About the multiverse: "Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual responsibility - and to my mind greater economy an elegance - would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so." p80
About ontological reductionism in response to the position of Crick "ultimately suicidal. If Crick's thesis is true we could never now it. For, not only does it relegate our experiences of beauty, moral oblication, and religious encounter to the epiphenomenal scrap-heap. It also destroys rationality. Thought is replaced by electro-chemical neural events. Two such events cannot congront each other in rational discourse. They are n either right nor wrong. The simply happen ... The very assertions of the reductionist himself are nothing but blips in the neural network of his brain. The world of rational discourse dissolves into the absurd chatter of firing synapses. Quite frankly, that cannot be right and none of us believes it to be so. " p92.
"The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Physics"
The reaction of Polkinghorne to the "God of the gaps" is very different from that of van Till. Lennox's comment in God's Untertaker p 189-190 is that Polkinghorne "emphatically rejects a God of the (bad) Gaps theology, nevertheless insists that we not
"Science and Theology"
|Reasonable Faith||Go Back|