Creation, Misc

A brief review of John Polkinghorne's 2011 book Science and Religion in Quest of Truth (Yale University Press).

A common argument for atheism runs as follows: God would not create a world worse than other worlds he could have created instead. However, if God exists, he could have created a better world than this one. Therefore, God does not exist. In this paper I challenge the second premise of this argument. I argue that if God exists, our world will continue without end, with God continuing to create value-bearers, and sustaining and perfecting the value-bearers he has already created. (...) Given this, if God exists, our world—considered on the whole—is infinitely valuable. I further contend that this theistic picture makes our world's value unsurpassable. In support of this contention, I consider proposals for how infinitely valuable worlds might be improved upon, focusing on two main ways—adding value-bearers and increasing the value in present value-bearers. I argue that neither of these can improve our world. Depending on how each method is understood, either it would not improve our world, or our world is unsurpassable with respect to it. I conclude by considering the implications of my argument for the problem of evil more generally conceived. (shrink)

On the face of it, the idea of divine action in nature brings challenges to the autonomy of nature, and thus to the foundation of the natural sciences. According to the contemporary scientific world view, nature does not need anything extra to bring about any event which happens in nature. Apparently contrasting with this view, the main monotheistic religions claim that God is capable of intervening in the universe to guide it to its end and completion, and does so. This (...) dilemma has brought theologians to search for a way in which God could perform this activity without interfering with the natural processes. The indeterminism of quantum events seems to be a conceptual framework which provides the place where God could choose the outcome of any event, given its indeterminacy. This solution, however, raises several difficulties for the traditional understanding of God as omnipotent, omniscient, provident, and transcendent. In the end, God has to act as another natural cause. The root of this dilemma (God’s action against nature’s actions) is the notion of deterministic causality used in the debate, which remains unexplained, and the assumption that God depends upon the natural order to act. This project is to evaluate some modern approaches to the problem of divine action, and to consider Aquinas’ views on causality, with which it is possible to hold a non-deterministic interpretation of nature. Then, to see first how he applies this notion to God’s causality, to show how nature depends on God, and second how God acts providentially in all natural operations, as a first cause moving a secondary cause. (shrink)

In Part I we developed a model, called system P, for constructing the physical universe. In the present paper (Part II) we explore the hypothesis that something exists prior to the physical universe; i.e. we suppose that there exists a sequence of projections (and levels) that is prior to the sequence that constructs the physical universe itself. To avoid an infinite regress, this prior sequence must be finite, meaning that the whole chain of creative projections must begin at some primal (...) level which is itself uncreated. So, from this primal level emanates a primal sequence of projections, which yields a first-created system; by definition, there is no creation prior to this first system. Proceeding from this basis, we use the template of our previous work in constructing entities in the physical universe to outline the construction of entities in this first-created system. Next, we seek an interpretation of this first system and its entities. Since our "primal level" is an uncreated state of being from which all creation springs, it draws obvious allusions to the concept of "God". So at this point the model bumps head-on into theology, and we are forced to ask: Is there some metaphysically- or theologically-related work that can help us to interpret this first-created system and its entities? Indeed, such a work, and consequent interpretations, will be put forth --- from which much more then follows. (shrink)

This article is devoted to consideration of the main principles of the concept elaborated by the famous English scientist and Christian theologian J. Polkinghorne and directed to formation more accurate idea of Creator and creation. The basic ideas of this concept: the necessity to theology a rational approach to comprehension not only of nature and peculiarities of the universe but also of its Creator; an importance of co-ordination of the modern Christian doctrine of creation with the scientific picture of the (...) world; the great significance of natural theology for solving propounded tasks; our universe is a complex, developing by interaction of chance and law, but at the same time well-ordered and interrelated structure; human being is a part of this structure; the act of creation is a continuing process; God express Himself through His creation; Creator is simultaneously immanent and transcendent to His creation; Creator’s actions are dependent only on His free will; Creator is not impersonal, but rational, loving and suffering; Creator presented universe with an ability to self-development and human being with free will; realization of this self-development is accompanied by unpredictable consequences which are unknown not only for man, but for Creator also; God only of His own free will realized a self-limitation of His omnipotence because He loves human beings; one of our main tasks is to learn how to use our superior value - our freedom. (shrink)

Creation and the Sovereignty of God brings fresh insight to a defense of God.

