Other Planets/Galaxies

[kevrx3]

Hey everyone,

I’ve come to wonder, what, in the Church’s view, is the role of the other planets and galaxies; all those billions of them. I’ve heard a priest say that it is so we can marvel at the beauty, complexity, and grandness of God’s creation and know that He is there, but just wanted to clarify this.

Thanks!

 

[chaunceygardner]

In a quick check, I could not find anything that directly addressed your question. In the Catechism it says that God “created the visible world (universe?) in all its richness, diversity, and order.” It also says that God is “infinitely greater than all His works”. As to what role it plays, the immensity and grandeur of the universe helps me better understand what is meant by an infinite God who created everything that is. One looks up at the stars in wonder and amazement, and it puts into perspective our place in it. It is humbling, which may be its purpose.

Rather than being the master of all, we are but one microscopic iota of God’s entire creation. Our view of the universe is but a glimpse at the entirety of His creation. Then when you consider that we exist thanks to Him, and that we are truly alive thanks to Him, and that He has given us the opportunity to be with Him and to share in His pure love and joy for eternity, you realize how fortunate we are to share in the Grace that has come to us through His Son.

 

[chaunceygardner]

One more thought. The Church may not address your question in detail since it is not immediately related to the process of individual salvation that is It’s main concern.

 

[tonyrey]

Your question implies that everything has a role, i.e. that it serves a particular purpose. But the value of existence is not purely utilitarian. An artist creates works of beauty simply for their own sake. Beauty in itself is worth having even if it is useless from a practical point of view. Mathematicians, scientists, composers and poets are not always concerned with the uses to which their work is put. The act of creation brings its own reward. John Keats said if he spent the night writing a sonnet and tore the paper up in the morning he wouldn’t have wasted his time! It seems a waste to us but he wanted to make the point that

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” - that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Ultimately what counts more than anything else is joy, and love creates beauty, and beauty gives us joy… Or should we say: what counts more than anything else is love, and love gives us joy, and joy creates beauty? They are all interdependent anyway.

In his book “The Idea of the Holy” Rudolf Otto deals with the significance of the mysterium tremendum *et fascinans - *which is reflected in the magnificence of the universe.

 

[JDaniel]

Your question implies that everything has a role, i.e. that it serves a particular purpose. But the value of existence is not purely utilitarian. An artist creates works of beauty simply for their own sake. Beauty in itself is worth having even if it is useless from a practical point of view. Mathematicians, scientists, composers and poets are not always concerned with the uses to which their work is put. The act of creation brings its own reward. John Keats said if he spent the night writing a sonnet and tore the paper up in the morning he wouldn’t have wasted his time! It seems a waste to us but he wanted to make the point that

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” - that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Ultimately what counts more than anything else is joy, and love creates beauty, and beauty gives us joy… Or should we say: what counts more than anything else is love, and love gives us joy, and joy creates beauty? They are all interdependent anyway.

In his book “The Idea of the Holy” Rudolf Otto deals with the significance of the mysterium tremendum *et fascinans - *which is reflected in the magnificence of the universe.

Tonyrey:

We are taught that all things have a final cause or, raison d’etre. Do you think that the raison d’etre of the universe is to provide us with beauty and thus happiness? Nothing more?

You may be right. I don’t know. A splendid setting for His Garden of Eden.

jd

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey:

We are taught that all things have a final cause or, raison d’etre. Do you think that the raison d’etre of the universe is to provide us with beauty and thus happiness? Nothing more?
You may be right. I don’t know. A splendid setting for His Garden of Eden.
jd

JD

To claim to understand all the purposes for which the universe is created would be presumptuous but it seems likely that it is a setting for many other beings besides ourselves.

One thing is certain. The hypothesis that such a magnificent system is purposeless and valueless is a parochial view which tells us more about the author of the hypothesis than the origin of the system!

