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

What compels opuskind to seek haleness betwixt, science and religion, two compartmentalized and unadorned aspects of our demesne? John Polkinghorne states, in Does idol Act in the Physical ground, The demand for an integrated account of twain theological and scientific insight impels us to the task (Polkinghorne 59). Yet Polkinghorne is non merely is his quest in Emptiness and compliance Fritjof genus genus genus genus genus genus Capra connects the eventual(prenominal) veracity with the somatogenic military man. art object Polkinghorne and Capra agree on certain capricels, such(prenominal) as the mans inability to to the abounding clasp the eventual(prenominal) and the incorporation of quantum chemical mechanism in to each integrity ones various(prenominal) assembly line, they also contrast in terms of the religions they use to defend their argument. This leads to differences in their meets on the net and His inter doion with the corporeal world. While this leads to two distinct and diverse arguments, I believe that some(prenominal) arguments atomic image 18 equ whollyy presented in a reputable and thriving manner.At one point in each of their respective arguments, Polkinghorne and Capra intelligibly state that the understanding of the eventual(prenominal) pragmatism push aside non be fully understood by piecekind. Polkinghorne writes, We argon a long mien from a full understanding of our avouch powers of agency, let alone how it is that God whole kit and caboodle in the world (Polkinghorne 74). Due to our curb minds and capabilities, mankind lead never be able to fully grasp the ultimate introduction in its full essence.It is quite a mindboggling, if non impossible, to fully understand the ultimate human race, when it is as an interminable and omnipresent being. The public underlying wholly phenomena is beyond all organizes and defies all description and specification (Capra 211). The prof who taught my fr eshman Colloquium on Science and piety once stated that God cannot be put in a streamlet tube. While he did say this argument as a inwardness to re still the existence of an ultimate man, his assertion is binding thither is save so practically we can know almost the inspired.It is life-and-death that both(prenominal) Polkinghorne and Capra affirm this thought in ready to clarify that turn it is possible to unify the ultimate truthfulness with the tangible world, we will never fully understand the relationship. In evolution terms, in that location seems to be a missing touch that allow fors us to connect both aspects. Also, both Polkinghorne and Capra use the ideas and innovations of quantum mechanics as encloses when connecting the ultimate earthly concern with the somatic world. Capras discussion of electrons and photons becomes the premise for one of his deductions.Capra writes, The full interaction among the electrons will involve a series of photon ex changes (216). This leads to the assertion that in that location be no consecutive forces in the subatomic world just that these interactions argon due to the exchange of pinchs, that according to the quantum field scheme are created and destroyed (Capra 217). These two exposit lead Capra to state, The electromagnetic forces are due to the presence of virtual photons at heart charged particlesandthe forces surrounded by particles appear as intrinsic properties of the particles. After deducing this premise Capra goes on to say, Such a enamor of forces is also characteristic of Eastern religious mysticism which regards motion and change as inhering and intrinsic properties of all things (221). In vow to clarify this statement he utilizes aspects of Chinese religion and explains how this assumption of quantum mechanics is attached to the ultimate reality. Like Capra, Polkinghorne makes use of the theories and ideas of quantum mechanics as premise to relate the ultimate with the carnal. One of the ideas he uses is the sanatorium surmisal.The supposition says that events in a disorganised placement are random only Polkinghorne employs this theory in his argument in ordinate to show how deterministic chaos is not a reasoned argument, which will in the end lead to his idea of an unbuttoned scheme. He says, A chaotic arrangement is not totally chaotic in the popular sense, corresponding to absolutely random behavior. in that location are certain possibilities cognise as a strange attractor and its trammel to a certain extent, but this lucubrate hereafter behaviour of a chaotic body is unknowable (Polkinhorne 52).Later on in his argument, Polkinghorne discusses the idea of deterministic chaos and consider it from a varied sidepoint. He writes Instead of adopting the conventional strategy of verbalize this shows that simple determinism underlies even apparently mixed random behavior, I prefer the realist strategy of seeking the closest alignment of ontology and epistemologywhich has the special advantage of accommodating the printing of top-down cause in a innate(p) personal manner (Polkinghorne 64).The premise of top-down causality leads to his connection of the ultimate reality with the physical world and that God interacts with the world in a top-down fashion. If the ultimate reality does truly interact with the world, indeed(prenominal) this will lead to the discussion of an heart-to-heart organisation 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 aforementioned(prenominal) clock know the position and momentum of some(prenominal) particle (53).This idea of uncertainty in the physical world is the premise that leads to Polkinghornes assumption of the humanity as an open system. He writes, The gaps of quantum uncertainty operate only in particular circumstancesto obtain an openness at the lever of chaste physics (Polkinghorne 60). While Polkinghorne advocates the idea of an open system, it is evident that his counter partner, Capra, sees the origination as a unopen system. One of the major differences between Capra and Polkinghorne is the excogitation of a closed system versus an open system.Capra respectively agrees and accepts with the view of the universe as a closed system. Capra explains this concept by first explaining the idea of librate 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 unfilled has an infinite creative potentialwhich same(p) the quantum field, it gives birth to an infinite variety of forms which it sustains and at long last reabsorbs (Capra 212).The notion of it sustaining itself and reabsorbing leads to the idea of a system that is s et up and is able to observe itself without the help of an ultimate being. Buddhism expressed this idea of form and emptiness in a ace whole entity. Capra quotes, plaster cast 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 number 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. Wit hout free will morals and ethics lose reasonedity 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 response 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 some scientists do not even consider this notion of a minimalist to be valid. He states that epoch 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 lea ds to the top-down notion of the parts depending on the whole. With this top-down premise, Polkinghorne strengthens his argument of an open system by exhibiting that we are dependent on God, whether through the innovation 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 mustiness 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 rig picture, then sure enough God must know it in its temporality, as it actually is. God must not just know th at 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 ware he can see all and everything laid out before him. He observes two cars coming at the crossway at the same time and foresees an accident. This is resembling to God and the universe, where God is in a position to see all and augur all.Obviously, this is not a perfect similarity 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 reason out 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 effec t on the outcome of each argument.The belief in certain characteristics of an ultimate reality is most-valuable 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 western faith 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 mingled with Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. throughout 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 t he unity of the ultimate reality and the physical world is a without end issue on the Christian agenda (Polkinghorne 48). One aspect of the arguments that I demonstrate to be perplexing was the use of the same laws of the physical world as at he basis of each originators respective argument.Obviously, Polkinghorne and Capra pose their own agenda and argument. Therefore, what does this say about the laws of the physical world can they hardly 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 fool 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 wor ld. At the same time, we cannot say that Polkinghorne is correct and Capra is wrong, or vice versa. If the set forth that they base their arguments off are valid then we cannot deduce which argument is better, but only say that it is a scrap of realities. The success of the arguments lies in the belief of the expound of the religious and physical world.Faith is the true deciding factor that will allow us to declare a succeeder in this pursuit of the unity of the ultimate reality and the physical world. If we assume that the set forth 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 square(p) beliefs, then these two arguments would seem valid and justifiable in their eyes, due to their lack of knowledge of the ultimate real ity.