The most astounding experiment of quantum physics in recent scientific discovery is probably the doubleslit experiment.
It is the experiment that shows the entire universe exists by being experienced.
To describe the double slit experiment, think of a tennis ball shooting machine that shoots out tennis balls that travels across space and hits the net.
Now think of the ball shoot machine being shrunk to the size of the quantum level where instead of shooting out tennis balls, it now shoots out extremely tiny particles called electrons. Those electrons travel through vacuum and hit a wide screen which marks their positions. Imagine another smaller screen with single vertical slit in the middle that is placed between the particle launcher and the wide screen. Some of the electrons will pass through the slit and hit the wide screen
behind it and some will be blocked.
What we will see on the wide screen is a vertical column marking the area where the electrons have hit it.Next, instead of a single slit we use double slits. So now the electrons can pass through either one of those slits to hit the wide screen behind.
What we are supposed to see is two vertical column marking the area where the electrons will hit on the wide screen. But the strange and amazing thing is, we do not see that. Instead what we see are several vertical columns a small distance apart from each other appearing on the wide screen. Imagine a swimming pool with a screen with double slits in the middle and a wide screen at the end. When a ball is dropped into the water in front of the double slit screen, it causes a circular wave that ripples outwards in all directions. The wave pass through the double slits and split into two smaller waves. As the two waves continue to travel, they simultaneously reinforce and cancel out each other at certain angles.
What you see on the wide screen are several vertical columns each being a small distance apart from the other. The columns show the part where the waves reinforce each other while the spaces show where they cancel each other out.
So the question is why does the electron behave like a wave when it passes through double slits? The theory is that the electron splits into two when it reaches the first screen and travels through both slits simultaneously. It then interferes with itself thereby causing a wave effect on the wide screen. In quantum physics, this is called the principle of nonlocality where something exist in two places at one time. It is not restricted to one location in time and space but it becomes omnipresent.
So to find out if that was the case, a small device was placed in front of the double slits screen so that we could observe what happens when the electron passes through it. The result we got was strange beyond normal explanation. This time what we saw on the wide screen were two vertical columns instead of the several ones we saw at first. What this means is that when we are looking, it behaves like a particle. When we are not looking, it behaves as a wave. A wave is a vibration or energy. The truth is, everything in the universe is ultimately Energy, and Energy is influenced by Mind. Something only appears as matter when it is being observed.
Quantum physicists talk about electrons, or events being potential, rather than actual physical entities. So that there are various potentials, basically until somebody looks, and then it sort of forces the universe to make a determination about which potential is going to be actualized. All of existence is fundamentally an unlimited quantum field of energy, a sea of infinite possibilities waiting to happen. Consciousness collapses the wave function into actual particles that exist in space and time. Consciousness experiences energy as matter.
Consciousness is the energy that influences energy. All energy is actually consciousness, therefore it is consciousness influencing itself.
The observer is not apart from the observation. The experimenter is not apart from the experiment.The observer simultaneously plays a part in creating the reality he is observing. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of consciousness states that no pure measurement is possible without creation. Physicists who deal in quantum mechanics state: “You cannot (objectively) observe something without changing it in the process.”This experiment also shows that God remains unmanifest unless you participate. Without God, we cannot. Without us, God would not. We are all co-creators of reality with God. God moves only when there is intention or prayer. Faith is focus.Everything is energy and energy is mental. The mind creates and controls reality. Our thoughts have the very power to shape our reality. This is how the Law of Attraction works. What we focus on most of the time, we get. The observer creates reality simply by observing.
In the event where a person manages to defy a physical law of reality, it is because he/she is in harmony with the will and purpose of the universal mind. That is the reason why miracles happen in this world where people are saved from certain death or experience divine providence and empowerment.
So objective reality is the spiritual laws of the universe. That which is immutable, unchanging and constant. It exists whether you believe in it or not, that’s why it is objective reality. It is not subjected to your individual mind alone but by the universal mind that is greater and above all. Spirituality is defined as “belief in those aspects of reality that are not of this world or this material universe”. All reality is truly spiritual in essence.Truth is opinion that conforms to reality. Reality is that which is so whether anyone knows it or not and whether anyone likes it or not. Thus, truth is based in reality, but reality is independent of opinion. The modern notion expressed as “my truth, your truth” I automatically translate as “my opinion, your opinion,” and the assertion that we each create our own reality is an example of what I refer to as “fantasy”. Beliefs that reflect reality are beliefs in objective reality. They do not lead to its creation or uncreation.
As for Subjective reality, it is the aspect of reality that you have immediate and direct control over because it is made up by your thoughts and interpretations of your experiences. It is the inner world of your mind. Subjective reality can be influenced, transformed and shaped by you. That is why it is subjective reality, it is changeable according to your beliefs.We know that the world within governs the world without. Your thoughts literally control reality. We can have control over the whole of reality by following the spiritual laws of consciousness. Hence we can
govern all subjective reality by using the power of true objective reality.
Subjective reality is subject to change since it is temporal. You can choose to believe differently about what you are observing and cause reality to change instantaneously or over time.
Topics
1. Introduction
2. Science and Theology Are Conflicting View of Reality
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Scientific Materialism
2.2.1. Tenets of Scientific Materialism
2.2.2. Reductionism in Scientific Materialism
2.2.3. Science versus Religion From the Point of View of Scientific Materialism
2.2.4. Philosophical Movements Arising from Scientific Materialism
2.2.4.1. Philosophical Materialism
2.2.4.2. Logical Positivism
2.3. Biblical Literalism
3. Science and Theology Are Independent Views of Reality
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Neo-Orthodoxy
3.3. Religious Existentialism
3.3.1. I-It Versus I-You Relations
3.3.1.1. I and Thou
3.3.1.2. I-It Relationships
3.3.1.3. I-You Relationships
3.3.2. Science Versus Theology: I-It Versus I-You Relationships
3.4. Linguistic Analysis
3.4.1. The "Language Game"
3.4.2. The Language of Science Versus the Language of Religion
4. Science and Theology Are Views of Reality in Which Dialogue Is Possible
5. Science and Theology Are Views of Reality That Must Be Integrated
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Natural Theology
5.2.1. Introduction
5.2.2. Arguments for the Existence of God in Natural Theology
5.2.3. The Cosmological Argument or "First Cause" Argument
5.2.4. The Teleological Argument or "Argument from Design"
5.2.5. Contingences and Dependencies in Modern Physics
5.2.5.1. Introduction
5.2.5.2. The Laws of Physics
5.2.5.3. The Boundary Implied by a Beginning of the Universe
5.2.5.4. The Contingency of Every Point of Space-Time
5.2.5.5. The Anthropic Principle
5.2.5.6. The Ground of Physical Reality of Quantum Physics
5.3. Theology of Nature
5.3.1. Introduction
5.3.2. How Does God Work in Creation?
5.3.3. Eschatology
5.4. Systematic Synthesis
5.4.1. Alfred North Whitehead: Process Theology
5.4.1.1. Reality in Process Theology
5.4.1.2. Criticisms of Process Theology
5.4.2. Pierre Teihard de Chardin’s Point Omega
Primary Reference
1. Introduction
Ian Barbour classifies views on the relationship between science and theology into four groupings:
*
1. Conflict
*
2. Independence
*
3. Dialogue
*
4. Integration
2. Science and Theology Are Conflicting View of Reality
2.1. Introduction
One view of the relationship between science and theology is that they are two conflicting views of reality.
On the science side of this point of view is Scientific Materialism; on the religious side is Biblical Literalism.
2.2. Scientific Materialism
2.2.1. Tenets of Scientific Materialism
The tenets of Scientific Materialism:
*
1. the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge (= scientism)
*
2. matter is the fundamental reality in the universe
Tenet 1: is a epistemological (= the nature of knowledge) assumption
Tenet 2: is a metaphysical (= the nature of reality) assumption
Acceptance of both these two assumptions imply only those things studied by science are real.
2.2.2. Reductionism in Scientific Materialism
Scientific Materialism often involves reductionism:
*
1. Epistemological Reductionism -- All scientific theories ultimately reducible to the laws of physics
"All science is either physics or stamp-collecting"
A statement attributed to Ernest Rutherford, discoverer of x-rays (not necessarily in the context of a discussion of epistemological reductionism, but it cogently expresses the attitude that might lead there)
*
2. Metaphysical Reductionism -- the component parts of a system are the fundamental reality. There is nothing significantly or profoundly "new" in higher orders of organization.
2.2.3. Science versus Religion From the Point of View of Scientific Materialism
Science (Scientific Method):
*
1. uses only reproducible, public data
*
2. theories are subject to experimental testing / observations
*
3. defined criteria for evaluation of competing theories
Religion:
*
1. no reproducible, public data
*
2. no experimental testing
*
3. no accepted criteria for evaluation of competing theories
Religion is therefore subjective, parochial, uncritical.
2.2.4. Philosophical Movements Arising from Scientific Materialism
2.2.4.1. Philosophical Materialism
Scientific Materialism leads to Philosophical Materialism
*
matter alone is real
*
the mind, purpose, human love are byproducts of matter in motion
Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity eloquently expresses this point of view:
*
"Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance"
*
"Anything can be reduced to simple, obvious mechanical interactions. The cell is a machine. The animal is a machine. Man is a machine."
*
Consciousness an illusion that will be explained biochemically
2.2.4.2. Logical Positivism
Logical Positivism was a philosophic movements in 1920's to 1940's that said that:
*
Scientific discourse is the norm for meaningful language
*
The only meaningful statements we can make are those verifiable by sense data
*
Statements in ethics, metaphysics, religion are:
o
meaningless pseudo-statements
o
expressions of emotion / preference without cognitive significance
2.3. Biblical Literalism
Most mainstream Christian denominations consider scripture a human witness to God's revelation (and hence fallible)
1970's and 1980's saw a rise in fundamentalism. Fundamentalists consider the scripture the inerrant, literal word of God. The Bible thus interpreted provided:
*
certainty in a time of rapid change
*
basis for defense of traditional values in time of moral disintegration (sexual permissiveness, drugs, crime. . .)
Modern science however clearly conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.
This has led for example to the "opposition" movement of Creation Science or Scientific Creationism, which claims there is scientific evidence for the creation of the world in the last few thousand years.
3. Science and Theology Are Independent Views of Reality
3.1. Introduction
A common and widespread point of view is that science and theology are two totally independent, autonomous activities.
The basis of this point of view is that science and theology are:
*
Completely different realms or spheres of human life:
o
Neo-Orthodoxy
o
Religious Existentialism
*
or, Completely different "languages:"
o
Linguistic Analysis Movement
3.2. Neo-Orthodoxy
Neo-Orthodoxy was a post World War I reaction to Protestant Liberalism, which had posited an optimistic belief that human society was progressing to a better world through the progressive enlightenment of the humanity, a view that was shattered by the horrors and atrocities of the great World War.
Karl Barth was Neo-Orthodoxy's most prominent theologian. Barth emphasized that God is transcendent, unknowable except as self-revealed through Jesus Christ. Theology and science were completely independent of each other, because:
*
Theology is based on divine revelation
o
whereas science is based on human observation and reason
*
Religious faith is based entirely on God's initiative, not on any kind of human discovery
o
whereas Science is based on solely on human discovery.
*
God acts in history,
o
not in nature
3.3. Religious Existentialism
3.3.1. I-It Versus I-You Relations
3.3.1.1. I and Thou
In 1923, Martin Buber published I and Thou (the usual English translations of the German Ich und Du)
Two modes of experiencing / relating to the world:
*
1. Experience of an object = “I-it” Relation
*
2. An Encounter with Another = “I-Thou” or “I-You” Relation ("You" is the "You" of intimacy, which used to exist in English in the word “Thou”)
3.3.1.2. I-It Relationships
“I-it” Relation:
*
We objectify, conceptualize, fit into the “box of our understanding” that which we see, hear, etc (“it”).
*
Impersonal
*
The “normal” experienced world of space and time
3.3.1.3. I-You Relationships
“I-You” Relation:
*
The “You” can never be objectified, or “boxed” into our understanding. A “You” has no borders, cannot be measured. A “You” “fills the sky” of our mind's eye
*
An encounter, a transitory event (the “event of relation”) which is mutual and reciprocal
*
Can be called love
*
Comes to us by grace
A “person” then is someone with whom we can have an “I-You” relationship. The person of an “I-You” encounter cannot be “objectified,” or “boxed-in,” turned in “content.” A person of an “I-You” encounter is a Presence, is Presence as power.