 

[Areopagite]

Your question implies that everything has a role, i.e. that it serves a particular purpose. But the value of existence is not purely utilitarian. *An artist creates works of beauty simply for their own sake. *Beauty in itself is worth having even if it is useless from a practical point of view. Mathematicians, scientists, composers and poets are not always concerned with the uses to which their work is put. The act of creation brings its own reward. John Keats said if he spent the night writing a sonnet and tore the paper up in the morning he wouldn’t have wasted his time! It seems a waste to us but he wanted to make the point that

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” - that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Ultimately what counts more than anything else is joy, and love creates beauty, and beauty gives us joy… Or should we say: what counts more than anything else is love, and love gives us joy, and joy creates beauty? They are all interdependent anyway.

In his book “The Idea of the Holy” Rudolf Otto deals with the significance of the mysterium tremendum *et fascinans - *which is reflected in the magnificence of the universe.

I think there are two uses of the word “purpose” being used here. One is the “utilitarian” purpose, which would be … one that serves forwarding technological advancement (maybe? … I’m not entirely sure what you mean).

The other use of the word purpose which I think applies to art and the universe, is connected with truth. I think I would definitely say that truth and beauty are ends in themselves. Something, such as art, has a purpose insofar as it* helps us contemplate truth/beauty*. However, a piece of artwork nor the universe is not beauty itself. The purpose of art and the universe is to show beauty and truth. Since art and the universe are not ends in themselves but means to an end then we could say that they have purposes.

You follow? Or might I be plunging into useless semantics? (for the record, I don’t think I am … because I think art has a purpose)

 

[tonyrey]

I think there are two uses of the word “purpose” being used here. One is the “utilitarian” purpose, which would be … one that serves forwarding technological advancement (maybe? … I’m not entirely sure what you mean).

The other use of the word purpose which I think applies to art and the universe, is connected with truth. I think I would definitely say that truth and beauty are ends in themselves. Something, such as art, has a purpose insofar as it* helps us contemplate truth/beauty*. However, a piece of artwork nor the universe is not beauty itself. The purpose of art and the universe is to show beauty and truth. Since art and the universe are not ends in themselves but means to an end then we could say that they have purposes.

You follow? Or might I be plunging into useless semantics? (for the record, I don’t think I am … because I think art has a purpose)

You have hit the nail right on the head with the word “utilitarian”. Atheists should logically restrict purpose to physical reality but in fact they live for spiritual reality as much as, or often even more than, theists!

 

[Areopagite]

You have hit the nail right on the head with the word “utilitarian”. Atheists should logically restrict purpose to physical reality but in fact they live for spiritual reality as much as, or often even more than, theists!

Yeah, I definitely think you’re right. I’m glad we agree.

 

[tonyrey]

One philosopher asked “What is the use of this pile of galactic junk?” That question reveals a very parochial view of reality. It suggests that size is the main consideration when interpreting the significance of the universe. Yet if only this planet existed its uniqueness could be seen as evidence that it exists by chance. On the other hand proof that life exists on other planets could be seen as evidence that life occurs spontaneously! Any feature of the universe can be used to “demonstrate” that it is purposeless - except one: the fact that it contains purposeful activity…

Another “disproof” of Design is the immense period of time it has taken for evolution to occur - as if speed is the most important consideration. It is an understandable mistake in a society with a mania for fast travel, instant service and rapid results.Yet even without evidence for evolution the atheist could also argue that the instantaneous creation of life on earth is a nonsensical belief. We know that development is a valuable feature of life. It is not just the results that matter but the very process itself - as any creative person knows.

Another argument is that purpose is a very rare occurrence - as if rarity demonstrates that something is insignificant. It also assumes that the existence of the universe is purposeless. How could anyone possibly know this? It implies knowledge of how the universe is originated! Even if only one purposeful being existed in the universe an explanation would still be required. It is the fundamental fact that many people ignore because they cannot see the wood for the trees…

All this shows that preconceptions and wishful thinking are at the root of many philosophical arguments.

