Into the Wardrobe

Hi Leslie

I'd love to discuss Polkinghorne with you. I find him very interesting. I would be interested in knowing why you think he's pantheistic. He would not think so himself. I take the view that the Thomistic tradition to which he belongs is mildly panentheistic in so far as Aquinas seems to have thought that some of God's attributes such as reason flow over into his creation.

You find this reflected in Polkinghorne. He wants to argue that numbers exist in a noetic realm distinct from the matterial creation. He does not like the idea that God arbitrarily decrees that 2 + 2 makes 4. though he recognises that Descartes who thought number was created seems to imply this and so he is left as I recall saying that these things are 'let be' by God whatever that may mean. And God letting be things like number or reason (identity) seems a little pantheistic.

Now having jumped in with both feet I think I have to warn you that I have no training in physics and come to these things as an amateur. If you want to go into the physics and theology thing in any depth you might do better at:

hey postodave

I was almost ready to give up on seeing any replies - thanks!

When you say "pantheistic" is that a typo?

It is in Quarks, Chaos and Christianity that I see hints of panentheism -- or maybe I should say process theology, as the larger category? -- such as where Polkinghorne says that he believes that God does not know the future, and that God discovers the future in the same way we do, as it unfolds.

In the same book, he describes the "free process" of the inanimate universe, analogous to the free will of humans, where creation is allowed the freedom to cause evil such as earthquakes or cancer, outside of the direct will of God. I'm not sure yet what to make of this idea - it's very interesting, but I'm still trying to think it through.

I too am a complete amateur when it comes to physics - most of what I know about it comes from people like Paul Davies. I enjoy reading about the concepts, as long as equations don't show up on the page. And my knowledge of theology is also quite thin in many places -- I should read theology more systematically, but at the moment I'm a theological dabbler and dilettante.

I can't give a proper reply. I will not have time to do this until Friday - in fact Saturday i'm decorating Xmas trees with my 9-13 group on Friday. No pantheism was me misreading you writing panentheism then confusing things by using the same word myself. I like Paul Davies as well so we may have a lot to talk about. As I remember Quarks Chaos and Christianity is his short intoductory work - you really need to read Science and Creation and Science and Providence to get the full picture. His understanding of time is bipolar, similar in some ways to process theology - it is worth reading Keith Ward, who influenced Davies on the same theme.

Hi Leslie

The idea of free process seems to me to work as long as you say that there are some things in creation that are the way they are because God wants them that way others are that way because God permitts them. the operation of free processes are willed by God and are not out of his control. He can control them but may choose to allow freedom. Darwin asked his friend the Calvinist Asa Gray whether Gray though God decreed that this swallow catch exactly this gnat. Darwin thought not. My own answer would have to be maybe - in the age of chaos theory we cannot say exactly what God needs to control to supervise creation - so he can hold on and let go as he wishes and we will never know where his action begins and ends. I think Polkinghorne sees God letting go more than I would and I cannot quite square the God who counts the hairs on our head with Polkinghorne saying God does not determine the number of human toes, even allowing Jesus a bit of hyperbole.

If you read Science and Providence you will find Polkinghorne (actually can we save time by calling him John it's a bit familiar but hey) Anyway John in that book goes into more detail. He thinks of God as dipolar - having a temporal and eternal pole. It is at the temporal pole that has limmitted knowledge of the future, he never speculates about the form of knowledge of God as eternal, perhaps that is wise. Keith Ward develops this in even more detail than John in for example Images of Etenity and God and Creation. And John cites Ward in support of his views. For me the problem with the view of John and Ward is that it does not see God as pancreator - creating everything including logic and therefore all kinds of possibility and even creating the laws and structures of meta-possibility. In the context of God having created these structures then we can say what is possible for God but the God who is subject to possibilites including logical possibilities is not the cattegorically transcendant creator but the God who has assumed a cattegorical nature in order to interact with creation. To put it another way it is truer to say that God limmits himself to the possibilities he has created than to say God is limmited by possibilty.

That's a lot to swallow at one go and I'm afraid I've made things seem very complicated. If that just sounds like a lot of gobledygook I can unpack it more slowly if you like. I'm pressed for time and condensing huge ideas into a short space. You may find the following article by Roy Clouser helpful.
I feel a bit pretentious writing all this. I know what I mean but I feel I'm not making myself clear.

Have a good Christmas.

How about we call him JP?

Science and Providence is next on my shelf, and after that I have to get Science and Creation. I have read Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, and most of Belief in God in an Age of Science. I'll take some time to think about what you have written, postodave.

tangent, how interesting that you know Dr. P. I have an impression of him from his writing as being a warm and caring person.

I've finally got around to starting Science and Providence, and very early in it JP explicitly distances himself from the basic premises of both panentheism and process theology. I haven't yet got to his discussion of the dipolar nature of God, so I can't compare that yet to the process theologian Hartshorne's concept of God's dipolarity.

I haven't yet come across JP using the term "open theism" yet (but maybe he doesn't explicitly align himself with that school, even though he may share some of its beliefs). And I'll look out for citations from acknowledged open theists.

Just wanted to say I found your review very interesting Mitch even though I haven't read that book. Are you saying that there are experiments that prove that Einstein's deeper game approach to quantum indeterminacy was wrong? I am not sure how this could be possible
Please remember I am not a trained physicist if you try to answer this for me