DOCSLIB.ORG

Providence and Space-Time: Rethinking God's Relation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Providence and Space-Time: Rethinking God's Relation PROVIDENCE AND SPACE-TIME: RETHINKING GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By John Forrest Birch, M.S., M.A. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio December, 2020 PROVIDENCE AND SPACE-TIME: RETHINKING GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE Name: Birch, John Forrest APPROVED BY: Daniel S. Thompson, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor Brad J. Kallenberg, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Vincent J. Miller, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Dennis M. Doyle, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Allen J. McGrew, Ph.D. Outside Faculty Reader ___________________________________________________________ Jana M. Bennett, Ph.D. Chairperson ii © Copyright by John Forrest Birch All rights reserved 2020 ABSTRACT PROVIDENCE AND SPACE-TIME: RETHINKING GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE Name: Birch, John Forrest University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Daniel S. Thompson Recent years have witnessed a greater acknowledgement among physicists and theologians that theology and physics have something to say to each other with regard to the endeavor to better understand God’s relationship to the world. Modern physics has been led by contemporary scientific pioneers who saw unique ways to solve problems that began to arise as more and more aspects of physical reality were investigated and required explanation. The insights arising from these physicists served to banish the older traditional scientific view of the universe as a “grand machine”. One of the results of this modified scientific view of the nature of the universe has been renewed dialog between physics and theology in a new with a whole new set of challenges to longstanding questions about God’s relation to the world. One of the major participants in this discussion is John Polkinghorne, a high- energy particle physicist and Anglican priest, who approaches the pursuit of knowledge by beginning with physics and proceeding to examine the realm of natural phenomena for evidence of agreement and consistency with the claims of religious faith. Polkinghorne’s view seems to offer promise because of 1) his effort to remain true to the tenets of the Christian faith, and 2) his reliance on sound modern science and mathematics (in iii particular quantum indeterminacy and chaos theory). The promise Polkinghorne offers is the use of intellectual pursuit, by way of modern physics, in order to facilitate faith’s search for understanding with regard to the question of God’s relationship with the world. This can have implications not only for academic theology, but also for Christians’ grasp of various religious concepts such as creation, prayer, miracles, and the nature of God, all of which are key doctrines believers deal with each day. Polkinghorne has said of his own endeavors in this area “My concern is to explore to what extent we can use the search for motivated understanding, so congenial to the scientific mind, as a route to being able to make the substance of Christian orthodoxy our own.”1 During my research I found that one of the key criticisms of Polkinghorne is that determinate rules underlying chaos theory undermine his reliance on indeterminacy for his view of divine interaction with the world. I am not convinced that the way he uses chaos theory undermines his reliance on indeterminacy, since indeterminacy is built into the warp and woof of reality according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, my concern here is not to argue for the particular way he uses chaos theory but rather to argue that the criticisms of his use of chaos theory can better contribute to the discussion of God’s relation to the world were they to refocus their attention on the relationship between the quantum and macroscopic levels of physical reality. With the increased research efforts of modern physicists to better understand the quantum level of reality it seems that this is the area that goes most directly to the heart of the question of God’s interaction with and influence in the world. 1 John Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist (Minneapolis Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1994), 1 iv Finally, in making this argument I hope that it will be apparent why it is so important for the physicist, theologian, or any believer to have a better understanding of God’s relationship with the world. I believe the fact that this question has long been pondered is evidence enough that it is fundamentally important. Contemporary challenges to models of understanding the relationship of God and world have sometimes resulted in flawed ways of trying to arrive at answers, such as the "God of the Gaps" approach of using epistemological gaps as a warrant to argue for the presence and work of God. In particular, by exploring Polkinghorne's view and how he is criticized, I hope to show that his approach helps to avoid such pitfalls, which is crucial for articulating a better understanding of the question of divine interaction with the world that is faithful to the claims of modern physics as well as Christian belief. v Dedicated to my parents and those drawn to the grandeur of the universe, and the glory of the One who made it vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deep appreciation to Dr. Daniel S. Thompson, my dissertation advisor, for his patient guidance and advice throughout the writing of this dissertation. His guidance in helping me to keep from straying too far from my topic has been invaluable. I am also indebted to Dr. Terry Tilley for his guidance and direction as my original advisor prior to his departure for Fordham University. He helped me immensely as I worked through my general exams on my way to the qualifying exam. Also, I wish to thank Dr. Bad J. Kallenberg for his advice and guidance as one of my professors when I first entered the program leading to the Ph.D. in theology here at the University of Dayton. Special thanks must also be extended to my wife Debbie, and my immediate family members for their patience and support during the hours that I remained “sealed away” in my office reading and writing. I am forever grateful to my parents who always supported me in my academic pursuits, and gave me the encouragement unique to loving parents who believed that I could do anything that I set my mind to. I miss them every day of my life. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT iii DEDICATION vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii CHAPTER 1 THE BIRTH OF MODERN SCIENCE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD 1 1.1 Viewing Physical Reality as a Great Machine 10 1.2 Losing the Mechanical View of Physical Reality 14 CHAPTER 2 MODERN PHYSICS’ VIEW OF REALITY – NEW CONTEXTS FOR OLD QUESTIONS 23 2.1 The Loss of the Constancy of Space and Time in Physics 28 2.2 The Loss of Determinacy in the Fabric of Space-Time 33 2.3 God and Quarks 38 CHAPTER 3 APPROACHING A VIEW OF GOD’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORLD 44 3.1 Theological Models of God’s Relation to the World 48 3.2 John Polkinghorne and the Communicator of Information Model 56 CHAPTER 4 CRITICISMS OF POLKINGHORNE’S “COMMUNICATOR OF INFORMATION” MODEL 82 4.1 Wildman’s Criticism of Polkinghorne 83 4.2 Saunders’ Criticism of Polkinghorne 91 CHAPTER 5 EVALUATING CRITICISMS OF POLKINGHORNE 102 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 132 viii CHAPTER 1 THE BIRTH OF MODERN SCIENCE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD2 Generally it is recognized that while roots of physics, once referred to as natural philosophy, can be traced back into antiquity, the advent of modern physics occurred in the seventeenth century. By this time Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) had introduced the world to a heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system in his published work De Revolutionibus. The research of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642), based on empirical information, led to statements of physical principles governing the motion of objects. This included those objects of the celestial realm, a topic of particular interest to humanity. Galileo’s use of scientific reasoning was regarded by Albert Einstein (1879-1955) as “…one of the most important achievements in the history of modern thought and marks the real beginning of physics.”3 Galileo’s approach demonstrated that intuitive conclusions drawn from immediate observation are not necessarily trustworthy. Rather than relying on questions of purpose and final cause, his approach involved determining measurable relationships between observable phenomena in nature. This approach was contrary to that of Aristotle (385-323 BC). Galileo effectively overthrew a long held notion that with respect to the laws governing natural phenomena one should rely on the intuitive explanation as being he correct one. As an example, with regard to motion he concluded that it is not a body’s velocity that indicates 2 I use the term “world” herein to refer to nature or the universe. This is in keeping with terminology used in various scientific and theological texts. 3Albert Einstein, Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta (New York, London: Simon and Schuster, 1966), 6. 1 whether or not external influences, or forces, act on that body (the traditional intuitive perception), but rather it is a body’s change in velocity, or acceleration. This was articulated later by Isaac Newton (1642-1727) in his first two laws of motion. Also during this time Galileo’s contemporary, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), proposed a revised system of thought with regard to the scientific endeavor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kenosis and Nature
    from John Polkinghorne, ed., The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eeerdmans Publishing Co., and London: SPCK, 2001, pp. 43-65. Kenosis and Nature HOLMES ROLSTON, III Every commonplace detail of nature, every stone and tree, includes an immense richness and variety of lesser detail: in every fragment of it a thousand million lesser fragments cohere and interact. Loves Endeavour, Love's Expense, p. 84 Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. John 12:24 1. Selfish Genes, Selfish Organisms, and Survival of the Fittest If one compares the general worldview of biology with that of theology, it first seems that there is only stark contrast. To move from Darwinian na- ture to Christian theology, one will have to change the sign of natural his- tory, from selfish genes to suffering love. Theologians also hold that, in regeneration, humans with their sinful natures must be reformed to lives that are more altruistic, also requiring a change of sign. But the problem lies deeper; all of biological nature can seem to run counter to what Jesus teaches: that one ought to lay down one s life for others. In nature, there is no altruism, much less kenosis. 43 HOLMES ROLSTON, III Life, coded by the genes, is always encapsulated in particular organ- isms. In biology we find, at once and pervasively, the organism as a bounded somatic "self" — something quite unknown in physics, chemis- try, astronomy, meteorology, or geology. The general Darwinian interpre- tive framework moves from the coding genes to the coping organisms and sees organisms so constituted genetically that self-interested (typically la- beled "selfish") behavior is inevitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical Faith and Other Religions: an Evangelical Assessment
    Scholars Crossing SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations 2007 Review: Biblical Faith and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment Michael S. Jones Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Epistemology Commons, Esthetics Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Michael S., "Review: Biblical Faith and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment" (2007). SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations. 170. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/170 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEWS 479 discussion of the "big questions," and publication of the second edition of this important work reminds us again of Hick's enonnous influence upon religious studies and philosophy of religion. One need not be persuaded by his pluralistic hypothesis to appreciate his impact in shaping the discussions over religious diversity. REVIEWED BY HAROLD N ULAND TRINITY EVANGELICAL DIVINITY SCHOOL Biblical Faith and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment. Edited by David W. Baker. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004. 176 pages. $12.99. Biblical Faith and Other Religions is, as the subtitle states, an evangeli­ cal consideration of what is often called "the problem of religions pluralism." It is a multi author work, the contents of which are a result ofthe annual meet­ ing of the Evangelical Theological Society in Toronto in 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Numenews Winter 2014
    WINTER 2014 Vol. 11, No. 2 Remembering Ian Barbour: Mentor, Colleague, Friend and Founder of Carleton’s Religion Department as Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. He donated most of the money to support the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. His broadly celebrated book, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (2000) synthesized and communicated much of his life work to a broader audience beyond the academy. His four models for understanding the ways science and religion have been brought in relation—conflict, independence, dialogue, integration—became staples for educators and individuals trying to engage productively in questions about evolution and faith, the impact of technology on today’s world, and the ethical resources (gleaned from both science and religion) for addressing global problems related to the environment, genetic engineering, nuclear conflict, and social justice. Though he was held in high regard among so many leading intellectuals and in many scholarly and religious associations across the In December, the religion department lost its cherished country and abroad, Ian was known for his gentle, humble demeanor, colleague, mentor, friend, and founder, Ian Barbour, Winifred and for his devotion to his local communities in Northfield, where he and Atherton Bean Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, remained active in the First United Church of Christ, and also taught and Society, who touched the lives of so many people at and well regularly in the Cannon Valley Elder Collegium at the Northfield Senior beyond Carleton. He died on Christmas Eve at the age of 90.
    [Show full text]
  • Evangelical Responses to the Question of Religious Pluralism By
    Evangelical Responses to the Question of Religious Pluralism By Cecily May Worsfold A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Religious Studies Victoria University of Wellington 2011 ABSTRACT The relatively recent rise of religious pluralism has significantly affected the evangelical movement, the roots of which are traceable to the sixteenth century Reformation. In particular, the theological implications of religious pluralism have led to debate concerning the nature of core beliefs of evangelicalism and how these should be interpreted in the contemporary world. While evangelicals continue to articulate a genuine undergirding desire to “honour the authority of Scripture”, differing frameworks and ideals have led to a certain level of fracturing between schools of evangelical thought. This research focuses on the work of three evangelical theologians – Harold Netland, John Sanders and Clark Pinnock – and their responses to the question of religious pluralism. In assessing the ideas put forward in their major work relevant to religious pluralism this thesis reveals something of the contestation and diversity within the evangelical tradition. The authors' respective theological opinions demonstrate that there is basic agreement on some doctrines. Others are being revisited, however, in the search for answers to the tension between two notions that evangelicals commonly affirm: the eternal destiny of the unevangelised; and the will of God that all humankind should obtain salvation. Evangelicals are deeply divided on this matter, and the problem of containing seemingly incompatible views within the confines of “evangelical belief” remains. This ongoing division highlights the difficulty of defining evangelicalism in purely theological terms.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfaction of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO PUBLIC CATHOLICISM AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN AMERICA: THE ADAPTATION OF A RELIGIOUS CULTURE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF DIVERSITY, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology by Michael J. Agliardo, SJ Committee in charge: Professor Richard Madsen, Chair Professor John H. Evans Professor David Pellow Professor Joel Robbins Professor Gershon Shafir 2008 Copyright Michael J. Agliardo, SJ, 2008 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Michael Joseph Agliardo is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2008 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents......................................................................................................................iv List Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................vi List of Graphs ......................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. viii Vita.............................................................................................................................................x
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J
    Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal Issue 27 Article 14 Winter 1-1-2004 A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J. Davis Brown University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmnj Part of the Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Commons, Mathematics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Philip J. (2004) "A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology," Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal: Iss. 27, Article 14. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmnj/vol1/iss27/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Claremont at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J. Davis "Such a really remarkable discovery. I wanted your opinion on it. You know the formula m over naught equals infinity, m being any positive number? [m/0 = ]. Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by naught? In which case you have m equals infinity times naught [m = x 0]. That is to say, a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the Universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?" Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point, (1928), Chapter XI. I Introduction We are living in a mathematical age. Our lives, from the personal to the communal, from the communal to the international, from the biological and physical to the economic and even to the ethical, are increasingly mathematicized.
    [Show full text]
  • Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology
    Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology Thomas Jay Oord and Wm. Andrew Schwartz Open and relational theologies have a particular affinity for panentheism and panexperientialism (panpsychism). These theologies come in various forms, however. And scholars propose various forms of panentheism and panexperi- entialism. Diversity reigns. We begin this essay by describing open and relational theology. We also describe panentheism and panexperientialism, broadly understood. We note reasons why open and relational theists would be attracted to each. And we argue that panentheism and panexperientialism complement one another, al- though a person could be attracted only to one. Much of the essay argues for one form of open and relational theology we think makes the best sense overall. This form includes belief in a personal/ relational God, makes distinctions between God and creatures, affirms God ev- erlastingly creates (thereby denying creatio ex nihilo), and offers a solution to the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil. Adopting panexperientialism and panentheism offers ways to overcome theoretical problems in contemporary thought, while arguably motivating adherents of the view to love (promote overall well-being). 1. Open and Relational Theology The label »open and relational theology« serves as an umbrella designation for a family of theologies.1 This family shares at least two core convictions. The »open« aspect refers to the idea that both creatures and God experience the ongoingness of time. Consequently, both God and creatures face an open, yet to be determined future. Because the future is not actual, it is inherently 1 These include theologies using labels such as open theism, process theism, various relational theologies, some Wesleyan theologies, some feminist theologies, some ecological theologies, some Arminian theologies, some postcolonial theologies, and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantinga Argues That There Is Superficial Conflict but Deep Concord Between Science and Theistic Religion
    This is an accepted manuscript of an article published in Philosophia Reformata, 79 (I) (2014), 66-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000563 Where the conflict really lies: Plantinga, the challenge of evil, and religious naturalism Elizabeth D. Burns, Heythrop College, University of London In this paper I argue that, although Alvin Plantinga’s Felix Culpa theodicy appears on only two pages of his recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (2011) (i.e. 58-59), it is of pivotal importance for the book as a whole. Plantinga argues that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and monotheism, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism. I contend that the weakness of the Felix Culpa theodicy lends support to the view that there is more than superficial conflict between science and monotheism, and offer an alternative response to the challenge of evil which suggests that there might be, after all, concord between science and (religious) naturalism. 1. Plantinga and the challenge of evil In order to show that, although there is superficial conflict, there is deep concord between science and monotheism, central to which is ‘the thought that there is such a person as God: a personal agent who has created the world and is all-powerful, all- knowing, and perfectly good’ (ix), Plantinga argues that God creates by means of the process of natural selection (39), that Michael Behe’s writings about irreducible complexity constitute a series of ‘design discourses’ for which there aren’t any defeaters (258), and that God’s miraculous interventions are not incompatible with an interpretation of natural laws as ‘descriptions of the material universe when God is not treating what he has made in a special way’ (119).
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergent, Self-Explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and Christian Response
    S & CB (2012), 24, 33–53 0954–4194 PAUL HIMES The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and christian Response Physicist Paul Davies has emerged as one of the most popular scientists of the twenty-first century, despite his critique of the scientific establishment and its perceived failure to account for the origins and rational nature of the universe. Davies argues that the scientific consensus on cosmology rests on faith, both in its failure to provide an ultimate explanation for the origin of the universe and in its blind acceptance of its rational laws. As an alternative, Davies postulates an ‘emergent’ universe which contains the cause of its own existence and which renders unnecessary any sort of a personal deity. Yet Davies’s alternative falls short of providing a satisfactory cosmic explanation. Davies himself cannot adequately account for the principle of backward causation which creates his universe, and thus his paradigm still relies on a transcendent principle that remains unexplained. Furthermore, Davies’s objections against a personal god can be answered on philosophical grounds. Thus Davies’s hypothesis does not provide a superior alternative to the Christian view of God. key words: Paul Davies, physics, universe, emergent, self-causation, quantum mechanics, cosmology, time, teleology, cosmological argument, fine-tuning introduction Douglas Adams’ classic Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy tells the story of an advanced civilisation that builds a magnificent supercomputer for the sole purpose of providing the ultimate answer to the meaning of ‘life, the universe, and everything’. After millions of years of calculation, the an- swer, much to the confusion and frustration of the advanced civilisation, turns out to be ‘42’.1 Physicist Paul C.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Languages Shape Our Understanding of Time in Physics Physics Is Formulated in Terms of Timeless, Axiomatic Mathematics
    comment Corrected: Publisher Correction Mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics Physics is formulated in terms of timeless, axiomatic mathematics. A formulation on the basis of intuitionist mathematics, built on time-evolving processes, would ofer a perspective that is closer to our experience of physical reality. Nicolas Gisin n 1922 Albert Einstein, the physicist, met in Paris Henri Bergson, the philosopher. IThe two giants debated publicly about time and Einstein concluded with his famous statement: “There is no such thing as the time of the philosopher”. Around the same time, and equally dramatically, mathematicians were debating how to describe the continuum (Fig. 1). The famous German mathematician David Hilbert was promoting formalized mathematics, in which every real number with its infinite series of digits is a completed individual object. On the other side the Dutch mathematician, Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer, was defending the view that each point on the line should be represented as a never-ending process that develops in time, a view known as intuitionistic mathematics (Box 1). Although Brouwer was backed-up by a few well-known figures, like Hermann Weyl 1 and Kurt Gödel2, Hilbert and his supporters clearly won that second debate. Hence, time was expulsed from mathematics and mathematical objects Fig. 1 | Debating mathematicians. David Hilbert (left), supporter of axiomatic mathematics. L. E. J. came to be seen as existing in some Brouwer (right), proposer of intuitionist mathematics. Credit: Left: INTERFOTO / Alamy Stock Photo; idealized Platonistic world. right: reprinted with permission from ref. 18, Springer These two debates had a huge impact on physics.
    [Show full text]
  • HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas P Letizia
    HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas P Letizia To cite this version: P Letizia. HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas: A possible explanation of Dark Energy. 2017. hal-01424099 HAL Id: hal-01424099 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01424099 Preprint submitted on 3 Jan 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike| 4.0 International License SUBMITTED FOR STUDY January 1st, 2017 HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas P. Letizia Abstract Nowadays it seems that understanding the Nature of Time is not more a priority. It seems commonly admitted that Time can not be clearly nor objectively defined. I do not agree with this vision. I am among those who think that Time has an objective reality in Physics. If it has a reality, then it must be understood. My first ambition with this paper was to submit for study a proposition concerning the Nature of Time. However, once defined I understood that this proposition embeds an underlying logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Appreciating Faith and Culture in an Age of Scientific Reasoning. On
    Appreciating Faith And Culture In An Age Of Scientific Reasoning. On Constructive-Critical Realism „Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.“ 1 1. The Common Search For Truth Theology does not always regard the development of science as relevant for its argumentation. Yet outside the walls of church communities, scientific –especially evolutionary – thinking dominates the everyday philosophies of many people. Also for the scientists themselves, science is often thought to be more than just a technical approach to establish empirical observations that work. Although interpretations may vary, what generally is at stake since the case of Galilei is the question of truth, of revealing the way the world we live in really is. Should not at least a theology of creation regard what science finds out about this world? On the one hand it may make sense, to think theology through based on what it can learn from science. The so-called “science and religion” discourse attempts at that. One the other hand, one must show why faith and culture are still relevant in a world dominated by scientific reasoning. I am convinced, this second aspect is not sufficiently covered by how the science and religion discourse is mostly performed in theology until today. Faith does play a crucial role, but culture not so much. For instance, former professor of particle physics (and later Anglican priest) John Polkinghorne speaks of both science and theology as truth-seeking communities. From a philosophical point of view, this presents a metaphysical interpretation of science as a verisimilitudinous endeavor, approaching the one world`s reality with our scientific efforts.
    [Show full text]