Contrasting the View of the Ultimate Reality in Relation to Science Essay

What compels piecekind to seek consent among, science and religion, two compartmentalized and straightforward aspects of our origination? John Polkinghorne states, in Does deity Act in the Physical human beings, The demand for an integrated account of twain theological and scientific insight impels us to the task (Polkinghorne 59). Yet Polkinghorne is non unsocial is his quest in Emptiness and cultivate Fritjof genus genus genus genus genus genus Capra connects the last-ditch naive realism with the personal domain of a function. com prospect Polkinghorne and Capra agree on certain motifls, much(prenominal) as the mans inability to uprighty handle the supreme and the incorporation of quantum mechanism in severally adepts several(prenominal) contention, they also contrast in wrong of the religions they use to defend their argument. This leads to differences in their thought processs on the final and His inter trifleion with the sensible world. While this l eads to two distinct and diverse arguments, I believe that some(prenominal) arguments ar as presented in a reputable and successful manner.At one point in each of their respective arguments, Polkinghorne and Capra distinctly state that the understanding of the supreme realism fuck non be fully understood by humankind. Polkinghorne writes, We ar a long focusing from a full understanding of our accept powers of agency, let alone how it is that God kit and boodle in the world (Polkinghorne 74). Due to our expressage minds and capabilities, mankind forget never be able to fully grasp the eventual(prenominal) truth in its full essence.It is sooner mindboggling, if non impossible, to fully understand the ultimate naturalism, when it is as an endless and omnipresent being. The naive realism underlying tout ensemble(prenominal) phenomena is beyond all pretends and defies all description and specification (Capra 211). The prof who taught my freshman Colloquium on Scienc e and righteousness once stated that God cannot be put in a testing tube. While he did say this avouchment as a doer to contradict the existence of an ultimate cosmos, his assertion is bindingated thither is further so oft we can know rough the call off.It is of the essence(p) that two Polkinghorne and Capra affirm this position in effectuate to clarify that duration it is possible to unify the ultimate frankness with the sensible world, we will never fully understand the relationship. In evolution terms, in that location seems to be a missing tie-in that chuck up the sponges us to connect both aspects. Also, both Polkinghorne and Capra use the ideas and beliefs of quantum chemical mechanism as encloses when connecting the ultimate worldly concern with the tangible world. Capras discussion of electrons and photons becomes the premise for one of his deductions.Capra writes, The full interaction amid the electrons will involve a series of photon exchanges ( 216). This leads to the assertion that at that place be no adjust forces in the subatomic world unless that these interactions argon due to the exchange of members, that according to the quantum field surmise are created and destroyed (Capra 217). These two set forth lead Capra to state, The electromagnetic forces are due to the presence of virtual photons at heart charged particlesandthe forces amongst particles appear as intrinsic properties of the particles. After deducing this premise Capra goes on to say, Such a mentation of forces is also characteristic of Eastern religious mysticism which regards motion and change as substantive and intrinsic properties of all things (221). In instal to clarify this statement he utilizes aspects of Chinese religion and explains how this assumption of quantum mechanics is machine-accessible to the ultimate realism. Like Capra, Polkinghorne makes use of the theories and ideas of quantum mechanics as premise to relate the ultimat e with the physiological. One of the ideas he uses is the loony bin speculation.The speculation says that events in a pell-mell brass are random alone Polkinghorne employs this theory in his argument in magnitude to show how deterministic chaos is not a validated argument, which will at last lead to his idea of an overspread dodging. He says, A chaotic governance is not totally chaotic in the public sense, corresponding to absolutely random behavior. there are certain possibilities know as a strange attractor and its especial(a) to a certain extent, still this critical rising behaviour of a chaotic scheme is unknowable (Polkinhorne 52).Later on in his argument, Polkinghorne discusses the idea of deterministic chaos and consider it from a incompatible skylinepoint. He writes Instead of adopting the conventional scheme of express this shows that simple determinism underlies even apparently obscure random behavior, I prefer the realist strategy of seeking the closest alignment of ontology and epistemologywhich has the supererogatory advantage of accommodating the picture of top-down occasion in a natural way of life (Polkinghorne 64).The premise of top-down causality leads to his connection of the ultimate reality with the tangible world and that God interacts with the world in a top-down fashion. If the ultimate reality does truly interact with the world, hence this will lead to the discussion of an blossom forth schema in which Polkinghorne also uses the basis of quantum mechanics in order to make a postulation. Another major theories Polkinghorne frequently refers to in his argument is the Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, which states that we cannot at the kindred epoch know the position and momentum of whatsoever particle (53).This idea of uncertainty in the physical world is the premise that leads to Polkinghornes assumption of the creation as an open body. He writes, The gaps of quantum uncertainty operate only i n particular circumstancesto piss an openness at the lever of classical music physics (Polkinghorne 60). While Polkinghorne advocates the idea of an open system, it is evident that his counter partner, Capra, sees the domain as a unlikable system. One of the major differences between Capra and Polkinghorne is the conceit of a closed system versus an open system.Capra respectively agrees and accepts with the view of the conception as a closed system. Capra explains this concept by first explaining the idea of payoff and empty space or the full and the void. He discusses how these are interconnected. The two cannot be distinguished (Capra 208). In Eastern religions, this strike down has an infinite creative potentialwhich standardized the quantum field, it gives birth to an infinite variety of forms which it sustains and last reabsorbs (Capra 212).The notion of it sustaining itself and reabsorbing leads to the idea of a system that is set up and is able to go on itself witho ut the help of an ultimate being. Buddhism expressed this idea of form and emptiness in a genius whole entity. Capra quotes, give is emptiness, and emptiness is indeed form. Emptiness is not different from form, form is not different from emptiness. What is form that is emptiness, what is emptiness that is form (215). Also, Capra states that this form and emptiness is elevated into a vacuum diagram that contains an unlimited sum of particles which come into being and vanish without end. This physical vacuumcontains the potentiality for all forms of the particle world (Capra 222). This system implies that the relationship between the ultimate reality and the physical world is one where the divine has set up system and does not intervene in our world. This premise eventually leads to the idea that there is no free will and that the universe is determined. This view of the universe completely changes the way we perceive the world. Without free will moral philosophy and ethics lose validity and are worthless to society.It is quite evident that Polkinghorne disagrees with this concept and presents his views of an open system. Polkinghorne would classify the idea of a universe as an closed system under a minimalist repartee which is to decline to speak of particular divine actions and to confine theological talk to the single great act of holding the universe in being. Polkinghorne believes that close scientists do not even consider this notion of a minimalist to be valid. He states that man God did establish the laws and set up the universe, this does not impede his interaction in the universe (Polkinghorne 54).He sees the connection between the ultimate reality and the physical world as relating divine agency to human agency. Polkinghorne explains, When we act, we seem to do so as total beings (57). Therefore God acts in the same as humans do, but it is seen as a God in relation to his creation. This premise leads to the top-down notion of the parts depen ding on the whole. With this top-down premise, Polkinghorne streng therefores his argument of an open system by exhibiting that we are dependent on God, whether through the establishment of the laws or divine intervention in the universe.Polkinghorne also classifies the closed system as a block universe. He writes, It is sometimes claimed that science endorses the alternative view that the universe is rather than becomes (Polkinghorne 68). This implies that the universe has a certain determinacy and that God does not act in the universe. Since the universe is, then it is definitive that God moldiness know the future because it is already determined. The view of the open system appears to be more logical and realistic, but at the expense of Gods infinite and omnipresent capabilities.He says, it is the universe of becoming that is the turn down picture, then sure as shooting God must(prenominal) know it in its temporality, as it actually is. God must not just know that events are successive they must be known in their succession (Polkinghorne 69). While I agree that the universe is an open system, it cannot be at the expenditure of God. Say a person is on a crown looking down at an convergency he can see all and everything laid out before him. He observes two cars coming at the convergence at the same time and foresees an accident. This is similar to God and the universe, where God is in a position to see all and foretell all.Obviously, this is not a perfect comparison since the person is constricted by time and therefore could be incorrect in his assumptions. Therefore, if we accept the premise that God is infinite and outside the constricts of time, then we can think that God or the ultimate reality knows the future in an open system. The most crucial difference between the arguments of Polkinghorne and Capra is their definition of the ultimate reality. In each of their respective claims, the view of the ultimate reality has a drastic effect on the o utcome of each argument.The belief in certain characteristics of an ultimate reality is definitive when there is an attempt to connect it to the physical world. Through further analysis of both arguments, it is evident that the difference between Polkinghorne and Capra is basically a westward worship versus Eastern Religion discussion. It is evident that Capra takes the side of Eastern Religion his nurse is titled The Tao of Physics An Exploration of the Parallels amongst Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. passim his argument he constantly refers to the ideas and beliefs of religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Chinese religion.He quotes from their texts in an attempt to connect their ultimate reality with the physical world. On the other hand, Polkinghorne utilizes Western religion as a means of connecting the ultimate reality with the physical world. specifically he uses the values and teachings of Christian traditions. He says that the discussion of the unity of the ul timate reality and the physical world is a imperishable issue on the Christian agenda (Polkinghorne 48). One aspect of the arguments that I set to be perplexing was the use of the same laws of the physical world as at he basis of each causations respective argument.Obviously, Polkinghorne and Capra affirm their own agenda and argument. Therefore, what does this say about the laws of the physical world can they exclusively manipulate to agree with any form of the ultimate? This cannot be valid or then the laws of the physical world can be disfigured in order to fit any belief system or value either Polkinghorne must be right and Capra wrong, or vice versa. We cannot accept this dualistic view of the world that the universe can be open in some instances and closed in others.Yet, this view arises when we fail to consummate that there is one ultimate reality or truth. If there was one truth, then there would only be one way to connect this ultimate to the physical world. At the sa me time, we cannot say that Polkinghorne is correct and Capra is wrong, or vice versa. If the premise that they base their arguments off are valid then we cannot deduce which argument is better, but only say that it is a infringe of realities. The success of the arguments lies in the belief of the premise of the religious and physical world.Faith is the true deciding factor that will allow us to declare a achiever in this pursuit of the unity of the ultimate reality and the physical world. If we assume that the exposit of the physical world and quantum mechanics in each argument to be the same, then the only significant difference between each argument is the view of the ultimate reality. Since I have Christian traditions and beliefs I would strongly side with Polkinghornes argument. Yet, if there is a person who has no self-coloured beliefs, then these two arguments would seem valid and justifiable in their eyes, due to their neglect of knowledge of the ultimate reality.