Abstract
In Time & Eternity: The Question of Time in Church, Science and Theology, Archbishop Antje Jackelén tackles the problem of time and eternity from the perspective of three disciplines: theology, physics and philosophy. Her aim on the one hand is to provide a different understanding of the role of time and eternity in both theological and physical discourses; and, on the other, to create a better dialogue between science and theology by way of concrete concepts. She understands time to be both circular and linear, and as such, time becomes relational in its core. She investigates three interpretations of time, quantitative, ontological and eschatological. Studying both the classical and quantum understandings of time, she concludes that there are similarities between the ways in which time is understood in quantum physics and in eschatology in that both proceed from a static understanding towards a relational understanding of the world. If there is a relationship between God and creation, she argues, it is more plausible to link chaotic dynamics to God rather than a static order. It is more plausible to call God the Highest Complexitas than the Highest Simplicitas. (Jackelén, Time and eternity. The question of time in church, science, and theology. Templeton Foundation Press, West Conshohocken, 2005).
Time and Eternity is indeed an excellent piece of scholarship which inspires those from different disciplines who are interested in the subject of time. However, some questions come to mind. Where does the idea of time as a relationship lead us? What would we gain from accepting such a view in contrast to other understandings of time? What does a relational understanding mean for the debate between science and theology? Having this wonderful work in mind, I shall investigate how a quantum physical worldview would adhere to the philosophical problem of divine action in the world. The problem is stated as follows. Can God act in a time-dependent world while God is understood to be timeless? What is problematic with the concepts of eternity or infinity and impermanence? In order to answer this question, several understandings of time are analysed; e.g. three understandings suggested by physics, i.e. the Newtonian, the Einsteinian and that of quantum physics; and other understandings propounded by phenomenology and theology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Anne Conway refuted (amongst other theories) the dualism of Henry More and Descartes.
- 2.
Eternity and absolute ownership by an infinite life.
- 3.
According to Boethius, eternity is a form of existence that cannot be reduced to or is incompatible with time.
- 4.
By ‘easily’ they mean, “it is easy to provide a coherent characterization of a simultaneity relationship that is not temporal in a case where both the relata are eternal entities or events”.
- 5.
It is important to note that the concept of collapse was mostly used by von Neumann, “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, Princeton, 1955. Neither Bohr nor Heisenberg used the term collapse. Von Neumann had a more realistic view on the wave function; he was concerned with criticism of the measurement problem. Bohr and Heisenberg avoided the measurement problem by having a non-realistic view of the wave function which made it possible to avoid the collapse. It is important to notice the distinction between the von Neumann view and the Bohr/Heisenberg view.
- 6.
It might be interesting to note that Schrödinger gave the wave function Ψ an ontological meaning; he meant that the wave function Ψ exists independently of our knowledge about it.
- 7.
The example with the die derives from my notes of a lecture given by Dr. Henrik Carlsson at the department of Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University.
- 8.
The prime ′ indicates that this is a different eigenstate of the relevant set of compatible brain observables.
References
Boethius. 2000. The consolation of philosophy, Oxford world’s classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brentano, Franz. 1995. Psychology from an empirical standpoint. In The international library of philosophy, ed. Crane Tim and Wolff Jonathan. Oxon: Routledge.
Conway, Anne. 1690. Principia philosophiae antiquissimae et recentissimae de Deo, Christo et Creatura id est de materia et spiritu in genere. Amsterdam.
Conway, Anne. 1692. The principles of the most ancient and modern philosophy. London.
Conway, Anne. 1996. The principles of the most ancient and modern philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Descartes, René. 2003. Treatise of man, Great mind series. New York: Prometheus Books.
Flood, Raymond, and Michael Lockwood (eds.). 1986. The nature of time. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Frankenhaeuser, Marianne. 1959. Estimation of time, an experimental study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Gabrielsson, Johannes. 1926. Augustinus. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
Helm, Paul. 1988. Eternal God, a study of God without time. Oxford: Clarendon.
Isaacson, Walter. 2007. Einstein: His life and universe. London: Simon & Schuster.
Jackelén, Antje. 2005. Time and eternity. The question of time in church, science, and theology. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 2004. Kritik av det rena förnuftet. Riga: Thales.
Lockwood, Michael. 1989. The mind, the brain and the quantum. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Lockwood, Michael. 1996. Many minds, interpretations of quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 159–88.
Nagel, Thomas. 1993. Usikten från ingenstans. Falun: Nya Doxa.
Newton, Isaac. 2010. The Principia. London: Snowball Publishers.
Pike, Nelson. 2010. God and timelessness, vol. 7. London: Routledge.
Russell, Bertrand. 2001. Chap. 17: On the experience of time. In The human experience of time, ed. M. Sherover, 297–314. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
St. Thomas Aquinas. 1991. Summa Theologiae, ed. Timothy McDermott. Notre Dame: Christian Classics.
Stump, Eleonora. 2003. Aquinas. London: Routledge.
Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. 1981. Eternity. The Journal of Philosophy 78(8): 429–458.
Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. 1987. Atemporal duration, a reply to Fitzgerald. The Journal of Philosophy 84(4): 214–219.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. 1994. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Wigner, Eugene. 1983. The nature of time. In Quantum theory and measurement, ed. Wheeler John Archibald and Zurek Wojcieck Hubert, 260–314. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Runehov, A.L.C. (2016). How to Understand Time in Relation to Timeless Divine Action in a Time-Dependent World. In: Baldwin, J. (eds) Embracing the Ivory Tower and Stained Glass Windows. Issues in Science and Religion: Publications of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23944-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23944-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23942-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23944-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)