Spacetime and Theology in Dialogue [1 ed.] 9780874628340, 9780874627343

Citation preview

Spacetime and Theology in Dialogue

Spacetime and Theology in Dialogue

by

Gideon Goosen

Marquette Studies in Theology No. 57 Andrew Tallon, Series Editor

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Goosen, Gideon. Spacetime and theology in dialogue / by Gideon Goosen. p. cm. — (Marquette studies in theology ; no. 57) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-0-87462-734-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-87462-734-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Philosophical theology. 2. Space and time—Religious aspects—Christianity. 3. Space and time. 4. Theology. I. Title. II. Title: Space time and theology in dialogue. BT55.G66 2008 261.5’5—dc22 2008011192

© 2008 Marquette University Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-3141 All rights reserved. www.marquette.edu/mupress/ Founded 1916

Cover design by Rob Lucas The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication................................................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements..................................................................................... 8 Introduction................................................................................................ 9 Part 1 ~ Questions about Space and Time Chapter 1 Some Philosophical Questions about Space and Time......................... 15 The Greek philosophers - Time as moving according to number (Plato) – Time a puzzle to Aristotle – Plotinus expands on Aristotle – Augustine and subjective time – Is time real? (Kant) – Temporality fundamental to being (Heidegger) – Eternity?

Chapter 2 Insights from Psychology and Anthropology........................................ 35 Hints about eternity – Time standing still – Jung and synchronicity – Ontological importance of time (Panikkar) – Is time linear or cyclic? – Time and teleology – Primal cultures and time

Chapter 3 What is Science saying about Spacetime?............................................. 49 Time is relative – From 3D to 4D – Nature of spacetime a mystery – Travel into future is possible – There is no universal “now”

Chapter 4 Problem Areas for Theology................................................................. 61 Dominus Iesus – Salvation and the liturgy – Image of God – Linear time – Liturgical problems – Theologians – Cause and effect – Dualisms: God as a receptacle

6

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Part 2 ~ The Response: Towards a Contemporary Theology of Spacetime Chapter 5 Time as an Illusion............................................................................... 77 Image of God – Model 1: Time as an illusion: time is now – Liturgi­ cal time – Kairic time – Sacramentality and the patristic period – Retro-active sacraments – Postmodernism – Application to space­ time – Spatio-temporal constructions of humans

Chapter 6 Time as clockwork: a succession of events............................................ 99 Model 2: Time as clockwork: A succession of events – Time in the bible – Eschatological and apocalyptic time – Creation out of nothing? – Christ-centered time – Points of convergence

Chapter 7 Time as Becoming...............................................................................121 Model 3: Time as becoming – Process theology – Does God know beforehand? – The God-world relationship – Incarnational dimension – Some weaknesses in process theology

Chapter 8 Time as a Secondary Construction....................................................133 Model 4: Time as a secondary construction – A Theological response – Incarnation – Free or not? – Process theology and free will

Chapter 9 Conclusion...........................................................................................149 A new concept: spacetime – Trinitarian – Incarnational – BiblicalLiturgical and Sacramental – Inclusive of synchronicity – Acceptance of mystery of spacetime

Bibliography............................................................................................165 Name Index............................................................................................173 Subject Index...........................................................................................177

DEDICATION To those who stand closest to me : Caroline, Naomi and Chris, Rebecca and Hamish, and Jonathan

8

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The task of writing a book in never one that is accomplished by a single author. Authors, whether they acknowledge it or not, always stand on the shoulders of those who went before them and are supported by those who stand beside them. I wish therefore to acknowledge this through the bibliography and more specifically, through mentioning those who have been part of the process which resulted in this particular book: Charles Hill, Gerard Kelly, Richard Lennan, Margaret Tomlinson, and John Quilter. I thank them for reading the manuscript and offering their constructive criticism. I must also thank my institution, Australian Catholic University for granting me six months study leave in 2005 to further this project which started somewhere in 2002.

I

Introduction

had an older friend who lived on a verdant hilltop at Chardonne overlooking the beautiful Lake Geneva in Switzerland. The view from the large double-storey house, of the Lake and the Dents du Midi mountains in the background, was breathtaking to say the least. My friend had been in the watchmaking industry since he was fourteen years old following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. As a youngster his job was to get up early every morning and go on the rounds of the public clocks in Vevey on the shores of Lake Geneva, and ensure they were all on time, to the second. In his later years he mended grandfather clocks in his own workshop and in his own time at home. Clients were surprised that the waiting time for repairs was two years but happy to know he had the expertise handed down from generation to generation. On the wall of my friend’s house was a prominent vertical declining sundial. The lower part of the circumference of the dial was marked with an hourscale from VIII through to XII and then I to IV. Presumably no one should use it prior to eight or later than four in the afternoon. The style pointed down towards the lower half of the dial. In bold letters in the top half of the dial were the Latin words “HIC & NUNC”. Here and now. That is it. Here and now. The only thing we have is the here and now, the present moment. The past is gone and the future not yet. For watchmakers it is normal to think about time occasionally as is evidenced by some of the captions on sundials. They tend to be of a philosophical and rather sombre nature. One reminds us, “Hours pass deeds remain” and another of the ephemeral nature of our existence, “Shadows we are and Like Shadows depart. ” A third recommends a certain stoicism, “ If some hardship you do mourn/ Remember hours soon flee/ Thus every living creature born / Though by some distraction torn/ Must take things as they be”. The rest of humankind probably does not think much about the elusive thing called “time” and much less on “space” (with the exception of the younger generations perhaps). What follows is an attempt to reflect on space and time in the context of christian faith.

10

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

There are many aspects of a reflection on space and time that could be covered in a book such as this. The focus of this book will however be theological, not primarily philosophical or scientific or mathematical. The aim of the book is to bring together a theology of spacetime, taking into account the modern insights into spacetime from a variety of disciplines. In doing that the detailed and specialized knowledge of experts in each discipline is not available to us. For example, books such as Ellis’s , The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime (1973), or Butterfield’s, The Arguments of Time (1999), are unintelligible for the nonmathematician. So we rely on experts in the discipline to describe for us in a language that we can follow what their field has to contribute to the discussion. The way in which this book is organized is to construct a christian theology of spacetime as we go along. Part One will open up the topic of space and time from a variety of viewpoints to get the reader thinking and to expose some of the ideas that will be addressed in a theology of spacetime. Although much time is spent on philosophers and what they thought, this book is focused on developing a christian theology, not a philosophy or anthropology, of spacetime. When we refer to “theology” in this book, we mean christian theology. Part Two is where the theology is developed and is done through four chapters (Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight ) where time is discussed using four models which Polkinghorne has identified: time as illusion/now, clockwork, becoming, and as a secondary construction. With each model theological aspects of a theology of spacetime which the model directly or indirectly raises, are discussed. Some theological points are common to all the models discussed. The Incarnation would be one such point. This is somewhat of an artificial mechanism for breaking up the topic to make it more manageable. The composite theology of spacetime will be brought together in the final chapter, although its content will be signalled as we go. So much by way of an introduction to the structure of the book, but what about the topic? Our language usage is one handy way we can quickly confirm that time is important to us humans and polysemous. We apply different verbs to “time”: have, use, kill, need, make, buy, reverse, fill, waste, save, spend, run out of. We use different prepositions with time: in, over, on, with, from, through, beyond, before. We also

Introduction

11

use it as a substantive: good times, ancient/modern times, happier times, hard times, the march of time, the time of our lives, time on your hands, in the nick of time, no time and doing time! And how often do we ask someone: what is the time? or glance at our wristwatch? Time appears to be a significant dimension of our lives. It seems to me, another significant way the topics of time travel and spacetime generally have been brought to the attention of the public is through science fiction. This often comes through the form of movies, as in the case of Matrix I, but there are many similar movies. Let me now use Matrix I as a way of introducing spacetime. Firstly an overview of the plot of the movie is helpful. Thomas A. Anderson (his hacker name is “Neil”) first comes across Morpheous in a dream. He is then recruited by Morpheous to help him and his friends as the next saviour. (The baddies also tried to recruit him, and indeed bugged him by putting a bug into his belly-button in a dream which turned out to be true in real life, because Trinity de-bugs him in the real world. The baddies also try to kill the girl, Trinity). Anderson goes out through a time-machine and into the next century (it was 1999 when he left this world and now it is somewhere around 2199 – they do not know the exact time). He is programmed to do and know certain things. Trinity says he is there because he is looking for something, looking for an answer. The question, she maintains, brought him there. The question seems to revolve around a dissatisfaction with the matrix (system of this world with all its restrictions; it is everywhere, all around us, one can feel it, in the churches, taxes; ‘the world has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth’. So truth appears to be at the center). It is mentioned, as an intuitive feeling, that something is wrong with the world (this is hardly a great insight for theologians!) He is however able to move from his real world to this unreal world. He has extraordinary powers of movement and knowledge through downloading programs into his head. The baddies (agents, military, police who are all symbols of restrictions) are out to kill Morpheous and Anderson; eventually there is a violent shooting scene and miraculously (bullets can’t hurt him now) Anderson is brought back to life through his girlfriend (his resurrection) and ends up by defeating the enemy. His mission is to show others how good life could be beyond the restrictions of this life.

12

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

One notices that in this movie there are certain themes common to many contemporary movies such as the need to be saved and the need for a saviour (“Is he the one? ”– sounds like the gospels), betrayal and resurrection. Out of love, Trinity proclaims: you cannot be dead because I love you. This reminds me of the New Testament pericope: those who die and believe in me shall not die forever. One of the main themes is the topic that have engaged philosophers for centuries, that is, what is realism, what is a real world and what is a virtual world? Other themes are those of the role of a prophet and the freedom/ liberation of the people. We are left wondering which is the normal world: the one in which Anderson works or the trans-time machine world of Morpheous and his co-workers? Also the theme of one dying (Morpheous) so that the other (Anderson) and others will live, is familiar to many religious people. Violence as a means of resolving problems is the main text which problem is keenly felt in contemporary society. There is a disturbing intermeshing of a number of things such as dreams, this world (real time) and the extra-world (which takes place in the future) of Morpheous and helpers, of being inside programs and watching them from the outside. There is a repeated rejection of Fate and an affirmation of the desire to have control of one’s life. The baddies (dressed like FBI agents and representing the military) want to get the secrets (computer codes) from Morpheous (whom they call “a known terrorist to justice”) and his group who live in a hovercraft with a biblical name, Nubuchadenezzar. Anderson is kidnapped to work for Morpheous because they think he is the saviour for them. The movie ends with Anderson encouraging people to get rid of the limitations of this world. He phones the enemy and says they are afraid of change, and that he is going “to show these people what you do not want them to see”, a world “without rules and control, without borders and boundaries”, in short a “world where anything is possible”. This sounds very much like the world of quantum mechanics although I presume he did not mean that. However with the insights of quantum mechanics we are told we do have a “world where anything is possible” and process theology is all in favour of a God who can be surprised. So we have a number of themes from this movie which dovetail with reflections on spacetime.

Introduction

13

This movie tries to get the message across that there is something beyond the rules, restrictions and the spatio-temporal restrictions of this world. There is the suggestion of being able to move into and out of this world’s restrictions. (There is also a certain naïvety in the movie about wanting a place, a community without rules, a heaven free of all restrictions). Because Morpheous and his friends live outside of this world in the future, and can come back to this world, the relativity of time and space is dramatized. The word “unplug” is often used; it represents the capacity to withdraw from this world and willingness to see the suffocating restrictions of many aspects of mundane life, and the human desire to fly away and be free of all spatio-temporal limitations. If only! The centuries old theological themes of dissatisfaction with this world, of fall, redemption, resurrection, are repeated in its own way in this movie. Thus for the younger generations, brought up on movies like this, the idea of time travel, time machines, easy movement between real and unreal worlds, have prepared them for a new world with a fresh view on space and time; for the older generations, the mental effort to adapt is considerably greater. Movies like this one not only provide a useful introduction to our topic but are also a fruitful point of departure for dialogue with any developing theology of spacetime. It is hoped that the proposed theology of spacetime will challenge readers intellectually but also prove to be a source of spirituality in daily living. I think western society in particular needs to stop and think its approach to many facets of life; its understanding and use of spacetime is just one of those aspects. Gideon Goosen Sydney, 31st March 2007.

Part 1 Questions about Space and Time

Chapter One Some Philosophical Questions about Space and Time

T

he idea of Part One is to open up a number of dimensions or aspects of space and time from the viewpoint of different disciplines. Of all the disciplines, modern physics is probably the one that is most revolutionary and startling by way of its discoveries and assertions, if one thinks of the work of Einstein, Hawking, Davies, and Greene and others. But of course there is always philosophy to go back to, not to mention anthropology and psychology. Other than western sources, there is oriental wisdom too, although that requires a specialized knowledge which we in the west are only now beginning to appreciate. .

The Greek philosophers The ideas we have inherited about space and time have a long history. As one would expect, the discipline of philosophy has engaged itself with some of these questions over many centuries. We have a rich source of reflections in the western world on time from more than two thousand years ago, starting with pre-Christian philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, to Philo of Alexandria, to Augustine and then to modern philosophers like Kant and Heidegger. Not surprisingly, the philosophers of two thousand years ago did have questions of a cosmological and of a broadly religious nature which they posed and attempted to answer. Where did the material world come from? Was the world created from the beginning or was it created later? What is space? When was time made? What is the difference between time

16

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

and eternity? How does one measure time? Is time subjective or objective? Is time real? What these philosophers have had to say about space and time is often (but not always) fragmentary and tangential to their main discourse. It nevertheless gives one an inkling of their train of thought. What was the context out of which these philosophers wrote about time? The context was largely created by questions arising from the natural observations of the world around them. One thinks of the rising and setting of the sun, the stars, and the heavens, the movement of the earth and planets. Where did the heavenly bodies come from? Who made them? If made by the gods, when were they made? At the beginning of creation or later? Questions also arose from the speculative musings of philosophers. One notes too that, in these philosophical writings, time is certainly given more attention than space. Why is this so? One could hardly say time impinges more on one’s existence than space, because things not only happen at a certain time but happen somewhere. Nevertheless, time does seem to have received more attention than space and that bias seems to have percolated down to modern times. Today’s context is significantly different. We in the west have lived through many profound changes like the rise of towns and cities, the Black Death, the voyages of discovery and the opening up of the New World, the industrial revolution, the Enlightenment, the rise of scientific empiricism and logical positivism, atheistic communism, and now the electronic revolution, quantum mechanics and space travel. Time is often considered and written about as a result of the insights and speculations of Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity. As we shall see, many new ideas and fresh questions have arisen from these theories. Science fiction and electronic games are also other catalysts for thinking about time. A popular theme is the possibility of time travel, forward into the future and back into the past. The idea of traveling in a spaceship for many years and then coming back to earth and finding oneself much younger than one’s erstwhile contemporaries, is astonishing, exciting and appealing! The selection of philosophers and issues in this chapter is guided by two considerations. Firstly this is not an attempt to provide an extensive and comprehensive history of spacetime in philosophy. Secondly,

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

17

the aim is to open up considerations that touch on the main issues regarding space and time, such as their nature, how to define them, when they came into being, how they are experienced, whether they are real or not, and how they relate to eternity. These issues are relevant to our ultimate goal, that is, of trying to formulate a christian theology of spacetime. Let us start with Plato.

Time as moving according to number (Plato) Plato (428-348 B.C.) contemplated both space and time, as well as the Creator. The idea of time as mimicking eternity comes from Plato although taken up and developed by others. Time (in Greek, chronos) was seen as “moving according to number”. In Timaeus, time is created according to a pattern of the changeless. Time is meant to underscore order, predictability and permanence and is in this a reminder of eternity. Plato also held that “soul” interfuses and develops the world. Soul is prior to the creation of time. The everlasting nature of eternity could not be repeated so the Creator made something that would be a “moving image of eternity”, an eternal image which was time seen as “moving according to number”. And this image according to Plato (Timaeus 37, d 3-7) we call time: “The Demiurge, having constructed the universe wanted to make it more like its divine pattern and not being able to give it an eternal character, he made an everlasting likeness moving according to number – that which we have named Time.” The presence of soul in the world is not particularly tied to the nature of time. Time as the moving image of eternity is not, in Plato’s thinking, specifically attached to that of the movement of world soul which diffuses all creation (Lloyd 1999, 49). This needs to be noted because of the way that both Plotinus and Augustine developed the idea. As regards the measurement of time, Plato’s approach was very functional. The Demiurge gave man the bright sun to afford him a unit of time, said Plato. Thus it is the sun which is the reference point for time: time is the movement of the sphere/sun. This sort of basic approach is still very much in evidence in more primal societies. One has only to go to distant deserts in whatever continent, to find that the

18

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

rising and setting of the sun are key events of the day. Tourists or city people visiting these deserts, flock to see the huge sphere in the sky as it pops above the horizon in the morning and then slips below the horizon in a blaze of glory in the evening. These are determining and spectacular events that measure time. We may also enquire what Plato thought of space, since the two concepts are now tied together in contemporary physics. Space was made in the “Receptacle” which “provides room for all things that have birth” (ibid. 275). The receptacle is the nurse of all becoming while space is that in which the made objects appear. Some have drawn the analogy with the womb: the receptacle of space is like the womb in which new life begins. We will see how this concept develops and changes in history.

Time a puzzle to Aristotle From Plato let us move on to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). For Aristotle time was a difficult concept to define. The very idea of time puzzled him. The past is no longer and the future is not yet. Thus neither the past nor the future exists, yet both these concepts form part of what we call time. Time must be a peculiar kind of thing if some of its parts do not exist! What then does exist? The present. But what is the present? Is it a series of “nows”? For Aristotle time was made up of these barely existent nows even if the present moment is so short. Time barely seems to exist, he complained in Book 4 of his Physics. The “now” in one sense is always the same, yet in another, is always different. Such is the ambiguity of the “now”. Aristotle (Physics, Book 4, 11) had a conviction that time was tied to motion and change as we see from these words : “It is evident then, that time is neither movement nor independent of movement. For time is just this – number of motion in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after’. Hence time is not movement, but only movement in so far as it admits of enumeration.” Aristotle’s definition of time is thus that time is the measure of motion. He argues that time is secondary to motion, and motion in turn is secondary to changeable material substances. There is something deeper than time itself which is what is numbered and not by which we number, or to express it differently: time is what is countable in movement, not in the sense of that with which we count, but of what

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

19

is counted. He defines time as “number of motion in respect of ‘before ’and ‘after’ ”. The “nows” are the boundaries of temporal intervals. “what is bounded by the “nows” is thought to be time … we may assume this”. Aristotle’s definition attempts to be an objective or immanentist definition although we know others will think of it as a change-based account of time. And what does it mean for Aristotle to be a being in time? To be in time means that the being is measured by time. This refers to movement but also to any existent thing. To be “in time” means to exist with time or contained by time as things in place are contained by place. This approach did not find any resonance with Augustine who thought it inadequate taking no account of time’s relation with the mind, or how the self experienced itself in time. Aristotle could find no special place for soul whereas, as we shall see, it was central for Augustine. One might add that Aristotle thought time was universal: “there is the same time everywhere at once” (ibid.) as did many others and that time was the cause of change and decay.

Plotinus expands on Aristotle Plotinus (203-269 A.D.) expanded on Plato’s position with soul and time in his Enneads. He saw them as being more closely tied and thus his approach was more subjective than either Plato or Aristotle. For Plotinus time is a product of soul. Time is the life of the soul in movement as it passes from one stage of act or experience to another. Plotinus saw time as mimicking eternity as did Plato. However he also saw the obverse, negative side of this comparison. Time introduces transience where formerly there was permanence. It breaks up the permanence of things. It suggests disorder, unpredictability, transience. In this thinking one can either start from eternity and end up thinking of time, or allow a reflection on time to lead one to contemplate eternity. Our awareness of eternity is crucial to Plotinus’s account of time. Augustine developed Plotinus’s ideas and time becomes for him “a distension of the soul” as we shall see.

20

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Augustine and subjective time This brings us to Augustine (354-430 A.D.) of Hippo. We will concentrate on his Confessions, because although he does say, for example, in The City of God, that the world was made simultaneously with time, not in time (XI,6), he gives much greater attention to time in his Confessions. In Book XI of the Confessions, Augustine, like Aristotle, repeatedly poses the question as to the nature of time, and he does this from the viewpoint of how the mind or consciousness copes with the human experience of time rather than a strictly objective study. In this he is in line with Plotinus and presents a further development of the subjective approach. Although we are dealing with philosophical thoughts on time in this chapter, Augustine’s treatment of time is an enriching mixture of a number of perspectives. Firstly, he is interested in the psychological angle: how does the mind/soul experience time? Then there is obviously the philosophical perspective which is intertwined with the theological. Indeed his reflections on time read like a prayer at times, addressing the Lord directly. As he is one thinker who did hand down a concentrated reflection on time we will focus on his thoughts in some detail. With Augustine the context in which he makes his inquiry into time is all-important. His enquiries into time must be seen within the context of his autobiography as Lloyd has shown (1999, 39-60). It is not an objective enquiry by a disinterested scientific researcher. For him, his conversion to Christianity is both a profound personal turning point in his life as well as a heuristic tool for future and past events. It gives meaning to everything else and everything is interpreted and shaped by that event. It is a lens through which he sees life – a perspective which Cullmann later stresses. What Augustine writes in the Confessions is very much a subjective account. Let me expand on this. When considering the Confessions, it is useful to think, as Lloyd suggests, of the roles of narrator and protagonist, with Augustine assuming both. This will shed light on the context of his thoughts on time. As protagonist he sees the events of his life as confused and fragmentary. As regards the events of his past life, he subjects them to a cycle of continuous re-assessment and re-shaping in the light of his new experiences and in the light of expectations for the future which are revised in the light of those new experiences. It is the interplay of the

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

21

past, present and future, that so fascinated Augustine. And knowledge of his particular life-story makes that easy to understand. However in his second role as narrator, he can stand back and impose a certain completeness, wholeness and objectivity on these events – although God alone has this perspective in an absolute way. There are two sad and noteworthy events which influenced Augustine and shed light on his personal experience of time. Firstly he experienced the death of a very close friend whom he regarded as another self, a soul friend, or soulmate, we would say today. He experienced his grief as a disorienting loss of self and failed to understand what was happening to him. In his misery he reflected on how human beings can be so attached to things that cannot last, yet cause so much grief when they are lost. On the one hand, death appears as a terrifying enemy, and on the other, living on makes him feel like half a soul. However, and here is the critical point, with the passage of time his grief is assuaged. Time works wonders on the mind and gives fresh hope, at least so it would seem. Although the passage of time does indeed mend some of the broken pieces in his life, new friendships also open up new possibilities of vulnerability and fragmentation of the self. The second event was the death of his mother Monica. In between the two deaths, he had become a Christian, so he experiences this second death in a totally new and different way. Although initially he experienced great waves of sorrow and weeping, he found in his weeping a new expression of hope. His grieving is assumed into his beliefs and becomes prayers for his mother. The memory of Monica is now tied to the hope of eternal life. As time passes, Augustine’s memory recalls all that Monica stood for and transforms it into the hope of eternal life. Whereas with the first death, despair was inclined to set in with the passage of time even if there were some moments of fresh hope, with the second, the recall of past things related to Monica, results in hope for eternal life. Plotinus was right: there is a connection between time and reflection on eternity. Having mentioned these two biographical events, let us now give an overview of his ideas related to time as found in Book XI of the Confessions, using Chadwick’s translation (1991). We come to the questions regarding time, after an introduction comprising of a number of associated reflections. In Book XI, Augustine proclaims the goodness

22

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

of God in leading him into the Scriptures. He then goes on to address the question of querulous people who ask: what did God do before he made the heavens and the earth? (“He was preparing hells for people who inquire into profundities”, was the smart quip at the time). But the serious questions about God and eternity led Augustine into exploring the nature and experience of time (# 7- 41). Throughout this debate one is conscious of the religious framework within which his reflections take place. The assertion is made that God is the Creator of heaven and earth; that there is no place before creation; that there was nothing of a corporeal nature before creation and that eternity is different to time and change, and the question raised whether creation meant a change in God. Eternity cannot be compared to ordinary time; it is not time stretched out, for eternity is “ever-fixed”. Augustine’s concept of eternity seems very Greek in nature, “Thou art the Same, and Thy years fail not”, and “Thy Today is Eternity” (#16). Augustine admits that it is difficult to define time. “Provided no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an inquirer, I do not know” (#17). Yet he explores the nature of time and finds it a very elusive thing. Phrases like “a short time” and “a long time” are so relative, he complains. He echoes some of the points about the elusiveness of time, made by Aristotle. The nature of the future is to become present, and then past. If it remained the present one would not have time, but eternity (# 18). How can one say something is “a hundred years ago” or “a long time”, since the past is gone, does not exist, has ceased to be? To use the expressions “a long time past” or “a long time to come” is incorrect because those events do not exist. Augustine, having shown that neither the past not the future can be “a long time”, then asks if the present can be long. Are one hundred years, when present, a long time? No, because one does not experience a hundred years all at once, nor one year, nor a month or a day. Actually only one second at a time (# 20). What about intervals of time? One can measure time as it passes, but once past, it ceases to exist, so one cannot measure it then. What one measures are the memories of them. Memories are traces, or imprints in the mind (#23). By attempting to analyze the nature of time he shows that with time all one has is the present moment, “which flies so quickly from future

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

23

to past that it is an interval with no duration” (# 20). Does the future hide in some secret place, waiting to appear as the present and then quickly sink into the past? And what about memories? They are, says Augustine, not the things themselves which are past, but the imprints left in the mind of those things. He doubts whether past and future exists; he even doubts time, “show me time!”. He returns to the question of past, present and future – the three tenses that everyone is taught who learns a language. Our language however is imprecise and Augustine prefers to express it this way: “There are three times: a present of things past, a present of things present, a present of things to come” (# 26). Our thoughts of the past are what we call memory, the present is our immediate awareness, and the future is our expectations of what is to come. This classification will find a valuable echo in the Christian liturgy when we speak of anamnesis, presence and eschatology. He is also troubled by the way we measure time. Time is measured while passing, but once past, it is no more, so how can we say we measure it? He turns to prayer for help in his grappling with these issues and resolves that they are “deeply obscure” for him (# 28). He struggles with the way one measures time, that is, by the day, the rising and setting of the sun, but this does not really tell us much about the nature of time (# 30). In spite of his efforts he has to confess, as he has done repeatedly, “I still do not know what time is” (# 32). Then it dawns on him that as one can read a short line slowly which will take some time, and a long line quickly which will take less time, time might be a “distention”. But a distention of what? He does not know, but would not be surprised if it were a distention of the mind/soul itself. We will return to this below. Although understanding is difficult he pursues his task with the encouragement of the thought: “Concentrate on the point where truth is beginning to dawn” (# 33-35). He is unable to find answers to his vexing questions about the power and nature of time, but he is hopeful and takes courage to proceed, citing psalm 61, “God is our help, he made us and not we ourselves” (# 34). Often, in his reflections on time, Augustine says, “I confess, O my God, I know not!” or “too far is this way out of my ken”. He comes back to his conviction that God is the Creator of all, and he is left to marvel, “how deep is your profound mystery, and how far away from it have I been thrust by the consequences of my sins” (#41).

24

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

If we are asked whether Augustine had a definition of time, we would reply with Lloyd that it amounts to “a curiously implausible reduction of the reality of time to the workings of the human psyche” (1991, 39). He reflects in #17 that the past and future do not exist and the present quickly moves on to the past, so that time does not exist except in so far as it tends towards non-existence. To this should be added Augustine’s assertion that time is a “distention of the soul” (‘distentio animi’), as mentioned above. By this he means that the mind stretches itself out, so to speak, to reach out and embrace both the future and the past. It is a kind of mental act which oversees the movement of future into past (# 28, 38).Through this distention of the soul we have a present of the past through memory and a present of the future through anticipation. Augustine’s doubt about the existence of time will later find an echo in Einstein’s assertion that time, as conceived in common sense, is an illusion. Augustine acknowledging his uncertainties about time, frequently falls back onto his convictions that God is the Creator of all, and that there was nothing, and no place, before creation. He cannot answer all the subtle questions regarding the force and nature of time, but feels comfortable in resorting to his faith in God and takes courage in divine assistance. In fact a recurrent exclamation throughout Book XI, and a sober reminder to us in the third millennium, is that time is a mystery, a profound mystery – an assertion with which many modern scientists would concur. We can explore it, but we must not expect to resolve the issue definitely like finding a mathematical equation. Before passing on to Kant, one might wonder what Aquinas had to say about spacetime, since he is cited as such a great authority on many other issues. In reality, Aquinas does not really break new territory. He is in the line of Aristotle generally speaking. He affirms that the world is not eternal and that time is made with the creation of the world: “Things are said to be created in the beginning of time, not as if the beginning of time were a measure of creation, but because together with time heaven and earth were created” (I, q.46, a.3). Time is one of the things which came into existence with creation. By creation he means that which did not have existence now has existence. Time is listed among the four things created together. They were (1) the empyrean heavens, (2) corporeal matter (earth), (3) time and (4) the

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

25

angelic nature. (I, q.46.a.3) So time is created with the world. What about space? Aquinas rejected Aristotle’s idea that before the world was created there was a vacuum in which there was nothing, but which implied a space capable of holding something. Aquinas held there was no place or space at all before the world was (I, q.46. art.1). We noted that Aristotle was inclined to define time more in objective terms while Plotinus and Augustine looked more to the subjective or psychological element. The exploration of this tension between the objective and subjective, is taken up much later by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant was radical is questioning traditional epistemology. He was influenced by Newton’s physics and he denied that speculative metaphysics was at all possible. He also questioned our knowledge and how we acquire it. For our purposes we can ask what his views of space and time were. Although we want to focus on Kant’s ideas of space and time, some lead-up by way of the concepts he uses, is necessary.

Is time real? (Kant) Kant is well known for his theory of knowledge, that a priori elements in our mind filter what we take in, a bit like a computer programme which organizes the way we see certain data. Our experience comprises two elements: impressions that are given and the a priori forms and elements by which these impressions are synthesized (Copleston 1963, 69). One of the implications of this is that we synthesize data according to the causal relations – if we see a white billiard ball strike a red ball and the latter moves, we assume cause and effect. Nature will always appear governed by causal laws. Another application is that we necessarily apply a priori forms of space and time to raw sense-data, so that Nature must always appear to us as spatio-temporal. Kant in his Transcendental Aesthetics, describes this insight. Kant says that the way our knowledge relates to objects is by means of an intuition. He explains that there is divine and human intuition. The divine intuition creates its objects, but human intuition does not, it presupposes an object. This capacity of humans for receiving representations of objects is called sensibility (Sinnlickheit). Human intuition is sense intuition. When we see something, the object “appears” to us. This “appearance” of the object has two elements.

26

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

The first is matter, that is, that which corresponds to the sensation of seeing something or feeling something. The second element is the form. This lies, so to speak, on the side of the subject doing the seeing or feeling. It is a priori form of sensibility and has two forms, space and time. So we cannot advert to sensations without relating them to space and time. We situate the object in space, we see it next to me or on the other side of the road; and we also place it in time, we order it in a sequence of events, we place it before or after some other object. Space and time are a priori necessary conditions of sense-experience. Does Kant see time as unreal? The reply is one of those annoying, paradoxical responses: yes and no. Appearances and objects given in empirical intuition, are already given to us in time, and if the object is external to ourselves, it is in space too. Now we know that empirical reality is spatio-temporal, so if appearances are spatio-temporal, then they are real. In this sense space and time are real for Kant. At the same time we must distinguish between appearances and things-in-themselves. Space and time are a priori forms of human sensibility, and apply to the appearances of what we see or feel, there is no reason to suppose they also apply to things-in-themselves. Indeed they cannot because space and time are conditions of the possibility of appearances. While one can say that all appearances are in time, it is not possible to say that all realities are in time. Space and time have no application to non-phenomenal reality. God for instance has not appeared, it could be argued, but that does not mean God is unreal. If there are realities that cannot affect our senses, that are not in time nor in space, that are not part of empirical reality (angels, fairies), they could still exist, by transcending space and time. So Kant is saying both yes and no to the question: are space and time unreal? Space and time are not illusions, as Einstein was later to write to a friend. Space and time are empirically real. But they are ideal in the sense of only applying to the sphere of phenomena and not to things-in-themselves considered apart from appearance (to use Kant’s idea of realism for the moment). To come back to the yes and no: space and time are empirically real, but transcendentally ideal. So Kant would affirm that space and time are empirically real although transcendentally ideal. This seems like a solution people would more easily accept than that time is unreal, simply an illusion.

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

27

Later on, in the history of science and philosophy (and some other disciplines for that matter, including theology), the objective or immanentist view became progressively stronger. So, in the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton (1642-1727 ), far from doubting the existence of time (although he disagreed with Kant), emphasized that absolute time was composed of individual instants conceived of as substances existing independently of other things and possessing an independent ontological status (Yates 1990, 59). Leibniz did not agree with Newton’s ideas about space and time while Vico promoted the idea of cyclic history – a concept to which we shall return. But let us move on to a great modern German philosopher.

Temporality fundamental to being (Heidegger) Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is a modern existentialist philosopher who has not only had a great impact on many modern philosophers but also on theologians such as Pope Benedict XVI. As one would expect, Heidegger has something to say about time in his Sein und Zeit (Being and Time). In general, Being and Time is about analyzing what being is, and the ways of being, rather than focusing on time and the traditional questions regarding the nature of time and whether it is absolute or not. He is interested in other aspects of time, as we shall see, and has his own rather difficult and idiosyncratic vocabulary to speak about these things. Given that Being and Time is a rather obscurantist tome, and that he did not complete his project with the famous Division III of Being and Time, it is not surprising that Heidegger’s thoughts on time are also somewhat obscure. Being and Time is focused on an analytic of Dasein and on rejecting the ideas of Kant we have just outlined above, namely the Kantian and Cartesian methods (different though they are) of describing the way knowledge comes to us using the subject/object phenomenological approach. The method he uses to achieve this is hermeneutical phenomenology rather than the Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. He makes the distinction between Dasein and entities. Although there has been much debate as what these terms mean, most scholars

28

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

would say that Dasein can be equated with persons and entities with all other existing things. Before speaking more about time, it should be noted that Heidegger has left many unanswered questions in Being and Time, and that his meaning is far from being always clear. Sometimes what he says in one part seems to be contradicted in another. This applies to time and temporality as much as to anything else. But let us return to time more specifically. Using Macquarrie’s translation (1962, 460), what is time in Heidegger’s words? “The making-present which interprets itself – in other words, that which has been interpreted and is addressed in the ‘now – is what we call ‘time’ ’ ”. The ‘now ’ interprets a making present of entities, and in this moment, lies what Heidegger calls the “ecstatical character of the Present”. However time is not to be thought of as a succession of “nows” (at least not the kind of time he has in mind, but there are distinctions to come). The manner in which the time we have ‘allowed’ ‘runs its course’, and the way in which concern more or less explicitly assigns itself that time, can be properly explained as phenomena only if, on the one hand, we avoid the theoretical ‘representation’ of a continuous stream of “nows”, and if, on the other hand, the possible ways in which Dasein assigns itself time and allows time are to be conceived of as determined primarily in terms of how Dasein, in a manner corresponding to its current existence, ‘has’ its time (ibid. 463). Heidegger is very much caught up in the question of whether time is subjective or objective, and whether it has being or not. However he seems to come down on the subjective nature of time when he concludes: So if we are to cast any light on the genesis of the ordinary conception of time, we must take within-time-ness as our point of departure. (ibid. 472).

Unlike many other philosophers, he does address the topic of space. Spatiality he sees as another basic attribute of Dasein corresponding to temporality (a term we will come to shortly). He sees temporality and spatiality as co-ordinates of Being-in-the-world. But again his meaning is not what it seems. If Dasein has a spatio-temporal character, it does not mean that this entity is “present-at-hand in space and also in time”. “Being-in-the-world has a spatiality of its own. Characterized

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

29

by the phenomena of de-severance and directionality” (ibid. 346). In short spatiality is grounded in the state of being-in-the-world. Because Dasein is ‘spiritual’ it relates to spatiality differently than to corporeal things. It is spatial only as care (ibid. 419). In analyzing Dasein one of the key concepts, for Heidegger, is that of Zeitlichkeit, (temporality, mentioned above) but this term needs some introduction and a description of the structures he uses to define concepts in the larger context of Dasein analysis. It is all very complex. Being and Time is concerned with the qualities of Dasein which comes down to the basic one of Sorge (Care; caring); this in turn finds its basis in temporality as the background for any Dasein. “Temporality reveals itself as the meaning of authentic care” (ibid. 374). Although care is the basic existential of Dasein, care is analysed in terms of existence, facticity, falling and discourse. These in turn receive temporal interpretations and together they are called “originary temporality”. Thus time or temporality is at the very basis of any Dasein-in-der-welt . All the structures of Dasein which Heidegger attempts to describe, must be interpreted as modes of temporality (ibid. 38). It seem to correspond in some way, with what other philosophers and thinkers say in terms of temporality being of the essence of being, not just a characteristic, condition or appendage; the spatio-temporal factor is not an added–on of being, but it is an integral part of being human, to use non-heideggerian language. Having said the above, we need to add and separate out three different meanings associated around the word “time” in Heidegger’s vocabulary. Heidegger speaks about, firstly, the ordinary conception of time, then secondly, Weltzeit (world-time), and thirdly, originary or human temporality (Dreyfus 1991, 259). The first one, ordinary time, is a sequence of nows, the ticking away of purely quantitative moments. World-time is the succession of qualitative determinate nows. It is as a sequence of dated, spanned, significant and public nows. Heidegger sees it as a modified, derivative form of originary temporality. Thirdly, we have originary temporality (although this word is misleading here). The name of “originary temporality” is taken to mean originary of, the origin of, time. Ordinary time can be analyzed into a set of conceptual moments, each of which is derivable from originary temporality. Originary temporality is the “explanatory core” of ordinary time in

30

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

a complex kind of way (Blattner 1999, 95). The features that make up originary or human temporality are modified so as to constitute world-time (ibid. 231). And how are these three concepts associated with time connected? There is a certain chain of dependence. Ordinary time depends on world-time, whose core phenomenon is in turn the pragmatic “now” which finally in turn depends on originary temporality. The thesis being put forward by Heidegger is that Dasein’s being is fundamentally structured by a temporal manifold that gives unity to existence, facticity and falling. Also that if Dasein did not exist, time would not obtain (ibid. 232). Thus he has a very subjective view of time and hence Blattner’s conclusion is that Heidegger espouses temporal idealism (time depends on ideas and on a subject) and sees him as indebted to Kant, Plotinus and Bergson. So what have we learned so far from the philosophers? Certainly that there are many and varied ideas as to what time is. It is a question many have asked, but there is no common answer. I like Augustine’s honesty when he cries out in exasperation, after trying so hard to understand: “I still do not know what time is”! Among the answers are those who said time is an attempt to mimic eternity, that time is movement according to numbers, that it is a series of “nows”, that it is a product of the soul and according to Augustine, it is the “distention of the mind”. In all the attempts to understand time, there is the tension between those who are inclined to see it as something more objective as Aristotle did, and those who side with the subjective perspective like Plato, Plotinus, Kant, and Heidegger. There are also those who see it as an illusion, like Einstein, or at least, like Augustine, most elusive. Whereas the measurement of time was a problem which preoccupied many of the earlier philosophers, the later ones tended to ponder the ontological status of time, whether it was real or ideal and what temporality and spatiality means in the context of our lives. Space itself, on the other hand does not get as much coverage as time. Space is seen as a receptacle by Plato, and ever since, according to Torrance, this way of seeing space has handicapped our theological thinking. A receptacle is something which nurtures what is in it and in which things are kept. But more of that later.

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

31

In the further history of ideas, other philosophers, like MerleauPonty, have continued taking some of these ideas further. Postmodernism, through writers like Ricoeur, Foucault, Lyotard, Sartre, Derrida and Baudrillard, emphasized temporality and discontinuity among other things. Some of these ideas will appear later. One must also hasten to add that from this modern era, the creative ideas of Whitehead emerge, the beginning of process philosophy which in turn, spawned process theology which will influence the construction of a theology of spacetime for our times.

Eternity? But before we leave the realm of philosophy, let us turn to the question of what eternity is and its relationship with time. It is a topic that understandably crops up sooner or later in all writings on time and has elicited philosophical and theological volumes. Here let us identify three main theological positions on the relationship between time and eternity. An initial position is that of eternity as seen as unlimited or endless time. Eternity is like time going on and on. This would be the Jewish/Torah approach and dare one say, the popular idea of eternity even today even though it is rejected by many theologians. Barth expressed his disagreement this way: “Eternity is not, then, an infinite extension of time both backwards and forwards” (Barth 1957, 608), and Rahner’s view was, “Eternity is not a way of expressing pure time which lasts inconceivably long” (1971, 162). Rahner pointed out that eternity is not a never ending time running on into infinity (although hell was, and is, often portrayed like this). Eternity is not a continuum of time into infinity (often called “sempiternity”). Eternity is outside time yet glimpses of it are occasionally seen. Barth points out that time is different to eternity in that time has a beginning, middle and an end. Eternity is just the duration which is lacking to time. “Eternity has and is the duration which is lacking to time. It has and is simultaneity” (1957, 608). The idea and meaning of simultaneity will arise again and we will be addressed below. The second idea of eternity is more sophisticated and subtle. It is that of eternity as timelessness. Eternity is not time or like time. It is a “when and where” without time. It is captured to some extent by Boethius’ famous definition of eternity: “the unendable/unending

32

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

totally simultaneous perfect possession of life”. The use of the Latin word, “simul” in this definition has the force of “all at once” or “in a moment” which implies the elimination of past and future and hence time. This view of eternity would be the Platonic view and also that of the Kabbalah. Augustine would also be in this category stressing that eternity is not ordinary time; it is not time stretched out. It is “ever-fixed” and “Thy today is eternity”. Needless to say, contemporary physics provides no support for the idea of timelessness. Associated with the Platonic view is that of time being a copy of eternity. One recalls Plato’s idea, mentioned above, that time is something the Creator made that would be a “moving image of eternity”. Time was thought to be an image of eternity. Not an exact copy since there is a qualitative difference between time and eternity, but a faint likeness, a quick glimpse of eternity. Perhaps Plato had in mind moments when time is experienced as standing still. A third idea, dualistic in nature, is championed by Cullmann (1962) when he says that eternity is not co-present with this world. Cullmann mentions this meaning when he is discussing the use of “age” (ajiwvn, in Greek). This “age” and the “one to come” are used in the New Testament to identify the event (Christ) that stands with a determinative role at the beginning of this period of time. Cullmann claims, “The coming age is not, for example, already present as eternity” (ibid. 47). Cullmann returns to this topic later in his book on time where he rejects the idea of eternity invading time. Barth agrees with Cullmann: “Moreover, all talk concerning a ‘contemporaneity’ which faith should establish with the incarnate Jesus lacks support in the writings of the New Testament. Kierkegaard, who has emphasized most strongly this contemporaneity, thereby implicitly destroys the redemptive line, inasmuch as he really abstracts the present from it” (ibid. 189). Cullmann operates from a very dualistic framework which clearly marks time/eternity, now/later, this world/next world. This does not allow any room for grey areas or the blending of seemingly opposite views. Cullmann wishes to maintain the redemptive line and sees no way of accommodating any contemporaneity of time and eternity. Given his worldview and his consequent eschatology, this is understandable. His frame of reference identifies with the older western theological worldview where dualism prevailed over holistic or inte-

1 • Some Philosophical Questions about Space & Time

33

grated thought and unlike the eastern category of thought which harmonizes apparent differences. This worldview is the closed view we will encounter in Models 1 and 2 below (Chapters Five and Six). This latter position of a closed view, is modified by those like Barth who speak of the inbreaking of eternity in time (1957, 50). Rahner agrees with this understanding: “In reality ‘eternity’ is present in time and emerges from it as it were as a ripened fruit growing out of it”. However the defining moment is what happens at death when the temporal limitations of being are removed: Through death (not after it) the definitive fullness of human existence, achieved by the exercise of freedom in time, is present (not ‘begins to take place’). What has come to be, what was formerly subject to temporal conditions, now is (Rahner 1971, 162).

Tillich approaches the relationship between time and eternity by stressing the teleological nature of time. It drives humans towards a fulfillment that other achievements cannot satisfy: “In historical man, as the bearer of the spirit, time running toward fulfilment becomes conscious of its nature” and the end to which it is running, and the end of history, is eternal life (1964, 320). The three views on what eternity is, give a range of opinions from the over-identification of eternity and time (an infinite extension of time) to a dualistic separation of the two. Much of western theology has probably unconsciously worked with a concept of eternity as either “timelessness” or “time without end”. The third definition of time as reflecting eternity has a valuable psychological insight. The way one defines eternity is obviously going to influence one’s theology of spacetime. With Cullmannn’s dualistic view it will be difficult to knit the transcendent and the immanent into one worldview. It might be more productive to see the relationship of the two concepts, not in terms of either total identification or total separateness, but as eternity being the presupposition of time, or as time being interpenetrated by eternity, not unlike the Australian Aboriginal Dreaming being present in the lives of people. Having sifted through some of the key questions that philosophers from both the ancient and the more modern times have raised and attempted to answer, it is time to probe psychology and anthropology to see what insights might be prized from these very human sciences.

34

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

The aim is not to provide an exhaustive review of their contribution to the debate on spacetime, but to raise some of the issues that might later be of value in constructing a theology of spacetime.

Chapter 2 Insights from Psychology and Anthropology

O

ne could refer to many disciplines other than psychology and anthropology to throw light on the study of space and time, but if choices have to be made, these two seem particularly appropriate as human sciences. The study of human beings and how they function and relate as persons and also how they function and interrelate in larger groups, in primal settings as well as in modern society, is rewarding in what it reveals about space and time. This chapter will explore these insights as part of the process of uncovering the main questions and issues about space and time which any theology of spacetime will have to take into consideration.

Hints about eternity The way one sees the time/eternity relationship is obviously going to influence one’s view of the God-world relationship and one’s theology of time, but let us continue for the moment, to open up the issues relating to time. Let us consider some psychological aspects. We have already come across this in Augustine but we can add to this now and broaden the debate a little. As we have already seen, the psychological overlaps with other dimensions of time. Let us start with Rahner who has his own distinctive approach to the psychological aspects of time. He speaks about “hints” we have of eternity from within time and explores them through three different considerations. Firstly he speaks about the totality of history. We experience life as a succession of events and changes. Sometimes the

36

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

changes might be quite radical, yet beneath all the changes and succession of events, we intuit a substratum of permanence: a hint of eternity. An example he gives is that of a flower. It changes from seed to plant to flower and then it withers. But underneath all these changes and events, there is the substratum of flower. Likewise a life is seen as a whole, and is given meaning. It is not just a succession of unrelated episodes, events or changes. It is a person who lives on through these changes and events; it is the person who brings a unity to these episodes. (Incidentally, not all Buddhists agree about the permanence of the “person” or “self ” from one moment to the next.) So, says Rahner, life taken as a whole, suggests something permanent, eternal, behind, underneath it. His second example is that of mental experience and this is part of the argument we find in Augustine. Time and the experiences of time are shaped and unified by a mental process. We do not only experience moments of time one after the other, but we impose a unity on them by recalling the past and thinking of the future and bringing them together in the present. One may argue that this mental process amounts to, not time, but merely an idea of time. But if time were nothing but the flow of time atoms, argues Rahner, how could it be unified meaningfully and truly, even if merely in thought, into such time configurations, into a history of meaning and structure, unless there was more to time itself than the mere passing away? As Rahner concludes, time is supported by “the thought that thinks time is not simply time’s subject” (1984, 174). The third example is free decisions. Rahner maintains that the individual is free to make final, definite decisions, that abide for ever. There are these free decisions in human beings involving total self disposal, for which they bear total personal responsibility, and which are irrevocable and are truly eternity coming to be in time. What one decides here in time is going to remain for eternity, it is going to have an impact for eternity. Here time really creates eternity and eternity is experienced in time. So here then are Rahner’s three “hints”, or psychological insights, of eternity in this life: from the totality of history, from the mental experience of shaping and unifying time, and from free decisions. In a way

2 • Insights from Psychology & Anthropology

37

Rahner builds on the idea of Plotinus that a reflection on time has the potential to lead to a consideration of eternity. Davies, the physicist, points out the need to examine further how the human brain works and represents time and how that relates to free will – an issue of great interest to theologians. He also questions whether time is objective or merely a subjective illusion – something many others have done (1995, 283). Reanney agrees with Davies, affirming that consciousness creates reality and that the objective and subjective elements of time cannot be separated. Reanney stresses the importance of further study of the way mind functions: “To discuss time truthfully we have to discuss the mind” (1991, 25). What future developments may eventuate from neuroscience and psychology remains to be seen although there is always the danger of treating the mind and person in a purely physical, mechanistic way, devoid of free will and soul. The issue of free will is taken up later in Chapter Eight.

Time standing still Another interesting psychological insight into time comes from what is called postcolonialism and it concerns the phenomenon known as “time standing still.” In postcolonial countries like India, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and many others, there is a tendency for the old colonials not to accept the new regime, the new government and the new political reality. It is not a question of not complying with the law or political arrangements, but is psychological in nature. Some excolonials refuse to accept that things have changed and so live in their own world of yesterday. They cocoon themselves in a past although they live in a new political dispensation. They will talk as if nothing has changed. They will deny the changed social reality by refusing to speak about it and ignoring what others say about the present. They distort time. They enjoy the same good things as in the past, enjoy the same lifestyle, eat the same food and drink the same cocktails. They dwell on the things they liked from the old colonial era. This attitude attempts to prolong a certain epoch from the past indefinitely. They wish time to stand still and to some extent try to ensure that this happens. One could address to them the adage, “you are living in the past”. They fool only themselves, but through this deception they have, to some extent, subjectively and psychologically arrested time.

38

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

The subjective aspect of time is borne out by the way we can seem to stretch or shorten time by our attitudes. We have all had experience of watching the clock only to find time seems to stand still (“a watched pot never boils”), or being so engrossed in our work or pleasure that time “flies”. Kant (1978, 162) noticed this and expressed it thus: There are various ways of shortening the time in which we live and various expressions of it. The more attention we give to time, the more we feel that it is empty. Thus, for instance, when we watch the clock, time becomes long. But he who has something to do, does not notice time and it appears to him shorter.

The older generations (and to some extent, the younger too) today grew up in the Newtonian idea of the absoluteness of time, that is, there is one standard, universal time that applies everywhere. This conviction is somewhat shaken through another psychological insight which makes us realize that the way time is calculated is very relative, especially in the jetsetting world of today. It pertains to jet travel. I leave Sydney on Wednesday midday and when I arrive at Los Angeles, having crossed the international dateline, it is Wednesday morning, so I re-live Wednesday morning. This is like going into the past. Or, I phone London from Hong Kong on Sunday evening at 20 hours. I have lived through Sunday already but in London they are just awakening to Sunday morning. So I can tell them what Sunday has been like, I have lived through it. In a sense I am talking to someone back in time. With increased jet travel many travelers do get time-confused and disoriented in space and time. These are simple examples, but they give a hint at the fragility of the idea of time, and how relative its calculation is.

Jung and synchronicity In the psychology of Carl Jung we find another idea which is intriguing and related to our topic, namely that of synchronicity. The use of the word by Jung is specialized and needs some explanation. As regards theories of personality, there have been two dominant theories of how psychological processes function. One is a theory of mechanism, the other that of teleology. The first means functioning through cause and effect, the second through being drawn by a goal or aim. The former is linked to determinism and the natural sciences and has behaviorists

2 • Insights from Psychology & Anthropology

39

as proponents and supporters, the latter is linked with free will and counts humanists and existentialists as adherents. Jung thought both theories had a role to play but added a third, synchronicity. For Jung synchronicity occurs when two events happen at the same time and are linked but not technically or teleologically. Let me give some examples: someone feels that a friend has died and later finds out that their friend died at precisely the time they felt something; a wife feels that something has happened to her husband on his way to work and then finds out that there was a train accident and he was killed; two people are talking about a third and suddenly the discussed person appears. Jung, rejecting the obvious and facile explanation of coincidence, believed these were cases which showed that human beings are connected through the collective unconscious. It is as though we are each little islands in shallow water, apparently separate, but in reality connected below the surface by the ocean floor. Was this what was happening when Jesus, although some distance from Bethany, knew that Lazarus had died and that he was going to “wake” him from the dead? ( Jn 11:11). It is a little example, a whisper, a rumour, of the synchronicity (or simultaneity) of life in general which is generally not seen, but nevertheless is another dimension of time. It is a face of time other than the ordinary time of cause-and-effect or teleology. This synchronicity is diachronic as well as synchronic, or rather it eliminates the diachronic – all is at the same time, there is no diachronic dimension at all! (This is what Stump calls T-simultaneity, existence or occurrence at one and the same time. E-simultaneity is existence or occurrence at one and the same eternal present (1987, 226).) This concept is not far from that of morphic resonance which is the manifestation of similar behaviours or feelings in seemingly unconnected groups of people or animals in different places on the earth. In a somewhat different sense, what I would call popular synchronicity occurs when we feel ordinary time somehow is transcended and it all happens together. It is based on feeling and intuition rather than reason. It is the synchronicity of the person who spontaneously cried out: Adam, Moses and Jesus all lived on the same day! It is the synchronicity to which we will return (Model 1, Chapter Five) to help us better understand the salvation of peoples who lived before Christ or never knew him.

40

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Another interesting point from a psychological viewpoint regarding space and time is the idea of space as a receptacle which has been already mentioned but onto which we now want to place a psychological interpretation. Some are reluctant to move to a different mindset which opens out into an unknown future. This reluctance may well be, suggests Torrance, a part of that innate desire for the safety of the womb that humans display (1969, 22). The analogy is between space as a receptacle and the womb, both providing security.

Ontological importance of time (Panikkar) Raimon Panikkar, theologian and philosopher, offers some other, quasi-psychological ideas. He emphasizes that this secular age is now ready to show sensitivity to time and ready to link being and time. This saeculum is ready to think of time as characterizing our being. He speaks of the Greek words for life and death, zoe and thanatos, as the two opposites. Zoe is life (in general) and is temporal; thanatos is death and the end of life. Panikkar points out that historically (in Aristotle, for example), life was defined as movement; if something moves it has life; this was seen in a spatial sense; now a live thing moves in time as well as space, thanks to modern science. A thing lives in space and time. Panikkar also emphasizes that time has a much richer, qualitative meaning than simply the materialistic and quantitative meaning of “measured” time which latter meaning is something science has pushed (especially as a fourth dimension of space) . Time, says Panikkar, is not simply physical time. Time is intrinsically tied to being. If anything has being it is in time; Time is not to be thought of as “just a freeway along which Man drives”, but part and parcel of his own constitution. Panikkar is thus endorsing Heidegger. Panikkar also raises issues about time relating to the Augustinian “distension of the soul”. The past is with us in the present through memories, identity, history. The future is with us in the present through hopes. He could also have said the future is with us in the present through the action we now take so as to achieve certain goals in life. A person studies so that in six years’ time she /he will be a medical

2 • Insights from Psychology & Anthropology

41

doctor. The future (the not-yet) is in some way present in the present moment. So that one can conclude that the present contains all time in a way. So what Panikkar brings to the debate is the ontological importance of time, the linking of time to being, that time does not only have a quantitative, but, more importantly, has a qualitative dimension to it, and that after thanatos we have perduring zoe.

Is time linear or cyclic? We are busy opening up all sorts of questions about time and the way we experience it. Another way into the topic and questions of space and time is through anthropology, the study of human beings. From earliest times human beings have been aware of the movement of the sun and stars, as can be seen at places like Stonehenge and New Grange. Waterclocks or “clepsydras ” (water-operated machines for measuring time) and sundials were known in the ancient Near East, but it was not until the fourteenth century that clocks appeared in Europe owned by the royalty and the very wealthy (Hall 1963, 128). So the question of the movements of the sun and moon and how to measure these movements is part and parcel of being human, as indeed the ancient philosophers have already shown us. In the history of time one of the first issues that confronts one is that of whether time is linear or cyclic. From our knowledge of ancient cultures we know that archaic cultures stuck to a concept of cyclical time, and the myth of the cyclical return (Eliade 1974). Hinduism for example, portrays a cycle of four ages, creation, deterioration, destruction and recreation. Time was bound in on itself and to a sacred place. The order of events was not seen in a sequence but in their association with earlier events of the same basic type. Jantsch points out that this corresponds to an autopoietic (producing itself ) dynamic structure which was capable of preventing socio-cultural evolution over thousands of years (1980, 302-305). People lived in a very closed world. We are also aware of the Greeks seeing time as cyclic. In Hellenism there was no sense of history as events repeated themselves in a cyclic fashion. There was no history as such, only the fate of the individual. This is in stark contrast to the bible. For the Greeks, events as they unfolded were not under a guiding telos or end goal. History (as events) was not going anywhere so there was no need for any divine revelation

42

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

to say anything. If there is any need for redemption it will be satisfied through timeless mysticism. Cullmann sees them thinking in spatial concepts rather than temporal (1962, 54). The Jews think of time as mainly linear although the cyclic aspects erupt here and there, especially in the mystical Kabbalah tradition. The Kabbalah means the mystical teachings of Judaism originally handed down from generation to generation. One of their teachings is that the origins of the world occurred in “non-temporal time, that is, a dimension of time that involved “no differentiation between past, present and future”. This is what we call untensed time today. The supermundane concept of time was defined as “the twinkling of an eye, without any interval”. One of the more surprising teachings of the Kabbalah is that there is “an unbroken inter-relation between the supersensual, metaphysical world and the world of humanity” (Beane 1976, 33-35). As we shall see, the modern insights from philosophy and theology are trying to avoid the dualism of two worlds and re-establish this interrelatedness between the two worlds once again. However the wider Jewish tradition certainly does have a teleological nature as we shall see when we return to discuss the bible.

Time and teleology On the topic of how telos relates to time, Rahner makes some interesting points about the anthropological importance of the link between telos and time. He sees the two concepts as interlocking. Rahner writes: Time becomes an illusion if it involves self-consciousness as with us and is incapable of attaining its fulfillment. If it were capable of being extended indefinitely it would become hell in the sense that it would be a meaningless void. No moment would have any value because it would always be possible to postpone and put off everything endlessly to a future that was infinite and so never made actual. Nothing would ever be too late for us (there would always be enough), and on this hypothesis everything would fall into the void of absolute indifference, where it would have no value (171,161).

Rahner shows us how, for example, when we perform some act we like to think that it is going to count for something at the end of the road, that is, when we reach our telos. One likes to think that the sum

2 • Insights from Psychology & Anthropology

43

total of all we do in life leads somewhere. If everything is put off, nothing would have any value, or as Rahner put it: there would be a void of absolute indifference. In some cases, no doubt, when life does seem to be totally pointless and a meaningless void, people commit suicide, because life should not be like this. Thus time, from an anthropological viewpoint, is closely bound to telos.

Primal cultures and time What about primal cultures? Do they raise any of these issues? They appear less teleologically focused and more centered on the person. If one takes the people of the South Pacific or Africa, for example, they speak about “South Pacific time”, or “Bantu” time in Southern Africa. By that they mean the cultural habit of not doing everything with one eye on the clock, the way westerners do it. It means to do things where the persons involved are more important that measured time, and where there is a certain relaxed attitude to doing tasks not tied up to tight schedules. Westerners could be judged as making the clock the focus of attention in all they do; other cultures might make the person the centre. Allow me a story to illustrate a point. On a small settlement in Southern Africa the local minister was a white of Anglo-Celtic origins, and he had arranged with black Africans to have a wedding ceremony in the church at 11am one morning. No-one arrived until 2pm, and the wedding proceeded at 3pm. The minister was upset that noone seemed concerned at being that late; but the black Africans could see no cause for worry or regrets since it was clear that the wedding could not go ahead until all had arrived! For them the people were the main focus, not the clock. Another illustration of this cultural difference is that of the Zulu who was late for his train, in fact, so late that he missed it. When asked what happened, he replied: the train left without him! As the person is focus of attention, the train was to be blamed for leaving him behind! This incident shows up the refusal of some cultures to see time as measured time unconnected with the being of the person. Perhaps these cultures are saying to us: time is not time unless closely tied to the person – which is what Heidegger said in a more tortuous way and what Panikkar affirms. Time is in the ser-

44

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

vice of the person, not the contrary. The divide between time-centered and person-centered cultures is not always sufficiently acknowledged. This approach is echoed by another African writer, Byaruhanga Akiki who confirms that one of the aspects that Bantu people have in common is their attitude towards time (1980, 357-369). The way that they name time is indicative of the fact that time is lower down on the priority list than in western cultures and secondly it indicates how closely their lifestyle is connected with nature. Thus time is loosely defined in terms of daylight, cockcrow, birds call, etc. Akiki also underscores Bantu unease with western “linear mathematical time” and stresses the priority of people and events over time. Kagamé maintains that the passage of time in Bantu culture rests on three factors, the alternation of night and day, the seasons as determined by the sun, and the months according to a lunar calendar. This however does not result in a cyclic view of time, but more a spiral pattern, giving the impression of an open cycle (Chauvet 1995, 229). This is similar to Stockton’s view of Aboriginal time mentioned below. Edward Hall in his book, The Dance of Life, speaks about the different ways people have of doing business (1983, 132). His contact with Spanish, Anglo and Amerindians alerted him to the differences in the way people do business and their approach to time. He identified Monochronic-type and Polychronic-type cultures (ibid. 44-58). The first, like the Anglo-Celtic cultures, do one thing at a time at scheduled appointments, the second at seemingly random times, discuss everything. He also noted the cultural differences in the way cultures waited. On Indian reservations he observed how the Amerindian Navajos and Hopis patiently waited around trading posts or other places like hospitals while people of say, Anglo-Celtic culture, in a similar situation, would look at their watches, or the clock on the wall, or fidget. It seems to me that Australian Aboriginal spirituality raises some critical issues too. Their concepts of time, space and events are distinctive. The Dreaming is closely linked to space; Aboriginal spirituality is “geosophical” or “locative” in Tony Swain’s words, that is, tied to space or place. As their mythology too is tied to place, any story they tell occurred in a definite place and all the outback is punctuated by places where some event, sacred or not, occurred. Thus a man might show you the tree by the river where his mother was walking when

2 • Insights from Psychology & Anthropology

45

his spirit-being entered his mother (when she became pregnant). The time when it occurred is less well known. The bible too is less about defining the time of events than connecting with ancestors. A distinction is made, by Deborah Bird Rose, between the Dreaming (mythology) and ordinary time in Aboriginal culture. The seasons belong to ordinary time. Rain can wash away the marks of the actions of people, plants and animals from the face of the earth; but the earth remains. Ordinary time ends in death. In Kriol the word for death is “washed out”. The Dreaming (mythology) cannot be washed out. Native title (land claims), for example, cannot be washed out. So ordinary time and the Dreaming intertwine. In the words of Deborah Bird Rose ( 1998, 111): Dreaming can be conceptualized as a great wave which follows along behind us, obliterating the debris of our existence and illuminating, as a synchronous set of images, those things which endure.

There is also a certain synchronicity, in the popular sense, in the Aboriginal concept of the Dreaming and ordinary time. Stanner spoke about the Dreaming as being “everywhen” (Model 1 below). The idea of synchronicity is beautifully captured by a story referred to briefly above. When Tony Swain asked a group of Warlpiri Christians who came first: Adam, Moses or Jesus they replied, “none came first: they all lived on the same day” (ibid.). Australian Aborigines have been accused of having no sense of history. Davies (1995, 26) cites Stanner: A central meaning of The Dreaming is that of a sacred, heroic time long, long, ago when man and nature came to be as they are; but neither “time” nor “history” as we understand them is involved in this meaning. I have never been able to discover any aboriginal word for time as an abstract concept. And the sense of “history” is wholly alien here. We shall not understand The Dreaming fully except as a complex of meanings.

This passage really emphasizes the lack of interest in time as we know it in the west. The words that a people use or do not use or have, is instructive in revealing their worldview. That they do not have a word for history is helpful trying to determine their understanding of time. Thus history as such is not known. Stockton, a theologian and archaeologist, has also given some thought to the Aboriginal idea of place

46

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

and time. Stockton cites the phrase of Martin Wilson to describe the Aboriginal concept of time: “time interpenetrated by eternity”. This seems a good expression for trying to knit the transcendent with the immanent – a major problem for any reflection on spacetime. Wilson mentions his search for trying to put the idea of the Dreaming into words. “Timelessness” and “suspended time” have been used to speak about the Australian Aboriginal concept of time and the Dreaming. He says that Aborigines speak about the past and the present and are less concerned with the future. The Dreaming is with them now, in the present. He also says the present can change the past, the Dreaming, in what seems to us as time reversal. He cites an incident from T.G.H. Strehlow who mentions a tjurunga (sacred object) that had been chipped. It was not permitted to smooth the edge because the tjurunga was regarded as the now-changed body of the ancestral spirit. The being was injured restrospectively (Stockton 1995, 93). This is the only case among any group of people I have come across where a present action has changed the past. Stockton concludes his reflection on time by saying time can be seen from different points of view: A spiral, like a coil, when viewed from the side is seen to progress forward in zig-zag fashion; from end-on it appears as a circle, and from inside it is spiraling outwards. By the same token a line, as seen from the side, is a point when looked at end-on. (ibid.).

This description has the advantage of suggesting that ordinary time is multi-dimensional and complex, which in turn points to the mystery. It is a good analogy of time because it shows there is more than one way of seeing time. However it fails to integrate space. So from primal cultures we learn that time is certainly seen very differently compared with westerner cultures. Concepts of time as cyclic should not be dismissed out of hand for they bring to our attention the possibility of associating events according to the same basic type, not chronological order. This seems a valuable skill when trying to think outside the linear paradigm, particularly in the sacramental area. Anthropology also stresses the way time is tied to aim or telos, as well as to person in a person-centered culture. But it is cultures like the Australian Aborigines who have stressed the locative nature of their culture thus bringing space into focus ahead of time. The way they

2 • Insights from Psychology & Anthropology

47

constantly see the Dreaming as being in the present is a good model to follow as one grapples with bringing time and eternity together. And indeed they seem to revive some of the more profound meanings of time, that is, tied to being, to persons in the world, rather than something objective, measured and “out there”. On the other hand, it can be pointed out that these cultures seem not to have any teleological edge to their view of spacetime. The over-emphasis on linear time in some cultures, like biblical ones, has perhaps forgotten or overlooked the cyclic nature of time too, and hence forgotten the mystical character of time. This movement away from the cyclic and mystical has its parallel in the history of civilizations. As cultures and societies moved away from the hunter-gatherer and pastoral lifestyles, to agriculturalists, then industrialists to post-industrialists and urban dwellers, they have moved more and more to time as a measured commodity disassociated from the person. It seems in some ways, to parallel the movement from sacralization to secularization.

Chapter 3 What is Science saying about Spacetime?

T

he changes in science, in the last hundred years or so, have been dramatic to say the least. Julian Barbour starts his enumeration of the revolutions in physics with the Copernican revolution in 1543 (1999, 12); others begin their account much later, towards the end of the nineteenth century. In 1895 Roentgen discovered the X-ray. Then radio activity was discovered by Becquerel and the Curies about 1896. Rutherford, just after the turn of century discovered the proton and the planetary nature of the atom which was the beginning of the paradigm shift from seeing the world atomistically to seeing in as individuals in community. Then Einstein’s theory of relativity followed in 1905, Gestalt psychology in 1925 and then Heisenberg’s uncertainty theory in 1931. All this was academic theory and largely ignored by the public until the implications of all this science was shockingly and traumatically brought to the public’s attention by the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. It was “goodbye” to Newtonian physics and a nervous “hello” to the atomic age of quantum mechanics, nuclear reactors and weapons, and space travel. One of the “discoveries” of quantum mechanics is the mystery of matter. As Peacocke expresses it: There is a genuine limitation in the ability of our minds to depict the nature of matter at this fundamental level; there is a mystery about what is ‘in itself ’, for at the deepest level to which human beings can penetrate they are faced with a mode of existence describ-

50

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue able only in terms of abstract, mathematical concepts that are the products of human ratiocination (1993, 34).

Apparently solid matter has turned out to be not so solid. The nature of subatomic entities is to act and react. When solids are broken down to electrons and other subatomic particles, they are found to be best described as a succession of events or happenings, not solid bits (Cousins 1971, 156). These events can be viewed as transmissions of energy from past events to future ones. The physicist will say that these particles are energy, the building blocks of the universe. They are energy-events, not solid tiny pieces of matter. This is a revolutionary and mysterious way of seeing matter. When we think about the topic of space and time and what has provoked modern thinkers to re-think their understanding thereof, it was above all, these changes in modern science that have stimulated this revision of ideas. Much has been written on this already from a scientific viewpoint by scientists like Paul Davies, Julian Barbour, George Ellis, Ian and Julian Barbour, John Polkinghorne, Stephen Hawking and others, so here we only recall a few of the most salient and dramatic findings.

Time is relative Newton, and indeed Aristotle too as we saw, believed time was absolute. That is, the same time applies everywhere, and can be measured by things like a clock. It does not matter where one is, absolute, universal time can be measured. Likewise, it does not matter if one is moving, time will be the same. Newton did not imagine that motion could affect time. As Davies has pointed out, these ideas would have remained solid and fixed were it not for problems at both the theoretical and practical levels. There were a few hints or clues in experimental physics and in abstract thinking suggesting that there were chinks in the Newtonian worldview. Newton believed in the principle of relativity and motion which means that motion is measured relative to another object and that motion in a fixed direction at a uniform speed is purely relative (that is hard to determine except in relation to another object). So if you run towards light it will come at you more quickly than 186,000 miles per second because motion is relative to the motion of the bodies. But the

3 • What Is Science Saying about Spacetime?

51

speed of light is supposed to be constant (Davies 1995, 48). Physicists claimed that it was relative to ether (hypothetical stuff between physical bodies in space) that light waves traveled at the said constant speed. Einstein held onto both the relativity of uniform motion and the constancy of the speed of light. This was his new theory of relativity (1905, Special Theory of Relativity, STR). This meant giving up something. And that something was the universality of space and time. Space and time were not everywhere. In some places there was no time and no space. (Hawking puts it thus: if the equations do not hold there is no time.) Einstein’s theory of relativity can be thus stated: that all the laws of nature should appear the same to all freely moving observers. One of the implications of this was that time was no longer seen as something all clocks can measure, i.e., an absolute. It is relative to where you are, personal time. Davies gives an example to illustrate this last point. Imagine light receding from you in space. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. You chase after it at 86,000 miles per second. Does that mean the light is receding at only 100,000 miles per second? No, it still travels at 186,000 miles per sec, relative to you in your spaceship. So, space and time can be stretched. Speed is distance traveled per unit time, so the speed of light can only be constant in all reference frames if distances and intervals of time are somehow different for different observers, depending on their state of motion (ibid. 52,53).

As regards speed, Einstein would say that space and time are malleable, able to shrink and stretch according to the observer’s motion. This is a revolutionary idea and a critical one to grasp among the things that have changed with our new insights from physics. Space and time are rather like blu tack or chewing gum, they can be stretched. We literally have “flexitime” and “flexispace”. Let us look at this issue from a slightly different perspective. The way humans have seen time has changed over the centuries. Under the Newtonian age of absolute space and time, change was the rearranging of particles that were themselves unchanging. Today time enters into the structure of reality in a more fundamental way than in classical physics. Time is inseparable from space. The concept of time is more

52

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

fundamentally transformed under the general theory of relativity, and loses its classical features of homogeneity and uniformity and its independence of physical content (Peacocke 1993, 31). Time is not the unwinding of predetermined events along the passage of time, but the bringing to being of unpredictable events in history. This dynamic way of viewing time contrasts with the old cyclic time in Eastern cultures, of re-Incarnations and rebirth, where events are less important as history repeats itself endlessly. However it is not so much a question of either/or, but rather of seeing what elements in each approach can be integrated into a new appreciation of spacetime. Physics and a biblical view, for example, seem to agree on the importance of time and events and also on the dynamism of kairic moments (moments of graced action) be they in salvation history or the history of the cosmos.

From 3D to 4D Before we speak about the fourth dimension, we might ask ourselves what science has discovered about space. The first thing is probably the enormous size or expanse we are talking about. The American astronomer, Edward Hubble discovered in the nineteen twenties, that the stars are racing away from us at great speeds and there seems to be no boundaries to space. He also discovered that there are other galaxies, nine he thought. Prior to that, in the Newtonian view, the universe was in a steady state with all planets and stars fixed, the universe neither expanding nor contracting. Now, thanks to astro-physicists, we know it is expanding at enormous rates. The stars are so far away that they are measured in light years, that is, the time taken by light (which travels at 186,000 miles per second) to travel in one year. The nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, is twenty-three million million miles away, which is four light years away. This is mind-boggling. Astronomers and scientists today say there are some hundred thousand million galaxies, with each galaxy containing some hundred thousand million stars! This is almost unbelievable. Scientists used to think space was the “ether” between the stars. Now it is regarded rather differently as the place where things happen, space is created when matter appears. It is common to refer to the three co-ordinates of something in space, for example: three meters from the south wall; one meter from the east

3 • What Is Science Saying about Spacetime?

53

wall and two meters from the floor. Now, with the knowledge that the new physics has given us, we realize that time is a fourth dimension, so we can give four dimensions, three tied to space, and one to time. (Incidentally, Greene says the M-theory has eleven dimensions, ten space dimensions and one time (1999, 287)). And instead of referring to them separately, we refer to spacetime and scientists actually have a formula for calculating spacetime (Davies 1995, 189-190). Why is time tied to space? Because space and time came into being together with the Big Bang according to most scientists (although Hawking thinks the world might be without beginning or end). They locate an event as the co-ordinates. This is a new way of thinking and will not come easily to us. We have to learn to knit space and time together in the words of Brian Greene (1999, 166). One must think of living and moving in the fabric of spacetime. It may take generations to bring about this change in conceptualization. Not only must we now say where something is, but when it is! Ian Barbour sees the problem to overcome a little differently. He, against the view that there is a spatio-temporal block that just “is” and does not “happen”, holds that temporal change does occur in every frame of reference, and that we should speak of the “the temporalization of space” rather than “the spatialization of time” (1990, 110). This is a difficult point. We are used to thinking of time first and treating it as more important than space. Now Ian Barbour is suggesting we think of space coming into being first and then the way these incidents stack up is given a temporalized interpretation which comes to be known as time. (This re-appears again in Model 4, Chapter Eight) Approaching reality as the temporalization of space seems to be a big mental challenge. Before leaving the topic of spacetime one should mention another theory which many find strange, namely, Julian Barbour’s theory of the origin and nature of space and time. He calls it Triangle Land. As with Heidegger, so too Julian Barbour creates his own vocabulary which makes it more difficult to follow. He develops his theory in his book, The End of Time, so here one cannot offer much more than the barest of outlines of these ideas. Barbour is basically saying that time is an illusion, and created because we interpret things in a particular way. He is offering an alternative way of interpreting our experiences. He

54

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

roundly rejects Newtonian time theory and suggests his own, using an analogy of cardboard triangles for instants. He gets us to imagine two bags: Bag 1 is the Current Theory, and Bag 2 is called Timeless Theory. In each bag there are cardboard triangles. Bag 2 contains all conceivable triangles, each triangle representing an instant. Bag 1 has a limited number of triangles which can be arranged in sequence. This bag represents the Newtonian physics approach to time. By arranging triangles/instants in sequence one is given a God’s eye view of history, a succession of events all at once (Model 1 below). In Bag 2, there are so many triangles it would be impossible to arrange them in sequence. The triangles are present in multiple copies. Julian Barbour is arguing for Bag 2, the Timeless Theory bag, in which in principle all conceivable states can be present. He denies there is such a sequence of events as in the Current Theory bag. Barbour’s theory goes on to say that in the bag there are time capsules. And what are time capsules? This is how he describes them: Any static configuration that appears to contain mutually consistent records of processes that took place in a past in accordance with certain laws may be called a time capsule (1999, 31).

By this he means the experience we have all had of walking into a house untouched by historical development for decades or centuries and declaring it to be a perfect time capsule. Barbour believes this happens to us every time we experience an instant. The difference is we experience our own time capsule not someone else’s. We are however mistaken in the way we interpret the experience. There is a timeless rule that fills the bag with time capsules. There is another timeless rule which discriminates and selects time capsules with surprising accuracy. This explains our experience of time. What it comes down to, according to the Timeless Theory bag, is that nature goes to some lengths to create an impression of time for us. In reality though there is no thread of time joining the “nows” in each time capsule; if we think there is, we create the illusion of time. In all this what we have to remember is that Barbour has not proved any of his ideas; they are a working theory at this stage, and further development is expected. What all theoreticians are doing is exploring a mystery.

3 • What Is Science Saying about Spacetime?

55

Nature of spacetime a mystery An analogy of this new vision of spacetime as four-dimensional, which I find very helpful, is that provided by the scientist Darryl Reanney. He compares the vision of fish with that of primates: … the eyes of a fish look sideways out of each side of its head; its field of vision is planar and there are two non-lapping visual fields to its right and its left. Its consciousness thus exists in two dimensions. In man and higher primates, the eyes have rotated to the front of the head. This gives us stereoscopic vision and expands our consciousness to three spatial dimensions (1991, 204 ).

Just as the fish would have difficulty with the idea of stereoscopic vision, so human beings have difficulty with spacetime, that is, a new vision where time is relative and tied to space. Davies points out how mysterious this new insight is. He speaks about “the extremely peculiar nature of time in quantum physics” (1995, 177). To complicate things even further, in addition to the four dimensions of spacetime, other dimensions of time are posited as mentioned above. We also learn that space is curved and has blackholes and wormholes that lead into other universes. Physicists have their own (mathematical) way of noting the end of time: time ends when the equations of general relativity can not be defined, as in a blackhole.

Travel into the future is possible Another issue where modern science has been able to astound us is that of time travel into the future. This possibility is best shown with Davies’ story about the twins traveling in time. Sally and Sam are the twins. Sally boards a rocketship in 2001 and zooms into space at 99% of the speed of light to a nearby star situated ten light years away. Sam stays at home. Sally turns around and heads home to earth at the same speed. Sam notices that Sally’s journey has taken just over 20 earth years. But for Sally, time was experienced differently. For her the journey has taken less than three years, but when she returns she finds that the year is 2021 and Sam is 17 years older than she is. She has been transported 17 years into Sam’s future (2002, 16). Thus time slows down in space, it is malleable (and hence the clocks used by astronauts

56

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

on spacecraft are specially calibrated because time slows down at the speed they are traveling). The one who traveled has traveled into the future of the earthbound one. Thus travel into someone else’s future is possible. One should add, “at least theoretically” since the problem is to travel at 99% of the speed of light which is 186,000 miles per second. Is travel into the past possible? Is it possible to build a time machine? In order to travel backwards in time, it would be necessary to travel at a speed greater than light and this does not seem possible. In 1949, the Austrian logician, Gurt Gödel, thought it might be possible and produced a theory of how one could spiral back into the past. In the 1970s, Frank Tipler of Toulan University, New Orleans, likewise came up with the spinning cylinder idea which became a time machine. But both these theories, while being great curiosities, have not been able to be translated into reality. If time travel into the past were possible there would be serious problems for traditional theology relating to cause and effect, merit and punishment, sin and grace. If Sam could travel into the past and meet his grandfather he might kill him and so his own existence would not be possible! It seems illogical, at least according to what we call logic. Certainly some scientists are saying that the concept of spacetime allows for timeloops (Hawking 2001, 138-140) but travel into the past is highly speculative. Timeloops are “paths that move at less than the speed of light but manage to come back to the place and time they started because of the warping of spacetime” (ibid. 142).

There is no universal “now” The issue is related to the question of dividing time into past, present and future as Plato and Aristotle have already pointed out. The past is gone, the future does not exist and the present is elusive – when we think we have it, it is already gone! Our ordinary concept of time is linear and based on a sequence of events. However, how do we know if one event is before or after another? It can depend on where you are: If I fire a gun on Earth and an astronaut fires a gun on Mars one second later (by my reckoning), an observer in a speeding rocket ship might well judge the Mars gun as having been discharged first. But if the Mars gun goes off a week after mine, everyone agrees on

3 • What Is Science Saying about Spacetime?