 

[Greg27]

I think Aquinas is still worth reading on this point. Aquinas’s arguments and complex but basically the entire universe is in a way due to God ‘overflowing’ the goodness, beauty and perfection of his being into creatures. Since God is infinite, no finite creature (no matter how grand) can capture or mirror God’s glory perfectly, though in their different ways all creatures are reflections of the infinite invisible divine nature and its perfections. However, there is a negative qualification, in that God’s essence also infinitely transcends anything finite, so even the most majestic object in the universe (or the universe itself) is only a remote reflection of the infinite glory and perfection of the divine essence itself. Despite the changes in our scientific understanding, I think this is a good theistic answer to the question.

 

[tonyrey]

I think Aquinas is still worth reading on this point. Aquinas’s arguments and complex but basically the entire universe is in a way due to God ‘overflowing’ the goodness, beauty and perfection of his being into creatures. Since God is infinite, no finite creature (no matter how grand) can capture or mirror God’s glory perfectly, though in their different ways all creatures are reflections of the infinite invisible divine nature and its perfections. However, there is a negative qualification, in that God’s essence also infinitely transcends anything finite, so even the most majestic object in the universe (or the universe itself) is only a remote reflection of the infinite glory and perfection of the divine essence itself. Despite the changes in our scientific understanding, I think this is a good theistic answer to the question.

Many thanks for summarising his ideas. They serve as a good riposte to those who reject metaphysics and theology as useless speculation and regard the universe as a worthless oddity devoid of goodness, beauty and perfection which reflects nothing more than the emptiness, futility and absurdity of existence…

 

[wanstronian]

Many thanks for summarising his ideas. They serve as a good riposte to those who reject metaphysics and theology as useless speculation and regard the universe as a worthless oddity devoid of goodness, beauty and perfection which reflects nothing more than the emptiness, futility and absurdity of existence…

Well they don’t really, as the only people to whom they would likely have any merit are those who already believe in God - the exact opposite of the people to whom you presumably claim this is a riposte.

It is also a mistake to claim that those who don’t believe in God are blind to beauty and goodness or that they consider their lives to be empty, futile and absurd.

Or were you referring to two separate sets of people - those that, “reject metaphysics and theology as useless speculation” and those that, “regard the universe as a worthless oddity devoid of goodness, beauty and perfection which reflects nothing more than the emptiness, futility and absurdity of existence?” That second set would certainly contain some very soulless individuals!

 

[tonyrey]

Well they don’t really, as the only people to whom they would likely have any merit are those who already believe in God - the exact opposite of the people to whom you presumably claim this is a riposte.

You seem to be unaware that the person who brought them to our notice is an agnostic…

It is also a mistake to claim that those who don’t believe in God are blind to beauty and goodness or that they consider their lives to be empty, futile and absurd.

You are misrepresenting me once again. I shall give you an opportunity to rectify your mistake…

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think Aquinas is still worth reading on this point. Aquinas’s arguments and complex but basically the entire universe is in a way due to God ‘overflowing’ the goodness, beauty and perfection of his being into creatures. Since God is infinite, no finite creature (no matter how grand) can capture or mirror God’s glory perfectly, though in their different ways all creatures are reflections of the infinite invisible divine nature and its perfections. However, there is a negative qualification, in that God’s essence also infinitely transcends anything finite, so even the most majestic object in the universe (or the universe itself) is only a remote reflection of the infinite glory and perfection of the divine essence itself. Despite the changes in our scientific understanding, I think this is a good theistic answer to the question.

Greg…on our home planet Niburu (when it still existed) there was a philosopher that we nick named “colossus” because he had huge stomach. Despite this minor defect, he had a great mind. In fact he had a philosophy just like the one you just posted.

Peace.

 

[wanstronian]

You seem to be unaware that the person who brought them to our notice is an agnostic…

How is that relevant?

