From a physical point of view, the no-boundary Hartle-Hawking model put forward in 1983 was an attempt to demonstrate that the incorporation of quantum effects into the general theory of relativity would solve the problem of singularities that make the theory of relativity incomplete. This was achieved by imposing the so called “no-boundary conditions” whereby the Universe could emerge with non-zero probability from a non-existing state. Stephen Hawking quickly turned this result into a metaphysical claim that physical laws explained away (...) the necessity of the Divine intervention at the origin of the Universe. This paper offers an inquiry into the line of arguments presented by Hawking and Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design and supported with the claim that the yet unknown versionof the superstring theory, the M-theory, is an ultimate theory of the Universe. The upshot of the paper is that although the argument in the Grand Design relies on the newer achievements of physics embedded in the controversial multi-verse setting, it does not escape the question of the origin of the most general laws of physics that bring the Universe into existence. (shrink)

A new paradigm in theology, termed evolutionary theology, supports the understanding of ecology as the proper ordering of the relations between living organisms and their environment. It is argued that evolutionary theology yields a unique conceptual framework in which the human species share a common history with the entire Universe and respecting nature’s integrity means securing a common destiny to everything that exists. This is a powerful motivation for adopting a balanced ecological attitude aimed at respecting nature’s inherent integrity. Furthermore, (...) proposing theological arguments to substantiate ecological claims will help neutralize the objections that religion as such promotes anti-ecological attitudes. Such objections become more pressing when religion focuses exclusively on the afterlife in the immaterial and eternal world to come, and neglects the well-being of the material and temporal Universe. -------------- Received: 30/08/2020. Reviewed: 07/10/2020. Accepted: 12/11/2020. (shrink)

Despite many arduous attempts to reconcile the separation between theology and science, the common ground where these two areas of intellectual inquiry could converge has not been fully identified yet. The purpose of this paper is to use evolutionary theology as the new and unique framework in which science and theology are indeed brought into coherent alignment. The major step in this effort is to acknowledge that theology can no longer dialogue with science but must assume science and its method (...) as its conceptual foundation. This approach successfully does away with any tensions that may arise between the two disciplines and establishes a firm ground on which neither of them will turn into ideology. Moreover, it enables the dialogue with contemporary scientific atheism on solid grounds and the restoration of the credibility of theology in the secularist culture of the day. (shrink)

The doctrine of the Intelligent Design offers an intuitive explanation of why the ordering in the Universe is authored by an intentional agency. Due to its appeal to common-sense perception, this doctrine is endorsed even by scientifically literate circles despite of its obvious contradiction with the discoveries of science. In this article, an attempt to apply the tools of the cognitive science of religion to the appraisal of the methodological and epistemic status of the ID doctrine is presented. It is (...) concluded that the ID doctrine may serve as means of the real-time metaphorical reassurance of the creative power of God while it cannot give grounds to any literal inferences on the nature of the Divine action. (shrink)

Philosophy in science should be sharply distinguished from the philosophy of science. The latter offers a philosophical reflection on the method of science; the former, on the contrary, is expected to concentrate on the mutual influence between the philosophical ideas and scientific theories and practice. The papers in this book explore both the methodological niveau of the philosophy in science and some particular philosophical issues intertwined with scientific theories. Only such a combination of two perspectives may provide a comprehensive picture (...) of the methods and applications characteristic of philosophy in science. The book includes essays by Sir Roger Penrose, Joseph LeDoux, Francisco J. Ayala, and Michael Heller who won of the Templeton Prize in 2008. (shrink)

The unusual applicability of mathematics to the description of the physical reality still remains a major investigative task for philosophers, physicists, mathematicians and cognitive scientists. The presented article offers a critical analysis of the philosophical motivations and development of a major attempt to resolve this task put forward by two prominent Polish philosophers: Józef Życiński and Michał Heller. In order to explain this particular property of mathematics Życiński has first introduced the concept of the field of rationality together with the (...) field of potentiality to be followed by Heller’s formal field and the field of categories. It turns out that these concepts are fully intelligible once located within philosophical stances on the relations between mathematics and physical reality. It will be argued that in order to achieve more extended conceptual clarification of the precise meaning of the field of rationality, further advancements in the understanding of the nature of the human mind are required. (shrink)