57

which fired first, as a week is easily long enough for light to travel between Earth and Mars (Davies, 1995, 31).

Einstein mentioned this problem too. He wrote to a friend: “The distinction between past, present and future, is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one” (Davies 2001, 28). Davies asks, how do we know that “now” in one place is the same as “now ” in another? Phone them? Telephone signals take time to travel, even if optical fibers take only 0.07 seconds to go around the globe. From Mars perhaps 20 minutes. But there is no agreed way to measure the time the signals take due to time dilation. It depends on where the clock is (on a mountain) and at what speed the clock is moving. There is no exact simultaneity with your now. The differences are slight, but in principle there is no universal “Now”. This realization is another nail in the coffin of absolute and universal time. As Davies concludes: Obviously, then, it’s wrong to think of only the present as real, right across the cosmos. Some events that you judge to be in the past will be regarded by someone else as lying in his or her future, or present – and vice versa (ibid. 31 ).

The new insights of science into how we talk about “now” and other time categories, will not be easily appropriated by people in general. As Davies correctly points out: Human life revolves around the division of time into past, present and future; people will not relinquish these categories just because physicists say they are discredited (ibid. 71).

We have learnt, and continue to learn much from modern science, but modern physics has a certain dilemma. The microworld (the world of subatomic particles, for example) is explained scientifically by the laws of quantum mechanics; the macroworld (black holes, the Big Bang, for example) by the laws of general relativity. We live in the macroworld and only get to read about the microworld of subatomic particles and quarks which are so small we find them difficult to imagine. The problem is that these two systems show certain signs of incompatibility, so science is searching for a new theory, the so-called TOE – Theory Of Everything, that will embrace the present system and show how electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces are forms of one basic force. Greene calls this the M-theory which is built on a theory of su-

58

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

per strings. According to Greene, the string theory has been developed over the last three decades but needs further revolutionary work on it before it can overcome significant hurdles and loose ends (1999, 374). A string is like a tiny rubber band but wave-like, that vibrates. Greene describes the theory thus: According to string theory, the universe is made up of tiny strings whose resonant patterns of vibration are the microscopic origin of particle masses and force charges. String theory also requires extra space dimensions that must be curled up to a very small size to be consistent with our never having seen them (ibid. 206).

There is more about the string theory that one needs to mention as it impinges on time and possible future, yet-to-be-discovered time dimensions and curled-up time dimensions. The idea of a time-loop and re-entering a past time is included in this possibility: But if a curled-up dimension is a time dimension, traversing it means returning, after a temporal lapse, to a prior instant in time. This of course, is well beyond the realm of our experience. Time as we know it, is a dimension we can traverse in only one direction with absolute inevitability, never being able to return to an instant after it has passed. Of course, it might be that curled-up time dimensions have vastly different properties from the familiar, vast time dimension that we imagine reaching back to the creation of the universe and forward to the present moment. But, in contrast to extra spatial dimensions, new and previously unknown time dimensions would clearly require an even more monumental restructuring of our intuition. Some theorists have been exploring the possibility of incorporating extra time dimensions into string theory, but as yet the situation is inconclusive. … but the intriguing possibility of new time dimensions could well play a role in future developments (Ian Barbour 1990, 112).

Barbour makes mention of the direction, or flow, of time in this citation. This is what we mean by the arrow of time: time goes forward into the future and never back into the past. Let me give two examples to clarify this. You can run a film of billiard balls back or forwards and you would not know which was the correct direction because they obey the laws of mechanics which are reversible. The normal spatiotemporal world however behaves differently and obeys a different set of laws. If a saucer, for example, is dropped on the floor it shatters and

3 • What Is Science Saying about Spacetime?

59

then lies on the floor in pieces. It never regroups and becomes a whole saucer again. Time is not reversible. People grow older not younger. The arrow of time is said to be determined by a number of indicators. The first is the second law of thermodynamics which says that entities tend to run down, that is, their energy tend to dissipate. Things move from order to disorder. But there are other indicators as well: the arrow of increasing complexity in the universe; the universe’s expansion; cause-and-effect ordering; and human temporal experience (Polkinghorne 2001, 38). Greene is optimistic about the future of this theory and the chances of achieving the goal of a TOE: With guarded optimism, we can envision that a reframing of the principles of quantum mechanics within string theory may yield a more powerful formalism that is capable of giving us an answer to the question of how the universe began and why there are such things as – a formalism that will take us one step closer to answering Leibniz’s question of why there is something rather than nothing (1999, 382).

Our conclusion must be that the modern concept of spacetime shaped by Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum physics, is very different to the biblical or Newtonian linear concept of time. To sum up: according to science we must think in terms of things having four co-ordinates, three relating to space and one to time, called spacetime and that spacetime is flexible (can be stretched); it is not absolute; it is possible to travel into the future; there is no universal “now”; there are some situations where there is no spacetime, and spacetime is a mystery we do not understand. Having opened up a number of questions that various disciplines have raised regarding space and time and having overviewed the earthshaking revolutions in physics, it is time to consider some of the problems that traditional theology presents, regarding it’s use of the concepts of space and time.

Chapter 4 Problem Areas for Theology

L

ike many other areas of study, theology uses the concepts of space and time in its thinking, in its sacred texts, writings, liturgies and prayers. In so doing it either implicitly or explicitly uses certain understandings of space and time. The meaning of these concepts in many theological contexts is the point at issue. Where do these meanings come from? And are they valid? If all the other disciplines are required to update their use and understanding of realities, then so too theology needs to examine the way it uses these terms. A classic example of the need to take scientific discoveries into account, occurred with the sincere but belated (by four hundred years!) apology of the Roman Catholic Church for its judgment on Galileo Galilei who correctly maintained that the earth orbited around the sun and not the opposite. There were many other examples. The Christian view on interest, capital punishment, marriage, women, war, have all had to be updated with new insights and human experience. It is now time for all Christians to ask themselves what concepts of space and time they have and whether their theological usage needs an update. It is the aim of this chapter to identify some of these problems while leaving the response to the subsequent chapters.

Dominus Iesus One of the first problems that arises today, springs from the common usage of seeing everything through the prism of past, present and future. Augustine showed us that there are problems with this simplistic view of time. The past and the future do not exist and the present is

62

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

so flighty it hardly exists for a moment when it is rushing off into the past. Theologians see time in this framework as well. So the work of salvation is seen as a sequence of events with cause and effect. We have always presumed that Moses and Isaac were saved for example, but no explanation has been forthcoming how the merits of Christ acted retrospectively in history. The problem posed by the Vatican document Dominus Iesus (1999) and other writings, asks how persons, who lived more than 2000 years ago could be said to be saved through the merits of Christ. This would include the billions of people from the ancient cultures of China, Greece, North America, Africa, the ancient kingdoms of Nepal, and from Terra del Fuego on the tip of the continent of South America. How could these people who never heard of Jesus Christ be saved? It would also include all those billions of people throughout the world, who although born more recently than Jesus of Nazareth, would still not have heard the gospel preached? Are they lost forever? Theologians have not answered this question, and some Christians even refuse to contemplate this issue while fundamentalist Christians say such people are irretrievably lost. It is a vital question for those working in the area of the theology of religions who want to affirm the universal salvific will of God and at the same time maintain the definitive salvation of all through Jesus Christ. The answer to the question is made more difficult by an exclusive linear approach to time which has dominated biblical and theological scholars. The problem is that there is a huge time gap between those who lived centuries, millennia before Christ, and the birth of Jesus of Nazareth in about 6 B.C. How can the salvation wrought by the historical death of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross, work backwards in time to save those who lived before Christ? There is in fact a faint parallel here with the Immaculate Conception which we will develop below. The theology of the Roman Catholic Church and other churches in so far as I am aware, offers no explanation of this. The document Dominus Iesus is unable to provide an explanation of how God (who apparently remains a male) saves these persons, while affirming that they are saved in “ways known to himself ” (#21).

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

63

Salvation and the liturgy Does the liturgy have anything to say about the salvation of those who do not know Jesus Christ? There is in fact a slight opening to universal, inclusive salvation, at least by way of a firm hope. The Prayer of the Third Mass on All Souls Day reads: God, our creator and redeemer, By your power Christ conquered death And returned to you in glory May all your people who have gone before us in faith Share his victory And enjoy the vision of your glory for ever.

Who are God’s people? Is this to be taken in the exclusive meaning of only those who have declared Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, or can it be taken inclusively as all God’s family, that is, all human creatures? And what does “in faith” mean in the phrase “who have gone before us in faith”? Does it mean those who have articulated their faith explicitly like Peter, “My Lord and my God”, or, is there room for the strong faith that others might have in the Absolute, the Eternal, the Supreme Power? But not only must “in faith ” allow for the different world religions, it must also, if one accepts that faith is developmental, allow for the degrees of faith commitment from the very strong to the embryonic. Another reading that has this opening for the universal is Isaiah, 25:7, 8 which is clear in its message and needs no further comment: On this mountain he will remove The mourning veil covering all peoples, And the shroud enwrapping all nations, He will destroy Death for ever.

On All Saints Day there is the opening prayer which alludes to a certain synchronicity. It reads: “… today we rejoice in the holy men and women of every time and place … May their prayers bring us your forgiveness and love.” Here the limitations of space and time are set aside and all are gathered in a certain synchronicity, those from the past and those living today, in the one church. Whatever the space and time

64

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

co-ordinates of people who lived in the past or are living now, they can come together in the mystical Body of Christ. The traditional, classicist theology of salvation and the sacraments sees the sacraments as the personal redemptive act of Christ in his Church. It is thus a personal approach of Christ to a particular person. As Schillebeeckx says: “In the fullest sense of the word, a sacrament is the pledge of Christ’s availability to a particular individual; the tangible pledge of his readiness to enter upon an encounter” (1963, 80). This seems inadequate to address the many people who lived prior to Christ. Is there some way out of this? Must we have recourse to the extra-sacramental giving of grace?

Image of God There are a number of other inadequacies of traditional theology of spacetime which need to be addressed. One of the most serious is that of the image of God just referred to. Most of western theology has been under the influence of Greek philosophy and hence we have a God who is timeless, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, changeless and generally boring. If God is timeless, outside time, it is difficult to sustain God’s ability to know the world temporally, and as changing. Time cannot be said to enter God’s nature; God is clearly above anything human. There is no succession in God’s experience. God has nothing akin to temporality (Peacocke 1993, 128-129). How then does God relate to time? If one has a static picture of a perfect God how is this God to relate to a world which is itself subject to radical change? In the past, and in some Christian traditions, God was prayed too most frequently as “Almighty and eternal God” or “Omnipotent and eternal God” whereas, to make a comparison, the Muslim God was often invoked as “All-merciful” “All compassionate”. In the Roman Catholic Church, with the reforms brought about by the Second Vatican Council, the language of addressing God has changed. Although the older forms of “All-powerful God”, “Almighty God”, “Lord God of power and might”, “Almighty and eternal God”, (all of which emphasize the transcendence over the immanence of God), still persist, there are other expressions which seem to combine the old and the new, the hard and the soft, power and compassion, with expression

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

65

like, “God of power and mercy”, “Father, all-powerful God”, “Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, “Almighty and merciful God”. But overall the form of address most frequently used now is “Father” which softens the image of God, and is indeed more in keeping with the gospels. God is also referred to as “ever-living”, and “ever-present” which captures the dynamic and immanent aspects of God which, as we shall see, process theology specifically emphasizes. At this point a word needs to be said about images of God in general, although we return to images of God in Chapters Five and Seven. The use of images for God relates to the larger issue of how one sees the God-world relationship and how one speaks about God and human beings in the same sentence – an age old problem for theology. Theologians use “models”. A model is not a literal picture, but a limited and inadequate way of imagining what is not observable. They do however make tentative ontological claims that there are entities in the world something like those postulated in the models. If one did not make this claim, models would be plain fiction and useless. This is then what theologians call the analogical way of speaking about God which has a long history in theology. While rejecting both the absolute apophatic approach which says one can say nothing at all about God, and, at the other end of the spectrum, a classical realism which assumes that models are literal descriptions of extramental realities, I would adopt a critical realism which claims that there are entities in the world something like those put forward in the models. This applies to the implicit or explicit analogies used in speaking of the transcendent and is the stance adopted throughout this book. Let us now return to the traditional images of God. It was Hegel among others, who challenged these ideas and said that Absolute Spirit was growing and becoming. This was the thought behind the later process theologians who speak of God as becoming and growing. They affirm the everlasting concept of God, saying that the future does not yet exist as actual and cannot be included as actual within the divine experience. God grows by accepting the future into God’s being. Speaking of images, it is worth reflecting on self-identity. The Christian western tradition has at times spent much time extolling the greatness of the individual, made in the image of God. Individuals

66

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

are special in God’s sight, a little less than the angels, according to the Psalms. Has this aspect not been overstressed to the detriment of the group? After all, salvation is a collective process in the bible, more so than an individual achievement. Perhaps this is another image that needs a re-visiting.

Linear time The traditional way of viewing time in theology over the last two thousand years has predominantly been that of time as linear. It tends to suggest that time is the “unwinding of predetermined events” which dovetails with the idea of God’s foreknowledge. The origins of that are in the bible, as arranged by editors, where there is a narrative beginning with the creation of the world, the patriarchs and the story of the Jewish people leading to the birth of Christ. This line stretches into the future and the Second Coming. This linear concept of the history of salvation has been taught and passed on to generations of Christians to the point that any challenge to it is unthinkable. Time is irreversible (unlike the Australian Aborigines where the chipped tjurunga changed the mythology retrospectively, as seen above). It needs to be noted that even the order of the books of the bible as we have it today, was re-arranged into chronological order by an editor(s). Someone has imposed a chronological and logical order on the books starting at the very beginning of time, creation and ending with apotheosis of the heavenly Jerusalem. Although Christian mysticism may see time as cyclic and time as the eternal now (and this is possibly true of the kabbalah as well), the bible in general sees eternity as “ancient time” or “time without end” - thus a very linear understanding even of eternity. Even Eccl 3:11, though a difficult text in its use of “eternity”, probably means that God has written into the hearts of humankind the idea of duration and therefore cause and effect (with which Kant would agree). Cyclic time however was a tenacious idea and not easily dismissed from Christianity. The traditional idea of cyclical time and the regeneration of time is found in many primal societies as we saw above. Although early Christianity opposed it vigorously it nevertheless made its way into Christian philosophy. Theories of cycles and astral influences on human destiny were accepted by some Fathers and writers including Clement

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

67

of Alexandria, Minucius Felix, Arnobius and Theodoret (Eliade 1974, 143-46). Linear time on the other hand, was outlined by Irenaeus and pursued by Basil and Gregory and elaborated on by Augustine. In the Middle Ages, the linear time concept came to a head with Joachim of Floris’ theory of the three epochs, that of the Father, Son and finally, of the Spirit, in which we live today. Nevertheless, the tension between these two opinions continued into the seventeenth century when linearism became the dominant theory although in contemporary times we again see a revival of the concept of non-linear time. If we go to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church we find in the teachings about the four last things, death, purgatory, heaven and hell a very linear idea of time both in this world and the next. The Catechism of the Catholic Church assumes like other documents, a scriptural and Newtonian understanding of time. Even after death, linear time applies: “… after death they undergo purification so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (#1030). This clearly implies a time after death, but before heaven when purification takes place. This is a clear projection of human time onto life after death. (Today one would say the purification is a process, and not imply it is measured in time.) Hell means “remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice” (#1033) and seen as “everlasting damnation” (#1022). Eternity is “forever and ever” (#1029), that is, time extended without end. All these are concepts that go back to Aristotelian measured time. Another very popular distortion is that of attributing spiritual entities with location. Heaven is conceived of as a place (as is hell) rather than a state, in popular Christianity. One dies and goes “to heaven”, while those already deceased are already “in heaven” which is “above” in the sky. This inhibits one’s ability to think more imaginatively of the realities beyond spacetime. The inability to think differently is further borne out by the document Questions in Eschatology, authored by the International Theological Commission of the Roman Catholic Church. It maintains that the atemporal theory that each person who dies is immediately resurrected, does not conform to the biblical notion of time (Phan 1994, 510). Even granted that we are into speculative theology here, to say that the bible’s notion of time does not permit this, is to lack imagination. The bible is grappling with the idea of time as much as we are. It is commonly held that

68

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

after death spacetime does not apply as on earth. Afterall, we speak about the next world, the afterlife. Clearly we see it as different. Why then not a revision of what we have held up to now?

Liturgical problems We have already referred to the liturgy above in connection with the salvation of all people irrespective of when they lived. Now we can return to the liturgy and ask how it sees time. In the Roman Catholic liturgy there is a certain bias regarding temporality and eternity. In the Roman Catholic lectionary for the 26th Sunday of Year A, the opening prayer reveals this bias: Father, You show your almighty power In your mercy and forgiveness, Continue to fill us with your gifts of love. Help us to hurry toward the eternal life you promise And come to share in the joys of your kingdom.

The second reading for the same Sunday, treats of Paul’s dilemma as he writes to the Philippians: he wants to be gone from this life, to shed this body, to shake off temporality, and be with Christ, “which would be very much better”. But, he admits,” for me to stay alive in this body is a more urgent need for your sake” (Phil 1:24). The interpretation of this passage is difficult because of the fine balance needed. In the history of Christianity there was a strand which developed into a theology of flight from this world which was seen as sinful, a withdrawal from society into the desert as we see with Anthony and the hermetic life and later with Pachomius and the cenobitic life. The Essenes were a Jewish prescursor to this thinking. At worst this approach leads to hatred of the world. For monks, and for all Christians in general, it is a challenge to strike the balance between loving God’s creation and rejecting the sinfulness that is found in it at times, between loving life in this world and expecting complete union with God in the next. Paul might have explained himself better on this point. The prayers frequently reflect this focus on eternal life, (“bring us to eternal life”) almost as if this life is not quite so serious except as a launching pad for eternal life. Why should we “hurry towards eternal

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

69

life”? Is this life so bad it has to be avoided? Some would doubtlessly say yes! How does that reflect on the creator? And on us? This would then bring us back to how we see God’s creation and the things of this life. However it must be said, that in the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass liturgy, the continuity between this life and the next is beautifully expressed with this sentence: “Life is not taken away but changed”. Thus the liturgy always seems to come up with phrases like these which surprise us and save the day theologically speaking.

Theologians Among theologians, Augustine as we saw, insisted that space and time were only created with the creation of the world, and wished to explore the psychological angle of how the mind experiences time. On the specific issue of God and eternity, from Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, through Augustine, Boethius, to Aquinas, all affirmed God’s immutability and timelessness. Time itself was said to be irreversible. As Schillebeeckx said some fifty years ago, “…time itself is irreversible. Whatever is historically past cannot now, in any way at all, be made once more actually present, not even God himself, not even ‘in mystery’. Whatever has already happened in history is irrevocably past and done” ( 1963, 55). Science would agree with Schillebeeckx about the arrow of time being irreversible. In terms of the history of theology, a number of theologians last century, did indeed write on time, very often in the context of the concept of eternity rather than on any theology/science dialogue. Here one would mention Karl Barth (1970), Paul Tillich (1964), Oscar Cullmann (1962), and Karl Rahner (1974), whom we have come across already. One should add Teilhard de Chardin though he is different in many ways to the others. He was not a systematic theologian like so many we have cited. Teilhard was a Jesuit, paleontologist, and mystic. What he has achieved through his writings (1957, 1959), is significant and instructive for us: he has attempted to bring together a world vision which synthesizes in itself science, a metaphysics of the universe and Christian belief. The vision that he provided seemed to be what people were looking for at the time. Teilhard felt the connection between the human, this world and the divine (something central to process theology thinking). Teilhard

70

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

defended a divine creativity in the whole of the created order. He saw human beings as part of an evolving organic whole (Cousins 1971, 235), the universe, which possesses spiritual value and appears as the manifestation of the divine. (This reminds one of Plotinus saying time was something which imitated the divine). He was linear in his thinking of time to the extent that creation was the unique event of the creation of life, which is but one moment in an evolutionary process leading to Omega Point. And what is this Omega Point? It is the universal cosmic center of human and cosmic evolution, in which everything is bound in the end to attain its unity and consummation or to use different language: it is the union of the personal and collective on the planes of thought and love. The process was one of cosmogenesis which Christians saw as christogenesis, leading to the uniting of all persons in a whole which is greater than any individual and which we call the total Christ, that is, the mystical Body of Christ. The implications of Christ being the Omega Point, are far reaching. It means that Christ is linked structurally and organically to the cosmos; that through Christ, the cosmos acquires its ultimate unity and cohesion, and thirdly, that Christ is the very meaning of history (a point with which Bracken would enthusiastically agree). Naturally not all scientists would agree with his teleological view of creation and some theologians would see his vision as poetically vague and his view of humanity as overly optimistic. However there is no doubt that his vision is inspirational and many see his affirmation that the interaction between a belief in scientific knowledge and theory and a deep religious faith, can be shown in a unified outlook. This is in fact what we are trying to do by bringing spacetime and theology into dialogue. There are some modern theologians who have reflected upon the theological implications of the modern insights into quantum physics: Phan (1994), O’Murchu (1997, 2002), Brown (1990), Horvath (1986), Hue (1996), Worthing (2002), Padgett (1992) and others. DiNoia for example, shows sensitivity to not applying concepts of ordinary time to the moment after death. When speaking of salvation and the time of death, he says there may be a process after death “which may be thought of as instantaneous and coterminous with death” in which other believers are connected with the grace won by

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

71

Christ (Marshall, 1994, 264). So theologians are beginning to re-appraise their stance on time given all the new insights, and reference to them will be made as we construct a theology of spacetime. Traditional theology, as Ian Barbour points out, also attributed a one-sided perfection to God in exalting permanence over change, being over becoming, eternity over temporality, necessity over contingency, self-sufficiency over relatedness (Barbour 1990, 231). It also projected the individual, and individual salvation, as being more important than any collective salvation. All this skewed theology and made dialogue on the topic of the God-world relationship and change in general, very difficult if not impossible. To this can be added the thought that traditional western theology, right from the time of Augustine and under the influence of philosophers, took as its starting point for considering space and time, an understanding of eternity as either time-without-end or timelessness, rather than say, a trinitarian viewpoint of creation.

Cause and effect We have been talking about problem areas for theology as it tries to come to grips with a theology of spacetime. The idea of time travel into the past raises the serious issue of cause and effect. We are used to applying cause and effect to things that happen. The cause happens first then the effect. So my father comes first and I am born as an effect. Take the example of the hypothetical case of time travel into the past. To travel back into the past and murder your grandfather so that you are not born, throws the cause-and-effect sequence out of order as well as being illogical since you would not be in existence to travel back into the past in the first place. If time travel into the past were to be possible, we need new ways of thinking about cause and effect. Yet, Kant, by saying that space and time are two filters by which we receive data, is perhaps pointing at another: cause-and-effect is the way we are programmed to handle what we see. Not everyone agrees with this. Chauvet thinks that with the onto-theological tradition we have inherited from the Greeks, there is an exclusive fixation on explaining reality by means of ultimate causes (1995, 16). He therefore, in discussing sacraments, takes the line of symbolic order to develop his

72

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

theology of the sacraments. But most of us are still stuck in the ontotheological order with its emphasis on causality. A more obvious example is that of Christ dying on the cross and the effects of this being our salvation. Cause: Christ died on the cross; effect: we are forgiven our transgressions and saved by grace. Effect comes after causes in time. Yet Moses, Abraham and Isaac, if they were saved, were saved before Christ died on the cross. Must we suspend our cause-andeffect understandings in some cases? Indeed the Jungian idea of synchronicity discussed in Chapter Two suggests we must. The rigid adherence to cause-and-effect principle plus the adoption of an exclusive linear understanding of time, can lead to some strange, distorted theology. It can lead to an assumption that God’s actions in the world can be controlled and manipulated down to the last minute. But we cannot impose on God to intervene in creation on our conditions which are the cause-and-effect principle and a linear understanding of time. I am thinking of the eucharist and the words of institution. Some western traditionalists would want to know at exactly what time or moment the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Some celebrants even draw attention to a particular moment, to what then becomes a magical trick. It is also part of the fallout of a high theology of the priesthood which talks about the “powers” of the ordained. They would reply that Christ becomes present in the eucharist immediately when the words of institution are spoken. Eastern Christians might say at the epiclesis. At this point we have got to recall that God acts in God’s own mysterious ways and to allow for that in our thinking and language. Theologians who accept this would say in deliberately vaguer terms, that Christ becomes present during the entire anaphora. The point is to respect the fact that God acts in God’s own way and not to impose our conditions on divine activity in the world. Here again in this debate, we can see the influence of making “being” the basic category of all entities (the distortion some would argue), rather than “becoming” which process theology does. Rather than focus on the ontological status of the bread and wine, a process approach would focus on the community increasingly “becoming” the body of Christ.

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

73

Dualisms : God as a receptacle There is no doubt that dualism has been a problem for theology as well. Feminist theology, as well as individual theologians, have repeatedly made this point. A dualistic way of thinking has been part and parcel of western thought from the Greeks onwards. Thus we are justly proud of the principle of non-contradiction in the west, whereas in the east they prefer to talk about the need for harmonization. I think the principles of openness and harmonization are particularly valuable in evolving a theology of spacetime. But there are other familiar dualisms which pervade western theology such as right/wrong, good/ evil, west/east, eternity/time, this world/next world, this age/the age to come, subject/object, nature/grace, nature/history, Christian/pagan, faith/without faith, male/female, hetero/homo. The challenge is to ask how these have influenced and possibly impeded theological thinking. Let us look more specially at how the dualism of space and time or space and matter have influenced western theological thinking. One is the thought that space is a receptacle which contains matter. We still speak of things as in time and in space (whereas things have a spacetime mode of existence). The Greek and others felt safer with the idea of the finite, the intelligible and the limits of the container. This attitude in turn led people to think of God as a receptacle. Space contains everything there is in terms of matter and God is a receptacle that contains all that has ever been created both visible and invisible. (In this context “place” was a mere division of natural space, a secondary social construction whereas now “place” comes first and is physical, specific and relational, while space is an abstract concept.) Patristic theology, when contemplating God’s activity in the world and the Incarnation, rejected the notion of space that receives and contains things. They preferred a more dynamic and relational notion of space as the meeting place in the interaction of God and the world. The ultimate specification of this dynamic meeting place was the Incarnation. How could the God who transcends all time and space, become incarnate in Jesus Christ? In trying to balance these two poles, it became essential to have a notion of space that was open and dynamic. This led to thinking that the (divine) Incarnation was not possible. God could not possibly come down into one person on earth because

74

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

God was after all, the container of everything. This led to what is called the Calvinist extra, explained by Torrance (176, 124). When the Son of God became man did he leave his throne in heaven? Was the second person of the Trinity missing from heaven while Jesus lived on earth? The Lutherans interpreted what the Calvinists said to mean that when he became man, not all of the Word could fit into the babe in Bethlehem and that some was Left outside (the extra). This is what is known as the Calvinist extra but rejected by Calvinists. Patristic and Reformed theology maintain he did become man and he did remain what he always was, God in heaven. The Lutherans misinterpreted this view. Hellenic dualism of space and matter also influenced Augustinianism which led to a variant dualism in Lutheranism of the two kingdoms. Another variant was the dualism in Cartesianism of subjectobject. And in western thought more generally in modern times, the dualism of absolute space and time has prevailed, which brings us to Newtonian times. Newton’s view on space and time influenced theology. Infinite space and time are attributes of the Deity. Space and time were seen as an infinite receptacle just as God is an infinite receptacle that contains all. We live and move and have our being in God. Infinite volume is related to the thought of the Spirit of God and infinite time is identified with eternity. Newton moved from God to the world. He joined together God and the world by giving them space and time in common. It could be said that Newton prevented the evolution of Medieval thought from the ontic-static to the dynamic-noetic. Absolute space is similar and unmovable and has a central point of reference of absolute rest, the center of gravity. This was related to the immutability of God, hence the ontic-static worldview which is essentially a closed view of the universe. Not surprisingly, modern Protestantism fell into a new scholasticism which halted the dynamism of the Reformers. Newton was however open to the study of history since time was associated with space in the fundamental structure of knowledge. The linear character of history had to be taken seriously, but because of the absolute nature of time and space, a static quality was introduced into history.

4 • Problem Areas for Theology

75

This segment has focused on the development of the concept of space and time and how it has influenced theology. It is interesting to note that we are retrieving some of our ancient tradition as to the importance of space. For example, as regards the Incarnation and places that are sacred, we can go back to primal societies many of whom speak of their sacred sites, sacred places where (we would say) the transcendent and the human met. So they had a very high opinion of the importance of the place in space where significant events happened. The events that are remembered are usually significant in their history, even turning points, kairic moments in the story that is their mythology. The identification of place seems to have come naturally to these primal societies although subsequent urban societies seem to have partially lost this insight. By way of summary then one can say, that theology’s problems start with a too rigid understanding of time as linear. Although this is not the total biblical view, Christian theology and liturgy have often acted as if it were. This, together with dualism in western thinking and a closed image of God in absolute terms, leads to a closed worldview uncomfortable with, and not able to accommodate, modern insights into spacetime. One of the theological problems we saw, was the inability of theology to explain how Christ’s salvific life and death could save those born before this time. We also noted that in more recent times, some individual theologians, like Teilhard, have come to grips with the questions modern science is asking theology in terms of spacetime without necessarily resolving them. Another problematic area is that of cause and effect. According to our laws of cause and effect, the idea of time travel into the past is not possible, which in fact is the opinion of many scientists anyhow. We also saw how a static view of space and time can lock up the universe into a closed system but that the Church Fathers opted for a dynamic and open system where space is the meeting place for the interaction of God and the world. This exciting vision will be explored in Part Two.

part Two The Response: Towards a Contemporary Theology of Spacetime

Chapter 5 Time as an Illusion

P

art One opened up a number of questions regarding space and time from a variety of viewpoints: theological, scientific, psychological and anthropological. Our task is now, in Part Two, to respond to the theological issues by building up a theology of spacetime. This will be done by discussing four models of time which Polkinghorne has identified, and then raising theological issues which will expose the core of a coherent theology of spacetime. We will start this more constructive phase of building up a theology by giving the big picture of changes in worldviews in general, at least in the west. This attempt at giving the global context will serve as a conceptual backdrop to what is later developed. What is basic to a response to the problematic that presented itself in terms of an understanding of spacetime commensurate with modern insights and theology, is a new Weltanschauung, or worldview. This will give an entirely new perspective on everything and make us re-think certain issues. The keyword in the new vision is relationships or connections. This is already well documented, so we need only sketch what we mean. In quantum physics the new discoveries have shown how subatomic particles relate to each other in strange and wonderful ways. The microworld is full of systems and relationships with enormous complexity. We are only beginning to learn about these connections. Environmental sciences have taught us the value of eco-systems and how delicately the various systems of the world are interrelated. As Berry said: “every being enters into communion with other beings” (1999, 4). The impact of broken or disrupted eco- and bio-systems can cause

78

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

enormous destruction for humans and animals. In philosophy, themes such as the return to the subject, personalism, deconstruction and reconstruction, have stressed the relational aspects. Postcolonial theorists have examined identity, the phenomenon of interstitial liminality (Bhabha 1987, 5-11) and the interrelatedness of factors that influence identity in a postcolonial world of shifting populations. Dissatisfaction with mainline theological thought has produced process theology, which flowed from Whitehead’s philosophy. This has focused on a God who is involved with the world and feels and changes with the world. This in turn has provoked mainline theology to respond either with an evangelical condemnation of such “unbiblical heresy”, or a more fruitful re-examination of the origins of God-images and the retrieval of trinitarian theology along the lines of a perichoresis, a “dancing together”, a communion of persons or interpersonal relationships rather than a patriarchy of domination and power. What we also see in theology, is a shift from seeing the ultimate in terms of independence, isolation, individuality to relationships and collaboration (O’Murchu 1997). Reason sought to understand and control the world, whereas mystery was avoided. This was a western worldview that was dominated by dualisms of every kind, including black/white, orthodoxy/heresy, empiricism/theory, as mentioned in the previous chapter, which have handicapped western classicist theology. The new worldview seeks (as was done in past ages) to find an ultimate which is also immanent, a God who is part of this life. It seeks to stress the importance of relationships and connectedness whether they are in the Trinity, our families, the human or animal families, or in the subatomic world. Healing and reconciliation are seen as more important than power and dominance and hence the increased interest in peace studies. Above all the acceptance and cherishing of the reality of mystery in our lives which implies a certain humbleness in the face of life as opposed to an over-confidence in the powers of rational humans. With this kind of new view of reality we can seek to re-assess our understanding of time, which is just one of the many issues that cry out for a new approach today.

5 • Time as an Illusion

79

Image of God Before discussing the different models of time, it is necessary to mention the importance of the different views of God and God’s relationship with the world which accompany these models (and which accompany any theology, conservative or progressive), either explicitly or implicitly. This becomes especially apparent in process theology as we shall see below. Ward refers to two dominant traditions of thinking about God in this context. He refers to “inclusive infinity” tradition in which God has been understood as including all possible and actual things within Godself. Adherents of this tradition include, Plotinus, Ramanuja, Spinoza, Hegel and Whitehead (1982, 149-70). In this view the whole universe is an expression, or emanation, of the unlimited reality of God or the Absolute. God includes it within God’s being, though God is not limited by its finite forms. The second tradition is that of “exclusive infinity”. In being infinite God excludes all finite things from Godself. The followers of this tradition are, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz and Kant as well as most Christian theologians (though not the process theologians). In this view, no addition of finite realities can add to God, nor do they make any difference to God’s unlimited reality. Neither of these two traditions seems adequate for coping with the issues arising from considerations of time and theology today. As Ward comments: “Creation seems to demand a contingent, temporal God who interacts with creation and is therefore, not self-sufficient. But can one have both?” (ibid. 3). This is one of the problem areas for theology and will be explored shortly. Before leaving the topic of image of God, it is useful here to refresh our memories of the more traditional images of God. The bible in fact has a vast and rich array of ways of referring to God. Barbour arranges these into two categories: “monarchical” and “organic”. The first category includes titles which suggest hierarchy, kingship and lordship. Titles found in this category are Maker (Gn 2:26, 2:18), Father (Is 63:16; Ps 2:7), Lord (Ps 8:1, 9, 16:1, 54:4), King and Sovereign (Ps 5:2, 47:2, 6, 7, 8, 93:1, 145:1). The second category, organic, suggests the characteristics of intimacy and reciprocity, thus implying relationships. Among these titles are many that speak of God as feminine. Foremost here would be those that refer to God as mother, (Is 49:15, 66:13; Num 11:12-13;

80

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Hos 11:3-4; Ps 131:1-2; Jb 38:8-9), and as a mother bear (Hos 13:8), mother eagle (Dt 32:11-12; Ex 19:4; Jb 39:27-30), and mother hen (Mt 23:27; Lk 13:34; Ps 17:8-9; 57:1; 61:4; 91:4). God is also referred to as a woman giving birth (Is 42:14; Dt 32:18; Jb 38:28-29), a midwife (Is 66:9; Ps 22:9-10; Gen 1:27). We also find images of God doing tasks associated with women such as washing, clothing and feeding (Is 46:3-4; Ez 36:25; Wis 16:20-21; Gen 3:21; Hos 3-4;, Is 66:13-14; Jb 10:10-12; Lk 12:23-25, 27-29). Reference is also made to God’s compassion, or better, God’s “womb-love” ( Is 63:15; Ex 34:6; Jn 3:6). To this we must add God as “hokmah” in Hebrew, and “sophia” in Greek, meaning “wisdom”, a feminine noun (Prov 1:20-33, 8:27-31; Wis 7:25-27, 8:7, 9:17-18; Si 24:4) ( Johnson, 1993, 95-117; Lee, 1993, 123-143). There are also male or neutral images that suggest intimacy, reciprocity and relationships, such as God as shepherd (Ps 23; Ez 34:11; Is 40:9 ), faithful husband (Is 54:6), councilor (Ps 16:7) or as a rock (Ps 28:1) and fortress (Ps 27:1) or shelter (Ps 31:1,2). And in contemporary times the world is even seen as God’s body (McFague 1993). In the history of Christianity however, the range has been mainly, but not exclusively, narrowed down to the first category. This would be a reflection of the patriarchal culture, inherited from Judaism (where God was usually seen as king or male warrior) and then cultivated by Christianity in spite of a brief flicker of a promise of gender equality as evident in Gal 3:28. So it is no surprise that God in the liturgy has often been addressed as “Almighty and Omnipotent God” or “Almighty and eternal God” rather than “Compassionate Mother”. The main image one has of God, it can be concluded, tends to control one’s theology and spirituality. The challenge is to identify the image being used and, if necessary, modify or even change it completely; or, to put it another way: to recognize the image’s shadows (the negative side, or limitations) which applies to all images, including the new ones we adopt.

5 • Time as an Illusion

81

Model 1: Time As an illusion; time is “now” We can now turn more specifically to models of time. We will take four different views of time and use them as models to talk about the theological issues that arise and what constructive theologies can be built up around them. This is done in a similar way as one can discuss different ecclesiological models such as the church, for example, as institution, sacrament, herald, servant, etc. where a model serves as a human construct to help one understand a reality from a certain perspective, in order to shed light on it. The four models for time that arise from the literature on spacetime are: time as an illusion, clockwork, becoming, and as a secondary construct. In this way we will develop some different aspects of a theology of time which however are not meant to be alternatives but rather complementary even if at times they may seem to be more opposite than complementary. Together all these elements will constitute a theology of spacetime. The point is that there is no one model of time and hence, as with many other theologies, there is no one theology of spacetime. There are a number of ecclesiologies or christologies which all need the others to complement them. Added to this is the belief mentioned repeatedly that time is a mystery, and it would be foolhardy to look for one theological model that explains it all. Model 1, time as an illusion, sees time as not really existing. It is an illusion, as Einstein said. Time is seen as the present moment and past and future do not really exist. All we have is the present moment, the “now”. There are two slightly different meanings of time here: (1) time does not exist at all, it is fabrication of human origin; or, (2) time is constituted by the present moment. Julian Barbour discusses it in his Current Theory bag, referred to above in Chapter Two. In this model all “presents” are simultaneously known by God. It is God’s view of all history and time as one “now”, all at once, totum simul. It is referred to as the block universe. All “presents” are simultaneously known by God. One can imagine God on a mountainside looking down on a scene. God sees all in one glance. God sees a road winding through the landscape and sees everyone at the same time. The higher up the mountain God goes the more God can see. From the very top God can see every-

82

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

thing – all lives played out in one moment. This God is outside time or timeless. Augustine and Boethius held to this view of time. This view can be expressed in another way as Helm does, using a handy analogy: God knows at a glance. “We may say, then, that God knows at a glance the whole of his temporally ordered creation in rather the way in which a crossword clue may be solved in a flash” (1988, 26). This is reflected to some extent in the eastern religions. In Taoism and Confucianism, for example, there is interest in the now, in the balance and harmony in nature and the interconnectedness of natural forces and less interest in the past and the beginnings of the world or its future end. Likewise Hindusim and Buddhism focus on the present and have little interest in the way things began or will end; the focus is on the present moment and how to bring compassion to all creatures now and lead a liberated life (2002, 235-7). This model raises the question of how divine ways of knowing accurately reflect reality. Divine knowledge would seem to be atemporal if the reality of all events is fundamentally atemporal and that is the way God knows them. A second issue follows. If God’s untensed knowledge of created reality is so totally different to the tensed knowledge of reality, then how can we employ the analogia entis to explain anything transcendent? Classical theology has always said that God’s divine causality is exercised through secondary causalities in a way that is not open to questioning and hence divine action is rescued from any anthropomorphism. The viewpoint does though incline towards determinism. The problem is to satisfactorily explain how divine primary causality and human secondary causality can be reconciled. Human freedom seems under threat. This issue of free will, will be followed up below in Chapter Six. These are some of the consequences of this first model of time.

