John Polkinghorne

When popular physicist Stephen Hawking dreams at the end of his best-selling Brief History of Time of a Great Unifying Theory (GUT) which would be able to merge the major physical theories describing the laws of nature, he goes on to say: “However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.”  John Polkinghorne, Hawking’s colleague at Cambridge University, is on the one hand critical of such an approach. “What is God doing in the book at all?”  On the other hand, he is himself searching for his own very particular version of a GUT. “There is indeed a Theory of Everything, but a theory that is much grander and more comprehensive and intellectually satisfying than any Grand Unified Theory of Particle Physics could ever be.”  For former particle physicist Polkinghorne, this theory is his new field of work: theology.  How does he come to this?

N.T. Wright has offered a proposal to Christian philosophers where it is apparently possible to hold the belief in the intermediate state-resurrection of the body and an ontological holism in the same sense at the same time. I argue that this not only creates a basic contradiction in Wright's ontological paradigm, but also it is not a coherent and tenable proposal despite the fact one might eventually find a potential solution to such a quandary.

Die Wissenschaft schreitet voran. Mit der Kartographierung der kosmischen Hintergrundstrahlung wurden Signale aus der ganz frühen Zeit des Universums sichtbar gemacht. Die Entdeckung des Higgs-Bosons im Jahr 2012 hat unsere Kenntnis der Elementarteilchen vervollständigt. Schon Anfang des neuen Jahrtausends ist die Sequenzierung des menschlichen Genoms gelungen; erste Versuche, künstliches Leben zu schaffen, folgten. Gewachsen ist auch die Fähigkeit, Gedanken allein aus der Beobachtung neuronaler Aktivitäten abzulesen.
Viele Fragen aber bleiben trotz des wachsenden Wissens unbeantwortet. Schauen wir nur auf uns selbst: Was ist der Sinn meines Lebens? Gibt es überhaupt so etwas wie bleibende Bedeutung? Oder verlieren wir uns im endlosen Universum?
Wodurch haben wir Menschen in der Evolution die eindrückliche Fähigkeit erworben, die Welt so weitreichend entdecken zu können?
Zu solchen Fragen nach den eigenen Ursprüngen und nach unserem Standort in der Wirklichkeit möchte das Buch ermuntern und nimmt dabei die Gottesfrage mit in den Blick. Dem Leser werden fundierte Einführungen in essentielle Fragestellungen des Dialogs zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaften geboten.

"Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes (eds.), Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind, Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 2009. (484 p. ; ISBN 978-1-4384-2941-0 ; 65,32 €) (Jan 2011, paperback, ISBN 978-1-4384-2940-3)
A good part of what fuels the current boom in consciousness studies is the robust progress of cognitive psychology and neuroscience toward reaching consensus explanations of just about anything except consciousness. Despite hopes that empirical research and computational modeling would constrain theory, it seems that scholarly debate has not so much reached an impasse as remained at one reached in the 17th century. Given the massive effort currently invested in research and debate, the lack of progress towards a general (and generally accepted) theory of consciousness begins indeed to make consciousness look like a kind of 21st century Philosopher’s Stone, whose hidden nature seems to hold the key to the greatest mysteries, but continues to elude us. Accordingly, the present volume taps leading researchers and theorists in the study of consciousness and Whitehead scholars to explore an interface between process thinking and the burgeoning field of consciousness studies. In sum, the rationale for such a project has two main facets: first, the state of an educated debate that seems, first, unproductive and peculiarly burdened by its deep modernist origins; and, secondly, marked more by disciplinary rivalry than interdisciplinary synthesis.
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
Preface, Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes
1. Main Themes of the Book
2. Précis of the Contributions
I. Introductory Essays, Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes
1. Process Thought as a Heuristic for Investigating Consciousness
2. Whitehead as a Neglected Figure of 20th Century Philosophy
3. Consciousness as a Topic of Investigation in Western Thought
4. Whitehead’s Unique Approach to the Topic of Consciousness
II. Psychology and Philosophy of Mind
5. Consciousness as a Subjective Form, David Ray Griffin (Claremont)
6. The Interpretation and Integration of the Literature on Consciousness from a Process Perspective, Michael W. Katzko (Nijmegen)
7. Windows on Nonhuman Minds, Donald R. Griffin (Harvard)
III. From Metaphysics to (Neuro-)Science and Back Again
8. Panexperientialism, Quantum Theory, and Neuroplasticity, George W. Shields (Kentucky State)
9. The Evolution of Consciousness, Max Velmans (Goldsmiths)
10. The Carrier Theory Of Causation, Gregg H. Rosenberg (New York)
IV. Applications to Psychiatry: Consciousness as Process
11. The Microgenetic Revolution in Contemporary Neuropsychology and Neurolinguistics, Maria Pachalska (Lublin and Gdansk) and Bruce Duncan MacQueen (Bydgoszcz)
12. From Coma to Consciousness, Avraham Schweiger (Tel Aviv), Michael Frost (Tel Aviv) , Ofer Keren (Raanana and Tel-Aviv)
13. Consciousness and Rationality from a Process Perspective, Michel Weber (Chromatiques)
V. History (and Future?) of Philosophy
14. Consciousness, Memory, and Recollection according to Whitehead, Xavier Verley (Toulouse le Mirail)
15. Consciousness and Causation in Light of Whitehead’s Phenomenology of Becoming, Anderson Weekes (New York)"

