Chaos and freedom

The subject

«In earlier times there was only one field of scholarship and this was philosophy. Nowadays, we are often told - mainly by practitioners of the humanities - that only in recent times has there been a split, a schism in scholarship between natural science and the humanities. This is however a fallacy stemming from a basic misunderstanding of the essence of natural science». (Lorenz Konrad, 1993)
With these words Konrad Lorenz introduces the first chapter of «The Natural Science of the Human Species. An Introduction to Comparative Behavioural Research. The Russian Manuscript». A work in which the great ethologist in a scholarly mixture of scientific rigour and language accessible to the layman explains his theory of a realistic conception of nature as opposed to the idealistic formulations of classical philosophy.

In particular, Lorenz puts his finger on the fundamental, epistemological problem of philosophy and modern science: the possibility of bringing about a new union between «natural science» and «the humanities».

This fundamental aim eschews the circumspection with which this union is treated by our contemporaries, both scientists and philosophers, who these days have to compete with an ever growing number of doctrines, paradigms and philosophies in a situation which is increasingly fragmented and relativist. A situation which is totally different from the profound philosophical synthesis typical of the great thinkers of the past.

Yet it is fundamental to consider that never before has man had such interpretative tools at his disposal with which to be able to outline new philosophical and scientific paradigms, tools which are reliably objective. This seems to be the aspiration and preoccupation of K. Lorenz and this is the challenge which awaits us on the threshold of the second millennium.

Some of Lorenz's ideas, in particular those on the «evolutionist theory of knowledge», have been accepted by one of the great names of Western philosophy, Sir Karl Raimund Popper who died on 17th September, 1994. (Popper R. Karl 1975, 1994)

One of the remarkable contributions made by this epistemologist is that he showed the falsification criterion of suppositions that form the basis of the theoretical progress of science. Popper develops the principle of a progressive «objectivization» of man's knowledge following an ideal path in search of an «objective» truth towards which man may strive but at which he will never consciously arrive. A «given» truth then, irrespective of the fact that it can never be grasped by any conscious being.

Current scientific theories, then, are like composite «fragments» of human knowledge which have been proved during the course of numerous verifications. Following in the wake of Tarski, epistemology and modern logic teach that these «fragments» are inevitably marked by an apodictic definition of several of their basic axioms. Even scientific theories are «composed» of undeniably metaphysical conceptions, a fact we must always remember, especially when discussing the most important gnosiological subjects.
Scientific research justifies its presence in the realm of a metaphysical theory which affirms the real existence of an extrasubjective physical universe existing irrespective of whether it is observed or not. Man is a part of this universe and we can perceive it through our senses and therefore describe it using our intellect.

It is interesting to note how, within this metaphysical theory, there has been an attempt to direct scientific research along two «polarizations», which embody the great existential themes of the history of man: atheism and theism.

According to the atheistic polarization, scientific theories form a conception of reality in which the physical universe represents absolute being, the entirety of being. The theist polarization tries to form scientific theories within a metaphysical framework in which the physical universe does not represent absolute being, but only «one» being which ontologically derives from an external being, which represents the prime, absolute being: God.

In this context it is necessary to consider whether the formal contents of the two metaphysical theories, round which rage heated controversies, represent the best framework in which to evaluate scientific theories, taking into account the features peculiar to Western culture. Or if, on the other hand, it may be possible to extract further systems of metaphysico-epistemological coordinates more suitable for the results of scientific observation.

A new realistic synthesis: this is the goal, the direction in which modern science can lead us with a contingent, finite contribution, unique in its objectivity, placing its results at the service of a revision of the fundamental assumptions of philosophic speculation. Science, in perhaps an irreverent way, «must» these days compete with theology, by introducing new conceptual categories and its formal rigour. But, above all, it must drag philosophers and theologians into using, where possible, experimental evidence and empirical data. Only in this way will it be possible to go back and consider fundamental philosophical concepts in a new light. Concepts like necessity, contingence, reality, time, space, matter, essence, «epoché», spirit, subjectivity, creation, God, ethics, man and freedom.

A new metaphysical theory then, which is «transversal», original, realistic, scientific, clear-cut, autonomous and mature, characterised by a profound analysis of observation, empirical data and evidence. Just as from the verification and evidence of a cosmology, of an anthropological theory, and of a study of man, the great Greek philosophy was born. This was the first step.

Then, finally we will be able to reach a new comparison between these and other metaphysical theories: a new, open, constructive and objective comparison which will certainly make us «... discover things new and things old» . This is our ambitious goal.

The theories on which modern science hinge are quantum mechanics, the cosmological theory of the «big bang» and the very recent chaos theories. The latter are a follow up to the conceptual revolution in the field of theoretical mathematics which originated, in particular, from the works of Gödel and Poincaré.

The heuristic horizons proposed by these theories have raised questions that Western philosophy, since its origins, has never before been called upon to answer. It is possible, then, in the field of realistic metaphysics, to propose evaluating modern scientific theories within a scientific paradigm and a new anthropological theory. We can hope for unusual results if we put the present scientific paradigm into a metaphysico-theological context given the close, indestructible relationship which exists between cosmology and theology.

The quanta

The theory of relativity and still more quantum mechanics, more than any other theories have challenged human logic and intellect.

Quantum mechanics results from a need to interpret the phenomena of the sub microscopic world which clearly eludes the logic of classical physics and as Bohr aptly said anyone who is not surprised and confused by quantum theory has not understood it.

This theory has definitely challenged the thinking on the meaning of reality, on philosophico-logical induction and deduction, the foundations of physics and the philosophy of the past.

Many controversies caused by the introduction of this physical theory revolve around the epistemological problem.
The orthodox formulation of quantum theory, known as «the Copenhagen interpretation» uses a mathematical function, Schrödinger's wave function, to represent the «complete» state of a microscopic system, for example, an electron that orbits round the nucleus of an atom. This wave function has a particular characteristic.
If it were observed the phenomenon would collapse into single, mutually incompatible solutions. The obvious unpredictability of these physical phenomena which result from this «collapse» of even the most deterministic wave function would explain the indeterministic, objective nature of physical reality. This unpredictability means that it is impossible to know determinate pairs of physical parameters of a quantum process at the same time, like the speed and position of an electron.
The «uncertainty» confirmed by the Heisenberg principle, in fact, results from this. This fundamental principle does not however cover exhaustively every aspect of the phenomenon of the complementary nature of the quantum processes.
This phenomenon, which is even more profound and essential in quantum theory, also is found in other forms and modalities which are not necessarily connected with the possible measurement by an observer. This «uncertainty» does not only stem from the fact that it is impossible for an observer to make exact measurements but it is implicit in the wave function itself and is seen as a «complete» description of the phenomenon.
The Copenhagen interpretation states that there is an objective indeterminacy in subatomic events. It denies, in particular, the existence of underlying relations with laws and «hidden» variables.
The quantum nature of these phenomena are expressed then in a «superimposition» of separate quantum states implicit in their own fundamental nature, which are resolved following a possible observation. This is opposed by other theories which refute the indeterminacy introduced by quantum mechanics. They consider the concept of the «collapse» of the wave function equivocal.

One of the alternative theories is that of the physician David Joseph Bohm. His theory avoids the «collapse» of the wave function. He uses a mathematical description of subatomic systems in which every particle is held up by a pilot wave which is not seen as meaning of a mere descriptive, mathematical object but rather of a real physical entity in the same way as, for example, a magnetic field.
This theory, out of respect for the classical principle of causality and determinism, which underlie classical physics, denies all hints of quantum uncertainty. For example, it explains eccentricities like the wave corpuscle duality which emerge from experiments with diffraction through slits, by means of a physical interaction which takes place between the subatomic particle and the respective pilot wave.
We should point out that this mathematically valid theory has been criticised from an epistemological viewpoint because what it proposes, i.e. the physical existence of a pilot wave which is completely imperceptible to any form of observation, decidedly clouds this metaphysical hypothesis.
Paradoxical experiments have been made concerning the fundamental assumptions of quantum mechanics. Recent experiments like those conducted by Professor A. Aspect's team in Paris and by other researchers like Professor Leonard Mandel and his collaborators at Rochester University, would seem to confirm, at least for the present, the Copenhagen interpretation as against others, thus endorsing the situation feared by Einstein who was an indomitable opponent of quantum uncertainty. (D'Espagnat Bernrad , 1980; Horgan, John, 1992)
Some interesting experiments have been have been made where it is possible to observe the reversibility of the collapse of the wave function even after observation of this phenomenon.
In one experiment parametric converters are used. These are devices which make it possible to divide a photon into two with halved energy and direct them along different paths without, however, altering the quantum characteristic.

The photons emitted by a laser are beamed onto a parametric converter. The photons that emerge from the converter do not meet again as they are guided along separate paths. In the end the photons are made to converge contemporaneously onto photon detectors which show interference patterns proving that photons follow both the alternative paths, just as waves do.
Now, it is known that photons emitted by a laser are distinguished by the same direction of polarization. A polarizer is successively placed along the exit paths of the converter and positioned so that it is possible to determine the path taken. This is achieved by means of a differential polarization which marks a the photons arriving on the photon detector.
And so the interference pattern immediately disappears. But it reappears if two polarizers are placed in front of the photon detector, both identically oriented so as to cancel out the different polarization produced previously in order to show the path followed by the single photons!

It is clear that quantum theory interprets these phenomena as a close correlation between the real «resolution» of the phenomena and observation. Perhaps it is this acquisition of information observed through the «collapse» of the wave function which gives a concrete, determinate meaning to one of the states inherent in it. Some researchers have managed to put off even further choosing the type of observation to use. The polarizers in front of the mirrors are replaced by beam splitter polarizers and the data relative to the single photons emitted plus registration of arrival times and planned polarizations are stored in a computer on separate files. One file contains all the arrival times at the photon detector while the other the planned polarizations which have been set up.

T5he reconstruction of the events made starting from the uncorrelated data, in other words using only the file with the arrival times, without any reference to polarization, shows that the particles have a corpuscular nature. The photons seem to pass alternately from one path to another.

It is possible to determine the paths and polarizations of the single photons from the correlation analysis of the observations memorised on both files. These observations cause interference patterns which is a sign that the photons follow both routes and thus behave in the same way as waves.
It is thus possible to restore the wave corpuscle duality notwithstanding observation. It is as if nature regained the indeterminacy lost by the collapse of the wave function in periods of time following observation without bringing to the phenomenon any «invasive» physical action. This proves the effectiveness of the Copenhagen interpretation and of the fact that the wave function represents only an exhaustive description of the process.
These results raise serious questions about theories on reality and also about Bohm's theory since it does not seem difficult to see how it has any effect on how the pilot wave, seen as a physical entity, can be called upon to interpret these experiences, in which falsified time acquisitions of the values observed are put into effect.
But, as these experiments have not yet led to sufficiently exhaustive conclusions and leave the subject open, we must be both wary and prudent in giving an exact interpretation of these eccentric phenomena.
However, the impression remains that some peculiarities of the sub-atomic world represent a quality which is intrinsic to this dimension of reality; for example, the absence of locality, the quantum correlation, the perfect chaos of the wave reduction process. As many physicists and epistemologists hope, further in depth theorisations might substitute the present meaning of «collapse inherent in conscious observation» for a possible physical process which is anyway impossible to compute.

Chaos, God and freedom

Well, we would like to make some remarks on this point.
It seems justifiable to fear a fundamental conceptual distortion in the intentions of some scholars especially when it comes to the epistemological valuation of the debate on determinism and indeterminism which derives from these phenomena.
We would like to show how this possibility seems actually to be a real obstacle to reaching a meaning of reality which is harbinger of both interesting scientific and philosophic significance.

Although we fully agree about the opportunity to verify contradictory, experimental theories of paradoxical natural phenomena, we would like to point out that the attention given by scholars to certain interpretative paradigms of reality can be excessive and that this may cause us to risk missing the opportunity of grasping a peculiar aspect of nature. A quality which we may deduce from a pluridisciplinary vision of reality, but which perhaps the paradoxes inherent in quantum theory make us apprehend in a more immediate way.

We can clarify this by quoting Einstein's remark that «God does not play dice!» which expressed his «uneasiness» about the indeterministic results of quantum mechanics which since the beginning of the century has stood side by side with his revolutionary theory of relativity.

Although we admit the relevance of Einstein's criticism of quantum theory, we would like to emphasise the inappropriateness of intellectual «uneasiness» implicit in this theory. Planck's attempt to claim the existence of an «ideal spirit» free from the gaze of the human observer is a good example of this «uneasiness» According to Planck this spirit, could act causally on microscopic phenomena beneath the threshold of uncertainty of the subatomic world.
Why does this indeterminacy of nature induce «uneasiness»? In the light of what principles or metaphysical expectations?
With regard to this, we should remember the continual attempts to describe bio evolutionist dynamics as ways of determining the emergence of a particular living species, man, in the context of a theological, creationist vision.
Is this search for deterministic explanations a sign of «healthy» intellectual curiosity and consistent scientific work or is it only a contingent need, attributable to paradigmatic conditioning?
It is clear that the dividing line between these two approaches is very elusive and the question asked may be controversially seen as not relevant from the epistemological point of view. Yet an analysis of this possibility is very necessary.
In classical physics the deterministic principle is explicit in its laws. The deterministic principle of cause and effect, also applied in realistic metaphysics, is usually represented as an uninterrupted sequence of events which are linked by the laws of nature. These events permeate the entire physical universe:

This sequence is valid as a generalisation in which one can trace a universal synchrony of «continuous» events seen as «discrete».
Quantum indeterminacy seems epistemologically to create an incomprehensible break in this uniformity. Yet there is nothing irrational or epistemologically unacceptable in indeterminism, whether it is that of quantum theory or any other.
Actually quantum indeterminism, when correctly interpreted expresses the unexpected significance of an extremely positive meaning of nature with regard to a whole series of profound epistemological and philosophical reflections. The supporters of determinism are trying to reintroduce a view of nature in which they regain, even in these phenomena, the «healthy» ability to predict which has been destroyed by quantum mechanics in the infinitely small. In this way all levels of reality would have a single guiding principle.
We should point out however, that this correctness or interpretative symmetry, introduces the possibility of an synthetic conception of nature that raises many questions. The contribution made by the current theories on chaos and complexity and on the dynamics of complex systems strongly conditions, in that it is more difficult to accept these pan deterministic theories, some determining ontological factors which we are going on to discuss.
Both from quantum and mathematical theories on chaos and complexity there emerges a view of certain aspects peculiar to the world of physics that is only apparently violated by the profound «opposition» represented by that basic indeterminacy which makes thinkers and «philo-determinists» suffer such «uneasiness». This can be more easily understood if we consider the epistemological meaning of the recent theories on the dynamics of complex systems, known as «sensitive to initial conditions»

The inadequacy of deterministic mathematical models in representing complex phenomena like atmospheric fluctuations, the turbulence of fluid flow and bio-evolutionist dynamics have led to the adoption of models based on theoretico-mathematical methods which are intrinsically indeterministic like the calculation of probability, chaotic attractors, fractal algorithms and topology. (Crutchfield, James P. and Farmer, Doyne J. and Pachard, Norman, H. and Shaw, Robert S. 1987; Gutzwiller, Martin C. 1992; Ruelle David 1992; Stewart Ian 1993)
The verification of the non-computability and the non-linearity of the very great majority of natural dynamics throws new light on the horizons of both physics and mathematics, both analytical teachings par excellence, thus pushing Laplace's dream of the perfect and total determinism of the physical world irretrievably into a nightmare of inconceivable depths. (Popper R. Karl 1975)

What epistemological meaning could lie in the fact that «beneath» the macroscopic world, there may or may not be an «intrinsic», «objective» source of indeterminacy. A macroscopic world permeated by this particular characteristic of close and reciprocal physical relations between infinite factors.

