DOCSLIB.ORG

Ryan Rogers Class of 2009 Stetson University Frank Tipler's “The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ryan Rogers Class of 2009 Stetson University Frank Tipler's “The Ryan Rogers Class of 2009 Stetson University Frank Tipler’s “The Physics of Immortality”: A Question of Method Religious Studies Mathematics (double major) April 2009 Pledged: Ryan Rogers (Signature) Approved: D. Dixon Sutherland, Faculty Advisor Mitchell Reddish, Chair, Religious Studies 2 Abstract Throughout history, science and religion have had major problems with one another. As science is able to explain and model more of the universe, religion seems to be able to explain less. Could science, specifically physics, eventually absorb theology? This is the argument that Frank Tipler advocates in his book entitled The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead . This research analyzes Tipler’s methodology for making his claim. It will be argued that contrary to Tipler’s assertion, “immortality” is still a theologically dependent concept that reaches beyond the proper scope of physics. In fact, Tipler’s physics is actually dependent upon theological assumptions. Describing the end of the cosmos, Tipler’s physics leaves too many gaps between physical laws and mathematical principles, which urges theology to step in. Furthermore, the assumptions from which Tipler starts, have no firm scientific groundings. In essence, science seems to rely on the validity of theology. Tipler’s work supports the “immortality of theology” over science. In his case, his theology absorbed his physics. 3 As a major in both Mathematics and Religious Studies at Stetson University, I have sifted through both fields in an effort to find if there might be pathways in one discipline that lead to insights involving the other. After searching for four years, my opinion remains that neither discipline could ultimately be a superior authority with regard to the other. Mathematics works from the most fundamental and agreed upon axioms in the world; it is the universal language, but what makes math possible? Why have so many prominent mathematicians contributed to spiritual or religious thought? For my senior research in Religious Studies, I have chosen to pursue these questions by a critical inquiry into a book that suggests science, specifically physics, will overcome theology, namely, Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead .1 Being interested by the possibility of both physics’ dependency on mathematics and mathematics’ intriguing relationship with religion, I will undertake an analysis of Tipler’s claims to see how he arrives at his conclusions. Tipler’s physical eschatology depends on the hegemony of physics over theology. Has science evolved so fast as to actually compete with millennia of progress in religion in modeling the human experience? According to Frank Tipler’s Physics of Immortality , theology will be or already has become a part of physics. With such a far-reaching conjecture, an analysis of Tipler’s methodology must be conducted. Also Tipler’s method must be compared to others’ methodologies of how to approach the relationship of science and religion. After this analysis, Tipler’s argument will be shown to actually support the opposite of Tipler’s theory; science may be overcome by theology. The main support for this claim lies in the need of theology for science and the scientific method to 1 Frank J Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead, (New York: Anchor, 1997). 4 exist. Both science and religion have the ultimate concern to model the human experience and overlap in forming explanations of how life and the universe may ultimately end. What happens at the end? “The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” 2 “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.” 3 The notion of the universe ending at a certain point appears to be inevitable. If humans do not kill themselves off with nuclear bombs, pollution, or overpopulation, other threats to the earth—man-made or natural—such as asteroids or space debris collisions, could do the job quite nicely. Assuming the earth manages to avoid these catastrophes, the sun is still projected to use up all its energy and expire in another five billion years. The death of the sun would kill off any and all life that may have managed to take refuge on other planets in our solar system. Still, this is a distant prospect, and considering what people have accomplished in far less than a million years, the demise of the sun may not spell the doom of humans. One can conceive that humankind or any evolved form of intelligent beings may one day possess the capability of moving to and inhabiting other planetary systems in sufficient time to miss the death of the sun. Nevertheless, there are indications that even the known universe will come to an end in the far distant future. Intelligent life would have no place to hide; it would simply 2 Matthew 24: 29 3 Revelations 22: 5 5 end. If the universe does come to an end, no matter how far into the future, what does this mean for humanity or intelligent life? John Polkinghorne claims that “as cosmologists peer into the future, their story is one of eventual futility rather than one of fulfillment.” 4 What role does intelligence play in the cosmos if it only ends in total vainness? Despite these gloomy ideas about the end of the universe, science also includes other theories that would allow intelligence to last indefinitely. In accord with these optimistic scientific theories, some religious traditions tend to talk about the end of time, filling people with hope of immortality or other eschatological scenarios. This begs the question; do these optimistic scientific theories have religious foundations? Can religion inform science in any way? In order to see if religion can in any way complement physics, one must be aware of the different scientific views of the end of the universe. Before theories about the Big Bang began to form, many scientists deeply believed that the universe followed the second law of thermodynamics (see Appendix), which meant that the universe was “running into disorder,” which provided a dreary outlook for the future. 