3.3.2. Science Versus Theology: I-It Versus I-You Relationships
The view of Religious Existentialism is that God is a being encountered in an "I-You" relationship, whereas Science deals only with "I-It" relationships. They are thus two independent modes of seeing the world.
3.4. Linguistic Analysis
3.4.1. The "Language Game"
Linguistic Analysis was a philosophical school that came after Logical Positivism.
It taught that different human endeavors use different types of "language" that serve different functions. You cannot "translate" from a language serving one function to a language serving another function
Wittgenstein, called this the "language game"
3.4.2. The Language of Science Versus the Language of Religion
The language of Science functions for prediction and control.
The language of Religion, one the other hand, functions to:
*
recommend a way of life
*
form attitudes
*
encourage moral principles
Each language is valid only for the function it is designed for.
Note that Linguistic Analysis is a form of Instrumentalism: scientific theories and religious beliefs are merely human constructs for specific human purposes
4. Science and Theology are Views of Reality in Which Dialogue Is Possible
The suggestion that science and theology are views of reality in which some kind of "dialogue" encompasses a potpourri of conceptions about science and theology. The suggestion is that there are some indirect or peripheral points of contact between theology and science.
Some examples of "Dialogue" between science and theology include:
*
Limit Questions. Science often leads us to a "limit," to questions science alone cannot answer. For example: the ethical questions that come up in medicine.
*
Nature-Centered Spirituality. We can respond to nature in personal and experiential ways that can have spiritual significance for the individual. The beauty of a sunset, the night sky, or the knowledge of the grandeur and scope of the universe as revealed to us in modern astronomy, can all evoke deeply spiritual feelings.
5. Science and Theology are Views of Reality That Must Be Integrated
5.1. Introduction
A final point of view about the relationship between science and theology (and the point of view that these presentations will presume) is that an integration is possible -- at times necessary -- between theology and science. Barbour suggests that we can find three versions of this integration:
*
1. Natural Theology. We can prove the existence of God through study of nature, or at least find rumors of the existence of God in nature. That is, some truths about God can be worked out by the human intellect alone.
*
2. Theology of Nature. Theology is largely outside the realm of science, but where they overlap, they must be consistent. (The Theology of Nature is a confusing name, since grammatically it would appear to be the same as Natural Theology. Nonetheless, it is typically used to define a weaker version of integration than Natural Theology).
*
3. Systematic Synthesis. The views of reality offered by science and theology can be combined to give a comprehensive view of reality
5.2. Natural Theology
5.2.1. Introduction
In Natural Theology, science is the starting point for the search for God. Natural Theology says that by studying nature:
*
we can find proof of God existence or least find rumors of the existence of God
*
we can learn something about the nature of God through nature
“Ever since the creation of the word, his [God's] eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made”
-- St. Paul, in Romans 1:20
5.2.2. Arguments for the Existence of God in Natural Theology
Arguments for the Existence of God in Natural Theology can generally grouped into one of the following:
1. The cosmological argument. There must be a "first" cause (God)
2. The teleological argument. There must be an ultimate designer (God)
5.2.3. The Cosmological Argument or "First Cause" Argument
Cosmological Argument or "First Cause" Argument (Thomas Aquinas, 1224-1274):
*
1. Everything in the universe depends on something else for its existence
*
2. What is true of the parts of the universe must also true of the universe itself
*
3. Therefore, the universe must also depend on something else for its existence
*
4. That "something else" is, by definition, that which we call God
5.2.4. The Teleological Argument or "Argument from Design"
Teleological Argument = Argument from Design
*
telos = Greek for the "end" or "purpose"
*
things do not simply exist, they appear to have been designed for a purpose
Thomas Aquinas on the Teleological Argument:
The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see how some things, like natural bodies, work of an end even though they have no knowledge. The fact that they nearly always operate in the same way, and so as to achieve the maximum good, makes this obvious, and shows that they attain their end by design, not by chance. Now things which have no knowledge tend towards an end only through the agency of something which knows and also understands, as in the case of arrow which requires an archer. There is therefore an intelligent being by whom all natural things are directed to their end. This we call "God"
5.2.5. Contingences and Dependencies in Modern Physics
5.2.5.1. Introduction
The Cosmological or "First Cause" Argument, and the Teleological Argument or Argument from Design have in common the idea that some aspect or property of the universe is contingent or dependent on something else -- God.
Several unexplained "contingencies" in modern physics have been suggested as "rumors" of a designer, creator and/or sustainer:
*
(1) the laws of physics
*
(2) the boundary implied by a beginning (a time = 0) to the universe
*
(3) the existence of space-time itself
*
(4) the Anthropic Principle
*
(5) the "Ground of Physical Reality" of Quantum Physics
(We will be discussing (1) and (2) in session 2 of this series; (3) and (4) in session 3, and (5) in session 4. What follows is a preview:)
5.2.5.2. The Laws of Physics
(1.) The Laws of Physics
*
The universe has been found to obey laws of great mathematical beauty and elegance
*
Where do these laws come from?
*
Why do these laws appeal to our sense of beauty?
*
Why are these laws comprehensible to us?
5.2.5.3. The Boundary Implied by a Beginning of the Universe
(2.) The Boundary Implied by a Beginning of the Universe
Near the beginning of time, a "Big Bang" -- a great fireball of immense density and temperature -- filled all of space and started its evolution
The theories of Relativity tell us space and time are woven together in a single created fabric called space-time
Models of the Universe using General Relativity lead to a point where time = 0 where the fabric of space-time was undefined, immediately after which both space and time abruptly began to exist
*
What "caused" the universe to emerge at t = 0?
5.2.5.4. The Contingency of Every Point of Space-Time
(3.) The Contingency of Every Point of Space-Time
Modern physics has not yet succeeded in findings a satisfactory theory that unites the General Theory of Relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) with Quantum Physics. There is presently no complete theory of gravity that takes into account quantum physics (The name proposed for such theories is Quantum Gravity).
Some early work in Quantum Gravity suggests that the dimension we call time becomes "fuzzy" and turns into a fourth spatial dimension as we approach "time = 0." There is thus no "beginning" to the universe -- time becomes meaningless as we "approach" "time = 0".
Whether this ultimately turns out to be true or not, it reminds us that:
*
The created universe is a "block" of space-time
*
All points of the "block" of "space-time" require an explanation
o
giving special significance only to the point where time = 0, (which may in fact not exist in the created block of "space-time") is specious
o
The theological concepts of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) and creatio conservata (God's continued sustaining of the physical universe) are the same
5.2.5.5. The Anthropic Principle
(4.) The Anthropic Principle
*
We live in a universe that appears to be incredibly fine-tuned to produce life
*
The slightest deviations in the physical constants or the laws of physics would have resulted in a sterile universe devoid of stars and life
Is this evidence for a Designer?
5.2.5.6. The Ground of Physical Reality of Quantum Physics
A possible fifth contingency is:
(5.) the "Ground of Being" from Quantum Physics*:
Quantum physics challenges our conceptions of the fundamental nature of physical reality. It tells us:
*
The atomic "particles" of which we are made are not the ultimate physical reality.
*
There is a deeper, ultimately "impenetrable" ground of physical reality which must be imagined as teaming with latent potentialities, latent possibilities not yet actualized, not yet real (these potentialities are described by the "wavefunction" or "state function")
*
The act of measurement or observation causes one of these possibilities to become actualized, to become real; a particle will "appear" for a short period of time as a result of the measurement (called the "collapse of the wavefunction")
*
After the measurement is completed the "particle" will fade back into the impenetrable realm of latent potentiality and possibility
*
Whenever two or more "particles" interact, the ground of physical reality never seems to "forget" what they shared
o
In a deeper sense, the interacting "particles" become a single entity with shared latent potentialities and possibilities, and this sharing, the "strength" of this single entity, is never diminished by separation in space and time (quantum entanglement = quantum nonlocality; the EPR paradox)
This leads to the metaphysical questions:
*
What is the “realm” in which the “wavefunctions” = latent potentialities “exist”? What is the nature of their “being”?
*
How does this “ground of physical reality” “remember” all the interactions between “particles” and what they shared? Why is this remembrance unaffected, impervious to separations in time and space?
