¿Necesitamos una teología de la ciencia?

En este artículo discutimos la especificidad e importancia de la idea de la teología de la ciencia propuesta por el filósofo y teólogo Michał Heller. Se reconstruyen sumariamente los rasgos más destacados de la definición de esta disciplina, explicando los principales temas que trataría la teología de la ciencia y presentando algunas objeciones a esta definición. Se hace hincapié en que la teología de la ciencia, especialmente en el caso de la contingencia del mundo y de su inteligibilidad, puede considerar los límites del método empírico. Además, los aspectos metodológicos de la disciplina se examinan en el contexto de diferentes representaciones de la relación entre ciencia y tecnología, poniendo de relieve el alcance y los límites de la teología de la ciencia. Se analizan dos enfoques: el modelo metodológico de separación (aislacionismo) y el modelo antiseparacionista (interaccionismo). Se señala que la teología de la ciencia podría ser un tipo particular de metafísica inductiva, que trabaja sobre extrapolaciones científicas y teológicas. Por lo tanto, en la teología de la ciencia, la tarea especial de la filosofía sería hacer más claro el espacio especulativo en el que llevar a cabo la mediación entre la ciencia y la teología. Al final se hacen algunas observaciones y propuestas epistemológicas para el desarrollo ulterior de la disciplina. Todo ello implicaría la necesidad de la elaboración de una hipotética teología que ayudaría al estudio de los nuevos problemas teológicos.In this article we discuss the specificity and importance of the idea of theology of science proposed by the philosopher and theologian Michał Heller. The salient features of the definition of this discipline are summarily reconstructed, explaining the main themes that the theology of science would deal with and presenting some objections to this definition. It is emphasized that the theology of science, especially in the case of the contingency of the world and of its intelligibility, can consider the limits of the empirical method. Moreover, methodological aspects of the discipline are discussed in the context of different representations of the science-theology relationship, highlighting the scope and the limits of the theology of science. Above two approaches are analysed: the methodological model of separation (isolationism), and the anti-separationist model (interactionism). It is noted that the theology of science could be a particular type of inductive metaphysics, which works on scientific and theological extrapolations. Therefore, in the theology of science, the special task for philosophy would be making more clear the speculative space within which to carry out the mediation between science and theology. At the end some epistemological observations and proposals are made for the further development of the discipline. All this would imply the need for the elaboration of hypothetical theology that would help in the study of the new theological problems.peerReviewe

New Mechanistic Explanation: Can It Be Interesting for a Theologian

Many thanks to Paweł Polak and Jacek Rodzeń and to the two anonymous reviewers who have read the manuscript and suggested valuable improvements.“Mechanism” is one of the crucial concepts that have deeply influenced the evolution of scientific disciplines and philosophical systems. For the last few decades, this concept has again found itself at the center of the philosophical debate about science and scientific methods with the emergence of the new mechanical philosophy (NMP). The aim of this paper is to counter the argument that there is or should be an essential conflict between the modern mechanical philosophy (MMP) or the NMP and Christian theology

In search of the person. Towards a real revolution

The discussion about a difference between brain and soul or mind is now at the center of the anthropological debate. It seems that the pioneers in this current polemic have a reductionistic view of human nature, inherited from the Cartesian solution to mind-body problem and the modern materialistic explanation of reality. This view – dualistic or monistic – about the opposition between material and immaterial structure of the person, claims that as a consequence of scientific progress, the human brain in the future could be completely explained in naturalistic terms. On the other hand, according to the new results of scientific research, this situation reveals the possibility to develop a new, more adequate paradigm of man as an incarnated person. This change was called by many researchers “the passage from the mind-body problem to the person-body problem”. It seems that the Aristotelian-Thomistic approach is the most suitable to describe this “paradigm shift”. Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy undoubtedly encourages lively dialogue between philosophy and contemporary sciences through its dual ontology. Thus, it can give suitable answers for questions about the nature of human reason (intentionality); unity of composition of the human brain and the role of causality in natural processes

Near-death experiences: feasibility and advantages of the mechanistic explanation

The new mechanistic philosophy seeks to identify and explain the mechanisms of various phenomena, including their overall organization and the interactions between the individualized components. This paper argues that among the phenomena that can be approached within the new mechanistic framework are near-death experiences, which can be included within the vast range of experiences that are grouped under the category of religious experience. Such experiences involve a complex set of cognitive, affective, and behavioural processes. Since studying such experiences is far from methodologically simple, we try to show the feasibility of applying the mechanistic explanation to near-death experiences. While some scholars (such as Egil Asprem and Ann Taves) argue that mechanistic explanation can shed new light on the explanation of religion, we instead emphasize neglected limits of such an explanation, as well as its epistemic-methodological advantages in comparison with alternative explanatory models, especially the models proposed by Michael Marsh, Frederick S. Barrett and Roland R. Griffiths

Scientia petita, Theologia manifesta: scientific rationality and theological proposals in the pandemic

The urgency of understanding the pandemic has exponentially increased the circulation of information. The main directions of information transfer have been internal, that is within scholarly communities, and external, that is towards the public. The very manner in which scientific communication is produced has also changed. While the difficulty of finding practical solutions has often created a sense of mistrust, it has also led to the emergence of an image of scientific rationality as progressive, collective and capable of growth. This image of Science makes it possible to understand and distinguish the epistemic and ontological dimensions of scientific analysis. Theology can identify an attitude of epistemic humility that is conducive to a better understanding of the role of the human being in relation to nature and as the protagonist of history in collaboration with God

What Ensures Man’s Ontological Status: the Person, the Soul, or the Brain?

The concept of man’s ontological status, which is being hotly debated in current discussions on the relationship between the mind and the body, has its roots in European thought. This article indicates where answers to the question of the man’s ontological status in the context of the current cultural mind-body debate can be found. Since the history of the mind-body debate is long and extremely rich, the following anthropological terms that were defined in Western antiquity will serve as a backdrop for the reflections presented below: 1) the soul as the material part of the human body, which is the starting point for later reductionist views; 2) the soul as an immaterial and immortal reality imprisoned in the human body, which gives rise to dualistic definitions of man; and 3) Aristotle’s approach, which describes man in terms of matter (ὕλη) and form (μορφὴ), where the soul is neither reduced to the material parts of the body nor treated as a separate substance present in the body. A response to the question regarding man’s ontological status will be formulated in light of the theoretical similarities between Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophies and the natural sciences, especially current physical theories (quantum field theory, QFT) and different kinds of research on the human brain (brain neural field studies).ks. MICHAŁ OLEKSOWICZ – kapłan diecezji toruńskiej, asystent w Zakładzie Filozofii Chrześcijańskiej na Wydziale Teologicznym Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, uczestnik filozoficznych studiów doktoranckich na Papieskim Uniwersytecie Laterańskim w Rzymie.Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w ToruniuArystoteles, Fizyka, tłum. K. Leśniak, [w:] Arystoteles, Dzieła Wszystkie, t. 2, Warszawa 1990.Arystoteles, Metafizyka, tłum. K. Leśniak, [w:] Arystoteles, Dzieła Wszystkie, t. 2, Warszawa 1990.Arystoteles, O Duszy, tłum. P. Siwek, [w:] Arystoteles, Dzieła wszystkie, t. 3. Warszawa 1992.Audi R., Naturalism as a Philosophical and Scientific Framework. A Critical Perspective, [w:] Between Philosophy and Science, M. Heller, B. Brożek, Ł. Kurek (red.). Kraków 2013.Basti G., Perrone A.L, Le radici forti del pensiero debole. Dalla metafisica, alla matematica, al calcolo, Padova – Roma 1995.Basti G., Filosofia dell’uomo, Roma 2008.Basti G, Ontologia formale: Tommaso Aquino ed Edith Stein, [w:] Edith Stein – Hedwig Conrad-Martius – Gerda Walther, Fenomenologia della Persona, della Vita e della Comunità, A. Ales Bello, F. Alfieri, M. Shahid (red.), Bari 2011.Basti G., L’ontologia formale del «realismo naturale», cosmologia evolutiva e partecipazione dell’essere, “Divus Thomas” 117-2 (2014), s. 229-333.Basti G., L’idea di scienza di Maritain tra passato e futuro, “Aquinas” LVIII (2015), s. 117-165.Bischof M., Sincronizzazione e coerenza come prinicpio organizzativo nell’organismo, nell’interazione e nelle coscienza (Synchronization and coherence as an organizing principle in the organism, social interaction and consciousness), “La medicina biologica” 2010/4: 35-43.Brague R., Europa, droga rzymska, tłum. W. Dłuski, Warszawa 2012.Bremer, J., Wprowadzenie do filozofii umysłu. Kraków 2010.Capolupo A., Freeman W.J., Vitiello G, Dissipation of dark energy by cortex in knowledge retrieval, “Physics of life reviews”, 2013 10 (1): 85-94 (doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.01.001).Del Giudice E., Doglia S., Milani M., Vitiello G., A quantum field theoretical approach to the collective behaviour of biological systems, “Nucl. Phys.” 1985 B251 (FS 13): 375-400.Del Giudice E., Doglia S., Milani M., Vitiello G., Electromagnetic field and spontaneous symmetry breakdown in biological matter, “Nucl. Phys.” 1986 B275 (FS 17): 185-199.Del Giudice E., Pulselli R., Tiezzi E, Thermodynamics of irreversible processes and quantum field theory: an interplay for understanding of ecosystem dynamics, “Ecological Modelling” 2009, 220: 1874-1879.Del Giudice E., Tedeschi A., La dinamica dell’essere vivente come riflesso della dinamica dell’acqua (The dynamics of the living being as the reflection of water dynamics). “La medicina biologica”, 2010/4: 21-27.Freeman W. J., Vitiello G., Nonlinear brain dynamics as macroscopic manifestation of underlying many-body field dynamics, “Physics of Life Reviews” 2006, 3 (2): 93-118.Freeman W.J., Vitiello G., Dissipation and spontaneous symmetry breaking in braindynamics, “Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical” 2008, 41 (30), 304042.Goldstone J., Salam A., Weinberg S, Broken Symmetries, “Physical Review” 1962, 127, 965 (doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.127.965).Heller M., Filozofia nauki. Wprowadzenie. Kraków 2009.Heller M., Otwarte perspektywy świata myśli i świata przyrody, [w:] Wszechświat – Maszyna czy myśl, M. Heller, J. Życiński i in., Kraków 2014.Heller M., Bóg i materia, [w:] Wszechświat – Maszyna czy myśl, M. Heller, J. Życiński i in., Kraków 2014.International Research Area on Foundations of Science. 2017. IRAFS Newsletter 1 (2016): 7-10. Dostęp: 26 listopada 2017. http://www.irafs.org/materials/2016_nl1_eng.pdf .Itzykson C., Zuber J., Quantum field theory, New York 1980.Manganaro P., Phenomenology and Neuroscience. Living Experience, Empathy and Embodied simulation, [w:] COMPRENDRE. Archive International pour l’Anthropologie et la Psychopathologie Phénoménologiques, Padova 2010, s. 153-165.Maritain J., Distinguere per unire. I gradi del sapere, Brescia 1974.Montalenti G., From Aristotle to Democritus via Darwin, [w:] Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, F.J. Ayala, T. Dobzhansky (red.), London 1974, s. 3-19.Mutschler H.-D., Wprowadzenie do filozofii przyrody, tłum. J. Bremer, Kraków 2005, s. 134-139.Newton I., Opticks, London 1730.Newton I., Scolio generale, [w:] Principi matematici della Filosofia Naturale, A. Pala (red.), Milano 2008.Pabjan T., Złożoność i samoorganizacja, [w:] Wszechświat – Maszyna czy myśl, M. Heller, J. Życiński i in., Kraków 2014.Pabjan T., Niedomknięty bilans wszechświata. Kraków 2016.Planck M., La posizione della nuova fisica di fronte alla visione meccanicistica della natura, [w:] Scienza, filosofia e religione, F. Selvaggi (red.), Milano 1965, s. 147-165.Prigogine I., Stengers I., Order out of chaos. Man’s new dialogue with nature, Bantam Books 1984.Prigogine I., Le leggi del caos, Roma – Bari 2008.Sanguineti J. J., Operazioni cognitive: un approccio ontologico al problema mente-cervello, “Acta Philosophica” II, 14 (2005), s. 233-258.Tomasz z Akwinu, Summa theologiae. Rzym 1962. [Tłumaczenie polskie: Tomasz z Akwinu. Traktat O Człowieku. Kęty 2000.]Tomasz z Akwinu, Expositio libri Posteriorum Analyticorum w Corpus Thomisticum 2000.S. Thomae de Aquino, Opera Omnia, E. Alarcón (red.), Pamplona, www.corpusthomisticum.org.Tomasz z Akwinu, In libros Physicorum, [w:] Corpus Thomisticum. S. Thomae de Aquino, Opera Omnia 2000, E. Alarcón (red.), Pamplona, www.corpusthomisticum.org.Tomasz z Akwinu. De Potentia [w:] Corpus Thomisticum. S. Thomae de Aquino, Opera Omnia 2000, E. Alarcón (red.), Pamplona, www.corpusthomisticum.org.Umezawa H., Advanced field theory: micro, macro and thermal concepts, New York 1993.Vitiello G., Coherent states, fractals and brain waves, “New Mathematics and Natural Computing” 2009, 5 (1): 245-264.Vitiello G., Stati coerenti e domini coerenti nella fisica della materia vivente (Coherent states and coherent domains in the physics of the living matter), “La medicina biologica” 2010/4: 13-19.4466

Początkowa osobliwość jako stworzenie świata. Niebezpieczeństwo powrotu do argumentu "God of the gaps"

n/

MŁODZIEŻ A DUCHOWOŚĆ?