I examine John Polkinghorne's account of how God acts in the world, focusing on how his ideas developed with the consideration of the notion of kenosis, and how this development was not a rejection of his previous ideas, but on the contrary a fulfilling of his own personal philosophical and theological insights. Polkinghorne's thought can be distinguished in three different periods:1) divine action as input of active information (1988-2000/2001);2) Polkinghorne's reception of the notion of kenosis (2000-2004);3) Polkinghorne's "thought experiment" approach to his ideas on divine action (2004- ). Finally, I consider the question of internal coherence of this theological development, focusing on the transition from the first to the second period, which I believe to be the most significant.

Der Aufsatz analysiert Karl Poppers und John Eccles gemeinsamen Ansatz der Wechselwirkung von Geist und Materie und vergleicht ihren Gebrauch des Konzeptes der abwärts gerichteten Kausalität mit jüngeren diesbezüglichen Ansätzen, insbesondere denen von Nancey Murphy und George Ellis. Die Argumentation berücksichtigt auch John Polkinghornes Verständnis von göttlichem Handeln, weil es eine interessante Variante von abwärts gerichteter Geist/Materie Interaktion darstellt. Es wird argumentiert, dass abwärts gerichtete Kausalität ein spekulatives Konzept ist, jedoch möglicherweise immer noch die beste Annäherung an ein wissenschaftliches Verständnis von Geist und Materie, die es derzeit gibt. Daher erscheint auch Poppers und Eccles‘ Ansatz interessanter als normalerweise angenommen, und sollte nicht weiter in der Debatte um abwärts gerichtete Kausalität übersehen werden.

W artykule pokazuję, w jaki sposób John C. Polkinghorne stara się dokonać połączenia teizmu z naturalizmem. Polkinghorne jest jednym z czołowych przedstawicieli współczesnego teizmu naturalistycznego. Jednocześnie jego propozycje niekiedy dość znacznie odbiegają od podejścia, które można by zaliczyć do typowego dla tego nurtu. Przedstawione zostaną zarówno typowe, jak i nietypowe elementy jego ujęcia.

Kazimierza Jodkowskiego koncepcja epistemicznych układów odniesienia (EUO) pozwala teizm naturalistyczny ująć jako mający na celu połączenie EUO chrześcijaństwa, czyli teizmu, z EUO nauki, czyli naturalizmem. Pozwala ona dobrze pokazać złożoność problematyki relacji nauki i re­ligii z racji uwzględniania w niej złożoności obrazu nauki ugruntowanego w badaniach Jodkowskiego nad współczesną metodologią nauk. Przedstawiony zostaje kontekst problemów metodologicznych analizowanych w publikacjach Jodkowskiego, z którymi wiąże się geneza i waga kategorii EUO w rozumieniu nauki oraz relacji między nauką a filozofią i religią.