You are misrepresenting me once again. I shall give you an opportunity to rectify your mistake…

I admit, I thought you were referring to atheists and/or agnostics when you talked about people who reject metaphysics and theology. I apologise if I was wrong. Who were you referring to?

By the way, if I have inadvertently misrepresented you in my previous post, it is worth pointing out that it is the ONLY time. So I don’t understand your, “once again” comment - can you clarify please?

 

[tonyrey]

How is that relevant?I admit, I thought you were referring to atheists and/or agnostics when you talked about people who reject metaphysics and theology. I apologise if I was wrong. Who were you referring to?

My original statement:
“They serve as a good riposte to those who reject metaphysics and theology as useless speculation and regard the universe as a worthless oddity devoid of goodness, beauty and perfection which reflects nothing more than the emptiness, futility and absurdity of existence.…”
This is a far cry from:

“It is also a mistake to claim that those who don’t believe in God are blind to beauty and goodness or that they consider their lives to be empty, futile and absurd.”

Do you regard the universe as intrinsically good and beautiful? And existence as intrinsically valuable, purposeful and rational?

By the way, if I have inadvertently misrepresented you in my previous post, it is worth pointing out that it is the ONLY time. So I don’t understand your, “once again” comment - can you clarify please?

I have pointed it out on at least one previous occasion. I cannot remember if it was inadvertently but perhaps you will enlighten me.

 

[tonyrey]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5548314#post5548314
Well they don’t really, as the only people to whom they would likely have any merit are those who already believe in God - the exact opposite of the people to whom you presumably claim this is a riposte.
You seem to be unaware that the person who brought them to our notice is an agnostic…
How is that relevant?

An agnostic does notbelieve in God - although I admit you added “the exact opposite” which suggests atheists. Anyway it’s not important.

 

[wanstronian]

My original statement:
“They serve as a good riposte to those who reject metaphysics and theology as useless speculation and regard the universe as a worthless oddity devoid of goodness, beauty and perfection which reflects nothing more than the emptiness, futility and absurdity of existence.…”
This is a far cry from:

“It is also a mistake to claim that those who don’t believe in God are blind to beauty and goodness or that they consider their lives to be empty, futile and absurd.”

Well, it’s not really, is it! A logical substitution of ‘their lives’ for ‘existence’, and we’re there.

Do you regard the universe as intrinsically good and beautiful? And existence as intrinsically valuable, purposeful and rational?

I’d really prefer you to answer my question first, that would be good form. Who were you referring to, if not atheists?
However, in answer to your questions: Yes, and yes.

I have pointed it out on at least one previous occasion. I cannot remember if it was inadvertently but perhaps you will enlighten me.

Hey, you’re the one making the claim. I might also add that you ‘pointing it out to me’ does not necessarily mean I misrepresented you. You may have misrepresented yourself! (Btw, The inadvertence I was referring to was in my post to you in this thread, not in any of our previous discussions.)

So, as things stand, you have not refuted my inference that you were referring to atheists. Until you do, you can’t really claim I have misrepresented you at all, let alone, “once again.”

However, this is all getting rather off-topic, for which I apologise to the OP.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, it’s not really, is it! A logical substitution of ‘their lives’ for ‘existence’, and we’re there.

In my view existence applies not only to human beings but also to living organisms and inanimate objects. In my statement it is linked with the universe and not with human beings in particular.

• Do you regard the universe as intrinsically* good and beautiful? And existence as intrinsically valuable, purposeful and rational?
  I’d really prefer you to answer my question first, that would be good form. Who were you referring to, if not atheists?
  However, in answer to your questions: Yes, and yes.

I was referring to atheists and I’m astonished you regard existence as intrinsically valuable, purposeful and rational. I can only think you are interpreting existence as human existence and not the existence of all living organisms and inanimate objects.

However, this is all getting rather off-topic, for which I apologise to the OP.

Let’s call the whole thing off… and get on with the real business!