must be a transcendent source of being.
I think what he meant by that was that for reality to be a 'fundamentally lawful place', and thereby a place where a scientist can potentially know things about the fundamental order of the universe, there has to be something eternal to the universe. Otherwise, you basically have the universe being ordered by the roll of the cosmic dice. If the natural order of the universe was only immanent, and had no transcendent origin, there might not be any reason to assume that they are actually eternal and hence constitute a knowable order to the universe. If reality is limited to the immanent, sensible, temporal universe, then even something like the law of gravity may have been the result of the conditions of early cosmic history. If gravity was just something that happened when the big bang had caused certain conditions, then is there any neccesary reason to suppose that such a supposed 'natural law' could not be fundamentally changed again by cosmic-historical circumstances? Couldn't the same be said about other 'natural laws'?
Without a transcendent source for the existing universe, what happens is you have what Voegelin called "the decapitation of being", where reality and the teleology you mention comes from immanent history, and is subject to fundamental change through the process of immanent history.
|
__________________
Ibid
|
|
|