Is the Universe Alive?

Is the universe alive? What about the earth? Or nature as a whole?

My belief is that the universe along with earth’s mountains, oceans and atmosphere are not alive but that we feel they are living because we respond to them so strongly. Many persuasive writers,  though, seem convinced that they are alive—not merely similar to living things but animated by a life of their own. I’m trying to clarify my thinking about that.

The living earth? (headstuff.org)

The living earth?
(headstuff.org)

The literature dates back to the Greeks. The philosopher Thales, for example, wrote around 600 B.C. that a magnetic stone attracts iron because the stone has a soul. The 19th century naturalist Alexander von Humboldt believed that one could not understand nature unless one understood the interaction of all its parts, including human society, because nature as a whole was a living thing. In his 2007 essay “Earth in Eclipse,” David Abrams refers to humans evolving in “intimate rapport with the other bodies—animals, plants, mountains, rivers—that compose the shifting flesh of this breathing world.” And Bart Everson, in his essay “Awakening to Gaia” in the new collection Godless Paganism, writes, “To awaken to Gaia is to recognize other animals and plants as our distant cousins, to recognize that our kinship extends even to rocks, to the sea, to the atmosphere” (273).

In such statements, it’s difficult to know where personification and metaphor leave off and the belief that nature is literally alive begins. But collectively they show how easily we think of inorganic stuff as living or lifelike—lifelike not just in the way of simple bacteria but lifelike in the way of humans, with complexity and awareness.

I think that one reason people believe our environment might be alive is that we are constantly pouring and projecting ourselves into it. We are hypnotized and soothed by the ocean, so we say that the ocean is hypnotic and soothing. We feel enlarged and humbled in the presence of mountains, and we call them inspiring. In this way, our responses become their qualities, and their qualities make them seem alive.

In addition, people worry that we are out of touch with nature and think that by viewing the seas, the wind, and sunlight as alive, we might grow closer to them. I’m not so sure. I think we might feel more in touch with nature if we saw more clearly the differences between its living members and its inanimate materials and forces. We—all living things—may be inextricably linked with the earth and the sun, but we are also very unlike them. We are unusual, reproductive, self-modifying, enclosed mini-systems. Rocks, water, and stars are not.

It even, I think, smacks of vanity for us to see the oceans or the stars as versions of ourselves. Many marvels arise in nature, and life is only one of them. We see nature in our image because doing so comes easily to us. But we have great difficulty understanding the quantum oddities of nuclear bits and the dynamics of the unfolding universe. We—most people—are best connected to the rest of nature, I believe, by valuing the story of life on earth, managing our power over nature more responsibly, and standing humbly before the mysteries of non-living matter and energy.

As humans, we can’t help but radiate our energy out to the mountains, the oceans, and the sky. Doing so is our way of feeling fully alive and of seeking connections with what is greater; it’s a form of love. The glow, the seeming “aliveness” that shines back at us from inanimate nature is, I think, only our own reflection, but it helps fulfill us.

6 thoughts on “Is the Universe Alive?

  1. In any case, we all perceive a connection with nature. Or is it with the invisible attributes that emanate from all of creation that merely reflect our Creator, as any work of art reflects something of it’s Creator?

      • Yet the notion that the “Universe is Alive” or even may be alive, or seems to commmunicate intelligibility, conveys that sense we all experience in nature from time to time. Many no doubt try drowning out such notions with pure objectivity as if everything could be explained by the known laws that govern all we can see, touch, taste, and calculate.
        They think and live in a box, though they suppose they think outside the box.
        But the supernatural exists and He lives outside the laws of nature for He created them and they are subject to God. But He is not subject to them.
        It is futile and defies reason to suppose infinity can fit into our finite laws and understanding.

  2. I’m rather inclined to discount the ‘awesome’ or ‘sacred’ even though I have had those feelings myself. I think it is too easy to elaborate these sorts of feelings into ‘aliveness of the universe’ when we can’t even define ‘universe’ and ‘living’ properly. It’s not very uplifting, but there you go. Existence precedes essence, as they say.

    Yes, I think we are primed by the structure of our brain and body to project our feelings of meaning onto external objects, people, and situations – and we come to accept as a matter of pragmatism that these things *have* the meaningful properties we associate with them.

    Yet two people can look at the same object, person, or situation and come to different conclusions about it’s ‘meaning’. One person’s awesome Grand Canyon is another person’s frighteningly deep hole in the ground. One person’s minor accident is another person’s current example of an ongoing curse of bad luck. Don’t even start me on gods, ghosts, or demons.

Comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s