Ideas John_Polkinghorne

1 ideas

1.1 on existence of god
1.2 on free will
1.3 on creationism
1.4 critical reception

ideas

polkinghorne said in interview believes move science religion has given him binocular vision, though understands has aroused kind of suspicion might follow claim vegetarian butcher. describes position critical realism , believes science , religion address aspects of same reality. consistent theme of work when turned collar around did not stop seeking truth. believes philosopher of science has helpfully struck balance between critical , realism aspects of michael polanyi. argues there 5 points of comparison between ways in science , theology pursue truth: moments of enforced radical revision, period of unresolved confusion, new synthesis , understanding, continued wrestling unresolved problems, deeper implications.

because scientific experiments try eliminate extraneous influences, believes atypical of goes on in nature. suggests mechanistic explanations of world have continued laplace richard dawkins should replaced understanding of nature cloud-like rather clock-like. regards mind, soul , body different aspects of same underlying reality— dual aspect monism —writing there 1 stuff in world (not two—the material , mental) can occur in 2 contrasting states (material , mental phases, physicist might say) explain our perception of difference between mind , matter. believes standard physical causation cannot adequately describe manifold ways in things , people interact, , uses phrase active information describe how, when several outcomes possible, there may higher levels of causation choose 1 occurs.

sometimes christianity seems him true, when sort of doubt arises says himself, right then, deny it, , writes knows never do.

on existence of god

polkinghorne considers question of existence of god single important question face nature of reality , quotes approval anthony kenny: after all, if there no god, god incalculably greatest single creation of human imagination. addresses questions of concept of god make sense? if so, have reason believing in such thing? cautious our powers assess coherence, pointing out in 1900 competent ... undergraduate have demonstrated incoherence of quantum ideas. suggests nearest analogy in physical world [to god] ... quantum vacuum.

he suggests god ultimate answer leibniz s great question why there rather nothing? atheist s plain assertion of world s existence grossly impoverished view of reality ... [arguing that] theism explains more reductionist atheism can ever address. doubtful of st anselm s ontological argument. referring gödel s incompleteness theory, said: if cannot prove consistency of arithmetic seems bit hope god s existence easier deal with, concluding god ontologically necessary, not logically necessary. not assert god s existence can demonstrated in logically coercive way (any more god s non-existence can) theism makes more sense of world, , of human experience, atheism. cites in particular:

the intelligibility of universe: 1 anticipate evolutionary selection produce hominid minds apt coping everyday experience, these minds should able understand subatomic world , general relativity goes far beyond of relevance survival fitness. mystery deepens when 1 recognises proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty guide successful theory choice.
the anthropic fine tuning of universe: quotes approval freeman dyson, said more examine universe , details of architecture, more evidence find universe in sense must have known coming , suggests there wide consensus amongst physicists either there large number of other universes in multiverse or there 1 universe way in anthropic fruitfulness because expression of purposive design of creator, has endowed finely tuned potentialty life.
a wider humane reality: considers theism offers more persuasive account of ethical , aesthetic perceptions. argues difficult accommodate idea have real moral knowledge , statements such torturing children wrong more social conventions of societies within uttered within atheistic or naturalistic world view. believes such world view finds hard explain how of lasting significance glimpsed in beauty of natural world , beauty of fruits of human creativity.

on free will

polkinghorne regards problem of evil serious intellectual objection existence of god. believes well-known free defence in relation moral evil asserts world possibility of sinful people better 1 programmed machines. tale of human evil such 1 cannot make assertion without quiver, believe true nevertheless. have added free-process defence, world allowed make better puppet theatre cosmic tyrant. think these 2 defences opposite sides of same coin, our nature inextricably linked of physical world has given birth.

on creationism

polkinghorne accepts evolution. following resignation of michael reiss, director of education @ royal society—who had controversially argued school pupils believed in creationism should used science teachers start discussions, rather rejected per se—polkinghorne argued in times there distinction between believing in mind , purpose of divine creator, , calls creationism in curious north american sense, literal interpretation of genesis 1 , belief evolution wrong, position rejects.

critical reception

nancy frankenberry, professor of religion @ dartmouth college, has described polkinghorne finest british theologian/scientist of our time, citing work on possible relationship between chaos theory , natural theology. owen gingerich, astronomer , former harvard professor, has called him leading voice on relationship between science , religion.

the british philosopher simon blackburn has criticized polkinghorne using primitive thinking , rhetorical devices instead of engaging in philosophy. when polkinghorne argues minute adjustments of cosmological constants life points towards explanation beyond scientific realm, blackburn argues relies on natural preference explanation in terms of agency. blackburn writes finished polkinghorne s books in despair @ humanity s capacity self-deception. against this, freeman j. dyson called polkinghorne s arguments on theology , natural science polished , logically coherent. novelist simon ings, writing in new scientist, said polkinghorne s argument proposition god real cogent , evidence elegant.

richard dawkins, formerly professor public understanding of science @ oxford, writes same 3 names of british scientists sincerely religious crop likable familiarity of senior partners in firm of dickensian lawyers : arthur peacocke, russell stannard, , john polkinghorne, of whom have either won templeton prize or on board of trustees. dawkins writes not bewildered belief in cosmic lawgiver, beliefs in minutiae of christianity, such resurrection , forgiveness of sins, , such scientists, in britain , in u.s., subject of bemused bafflement among peers. polkinghorne responded debating dawkins hopeless, because there s no give , take. doesn t give inch. says no when yes , writes in questions of truth hopes dawkins bit less baffled once reads it.

a.c. grayling criticized royal society allowing premises used in connection launch of questions of truth, describing scandal, , suggesting polkinghorne had exploited fellowship there publicize weak, casuistical , tendentious pamphlet. after implying book s publisher, westminster john knox, self-publisher, grayling went on write polkinghorne , others eager see credibility accorded scientific research extended religious perspectives through association.

in contrast grayling, science historian edward b. davis praises questions of truth, saying book provides kind of technical information...that scientifically trained readers appreciate—yet can read profitably interested in science , christianity. davis concludes, hasn’t been easy steer middle course between fundamentalism , modernism, particularly on issues involving science. polkinghorne has done generation, , ought both appreciated , emulated.