On the contrary, what could be the implication of the possibility that right at the extreme lowest limits of the real an indefatigable, rigid deterministic principle could exist?
Let's try and analyse this second hypothesis in depth aware, however, that this will obviously appear epistemologically and scientifically outdated.
The situation that appears before us in this case, strong in its elegant and absolute, deterministic symmetry, is perfectly plausible.
In it there seems to rise the spirit of seventeenth century investigation which led Laplace to write in his «Philosophical Essay on Probability», in 1814: «An intelligence which, for a given moment, might know all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings which are part of it, if it were vast enough to analyse these data, it would embrace in the same formula, the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and of the lightest atom: there would be nothing uncertain for it, and the future, like the past would be before its eyes».
If, for the sake of paradigmatic «symmetry» or perfect determinism, we defend a deterministic vision that ventures into the depths of the infinitely small, of the sub nuclear, then this epistemological exigency must, also, take into consideration the above mentioned theoretical principles of chaos and complex systems.

But in the light of these theories is not the picture which emerges, with unheard of violence and impact, simply the reconfirmation of Laplacian determinism?
The influences which pass between systems which are extremely sensitive to initial conditions weave very subtle relations between infinitesimal events, even if they are situated at incommensurable distances from each other.
If we extend this determinism to cover the whole of reality is not what remains nothing but the image of a gigantic and unchangeable mechanism in which, in a much more profound way than it was possible to imagine until the last century, every object and natural dynamic turns out to be an inescapable «effect»?

Let's say, for example, that Bohm's theory is holds true.
On the same lines as the pilot wave of every infinitesimal particle we can go as far as admitting the existence of a deterministic wave function of the entire universe which is able to comprise in itself every complex or macroscopic object which is part of reality.

Let's take the earlier representation of the causal sequence of events

Now we will adapt this expression to the concept of the wave function of the whole universe.
To do this we will have to set some formal restraints. We will suppose then, even if it is absurd, that all the elementary physical entities E are constantly given and immutable on levels k of the causal sequence.
Present information theories show us that in the observable universe there does not exist a spatial-temporal dimension physically capable of containing «the intelligence, that in a given moment would know all the forces which animate nature and the respective situation of all the beings which form a part of it... ».
This however, does not stop us from postulating the existence of a deterministic solution, in the light of which «there would be nothing uncertain, and the future like the past would be present». This solution would exist irrespective of the fact that some intelligence could understand it or not. We will write it as follows here k is an index which indicates the causal succession of elementary events E.
This evidence is decisive. The theories on the dynamics of complex systems which are sensitive to initial conditions, affirm that a given event Ex(k) can, in principle, be conditioned by all the n elementary physical entities E on the level (k-l) of the sequence pertinent to it, even if only on account of gravitational effects. However these effects cannot be ignored in the complete evaluation of every physical dynamic. Every event Ex(k) is then a function of the summation of all the n events En(k-1). This is expressed by the equality


And in its turn .

This implies that the causal sequence , which describes the interaction between the physical n components expressed by the wave function y of the universe in each of the k terms of the same, is correctly determined. Each term is therefore equivalent to the others. This means that, in the event of being able to define an initial term, , this term comprises in itself all the successive terms. It should be pointed out, incidentally, that this hypothesis implicitly takes us back to a realistic, theistic metaphysical theory, but that this idea can also be applied to an atheistic view. This however, obviously does not add anything to the Laplacian idea.
The picture changes drastically, however, when we consider the way in which natural dynamics follow a prevalently non-linear evolution, that is they are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. This is contrary to the expectations of seventeenth century philosophers and mathematicians.
This means, as a result that the sequence , cannot be reconstructed and understood prevalently in a «linear» way, that is, counting on a relative causal independence of events, events which are sufficiently separated from each other.
Both from the thermodynamic point of view and from the physical and biological viewpoint, natural events, irrespective of their absolute relevance, cannot be seen and analysed as local, closed systems. This is true whether they are microscopic, subatomic, macroscopic or galactic.
It is impossible then to postulate such reciprocal causal independence, especially on spatial-temporal dimensions typical of the most important verifiable events of the currently observable universe such as the formation of planetary systems, organic evolution etc.
Actually, in reality in every term of the sequence we have a predominant effect in the reciprocal interaction of all the physical components n of .
Every event is, in fact, a function of all the events on the preceding level and is a part of the causal terms which will influence all the events on the successive level. This they will do in the same way and irrespective of their relevance.

The history of every event Ex(k) is given then by a causal succession in which a number of interactions is expressed which increases enormously along the sequence in physical reality a factors or dimensions.

Every event placed in the sequence is, in other words, a «holistic» expression of a network of inconceivably complex relationships. All these relationships are from the causal point of view identically essential for determining the physical coming into being of every event.
Now let's try and place these observations in a metaphysical framework in which a teleological aim expressed in physical reality is affirmed, identifiable in event Ez(p), and a creative event of the universe. We suppose then the existence of an event , the original expression of the plan which is traceable back to the absolute being: God.
In other words, we consider the hypothesis of deterministic, theistic metaphysics, like that advocated by the present schools of theistic, creationist thought and by the present Western religions, in which the earthly intervention of a divinity in the determination of natural dynamics is postulated.
What happens to our earlier considerations in the face of the idea that physical reality may be the expression of a given teleonomy founded on the actuation of event Ez(p)?
Well, all the n events E of all the preceding p-l levels are equally essential because of event Ez(p) and they must be contained in . The sequence expresses, then, an inflexible «causal rigidity»
Now, the fundamental philosophic fact is that this mind boggling, deterministic conception irreparably destroys all hypotheses on even the weakest free will. In fact there develops a whole series of insoluble problems in the light of the epistemological principles centred on the emergence of conscious forms and their free will.
Every entity existing in reality, every dynamic, event or living being turn out to be stages in an inflexible pan-deterministic sequence. They are mere «physical automatons» which would explain the initial state of reality in deterministic terms.
No natural dynamic, however chaotic or complex, can escape this fundamental, background determinism. Well, it would certainly be impossible for any physical intelligence to grasp this reality, but at the same time it would be «ineluctably» given.
This is the case since the existence of a in a pan-deterministic sequence cannot comprise within it any degree of freedom. Information theories, the assumptions of indeterminacy which are mathematically computable have shown that the extension of natural events and the complexity of physical dynamics are really such that they make it impossible for any finite intelligence to have a deterministic understanding of the entire universe.

But at the same time the deterministic hypothesis supposes ineluctably the existence of a in which is contained the contingent reality of the universe. This is, or has been, «advanced» and from these initial conditions emerges the inflexible causal chain of events, which in this hypothesis, would determine the real oneness of creation.
The existence of this precludes then all allusions to any hypothesis on free will for any finite, conscious being.

It is obvious that a real, finite, conscious being, like man, for example, finds himself in a position where it is objectively necessary to make decisions and choices founded on a partial and imperfect evaluation of the causal elements of every infinitesimal event. As he is not able to understand the infinitude either of the physical factors involved or the exact numerical sequence of the parameters and variables at stake in any natural dynamic, a being like this could not but deceive himself into supposing a «voluntariness» or conscious «circumspection» in making his choices. This voluntariness and circumspection would turn out to be only a perfect illusion of «ontological liberty» which is absolutely inexistent.
With this in mind, we will try to define what «ontological freedom» means for a conscious being. We can say he is ontologically free when he is «straightforward, autonomous and therefore objectively responsible for making ethical choices whether operative or not, following his finite perception and evaluation of a range of independent, possible alternatives. These are counter factual, in which a plurality of degrees of freedom is expressed.»
This means that, if we define an area of the counterfactual events which are inherent in the theoretical opportunities for a given self aware living creature to make decisions - this we can intuitively represent by means of a tri-dimensional volume, every event Pa, identifiable in one point of this volume - it must be able to be connected to a successive event Pb by means of a causal evolution which is not eminently computable or deterministic. A causal relation then which is not derivable from the knowledge of the factors and laws relative to physical levels (macroscopic and microscopic, biotic and abiotic) underlying this event, but an event which is willed and has been decided on, possibly ethical and ontologically attributable to the ego of the conscious subject.

So in a pan deterministic reality we would have only the illusion of making choices, gestures, following principles and feeling emotions which would be subjectively seen as conscious and «free», while being absolutely unaware of the deeper reality which governs every event. These entities are the expression of obscure dynamics which underlie all possible perception of individuality and free choice. But this is not all. The frustrating and irremediable thing is that this happens now in the awareness that the fundamental causes of every infinitesimal, natural dynamic reside, in the final analysis, beyond the «wall» established by Heisenberg's uncertainty limit.

So every answer to our mind boggling questions is irreparably hidden beyond that:

(where =3,14159....., h = Planck's constant, the product of the indeterminacy of the position and velocity of the mass particle m), which shuts out our observation of the world of the infinitely small.
In the case of relations underlying the microscopic events described indeterministically by quantum mechanics, we would place Heisenberg's uncertainty wall along the terms of a totally deterministic sequence, precluding the determination by any physical, macroscopic observer of all the lower levels.


This eventuality would definitively confirm both the perfect and total predestination of reality and the equally perfect and total impossibility for any conscious being to resolve this disturbing unawareness.

It is not without foundation, then, to consider how «this» paradoxical reality seems to create a much more objective and immediate «uneasiness» than that feared by Einstein and other scientists who refuse the «paradoxes» posed by quantum physics.
If quantum mechanics were to represent the correct interpretation of microscopic reality we can immediately observe how radically things change.
To the extent that Heisenberg's uncertainty threshold represents an objective causal break between the classical determinism of macroscopic levels and the intrinsic indeterminacy which derives from the collapse of the wave function relevant to quantum levels, we obtain a generalised representation of reality in which we have no unfathomable «breaking down» of this threshold:

This implies some very strange considerations from the metaphysical, epistemological point of view. First of all the determinism of reality reaches the threshold of the quantum world and this would permit us to observe the way in which nature expresses intrinsic indeterminacy, at the very beginning of the levels accessible to observation by conscious, physical beings.

One simple consideration: is it really unfounded to see this fact as a very meaningful and relevant «message» from nature?
This phenomenon «breaks» every deterministic chain by continuously introducing something new to every quantum event, an indeterminable component of physical chaos which acts as an inexhaustible, indeterministic lung for all the successive dynamics, in both the spatial and temporal dimensions. This is especially the case as regards the dynamics of complex systems and chaos.
This phenomenon, which keeps introducing at every moment and in every place perturbing elements into the causal sequence , makes even the most elementary natural dynamic intrinsically unpredictable.
On every level infinite quantum events I, causally separated by the sequence in progress and absolutely not attributable to any underlying determinstic law, unexpectedly «enter» it, infusing reality with newness in a continuous, infinite «creation ex novo» of further causal events which are absolutely unforeseen in .

This situation could be generalised in the following way:

The inextricable complexity of nature, as already pointed out, is peremptorily confirmed by the joint action between the dynamic evolution of physical systems and quantum mechanics.
The coming into being of the universe, in each infinitesimal expression, is not then contained in the number of «initial conditions» from which it has originated. The knowledge of the laws of nature and the initial conditions can no longer «completely» represent the dynamic evolving of physical systems.

The «non linearity» of the laws of physics, which are often defined by complex relations between numerous variables that describe these transformations, exponentially extend the influence exercised on any event by even the most infinitesimal component of the entire universe. The result of this is that the progress of almost all physical systems, right from the most simple, is intrinsically unpredictable, in other words perfectly chaotic.
Most of the evolution of physical systems, from the movements of atmospheric strata to biological dynamics, show a behaviour pattern in which the deterministic element of the laws of physics intersects with a fair portion of chance, thus causing the prodigious complexity and unpredictability of reality.
What are the most significant questions raised by this conception of reality?
What does this conception imply as regards the idealistic existence of a superior intelligence, or to paraphrase Einstein, God playing dice?
As to these questions it is possible to make important metaphisico-epistemological considerations.
The superior intelligence if it wants to organise the evolving of any simple natural dynamic in a teleological plan, has to assume the extenuating duty of continually analysing the enormous number of elementary physical events going on every single level of reality.
In terms dear to teleological metaphysics, referred to more or less unconsciously by Laplace, Einstein and Planck, (authors already mentioned in this work) the teleology of creation, «divine providence» or the influence of the divine on the physical universe, in the earthly sphere, cannot possibly get out of being totally and continually dedicated to knowledge and putting things into effect, a fact which divests its creatures of any hint of free will.
If this were the case God would have to supervise every «single throw» in an exhaustingly taxing «game of dice» with the human species as the stake in the game. A game which has been going on for at least fifteen billion years all the time and in every place in the universe!

All radio-active decay, every energetic transformation going on in an atomic orbital, every quantum collision, every natural dynamic, from the fluctuations of an invisible particle to the violent cosmic tides, even the most insignificant genetic mutation, every beating of a butterfly's wings, all times and events in reality must be subjected to the careful and obsessive control of this intelligence.

All the evolutive events, from the prebiotic synthesis of the first proto cells to the genetic-metabolic mutations that led to the first eukaryotic cells, from the impact of the asteroid which, it would seem, decreed the extinction of the dinosaurs to the acquisition of prehensile hands by protohuman hominids, must all have been carefully supervised by every divinity which had had in mind «to create» the human species on the third planet within the solar system.
The only conceivable alternative to this careful and wearisome divine undertaking, which is anyway rather unconvincing and incredible, is that in which a divinity could be postulated as the origin, the causa causarum, of a universe... left to itself. A universe then, in which one does not try a priori to effect deductively any specific natural dynamic.
The immediate objection which comes to mind is: «Yes, but what sense would the teleological design, the concept of creation have then?»
Surprisingly we can find the answer in a holistic consideration of the mathematical and physical theories stated above and in other conclusive scientific theories of today. We find it in the very indeterminacy brought about by the «quantum caesura» and it develops a metaphysical theory which is completely consistent with the present cosmological and evolutionist theories.

The big bang and evolution: a wager made by God?

Modern cosmology has pushed much of philosophic and scientific thought on the concept of the universe, reality and creation towards heuristic horizons. Modern theories simply add a further, conclusive contribution to the meaning of intrinsically indeterministic reality.

