One last post with a science bent. One interesting discussion is the nature of space and time in terms of ontology. Now as I mentioned in the McMurrin reading Mormon theology has tended to adopt a naive view of time. That's been changing somewhat of late. Blake Ostler, for instance, has brought up relativity in connection to his analysis of Mormon theology. Still the issue of time and space is interesting. Consider Orson Pratt's argument about how all that exists is material. Yet he adopts a container view for space and time. Clearly space and time are real yet they aren't material in Pratt's sense. So what are they?
Many people have noted how close Pratt's philosophy is to Leibniz, except for having material atoms in space and time rather than immaterial monads that create space and time. Leibniz' ideal of a relational model of space and time has been sought after by many, including Einstein. Many think that General Relativity achieved this. However Sklar has offered fairly persuasive arguments that even GR entails a substantial spacetime. A new article at the Philosophy of Science repository provides an other argument for a substantial spacetime. In "Spacetime Substantivalism and Einstein’s Cosmological Constant" David Baker argues that the cosmological constant in GR entails that spacetime be a substance.
Why bring this up? Well as I mentioned space and time is problematic in Orson Pratt's theology. It is one contradiction in his thought. Many, myself included, would like to move to a more Leibniz approach that keeps some of Pratt's insights. However the problem of space and time persists. Now we can just do what the Stoics did in ancient Greece and say that space and time are special categories. Were I to hazard a guess, I suspect that is what Pratt would embrace. But as appealing as Leibniz is and despite the inspiration he and Spinoza provided to Einstein, it seems like space and time as a substance keeps emerging. I think that this does pose a problem for more idealistic approaches to theology, whether of a materialist variety or not.
I read McMurrin's "Theology of God" section yesterday, including the stuff on absolutism versus finitude. I think McMurrin does a nice job (1) summarizing the Christian theological options on a topic, (2) noting the Christian difficulties or contradictions, and (3) sketching possible Mormon theological positions in view of various doctrines, JS statements, or LDS scriptures. He can't hide a certain amount of pleasure in the fact that the Christian theological amalgam of Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion is so problematic, while the "naive" Mormon theology he sketches, a pragmatic mix of Christian/Hebrew religion with 19th-century science, is more consistent albeit heretical to orthodox Christians.
For space and time, my impression is Mormon thought takes absolute space and time for granted, and locates God firmly within space and time. At the same time, Mormon thought is generally quite open to science and scientific development, so when comprehensible alternative concepts become accepted, Mormon thought might adapt.
By "comprehensible" I mean a theoretical change that is understandable and relevant. For example, fundamental atomic theory has gone from protons and neutrons to variously colored or flavored quarks to variously dimensioned strings, but none of this has really forced people to alter their understanding of the things they encounter in daily living: tables and chairs, the sports page, or religious doctrines and theology. So IMHO none of this scientific development is likely to have any impact on Mormon theology. There's no nexus.
Contrasting the Christian view of a timeless (being past, present, and future) and spaceless (being present at all places) personal God with the Mormon view of a personal God seemingly moving through time and located in space is interesting. It's less clear how one uses evolving science to improve or critique or choose between alternative religious theologies. If anything, science and the commonsense view of time and space seems friendlier to the Mormon view of space and time than to Christian theologies of God's timelessness and omnipresence.
I think that the general Mormon perspective is very pragmatic and anthropological in nature. By that I mean that I don't think most Mormons really think there is much theological significance to anything outside of regularly encountered sorts of things in a historic situation. Thus I think Mormons instinctively have a fairly deep distrust of people putting too must trust in science or metaphysics.
That may seem to put this blog in a bit of a situation since it focuses in on the latter and a fair bit of the former. But I don't think it does. This is something I wish to bring up in Blake's book as I wonder whether some LDS figures who are taken to adopt fairly "absolutist" positions ought to be read as taking strong metaphysical positions.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble