Dr. Polkinghorne has been aware of Fr. Jaki’s writings for many years and indeed has quoted from them across several of his books, including his Gifford Lectures. One can find a reference to the theistic origins of science thesis in Faith, Science and Understanding p. 18, Science and the Trinity p. 9 and Quantum Physics and Theology p. 107. Polkinghorne presents the argument is a non-committal manner and always with an incomplete explanation by ignoring Jaki’s emphasis on the stillbirths of science and the Christological thrust of the Buridan’s thinking. Polkinghorne’s silence on the writings of Pierre Duhem should therefore not come as a surprise.
.
Fr. Jaki is mentioned by the interviewer in Polkinghorne’s best-selling Questions on Truth with colleague Nicholas Beale, and indeed is associated with linking the Godel theorems to TOE:
Q: Do you agree with Stanley Jaki’s invocation of Godel’s incompleteness theorem as an argument against the possibility of developing a theory of everything as an argument against the impossibility of developing a theory of everything that is “necessarily” and not just “contingently” true? Hawking, as I understand it even admits that Godel’s work will complicate the consistency of a unified theory, does he not? If Godel’s work does throw a wretch into the works, why hasn’t the physics community caught on to this? Why, after his many walks with Godel in Princeton, was Einstein not dissuaded from pursuing a grand unified theory?
JP: Godel’s theorem shows us that truth can never be totally caught in any purely logical system – a useful lesson I think. It seems that truth always exceeds what can be proved by logic. This fact certainly provides a significant check to grandiose claims about theories of everything. Stanley Jaki is very learned and interesting to read. I think that Christian belief in creation was an influence on the birth of modern science in twelfth-century Europe, but I would not go so far as Jaki’s claim that this belief, then and now, is indispensable to a fruitful science.
[Questions on Truth p.51-52]
Of course, Jaki never argued that Christian belief is still indispensable for fruitful science, as science is now successfully birthed and self-sustaining. Actually in The Road of Science and the Ways to God, “ Fr. Jaki argued that the same philosophical realism underlay both the classical proofs of God’s existence and science’s greatest steps. One had to begin not with the mind, but “with objects, with facts.” [A. Gardiner, NOR] [1]
.
It was father’s respect for objects that lead him to reject the Copenhagen Philosophy, not Quantum Mechanics itself, as Polkinghorne claimed in his review of God and the Cosmologists. [2] This difference over the Copenhagen Philosophy had major consequences for their respective stances on natural theology and the cosmological argument.
.
“Stanley Jaki may say with some impatience ‘if pointers do not point unambiguously, that is, with certainty, what is the point of using them?’ but God is not to be read out of experience with quite that degree of clarity. I have more sympathy with the words of David Burrell, who speaks of the aim ‘to secure the distinction of God from the world, and to do so in such a way as to display how such a One, who must be unknowable, may also be known’.”
[Faith of a Physicist p. 40, my emphasis]
.
Setting aside the logical dilemma of the last sentence, quoting the surrounding paragraph to Jaki’s quotation may prove instructive.
.
One indeed reveals a grave myopia for very broad consequences when one declares that instead of the cosmological argument or proof, one should talk about pointers the universe affords about the existence of God. For if pointers do not point unambiguously, that is, with certainty, what is the point of using them? But if the difference between proofs and pointers is merely verbal, why the reluctance to speak of proofs? Or is it perhaps one’s particular cult, in which rational certainties are not welcome, that recommends the abolition of proofs along a broad front so that a particularly sorry predicament might not appear for what it truly is?
A chief reason for doubts concerning the demonstrative value of the cosmological argument may lie in a pathetic surrender to a cultural cliché which Niels Bohr wanted to see elevated, as if he had been a magus and not a scientist, into a secular cult.
[God and the Cosmologists p. 231]
.
Yet again the problem of knowledge raises its ugly head and once objects are not taken for a starting point, scepticism lurks in the wings. Even with this in mind I was quite surprised to read that Polkinghorne thinks that;
If we cannot even prove the consistency of arithmetic, it seems a bit much to hope that God's existence is easier to deal with [Faith of a Physicist p.57]
While Polkinghorne was referring to Anselm’s argument in writing this, these sentiments appear elsewhere, as he endorses Nagel’s statement that ‘we must also admit that world probably reaches beyond our capacity to understand it, no matter how far we travel.’ Polkinghorne adds ‘How much more so must that be true of God’. [Faith of a Physicist p.40]
.
Lack of confidence in man’s ability to know the Truth is a symptom of what Jaki views as a sickly atmosphere where an “infatuation with the ‘proofs’ of the scientific method may blind one to a wider meaning of proofs…Its proofs are for the most part identity relations, plain tautologies, to recall a remark of Bertrand Russell. Those proofs work as long as one remains within the limits of mathematical formalisms, but are of no help when a physicist wants to demonstrate the reality of the telescope he uses. Statements about the reality of this or that object, however trivial, cannot be cast into the molds of mathematics.” [God and the Cosmologists p.230-231]
.
A. Garnider notes “sadly, the excessive respect for quantitative considerations in the West has bred an “insensitivity” to philosophical questions, so that the pseudoontological interpretation grafted onto quantum mechanics by Bohr now carries the day, even in theology.” [1] From this perspective, Polkinghorne’s attempts at an “unexpected kinship” between Copenhagen Philosophy and Theology are only one step nearer to Bohr’s goal to make ‘complementarity’ the ultimate religion.
.
Jaki’s commitment to the Cosmological argument, in contrast to Polkinghorne, necessarily dispels doubt about man’s ability to know the world. “…Truth is given its greatest service when its certainty is held high unconditionally. Only then does truth perform its very role, which is to liberate man.” [God and The Cosmologists p.232]
.
~Jakian Thomist
.
[1] Excerpts from Anne Barbeau Gardiner’s excellent review of Father Jaki’s work and life in the New Oxford Review. Available from www.sljaki.com along with an extensive bibliography of Father’s writings.
.
[2] Quoted from P. Haffner Creation and Scientific Creativity p.168. I could not access Polkinghorne’s review in Theology 63 (1990) p.407. I would be grateful if anyone could pass on details of its availability.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento