Dynamic versus static views of life

Many people have problems reconciling their established static concepts of life with the constructs that are shown us by modern scientific development. It is in the nature of man to feel safe behind static psychological constructs and therefore foreseeable options in life. This naturally provides a feeling of security for all. Life, however, is not like that. If science shows us anything, it is that all life, both organic and inorganic, is in a state of continual flux. Man, being a product of the universe, is part of this flux and must learn to tailor his responses adequately.

When the theory of evolution was first elucidated, it contravened the static beliefs of creation, which existed up to the time. God created the world in seven days, full stop. Well, it seems that God in his infinite wisdom, took a little longer than that and after all who are we to tell God what to do?

Evolution took millions of years and is still taking place today. It seems that God's plan of creation is not yet over and is still actively occurring. All universal matter is in process and that matter includes one of its culminations, man himself. Process means that matter never really reaches a static point but is continually changing and, thus, is never the same as before as a new presenting occasion signifies a new reality of the continuum, different from that of the previous moment.

When man was content with basing all his insights into science, philosophy and economics on static models, he soon learnt how fragile these systems were. Newton's unchallengeable laws were soon to be consigned to the dust bin of physical laws. Mass, distance and time were not at all static concepts but purely relative ones. They were relative to the different observers standing at different points in space and time. Different times in the life of a man could be seen at different points in time by different observers according to their relative speeds to the observed subject. Through Albert Einstein, our previously static observations were changed to take in the real dynamic realities of matter including living matter. Observations on human life have to take into account man's dynamic becoming not his static being! Otherwise one might come to wrong conclusions.

Even our concept of God seems to be based on static constructs and, consequently, seems to be flawed. We think of God as king, unchanging, distant and unmoved. This is our Greek descended view of God. The unmoved cause of Greek philosophy. This is the primordial nature of God. But the fact that man's dynamic nature reflects the very nature of God, the Imago Dei, should alert us to the fact that we may have misunderstood God's real nature.

Throughout revealed history, God has shown us that there is a relational side to his being. Why would a perfect God allow a man perfect freedom? Why is it called freedom if it were to be predetermined by an all knowing God? Why should a perfect God want us to reciprocate his nagging attentions? Why should an immovable God be bothered as to whether we reciprocate His love or not? Why should an unmoveable God worry whether the world and man should perish or not?

Revealed religion has repeatedly shown that God's penchant for his relationship with living matter, particularly man himself, signifies that God himself may not only have a primordial nature but also a relational nature.

God's emphasis on love towards others, our immediate physical environment and, ultimately, to Him, signifies that we may be missing something significant in our relationships with him. The very nature of the Eucharist seems to signify that God is longing for a deep intimate physical relationship with man. What would an immovable God want with a love relationship? Maybe what man is and becomes, maybe what the world in its environment (living and non-living) is and becomes could be contributing to what God ultimately becomes? I am not inferring that God may be directly changed by the environment He himself has created but if He is God, who can tell Him what to do, even if that includes the wish of changing Himself?

It is obvious that in constructing our systems of civilisation and knowledge, we have to give emphasis to the dynamic ethic and not to the static one!

Dr Asciak is a Nationalist member of Parliament.

michael.asciak@gov.mt