Many theoretical aspects of today's cosmology rely on quantum mechanics and on QCD (quantum chrome dynamic) which derives from the former and so on. This is true for the theoretical extrapolations of the physical states of the exact initial moment, the Big Bang, to the problem of entropy of black holes, from the breaks in symmetry from which derive the separation of the fundamental forces of nature to the ex novo formation of particles due to quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, to the calculation of the intensity of background fossil radiation to theories on inflation. (Brush, Stephen G. 1992; 5; Davies, Paul 1984, 1993; Guth, Alan H. and Steinhardt, Paul J. 1984; Hawking, Stephen 1988)
Today those pioneering the research on the origins of the universe are working increasingly closely with those involved in experimental atomic physics on account of quantum theories on the infinitely small.
Another disquieting example of this could be taken starting from the fascinating and still open question which arises from the implications of the quantum approach to the oneness of the universes raised by some theories on cosmology which follow the implications of an eminently quantum approach. Some theories of cosmology postulate the existence of «parallel» universes, independent of each other, in order to resolve the eccentricities of quantum «collapse» With regard to this we must make reference to the Soviet astrophysicist, Andrei Linde's original theory on the inflationary, self-reproducing universe. (Linde, Andrei 1995)
According to this scholar, the universe in which we live is just a single «process of cosmological evolution» which exists within the framework of a complex «fractal tree» of universes which originate from one another in a perfect chaotic sequence through simple «Quantum budding»
Now if we were able to put a «beginning» even to this immense, chaotic cluster of universes it is clear that it would be very difficult to give a possible deterministic option, a super wave function , common to all these cosmological events.
The action of a possible divine creator would be further removed by the subtle realization of a given physical reality and this simply makes both the conception of pandeterminism and the intrinsic uncertainty of the alternative indeterministic definition of evolution more absurd.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution put forward, in 1859 in his pioneering work «The Origin of the Species» today represents the fundamental axiomatic basis of all teaching on biology. (Darwin, Charles - ed. 1973)
The advanced stage reached by the modern, cosmological, evolutive paradigm seems then to indicate that the time is ripe for it to spread its influence «beyond» its most typical fields of application.
Starting from this paradigm we can derive a realistic, theistic metaphysical theory essentially consistent with it. This leads to unknown metaphysical hypotheses which can only be fully understood by redefining the ideal figure of the «divine creator»
So, it can be demonstrated that these features do not represent an «elementary» set of characteristics but rather composite coacervates, due to the apposition of metaphysical assumptions which are unconnected.
Theoretically theologico-cosmological systems can be imagined in which there are entities which express only some of these qualities.
We should remember that the way orthodox theology expresses the conception of divinity, creation and other formal aspects is founded on a fixed, anthropocentric and geocentric vision.
All Scholasticism, all the thinking of authors like St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Bonaventura, Spinoza, Kant and many others, are essentially understandable if we consider the problem of the existence of God, the relationship God - man, the antithesis between good and evil and so on, from a theological perspective based on ideas on cosmology and anthropology which are extremely different from those deducible from the modern theory of today.
Modern science has questioned these metaphysical conceptions and these two visions cannot possibly be «reconciled». This is why every «reconciliatory» attempt has failed. Only an unknown, radical theologico-scientific synthesis can do justice to these questions. And this is what we are proposing.
A different perspective on the problem leads to a fundamental revision of theological thinking on the idea of God, meanings of creation, teleology, eschatology, revelation, sin, evil, salvation and so on.
For example, it is possible not to invoke a divinity in a metaphysical system which contemplates life after death, or rather it can be conceived in such a way that it does not possess any of the qualities usually attributed to it merely out of cultural habit.
These hypotheses are perfectly valid and consistent from the philosophical point of view. We have no reason to believe that our metaphysical theory can express all the facets of the divinity any more than we can objectively maintain that our theory can represent the «best» unless we go back to obscurantist, sectarian, ethnocentric explanations.
Only using an «objective» method of comparison can we solve the problem. That is why one appeals to scientific judgement to back up given theologico-cosmological metaphysics.
A consideration, centred on the verification of a cosmologico-anthropological idea which indirectly leads us to be able to opt for one or other metaphysical theory. And the potentiality of this application of scientific knowledge is just as valid and unexplored.
Science today, for example, has been driven to place serious vetoes on the possibility of postulating certain «finalities» in the putting into practice of natural evolutionist dynamics.
The impossibility of grasping the phenomenon of evolution in its single forms as an «instrument» of an original plan centred on the emergence of the human species in creation, has represented until now an insurmountable obstacle to the understanding of natural dynamics as compliant «effectors» in a magnificent divine plan organised around man. (Greene, John C. 1971; Hall, Rupert and Hall A. and Boas M. 1991; Monod Jacques 1970)
Evolutionary processes, left to themselves, are not capable of working towards the emergence of a predetermined objective, unless they call upon continuous «corrective intervention» in earthly events by means of «divine providential supervision» of every infinitesimal natural dynamic.
As we have seen the latter eventuality irreparably undermines the principle of human free will. On the contrary, in the context of a chaotic, indeterministic, self-organising universe, we must underline a fundamental fact about the possibility of affirming any teleological content.

Every creature that emerges in creation through the evolutionary process has absolutely unpredictable characteristics given the intrinsic fortuity present in the interminable series of events which have led to its origin. The spatial temporal context is likewise absolutely unpredictable.

The conception of a universe in which, in the end, some predetermined living creatures must originate and on which the respect for supernatural, ethical principles is imposed is totally incompatible with the universe described by current scientific theories, despite the orthodox teleological beliefs held in our culture. This is the case, in particular, as regards the metaphysical canons of orthodox theologies in our culture. (Dawkins, Richard 1980, 1988, 1996; Wilson O. Edward 1980)
How can we expect that a given line of evolution will lead to that particular living species and even more to those peculiar biological characteristics which will determine, for example its sexuality?
From the phenomenological and causal point of view, how can we establish before the creative event itself, «above» the level , absolute moral principles, in this case sexual taboos, if the anatomico-ethological characteristics of a living being - event Es(k) where k>>0 - are absolutely unpredictable in the course of millions and millions of years of evolution?
These entities or contingent qualities cannot possibly be seen as «goals» in an original aim entrusted to the spontaneous, natural realisation of the cosmo-biological process of evolution.
This impossibility is then peremptorily confirmed by the modality of the dynamic evolution of physical systems, by quantum mechanics and the very recent studies on «chaos» which have become very important in the bio-evolutionary context.
The coming into being of the universe, and in particular living forms, in their every infinitesimal expression, is not contained in the number of «initial conditions» from which natural reality has originated. Nor can the knowledge of the laws of nature and initial conditions «completely» represent the dynamic evolving of physical systems.
But is it scientifically impossible then to support any teleonomic content at all in natural dynamics? It does not seem to be.
We can give bio-evolutionary processes a universal meaning taking into account that these phenomena are «statistically recurrent in the universe» but at the same time unique, unrepeatable and unpredictable in their particular characteristics.
The process of natural selection can to seen as a phenomenon to which we can attribute the possibility of giving rise to progressively more complex biological situations. These occur in time and space yet in forms and contexts which a priori are absolutely unpredictable.
In particular it is possible to postulate the origin of bio-evolutionary frameworks characterised by the presence of organisms which have progressively more refined psychic structures, capable in the end of sustaining the emergence of intelligence and a reflective conscience.
The latter observation, if appropriately evaluated, becomes extremely important from a theological point of view.
The undeniable indeterminacy of a given bio-evolutionary path «disappears» in the «universal» value of evolutionary phenomenon. The «finalistic» contents associated with this emerge clearly if we understand this process as beyond the contingency of the events which have marked, for example, the success of life on earth or the characteristics of individual living beings.

Studies on the origins of planetary systems, on the abiogenetic origin and the capacity for selective auto-organisation of complex biochemical components, lead us to have a fairly clear picture of the cosmos. (Kastling, J. F. and Toon, J. B. 1988; Black, David C. 1991; Gould, Stephan Jay and Weinberg, Steven and Sagan, Carl and Calvin, William H. end other 1994)
In the attempt to support a finalistic interpretation in the evolutionary processes, these results can lead us to favour a framework which postulates a repeated emergence (thus statistically reliable) of self-aware, living forms in the universe.
Besides, we can also recall the question of the so-called «fundamental physical constants» of nature.
These magnitudes which are defined precisely by scientific research, take on a harmony of extremely critical and interdependent values which do not seem to originate from any underlying natural law or relationship. Why is this agreement of values decisive in making the emergence of life possible? Why «this» universe?
Up to a certain point we go along with the opinion of some authors who see these facts as representing a clue to a teleological finality but we do not believe in any ethical or genetic predestination. (Von Ditfurt Hoiman 1981)
As we have seen, it is possible to provide a model which is both scientifically coherent and teleologically valid. This we can do by omitting theological theories which are irrationally anchored in an untenable «anthropocentric» view and favouring a finalism less focused on man.
In this model, although man is «ousted» from his unfounded role as the «apex of evolution», he can maintain the same satisfactory relationship with the divine as he had before.
It is clear that in all this even the divinity undergoes a formal «reformulation» The ontological relationship between God and man is presented differently thus emphasising the new ideas.
In an indeterministic, evolutionist context the teleology of creation is not centred either on a particular living species or in the existential where there are superior ethical values, which intervene, watch over, veto and sanction.
The «creative gesture» would be a plan in which we do not predetermine the emergence of any ethical or genetic dimension which have to be submitted to the observation of ties with the supernatural. This is something which a divinity is neither «used to» nor «desirous» of.
In this «plan» creation would be left to evolve, «to be», completely freely as an intrinsic, spontaneous manifestation of natural laws.
In the same way, man would be totally free to be and become, both as regards his prerogatives and his natural limits. From this would arise the ontological condition of a being which is ethically «independent» of the divinity. These beings are, in the final analysis, ontologically «free».

Free to be. Responsibly and autonomously free even before their own creator. «This» is the only possible teleological result of a process of biological evolution that pertains in the ontopoiesis of the reflective conscience and in the emergence of thought in creation.
«This» would represent the «teleological aim» of creation by a divinity: natural and total freedom for its creatures.

Genesis: a new metaphysical theory, a new teleology.

We can imagine the way in which the explicative and philosophical potentialities of this model defines new principles which make a definite break with the canons of current philosophy but which does not detract from theistic theory.
No teleology had ever been able to coherently originate from a similar alliance between indeterminism, chaos and freedom. No teleology has ever been able to place the ontological relationship between God and man, between creator and created into a framework like this. This represents a new milestone in human thought, quite undreamed of in all our past. A philosophic step of incommensurable importance.
This model is opposed to all those ideologies that have formed the most sneaky instruments of ideological and political oppression, of the forced conditioning and control of the conscience and of the masses which have ever been put into effect in the entire history of mankind.
Ideologies which are a crystallisation and sublimation of the fundamental, sexually repressive, authoritarian principle of the socio-economic and cultural structure of all historically known societies. These ideologies have been criticised by writers like Freud, Neitzsche, Fromm, Marx and many others.
So, for the first time in the story of modern scientific thought we finally have at our disposal a new metaphysical theory which is able to provide an alternative to all these inconsistent, pernicious doctrines. But man reaches this new horizon with helped by the results of further, conclusive philosphico-scientific research.
A recent research project of ours, printed in a Camerino University publication in 1994, entitled «Metamorphosis of Reason. Evolutionist Psycho-sociological Exegesis of Genesis 1,3 and Bio Ethical Implications» has demonstrated the way in which this original metaphysical conception, which has interesting teleological implications, can be actually inferred by a scientifically valid exegesis of the book of Genesis. This is backed up by an imposing amount of experimental data. (Verolini Roberto and Petrelli Fabio 1994)
It is possible to trace in the teleology of Genesis, in a philosophically concise way, a definite verification of our ideas. The God of Genesis, unlike that sustained by the orthodox, millenarian exegesis, seems to share this metaphysical theory.
A hermeneutic issue that has caused a great stir.
The almost binding assertion of the current scientific conception of nature as evolutionary and indeterministic has stimulated an enormous amount of teleological research. The great commitment of well known writers like Maritain, Guitton, Balthasar, Rahner and Alszeghy, the attention and ostracism with which the Church has treated these problems, show how important this aim and these themes are.
T. de Chardin, is the scholar who more than anyone else, evokes the effort made by today's theologians to find a synthesis between evolutionism and traditional theology. However there is great dissent over his interpretations while still maintaining respect for the strength of his intellect.
These attempts are, in fact, only creationist conjectures, which are not easy to verify scientifically and with which scholars try to force the orthodox interpretations of the first three chapters of the book of Genesis into a evolutionist vision of nature. This is the result of the «classical» custom of approaching these themes in an very philosophical way, without feeling it necessary to make any experimental, empirical verifications of the assumptions and postulates.
This «praxis» ruins the chance of reaching scientifically verifiable hypotheses which are in line with the principle of confutability advocated by Popper's theories.
In this particular instance, we see the problem as a need to represent exhaustively the themes of divine creation of the universe, living forms and in particular man and more important the «fall» or «original sin».
This elusive event sets off the whole salvation dynamic which is fulfilled in the figure and redemptive mission of Christ recounted in the New Testament.
Up to and including today, no interpretation seems to possess the energy and truth necessary to resolve the contradictions caused by an in depth evaluation of the evolutionary model as regards these aspects of faith.
The official position of Catholic Doctrine, what's more, still revolves around a literal, historical interpretation of the facts recounted in Genesis which is absolutely incompatible with the modern scientific paradigm.

It seems that since a «literal» of the texts is no longer possible, modern theologians are not able to give a scientifically intelligible interpretation of the allegorical stories found in them. There have been many hypotheses formulated until now and some are even interesting and valuable. But all, without exception, lead to inconsistent although permissible scientific interpretations which invoke explicative assumptions and principles which cannot usually be verified in a concrete, scientific way. Therefore a revolution in this field of research is even more to be wished for, causing modern science to contribute its findings even in this area.
Some people might object that it is an obvious contradiction to attempt an interpretation of a text which should carry an absolute, supernatural «truth» by relying on the scientific method which is based on the category of contingency, on the intrinsic limitations of empirical data, of a never accomplished experience and on ever growing knowledge.