Recently the attention of many commentators of social life has been attracted by the statistical research on the religiosity of Poles in the years 1992–2021 published by CBOS (Public Opinion Research Centre). According to this research, there has been a trend pointing at a decline in the level of religious belief and religious practice. The most rapid decrease was recorded in the number of practicing people in the 18–24 age group. In the context of the aforementioned changes Polish readers receive a monograph by Rev. Stanisław Suwiński, ‘The spirituality of youth in the perspective of evangelization’ (Bernardinum, Pelplin 2021) in which the author reflects on the spirituality of youth, with particular emphasis on the perspectives of evangelization in the Polish cultural context. Both the interdisciplinarity and the specific pragmatic nature of this book, given the context of the religious changes in Poland, encourage further reflection on the subject of research proposed by the author. This article critically examines the relationship between spirituality and religiousness of youth in the light of the monograph of Suwiński and other studies on this issue. Furthermore, the changing religiosity in Poland is presented in the perspective of statistical data in comparison with selected European countries and of the role of the technological revolution that shapes contemporary people. In such a context, the question about the spirituality of the youth becomes a contribution to a reflection not only on the religiosity of the young people but also on the fluctuations in Christian religiosity as such. The proposed philosophical interpretation of religiosity and its modifications in the perspective of the previously discussed social phenomena may become an argument in favor of the thesis about the unchanging “vitality of religion”.W ostatnim czasie uwagę wielu komentatorów życia społecznego przykuły opublikowane przez CBOS badania dotyczące religijności Polaków w latach 1992–2021. Jak wynika z tych badań, odnotowano trend wskazujący na spadek poziomu wiary religijnej i praktyk religijnych. Najgwałtowniejszy spadek zanotowano w liczbie praktykujących osób w przedziale wiekowym 18–24 lata. W kontekście wspomnianych przemian polski czytelnik otrzymuje do rąk monografię ks. Stanisława Suwińskiego pt. „Duchowość młodzieży w perspektywie ewangelizacji” (Bernardinum, Pelplin 2021), w której autor podejmuje refleksję nad duchowością młodzieży, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem perspektywy ewangelizacji w polskim kontekście kulturowym. Zarówno interdyscyplinarność jak i swoista pragmatyczność tej książki zachęcają, zważywszy na kontekst przemian religijności w Polsce, do dalszych refleksji nad zaproponowanym przez autora przedmiotem badań. W artykule jest analizowany związek duchowości z religijnością młodzieży w świetle monografii ks. Suwińskiego oraz innych badań dotyczących tego zagadnienia. Kwestia przemian religijności w Polsce jest ukazana w perspektywie danych statystycznych dotyczących wybranych krajów europejskich, a także zostaje uwypuklone znaczenie technologicznej rewolucji dla kształtowania współczesnego człowieka i jego sposobu funkcjonowania. W tak zarysowanym kontekście pytanie o duchowość młodzieży staje się przyczynkiem do refleksji nie tylko nad religijnością młodzieży, ale też nad przemianami chrześcijańskiej religijności jako takiej. Zaproponowana filozoficzna interpretacja religijności i jej przemian w perspektywie wcześniej omówionych zjawisk społecznych, może stać się argumentem na rzecz tezy o niezmiennej „żywotności religii”

Początkowa osobliwość jako stworzenie świata. Niebezpieczeństwo powrotu do argumentu „God of the gaps”