Propozycje Polkinghorne’a są dobrą ilustracją tego, jak trudnym zadaniem jest pogodzenie naukowego obrazu świata z obrazem występującym w chrześcijaństwie, gdy EUO nauki jest naturalizm, zaś EUO teizmu jest nadnaturalizm, obejmujący dualizm ontologiczny i interwencjonizm. Propozy­cja Polkinghorne’a, która w ramach tego nurtu idzie najdalej w stronę tradycyjnego teizmu, okazuje się wikłać w szereg niekonsekwencji względem jednego, jak i drugiego EUO.

"Many innovative proposals regarding for God’s activity in the created universe were given within the Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action Project. The most important one was what Robert Russell called ‘non-interventionist, objective divine action’ (NIODA). This new perspective seeks scientific theories that can be interpreted as pointing to ontological causal gaps in nature, thus providing a place for God to act without disrupting the laws of nature.
Russell finds that quantum mechanics offers such a possibility, and thus advocates for a Quantum Divine Action. On the other hand, John Polkinghorne - agreeing to the NIODA project - dismisses this possibility due to the lack of connection between the quantum world and the macro-world. He proposes that chaos theory can be interpreted in an indeterministic way and thus allowing God to act in a non-interventionist manner through chaotic systems as input of information with no energy exchange.
Many authors (Smedes, Dodds, Stoeger, and myself) argued that Russell’s Quantum Divine Action renders God’s causality another kind of natural causality, a theologically undesirable conclusion. I will compare Russell’s argument to Polkinghorne’s and evaluate whether the latter suffers with the same conclusion. In the end I will show that with his turn into kenotic theology, Polkinghorne agrees with the conclusion and finds it compelling."

I approach this venture of figuring out the correct terminology to understand reality through the prism of two distinctive Russian Orthodox theologians, Pavel Florensky (1882–1937) and Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944). The lens I apply mainly to their works is their respective understanding of cosmology, ontology and epistemology. Therefore, I concur with Grenz to abandon the term ‘onto-theology’ and qualify the inverse as a Trinitarian theo-ontology. This honours the intimate connection between knowing and being and prevents the bifurcation between fidelity and rationality. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to ‘eco-theology’. This inversion reminds one of Hans-Urs von Balthasar, who bartered the concept of an aesthetic theology for theological aesthetics. Turning this question around would advance our dialogue with the sciences as the common denominator of the discourse is rather nature (creation) discerned from an acknowledged a priori (as all cognition do). In other words, the term theo-ecology is proposed.

Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications:
The purpose of the study is not ecological but rather an asyndetic use of the terminology about the science and religion dialogue regarding the nomenclature of ecology and theology. All observation terms and sentences are theory-laden. Religion can be viewed as a linguistic framework that shapes the entirety of life and thought. Truth claims should focus on the grammar (or rules of the game) and not the lexicon when expressive symbolism is employed.

This essay investigates John Polkinghorne’s concept of divine action. I argue that one of Polkinghorne’s key innovations was to introduce the paradigm of ‘information-input causation’ into the theory of divine action. However, despite this achievement, I show that Polkinghorne’s approach is trapped in an insuperable dilemma: it either can be reduced to classical non informational causal accounts of divine action or turns God into a cause among others.

This essay investigates John Polkinghorne’s concept of divine action. I argue that one of Polkinghorne’s key innovations was to introduce the paradigm of ‘information-input causation’ into the theory of divine action. However, despite this achievement, I show that Polkinghorne’s approach is trapped in an insuperable dilemma: it either can be reduced to classical noninformational causal accounts of divine action or turns God into a cause among others.

