engleski

R. J. Bošković as European Scientist and Theologian at Work on the Bridges of "Science & Religion"

A notion and epistemological interpretation of God has received a top role in Bošković's work and thinking of the natural philosophy (Roger Joseph Boscovich, Dubrovnik, 18 May 1711 – Milano, 13 February 1787). On the spiritual bridges of contemporary science and religion, this is astonishingly still a fundamental as well as ultimate question. Bošković had perceived the question to be the most difficult challenge, and he added theology in the form of an Appendix relating to metaphysics under the title The Mind and God (Anima, & Deo) to his life work A Theory of Natural Philosophy (Boscovich Vienna 1758, and Venice 1763 ; Boscovich 1922 ; Bošković 1974). He considered the notion of God and proofs to the existence of God from the contingency of the world. That means existence which does not have a genuine cause and its own necessity according to medieval lat. contingentia (germ. Kontingenz) as both of the concept of chance (Zufall) and possibility (Möglichkeit). In theology that provides a cosmological foundation of God’s existence that emerges out just from the world. In Christian metaphysics the non–contingent Being is the God himself. Bošković was acting to such thought horizon also. He asked about the order of infinity: to what a number of combinations which are related to the constitution and aim of the Universe? He answered mathematically: to the highest order, with respect to infinity of the kind to which belongs the infinity of any straight line which can be extended to infinity in both directions. Bošković has considered existence of the human determining will against those of a Supreme Founder. Man determines within the limits of human knowledge (to the laws of Nature), whereas the God (Infinite Founder of Nature) overcomes all the rest which is undetermined – uncertain. Bošković, here, had declined of he Leibniz’s line of thinking because the idea of the best (pre-established harmony) of all possible worlds suffers a mathematical objection: for amongst possible there is no last term. A totality of all possible worlds can be comprehended and wisely overwhelmed merely by the Naturae Auctor, by his unique creation of the real world. Therefore, it cannot be argument against him whether he could or not make the world better. Or, perhaps, that he, already, did it! The ideas that Universe was produced by fortuitous chance or some necessity of fate was asserted in Bošković’s opinion just empty phrases. In the arrangement of Nature, Divinus Naturae Opifex has shown such great foresight and beneficence, but why he didn’t present himself to us through a revelation? However, if this being done – Bošković concluded, such thing may not be a part of natural philosophy exceeding the grounds of his capital Theory of Natural Philosophy. On the bridges between of science and religion, Bošković had rejected feign hypothesis, like Newton before him, particularly the view on the twofold truth: something may be true in philosophy of nature, but false in theology or vice versa. Boscovichianism, in that aspect, has fortunately remained super partes at work.

Roger Joseph Boscovich; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; Isaac Newton; natural philosophy; notion of God; theology; modern physics; epistemology; religion; bridges of science and religion; science and God

nije evidentirano