Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Contingency Interpretation of Information Theory as a Bridge Between God’s Immanence and Transcendence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Issues in Science and Theology: Nature – and Beyond

  • 311 Accesses

Abstract

This paper investigates the degree to which information theory, and the derived uses that make it work as a metaphor of our age, can be helpful in thinking about God’s immanence and transcendence. We ask when it is possible to say that a consciousness has to be behind the information we encounter. If God is to be thought about as a communicator of information, we need to ask whether a communication system has to pre-exist to the divine and impose itself to God. If we want God to be Creator, and not someone who would work like a human being, ‘creating’ will mean sustaining in being as much the channel, the material system, as the message. Is information control? It seems that God’s actions are not going to be informational control of everything. To clarify the issue, we attempt to distinguish two kinds of ‘genialities’ in nature, as a way to evaluate the likelihood of God from nature. We investigate concepts and images of God, in terms of the history of ideas but also in terms of philosophical theology, metaphysics, and religious ontology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As in the model of Fred Dretske (1983: 96–97).

  2. 2.

    ‘A given DNA sequence can change signifié depending on the state of the cell: when the interpretant changes, the signification of the gene does too – the relations have shifted, and in this way we have a new gene. There is no such thing as a gene in isolation, every gene being a constituent of a sequential set of genes or other cellular signs, so that apart from membership in this set, a piece of DNA has no meaning – it is not a sign’ (Emmeche and Hoffmeyer 1991: 35–36).

  3. 3.

    ‘[T]he [cosmological] models are purely formal and static, and have no qualities, especially personal qualities, which touch the religious problems of everyday life. … they do not introduce any value other than those of orderliness, mathematical depth and elegance, particularly not goodness nor human freedom. It follows that they do not even address those paradoxes that have been found in traditional metaphysical theories of God.’ (Hesse 1995: 244–245).

  4. 4.

    This is reflected in my review of W. Dembski’s ‘metaphysics of information’ in his Being as Communion of 2014 (Gagnon 2015: 23).

  5. 5.

    Here we echo the creed of the xi th council of Toledo, where it is stated that we will not rise in some æthereal body: ‘Nec in aërea vel qualibet alia carne (ut quidam delirant) surrecturos nos credimus, sed in ista, qua vivimus, consistimur et movemur’ (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 1976: §540).

