Modern science and theology – (Part 1) “pre-Socratic Greek philosophers had reached, 25 centuries ago, the basic principles governing the logic of modern natural science”

Here we present the excellent scientific paper “Invisible world and modern physics: Modern science and theology“, by Theodossiou, E., Manimanis, V.N., Danezis, E.

5aba01ec0387e.jpg

A distinct characteristic of contemporary Western theological thought is the attempt to counter the transcendental part of Christian theology through arguments based on the findings of the natural sciences (antirrhetic theology). Although the well-intentioned exposition of opposing views on any subject is the best way to search for truth, in this case it is our scientific duty to note a series of inconsistencies.

1. Modern scientific thought considers a fact the position that today’s scientific knowledge in its entirety will be expanded, corrected in many points and even abrogated under the weight of new dramatic discoveries in the future. For this reason, the scholars in humanities who ignore this truth should not base dogmatic views upon temporary scientific positions: their views will stand unsupported as soon as the scientific positions on which they were based get subverted.

2. Antirrhetic theology is based in many instances upon scientific views of 17th or 18th Century, which are not valid any more. Due to this fact, if the various schools of metaphysical thought want to continue with integrity and responsibility their work, they must study in depth the 20th-Century discoveries and theories of sciences, and especially physics, and adapt, if possible, their positions according to them. In other words, we suggest to them to follow the example of the Fathers of the Christian Church of the 4th Century in becoming competent connoisseurs, of the natural sciences of their age. In order to justify our position we shall explore here a case study, that of an issue which was for centuries the source of clashes among philosophers, theologists and scientists. This is the question of the existence of an imperceptible by our senses but real and objective world, which coexists with the equally real world we see around us. First, we will summarize some of the modern scientific facts.

Theology and modern physics

In order for a scholar of the humanities to understand modern physics, astrophysics and cosmology, he or she should realize that the following three basic tenets associated with and even defining the notion of science since 1700 A.D. and up to the 20th Century have been dramatically altered.

1. The traditional notion of human “common logic”, the one humans have developed based on their senses, was almost identical with the scientific logic. Not any more. Now modern scientific thought diverges significantly from the “common logic”, in such a way that anyone not educated in depth in it can not understand the truth of the natural phenomena described by the modern theories of physics and cosmology. Of course, an adverse fact is that the world’s educational systems do not assist towards the assimilation of these novel mental processes.

2. A second tenet that was overturned by modern physics was the notion of “matter” as it was perceived by the human senses and formed the favorite object of applications for the applied sciences. Along with the classical belief about the nature of matter, the Newtonian classical physics was also surpassed; this physics, which was the base for the study of the Universe, was replaced by relativistic and quantum physics. On this topic, Charles Muses in his book Consciousness and Reality writes:

“A tree, a table, a cloud, a stone, all are dissolved by 20th-Century science into something consisting of the same material. This ‘something’ is a mixture of whirling particles that obey the laws of quantum physics. This means that the objects we can observe are mere three-dimensional images formed by waves under the influence of electromagnetic or nuclear processes”.

Similarly, matter according to the relativity theory is not the sturdy combination of molecules or atoms Newton and classical chemists had in mind, but a condensation of probability of an energy stream. In Einsteinian space-time matter is more of field singularity than a separate entity. A particle is nothing more than a perpetually moving energy whirl in space.

What is seen around us as palpable material objects consists for a modern physicist a false image of our senses; in other words, we see our environment not as it is in reality, but as our senses allow us to perceive.

3. A third tenet, which was changed (and, in turn, it changed dramatically the scientific view about the Universe), is the nature of space within which the natural phenomena take place. The classical physics was viewing as self-evident the fact that the space of the Universe is described by Euclidean geometry. This was enough, as we knew that humans can objectively visualize only forms and shapes in three-dimensional Euclidean spaces. But this belief was also proved wrong, when Einstein, through the general theory of relativity demonstrated that the universal space is not Euclidean, but it can be described by another geometry, Riemann’s geometry, which was fundamentally different from Euclid’s geometry. This by itself would not be so important if we didn’t know that no form or shape in a Riemannian space (be it of three or more dimensions) can be perceived by our senses “as it is”

Therefore, what our senses perceive as far as the large-scale structures of the Universe are concerned, are not their true forms, but rather their projections upon the smaller parts of the Universe, which, due to their small size, “behave” as Euclidean spaces and therefore can be seen as they are.

It is obvious that these projections of the true forms we can perceive are unable to give us an idea about the real world of the Universe, unless this world is approached through mathematical relations.

In the end, what scholars of the humanities must realize is that humans live in a Universe they can’t perceive through their senses and what they can perceive is just a Platonic “shadow” of what really exists.

All these facts, however, do not mean that the classical theories of physics are useless; they still give excellent results when phenomena inside relatively small regions of the Universe are being studied and not extremely powerful gravitational fields are present, e.g. when we study our Solar System. Classical physics fails also completely in describing
particles of the microworld, or bodies that move with almost the speed of light. Much of technology that makes our life easier is based on this classical knowledge about our world. In all other cases, when our senses or our “common logic” are incapable to help in the study of the natural world, science can continue its study and research to the extent the phenomena, forms and shapes that can’t be visualized can be described by mathematical relations and models.

In summary, the study of nature in both cosmological scales and the microworld is not anymore the job of empirical and validated by our senses science, but rather a mental task, which in this case replaces the senses as a new, more apt and capable sense.

All the above testify also to the fact that the philosophical background of the (natural) sciences has changed. Since the beginning of the 18th Century, the prevalence of Aristotelian mentality as opposed to Platonic ideo-centrism in Western Europe, helped to create a “regime” of deification of matter and its applications, thus creating what today is known as modern technological civilization. The Aristotelian pragmatism of the world of our senses dominated, accompanied by a logic based on empiricism. The non-perceivable by our senses world of Platonic ideas and the theory of its representation upon the material, perceivable forms, not having at the time any scientific support and validation, became easy prey to the Aristotelian practical thought.

Today, however, things have changed and Platonism can be said takes its revenge. Plato himself believed that the Universe can’t be described by our senses, and that the forms and shapes we perceive are just false images of other, real but obscure, facts, which are projected as shadows upon small parts of space our senses can grasp.

Not only Plato had predicted the new physical reality. It should not be forgotten that Heraclitus, Democritus and Parmenides were teaching that what our senses inform us about reality is not true, but are created in our minds, and that the knowledge coming from the senses is false, while only the mental concept of things leads to the universal truth.

Based on this evidence, it can be said that the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers had reached 25 centuries ago the basic principles governing the logic of modern natural science.

(End of Part 1)

Research: Isidoros Aggelos

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: