A Philosophical Critique of the Concept of Miracle as a “Supernatural Event”

The notion of the supernaturality of an event may be understood in various ways. Most frequently ‘supernatural’ means ‘separated from nature’, i.e. different from nature. Thus, what is meant here is the difference in ontological character. The definitions of miracle, present in literature, emphasize the fact that we may talk about a miracle only when the phenomenon takes place beyond the natural order or stands in opposition to it. The description of a miracle as a ‘supernatural event’ contains in itself the reference to that which is natural. The supernaturality of an event means that it surpasses (transcends) naturality. Additionally, this transcendence contains a kind of opposition to that which is natural. However, the miracle as a supernatural event takes place within the scope of that which is natural, although it takes place in a different way from natural events. It seems that this supernaturality may involve two things: (1) the course of the miraculous event; (2) the cause of the miraculous event. We should consider each of them separately and specify what we understand by the supernatural course of the event and by the supernatural cause of the event. If we could prove that we can talk about supernatural events at least in one of the two signaled aspects of supernaturality, then we would be able to defi ne the miraculous event as a supernatural one. The analyses proposed in the paper allow us to formulate the following statement concerning the miraculous event, which is, to a great extent, a critical correction of the traditional way of understanding it: the miracle may be correctly understood as a supernatural event, only when this supernaturality concerns the personal cause of the event and not its course

Sprawozdanie z 16. Warsztatów Filozofii Przyrody Sekcji Filozofii Przyrody i Nauk Przyrodniczych Polskiego Towarzystwa Filozoficznego, Kraków, 15-18.06.2023 r.

The 16th Workshop in the Philosophy of Nature was hosted by the Higher Theological Seminary of the Salesian Society in Kraków on 15-18 June, 2023. The organizer of the annual workshop is the Section for the Philosophy of Nature and Natural Sciences of the Polish Philosophical Society. Workshop participants included more than thirty attendees from Polish scientific centers engaged in the philosophy of nature and natural sciences (Kraków, Lublin, Łódź, Poznań, Szczecin, Warsaw, Zielona Góra)

Sprawozdanie z działalności naukowej Katedry Filozofii Przyrody w Instytucie Filozofii UKSW w Warszawie w latach 2019-2022

On October 1, 2019, the former Philosophy of Nature Section at the CSWU Institute of Philosophy, consisting of the Department of Philosophy of Nature, the Department of Philosophy of Natural Science and the Department of Methodology of System and Information Sciences, was transformed into the Department of Philosophy of Nature. During the period from the establishment of the Department of Philosophy of Nature until the end of 2022, the scientific activity of its members included: implementation of individual and joint research programs and related publication activities; participation in scientific conferences; meetings to discuss current organizational matters; thematic meetings devoted to the presentation of the research issues being pursued and discussion of the content presented

A Philosophical Critique of the Concept of Miracle as a “Supernatural Event”

The notion of the supernaturality of an event may be understood in various ways. Most frequently ‘supernatural’ means ‘separated from nature’, i.e. different from nature. Thus, what is meant here is the difference in ontological character. The definitions of miracle, present in literature, emphasize the fact that we may talk about a miracle only when the phenomenon takes place beyond the natural order or stands in opposition to it. The description of a miracle as a ‘supernatural event’ contains in itself the reference to that which is natural. The supernaturality of an event means that it surpasses (transcends) naturality. Additionally, this transcendence contains a kind of opposition to that which is natural. However, the miracle as a supernatural event takes place within the scope of that which is natural, although it takes place in a different way from natural events. It seems that this supernaturality may involve two things: (1) the course of the miraculous event; (2) the cause of the miraculous event. We should consider each of them separately and specify what we understand by the supernatural course of the event and by the supernatural cause of the event. If we could prove that we can talk about supernatural events at least in one of the two signaled aspects of supernaturality, then we would be able to defi ne the miraculous event as a supernatural one. The analyses proposed in the paper allow us to formulate the following statement concerning the miraculous event, which is, to a great extent, a critical correction of the traditional way of understanding it: the miracle may be correctly understood as a supernatural event, only when this supernaturality concerns the personal cause of the event and not its course

Zagadnienie relacji nauk przyrodniczych z filozofią i teologią w poglądach Stanisława Ziemiańskiego SJ: Próba rekonstrukcji i polemiki

