Holy Spirit Seminary College Of Theology And Philosophy

2y ago
6 Views
3 Downloads
215.15 KB
15 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Wren Viola
Transcription

Holy Spirit Seminary Collegeof Theology and PhilosophyAggregated to the Pontifical Urbaniana UniversityHigher Institute of Religious SciencesSome Reflections on the “Anthropic Principle” of Fr. Tanzella-NittiKWOK CHI KEUNG (I0908)HS102 Course PaperModerator: Dr. Alex Mok Wing KeiHONG KONGFebruary, 2010

“Anthropic Principle” was written by one of the chief editors of the InterdisciplinaryEncyclopedia of Religion and Science, Fr. Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti. A little backgroundknowledge of the author would help us understand more of his stance. The information is atranslation taken from his personal webpage.1In the introduction, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti shows an appropriate attitude towards therelation between religion and science. Since Enlightenment, many atheists have ralliedbehind the Copernican Revolution to prove that Christianity is irrelevant to the modernworld. The famous exchange between Napoleon and Laplace amply demonstrates such anattitude.2 In physical cosmology, the Earth has been dethroned from her central position inthe universe. This is known as the Copernican Principle3. While many theologians wouldbe alarmed by these secular challenges, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti, because of his trainings inastronomy and cosmology, treats the impact of Copernican Revolution as a change ofperspective, forcing religion to rethink her ground instead of changing her beliefs.1 He graduated in Astronomy at the University of Bologna (1977), a priest since 1987 and aDoctor of Theology (1991), is professor of fundamental theology at the Pontifical University ofthe Holy Cross in Rome and visiting professor at the Faculty of Philosophy at the PontificalUniversity Gregorian. He has devoted himself for many years to scientific research in the field ofradio astronomy and cosmology, by conducting its business as a researcher at the CNR Instituteof Radio Astronomy in Bologna and then as an astronomer at the Astronomical Observatory ofTurin. (from http://www.disf.org/tanzella-nitti/)2 Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon,who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, theytell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never evenmentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as amartyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, 'Je n'avais pasbesoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused,told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ca explique beaucoupde choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon Laplace)3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican principle1

This change of perspective had a major impact on theology, though more in itscultural and philosophical context than in its dogmatic content. Even in ourdays, the idea that science has finally demonstrated that the human being andits small host planet occupy a very minor role in the universe at large, isconsidered by many to have removed any theological illusion about the cosmicrelevance of human life.4Unexpectedly, experimental observations in the second half of the 20th century hadopened the door to see a surge in the interest of experimental sciences to introduce thehuman elements in explaining the physical phenomena in the world and in engaging intodialogue with religion.From the second half of the 20th century, however, the set of observations andreflections known as “the Anthropic Principle” stand now as the first attempt,since the beginning of the Modern Age, to show that ascribing a more centralrole to humankind can unexpectedly result in a better scientific understandingof the universe, of its properties and evolution5.This essay will summarize the article Fr. Tanzella-Nitti published in INTERS andthis author will give a few random thoughts on the relevance of the “Anthropic Principle”to faith.I. From the Copernican Principle to the Anthropic PrincipleFirst of all, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti summarized the historical development of worldviewssince the Modern Age. At the pre-Modern Age, people embraced the Biblical worldviewinterpreted and explained by the Church. Man was the zenith (Genesis 1:26) as well as the4 Anthropic Principle, INTERS – Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science, editedby G. Tanzella-Nitti, P. Larrey and A. Strumia, from http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/31.asp5 op. cit.2

centre (Genesis 2:18-20) of Creation. The Earth was stationary and heavenly bodiestransversed across the filament. This was the Ptolemaic System of ancient Astronomy. TheEarth occupied a central and privileged position in the cosmo. These phenomena wereproclaiming the glory of the handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1).Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) found it more convenient to explain the apparentretrograde motion of the planets by giving up the central position of the Earth. Instead,choosing the sun as the centre and making the Earth circling around the sun explained theobservations better. Since 1850, people have called this worldview, viz. that the Earth is nota central, specially favoured position, the Copernican Principle 6 . Following suits,scientific method itself began to emphasize the Principle of Covariance which requiresthat the laws of nature and the principles of the experimental sciences must be formulatedwith those physical quantities the measurements of which the observers in different framesof reference could unambiguously correlate7.Science was then concerned with refining more and more the formulation ofprotocols to regulate an ever more objective and impersonal knowledge8.Modern physical cosmology extends these two principles above to formulate the“Cosmological Principle” which states that, viewed in a sufficiently large scale, theproperties of the Universe are the same for all observers 9. In short, the Universe is the samewhether there is or is not any human observer. The presence of humankind plays no role inthe Universe and its evolution.6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican principle7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle of covariance8 INTERS, ibid.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological principle3

The tide began to turn. When some scientists began to reflect on the fundamentalphysical parameters which determined the structure and the physical-chemical laws of theUniverse and its evolution, these parameters have been precisely also those parametersnecessary to host life and intelligent observers. What was more, these conditions werepresent during the early moments of the “Big Bang”. Back in 1937, Dirac had pointed outsome interesting numerical coincidences existing between the relevant values of the globalproperties of the Universe. In 1961, Dicke stressed that the presence of life stronglyconditioned the value assumed by some cosmological “observed” magnitudes. In 1974,Carter presented the Anthropic Principle in a coherent manner, stressing human as anobserver and the legitimacy of formulating this principle for its capacity of predictability.Carter formulated a Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) and a Strong Anthropic Principle(SAP). WAP: the values of some specific cosmological parameters can only be those thatare compatible with the existence of observers in the Universe. SAP: the Universe must possess only those properties and parameters whichdetermine, in some stage of its development, the birth and then the presence ofobservers.In 1986, Barrow & Tipler published the influential The Anthropic CosmologicalPrinciple in which they formulated four variants of the Anthropic Principle. WAP: the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are notequally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that thereexist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that theUniverse be old enough for it to have already done so. SAP: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it4

at some stage in its history. Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP): Observers are necessary to bring theUniverse into being. Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must comeinto existence in the Universe, and once it comes into existence, it will never die out.The stage is now set to consider the basis of the Anthropic Principle.II. The Scientific Observations at the basis of the Anthropic PrincipleScientists have noticed the delicacy of the values of the four physical constantswhich regulate the intensity of the interaction of the four fundamental forces which in turndetermine the structuring of the cosmos. For example, The ratio between the number of protons and neutrons was frozen at aboutone second after the Big Bang. This ratio depends on the gravitationalconstant ag and the intensity of the weak interaction, thus the weakinteraction constant aw. If ag/aw had been lightly bigger, all hydrogen wouldhave become helium. No water would have formed. Had it been lightlysmaller, no cosmological helium would have formed, causing stars to evolveso rapidly that no life would eventually develop on the planets. The strong force constant as and electromagnetic constant a play animportant role for the development of a chemistry adequate for life. Had abeen a little bigger or as a little smaller, no nuclei would have been stable. Interstellar gas clouds contract due to gravity. They heat up in thecontraction process. If a threshold temperature were not reached in time, theuniverse would be full of failed stars without planets and life. Such athreshold temperature depends on the delicate relationship between ag and5

the other physical constants. Biological molecules are built from heavy chemical molecules produced inthe nuclei of stars. Some ways have to be found to eject these heavyelements from the nuclei of stars to the interstellar space. That is to say, asignificant number of stars must die as supernovae. This phenomenon isdetermined by the values of ag and aw.These physical constants were fixed within 10-6 second after the Big Bang. Theydetermined the critical sequence of phenomena that led to the existence of a physics and achemistry necessary for life. In short, the essential characteristics of our universe appearfinely tuned for life.III. The Interpretation of Scientific Data and the Most Significant Philosophical KeyPointsFr. Tanzella-Nitti then turns to clarify some philosophical implications behind theAnthropic Principle.1.The Distinction between WAP and SAP.WAP asserts that the conditions and the observed coincidences are necessary but notsufficient conditions for the appearance of life, while SAP states that they are bothnecessary and sufficient. Fr. Tanzella-Nitti judges that SAP cannot be founded on thescientific level simply because we do not know all the conditions and processes in thecosmos.WAP is not anthropic. It deals with conditions necessary for an organic, carbonbased chemistry and an adequate biology. In contrast, SAP includes an intelligent observerin the universe. Fr. Tanzella-Nitti thinks that the scientific data do not warrant such anabsolute claim.6

2.Objections to the Anthropic Principleb) The supposed tautological value of the PrincipleFr. Tanzella-Nitti agrees with this objection but points out that thisobjection does not remove all of the Principle's significance. He quoted thetautological statement “the sky at night is dark” and explained it with theexpansion of the universe, the redshift of lights coming from distant stars etc.to illustrate the significance of this tautological statement. In the same way,the many relations that the fine tuning expresses add a new knowledge tophysics and to the properties of the cosmos.Unfortunately, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti fails to substantiate such a claim other than a vague statement that theuniverse is much more “one” and coherent in itself than previously expected.c) The existence of a more fundamental general law of the natureFr. Tanzella-Nitti dismissed this objection because such an allencompassing explanation for the whole of existence, including the problemof the whole and the problem of origin, is metaphysical in nature and nolonger belongs to the domain of natural sciences.d) Using many-universe models to explain the fine tuningThere are many universes and we, intelligent observes, happen toexist in the fine tuned one. This explanation is of no value because it is nonfalsifiable. Another solution is to hypothesize that our universe has gonethrough many previous Big Bangs and Big Crunches until it reaches thepresent fine tuned state. Fr. Tanzella-Nitti argued that observations seem toindicate that our universe is open, i.e. there is no sign of a Big Crunch.Furthermore, the number of possible “cycles” has an upper limit.7