Liturgical time When thinking of time, not as an illusion, but as focusing on the second element in the definition, the “now” and relating that to theology, the first thing that comes to mind is liturgical time. In this section I will show how the liturgy, through liturgical time, helps to bring us to a different dimension of time, away from ordinary time. While speaking of time, it is noteworthy that time and place go hand in hand. As Chauvet

5 • Time as an Illusion

83

comments, the liturgy “creates a symbolic disconnection which places the assembly in another, non-utilitarian world. As a consequence, there is symbolically room for God; there is a space of gratuitousness where God can come” (2001, 106). The liturgy, or indeed any ritual, is a rupture with the everyday, the ephemeral, the ordinary. Christians can by the arrangement of the place, the objects and the language they use, give expression to their faith. So time and place come together in the liturgy. But for the moment I wish to focus on the time dimension of liturgy: it will help us to appreciate concepts of time other than linear and to approach other theological time-problems from a different viewpoint. I will focus on liturgical time, the sacraments and how they manage time, especially through the catechetical homilies of the Patristic period, but also through modern writers, and how postmodern thought might be able to be linked with this theology. We can go back in the history of primal societies to investigate sacred time (which, in most cases, Christians call liturgical time). According to Eliade, time can be sacred for a number of reasons. It is sacred if it has an absolute beginning (for example, the Dreaming), or as construed as another time outside ordinary time. Or, it can be defined in terms of its opposite, profane time. This is what we call sacred time; it has some elements of the transcendent about it. Sacred time is irreversible, it cannot be undone (for first nations, land title cannot be “washed out” of the land), but it can be made present in festivals, music, and literature, for example. With this in mind we can say that from a christian perspective, liturgical time, sacred time, has two aspects. Specifically speaking it is redeemed time which is celebrated in the liturgy, that is, time that has been redeemed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; it is, says Eliade, “a time in which the historical existence of Jesus Christ occurred, the time sanctified by his preaching, by his passion, death, and resurrection” (1976, 35). That this time is different to ordinary time is brought home to us by the special liturgical calendar which measures time in terms of salvation history broadly speaking, starting with Advent. Indeed, advent is a good example of what Sheldrake calls “desert time”. Desert is a symbol of both space and time. As desert time it is a time of waiting and testing (Deut.8:2) that teaches patience and

84

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

perserverance. This clashes with contemporary western emphasis on instant gratification and response (Sheldrake P 2005, 622). Thus liturgical time is indeed different to ordinary time. When we enter into the liturgy we are celebrating one or other aspect of the Paschal mystery. Liturgical time is the sacred time which is experienced while participating in liturgies; it is characterized by a feeling of entering into another world and values, of a withdrawing from the ordinary events of life including ordinary time. It is a liminal experience and could be captured by the Orthodox way of saying that liturgies are, in a mode of speaking, a little experience of heaven, of a different world. The icons, ceremonies, singing, readings and incense all create an atmosphere where the experience becomes a window into heaven. It is not unlike the experience of “time standing still” (referred to above in connection with postcolonialism) which we all have from time to time. How this experience can also be the beginning of a certain mysticism which can transform time will be followed up in Chapter Nine.

Kairic time Closely allied to this is kairic time which means particular moments in which God is felt to be present and in which one is called to make a particular decision or take a particular path. Here one is distinguishing between two Greek words used for time, kairos and chronos. Kairos is understood as God’s moment of action. Chronos is measured, everyday time. Expressed another way, the difference between the two words can be seen in two colloquial expressions: kairos means “it’s time!” (take action!), while chronos is used in the simple sense of “time’s up!” (time has elapsed).1 Kairic decisions are therefore not frivolous, but very significant decisions taken by a person who is responding to God’s grace in particular instances. There is also a certain urgency about the situation. One could also speak of a kairic theology of time. Kairic theology would be theology about discerning the right moment for God’s action in this world, and taking action. Kairic moments can occur in the liturgy or sacraments or outside these celebrations. 1 Severian of Gabala, ca 400, makes this distinction between chronos and kairos in reference to Gn 1:14, “Let them be for signs and times”. PG 56.451.

5 • Time as an Illusion

85

Before going further one should also point out the difference between a weak and strong kairic theology of time. Rayment-Pickard speaks about Jesus and weak and strong kairic theology. Weak kairic theology is that which stresses the linear approach and does not emphasize the given moment, thus tending towards seeing time as chronos. Strong kairic theology is the opposite. It stresses the given moment as the time for action. In Sheldrake’s words, “In many respects kairos time is in the foreground of the New Testament” ( 2005, 621). One can think of many examples from the gospels. The Samaritan who passed the man attacked and left for dead on the road, experienced the importance of the moment for God’s action through him, a truly kairic moment. Zacheus experienced his kairic moment in the tree watching Jesus. Jesus allowing himself to be arrested in the garden and not fleeing, is such a moment. There are thus many strong kairic moments in the gospels as well as a more general emphasis on salvation history. Cullman’s proposes a weak kairic theology (as can be seen in his Christ and Time ) whereas a strong kairic theology would tend to be non-linear, emphasizing that God’s moment is here and now, such as the existentialism of Bultmann. God is actively present here and now and acts. As regards kairic time, one could further add to this idea. One can say time, like light, is dealt out in particles, moment by moment. In this way history in seen as a series of moments each potentially complete in itself. This type of time is non-linear; it emphasizes the ethical and aesthetic potential of every moment; it is what Heidegger refers to as the “ecstatical character of the Present (1962, 461)”. This latter view of time is certainly found in the Christian tradition. In the New Testament, Jesus encourages his hearers to consider the lilies of the field and the same qualities are presupposed in the Sermon on the Mount. St Augustine expresses this time with his famous line: “Every particle of sand in the glass of time is precious to me”. In Christian mysticism it is referred to as “the sacrament of the present moment”. This kairic understanding of time is capable of inspiring new theologies and spiritualities and re-invigorating the celebration of the sacraments as we shall see below.

86

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Sacramentality and the patristic period Liturgical time inevitably leads us into a consideration of sacramentality which provides us with fruitful insights. The Patristic writings will provide us with some valuable texts, particularly Catechetical Homilies, and the two key sacraments of baptism and eucharist. Before examining some of these homilies, a word about sacramentality. There are two main principles that operate in sacramentality. The effects of the sacraments are made available to us, as they were when the original event took place, the last supper or the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is one of the principles of how sacraments function - they make present an event from the past. The other principle is that eschatological events or realities are made present now, or made present in an incipient way like the kingdom of God. There is the tension between the already and the not-yet; we live in the in-between time (Chauvet 1995, 546). The fullness of the kingdom is an eschatological event, that is an event in the future, but the kingdom is already present in an incipient way in the hic et nunc, as the sundial makers would say. To that extent the future is with us now; we can travel into the future as it were. These two principles suggest a parallel with the way Augustine was speaking about time. The human mind brings the past back by way of memories and brings the future forward by way of anticipation. There is thus a certain parallel between liturgical time and ordinary time in the way it functions. When one looks at the catechetical homilies of the Patristic Period, they refer to the first principle of sacramentality rather more than the second, the eschatological principle. All of the following citations speak of a past event being made present here and now through its effects. Ambrose, in his fourth homily, speaks about the effects of the death and resurrection of Christ as being made present again in the eucharist: What is it the apostle says about every time you receive it? ’As often as we receive it, we herald his death, we herald the remission of sins. If whenever his blood is shed, it is shed for the remission of sins.’ I

5 • Time as an Illusion

87

ought always to receive him so that he may always forgive sins (IV Homily #28, 140).

Theodore of Mopsuestia, when speaking of baptism in his third homily says that effects of Christ’s death in the past bear fruit here and now with the new life in baptism. The past is made present. The new life is a reality, not an empty symbol: These things only happen to us in symbols, but St Paul wishes to make it clear that we are not concerned with empty symbols but with realities, in which we profess our faith with longing and without hesitation. So he continues: ‘If we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his’. He proves the present by the future, taking the splendour of what is to come as evidence of the value of these symbols, the symbols contained in baptism, the work of the Holy Spirit. You receive baptism only because you hope for the blessings to come: by dying and rising with Christ and being born to a new life, you come to share in the reality of the signs that attracted you… (III Homily, #6, 192,3).

In his fourth homily Theodore refers to the past as being made present. He is speaking of celebrating the Lord’s death and resurrection in the eucharist. Again Theodore keeps close to Paul, his guide, in these catechetical homilies. He says: St. Paul teaches us that Christ’s death pointed to the resurrection. We were buried with him in anticipation by baptism, in order to share his death in this world by faith and so share also his resurrection. The death of Christ our Lord procures for us not only the birth of baptism but also symbolic food. We have St.Paul’s word for this: ‘As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,’ he says, ‘you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’. He means that when we receive the offering and take part in the mysteries, we proclaim our Lord’s death, which obtains for us the resurrection and the enjoyment of immortality ( IV Homily, #6, 214).

We will return to this text and the second sacramental principle in a moment, but I want to explore further the first principle in another contemporary text which speaks of anamnesis, a concept so central to the eucharist. What is anamnesis, a word which has already been mentioned but without any explanation? The word comes from the Hebrew words,

88

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

zikkaron or azkarah, and translate into the Greek, ajnavmnhsi~, meaning, remembrance, commemoration, memorial and re-presentation in the sense of making something present once again in the hic et nunc. The concept carries both an objective and subjective element. The idea of memory and memorial is closely linked to the idea of “name”. For example, “The virtuous man is remembered with blessings, the wicked man’s name rots away” (Pro 10:7), or Job speaking of the wicked man, “His memory fades from the land, his name is forgotten in his homeland”. With Yahweh, the invocation of his name connotes the personality and power of God: “Yahweh, your name endures for ever! Yahweh, your memory is always fresh!” (Ps 135: 13). But the name is not enough. It will also remind one of some action in the past. The tassels on the garment remind the Israelites of the ten commandments and of Yahweh who brought them out of the land of Egypt (Nm 15:40). In Leviticus the memorial even takes the form of a ritual sacrifice of food: “This will be the food offered as a memorial, a burnt offering for Yahweh” (Lv 24:7). Thus the concept developed into the New Testament (Hb 10:3; Lk 22:19; 2 Tm 1:5; 2 Pt 1:13; 3:1) where the Lord’s Supper is seen as such a memorial, not merely recalling the past, but making it present in the here and now. The past is received as present, and even as a present, says Chauvet (2001, 56, 231-233). John Chrysostom expresses the faith of early Christianity: “We offer even now what was done then, for we perform the anamnesis of His death”( In Hebr. Hom.17:3.; Patrologia Graeca, ed., Migne, 63:131). This concept of anamnesis, of recalling a salvific deed in the past and making it present is at the heart of sacramentality as well as, from our perspective, showing us how God’s grace is not bound by spacetime. Now we can turn to the contemporary text by Betz from the encyclopedia, Sacramentum Mundi, which encorporates time into its explanation: If we inquire after the inner reasons whereby a past event can become actually present again, we must first consider the nature of the acting subject. As the actions of the eternal person of the Logos, the saving deeds of Jesus have a perennial quality and are always simultaneous with passing finite time. Besides this, they are also somehow taken up into the glorified humanity of Jesus which, according to St Thomas (ST, III, 62, 5; 64, 3), remains the effica-

5 • Time as an Illusion

89

cious instrumentum conjunctum of the exalted Lord. Those past salvific actions, being taken up into the divine person as also into the human nature of Jesus, can now assume a new spatio-temporal presence – in and through a “symbolic reality”. This is an entity in which another being enters and reveals itself, is and acts. The real essence of the symbol as symbol is not its own physical reality, but the manifestation and presentation of the primary reality which is symbolized in it. In virtue of his potestas auctoritatis, Jesus so incorporated the supper into his sacrificial act that the sacrificial act is accomplished in and finds its visible expression in the supper (1975, 458 ).

Some comment on this citation is necessary. Spacetime and the world of God, so to speak, are constantly interacting. The problem then arises with the temporal order confronting or intersecting the eternal order. There are these moments in spacetime (our new understanding of time, thanks to the scientists) when this happens, the transcendent pierces our transitory world, the eternal and the temporary, the finite and infinite come together in a more intense way. When this happens, at these moments, the linguistic problem arises, namely whose language do we use? Betz’s text uses the phrase, “the saving deeds of Jesus have a perennial quality and are always simultaneous with passing finite time.” So the redemptive deeds that Jesus wrought are happening each day, every moment. If they can be said to do that in the present and in the future (tomorrow we will wake up and say it again), then surely they are also simultaneous with finite passing time as it was experienced by Abraham, Moses, Esther and Miriam, not to mentioned the Ojibway people in Ontario, or the Dharruk communities in Australia forty thousand years ago. If they are projected into the present and future from the past, why cannot they (the saving deeds of Christ) also be retrojected into the past (time before Christ)? After all the salvific deeds of Jesus Christ have been “somehow taken up into the glorified humanity of Jesus”, so they are now transtemporal, or outside spacetime. God lives in a big “now”. If things are outside our concept of spacetime, they are in the big “now”. And finally, in Betz’s text, what does he mean by the instrumentum conjunctum? The instrument of joining? Joining what ? The Lord, the eternal, the transcendent and the temporal. Something

90

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

is needed to bridge this gap. And it is in this case the humanity of Jesus during his lifetime, and his glorified body after his death. Let us digress for a moment regarding the eschatological question of deeds being taken up into a glorified state. How are salvific deeds somehow taken up into the glorified humanity of Jesus? Are the actions we do, over and finished with when we die? Are they over and finished with before we die? Or do they have some resonance in the future life? This is an eschatological problem worth thinking about. Are all the wonderful pieces of music and art forever to be lost in a future glorified life? Will there be no echo of Mozart’s music, da Vinci’s paintings or Michelangelo’s sculptures? Or will they somehow be taken up into the glorified state of these people and find an echo in the future glorified life? It makes more sense to believe that they will somehow be perpetuated, because in the resurrection we have a model of how things might be after death, that is resurrected, entering into a new glorified state. We base our argument on the resurrection as a model. If we did not have that, there would be no reason to think that anything, any deeds, any actions, would find some resonance in a life after death. The resurrection of Jesus means that the earthly body has found an echo in the future life. It shows the value of life in earthly bodies, in the eyes of God. There is an interesting convergence of concepts relating to what we have been discussing regarding the eucharistic liturgy. It arises from an unexpected contemporary source, namely, information retrieval and is called “associative strategies”. As Jantsch explains: In the immediacy of existence, in time- and space-binding of consciousness, events are no longer connected in sequential mode, but in an associative mode. “Information retrieval no longer follows linear search procedures, but develops associative strategies such as information retrieval systems with combinations of thematic keywords” (1980, 302).

This is the kind of thinking that one must explore in order to free oneself somewhat from the linear approach and the sacramental mentality does it so well. It is an attempt for us fish to see three-dimensionally! The eucharist (and the bible in general) is full of associative strategies to bring a lot of connected things together which are not in temporal sequential order but have strong associations. It seems to be

5 • Time as an Illusion

91

a mode of thinking that primal religions already use as can be seen from the incident above, of the Warlpiri saying Adam, Moses or Jesus all lived on the same day. Could it be that salvation works this way: the appropriate attitudes and feelings towards the Absolute, God, are the associative strategies that bring about salvation for an individual and not the linear question of being born before or after Christ? That our contemporary information systems use this approach should prove to be a point of contact, an entry point for dialogue with all religions about sacramentality. I wish now to return to the citation from Theodore above with regard to the second eschatological sacramental principle. In the first and last sentence of the citation, there is the hint of the second principle of sacramentality, namely, in communion one has already received the promise of resurrection and immortality. In a way, the future (resurrection and immortality) is already present with the recipient. A similar point is made by Ambrose with greater clarity. In his second homily in the series Sermons on the Sacraments, Ambrose points out that eternal life has already begun with the baptismal anointing. The future is made present in the here and now. Ambrose preaches thus: So you were immersed and you came to the priest. What did he say to you? God the Father Almighty, he said, who has brought you to a new birth through water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven your sins, himself anoints you into eternal life. See where the anointing has brought you: ‘to eternal life’, he says. Do not prefer this present life to eternal life (IV Homily, #24, 119).

There is a problem with sacraments with the balance between what the sacrament gives and the eschatological promise of the sacrament. Theodore of Mopsuestia’s treatment of the sacraments, given the Platonizing culture which permeated the patristic period, has been shown to be marked by realism, but on occasions he falls into an exaggerated realism (Mazza, 1989, 85-105). An excess of realism becomes an exaggerated realism; if one moves in the opposite way, one can be guilty of seeing sacraments as empty symbols. Examples of Theodore’s exaggerated realism would be his reference to a new immolation of Christ in the eucharist, overlooking the ephapax character of the redemption

92

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

(ibid. fn.164); or that the Holy Spirit, at the moment of the epiclesis again effects the resurrection of Christ’s body (ibid. fn.159). When confronted with the eschatological nature of baptism, he wonders how human beings can be said to receive the resurrection from the dead and yet continue to live on earth? His answer was: “.. you will receive this second, new birth, which will be effectively manifested at the moment when you rise from the dead and have once again become that of which death had stripped you (ibid. fn.173)”. Theodore is making a distinction between the sacrament and the reality of which it is a sacrament. Resurrection is an eschatological gift, but its sacramental figure is given now. It is this latter which is the element of the future which is given now. Or one could say it is the promise of the resurrection that is given now in baptism. In this way the balance between the “not yet” and the “already now” can be sustained. Theodore makes use of a different vocabulary to get around this difficult problem. He says what is given to us in the sacrament is a participation, an earnest, a hope given to us by the Holy Spirit and hence real in the highest degree. So, in a way the future is made present in the here and now. He also speaks about receiving the firstfruits of the Spirit now and later the fullness of grace when we enjoy the reality itself. In modern times, a theologian like Schillebeeckx expresses this element of the “already now” of the eschatological gifts, when talking about the sacraments in general. He speaks about the threefold historical orientation of the sacraments. Firstly an anamnesis, secondly they are visible affirmation and bestowal of the actual gift of grace, and thirdly, … they are a pledge of eschatological salvation and a herald of the parousia, because the sacraments are the sacramental presence of Christ the Eschaton, either because of a real transubstantiation (in the case of the Eucharist), or because of the sacramentalizing of his eternally actual redemptive act (in the case of the remaining six sacraments). Hence a visible intervention in our time of the Eschaton himself takes place in the sacrament. Sacramental encounter with the living Christ in the Church is therefore, in virtue of the historical mysteries of Christ’s life, the actual beginning of eschatological salvation in earth (1963, 62-63 ).

5 • Time as an Illusion

93

This is the second sacramental principle we spoke about above: the bringing into the present of an eschatological gift. This is indeed the bringing forward of the future into the present which again underlines the point that Christianity is not confined to only one view of time, the linear one.

Retro-active sacraments We have already mentioned the problem with sacraments being retroactive. How is it possible for adherents of other world religions who lived in the past, to be saved through the merits of Christ? For this we need a retro-active dimension. This is where the synchronicity or simultaneity principle might be invoked. In a way, from God’s untensed point of view, all things simple are. All things happen together from God’s perspective. Adam, Moses and Jesus all lived on the same day. Abraham waited for the day of Christ’s arrival, he saw it and was glad. The merits of Christ’s death and resurrection are available to everyone everywhere and everywhen. This view of time is not what we are used to. It is illogical and contradicts the cause-and-effect framework all human beings use for daily existence. But although it is not our human way, it could be God’ perspective. Just as Reanney’s fish eyes cannot see three dimensionally, so human beings cannot see time with a sychronicity perspective. A strictly held view of time as linear makes salvation through Christ for those who lived before him, impossible. According to Augustine, the human mind mimics the eternal through what he calls the distension of the mind/soul. The distension of the soul, epitomized in memory and enacted in narrative (Llyod 1999, 40), functions as semblance, in the midst of time, of the everpresence of eternity. So, by being able to gather together the past, present and future, the distension of the soul gives us an inkling of the eternal. Thus in the liturgy of the eucharist, we have precisely this: the gathering of the memory of the Lord, celebrated in the present with the presence of the Lord, as an eschatological sign of what is to come. The gathering of the past, present and future into the “now”. A certain simultaneity. This could be seen as a model of what is possible in terms of the redeeming love of God. The other way to think of the redeeming love of God is in terms of associative strategies as was

94

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

mentioned above. It is another way to get around the problem of retroactive sacraments, or the question of salvation for those who never knew Christ.

