A new theology (part I): Stoic cosmology as a practicable religion

The Grand Universe - the manifestation of the Logos (in my view)

Before you, dear reader, start bombarding me with the accusation of harbouring the much despised tentacles of pseudo-science in the brief context of this article, please believe me when I say (honestly) that I am a staunch atheist. Even though I have been raised in an environment that breeds vocal, militant theists (and I have had been one, myself), I gradually learned to question the very foundation of my own, ill-informed and narrow belief system. And my humble understanding of the scientific method, something that I treasure lovingly, aided and accelerated the process. And finally, the Hegelian clash between the thesis (predominantly theistic beliefs) and the antithesis (gradually concluded agnosticism) gave birth to the synthesis, a belief system that is more open, flexible and yet better informed than its predecessor.

Big words for a rookie, you might be thinking, and I do agree. In this vast expanse of time, space, energy and matter, can we, with our laughingly limited understanding of the mysteries of the heavens, ever hope to get it all? Maybe not, but that's exactly the point here. But before I hammer you with more egotistic gibberish, let us brush up our understanding of the Logos, a well-reasoned, coherent and (logically) sound conception of the divine. 

What is the Logos? 

This section is primarily for the non-Stoic readers, or those amongst you that are new to Hellenistic philosophy. So, what is the Logos? Defining the term, or even attempting to wrap up its meaning within the finite extent of a single sentence, is a very hard task. In fact, the Stoics themselves have different opinions, as to what the Logos is, or how it can be defined, etc. But for the purpose of our article, let us get the historical background of the concept. 

Logos is a concept, originally conceived by the famously eccentric (and some would add, rude) pre-Socratic thinker, Heraclitus. Although not a very avuncular person, Heraclitus nonetheless had been hailed as one of the founding fathers of proto-Stoicism by Erik Wiegardt, the founding father of Newstoa. His Flux theory has been the subject of many controversies and misinterpretations, thanks to his rather cryptic style of documenting his philosophy. And along similar lines, the meaning of Logos has been greatly debated upon. 

But one thing is clear, the Logos was originally meant to denote reason. In other explanations, it has been shown to refer to word, more in the theistic sense of the term (usually, utterance of God, word of God, etc). In fact, the names of academic disciplines that end with logy, such as Biology, Physiology, Psychology, Metereoloy and Ornithology, have been derived from Logos. In this sense, Logos may also refer to the complete understanding, or knowledge, of something. 

Later, the founding members of the early Stoa made common cause with Heraclitus, in their physics. Logos in Stoicism, the Stoic physics to be more precise, refers to a divine reason or will, that is the inherent characteristic of Nature itself. Everything in the universe is brought into being by this Logos, and the preservation of all things happens under the custody of this divine reason. Likewise, anything that denies the Logos, or walks not in accordance to it, faces extinction. Much like Darwin's survival of the fittest. The Stoics regard the Logos as a divine, dynamic fire, that pervades and permeates the whole cosmos. Being predominantly materialistic, the Stoic physics makes room (pun intended) for the Logos by proposing, that although the Logos is material itself (i.e it needs space to exist), it does occupy the same space with the passive component of the universe, matter (which it manipulates). This is so, because the Logos and matter are inextricable. A drop of wine, argues Chrysippus, can mix fully with a glass of water, and each drop of the watery content of the glass now retains the properties of the wine, no matter how minuscule that be. 

A modern twist: what modern physics says about it all 

Personally, I feel that Stoicism is a very flexible philosophy. As such, the Stoic Physics can easily be be modified, so that it suits the taste of the modern reader. So, let us attempt to do so.

Any reader with even a passing interest in popular science, will know something about the Big Bang theory (not the sitcom, Bazinga!). Discussing it in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but to give a short, approximate and oversimplified introduction, it states that the universe (including space and time) arose out of an enormous implosion of matter and energy, some 13.8 billion years ago. It is commonly accepted that there's no before the event, because time itself started at the moment of the Big Bang. The same goes for space - there wasn't any preexisting void into which the universe was born, although this is what most people seem to conclude from this theory. Instead, space itself came into being, when time was born. It's like inflating a balloon. It's total surface area (given by 4 x pi x r^2, if it's perfectly spherical) increases alongside its volume.

The 3-dimensional expansion in space is actually a consequence of the 4-dimensional inflation of the universe. And what exactly caused this Big Bang, is not yet understood. The laws of physics begin to work from T+10^(-43) s onwards, i.e 1/10.... (43 zeroes!) seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, we face what is known as the singularity, where even the golden laws of Quantum Physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity begin to break down (i.,e produce meaningless results).

Does the universe need a creator?

Einstein's famous, yet infamously misunderstood (and misinterpreted) equation, E=mc^2, denotes that matter and energy are equivalent. One can be transformed into the other. And from the law of conservation of energy, we know it well, that energy can't come out of nothing! Does that mean, there must be some sort of creator, who caused the Big Bang?

Not necessarily. Stephen Hawking's pioneering research, coupled with Alan Guth's Inflationary Big Bang Theory (a theory that attempts to apply the laws of Quantum Physics onto the microscopic universe, following the Big Bang), shows that energy can, indeed, come out of, well, nothing. This is because of something known as the negative energy.

When an electrically neutral neutron decays, it can give rise to equally, oppositely, charged electron and proton, as well as another uncharged antineutrino. Likewise, the mathematical framework of the Hawking Radiation from black holes, suggests that, due to extreme gravity beside the event horizon of supermassive black holes, space itself is curved and stretched, thereby yielding pairs of particles and antiparticles. These can immediately annihilate each other, if they come into direct contact.

So, there's a strong possibility, that the energy in the universe (which created the universe itself, btw, because all matter is but the condensed form of that energy) arose out of nothing.

You may ask, then, what could have caused, rather triggered, the Big Bang? People like St. Aquinas would argue that there must have been some sort of First Mover, or First Cause, and that is God. Once again, not necessarily. Pioneering advancements in modern physics have shown, that there are causeless events in the universe. For example, quantum decays are famously causeless, they just simply happen. Ancient philosophers, no matter how intelligent they were, lacked the scientific method. Therefore, their empirical observations were based on the experiences of the macroscopic world. And it is, generally, in the macroscopic world, that we see the relationship between the cause and the event, i.e the causation.

Even Lemaitre's solutions to Einstein's relativistic equations, showed that the universe must have been truly small, at the beginning. Hubble's observations concluded that, and today, it is accepted that the early universe had been microscopic. Naturally, Guth's premise holds true - it must obey the laws of Quantum Mechanics. So, couldn't the universe have been causeless as well? While pseudo-scientists (mainly fundamentalist types) would strangle us to death, if we don't accept their 'reasoning', I believe we can safely conclude, that there's a possibility of the Big Bang having been a causeless event (but there are, I agree, disagreements. For example, M Theory's Ekpyrotic Universe model, or Hawking's No-Boundary Proposal, are different).

So, where's the Logos? 

How about understanding the Logos as this energy, that creates and manipulated the universe? Yes, Stoic Physics argues that there's a different between active Logos and passive matter, and modern physics shows that matter and energy are equivalent, but it's true, definitely, that matter continues to be mostly passive, and energy manipulates it (and from here, we're delving into philosophy once again, because science doesn't deal with theology).

Mechanics 101 tells us, that forces influence, or attempt to influence, bodies. Energy produces these forces, because work done by the force is a measure of the energy spent by the system in doing it. So, can't we take a small leap of faith, and assume that this is, analogically, similar to the basic premise of the Stoic Physics?

Obviously, there's a subtler difference to tackle. Logos is considered conscious, while the energy, that drives the cosmos, isn't so. While the gravitational interaction (one of the 4 fundamental forces in the standard model of particle physics) is strong, - it binds together the earth and heavens, gives birth to the stars and destroys them al the same, keeps solar systems in balance can can disrupt them nonetheless - it would be rather awkward to pray to it, right?

But that's where, according to me, atheism meets theism!

