Human Evolution. Session V Philosophy-Theology. A multidisciplinary anthropic focus. A nthropic possibilities. ‘Anthropic’ is the universe’s properties that make mankind possible , in a wide sense all properties of matter-universe are anthropic.
A multidisciplinary anthropic focus
‘Anthropic’ is the universe’s properties that make mankind possible, in a wide sense all properties of matter-universe are anthropic.
As a matter of fact, we have been produced in the evolving universe.
Therefore, we must postulate matter-universe to have all needed characteristics that make humanity possible.
Anthropic is all that opens or can open human possibilities.
The human mind is a product of the evolving of matter-universe and the same occurs with human reason. Then, new human possibilities emerge.
Reason is the decisive human feature to open future capabilities and possibilities for man and humanity.
Knowledge, culture, science, formal sciences are reason’s products that explain history and found the future.
Human reason has been applied through history to the benefit of two basic human interests
Human reason has created through history the conditions for a universe’s dominion and for human solidarity (JürgenHabermas).
Which anthropic possibilities do metaphysical reason opens?
What do we understand by metaphysical reason?
It is the same natural reason thinking about the universe’s ultimate truth.
Metaphysical-philosophical reason addresses the last questions about ultimate reality.
Philosophical method is based necessarily on two main grounds.
Ways to respond to metaphysical questions:
Theism and atheism, conceive alternative ways of understanding the anthropic future of humanity.
The sociological fact of theism, atheism and agnosticism shows the enigmatic character of reality.
Enigmatic reality and epistemological criticism leads to metaphysical and ideological toleration.
Metaphysical theism seeks real arguments to show the likeliness of the theistic hypothesis.
What arguments support the theistic hypothesis?
The are found in the modern image of the world described by Science.
Scientific and philosophical reason postulates the sufficiency of universe.
If the universe is a fact, the ontological sufficiency as a fact can be postulated.
The scientific-philosophical question is whether it could be sufficient or not in order to found its own reality.
That undecidability opens the theistic probability.
The enigmatic ambivalence - theistic or atheistic – of the universe is to be considered as a result of modern image of the world described by Science.
Is scientific-philosophical reason able to impose dogmatically either theism or atheism?
Metaphysical reason has to consider this scientific ambivalence of the universe.
The generalized consensus of modern Science goes the way of monism.
Matter is considered to be the primordial origin of all things (Universe, Living beings, Human beings).
Matters ontology produces differentiation and the fundamental holistic unity of reality.
This monistic and holistic view of the universe increases the likeliness of God as unitary, holistic and ultimate ground of reality.
The Universe shows an ontological unity. The evolving moments – universe, life, man, reason, history – have an ontological congruence with matter as its primordial origin.
We can’t understand man without ontological unity with matter-universe-life.
But that unity do not necessarily imply the existence of God as a designer.
The anthropic congruence of natural history recognized as a sign of the existence of a rational designer.
The universe as a whole could have an anthropic design, though not necessarily.
But in the case that it would be that way the universe designed and created by God would have been an autonomous and self-creating universe. It would make no sense to think of God intervening in the level of a secondary causation.
Science gives us the image of a universe that contains a sufficient ontology to its evolutive evolving through time.
A scientific-philosophical reason can argue for a theistic future
Does metaphysical reason open a new anthropic future of humanity?
Arguments to conceive God creator are based on:
Is it viable to conceive a theistic future?
Reason could be enlightened by world religion’s theology.
Natural reason is open to an anthropic future through the enigmatic possibility of theism
How does reason see the world’s religions?
What kind of arguments can it find in order to complete its natural reasoning?
Are there signs in the world’s religions of a real presence of an enigmatic God?
Are there reasonable signs of a presence of God in Christian theology?
Variety of Christians theologies :
Only on the basis of this understanding Christian theology could illuminate a new way to future anthropic and final possibilities for humanity
How to harmonize Christian theology with natural theology?
Could modern science be the historical chance to reconcile theology with scientific-philosophical reason?
Is a Christian theology based on a Greek-Scholastic understanding of man still possible?
What about dualistic anthropology and hylemorphism as an ontological basis for theology?
What about religio- and theo-centric anthropology facing universe’s ambivalence in science?
Is it possible to continue on the basis of a thomistic ontology?
What about dualism and apriorism in face of the universal evolutive paradigm of modern science?
How to review transcendental theology?
THE EVOLUTIVE PARADIGM
It is not a theo-centric paradigm of evolution?
What about the universe’s ambivalence?
What about human liberty to create the future?
How to review and to rethink teilhardian values in face of modern universe’s ambivalence in modern science?
Is it possible a theology on the only basis of praxis and socio-political commitment?
How to reconcile a modern postmarxist praxis theology with a needed theoretical theology in dialogue with modern science?
How should a theology of kenosis in accordance with the modern ontology of science be conceived?
How to recover kenosis’ theology at the essence of the traditional Christian representation of God?
What a new speaking about God could be founded on a new kenosis theology as a basis for inter-Christian understanding?
Is the process theology really congruent with the traditional religious experience of the Reformation Churches and of the Catholic Church?
How should the process theology be reviewed in order to eliminate all tensions with traditional Christian Orthodoxy?
How to reconcile process theology with the best of an inter-Christian kenosis theology?