Bibliography

  • Aliseda, A. 2007. Abductive Reasoning: Challenges Ahead. Theoria 22 (3): 261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avise, J. 2010. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, D. 1988. Probability, Statistics, and Theology. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 151 (1): 137–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., and J. Seligman. 1997. Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, H. 1911. Creative Evolution (trans. A. Mitchell). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bertsch McGrayne, S. 2011. The Theory that Would not Die. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. 2005. Wholeness and Implicate Order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, J. 1979. What are They Saying About the Trinity? New York: Paulist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, P. 1987. Une histoire de l’informatique. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, A. 1985. One Man’s Advent. London: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. 2006. The Many Faces of God: Science’s 400-Year Quest for Images of the Divine. New York/London: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R., and Y. Bar-Hillel. 1953. Semantic Information. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (14): 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 2018. Letter on Certain Aspects of Christian Salvation Placuit Deo. Osservatore Romano, No. 11 (2538), March 16, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa de Beauregard, O. 1963. Le Second Principe de la Science du Temps. Entropie, information, irréversibilité. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. 2014. Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denbigh, G. 1974. An Inventive Universe. New York: G. Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzinger, H., and A. Schönmetzer. 1976. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. 36th ed. Barcelona/Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, K. 1995. Logic and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Goodbye Descartes: The End of Logic and the Search for a New Cosmology of the Mind. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. 1996. On the Nature of the Evolutionary Process: The Correspondence Between Theodosius Dobzhansky and John C. Greene. Biology & Philosophy 11 (4): 445–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowek, G., and S. Abiteboul. 2017. Le temps des algorithmes. Paris: Le Pommier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. 1983. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumoncel, J.-C. 2009. La transformation de la métaphysique par A. N. Whitehead. In René Daval et al., Le procès de l’univers et des savoirs, 5–22. Paris: Seraphis/L’Art du comprendre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunstan Martin, G. 2005. Does it Matter: The Unsustainable World of the Materialists. Floris: Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elitzur, A. 2006. When Form Outlasts Its Medium: A Definition of Life Integrating Platonism and Thermodynamics. In Life as we Know It: Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme Habitats, and Astrobiology, ed. J. Seckbach, 607–620. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C., and J. Hoffmeyer. 1991. From language to nature. Semiotica 84 (1–2): 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, P. 2015. Review of Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information by William A. Dembski. ESSSAT News and Reviews 25 (1): 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. La réalité du champ axiologique: Cybernétique et pensée de l’information chez Raymond Ruyer. Louvain-la-Neuve: Chromatika.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelernter, D. 2001. Computers and the Pursuit of Happiness. Commentary 111 (1): 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gesenius, H.F.W. 1990. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M.B. 1995. The Sources of Models for God: Metaphysics or Metaphor? In Physics and Our View of the World, ed. J. Hilgevoord, 239–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kåhre, J. 2002. The Mathematical Theory of Information. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. W. F. 1996. New Essays on Human Understanding (trans. P. Remnant and J. Bennett). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C.S. 1992. Letters to Malcolm, chiefly on Prayer. San Diego: Hartcourt, Brace & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupasco, S. 1970. La tragédie de l’énergie. Tournai: Casterman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. 2006. Introduction to Philosophical Problems. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K. 1997. Information: Resurrection of the Cartesian Physics. World Futures 49: 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. 2010. Signature in the Cell. San Francisco: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. 2000. New Design Arguments, Old Millian Objections. Religious Studies 36 (2): 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacocke, A. 1993. Theology for a Scientific Age. Being and Becoming, Natural and Divine. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pockett, S. 2014. Problems with theories that equate consciousness with information or information processing. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, J. 2002. The God of Hope and the End of the World. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomian, K. 1990. ‘Présentation’ in La querelle du déterminisme. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. 1995. A World of Propensities. Bristol: Toemmes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. 1988. Representation and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Renewing Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruyer, R. 1957. Homonculus et Méganthrope. Revue de métaphysique et de morale 62 (3): 266–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, J. 2010. Evolution of Information. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 66 (4): 759–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. 2005. Hume’s Arguments on Cosmology and Design. In Reality and Rationality, ed. P. Dowe and M.H. Salmon, 152–177. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz-Moormann, K. 1990. The Evolution of Information. In The Science and Theology of Information, ed. C. Wasserman, R. Kirby, and B. Rordorff, 172–184. Geneva: Labor and Fides.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serres, M. 2014. Pantopie: De Hermès à Petite Poucette. Paris: Le Pommier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. 2008. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, R. 2010. What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us about Ourselves. The New Atlantis 29: 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A.E. 1963. Plato: The Man and His Work. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, O.A. 2004. The Library of Original Sources, II, The Greek World. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Aquinas. 2012. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Hebrews (trans. F. Larcher). Lander: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unwin, S. 2004. The Probability of God. New York: Three Rivers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urs von Balthasar, H. 1958. Science, Religion, and Christianity (trans. H. Graef). London: Burns & Oates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A. 2014. Arrival of the Fittest: How Nature Innovates. New York: Current.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S.I., and P.C.W. Davies. 2017. The ‘Hard Problem’ of Life. In From Matter to Life: Information and Causality, ed. S.I. Walker, P.C.W. Davies, and G.F.R. Ellis, 19–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weizsäcker, C. F. von. 1980. The Unity of Nature (trans. F. J. Zucker). New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, J.A. 1974. The Universe as Home for Man. American Scientist 62 (6): 683–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesel, E. 2010. All Rivers Run to the Sea: Memoirs. New York: Knopf Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, H.A. 1961. Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Catholique de Lyon, Lyon, France

    Philippe Gagnon

Authors
  1. Philippe Gagnon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Michael Fuller

  2. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenber, Halle (Saale), Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany

    Dirk Evers

  3. Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University, Trelleborg, Sweden

    Anne Runehov

  4. Volda University College, Volda, Norway

    Knut-Willy Sæther

  5. Chaire Science et Religion, Lyon Catholic University, Lyon, France

    Bernard Michollet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gagnon, P. (2020). A Contingency Interpretation of Information Theory as a Bridge Between God’s Immanence and Transcendence. In: Fuller, M., Evers, D., Runehov, A., Sæther, KW., Michollet, B. (eds) Issues in Science and Theology: Nature – and Beyond. Issues in Science and Religion: Publications of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31182-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation