The Fact of Finality in the Bodily World

found it wholly unacceptable because it involves a flat self- contradiction. For similar reasons we have rejected materialistic pantheism. We have been forced to the conclusion that the only explanation of the existence of bodies is to be found in the fact of a first creation. We have defined creation, and have contrasted it with generation or the substantial emergence of bodies subsequent to creation. We have studied the question of world-development, and of earth-development, mentioning hypotheses and theories proposed to explain the world and the earth as these now exist

Article 3. The Fact of Finality in the Bodily World a) Finality; b) The Ultimate End of the World; c) Nature; d) Miracles,

a) Finality

Finality is final tendency or teleological tendency; it is tendency towards an end, a purpose, a goal.

That bodies exercise such tendency is manifest. Bodies tend to hold on to existence, each in its own nature and order, and existence is surrendered only to compelling forces of destruction which come from other bodies. Among living bodies, the tendency to grow, to attain a rounded maturity and fruitfulness, is evident to anyone who ever planted a garden or noticed the development of animals or of children. No one denies that things in this bodily world tend to proper and proportionate ends. But some persons deny that this tendency is the manifestation of a purpose, of a design; they deny that this tendency is something intended by the Creator, and that it points on to an ultimate end. Against these we assert the doctrine of full finality, of end in- tended, of an ultimate end of the world.

b) The Ultimate End of the World

By the word “end,” in its present use, we mean no simple termination, no finishing and nothing more. We mean purpose.

goal, end-in-view. The phrase “the ultimate end of the world” means the final purpose for which the world is made and for which it exists and towards the fulfillment of which it constantly tends. That there is such an end can be shown by establishing the fact of design or plan in the world of bodies; for design or (dan is a rational means of reaching an end, a purpose, and, in last analysis, an ultimate purpose or end.

In this world, natural bodies exhibit a true intrinsic finality, for they cling to their being and their nature, and they manifest activity that is consistent, constant, uniformly proportionate to the active nature of the body in each case. The intrinsic finality or tendency of bodies is for what is good for them: self-preservation, quest of food, permanence of their kind through generation or reproduction. In a secondary way, bodies tend towards what is good for other bodies, as by the abundance of fruits and seeds, few of which can cause reproduction but which serve as food for plants, animals, and men, and which impress reasoning creatures (that is, in the bodily world, human beings) with the great generosity of the Giver of good gifts. Now, this intrinsic finality of bodies is certainly the result of a plan, and of a plan which comes of intelligence, and ultimately of Supreme Intelligence.

The finality of natural bodies, and their magnificent structure which fits them admirably for their connatural activities, are incontrovertible evidence of design and of ultimate Intelligence, and so of Ultimate End. Nor can imperfections in bodies be alleged as an argument against design or finality. For imperfections cannot be recognized as such unless by a mind which has the grasp of a standard, by a mind which knows what perfection in the case means; for an imperfection is a falling short of a rec ognised perfection, that is, of a recognized design, plan, and purpose. You cannot know what imperfect eyesight is unless you have knowledge of what perfect eyesight is. Imperfections are a proof of perfection, that is of the standard. When a person objects that such or such a body falls short of perfection, he ac- knowledges the existence of the standard of perfection and the normal tendency of a body to attain it.

There is, then, in this world of bodies a finality, a drive towards a certain perfection, a tendency towards a goal or end. Now, ends are often like steps in a stairway, one is subordinate to another. But none of the steps has any meaning at all except in view of the last step. It is the ultimate end which gives meaning to all subordinate ends. Wherever there is a series of connected ends, there is an ultimate end.

The ultimate end of the world must be the end established by the Creator; it must be the Creator’s purpose in creating. And since end means good, the ultimate end must be the ultimate good, the complete fulfillment of every tendency to good. It must be the Limitless and Necessary Good Itself. In a word, it must be Almighty God. The words of Holy Writ may serve us as a scientific statement of fact, “The Lord hath made all things for himself.”

Notice another conclusive argument for the truth that God is the ultimate end of all creatures. God is infinite Wisdom; He therefore acts for a most worthy end. But before creation (to speak in imperfect human terms) there is no actuality except God alone; there is nothing that could serve as an end except God Himself. Therefore God creates all creatures for Himself; God is their ultimate end.

How shall things serve their last end; how shall bodies serve the purpose of the Creator who made them for Himself? By manifesting His goodness, and thus procuring His external formal and objective glory.

