engleski

R.J. Bošković as European Scientist and Theologian at Work on the Bridges between Science and Religion. Essay on Bošković’s top concept and epistemological interpretation of God

The notion and epistemological interpretation of God played a quintessential role in Bošković's work and thinking on natural philosophy (Roger Joseph Boscovich, Dubrovnik, 18 May 1711 – Milano, 13 February 1787). On the spiritual bridges between contemporary science and religion, this is astonishingly still a fundamental as well as an 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 (De Anima, & Deo) to his life's work: A Theory of Natural Philosophy. He considered the notion of God and proofs of the existence of God from the contingency of the world. This means existence which does not have a genuine cause and its own necessity according to the medieval latin contingentia (germ. Kontingenz) as a result of both the concept of chance (Zufall) and possibility (Möglichkeit) in theology that provides a cosmological foundation of God’s existence that emerges just from the world. In Christian metaphysics the non–contingent being is God himself. Bošković was also acting on such a thought horizon. He asked about the order of infinity: what number of combinations 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 infinitely in both directions. Bošković considered the existence of the human determining will against that of a Supreme Founder. Man determines within the limits of human knowledge (the laws of Nature), whereas God (Infinite Founder of Nature) overcomes all the rest which is undetermined – uncertain. Bošković, here, had rejected Leibniz’s line of thinking because the idea of the best (pre-established harmony) of all possible worlds suffers a mathematical objection: amongst the 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 argued as to argument against him whether he could or not make the world better. Or, perhaps, whether or not he already, did! According to Bošković, the idea that the Universe was produced by fortuitous chance or some necessity of fate were just empty phrases. In the arrangement of Nature, the Divine Founder of Nature has shown such great foresight and beneficence, but why didn’t he present himself to us through a revelation? However, if this had taken place done – Bošković concluded, it would not be a part of natural philosophy, as it would exceeding the basis of his capital Theory of Natural Philosophy. On the bridges between science and religion, Bošković had rejected the 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 this respect, has fortunately remained super partes in his own work. The addenda provide a selection and comments of the notions and expressions (names) of God in Newton’s Principia as well as in Boscovich’s Theory in a coherent way, by accounting for the interaction of contemporary science and religion.

Roger Joseph Boscovich, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, René Descartes, Baruh Spinoza, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, natural philosophy, notion of God, theology, modern physics, epistemology, religion, bridges of science and religion, cosmology, dark universe, science and God

nije evidentirano