The gospel according to Camille Flammarion:
“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole creation was made for them, whilst in reality the whole creation does not suspect their existence.”
One could argue that there is vanity in asserting that creation doesn’t even “suspect” the existence of man. How can one empirically verify anything about the “whole” of creation when we can’t even confirm what percentage of the universe is presently known?
This statement is bold.
Rather, this statement is quite arrogant. In fact, I believe there is a better way to describe it. Please allow me to misquote another to suggest the better description.
“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole of creation [...] does not suspect their existence.”
Precisely, this statement is one of vanity.
It assumes something that might very well be impossible to know as a whole. Since the whole universe has not been discovered. Consequently, the whole of creation is not known. It is obvious that the author’s worldview is filling in the black holes of the unknown in order to make a statement that can not be proven.
Without even knowning the whole of everything created, one can know some of what has been created and ascertain that much of the world [a small, but better known part of creation], not only suspects our existence, but suffers from it. This can be empirically verified.
In fact, I would agree with the idea that creation wasn’t made for man, but for other reasons, and those reasons put mankind in a unique position unlike the rest of the known creation. I will concede that a bit of my worldview is filling in spaces of unknown as well. But I am arguing from what is known.
One additional note that I find ironic. In trying to contend that man is insignificant with respect to the entire universe [a point that might be argued at another time], this person describes it in terms of man. Creation is personified. It is given anthropological characteristics to suggest something impossible to support. The universe is described with qualities attributed to mankind, this is a bit “suspect,” if you follow.
If you don’t see the irony, perhaps I am merely reading too much into what is trying to be said. I do realize this to be a figure of speech.