The man desires to understand the surrounding world. One of the crucial question asked by mankind concerns the beginning of the universe. In this article have been shown the consequences of meeting Christian doctrine which is about creating the world with the idea of contemporary physics which explains space revolution as the beginning of the world. The Christian metaphysics provides satisfactory answers for two essential questions: about the beginning of the world and about the source of order and harmony inside the world. As far as the first issue is concerned, we can say both about the time of the creating the world and about perennial existence of the world. In the second issue the rationality of God the Creator justifies the rationality of creating the world. So this Christian doctrine of the creating the world faces with mathematical and empirical method of study the world, which this method tries to describe the examined episode of the world using suitable mathematical structures. The problem of initial singularity that appeared at the beginning of the 20th century in cosmology it became the source of lively discussion among scientists and philosophers and theologians. The question how can we link cosmological data with the theological concept of creation was the crucial background in this discussion. Another word, the debate began with the question whether the initial singularity prove the creation of the world and existing God as well or on the contrary, it may constitutes argument for His non-existence. This way of thinking caused to back to English scientists (called themselves “natural philosophers” or “virtuosi”) arguments from the 17th century. They desired to prove that God exists according to the lack of human’s nature knowledge, that was later called „God of the gaps”. As has been shown the issue of initial singularity is as area of unfinished research. The problem of initial singularity is neutral with regard to the doctrine of creation the world because singularity is a factor of some mathematics structure, where solutions of equations that describe cosmological model lose meaning. In connection with that we can claim that identification initial singularity with theological concept of creating the world became like kind of material used for building the argument: „God of the gaps” that according to theologians and scientists it is judged negative.Człowiek pragnie zrozumieć otaczający go świat. Jedno z najistotniejszych pytań, jakie stawia sobie ludzkość, dotyczy początku istnienia wszechświata. W niniejszym artykule zostały ukazane konsekwencje wynikające ze spotkania doktryny chrześcijańskiej, dotyczącej stworzenia z tym, co współczesna fizyka mówi o początku kosmicznej ewolucji. Chrześcijańska metafizyka stworzenia dostarcza zadowalającej odpowiedzi na dwa zasadnicze pytania – o początek wszechświata i źródło panującego w nim ładu. Co do pierwszej kwestii można mówić zarówno o czasowym początku istnienia świata, jak i jego odwiecznym istnieniu. W drugim przypadku racjonalność Boga Stwórcy jest uzasadnieniem racjonalności stworzenia. Tak rozumiana chrześcijańska doktryna stworzenia spotyka się z matematyczno-empiryczną metodą badania świata, która próbuje opisać badany przez siebie fragment świata za pomocą odpowiednich struktur matematycznych. Problem początkowej osobliwości, który pojawił się na początku XX w. w kosmologii, stał się źródłem ożywionej dyskusji pomiędzy naukowcami, filozofami i teologami. Zasadniczym tłem dla tej dyskusji było pytanie: w jakim stopniu można wiązać dane kosmologiczne z teologiczną koncepcją stworzenia. Innymi słowy, rozpoczęła się debata nad tym, czy początkowa osobliwość dowodzi stworzenia świata, a tym samym istnienia Boga, czy wręcz przeciwnie – stanowi argument za Jego nieistnieniem. Ten sposób myślenia stał się powrotem do XVII-wiecznej argumentacji angielskich fizykoteologów, którzy pragnęli dowieść istnienia Boga na podstawie braków w ludzkiej wiedzy przyrodniczej, co zostało później nazwane argumentem „God of the gaps”. Jak zostało to przedstawione, zagadnienie początkowej osobliwości jest „obszarem” niezakończonych eksploracji naukowych. Problem początkowej osobliwości ze swojej istoty jest neutralny wobec doktryny stworzenia świata, gdyż osobliwość jest elementem pewnej struktury matematycznej, gdzie rozwiązania równań opisujących kosmologiczny model tracą sens. W związku z tym można powiedzieć, że utożsamienie początkowej osobliwości z teologiczną koncepcją stworzenia stało się „tworzywem” dla budowania argumentu „God of the gaps”, który zarówno z teologicznego, jak i naukowego punktu widzenia jest oceniany negatywnie

Teologia della scienza. Lo status quaestionis e possibili sviluppi ulteriori

In questo articolo si discute la specificità e l’importanza dell’idea di teologia della scienza proposta dal filosofo e teologo polacco Michał Heller, ricostruendo sommariamente i tratti salienti di questa disciplina, spiegando i temi principali di cui si occuperebbe la teologia della scienza e mostrando alcune obiezioni ad essa rivolte, allo scopo di formulare alcune osservazioni epistemologiche e proposte per un ulteriore sviluppo della disciplina.In this paper we discuss the specificity and the importance of the idea of theology of science proposed by the Polish philosopher and theologian Michał Heller, summarily reconstructing the salient features of this discipline, explaining the main themes that this branch of knowledge would deal with and showing some objections addressed to it, in order to formulate some epistemological observations and proposals for further development of the discipline