Currently under review in an Academic Journal.
Abstract: According to Karol Wojtyla, the defining characteristic of betrothed love is self-donation. Picking up on Wojtyla’s characterization of betrothed love as self-donation, the bible gives good grounds for illustrating the Spirit as the active agent of God in the world, particularly regarding the Spirit as life-giver and animator of all creation through self-donation (or self-giving). The kenosis of the Spirit into creation amounts to betrothed love through self-donation. Thomas Jay Oord’s depiction of  “essential kenosis” makes numerous asseverations that are constructive for depicting love as self-donation. Several years ago, a collection of essays by theologians and scientists explored creation as The Work of Love, pointing to divine action as kenosis. Herein it is asserted that the Spirit has chosen to invite creation into a cooperative relationship, which coalesces with Wojtyla’s conception of love as self-donation. Ultimately, the essence of personal love is transcended by self-giving. In the final analysis, we are given the capacity of self-possession in order to be able to give ourselves away. The essence of the self is to transcend the self through betrothed self-donated love.

Keywords: kenosis; self-donation; self-giving; Thomas Jay Oord; John Polkinghorne; Karol Wojtyla

Tekst podejmuje kwestię relacji (dialogu) teologii z naukami z punktu widzenia filozofującego teologa. Opierając się na założeniach realności naukowej teologii, jedności rzeczywistości i akceptacji granic ludzkiego poznania, a także uznając filozofię za mediatorkę w dialogu teologia-nauka, wykazuję, że fundamentem tej relacji, a zarazem jej warunkiem koniecznym jest Wcielenie Słowa Bożego. Odwołuję się przy tym: po pierwsze – do klasycznej (tomistycznej i neotomistycznej) chrystologii (tło rozważań); po drugie – do ustaleń i myśli zaangażowanych w dialog teologia-nauka uczonych, przede wszystkim Michała Hellera i Dominique’a Lamberta. W świetle ustaleń chrystologicznych (Logos jako źródło racjonalności świata, Wcielony Logos jako pomost pomiędzy Bogiem a człowiekiem, spoiwo pomiędzy poznaniem naukowym a poznaniem teologicznym), okazuje się, że w Chrystusie znajduje się źródło i szczyt wszelkiej wiedzy.

Thomas Jay Oord presents a view of God's providence which is deeply problematic from a logical and hermeneutical perspective. This appraisal points out three logical fallacies and some hermeneutical issues, and offers an alternative perspective.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, renowned for his monumental hermeneutic contribution, refers somewhere to "the dialog which we are". It implies that ontology builds on dialogue and on a dialectical reciprocity. While admitting that it is impossible to capture Bram van de Beek's contribution to theology extensively, this chapter endeavours to illuminate a specific perspective on his vast interest in and contributions to our field. The chapter attempts to converse with Bram van de Beek who is both a theologian and a biologist, and to bring him into conversation with John Polkinghorne, a physicist and theologian of stature. Polkinghorne's epistemological approach ("epistemology models ontology") and Van de Beek's ontological approach ("being precedes consciousness") interact in a dialogical and dialectical hermeneutic spiral in order to enhance interdisciplinary understanding and balance. There is a place for both approaches on a transversal interdisciplinary plane. Keywords:bram van de beek; epistemology; Hans-Georg Gadamer; hermeneutics; John Polkinghorne; ontology; reciprocity; theology

John Polkinghorne is greatly admired among Christians. He once had a reputation as a scientist but became a clergyman. Now he writes tendentious reviews pretending to be a scientist. He reviewed a couple of books in The Times Literary Supplement. It was the usual dishonest Christian pap.