The purpose of this article is to discuss the views of Fr. Stanisław Ziemiański, S.J., on the significance of the natural sciences for philosophy and theology on top of the relationship between natural science, philosophy and theology. On the background of Ziemiański’s theodicy position proposed within the framework of his natural theology, how he uses the data of natural sciences in his philosophical research is presented. Ziemiański takes a position that is characterized by caution and even by maintaining a certain kind of distance from the view of the world created by modern natural sciences. In particular, he does not share the philosophical interpretation of the scientific image of the world, which would lead to pan-evolutionism extended to the entire history of the universe. Against the background of the contemporary positions of numerous Polish representatives of theistic evolutionism, coming from Catholic intellectual communities, who try to reconcile evolution with creation on the grounds of philosophy, Fr. Ziemiański’s views are less typical and are undoubtedly distinguished by this anti-evolutionist feature. The analysis of Fr. Ziemiański’s position began with the reconstruction of his theoretical-cognitive and methodological approach concerning the status of natural sciences, philosophy, and theology, as well as the images of material reality they provide. In the following part, selected issues are discussed within the area of relations between natural sciences and theology, which were taken up by Ziemiański, particularly the problems concerning the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Then an attempt is made to reconstruct a more general view of the relationship between science and religion (natural sciences and theology) in connection with the way Ziemiański approached the issues of, a.o. the controversy creationism – evolutionism, the question of the moment of animation of the human fetus and original sin, suffering and death. In conclusion, some of Ziemiański’s statements are criticized and polemically discussed. The common ground for these comments is the importance of the impact of the metaphysical assumptions made on the interpretation and use of scientific data in forming a philosophical and theological view of the world.Celem artykułu jest omówienie poglądów o. prof. Stanisława Ziemiańskiego SJ dotyczących znaczenia nauk przyrodniczych dla filozofii i teologii oraz relacji między naukami przyrodniczymi, filozofią i teologią. Na tle teodycealnego stanowiska o. Ziemiańskiego, zaproponowanego w ramach jego teologii naturalnej, został zaprezentowany sposób, w jaki autor wykorzystuje dane nauk przyrodniczych w swoich poszukiwaniach filozoficznych. Ziemiański przyjmuje stanowisko, które cechuje się ostrożnością, a nawet zachowywaniem pewnego rodzaju dystansu wobec obrazu świata kreowanego przez współczesne przyrodoznawstwo. W szczególności nie podziela filozoficznej interpretacji naukowego obrazu świata, która miałaby prowadzić do panewolucjonizmu rozciągniętego na całość historii wszechświata. Na tle współczesnych stanowisk licznych polskich przedstawicieli ewolucjonizmu teistycznego, wywodzących się z katolickich środowisk intelektualnych, którzy starają się uzgadniać ewolucję z kreacją na gruncie filozofii, poglądy o. Ziemiańskiego są mniej typowe i niewątpliwie wyróżniają się owym antyewolucjonistycznym rysem. Analizę stanowiska o. Ziemiańskiego rozpoczęto od rekonstrukcji jego ujęcia teoriopoznawczego i metodologicznego w zakresie dotyczącym statusu nauk przyrodniczych, filozofii i teologii oraz obrazów rzeczywistości materialnej, jakich one dostarczają. W dalszej części omówiono wybrane kwestie przedmiotowe, które mieszczą się w obszarze zagadnienia relacji między naukami przyrodniczymi i teologią, a które podejmował o. Ziemiański, w szczególności problematykę dotyczącą genezy wszechświata i pochodzenia życia biologicznego. Następnie podjęta została próba odtworzenia ogólnego obrazu relacji między nauką i religią (naukami przyrodniczymi i teologią), a także rozumem i wiarą, w związku ze sposobem ujmowania przez o. Ziemiańskiego m.in. kontrowersji kreacjonizm – ewolucjonizm, zagadnienia momentu animacji płodu ludzkiego oraz grzechu pierworodnego, cierpienia i śmierci. Na zakończenie do niektórych twierdzeń Ziemiańskiego ustosunkowano się krytycznie i polemicznie. Wspólnym mianownikiem dla tych uwag jest znaczenie wpływu przyjmowanych założeń metafizycznych na interpretację i wykorzystanie danych naukowych w tworzeniu filozoficznego i teologicznego obrazu świata

Czy fizyka wskazuje na istnienie transcendencji? Dyskusja wokół książki "Fizyk w jaskini światów"

Professor Krzysztof A. Meissner proposes a picture of transcendence resulting from physics’ understanding of the world. The transcendence of which he speaks does not mean the Absolute-God, but the world of universal and unchanging laws of nature, which are understood by him in the shape of the Platonic world of ideas. Therefore, one may ask whether such statements are legitimate on the grounds of physics, or should they be considered a particular philosophical view? Furthermore, what is Meissner’s actual understanding of the status of “laws of nature”? Can they legitimately be considered a world of ideas? Does their existence actually indicate the existence of some transcendence? This article is the transcript of a discussion around the book A Physicist in the Cave of Worlds, (Biblioteka Więzi, Vol. 389, Warszawa 2023) by Krzysztof A. Meissner, Jerzy Sosnowski, which took place on March 25, 2023 at the Department of Philosophy of Nature of the CSWU Institute of Philosophy in Warsaw