Posted on 07/19/2004 11:35:57 AM PDT by betty boop
By Jean F. Drew
As Wolfhart Pannenberg observes in his Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith (1993), the present-day intellectual mind-set assumes that there is no relation or connection between the God of the Christian faith and the understanding of the world in the natural sciences.
Ironically this separation of God from the world is commonly credited to Sir Isaac Newton, the father of classical mechanics, whose ground-breaking work on the laws of motion and thermodynamics seemed to posit a purely mechanistic, deterministic, “clockwork universe” that was not dependent on God either for its creation or its maintenance.
The irony consists in the fact that this was not Newton’s view at all. In fact, the very reverse is the truth of the matter: Newton was a deeply religious man who regarded his scientific efforts as exploits in the discovery of the laws that God uses in the natural world. Moreover, Newton believed that his laws of motion implied the generation of conditions of increasing disorder in the world, such that God would have to intervene periodically to rectify it in order to save it and keep it going:
In his Opticks, Newton emphasized … that the order of nature becomes needful, in the course of time, of a renewal by God because as a result of the inertia of matter its irregularities increase.” [ibid., p. 63]
“Newton confronted with deep distrust the mechanical worldview of Descartes, which derived all change in the world alone from the mechanical mutual effects of the bodies. The Cartesian model of the world, in which the mutual play of mechanical powers was to explain the development from chaos to the ordered cosmos, seemed to him all too self-contained and self-sufficient so that it would not need any divine assistance or would even admit such.” [ibid., p. 60]
Newton rightly recognized that this tendency of the mechanical explanation of nature would inevitably lead to “a world independent from God.” For Newton, such a view would be an utter falsification of natural and divine reality both.
In his own time, Newton’s view that God continuously acts in the world was controversial. Certain leading philosophers, including Kant and Leibnitz, were offended by this view on the grounds that it implied God bungled the original creation. They argued that a perfect Creator cannot have failed to create a perfect creation. And if it’s “perfect,” then there’s no need for God to intervene. (The corollary being: For him to do so would be an acknowledgement or confession of his own imperfection.)
This despite the fact that God in Genesis speaks, not of having made a “perfect” creation, but only a “good” one. The worldview of Leibnitz reflects an early strain of Deism; that of Kant, the Calvinist theological view of God as utterly transcendent majesty.
But Newton didn’t see it either way. For Newton, God was both transcendent and immanent in the world. God created a universe in which he would be “God with his creatures” and Lord of Life forever. The supernatural and the natural had an on-going synergistic relation, and this is what maintained the natural world as a going concern, sustaining it in its evolution toward God’s eschatological goal for man and nature.
In other words, Newton believed God is constantly active in the history of salvation (of souls and world), and evolutionary process is one of his prime tools for accomplishing the divine purpose implicit in the creation event itself.
Yet by what means could God be “present with his creatures?” Newton gave his answer in the Scholium Generale, an addendum to the second edition of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, his chief work on the mathematical principles of the philosophy of nature. The addendum endeavors to clarify the relationship of his doctrines of physics and his religious and philosophical views. Here Newton states that “God constitutes space and time through his eternity and omnipresence: ‘existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium constituit.’”
For Newton, God as immensitas constitutes absolute space – infinite and “empty” – and this absolute space is the sensorium Dei The great philosopher and mathematician Leibnitz strenuously objected to this conception, arguing that Newton’s divine sensorium effectively turned God into a “world soul,” and thus led to pantheism. Yet Newton had “explicitly emphasized … that God does not rule the universe as a world soul, but as the Lord of all things.” [ibid.]
What are we to make of this term, sensorium Dei – God’s sensorium? We probably should avoid the conclusion drawn by Leibnitz, who interpreted the term as indicating an organ of perception.
Newton might reply: God being eternally omniscient, he has absolutely no need of an organ of sense perception.
So what, then, did Newton mean by this term? Pannenberg writes that, for Newton, sensorium Dei refers “to the medium of the creation of things: just as the sensorium in our perception creates the pictures of things, God through space creates the things themselves.”
Thus Newton acknowledges a doctrine of creation understood as an on-going process, not just as a single start-up event – let alone a periodically recurring cycle of universal “booms” and “busts” as implied by the “eternal universe” model.
Newton] designates space as the effect of the presence of God with his creatures…. The expression sensorium … even when it is understood as the place of the production of its contents and not as the organ of their reception, cannot itself be a product of the perceiving individual,” whereas with God, space is at once a property and effect of the divine immensitas.
For Newton, the conception of infinite space is implicit in the idea of the omnipresence of God. But, as Pannenberg notes, “it is implicit in it in the way that it has no divisions: infinite space is indeed divisible but not divided, and the conception of division always presupposes space.”
At this point, it might occur to a scientifically-inclined Christian that sensorium Dei could well refer to an infinite, universal creative field, “originally empty” of all content, designed to be the matrix and carrier of all possibilities for our universe, and thus the locus where the “supernatural” [i.e., transcendent] and the “natural” [i.e., immanent] constantly meet.
One thinks of a primary universal vacuum field, whose characteristic associated particle is the photon – light -- which, having zero mass, is the “finest particle” yet known to man (noting that, on the Judeo-Christian view, God preeminently works with Light).
It has been speculated that, if an observer could stand outside of “normal” four-dimensional space-time and take a view from a fifth, “time-like” dimension, the singularity of the “big bang” would appear as a “shock wave” propagating in 4D space-time. If this were true, the shock wave would require a medium of propagation. Perhaps this medium is the universal vacuum field itself, the “ZPF” or zero-point field that extends throughout all of space, giving rise to all possibilities for our universe in every space direction and time dimension – which yet finds its source outside the space-time continuum that human beings commonly experience.
That is to say, the source is “extra-cosmic,” or transcendent. Its creative effect works within the empirical cosmos via the ZPF, which is hypothetically the sensorium Dei of the Immensitas….
Perhaps one day it will be shown that the intimate communication of divine and natural reality is facilitated by the primary universal vacuum field -- the intersection of time and the timeless, the creative source of our universe, the means of its sustenance and renewal over time, the source of the power of the human soul and mind to participate in divine reality, the paradigm of human genius, as well as the source of the continued physical existence of our planet and the universe.
It has been said that Life is the result of “successful communication.” Perhaps the ZPF, as suggested above, is the carrier of information (Logos, the singularity propagating in time); living creatures carry information also – DNA -- information that specifies what they are and how all their “parts” work together in synergy so as to give rise to and sustain their existence. It appears all living creatures have the capability of doing at least some kind of rudimentary information processing. That is, it seems they can “decode” and “read” instructions – perhaps via energy exchanges with the ZPF. When the creature is no longer able to access and process information, successful communication cannot take place, and so the creature dies.
By the way, I do not mean to suggest that information/energy exchanges with the primary universal vacuum field are necessarily consciously experienced events. Probably the reverse is the typical case. Yet we know that the human brain does most of its important work at unconscious levels: the governance of autonomic bodily functions, for instance, is a subconscious process.
Interestingly enough, it was Faraday who first articulated the field concept, and he apparently did so to refute Newton’s sensorium Dei. Apparently he wanted to get rid of the Immensitas altogether, and put Newton’s insight on a purely physical basis.
Yet in the end, it appears Faraday did not so much refute Newton, as lend credence to his basic insight.
You have already underscored the geometric physics in post 72, namely that matter in four dimensions will arise from a vacuum in a higher, fifth dimension.
For Lurkers interested in this, please check out the publications on this website, whose introduction reads:
The other supporting view, the ancient Jewish mysticism, garners much suspicion mostly because so many “new age” enthusiasts and even some Christians have woefully misappropriated the ancient thoughts to support their own belief systems. Worse, the ancient thoughts themselves wander beyond meditations into bizarre “magics”.
Thus, by even mentioning it here, I subject myself to the same potential criticism of misappropriation or delving into magics. However, my interest in the ancient Jewish mysticism has only to do with forming my own musings on creation which is addressed in general terms in Scripture. The Jewish mystics have been “at” this for millennia and thus I wished to meditate on their meditations. The other areas of Jewish mysticism I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole (LOL!)
Having gotten all those disclaimers out of the way, here is the “gem” that supports the view of God and the null beginning.
EN SOF
Cabalistic term for the Deity prior to His self-manifestation in the production of the world, probably derived from Ibn Gabirol's term," the Endless One" (she-en lo tiklah). It was first used by Azriel ben Menahem, who, sharing the Neoplatonic view that God can have no desire, thought, word, or action, emphasized by it the negation of any attribute. The Zohar explains the term "En Sof" as follows: "Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . . But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man [ ], He used him as a chariot [] wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'Yhwh'" (part ii., section "Bo," 42b). In other words, "En Sof" signifies "the nameless being."EN KELOHENU (A) (see image) EN KELOHENU (B) (see image)
In another passage the Zohar reduces the term to "En" (non-existent), because God so transcends human understanding as to be practically non-existent (ib. part iii. 288b). The three letters composing the word "En" () indicate the first three purely spiritual Sefirot ("Shoshan Sodot," 1b). Judah ...;, in his commentary "Min...;at Yehudah" on the "Ma'areket Elahut," gives the following explanation of the term "En Sof": "Any name of God which is found in the Bible can not be applied to the Deity prior to His self-manifestation in the Creation, because the letters of those names were produced only after the emanation. . . . Moreover, a name implies a limitation in its bearer; and this is impossible in connection with the 'En Sof.'"
And yet the concept of absolute space itself – even if set in its own separate dignity -- would seem all the more to confer a special privilege on absolute time – which, it seems to me, is but another name for eternity. For “absolute space” would seem to require an eternity of time to complete its mission….
But expanding the view to higher dimensions – and particularly higher temporal dimensions – everything changes. What special relativity gives as a worldline – or what we sense as a timeline – is not a line at all from the extra higher temporal dimension, but rather, a plane. The same anomalies exist in the spatial dimensions as well: The curse of dimensionality.
Therefore, if we view Newton’s “absolute space” as higher dimensionality there is no conflict. Nor is there a conflict with between such dimensionality and God as the infinitely incomprehensible and incomprehensible infinity – the En Sof.
All of this brings me back to the subject of the zero point field. Again, I agree with your sense of the relevance of the zpf as the medium of expansion, of communication and whose resonance may well yield our very sense of "physical reality" in four dimensions.
The Scriptures are quite clear on the “how” of His creating, i.e. that He spoke it into being. That He speaks from beginning to end. So we ought not be surprised to find resonance underlying our physical reality or the artifacts of sound in the cosmic background radiation.
The peaks indicate harmonics in the sound waves that filled the early, dense universe. Until some 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot that matter and radiation were entangled in a kind of soup in which sound waves (pressure waves) could vibrate. The CMB is a relic of the moment when the universe had cooled enough so that photons could "decouple" from electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. – John 1:1-3
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. – Acts 17:27-28
Wow, you got Plotinian henism in the fray. You don't buy that do you?
I'm not "into" philosophy per se and thus, anything that I have posted which might look like his statements on such matters is unintended.
My interest lies in the The Word. And because He has given me an understanding of the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" - the language of the cosmos - I do love to explore geometric physics.
All right, just checking. As Brutus said to Cassius, "the eye sees not itself."
True, but I view such assumptions and inferences as properly basic, even though they are defeasible.
What physics were you referring to?
Cordially,
I sat beneath the poets’ tree
for a moment of serenity
when sudden and ironically
Nature intervened
I felt the sun beat down on me
and in my heliocentric reality
I mocked the cosmic cosmetology
Again Nature intervened
A cloud relieved my anxiety
and allowed a moment for philosophy
so I pondered life’s cumulus duplicity
Once more Nature intervened.
Dead leaves ascended suddenly
Hues danced in the air harmoniously
The breath of Life has set them free
My conscience intervened
As I sat beneath this poets’ tree
As many a man had previously
I found calamity in my sanctimony
I learned of life, I learned of me
And discovered life’s true gravity
Because God has intervened.
No, I understand… Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to show how my glass is actually wet by pouring water into it…
All "feelings" are not equally valid. Some "feelings" have irrational causes; others do not. The postmodern deconstructionists have highjacked lowest-common-denominator "feeling" as a way to destroy rationality, to deny objective basis to any narrative, concept, doctrine, theory or even mode of existence.
If I have strong "feelings," Doc, it is because sometimes, it seems to me that I have stumbled onto something that is "objective" to my own internal states; that is, something that is independently valid without reference to my own narrow concerns and personal preferences. I am a lover of truth. That doesn't mean I always get everything "right." To my way of thinking, truth is not something that can be set down once and for all in doctrinal form; it is an open-ended quest. It is something that constantly draws one. Often as one goes down that road, new findings will present that require "course corrections" in one's former thinking.
I don't know if this makes any sense. If not, I apologize for the opacity of these remarks. I really do wish I could do better.
Thanks so much for writing, Doc.
Marvelous, Heartlander! Are you the poet here? If so, kudos!
So one must try to determine which feelings are rational and which are not. It's the Andrea Yeates vs Jeanne d'Arc problem.
Oh Alamo-Girl, I see it that way, too! As I was reading Pannenberg on Newton's concept of sensorium Dei/absolute space, your En Sof spontaneously came to mind as something deeply relevant to Newton's meaning. Amazing!
Thank you oh so very much for bringing this Kabbalah-sourced concept to my attention! Mystics of whatever persuasion often have the most fascinating things to say. (I learn so very much here, thanks to people like you.)
Your perceived relevance of the plotinian En Sof to Newton's sensorium Dei is very vague for me to follow. Of course it is understandable there may be some concurrence, but I fail to see the importance of the connection. Would you be willing to expand?
The best I can contribute to the idea of sensorium Dei is in line with a revelatory agency or energeia.
I agree with your implicit objection, Doc: by our own (unaided) lights, it is often difficult, if not impossible to tell the difference between Andrea Yates and Jeanne d'Arc. Certainly a physical description offers little help.
Which is why the universe needs transcendence, needs a spiritual (i.e., non-material) principle -- and could not be as it is without one. Nor could reason have much to do absent such a principle -- it would be like a hamster, inside its little hamster wheel inside its cage, madly driving the wheel to go round and round, but never changing position; expending much energy, but not getting much done.
It is a curiosity to me--perhaps an odd part about positivism--that only what we know exists. But if someone rejects that, does that turn them into a mystic? Or is it at the point at which someone tries ot understand that unknown? Certainly an understanding transcendence isn't what turns one mystic, or else Aristotle is one too?
Hmmm… Has the positivist transcended the mystic objectively?
Thanks… Don’t worry though, I won’t quit my day job just because…
"I’m a poet and was unaware of this fact : )"
I presume you mean effectively ignored them. When Kant transcendentalizes reason he must be doing something like that. But Leibniz would say to him, what transcends your transcendent reason?
This is not a joke, I've read this same thing over and over on this forum: who or what came before the Bang Bang? And then the grand touché, who or what came before God? The Greeks knew something was eternal and they weren't afraid to call it divine. That was in the good ol' days before science shrunk down into deophobia with its preferred perceptions and constant refuge in logical antitheses.
Oh, I know… (I wish it was) – How does one respond to a question of, “What created the creator of time, space, matter, and life? --- (I really don’t require an answer here because I don’t know how long I can stop time or how much nothing weighs)
LOL! Be sure to pour the laws of physics in with it or else it won't work.
Lurking ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.