5.3. Theology of Nature
5.3.1. Introduction
Theology of Nature holds that:
*
Theologians and scientists are both involved in the "ultimate concern" of finding truth
*
Both are independent sources of truth, but in some areas they overlap "
o
"What anybody has said about the truth belongs to us, the Christians" -- Justin Martyr
*
Religious beliefs and doctrines must be in harmony with scientific truths
o
Some traditional theological doctrine may need to be modified based on what we learn about nature through science
*
No need to use different languages when talking about the same thing (The answer to Linguistic Analysis)
Examples of two areas of theology where physics might change "doctrine:"
*
1. How does God work in the universe? Why is there "evil" in the world?
*
2. Eschatology (Theology of the Last Things)
(*We will be discussing these issues further in sessions 5 and 6 of this series. What follows is a preview.)
5.3.2. How Does God Work in Creation?
How does God work in the universe?
Modern physics tells us Newtonian "determinism" is dead. The universe is not the "clock" of the Deists and God is not a "clockmaker" god. The universe instead appears to have an element of chance and happenstance built into it:
*
Quantum physics tells us we absolutely cannot predict the properties of a particle no matter how well we know its past history.
*
Chaos theory shows many if not most systems of nature are extremely sensitive to the starting conditions. A nearly infinitesimal difference in the starting conditions can lead to completely different behaviors
o
Also called the "Butterfly Effect:" the way a butterfly flaps its wings in China might effect the weather patterns in Minnesota two weeks later
Theologian such as John Polkinghorne (a particle physicist who became an Anglican priest and theologian) suggests that God made the universe as "wholly other" and gave the creation the gift of this chance and happenstance to make it a place of "true becoming". The chance, happenstance given to nature allows the universe to evolve and give rise to novelty and new forms -- to become “creative”
5.3.3. Eschatology
Eschatology = The Study of the Last Things.
Modern Cosmology tells us that:
*
The universe will die, either in "fire" or in "ice": in a collapse back to a great fireball, or in an eternal expansion where all structure is dissipated and all energy so spread out that the temperature will be near absolute zero everywhere
We must conclude, and theology must take into account, that only a redemptive act of God that contravenes the laws of physics can save the universe
5.4. Systematic Synthesis
The idea that science and theology offer views of reality that must be integrated is most radically seen in those theologians and philosophers who have tried to fully incorporate views of reality offered by science into new theological theories. The two theological theories given as examples by Barbour are:
*
1. Alfred North Whitehead's: Process Theology
*
2. Pierre Teihard de Chardin’s Point Omega
(The following material is lifted from the session Survey of Theology 1, the Doctrine of God.
5.4.1. Alfred North Whitehead: Process Theology
5.4.1.1. Reality in Process Theology
*
Process / change is the fundamental basis of reality (not matter, substances, essences. . .)
*
Reality is composed of building blocks of processes called “actual occasions,” or “actual entities,” each with a certain degree of freedom to develop and influence adjacent processes
*
God is the permanent, imperishable background of order for the developing processes
*
God can act to influence and persuade the processes, but cannot violate the rules governing the processes.
o
God can try to persuade the murderer not to kill, but ultimately cannot violate the murderer’s “free will.”
o
God can try to persuade the processes of nature involved in an avalanche, but ultimately cannot violate the rules of nature’s “free process”
*
God both influences processes and is influenced by the processes. God is thus “a fellow-sufferer who understands” (Alfred North Whitehead)
5.4.1.2. Criticisms of Process Theology
*
too radically compromises the transcendence of God
*
hard to find the God of the Old Testament in the God of Process Theology
5.4.2. Pierre Teihard de Chardin’s Point Omega
*
Universe is an evolutionary process constantly moving towards states of greater complexity and higher levels of consciousness
*
There are no radical discontinuities or innovations in this evolution. From the beginning, there was a “biological layer” inherent in the fabric of universe, a “rudimentary consciousness” in all physical matter (“there is a Within to things” said de Chardin) that was the basis for the evolutionary development of life and consciousness
*
“Critical points” of transitions include emergence of life on earth, emergence of human consciousness
*
The universe’s evolution is ascending towards Point Omega, which is both:
o
a union with God
o
the “force” attracting the evolutionary process
*
God is at work:
o
immanent within the world, working in the process of its evolution
o
as the “attractive” force drawing the process to its divine goal and fulfillment in the "Omega Point"
No comments:
Post a Comment