5 Today, two major theories exist regarding how the universe could end. These two theories correspond to the Big Bang theory and paint a picture as pessimistic as the earlier theory. They are called the open and closed theories of the universe. One suggests a universe that is forever expanding, while the other claims that the universe’s expansion will end, and the universe will start contracting. 6 If the universe continues to expand forever, as the open universe theory contends, “the galaxies will continue to move apart forever, at 4 John Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God, eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), 29. 5 Fraser Watts, “Subjective and Objective Hope,” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God, eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), 47. 6 Willem B. Drees, Beyond the Big Bang , (Lasalle, Ill: Open Court Publishing Company, 1990), 122. 6 the same time condensing and decaying into themselves into ever-cooling low grade radiation.” 7 Because the universe will continuously expand, it will eventually become so cold that life would not be possible, ultimately leading to extinction (this is also known as the “Big Freeze” theory). The closed universe theory suggests that the universe is finite and will eventually contract into an infinitesimally small ball from the forces of gravity; “the universe will eventually collapse upon itself into the fiery melting pot of the big crunch.” 8 There are suggestions that perhaps after the “Big Crunch” there will be another Big Bang and the whole process of the universe will continue again, also known as the Eternal Return. Despite the universe being created and destroyed indefinitely with this view, human life would be lost and there would be no signs of intelligent life from each prior oscillation after each Big Crunch and Big Bang. The universe could continue to exist without end either by expanding forever or expanding and contracting forever. However, with either of these views, life appears to be headed towards extinction and humanity would be lost along with all its achievements. There would be no link between each succession of intelligent life. This futility of the universe’s destiny leads Steven Weinberg to state, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” 9 There must be a more optimistic view of how human life or simply intelligence can survive in an infinite universe. F. J. Dyson presumes that if the universe follows the open scientific hypothesis and “cycles of activity and hibernation are chosen well” by intelligent beings, then 7 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 31. 8 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 31. 9 John Polkinghorne, Beyond Science , (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 95. 7 “survival might be possible for an infinite time with a finite total energy.” 10 This would allow intelligent life to persist even under the monotonous outlook of a forever- expanding universe. Willem B. Drees claims that Dyson’s theory implies that there is more than enough energy in the universe for humanity; “an organization as complex as the human species today needs, from now till eternity, the amount of energy that the Sun radiates away in eight hours.” 11 Dyson was able to come to this conclusion because he made the essence of being human not the body, but “the program which controls the body.” 12 This theory makes life and processing information to be one and the same thing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 'Crisis of Noosphere'
    The ‘crisis of noosphere’ as a limiting factor to achieve the point of technological singularity Rafael Lahoz-Beltra Department of Applied Mathematics (Biomathematics). Faculty of Biological Sciences. Complutense University of Madrid. 28040 Madrid, Spain. [email protected] 1. Introduction One of the most significant developments in the history of human being is the invention of a way of keeping records of human knowledge, thoughts and ideas. The storage of knowledge is a sign of civilization, which has its origins in ancient visual languages e.g. in the cuneiform scripts and hieroglyphs until the achievement of phonetic languages with the invention of Gutenberg press. In 1926, the work of several thinkers such as Edouard Le Roy, Vladimir Ver- nadsky and Teilhard de Chardin led to the concept of noosphere, thus the idea that human cognition and knowledge transforms the biosphere coming to be something like the planet’s thinking layer. At present, is commonly accepted by some thinkers that the Internet is the medium that brings life to noosphere. Hereinafter, this essay will assume that the words Internet and noosphere refer to the same concept, analogy which will be justified later. 2 In 2005 Ray Kurzweil published the book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology predicting an exponential increase of computers and also an exponential progress in different disciplines such as genetics, nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence. The exponential evolution of these technologies is what is called Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns”. The result of this rapid progress will lead to human beings what is known as tech- nological singularity.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Debating Design from Darwin to DNA
    P1: IRK 0521829496agg.xml CY335B/Dembski 0 521 82949 6 April 13, 2004 10:0 Debating Design From Darwin to DNA Edited by WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI Baylor University MICHAEL RUSE Florida State University iii P1: IRK 0521829496agg.xml CY335B/Dembski 0 521 82949 6 April 13, 2004 10:0 published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB22RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Cambridge University Press 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Printed in the United States of America Typeface ITC New Baskerville 10/12 pt. System LATEX2ε [TB] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data available ISBN 0 521 82949 6 hardback iv P1: IRK 0521829496agg.xml CY335B/Dembski 0 521 82949 6 April 13, 2004 10:0 Contents Notes on Contributors page vii introduction 1. General Introduction 3 William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse 2. The Argument from Design: A Brief History 13 Michael Ruse 3. Who’s Afraid of ID? A Survey of the Intelligent Design Movement 32 Angus Menuge part i: darwinism 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Works of Love
    reader.ad section 9/21/05 12:38 PM Page 2 AMAZING LIGHT: Visions for Discovery AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN HONOR OF THE 90TH BIRTHDAY YEAR OF CHARLES TOWNES October 6-8, 2005 — University of California, Berkeley Amazing Light Symposium and Gala Celebration c/o Metanexus Institute 3624 Market Street, Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA 19104 215.789.2200, [email protected] www.foundationalquestions.net/townes Saturday, October 8, 2005 We explore. What path to explore is important, as well as what we notice along the path. And there are always unturned stones along even well-trod paths. Discovery awaits those who spot and take the trouble to turn the stones. -- Charles H. Townes Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. 3 Welcome Letter................................................................................................................. 5 Conference Supporters and Organizers ............................................................................ 7 Sponsors.......................................................................................................................... 13 Program Agenda ............................................................................................................. 29 Amazing Light Young Scholars Competition................................................................. 37 Amazing Light Laser Challenge Website Competition.................................................. 41 Foundational
    [Show full text]
  • Alister Mcgrath Is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion
    Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion. He holds Oxford doctorates in both the natural sciences and Christian theology. McGrath has written extensively on the interaction of science and Christian theology, and is the author of many books, including the inter- national bestseller The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine (SPCK, 2007), and the market-leading textbook Christian Theology: An introduction (Wiley, 2016). McGrath also serves as the Gresham Professor of Divinity, a public professor- ship in the City of London, established in 1597, that promotes the public engagement of theology with the leading issues of the day. ENrichiNG Our VisioN OF RealiTY Theology and the natural sciencess in dialogue Alister McGrath First published in Great Britain in 2016 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 36 Causton Street London SW1P 4ST www.spck.org.uk Copyright © Alister McGrath 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. SPCK does not necessarily endorse the individual views contained in its publications. The author and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the external website and email addresses included in this book are correct and up to date at the time of going to press. The author and publisher are not responsible for the content, quality or continuing accessibility of the sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Teilhard and Other Modern Thinkers on Evolution, Mind, and Matter Peter B
    Teilhard and Other Modern Thinkers on Evolution, Mind, and Matter Peter B. Todd Teilhard Studies Number 66 Spring 2013 Teilhard Studies Number 66 Spring 2013 Teilhard and Other Modern Thinkers on Evolution, Mind, and Matter Peter B. Todd TEILHARD STUDIES is a monograph series concerned with the future of the human in the light of the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. Two issues each year are planned, to be sent to members of the Teilhard Association. TEILHARD STUDIES Editor Kathleen Duffy, SSJ Associate Editors Brian Brown Kenneth DuPuy Arthur Fabel Donald Gray John Grim Donald P. St. John Mary Evelyn Tucker Peter B. Todd has been a research psychologist at the Neuropsychiatric Institute Sydney, a member of the Biopsychosocial AIDS Project at the University of California, a consultant in the department of immunology at St. Vincent’s Hospital, and a research coordinator at the Albion Street AIDS Clinic Sydney. His papers have appeared in the British Journal of Medical Psychology , the Griffith Review , and the interdisciplinary journal Mind and Matter . His most recent book, The Individuation of God: Integrating Science and Religion , was published in November 2012 (Wilmette IL: Chiron Publications). He is currently a psychoanalytic psychologist in private practice in Sydney, Australia. © 2012, American Teilhard Association, http://www.teilharddechardin.org Cover design by John J. Floherty, Jr. Woodcut by Kazumi Amano. Reproduced with per - mission of the artist and the Gallery of Graphic Arts, Ltd., 1603 York Avenue, New York, NY 10028. TEILHARD AND OTHER MODERN THINKERS ON EVOLUTION, MIND, AND MATTER Peter B. Todd Abstract: In his The Phenomenon of Man, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin develops concepts of consciousness, the noosphere, and psychosocial evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Hesitations About Special Divine Action: Reflections on Some Scientific, Cultural and Theological Concerns