Wychodząc od usystematyzowania hellerowskiej tezy o matematyczności przyrody, niniejsze studium poświęcone głównie będzie pokazaniu i krytycznej ocenie racji, wedle których Heller desygnuje teorię kategorii jako matematyczne środowisko szczególnie predestynowane dla wyartykułowania tej tezy. Kluczowe w tym kontekście będzie wskazanie, co uprawnia go do wprowadzenia mającej istotne ontologiczne znaczenie koncepcji pola kategorii i utożsamienia go z polem racjonalności. Ostatecznie stanie się możliwe lepsze zrozumienie, w jakim sensie w kontekście sformalizowanych teorii fizycznych Heller operuje pojęciem apofatyzmu filozoficznego, który wydaje się trafnie ujmować (...) specyfikę jego poglądów na ontologiczne zobowiązania tych teorii i gdzie być może zbliża się on do niebezpiecznych myślowych pułapek. W swojej apofatycznej postawie Heller pozostaje blisko pierwszoplanowych postaci współczesnej fizyki i noblistów, Alberta Einsteina czy Rogera Penrose’a: fizyka nie mówi o tym, jaka rzeczywistość jest, ale pozwala stanąć na drodze do rzeczywistości. (shrink)

The purpose of the article is to investigate the philosophical and theological validity and coherence of the classical concept of a miracle within the contemporary scientific world view. The main tool in this process will be the cognitive standard model of the formation of religious beliefs operative in the cognitive science of religion. The application of this model shows why an intentional agent is assigned as responsible for the occurrence of events with no visible cause such as a miracle: miracles (...) are events that violate the intuitively expected behaviors observable in the physical reality. It will become evident that much of the conceptual content of the classical understanding of miracles can be retained despite of the ontological and epistemological challenges of the contemporary science. In particular, this concerns the semantic view of miracles in which a miracle does not occur as an objective Divine intervention but qualifies as religious interpretation of the natural course of events always in reference to a cultural and personal context that is unique to those who directly experience these events either as direct recipients or as observers. (shrink)

The aim of the presented article is to provide an in-depth analysis of the adequacy of designating Penrose as a complex Pythagorean in view of his much more common designation as a Platonist. Firstly, the original doctrine of the Pythagoreans will be briefly surveyed with the special emphasis on the relation between the doctrine of this school and the teachings of the late Platonic School as well as its further modifications. These modifications serve as the prototype of the contemporary claims (...) of the mathematicity of the Universe. Secondly, two lines of Penrose’s arguments in support of his unique position on the ontology of the mathematical structures will be presented: their existence independent of the physical world in the atemporal Platonic realm of pure mathematics and the mathematical structures as the patterns governing the workings of the physical Universe. In the third step, a separate line of arguments will be surveyed that Penrose advances in support of the thesis that the complex numbers seem to suit these patterns with exceptional adequacy. Finally, the appropriateness of designation Penrose as a complex Pythagorean will be assessed with the special emphasis on the suddle threshold between his unique position and that of the adherents of the mathematicity of the Universe. (shrink)

Contemporary physics is in a great need of a unified theoretical framework allowing for a comprehensive physical description of particles and interactions. One of the leading candidates for such a framework, the superstring theory, has recently provoked immense critics due to the lack of its experimental verification (L. Smolin, R. Penrose). The survey of the specificity of the unification mechanisms that are operative within the superstring theory shows that, in comparison with such a successful paradigm as that of the general (...) theory of relativity, the unification model of the theory does not follow the strict relation between the formalism and a unifying physical idea. The critical analysis of the superstring theory, presented by Lee Smolin in his book The Trouble with Physics, offers a detailed re-evaluation of theory's physical foundations but remains insensitive to issues of methodological, ontological and epistemological import. In particular, Smolin seems to be aware of the lack of the background independence as well as the need to compactify extra space-time dimensions that are hoped to be alleviated in the future M-theory. He treats purely mathematical criteria such as that of renormalizability on an equal footing with the physical interpretation of the theory. Such a methodological disarray leads to Smolin's biased estimate of the true drawbacks of the superstring theory. (shrink)