We are convinced, however, that implementing current scientific ideas in this research is the only valid way of making a new, objective, non-ideological evaluation of these questions. In other words «... new wine in new bottles».
Our work develops a theologico-cosmological model which is perfectly compatible with today's evolutionist-indeterministic vision of nature. It makes assumptions which are fundamentally antithetical to known orthodox doctrines.
This makes it possible, for the first time in the history of modern thought, to submit to an objective verification, the various metaphysical interpretations which attempt to interpret Genesis. This is carried out fully respecting the traditional scientific method without inevitably having to exclude the theistic hypothesis.
The theory is characterised by a philosophico-theological conception in which the divinity functions exclusively as the creator of reality.
The theory admits the existence of an pre-existent being which is distinct from the world which is seen as its work, as a direct emanation. But no further ethical privileges over its creatures are attributed to it.
This model may seem reminiscent of the enlightened idea of «deism» but it is distinguished from this by its particular interpretation of Genesis, by its being placed in an evolutionist framework and by the way it affirms a special relationship between God and man.
We demonstrate how this model is intrinsically compatible with a wide range of anthropological, sociological and psychoanalytical evidence.
A vast amount of literature on ethnology shows how similar theologico-cosmological ideas are typical of the oldest known societies and of those at a socio-economic stage of development before the setting up of political and legal structures. This permits the model to be justifiably considered as illustrating the most primitive religious belief developed in the inhabited world.
This interpretation has a mainstream historico-evolutionary vision of religion shared by several disciplines from cultural anthropology to the history of religion, but is clearly distinguished in its approach to the usual ideas of religious evolution. (Eliade, Mircea 1984; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Iren ä us 1984; Harris, Marvin 1990; Leroi-Gourhan André 1970, 1977)
From this paradigm there derives a teleology where the divinity has new qualities with respect to the models in which it has characteristics centred on its ethical all seeing nature. Thus this model assumes a conclusive meaning.
This fact, obviously, leads us to postulate, contrary to what has been done until now, the impossibility of an evolutionary «continuum» between the different religious paradigms.
The distinction is centred around a dichotic classification of the «theistic» universe, of religious beliefs, into two fundamental types: that of real 'religions' (systems which do not have moral divinities) and that of 'theo-eto-tomies' (a neologism meaning models where the divinity takes on all seeing and moral qualities, leading to a division - tomy - in the ethical sphere).
This division is determined by the observation of how these models, each radically different from the other in their metaphysical assumptions, originate from completely different existential needs and are linked with socio-cultural situations which are antithetical to each other. A fact like this would show their distinct raison d'etre and their different formal, historical, ethnological and sociological position.
The importance of this aspect, which has been undervalued until now, is that it leads a new evaluation of the correlation between a theologico-cosmological model, the cultural system and socio-economic conditions.
We can demonstrate that the intrinsic quality of the «religious» models perfectly with the physical and cosmological evolutionist indeterministic conception, in particular with the evolutionist theories on the origin of man.
First of all a divinity which is eminently «a creator», like that in religious models, would easily find a solution to its expulsion from any «active» role in natural dynamics, by simply being «antecedent» to creation as «causa causarum».
This divinity, without losing anything theologically, is completely indifferent to the possible modalities with which the universe is created.
This teleological value hinges then on a universal connotation of bio-evolutionist processes so that these phenomena are «statistically recurrent in the universe», but at the same time always unique, possessing unrepeatable and unpredictable characteristics. This fact, as we have seen, does not go against current scientific trends.
A religious divinity, one not imbued with moral significance, co-exists without any problem or theological degeneration within the limits imposed by the present view of nature. It does not need to determine the ontological reality of creation especially with regard to its characteristic function of being morally all-seeing.
But the essence of «Metamorphosis of Reason... » consists in the identification of «the fall» narrated in Genesis with the transition due to the passage from socio-cultural models of the kind we have called religious to those that are theoetotomist.
The theory plainly demonstrates how the biblical texts, unlike the way they have been understood until now, support the superiority of the religious model over the theoetotomistic one.
The theory attributes to theoetotomistic cultures undergo a thorough philosophico-ontological degeneration with regard to both the community and the individual. This means we can give an in depth interpretation of the facts which appear in a metaphorical form in Genesis 2,3 which are relative to a mysterious «degeneration» in the human species, the so called «original sin» or «fall». Thus our theory puts the contrast between evolutionism and faith into a new framework. (Harris, Marvin 1984)
Until today this controversy has resulted from the fact that it has been impossible for theologians to find a way of making the orthodox reading of Genesis 1,3 and the evolution theory co-exist in a concise, scientifically acceptable way. (Harris, Marvin 1990; Eliade, Mircea 1984; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Iren ä us. 1984)
The evolution theory denies the particular origin of man, showing that man descended from pre-human primates in the course of millions of years of natural, phyletic evolution. This irrevocably contradicts the argument in favour of the original, genetic monogenism of the human species. (Binford, Lewis R. 1990;Camps Gabriels 1985; Holloway, Ralph L. 1984; Leakey F. E. and Richard Lewin Roger 1979)
All this, moreover, refutes the possibility of considering the so called «original sin» in the same way as the Church. In other words it cannot be seen as an event from which has stemmed the successive ontological corruptibility of mankind as directly traceable to our protoparents, Adam and Eve.
Until now no probable hypothesis, which is scientifically acceptable, has been put forward to explain this event which is so crucial to the theological interpretation of biblical texts.
Where should this event be placed in the evolution of the human species? Who was responsible? Homo sapiens, Homo erectus or even Homo habilis?
Was this event caused by one individual or more than one?
How could it be immune to the influence of the instinctual «genetic» component, attributable then to human nature and thus «directly begotten by the Creator himself» and of the determination of human behaviour?
Where did this ontological cataclysm take place?
Why was sexuality involved in all this?
As it is impossible to uphold man's direct genetic descendence from one foundation couple, how is it possible for this state of man's corruption to have spread in such a thorough and absolute way?
Would this event represent a «local» accident which involves planet earth only or does it extend to the whole universe?
Until now these questions have had no other plausible answer than faith which is deaf to all the promptings of modern science.
Now if we demonstrate that in the theistic universe the divinity does not necessarily take on ethical and authoritarian connotations we can see that things change drastically.
In the metaphysical universe of theism the individual is not «inevitably» involved with the divinity in a relationship based on ethical subjection and moral obedience, nor is he the object of external, divine conditioning when it comes to making choices.
A similar paradigm, even though it is placed within the theistic ideal, is characterised as follows:

1) It succeeds in overcoming the problem of genetic monogenism - both of the couple and the group - which results from an orthodox exegesis and which is unequivocally refuted by genetic polygenism because it no longer sees this as a determining factor for a positive reading of Genesis 2,3.

2) Without appealing to self-styled supernatural causes it identifies the historical event to which we associate the legendary «original fall», with a socio-cultural fact: the beginnings of theocratic society typified by political and legal state systems, class and theoetotomy.

3) It brings together historical-geographical documentation and the texts.

It does this by placing the verification of a process of the cultural diffusion of the theoetotomistic model, which is associated with states run along political and legal lines, within the evolution of mankind. (Childe, G. 1978)

This model spread all over the earth on account of the great political, military and economic efficiency of these societies with the result that the religious type of culture was eclipsed.

This transition, according to historical evidence, first affected the Neolithic peoples of the «fertile half-moon» of the Middle East.

4) Without appealing to the supernatural, as the various theological schools of thought have done, it bases its argument for the transmission of this state not on genetics but on a natural transmission or socio-cultural diffusion.

5) It has a definite effect on philosophico-theological speculations on theodicy as it refutes the personal meaning of the supernatural principle of «evil» without limiting the theological and eschatological value of Genesis 2,3.

These observations would mean that the socio-economic metamorphosis and even more so the psycho-social metamorphosis are attributable to sociological and psychological mechanisms which are dealt with in detail in this theory. Other authors have examined these mechanisms in an attempt to understand this transformation but without success.
This theory differs from previous attempts to explain the origin of our historically class-riddden, theocratic, «authoritarian repressive» society by starting from «egalitarian», early cultures, and relying exclusively on contingent, economic, ecological, technological and demographic aspects etc.

In conclusion, the indeterministic religious model is characterised by the establishment of a relationship between the individual and the divinity as a result of which:

1) There is a radical alteration in the theological and teleological meanings of creation and eschatology.

2) There is no conception of the ontological corruption of creation exclusively linked to a «non monistic» theologico-cosmological definition.

3) There is a complete release from a fixed vision, implicit in the theoetotomistic paradigm, and consequently from the all seeing and active role of the divinity which is present there.

4) We can resolve lay criticism of theism in a different way, (criticism which I share to a certain extent) when it accuses this faith of causing the degeneration and alienation of man and society.

5) The meaning of Marxist criticism is reconsidered in that we demonstrate that theism should not be accused «tout court» but rather his accusations should be directed against the theoetotomies.

6) It removes the patriarchal and «authoritarian sexually repressive» aspects from the figure of the divinity as they are the theoetotomistic meaning of divinity. (Clastres, Pierre 1984)

At this point it is interesting to note another significant link: these aspects of theology have led Freud to criticise theism. (Freud, Sigmund - ed. 1969)
We can demonstrate the existence of a positive correlation between the more or less hypertrophic and long lasting formation of the Super Ego, pregenital regressions connected with Oedipal dynamics and the affirmation of the theoetotomistic ideal. (Dacquino Giacomo 1981; Freud, Sigmund - ed. 1971, 1982; Fromm, Erich - ed. 1975, 1981)

We can draw an analogy between the effecting of repressive ethical attitudes regarding sexuality and the expression of the degenerate «basic personality» (modal aspects of the individual in a given social context) verified in the psychologico-ethnological research into political, and legal based states and class ridden cultures.
Even from the point of view of psychoanalysis, this helps to put into a new perspective, the character «mutation» due to an affirmation of a theoetotomistic ideal of the individual thus overthrowing many of Freud's theories.
In conclusion, this research proposes a conception of divinity, of God and of the human being, capable of putting forward a theological, anthropological and cosmological theory which is finally free from heavy ideological content which until now has always formed our ideas of God and divinity. This new approach is both objective and intelligible.
This point of departure could also be carried usefully into interpretations of the New Testament, in particular the Gospels, in which the figure and redemptive mission of Christ is re-evaluated in the light of orthodox theology. It identifies facts which are relevant but absolutely explosive and contrary to traditional interpretations.
We can imagine the way in which this different ontological reality will enrich our daily routine and the self-knowledge of the individual and it will profoundly modify the epistemological debate relative to the basic themes of human experience: faith and the relationship with God.


