112 cosmos
physical explanations. Such a universe has intrinsic order and meaning. We
have no certain knowledge whether the universe is one or the other. Yet there
is no reason to assume (as many contemporaries do) that we live in an entirely
physical universe. In fact, there are enough indications to the contrary to en-
courage minds to open up again. But what is certain is that we cannotchoose
for ourselves whether the universe has purpose or whether it is wholly physical.
As opposed to “universe,” “cosmos” (or “worldview”) ishumanunderstanding
of the universe.
At present it is widely assumed that science and religion are distinct en-
tities with little if any overlap or common concern. Certainly the terms “sci-
ence” and “religion” can be distinguished from one another in ways that are
proper and useful. But we tend wrongly to reify the terms—that is, to imagine
that “science” and “religion” are entities external to the human invention and
use of the terms.
The root meaning of “cosmos” is “order and purpose,” as opposed to the
root meaning of “chaos,” which is “gaping void.” Order and purpose imply
intelligence. No purpose, no cosmos. The Greekkosmos, means “order”;chaein,
“to gape.” Thus the question of purpose is basic to both science and religion.
Logically, the propositions “nothing in the universe has inherent meaning and
purpose” and “everything in the universe has inherent meaning and purpose”
are contradictory. Some modern scientists and philosophers are attempting a
middle way: the universemayhave meaning and purpose. Observations of the
universe arecompatible withmeaning and purpose in the universe. This cuts
through Hume’s argument against natural theology.^1
It is unlikely that we have clear and present understanding of anything,
but it is even more unlikely that the universe is mere illusion. It is best to
assume that actual external events (external to us personally or to society or to
human understanding in general) occur that our understanding, however wan,
is attempting to grasp. A “moderate realist” view is that our ideas of externals
have some relation to the external events, but that our understanding of exter-
nals is never entirely clear, so that cosmos changes through time. Cosmos is
in a way always less than universe because it can never plumb or exhaust
ultimate reality; yet it is also always more than a universe that lacks conscious-
ness and creativity.
In fact, the dichotomy—the gap—often assumed between science and re-
ligion is neither logical nor inevitable. The gap expresses itself in stresses that
are sometimes obvious (such as constitutional struggles over “church and
state”) and sometimes deeply tectonic (the growing sense of meaninglessness
and futility in life). The dichotomy itself is a metaphor and has a history. Cos-
mos (that is, our worldview today) is severely wounded, not only split between
science and religion but pulled apart in many directions. This chapter suggests
that a deep understanding of history and metaphor can help transcend di-
chotomies and heal the injured cosmos.