    HESITATIONS ABOUT SPECIAL DIVINE ACTION: REFLECTIONS ON SOME SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS ALISTER E. MCGRATH Oxford University Abstract. The new interest in special divine action has led to a close reading of the great debates and discussions of the early modern period in an attempt to understand contemporary resistance to the notion of divine action, and to develop strategies for reaffirming the notion in a refined manner. Although continuing engagement with and evaluation of the Humean legacy on miracles and divine action will be of central importance to this programme of review, there are other issues that also need to be addressed. In this article I identify some of the factors that have caused or continue to cause difficulties for the articulation of a concept of special divine action and I suggest how they might be engaged. The last two decades have witnessed a renewed surge of interest in the question of whether, and to what extent, God may be said to act in the world. Can God be understood to act entirely in and through the regular structures and capacities of nature, or does a robust account of divine action also require us to affirm that God acts specially in order to redirect the course of events in the natural world, thus delivering outcomes that would not have occurred if God had not acted in this way? Although this discussion is sometimes framed in terms of a generic notion of divinity,1 the most significant recent engagements with the question have reflected Judeo-Christian conceptions of God, and the questions arising from these.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Kathryn E. Tanner PERSONAL Address
    CURRICULUM VITAE Kathryn E. Tanner PERSONAL Address: Yale Divinity School, 409 Prospect St, New Haven, CT 06511 Birth Date: 1957 EDUCATION 1985 Ph.D., Yale University (Theology) 1983 M. Phil., Yale University 1982 M.A., Yale University 1979 B.A., Yale College (summa cum laude, with distinction in Philosophy) ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL HONORS [Sprunt Lecturer, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 2011] Luce Fellowship in Constructive Theology, 2010-2011 Harvey Lecturer, Seminary of the Southwest, 2010 Lowrie-Johns Lecturer, Memphis Theological Seminary, 2009 Humbert Lecturer on Religion and Society, Eureka College, 2009 Warfield Lecturer, Princeton Theological Seminary, 2007 Otts-Maloney Lecturer, Davidson College, 2006 Firth Lecturer, University of Nottingham, UK, 2005 Rollie Busch Lecturer, Trinity Theological College, Brisbane and Rockhampton, Australia, 2005 Brooke Anderson Lecturer, Brown University, 2005 NOSTER Lecturer, Kampen, Nijmegen, Tilburg, Netherlands, 2004 Walgrave Lecturer, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 2003 Pitt Lecturer, Yale Divinity School, 2003 Cole Lecturer, Vanderbilt Divinity School, 2003 Thomas White Currie Lecturer, Austin Theological Seminary, 2003 Horace De Y. Lentz Memorial Lecturer, Harvard Divinity School, 2002 Scottish Journal of Theology Lecturer, University of Aberdeen, 1999 Williams Lecturer, Methodist School of Theology in Ohio, 1997-8 The Politics of God chosen as one of three books for critical review in 1993 by the Society for Christian Ethics Gest Lecturer, Haverford College, 1993 2
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion on the Anthropic Principle of Barrow and Tipler Vs. Divine
    JCA: Education: Anthropic Cosmological Principle http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/html/courses/glossary/cosmo_princi... Glossary The Anthropic Cosmological Principle is an extension of the The Copernican Cosmological Principle and is that not only on a large scale, the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic (in 3-D space) but also that by our very being here, we are viewing "our universe" at a "priveledged" location in spacetime Rationale/Implications The rationale behind the first part is as for the Copernican Cosmological Principle. The impliction is that the same laws of physics hold throughout the universe. The rationale behind the second part is as an explanation as to why the laws of physics (and the universe itself) are the way they are (at least as seen by us). It is based on some current ideas that the developement of intelligent life on our planet required a series of (apparent) "coincidences" (e.g. see Al Schroeder's links). Thus that the circumstances that permit the developement of intelligent life throughout the universe (or other universes) are rare. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle comes in two "strengths" Weak The Weak Anthropic Principle states that the conditions necessary for the development of sentient beings (capable of asking the question why is the Стр. 1 из4 25.09.2013 14:28 JCA: Education: Anthropic Cosmological Principle http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/html/courses/glossary/cosmo_princi... universe the way it is ?) will only exist in a universe where the laws of physics are the way they are as seen by us. i.e. sentient beings can only evolve and exist in a universe that "happens" to have a density close to that observed (by us), that "happens" to be about as old as ours, that the charge of an electron "happens" to have the value observed (by us).
    [Show full text]
  • 218 JB Stump and Alan B. Padgett
    218 Book Reviews J.B. Stump and Alan B. Padgett (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2012. 644 pages. isbn 978-1-4443-3571-2. The Blackwell Companions are a well-known and prestigious series that always form an up-to-date and high-quality entry to a certain academic domain. That is also the case for this Companion that focuses on the relations between sci- ence and Christian belief. It contains 54 essays that were written especially for this Companion. No existing material was used, which means that the book contains new texts only. One of the other attractive qualities of this publica- tion is that we find many of the most prolific authors represented in it. Readers of Philosophia Reformata will no doubt appreciate to see, for instance, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Denis Alexander, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland and John Polkinghorne mentioned as authors in the table of con- tents. Other names are missing, such as Alister McGrath and John Lennox, but that of course is unavoidable. Some of such names are there, but in a chapter title rather than as authors (in Part ix). Not all chapters are written by Christian authors and thus the editors have ensured that we do not get a biased perspec- tive on the topic. The book consists of eleven major parts. Together they form a broad and multifaceted treatment of the complex science – Christianity relations. I use the word “relations” in plural quite consciously because the book shows that it would be naïve to think that the relation between science and Christianity is the same for all areas in which this theme features in academic and public dis- cussions.
    [Show full text]