CONTEMPORARY philosophers of religion have devoted much worthy effort to analyzing and reconsidering such important traditional doctrines as those of divine omniscience and simplicity. But the similarly important and traditional doctrine of creation ex nihilo has not been enjoying the same kind of attention. One reason for this may be that its purport seems clearer, and its place in classical theism accordingly less controversial, than those of certain other doctrines, so that neither proponents nor opponents are as much inclined to (...) puzzle over it as over those other doctrines. But in Aquinas's magisterial account, at least one of the doctrine's aspects bears a philosophical interest that is easy to overlook. In this paper I will bring out that aspect by resolving two alleged inconsistencies in Aquinas's account.... (shrink)

Many have argued that if God exists then he must necessarily create the best possible world , which entails that the bpw necessarily exists, and is therefore the only possible world. But without any scope for comparison, the superlative term ‘best’ is clearly inappropriate and so the bpw cannot be the bpw at all! As such, it must be impossible for God to create it. Hence if God exists then he must of necessity make something that is impossible to create! (...) Because of its conclusion, I call this the repugnant argument. I consider a number of possible responses to this argument. (shrink)

Plausibly, if an object persists through time, then its later existence must be caused by its earlier existence. Many theists endorse a theory of continuous creation, according to which God is the sole cause of a creature's existence at a given time. The conjunction of these two theses rather unfortunately implies that no object distinct from God persists at all. What strategies for resolving this difficulty are available? (Published Online April 7 2006).

According to many philosophical theologians, God is metaphysically simple: there is no real distinction among His attributes or even between attribute and existence itself. Here, I consider only one argument against the simplicity thesis. Its proponents claim that simplicity is incompatible with God’s having created another world, since simplicity entails that God is unchanging across possible worlds. For, they argue, different acts of creation involve different willings, which are distinct intrinsic states. I show that this is mistaken, by sketching an (...) adequate account of reasons-guided activity that does not require distinct intrinsic states of willing corresponding to each possible act of creation. (shrink)

Jonathan Kvanvig presents a compelling new work in philosophical theology on the universe, creation, and the afterlife. Organised thematically by the endpoints of time, the volume begins by addressing eschatological matters and the doctrines of heaven and hell and ends with an account of divine deliberation and creation. Kvanvig develops a coherent theistic outlook which reconciles a traditional, high conception of deity, with full providential control over all aspects of creation, with a conception of human beings who are free and (...) morally responsible. The resulting position and defense is labeled "Philosophical Arminianism," and deserves attention in a broad range of religious traditions. (shrink)

In Meaning in Life (2013, Oxford University Press), Thaddeus Metz presents a robust and innovative naturalistic account of what makes an individual’s life objectively meaningful. Metz discusses six existing arguments for purpose theory of meaning in life and offers objections to each of these arguments. Purpose theory is “the view that one’s life is meaningful just insofar as one fulfills a purpose that God has assigned to one” (Metz, 2013a, p. 80). Metz also proposes a novel argument to undermine purpose (...) theory by showing that it is inconsistent with the best argument for a God-centered theory of meaning. He argues that an infinite, immutable, simple, atemporal being could not be purposive or active. I aim to defend purpose theory against Metz’s arguments and objections by arguing that Metz’s novel argument against purpose theory fails. I argue that God need not have all these properties and that having these properties does not entail that God cannot be purposive or active. I also provide a new argument for purpose theory that addresses the concerns and inconsistencies that Metz finds with current versions of purpose theory. I conclude that purpose theory is not undermined. (shrink)

Leibniz claimed that the universe, if God-created, would be physically and morally optimal in this conjoint sense: Of all possible worlds, it would be richest in phenomena, but its richness would arise from the simplest physical laws and conditions. This claim raises two difficult questions. First, why would this “richest/simplest” world be morally optimal? Second, what is the optimal balance between these competing criteria? The latter question is especially hard to answer in the context of a multiverse or multi-domain universe. (...) Leibniz focused on goodness as God’s motive in creation. “This is the cause of the existence of the best: that his wisdom makes it known to God, his goodness makes him choose it, and his power lets him produce it.” This article suggests that love is God’s motive. Since love entails acting to both benefit and be with the beloved, limitless love would entail God’s becoming as much unified reality as possible. The physical laws that govern the universe and its vast richness of phenomena appear to be those that we should expect if this claim is true and there are ways of testing the closeness of this fit. The claim that God has become the world (pandeism) also offers a satisfying resolution to the problem of evil. (shrink)