All bodily creatures, man excepted, tend by necessity to their ultimate end, and necessarily attain it. Man has free-choice, and he may abuse it, he may sin. But his sin cannot defeat the purpose of his existence, except for himself personally. He may come to utter ruin and everlasting pain; but his existence as an image of God is a manifestation of God’s loving kindness, of His power.

of His wisdom. And even in hell, man will render testimony by his intelligence to the justice of God just as truly as souls in heaven will render intelligent testimony (or formal glory) to the mercy of God. And God is one; in God justice and mercy are substantially one, and are identified with God Himself. Hence, all bodily creation, man included, will inevitably attain its ultimate end. If man misses his own endless felicity, he has missed the secondary end of his existence, not its primary or ultimate end.

c) Nature

The nature of a thing means its working essence. But in our present use of this term we mean general nature, we mean all bodily substances (since cosmology speaks only of bodies) inasmuch as these produce or undergo effects. We mean the active world around us: the air, the clouds, the running streams, the minerals, the growing plants, the singing birds, the thinking men. We mean all bodily substances as active.

Each natural body has its normal structure and its normal type of activity. All bodies,—man (in his moral or responsible conduct) excepted,—act as they do by necessity. Observing bodies and their structure and activity, we notice their constancy and consistency. We find that water runs downhill, that bodies tend towards the center of the earth, that plants tend to grow to maturity and fruitfulness, that fire burns dry wood, that water is H 20. Such facts and occurrences are not random or occasional, but invariable when bodies are left in their normal condition. We make a record of our constant experience of what bodies are and of what they normally do. We set down such records in physical and chemical formulas. We call them physical laws. What we really mean in calling our record of constant experience by the name of law is this: God the Creator, in creating bodies, has manifestly imposed upon them, with their physical structure, a definite range of activity; He has given to natural bodies the law oj their being and their doing.

The constant mode of action of the universe in its larger parts (interplanetary attraction, coherency of solar systems, activities in interstellar space such as cosmic radiation) is expressed in formulas called cosmic laws. The constant mode of being and of action of earthly bodies is expressed in formulas called physical laws. Both cosmic laws and physical laws are called natural laws or laws of nature. The pupil will be very careful to make a clean distinction between natural laws and the natural law; for the natural law (always with the article) means the Eternal Law for human conduct inasmuch as this is knowable to sound human reason without divine revelation. In a word, the natural law is the naturally knowable moral law. On the other hand, natural laws (or laws of nature) are cosmic laws and physical laws which necessitate (inasmuch as they are ordinances of the Creator) the activity of bodies as such, but have no concern with the free-will acts of man.

The harmony of nature so charmed the ancient Greeks that some of them,—notably the Pythagoreans,—considered it the very essential of bodily reality, and so declared that the one suitable name for the bodily world is cosmos or “the beautiful” or “the well ordered.” This harmony is noticed in individual natures too, in the complexity and balance of their parts, in their remarkable fitness for their proper activities. But it is in the larger sense that we consider the harmony of nature; we take it as a suitable arrangement of bodies in the material world for their seemly mutual activities in view of their common ultimate end. This world-harmony we call the order of nature. The working out of the order of nature, or the actual exercise of natural laws, we call the course of nature.

d) Mi racles

A miracle is a wondrous event in the sensible or bodily order, out of the course of nature, produced, directly or through the instrumentality of a creature, by Almighty God.

Some scientists and philosophers mistakenly regard the laws of nature as laws binding upon the Author of nature. They say, —as did the smug Victorians,—“Miracles simply do not happen.” They assert that miracles are impossible.

Now, if miracles be impossible, the impossibility must come from one of three causes, viz., (I ) they involve self-contradiction; (2) God is unable to produce them; (5) they are unworthy of God. But we can prove by sound reasoning that none of these causes is actual.

( j) Miracles do not involve self-contradiction. They do involve a contradiction to our experience, but, after all, our experience is not in control of the world; it is merely a record of what we ordinarily find in the world. If a miracle were something like a “square circle” it would be utterly impossible, for a square circle is a contradiction in thought and in terms; it consists of two elements that cancel each other and leave nothing. But a miracle, like the raising of Lazarus, or the preservation of the young men in the fiery furnace, or the curing of the man born blind, is no such contradiction. Lazarus was raised from the dead; he was not made a “dead living man” ; that would be a contradiction and an impossibility, or rather a nothing. That nature does not give life to a corpse does not mean that God cannot restore life to what once had life. The laws of nature are necessitating forces on nature, not on God. There is no obligation on the Giver of life to give it always in precisely the same way.