Unfortunately, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti did not support these two claims withscientific evidence. He also rejected the quantum cosmology model for beingexperimentally non-falsifiable. All these multi-universe models violate the“Ockham's Razor”. Fr. Tanzella-Nitti concluded that all these objectionsappeal to some a priori philosophical arguments which exceed the domain ofscientific data.1.The True Scientific Significance of the Anthropic PrincipleFr. Tanzella-Nitti then put forth his opinion on the most relevant, non-tautologicalcontents of what Anthropic Principle implies.a) The evolution of the universe strongly manifests a character of unity andcoherence.b) Biology and human life strongly depends upon the whole history of theuniverse and in this history, nothing seems to be superfluous. There existsonly that which is strictly necessary for hosting life.c) The necessary conditions that render life possible present themselves as“original, or primeval conditions”. They are non-evolutionary. The paradigmof natural selection and the capacity for adaption to the environment cannotbe the only criteria to have operated in the long chain of events thataccompanied the evolution of life.8

IV. The Anthropic Principle between Science and Religion: is there any Design in theCosmo?Fr. Tanzella-Nitti then turns to the use of Anthropic Principle in the Argument fromDesign and explores the legitimacy of such a use.1.Anthropic Principle and the “Argument from Design”For centuries, Christians have made use of the presence of an intelligent design as aproof for the existence of the Creator God. In philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas argued fromthe recognition of the finality of nature to arrive at the existence of God. This is known ashis “fifth way”. The English Anglican apologetics of the 17th and 18th centuries argued fromscientific observations, much like what some people do with the Anthropic Principle today.Criticism of this argument from Design came from Hume and Kant in philosophy andCharles Darwin in natural sciences.Fr. Tanzella-Nitti argues that the notion of design refers to the presence ofintentionality and intelligence. But one cannot employ the Anthropic Principle as the proofof intelligent design; nor can it demonstrate the existence of a necessary and absoluteintentionality which drives the universe towards the appearance of life and human beings.2.The Peculiarity of the Anthropic Principle among the Various Argumentsfrom Design.Though one cannot use the Anthropic Principle directly as a proof of intelligentdesign, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti recognized in the peculiarities of the Principle its ability to jointogether the three components of design: coherence, teleologism and reference to a mind.a) The fine-tuning of the constants of nature is not the result of an adaptation tothe environment or of natural selection. They have been coherent from start.9

b) The Anthropic Principle is a global and all-encompassing teleologicalproposal, intended to show the functioning of a finalistic principle from theera of Planck (10-33 second from the Big Bang) up until our days.c) The Argument from Design associated with the SAP points to a “mind”.3.Anthropic Principle and the Christian Theology of Creation.The Christian universe is the intentional effect of a personal Word, intelligible andopen to dialogue. It develops through time, not driven by blind chance, but according to arationality which stems from an original simplicity, that has in God its first and its finalcausality. The biotic conditions expressed by the Anthropic Principle are consistent withwhat the theology of creation says, though the knowledge brought about by the Principlecannot provide any logical-demonstrative proof for the contents of theology, nor can it beany “scientific” refutation of the existence of a Creator. The Principle provides the scientificresearchers with elements of reflection on the ultimate why's of reality, on the mystery ofbeing.V. Anthropic Principle and Theological Christocentrism1.Unity and Coherence of the Cosmos under a Christocentric PerspectiveIn Christian theology, the Incarnation of the Son of God is the most importantprinciple of coherence and unity of all that is created. Christ is the head not only becausethe Creation was done through him and in him, but also because his death and resurrectionis the completion of the expectation of the whole creation and the beginning of a newcreation. Fr. Tanzella-Nitti asked whether the centrality of life and the special role ofintelligent observers, as they are stated by the Anthropic Principle, might contain somepoints of connection with a theological anthropology finding its completion in Christology.10

Fr. Tanzella-Nitti went through the works of Duns Scotus and the philosophicalthinking of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who reads the biological and cosmological evolution--- of matter to life, of life to man and of man to Christ --- as a grandiose ascending processthat realizes the definitive headship of Christ over all things. His ideas must have inspiredscientists who subscribe to the Anthropic Principle, especially on FAP. However, Fr.Tanzella-Nitti went on to criticize de Chardin for underestimating the mediation that Christexercised in the beginning and did not offer a complete understanding of the relationship ofcontinuity / discontinuity between the first and the new creation.2.The Paradox of the Cosmos and the Mystery of the Risen Christ.The Anthropic Principle could not demonstrate that the appearance of human beingfulfils an immanent and unavoidable cosmic law; thus the necessity of the Incarnation ofthe Word-Logos. The latter belongs to they mystery of the God-Father, a personalintentionality that remains non-accessible to scientific data, or to any philosophical use ofan SAP.As for the eschatological implications of contemporary cosmology, Fr. TanzellaNitti believes that theological Christocentrism beings its specific contribution to the newvision of the cosmos provided by Anthropic Principle.Anthropic Principle ends up in an apparent paradox. The universe with finely tunedparameters necessary for life is a universe in which “the window of opportunity” for thesustenance for life and of human beings remains extraordinarily small. It is a very shorttime-span when compared to the whole history of the cosmos. Why then does the universecontain the keys for an opportunity that would be destined to terminate quite soon? Wouldsomething serve these fragile equilibria if life is destined to be extinguished so soon?11

Here, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti optimistically sought help from Christology. A universecreated through Christ would be destined to be transfigured like the body of the risen Christ.In a Christocentric universe, life and matter are destined to be transfigured likethe body of the risen Christ10.The existence of a narrow window of opportunity for life no longer appearscontradictory. This is a response that faith, not science, can offer to the paradox.Unfortunately, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti did not elaborate.

its small host planet occupy a very minor role in the universe at large, is considered by many to have removed any theological illusion about the cosmic . From the Copernican Principle to the Anthropic Principle First of all, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti summarized the historical development of worldviews . Earth occupied a central and privileged .

Related Documents:

The Holy Spirit 1. The Holy Spirit 2. The Personality of the Holy Spirit 3. The Deity of the Holy Spirit 4. The Titles of the Holy Spirit 5. The Covenant-Offices of the Holy Spirit 6. The Holy Spirit During the Old Testament Ages 7. The Holy Spirit and Christ 8. The Advent of the Spirit 9. The Work of the Spirit 10. The Holy Spirit Regenerating

Holy Spirit. 10:19 The Holy Spirit tells Peter to go with the three Gentile visitors. 10:44-47 The Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his house. 11:28 The Holy Spirit tells Agabus about a famine. 13:2-4 The Holy Spirit set apart Barnabas and Saul for missionary work, and sends them off. 13:52 The disciples filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit has a will. —1 Corinthians. 12:11 The Holy Spirit has emotions.—Romans 15:30, Galatians 5:22, Ephesians 4:30 The Holy Spirit will comfort. —Acts. 9:31 The Holy Spirit will speak. —Hebrews 3:7 The Holy Spirit will teach. —1 Corinthians 2:13 The Holy Spirit can be insulted. —Hebrews 10:29

The Holy Spirit was involved with the inspiration of the Bible (Acts 1:16; 28:25; 2 Pet 1:20-21). The Holy Spirit was involved with the conception of Jesus (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 1:30-35). The Holy Spirit was with Jesus during His temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-2). The Holy Spirit was present during the atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb 9:13-14).

Page 1 of 32 References KJV NIV, NASB, et al. 2 Peter 1:21 holy men men Matthew 25:31 holy angels angels 1 Thessalonians 5:27holy brethren brethren Revelation 22:6 holy prophets prophets Revelation 18:20 holy apostles and prophets apostles and prophets John 7:39 Holy Ghost Spirit 1 Corinthians 2:13 Holy Ghost Spirit Matthew 12:31 Holy Ghost Spirit Acts 6:3 Holy Ghost SpiritFile Size: 336KBPage Count: 32

The Complete Seminary Survival Guide is a great collection of practical wisdom for seminary students. Prospective and current seminary students face a host of challenges, and this book is a handy guide to doing seminary well. -CRAIG GARRETT Dean of Students and Assistant Prof. of Counseling New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

DEMONIC SPIRITS IDENTIFIED IN SCRIPTURE OLD TESTAMENT Jealous Spirit Evil Spirit Lying Spirit (2 Chron. 18:22) Wounded Spirit (Prov. 18:14) Haughty Spirit (Prov. 16:18-19) Spirit of Slumber (Is. 29:10) Spirit of Whoredoms/Harlotry (Hos. 4:12) Familiar Spirit (Deut. 18:10) Spirit of Jealousy (Num. 5:14) Spirit of Heaviness (Isaiah 61:3)

1 GETTING FREE OF THE RELIGIOUS, JEZEBEL & LEVIATHAN SPIRITS . the Holy Spirit The JEZEBEL SPIRIT seeks to COUNTERFEIT the Holy Spirit The LEVIATHAN SPIRIT seeks to KILL/STRANGLE or CHOKE the Holy Spirit GETTING FREE OF THE RELIGIOUS SPIRIT It is a strong conviction that God works (only) in a particular way. . for I am a part of your family .