Leibniz said that the universe, if God-created, would exist at a unique, conjoint, physical maximum: Of all possible worlds, it would be richest in phenomena, but its richness would arise from the simplest physical laws and initial conditions. Using concepts of ‘‘variety’’ and algorithmic informational complexity, Leibniz’ claim can be reframed as a testable theory. This theory predicts that the laws and conditions of the actual universe should be simpler, and the universe richer in phenomena, than the presence of observers (...) would require. Tegmark has shown that inhabitants of an infinite multiverse would likely observe simple laws and conditions, but also phenomenal richness just great enough to explain their existence. Empirical observations fit the claim of divine choice better than the claim of an infinite multiverse. The future of the universe, including its future information-processing capacity, is predicted to be endless. -/- . (shrink)

In considering relations between science and theology, the discussion of the Big Bang model plays a significant role. Amongst the sources of this model there are not only scientific achievements of recent decades taken as objective knowledge as seen in modern methodology, but also many non-scientific factors. The latter is connected with the quite obvious fact that the authors, as well as the recipients of the Model, are people who are guided in their activity - including obtaining their rational knowledge (...) - by non-rational motives. Those motives appear on the one hand in the very process of creation of the Model. Different scientific theories as well as unverified hypotheses are being joined in one "picture" called The Standard Model. It seems that it is being done on the grounds of various factors that lie outside the field of science. Among them there are the different convictions of the persons constructing this view of the world. However, those convictions, commonly shared by the authors and recipients of the Model, are not based on the rational criterion of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, the Big Bang model may be interpreted in opposite ways by its recipients. The influences of religious and other beliefs are so essential, that they may lead to extremely different conclusions though based on the same ground. It is demonstrated that, due to the epistemological status of cosmology, such a situation is inevitable, and no final verdict with regard to the idea of the cause of the world can be reached. (shrink)

Most process theologians have rejected the creation of the world out of nothing, holding that our universe was created out of some antecedent universe. This article shows how on process grounds, and with faithfulness to much of what Whitehead had to say, process theologians can and should affirm the creation of our universe out of nothing. Standard process objections to this are refuted.

Paper presented in East-West Symposium on Science, Philosophy and Religion, Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy Meeting with Australasian Association of Philosophy Annual Conference, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, July 1999.

Alla base della proposta cosmologica elaborata dal teologo evangelico tedesco Wolfhart Pannenberg vi è la convinzione che la teologia sia una disciplina accademica rigorosa, capace di interagire criticamente con la filosofia, con la storia, con le scienze. Specie con questa ultime il rapporto può essere proficuo, poiché parlano dello stesso universo e della medesima realtà e non possono quindi vivere come in compartimenti separati. Per una ricostruzione sistematica della teologia si deve quindi aprire e mantenere un dialogo con il pensiero (...) scientifico, lasciando che l'intenzionalità propria al progetto e alle scoperte scientifiche possa guidare anche una loro eventuale rilettura teologica. (shrink)

There is an apparent contradiction within Levinas’s work: on the one hand, Levinas upholds an account of existence that seemingly requires a creation narrative, while maintaining, on the other hand, that an account of the ethical import of that existence needs no recourse to the divine. This seeming contradiction results from a fundamental misunderstanding concerning Levinas’s account of creation and its logical consequences concerning the divine. This paper aims to clarify this misunderstanding by exploring the similarities between and influence of (...) F. W. J. Schelling’s work on Levinas’s thereby providing a more complete picture of both author’s respective accounts of genesis and the existence of God. (shrink)

Leibniz argued that God would not create a world unless it was the best possible world. I defend Leibniz’s argument. I then consider whether God could refrain from creating if there were no best possible world. I argue that God, on pain of contradiction, could not refrain from creating in such a situation. I conclude that either this is the best possible world or God is not our creator.

Anselmian theism holds that there necessarily exists a being, God, who is essentially unsurpassable in power, knowledge, goodness, and wisdom. This being is also understood to be the creator and sustainer of all that is. In contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, this role is generally understood as follows: God surveys the array of possible worlds, and in his wisdom selects exactly one for actualization, based on its axiological properties. In this paper, I discuss an under-appreciated challenge for this account of (...) the Anselmian God's selection of a world. In particular, I urge that there are failures of comparability between various possible worlds, and I argue that, given certain assumptions, these failures threaten the rationality of God's choice of a world. To the extent that rationality is deemed necessary for unsurpassability, this result also challenges the core Anselmian notion that God is an unsurpassable being. (shrink)

One of the particular problems in the debate between science and theology regarding human origins seems to be an apparent controversy between the continuous character of evolutionary processes leading to the origin of Homo sapiens and the punctual understanding of the act of creation of man seen as taking place in a moment in time. The paper elaborates scientific arguments for continuity or discontinuity of evolution, and what follows, for the existence or nonexistence of a clear borderline between our species (...) and the rest of the living world. It is argued that, due to the conventional character of the notion of species, anthropology is unable to point to a moment in time or a place on Earth when or where Homo sapiens came into existence as a ‘really new’ species. The argument of the non˗specificity of humans is reinforced by considering emotional homologies between man and apes, “cultural” transmission of the patterns of behaviour in animals, or their mental and communicational abilities. All this is in line with a more general philosophical view of ontological continuity of the world. However, the argument is counterbalanced by pointing to such human characteristics as the ability to use abstract notions, or those forms of human behaviour which do not seem to have their animal analogues. In turn, various possibilities of theological interpretations of the act of creation of man are pointed out and a question is considered as to what extent theology is interested in a "momentary" account of this act. By pointing to theological accounts proposed as early as the 2nd century, it is argued that a vision of God – the craftsman who ‘builds’ its creation step by step, or even less restrictive forms of divine interventionism, are theologically inadequate. The original opposition between the continuity of evolutionary processes and ‘punctual’ character of creation is thus weakened and, from that perspective, a solution to the controversy in question is sought. One of such solutions, an “evolutionary model of creation”, a form of evolutionary creationism, proposed by a Polish philosopher Kazimierz Kloskowski, is presented. This model is based on two assumptions, stemming from process philosophy and evolutionary epistemology. The need to apply them in constructing a coherent view on evolution and creation is critically considered in the paper. (shrink)

The notion of creatio ex nihilo has become a doctrine firmly established in the three Abrahamic religions (i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam). Almost all groups of Islamic thinkers accept the truth of the createdness (creatio) of the universe, and that it is preceded by its “non-existence” (ex nihilo). However, there is a diversity of opinions as to whether the concept of creatio ex nihilo is compatible with alternative accounts of the origin of the physical world, and this diversity is particularly (...) marked between Islamic philosophers and kalam theologians (Mutakallimun). Three major factors, independently or together, play a fundamental role on how Islamic scholars deal with this very issue: (a) their views of the physical world; (b) their approaches to the divine attributes; and (c) their understandings of the teachings of their religion. The aim of this chapter is to investigate whether four different notions of creatio ex nihilo espoused by different Islamic thinkers are compatible with seven alternative accounts of the origins of the universe (five philosophical/theological doctrines – first level of compatibility; and two possible interpretations of a modern scientific theory – second level of compatibility). (shrink)

Creation and conservation are defined and distinguished; providence based on divine middle knowledge is defended; and miracles as naturally impossible events are defended.

My concern is to overturn the Leibnizean model of God's creation of the world which proposes that God selected a possible world out of a whole host of other alternative ones. This is the familiar possible worlds model of creation. I argue that this understanding of creation does not take seriously the idea of ex nihilo and that, rather than considering determinate possible worlds, we should understand possibility as indeterminate. I then develop this argument and explores how it impacts on (...) the idea of providence, and the problem of evil. I then explore the notion of creativity. Only a God who can make something utterly novel is a God who is making something different from Himself and which consequently has no divine precedent. A God who uses possible worlds makes nothing new. -/- . (shrink)

Teilhard has never given up on permanence behind change, whereas Blondel, although interested by permanence, presents a very keen consciousness of irreversibility. Blondel attempts to construct an ontology that integrates this fact of change or becoming. Would this have satisfied Teilhard? Blondel develops a "logic of moral life" insisting on the initial option right to the end of our destiny. Teilhard develops a consciousness of time with a direct hold on a world apprehended first by the senses, whereas Blondel is (...) suspicious of the sometimes misleading testimony of the senses. We thus see a Blondelian attempt to see where the will reach its limits from this only standpoint, while Teilhard admits the influence of a mystical vision. We thus find in both thinkers a primacy of eternal light and truths, strongly affirmed by Blondel, although present in Teilhard; a specificity of evolution, and the necessity of a complement to prevent thought to close itself off. Both thinkers agree on the idea that "Everything holds from above." They recognize that our humanity represents only a sketch, that it is infra-substantial. (shrink)

Outline: The reality of Catholicism; The question of the development of science; Historical outlook at some transitional moments; When dogma meets science; Contemporary physics and the worldview of Catholicism; Awaiting a 'Grand Narrative' and the final vision of harmony.