Theistic doctrines are primarily meant to help people live a purposeful and meaningful life, understand the nature of the universe around them, and achieve mental peace and happiness, all the while ensuring that their happiness doesn't come at the cost of others' comfort or joy.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a natural consequence of man's rationality, a plantling born from the seed of scepticism. It is fuelled by intuitive reasoning, and is a far more logical belief system, compared to theism. Thanks to the atrocities committed in the name of religions, and an absolute lack of verifiable evidence regarding the supernatural, atheism grew out of it (my personal opinion).

Now, it is true, that most conventional religions are of absolutely no value, when it comes to peace of mind. Why should we accept page after page of ridiculous mythologies and erotic fables, just in order to find peace? Religion remains audaciously, and overly, vocal. Each religion, be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Hellenism or Jainism, remains adamant that their theology is The Truth. And in this chaotic tug-of-war, man can find entertainment, false promises and superstitions, but not the peace of mind. This is where philosophies enter the scene.

Halfway between theism and atheism 

Using the term in a very loose and overly simplified sense, let us, therefore, strive to find the Golden Mean between the two extremes, a blind belief in everything supernatural, and an immediate rejection the same.

Atheism is a negative philosophical stand, and should not, therefore, be expected to provide any purpose to our lives. It is useful, though, because it helps us apply rationalism and scepticism to rid ourselves of blind, baseless superstitions (that weaken the mind, and often develop in OCDs).

Here's where Pragmatism, in general, and Model-dependent realism, in specific, come into effect. Explaining the latter would take another article, but you can read one that I wrote some years ago on my main blog, if you like (HERE). Basically, model-dependent realism gives us the flexibility to develop (and improve) theories, within the internal frameworks of which, things can be considered apparently real, this reality being subjective to the internal logic of the model. For example, quarks were first proposed mathematically, and it was only later, that they were indirectly verified.

Likewise, let us consider the Stoic Cosmology/Theology in the light of this concept. The concept, that the Logos is the energy that is apparently conscious (i.e seems to be conscious to us, although the truth is beyond our current understanding) within the framework of our theology in question, is backed by some pieces of indirect evidence. The emergence of intelligent organisms from the Logos seems to indicate a certain order that is the inherent property of the Logos, or energy. All laws of physics are indirect pieces of evidence supporting it. That there is order in the universe, is beyond question (unless you get really Cartesian). So, the only leap of faith we need to take, as part of our model, is to believe, that the order in the universe translates into a meaningful, purposeful scheme of gradual evolution of the universe itself.

May we learn to live in according, with the Logos

There's a theory, no matter how wacky it may sound, that the whole universe might be some sort of cosmic computer, that it constantly computing it's own gradual evolution. And we're but components, constituting the system. The Stoic position, that the universe is (like) a conscious organism, a sort of Superbeing, seems to resonate with this! And a similar concept arises from the Upanishads of ancient India, as well!

In accordance, with Nature 

The pantheistic cosmology of the Stoics is a very logical belief system, in my humble opinion. In fact, many ancient cultures independently developed similar models of the universe. I discussed a few of them in another article of mine, Concept of the cosmic order in ancient religions. Indeed, ranging from Rta in Hinduism to Orlog in the Norse pantheon, from Providentia of the Romans to Ma'at of the Egyptians, we see that this idea often evolves as a natural consequence of intuitive reasoning.

Therefore, I believe you won't accuse me of blasphemy or idiocy, when I admit that I worship the Logos. Stoicism has now become more than a way of life for me, it's my religion, a theology that I chose to follow. And in my humble opinion, the Will of the divine Logos is that, it may one day develop into a religion - providing purpose, meaningfulness and peace of mind, but free from all sorts of blind superstitions, shameless opportunism (by the authorities of religions) and In Agreement with the laws of science. And I don't claim that it is TRUE, I instead believe that such a system of informed beliefs and logical assumptions, may prove to be USEFUL for many of us, that are searching for answers...

NOTE: Obviously, I am not done yet. I'll write a follow-up post explaining my view in further detail.