his paper assumes a pansacramental spirituality which maintains that God can be experienced in all things, including the often disturbing experience of suffering. Here spirituality refers to the lived religious experience of a particular individual in the world, and sacramentality refers to that element of the Christian tradition which accounts for the presence of God in the world (in some manner). As such, sacraments mediate between God and world. This broad view of sacramentality entails an infinite number of potential sacraments. As a result, I do not intend to reduce sacraments to a fixed number (whether one believes in seven sacraments or two). In this way, all things hold the potential to mediate God in the world. Therefore, I propose a pansacramental understanding of the cosmos in which God is experienced via pansacramental spirituality. In wrestling with the challenge of taking seriously the possibility of the sacramental (re)presentation of God in all kinds of suffering, I realize that the claim that God is sacramentally revealed in suffering can potentially scandalize classical Christianity and its tenets. However, any serious pansacramental spirituality should not be shy about maintaining the possibility that suffering authentically reveals God in sacramental fashion. Drawing on the theologies of five thinkers, I offer a constructive proposal for approaching the spiritual experience of God in suffering. They consist of Aquinas’ classical theology, Martin Buber’s sacrament of suffering, Abraham Heschel’s and Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of divine pathos, and John Polkinghorne’s realized eschatological panentheism. If the sacraments represent God in time and space, and invite participants to commemorate God’s acts in history, and if all things serve as potential sacramental mediators, then how does suffering function as a sacramental mediator of God in the world? This is the question I tackle with the assistance of the aforementioned thinkers.

Dialogue, an Ontological and Epistemological Framework Hans-Georg Gadamer, renowned for his monumental hermeneutic contribution, 1 refers somewhere to "the dialog which we are". 2 It implies that ontology builds on dialogue and on a dialectical reciprocity. 3 Gadamer expounds this principle even further when he sees understanding as the dialogue between question and answer (elsewhere he refers to it as the "logic of question and answer"), the purpose of which is to establish agreement about the subject matter under discussion. 4 Therefore, to Gadamer the dialogue or conversation is an important way of coming to understanding. 5 This implies that epistemology builds on dialogue too. In this frame, I will endeavour to take part in this illustrious enterprise by paying tribute to an internationally respected colleague and friend, Bram van de Beek and his fruitful contribution to theology, especially to systematic theology.

‘Critical realism’ is to some extent an equivocal term, although its ambiguity has rarely been noticed. The reason for this ambiguity is that the term has constantly been reinvented. Nevertheless, the identity of the label and many family resemblances between its uses allowed for a transfer of thought between these different, although similar concepts, bearing the same name. The purpose of this article is to highlight the similarities and differences between the Barbour family of critical realism in science and religion and Roy Bhaskar's understanding of critical realism, and also to show the existing connections between both approaches.

“Critical realism” is one of the most important positions in the current science and theology debate. An analysis of its origin and meaning leads to the question if this position mostly propagated by physicist-theologians could miss an intrinsic feature of the personal dimension of reality. A deeper meaning of the personal dimension sets human science apart. Taking into account social science's insight that persons responsible for their conclusions and actions drive the process of science, the moral dimension of science has to be emphasized. To integrate these aspects into a coherent position, a more differentiated epistemological model is needed. The solution proposed in this paper is to modify critical realism to constructive-critical realism. Theologically interpreted, constructive-critical realism remembers humankind's purpose to shape nature in cooperation with God and with the means of culture toward increasing realization of freedom in relationship. The argument is widely influenced by an analysis of the works of John Polkinghorne.

Der Kritische Realismus („Critical Realism“) ist seit Ian G. Barbours grundlegenden Issues in Science and Religion (1966) erkenntnistheoretisches Paradigma zentraler Ansätze im angelsächsischen Gespräch zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaften geworden; neben Barbour selbst sind hier insbesondere Arthur Peacocke und John Polkinghorne zu nennen.

Der im internationalen Gespräch zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaften äußerst versierte Heidelberger Theologe Michael Welker hat seinen jüngsten Beitrag zu diesem Diskurs in englischer Sprache vorgelegt. Das Heft basiert auf Vorlesungen in Yale und Oxford.  Welker geht es darum aufzuzeigen, was die Theologie zum Gespräch mit den Naturwissenschaften beitragen kann. Dabei erkennt er scharfsinnig die Schwächen der vergangenen Diskussion und bietet einige neue Gesprächsansätze an.