(2) God is able to produce miracles. The objectors say that God would contradict Himself in working miracles, since He made the laws of nature, and, by a miracle, would suspend them. Such suspension amounts to a reversal of His decree which set the laws of nature in being. It is a sort of confession of a mistake in the original plan which has now abruptly to be corrected. And since Almighty God makes no mistakes, He can make no corrections. Hence He cannot perform miracles. The answer to this little difficulty is simply that a miracle is no suspension of the laws of nature, no correction of a mistake in the original plans. A miracle is, to our time-bound view, an exception to the laws of nature, but the exception is an integral part of God’s eternal plan for the universe; it is no exception to God, but part of the original plan. God has no “before and after” ; a miracle does not mean that God made natures with their laws and after wards discovered a situation in which these laws should not apply. What we call the exception is as everlasting as the law or rule. The resurrection of Lazarus is as eternally decreed by God as the law of nature which requires (as we inaccurately say) dead men to stay dead until the day of general resurrection.

(5) There is nothing unworthy of God in a miracle. On the contrary, God in His pity for our weakness and stubborn ignorance, sometimes startles us into a recognition of essential truths. A miracle is an admirable means to attain this purpose. If miracles were a kind of magician-show for the entertainment of men, they would be unworthy of God. But miracles are not for our entertainment but for our instruction unto salvation. The raising of Lazarus, the cure of the man bora blind, the feeding of the multitude in the desert,—in fact, all the miracles of Christ, and all the authenticated miracles in the history of the Church, have had, as their manifest purpose, the enlightening of minds, the winning of wills, and the saving of souls.

Miracles, then, involve no contradiction, no impossibility, no unworthiness. There is consequently no basis for the assertion that miracles cannot happen. But there are objectors who say that although miracles can happen we cannot identify them as true miracles. We may know well enough that a wonderful thing has happened, but how can we tell that this wonder is beyond the powers of nature ? Laws of nature hitherto hidden to us may be in operation to produce the wonder. And even if it could be known that a wonderful event is outside the range or course of nature, how can we know that God produced it ? It might be the doing of evil spirits. In a word, say these objectors, we can know

the historical truth of miracles (that is, we can recognize them as wondrous events) but we cannot know their philosophical truth (that is, we cannot identify them as true miracles).

We answer that it is possible to identify miracles historically and philosophically. Dr. Alexis Carrel, speaking of the miracles he witnessed at Lourdes, said that he believed in them because he had to trust the testimony of his own senses. People who witness miracles are aware that something wonderful has happened. We can surely know so much. And we can identify miracles philosophically by careful investigation and sound reasoning. We may not know all the laws of nature; some of these may be hidden fo us; but we do know that nature is constant and con sistent, that nature does not deal in contradictions. Hence, if a wondrous event is found upon careful investigation (not on snap judgment made upon half-sensed appearances) to be flatly against the ordinary course of nature, it is silly to say that it may be due to the course of nature. We may ask, “Can nature do this thing?”; if the answer is (as it would be in the case of the young men in the fiery furnace), “No, for nature tends to do the exact opposite” ; then the wondrous event is contrary to nature. We may inquire, “Can nature do this thing to such a subject?”; if the answer is (as in the case of the resurrection of Lazarus or the widow’s son), “No, for while nature can give life, it cannot give life to a corpse” ; then the wondrous event is beyond nature and above nature. We may inquire finally, “Can nature do this thing to this subject in this way?”; if the answer is (as in the case of an instantaneous healing of a gaping wound), “No, for while nature can heal a wound, it requires the co-operation of much time” ; then the wondrous event is still beyond and above nature. If the three wondrous events are proved to be true miracles, they are called, respectively, miracle of fact, miracle of subject, and miracle of mode. But even before they are proved to be true miracles, we can know that they are events not to be explained by hidden powers of nature, for they are contrary to nature, or above nature, or beyond nature. To prove them true miracles, it remains to show that they are in very fact the works of Almighty God The test here is, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Consider to what end the wondrous event is performed; what effect it exercises on its subject and those who behold it; what is the nature of the doctrine it is performed to establish; what is the character of the person used as the instrumental cause of the event; what circumstances mark its performance. Out of the careful investigation of all these matters will emerge the knowledge that the work is of God or that it is not of God. A miracle is usually not identified suddenly; it must stand up under most careful and scientific scrutiny. The Catholic Church, which sanely recognizes two things about miracles,—that they can happen, and that they have happened,—is most careful to investigate a wondrous event in itself and in all its circumstances before acknowledging it officially as a true miracle.

Summary of the Article

In this Article we have discussed the meaning of finality or final tendency, and have indicated the fact of finality in the bodily world. We have justified this as true finality, bora of design, and intended by the Creator. We have seen that the end towards which anything tends is good, and that the ultimate end of all creatures is the Boundless Good (the Summum Bonum) which we call God. We have learned the meaning of nature in a general sense, and have discussed the laws of nature, whether these be cosmic laws or physical laws; we have learned not to confuse these terms with the natural law which is the naturally knowable moral law for human conduct. We have defined the order of nature and the course of nature. We have discussed miracles and have seen that miracles are possible, and that they can be identified as true miracles both historically and philosophically.