AA.VV. : articles by Gould, Stephan Jay and Weinberg, Steven and Sagan, Carl and Calvin, William H. end other. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 316. Special number - “La vita sulla terra”. November 1994.
AA.VV. - “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. City of Vatican : Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1992.
AA.VV. - Homo. “Viaggio alle origini della storia. Testimonianze e reperti per 4 milioni di anni”. Venezia: Cataloghi Marsilio 1985.
 AA.VV. - Le scienze. Quaderni. “Il Paleolitico”, June 1986.
 AA.VV. - Letture da Le Scienze. “L'universo, problemi ed incognite”, 1976.
 AA.VV. - L'evoluzione dei primati. Milan: Jaca Book, 1986.
Binford, Lewis R. - “Preistoria dell'uomo” Milan: Rusconi, 1990.
Black, David C. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 271. “I pianeti delle altre stelle”, March 1991.
Brush, Stephen G. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 290. “Come la cosmologia divenne una scienza”, October 1992
Camps Gabriels - “La preistoria. Alla ricerca del paradiso perduto”. Milan: Bompiani, 1985.
Chagas, Carlos - “L'evoluzione dei primati”. Milan: Jaca Book, 1986.
Childe, G. - “L'alba della civiltà in Europa”. Turin : Einaudi, 1978.
Clastres, Pierre - “La società contro lo stato. Ricerche di antropologia politica”. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1984.
Crutchfield, James P. and Farmer, Doyne J. and Pachard, Norman, H. and Shaw, Robert S. - Le Scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 222. “Il Caos”, February 1987.
Kastling, J. F. and Toon, J. B. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 236. “L'evoluzione del clima sui pianeti terrestri”, April 1988.
Dacquino Giacomo - “Religiosità e psicanalisi”. Turin: Saggi S.E.I., 1981.
Darwin, Charles - “L'origine delle specie per selezione naturale o la preservazione delle razze privilegiate nella lotta per la vita”. Rome: Newton Compton, 1973.
Davies, Paul - “Dio e la nuova fisica”. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1984.
Davies, Paul - “La mente di Dio”. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1993.
Dawkins, Richard - “Il gene egoista”. Bologna : Zanichelli, 1980.
Dawkins, Richard - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 329. “La natura: un universo di indifferenza”, January 1996.
Dawkins, Richard - “L'orologiaio cieco”. Milan: Rizzoli, 1988.
D'Espagnat Bernrad - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 137. “La teoria dei quanti e la realtà”, January 1980.
Eliade, Mircea - “Il sacro e il profano”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1984.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Iren ä us. - “Etologia della guerra”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1984.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. - “Teorie sulla religione primitiva”. Florence: Sansoni, 1978.
Flich, M. and Alszeghy Z. - “Il peccato originale”. Brescia: Queriniana, 1971.
Freud, Sigmund - “Il disagio della civiltà ed altri saggi”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1971.
Freud, Sigmund - “L'Io e l'Es”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1982.
Freud, Sigmund - “Totem e tabù”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1969.
Fromm, Erich - “Anatomia dell'aggressività umana”. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1975.
Fromm, Erich - “Fuga dalla libertà”. Milan: La comunità, 1981.
Gale, George - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 162. “Il principio antropico”, February 1982.
Greene, John C. - “La morte di Adamo. L'evoluzionismo e la sua influenza sul pensiero occidentale”. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1971.
Guth, Alan H. and Steinhardt, Paul J. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 191. “L'universo inflazionario”, July 1984.
Gutzwiller, Martin C. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 283. “Il caos quantistico”, March 1992.
Hall, Rupert and Hall A. and Boas M. - “Storia della scienza”. Milan: Il Mulino, 1991.
Harris, Marvin - “Antropologia culturale”. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1990.
Harris, Marvin - “Cannibali e re. Le origini delle culture”. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1984.
Hawking, Stephen - “Dal big bang ai buchi neri”. Milan: Rizzoli, 1988.
Holloway, Ralph L. - Le scienze. Quaderni. “Gli antenati dell'uomo. I cervelli degli ominidi fossili”., October 1984.
Horgan, John - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 289. “La filosofia dei quanti”, Genuary 1992.
Kastling, J. F. and Toon, J. B. - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 236. “L'evoluzione del clima sui pianeti terrestri”, April 1988.
Korner, Melvin - “L'ala impigliata. I condizionamenti biologici dello spirito umano”. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1984.
Kung, Hans - “Dio esiste?” Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1979.
Leakey F. E. and Richard Lewin Roger - “Origini. Nascita e possibile futuro dell'uomo. Bari: La terza, 1979.
Lenneberg H. Eric - “Fondamenti biologici del linguaggio”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1982.
Leroi-Gourhan André - “Le religioni della preistoria”. Milan: Rizzoli,1970.
Leroi-Gourhan André - “Il gesto e la parola. Tecnica e linguaggio”. Turin: Einaudi, 1977.
Lieberman Philip - “L'origine delle parole”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1982.
Linde, Andrei - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 317. “Un universo inflazionario che si autoriproduce”, January 1995.
Lorenz Konrad - “L'aggressività”. Milan: Il Saggiatore, 1969.
Lorenz Konrad - “La scienza naturale dell'uomo. Il manoscritto russo”. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1993.
Lorenz Konrad - “L'altra faccia dello specchio. Per una storia naturale della conoscenza”. Milan: Adelphi, 1974.
Molari Carlo - “Darwinismo e teologia cattolica”. Rome: Borla, 1984.
Monod Jacques - “Il caso e la necessità”. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1970.
Morin Edgard - “L'uomo e la morte”. Rome: Newton Compton, 1980.
Muller A. Richard - Le scienze. Versione italiana di Scientific American, n° 119. “La radiazione cosmica di fondo e la nuova deriva dell'etere”, July 1978.
Nietzsche Friedrich - “L'Anticristo. Maledizione del Cristianesimo”. Rome: Newton Compton, 1977.
Nietzsche Friedrich - “La gaia scienza”. Milan: Adelphi, 1989.
Pettazzoni Raffaele - “L'essere supremo nelle religioni primitive”. Turin: Einaudi, 1965.
Popper R. Karl - “Conoscenza oggettiva”. Rome: Armando Armando, 1975.
Popper R. Karl - “Verso una teoria evoluzionistica della conoscenza”. Rome: Armando Armando, 1994.
Ruelle David - “Caso e Caos”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1992.
Stewart Ian - “Dio gioca a dadi?”. Turin: Boringhieri, 1993.
Verolini Roberto and Petrelli Fabio - “Metamorfosi della Ragione. Esegesi evoluzionistico psicosociologica di Gn 1,3 ed implicazioni bioetiche. Dipartimento di Scienze Igienistiche e Sanitario Ambientali, University of Study of Camerino, ITALY, 1994.
Verolini Roberto - “Il Dio Laico: caos e libertà”. Rome Armando Armando, 1999.
Von Ditfurt Hoiman - “Non siamo solo di questo mondo”. Milan: Longanesi & C., 1981.
Wilson O. Edward - “Sulla natura umana”. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1980.