Postmodernism Before considering Osborne’s contribution to the debate, something needs to be said about postmodernism. Postmodernism is a widespread western cultural development while postmodernity is the set of ideas that underpins it. It crosses over many disciplines such as the visual arts, music, literature, drama, architecture, education, theology and philosophy. One way or another it pervades life in the west today. What does postmodernism stand for? The “post” of postmodernism can be taken as a rejection of modernism (or “a rage against humanism and the Enlightenment legacy” (Bernstein 1985), or merely as something that comes after or fulfills modernism, or thirdly, in the sense of an afterglow of modernism (Lakeland 1997, x). It has many features and is, by definition, rather vague. According to Jameson, it is a bit like trying to take the temperature of the age without instruments and in a situation in which we are not even sure there is so coherent a thing as an ‘age’ or zeitgeist or ‘system’ or ‘current situation’ any longer ( Jameson, 1991). Nevertherless it could be characterized by saying that it emphasizes subjectivity, self-consciounsess, existentialism; it proclaims the death of meta-narratives ( Lytoard 1984,xxii-xxiv) and favours discontinuity. Perhaps it was this latter characteristic of modernism, that prompted Tracy to say that it aims to deconstruct the status quo into the fluxus quo (1994, 78). Postmodernism believes in other ways of knowing other than rational ways; chaos is often accepted rather than order, and, taking its cue from Heidegger, it defines human beings in their temporality. Among its promoters are thinkers like Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Ricoeur and Derrida. As has been frequently pointed out by scholars, one of the striking features of postmodernism is the Cartesian-Kantian “return to the subject”. Since the time of Descartes there has been the split between subject/object which postmodernism addresses challenging the split and affirming that all knowledge is subjective. This is part of the rejection of the onto-philosophical theological approach of Platonism and Aristotelianism. It grows out the radical questioning of the how we

5 • Time as an Illusion

95

know (epistemology) and what we know. Postmodernism stresses the primacy of perception. Heidegger provided the starting point with an examination of Dasein (being-there) in his search for Sein (being). So he starts with self, since that is what we all know best, not the outside world. We do not know how a tree “trees” but we know how our Dasein, “ist”. This movement has been taken further by Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Ricoeur and others. Merleau-Ponty in particular, moved far beyond Descartes and Kant in his return to the subject. In his Phenomenology of Perception, he draws together all the shortcomings of previous objectifying onto-epistemologies, including those of Husserl and outlines the fundamental problem: our only perception is human perception, that we see things only through the horizons and intentionalities of our own selves. As Osborne concludes: There is both a subjective element present in all perception and a sedimentary history that affects the genesis of our individual perception and, even more pointedly, our individual determination of significance (1999, 148).

Osborne applies this to sacraments. Each sacrament is an Ereignis, an event, a coming back to the “now of the present moment”, an encounter with God in the “ecstatical character of the present” of Heidegger. Each human being responds in a different way. Each person is absolutely unique and as has been said: “I will never know how you see red, and you will never know how I see it”. Osborne uses the Ereignis moment, to introduce the term, Haecceitas, which comes from Duns Scotus and means the here-and-now aspect of a sacrament. Osborne emphasizes that sacraments in general do not exist, they exist only as each one is a here and now encounter of a person with God, in a given place, at a given time. Chauvet is equally emphatic in stressing the here-and-now aspect of sacraments: What modernity has taught us is precisely the importance of taking into account, indeed taking as decisive, the place out of which we speak: the place of our individual desires; the social, cultural, or historical place we inhabit (1995, 2).

96

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Application to spacetime So too in time, especially with Model 1, there is an emphasis on the return to the subject, to the now, the event, the moment, the Ereignis. In this modern science and theology are in agreement. We saw that the present is the only thing we have. The past is gone and the future is not yet. All we have is the present. So postmodernism in stressing the subject and the subject’s perception, is stressing the Ereignis, the moment of perceiving, the present moment. Attempts have been made to develop a theology of everyday things, trying to emphasize this aspect of time. Theology must therefore stress the present moment, the Ereignis, be it in a highlighted moment of baptism or in the everyday Ereignisse or incidents. A theology of everyday events would make this a big issue: appreciate the present, precious moment. Be aware, be conscious of the present moment, rather as Buddhism already does in its “mindfulness” (Thich Nhat Hanh, 1975) and be open to the encounter with God in the present moment, as the psalmist proclaims, “I will walk in the presence of the Lord in the land of the living” (Ps145) which we could paraphrase as “ I will walk conscious of the Transcendent in spacetime”. Others have called this the sacrament of the present moment. It runs counter to current western culture in which one is so focused on the immediate future and works so hard to achieve things in the near future, that one often has no time to enjoy the present moment. A linear approach to everything, especially economic achievement, has this stunting affect on life: too busy to stop and enjoy the present moment, to smell the roses as one walks through the garden of life. One feels sometimes that meditation, prayer and reflection have been neglected in the west, in favor of a crass pragmatism and compulsive activism. A little example might shed some light on this point. The discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, that stressed going to church every week has, in many cases, had the deleterious effect of making church attendance a duty rather than a privilege. There are other factors involved in this phenomenon, and one must always guard against reductionism. But nevertheless where this is valid, what it has meant is that the event of going to church is not a Ereignis, or encounter with God but a chore to be done, or a religious duty to be fulfilled and got over. The qualitative value of the event is often thus lost.

5 • Time as an Illusion

97

Spatio-temporal constructions of humans Tied to this is the emphasis given to temporality in postmodernism. This goes to the heart of the matter. How do we define beings? Is time something extraneous to beings? Certainly the Aristotelian view was one of time being objective and outside the being. So one could study time from a distance as it were. Now philosophers are saying that time is constitutive of being. Temporality is constitutive of human beings. To be human is to be in time. In the Cartesian framework, the cogito approach, no specific spatiotemporal location was required by the subject. This viewpoint is no longer held by postmodern thinkers. Heidegger in Being and Time, and others now say that temporality is constitutive of humans. For Heidegger being is always In-der-Welt-mit-Anderen-Dasein, that is always being with others in the world. There is no other being than with temporality. And the minute one is born, it is Sein zum Tode, that is a being towards death, not in a morbid sense, but by way of orientation, in the sense that being is temporal and hence leads to death. As we saw above, Heidegger says Sorge, care, is the most basic existential of Dasein, but then what is the being of Sein? The answer is Zeitlichkeit, temporality. Here Heidegger is not using time in the chronological sense of a series of “nows”, but in the ontological sense of letting being come to presence in Dasein, of the presence of past-present-future at every moment of time. That is what Zeitlichkeit means. However care itself is ultimately Zeitlichkeit, temporality. Thirdly, postmodernism proclaims the death of les grand récits and favors discontinuity. This leads to fragmentation and the willingness to see life in its broken down parts. The discontinuity elements mean, too, that tradition is set aside as if it did not exist. Each moment is lived as if the other moments did not matter. In a way they do not; but in other ways they count very much. If each moment is taken as isolated and unconnected to anything else one has the resultant meaninglessness of life which leads to despair. It is simple one unconnected moment after another. We know, as Rahner pointed out above, from our experience that this is not the way we see life.

98

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

In the reflections of this chapter we described the context for theologizing today and the importance of one’s image of God as a controlling image for all one’s theology. Then we started with Model 1: time as an illusion, or time as “now” and although we must say that time is not an illusion, it does have an aspect that makes it look like “now”, with stress on the present moment. This leads us to liturgical time, kairic time and time in the sacraments, all of which are fruitful areas to explore for deeper meaning of time as “now”. These will form a vital part of any theology of spacetime. The patristic homilies that are cited show us how the sacraments bring the past into the present through anamnesis and the future eschatological gifts into the present. There is speculation about seeing the sacraments as being retro-active as in the case of those who are saved backwards in time, as it were. Postmodernism has the advantage of stressing the present moment which then can be capitalized on to show how the sacraments are not generic but each one should be approached as a moment of encounter with God. These insights can be translated into a dynamic spirituality for today.

Chapter 6 Time as Clockwork

I

n this chapter we will address a model of time that is familiar to most people. It is one we use as a matter of fact in everyday life although we may not stop to reflect on it. As our use and understanding of this model of time is often taken back to the bible we will focus on spacetime and the bible in this chapter.

Model 2: Time as clockwork: a succession of events This is the traditional Newtonian view which sees time as an orderly sequence of events, as absolute and true and which operates without outside control: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably and without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external … measure of duration by the means of motion (Yates 1990, 59). ” This model sees the world as a closed system. As Peacocke points out, time in classical physics was instances following each other. Like space, it too was homogonous, independent of any objects or events “in” it; it was inert, infinite, and continuous (1993, 30). In this model of time the main tenses are the past, present and future. We speak about future events as not having yet arrived, and about those in the past as in one’s memory or in the archives. This is the ordinary, everyday approach to time widely held since the times of ancient Greece until today. It is the assumed understanding of time that underpins the way history books, chronicles and the bible tell their stories.

100

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Although one can agree with Peacocke that this is the traditional view of time, one might qualify it by adding “in western society”, because, as we saw, some primal societies , like the Australian Aboriginies, did not in fact put much emphasis on the future. For them time was more the past and the present (rather than the future), and furthermore the past was seen as being present in the present. Other primal societies too, such as those of Africa, Mayans of Central America, and the South Pacific, tend not to place as much emphasis on the future in terms of storing up material treasures, as western societies do (Whitrow 2003, 2-3). So not all societies have been as committed to the past, present, future paradigm as one might think. Most western theologians however would have held to this model of time and many still do. This model has certain affinities with Model 1 and also leans towards determinism in divine primary causality acting through secondary human agencies. However classical theology rejected determinism while embracing divine primary causality and also held to divine foreknowledge while affirming free human action even if these teachings seemed unconvincing. In this model God is distant and has nothing to so with the world once it has been established. This model is a transcendent model which has little or nothing to say about God’s immanence. God is the watchmaker who wound up the world and now leaves it to run its course. It is a God of deism and the Enlightenment, certainly not the God of the Israelites who was intimately involved in their daily lives. We will see in Chapter Seven how process theology challenges this theological perspective, but for the moment, as this view of time (succession of events) is dominant in the bible, we will take a closer look at this theology.

Time in the bible The clashes between the bible and modern science are well known. The statue of Jordano Bruno in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome is one of the constant reminders of avoidable and tragic disputes. The most notorious, referred to in Chapter Four, is probably that involving Galileo Galilei over the question of whether it was the sun that moved around the earth, or vice versa. In those days most people understood the bible in a fairly literal way. The bible recorded how the sun stood still in the

6 • Time as Clockwork

101

sky in Joshua 10:13, so it was taken that it normally moved, or so it was thought. Hopefully the churches and exegetes in particular, can learn something from that infamous event. Here I want to focus firstly on the different meanings of time in the bible, then on the points of divergence between the bible and a modern understanding of time as outlined above in Chapter One and Two, and then consider those points of seeming convergence, that is, those points which seem to offer an opening for further dialogue. When it comes to commenting on the bible and time, it is good to remember Karl Rahner’s comment that by merely examining all the different words used to indicate time in the New Testament, one already has an outline of a biblical theology of time. Cullmann has already done a thorough job on these words so I will not attempt to repeat his findings. But I do need to mention some salient aspects. Firstly it needs to be said that the bible, in contrast to the Greek cyclic idea, has a general linear approach to time and this constitutes somewhat of a problem for further dialogue as many scientists do not accept a teleological view of time. The bible, as we have it today, starts with the story of creation (to which we will return below) and then seems to sketch out, in sequential and narrative manner, the outline of the history of humankind to the appearance of Abraham at which point the history of the Hebrews is commenced. There is an account and timeline which is being developed: there is a story which seems to be leading somewhere. Abraham commences the story which is going to lead to the foundation of the Hebrew people, to the patriarchs, to the occupation of the promised land and the reign of the kings and eventually to the birth of the Messiah. The arrow of time is unmistakably pointing in one direction and the Messiah is the telos. This led to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross made “once for all” and this belief pointed forward to the final victory of God in Christ, which is, in the words of Sheldrake, “a teleological providential view of history led by God ever towards a redemptive climax” (2005, 621). In a way it is ironic that the bible, being very much teleological, and therefore arguing for seeing time as “becoming”, has in fact given rise to a theology which is rather static. This is partially the result of Christianity passing through the Greek cultural filter.

102

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Secondly, the sapiential literature gives a somewhat different picture. In a more philosophical and reflective way it gives advice on how to live, raises questions about life, about both the sublime and the very mundane aspects of life. As Johnson expresses it: “people connect with the holy mystery that surrounds their lives as they actually live in the world, in the non-heroic moments, in the effort to be decent and just, in puzzling over setbacks and suffering, in appreciating nature, in trying to work out relationships harmoniously, in the gift and tasks of the everyday – in this, every bit as much as in the peak experiences of personal or community life (1993, 98)”. The question about the mystery of life and of God arises when simply looking at nature around one. In fact, as Barth has pointed out, the jubilee in the bible can be seen as a subtle glimpse of eternity! From thinking of this world one’s mind turns towards eternity. Who can probe the height of the sky, the breadth of the earth, and the depth of the abyss? And who can assess the days of eternity? One’s life is often seen against the background of eternity. Qoholeth (Ecclesiastes) has that calming and poetic reflection that there is a right time and right place for everything in life, a time for giving birth and a time for dying, a time for war and a time for peace (3:1-8). Then what follows is typical of the lot of humans: although they do much in life, one thing after another, and although humans get the feel of “duration” in life from the succession of events, yet they do not understand life and the work of God (3: 9-11). So from this literature one gets the idea of standing back and reflecting on the meaning of life, on its duration and on eternity. There is less of the conviction of events moving forward to a particular end as one finds elsewhere in the bible. There are moments when one withdraws from the succession of events to contemplate, and this too is time. In the movie Matrix I, the word used is “unplug”, while modern sportsmen and sportswomen refer to this as “time-out”. So “succession of events” and “time-out” are both what we call “time”. It is worth noting too, that in the gospels Jesus has time for many individuals. He does not give the impression of rushing to the next appointment! This highlights that Jesus is person-centered rather than time-centered in the anthropological sense we mentioned above in Chapter Two when we considered primal societies. He has time for the widow at Naim whose son had died, and for the children that

6 • Time as Clockwork

103

the disciples wanted to shoo away. His comments to the busy Martha might also be seen in this context.

Eschatological and apocalyptic time It must be added that the bible has further orientations to time. There is the eschatological orientation to time. The word derives from the Greek, “eschata”, meaning the “last things”, that is, those things associated with the end of time. Anything that deals with these last things, including a belief that there will be an end, is eschatological. The old textbooks of systematic theology used to have a chapter at the end called “eschatology” which dealt with the last things, (death, judgment, heaven, hell). In the gospels Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God which is both “at hand” and “to come”. As a promise of the future, the Kingdom is in fact present in the “now” through the miracles Jesus did, not as a show of power, but as a sign of the Kingdom. Schillebeeckx expresses it succinctly thus: Historical criteria serve to establish it was a fact that Jesus performed a number of miracles, but as signs of the coming Kingdom of God …not as proof of his divine power; miracles are evidence of an eschatological event, illustrations of Jesus’ eschatological proclamation (1979,426).

In recent times this emphasis has changed in so far as it is thought the whole of theology should be penetrated by the eschatological perspective, rather than conceal it in the last chapter. We can say, since eschatology in its simplest form indicates that history will have an end, or telos (not the same), it could be said that the early Israelite hope of a future is implicitly eschatological. Modern thinkers are also occupied with the end of time, but in the following sense: the human race has enough stockpiled nuclear warheads (possibly over thirty thousand) to blow itself up several times over. Other than the superpower(s) doing this, the more likely scenario is that some maverick national leader might obtain warheads and unleash them against enemies, possibly first world countries. The possibility that the resentment built up over centuries against the rich countries of the first world who are blamed for poverty, exploitation, trade restrictions, and legacies of colonialism, will ultimately provoke a retaliation of apocalyptic proportions, is not to be dismissed out of hand.

104

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Ordinary time has a beginning and it has an end. The bible in fact is quite interested in things having a beginning and an end, unlike eastern religions, and there is plenty of evidence in the bible that things will come to an end. This kind of reflection is eschatological – a reflection on the end of the old aeon (Boyer, 1999, 89-96). Paul expresses the order of things to come and the end when Christ will hand over all things into the bosom of his Father in 1 Co 15:23-28. The parables speak of the harvest time, and the day of judgment. Matthew’s discourse beginning at Chapter Twenty-four which deals with the end of time, is usually cited as good example of an eschatological discourse. A particular sub-set of eschatology, apocalypticism is also found in the bible. It is both a theological worldview and a literary genre and, compared to eschatology, is more a reflection of the way to the new aeon. It is characterized by a catastrophic eschatology, a cosmic struggle, intense suffering, dualism, but eventual happiness and restoration (Osiek, 1996, 37). This is the final religious endgame. In this thought-pattern, there will be a cosmic catastrophe that includes the collapse of the visible world as well as of human institutions. In short, the end of spacetime. The books of Daniel in the Old Testament and Revelation in the New, are the best examples of this kind of literature. At the same time as the curtain comes down on this world, on this history as we know it, the beginning of a new world and new age in which God reigns supreme, will be ushered in. From a theological viewpoint whether the planet ceases to exist or not, is not relevant. What is relevant is that there will be, as Ward expresses it, “a community of conscious personal agents who live beyond decay and suffering in full awareness and love of God” (1982, 246). There may be life in other parts of the cosmos, human life might migrate and continue to exist on other planets (in which case spacetime would continue), or new forms of consciousness might evolve as indeed human life evolved from a very unpromising start of quarks and leptons. There is another aspect of time in the bible with which science would have a problem today. It is the way the bible sees eternity. As mentioned above in Chapter Three, theology and liturgy are inclined to see eternity as being like time, only more of it. Eternity goes on “for ever and ever”. Scientists are far more pragmatic and describe space-

6 • Time as Clockwork

105

time as tied to the creation of the cosmos, to the Big Bang, and entirely different to eternity, if it exists.

Creation out of nothing? The bible too has something to say about creation which christian traditional theology has used to develop a doctrine of creation out of nothing, or, in Latin, creatio ex nihilo. But does the bible in fact say God created everything out of nothing? Not really. It says the earth was a “formless void”, a “trackless waste and emptiness”; there was “darkness over the deep” and “God’s spirit hovered over the waters” (Gn 1:1-2). The second account of creation says even less about what went before; simply “Yahweh God made heaven and earth”. Keller has written at length to argue a completely different theology of creation from creatio ex nihilo theology, which being feminist has a natural affinity with process theology. She examines the key words in Genesis such as the “formless void”, tohu bohu in Hebrew, and the tehom “deep” (or, “ocean”, “abyss”) and attempts to deconstruct the creatio ex nihilo theology and construct a tehomic, feminist theology of a creatio ex profundis (2003 ). She makes the distinction between “beginning” and “origin” and maintains that beginning is all about becoming which in turn links up with process theology which we will explore in Chapter Seven. She rejects the ad extra kind of theology that has God creating something out of nothing (which she sees as very male oriented), and instead argues for a creation ex profundis, from the “deep”, from within the womb of God, a kind of panentheism. In more general terms, one can say that in the context of the bible stories and the cosmogonies of the surrounding cultures of biblical times, we know that the redactors were keen to show the differences in belief between them and their neighbors. It was thus imperative for the Hebrews to make explicit that creation was dependent on Yahweh their God, and that it was not matter coming from some evil source as in Zoroastrianism. Matter does not exist independently of God; it did not come some evil source. The point of creation “out of nothing” was to deny, against any forms of metaphysical dualism, that there is any being or principle save God alone which is the necessary ground of whatever exists, or is even possible. It should depend solely and at every moment upon the power of God for its being. As Ward has

106

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

pointed out, Aquinas noted that this did not mean that the world had a beginning in time or that it will have an end in time (2002, 72). The world may always have existed; creation is about the relationship of the world to God, not time as such.

Christ-centered time The most striking difference between the optic of the bible and that of science regarding time is, as Cullmann has repeatedly emphasized, that of the redemption wrought in time through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is, that the Christ-event has changed time. Cullman fears that this dimension is frequently overlooked. We will be exploring the Incarnation in Chapter Seven, but here some dialogue with Cullmann is necessary. He traces this shift back to the early days of Christianity and blames it on gnosticism. He maintains that gnosticism corrupted the biblical concept of time (1963, 55). In his view gnosticism in general had three main features which would undermined the Christ-centered view of time. Firstly, it rejects the Old Testament in its explanation of history as the creative action of God and its claim that the history of Israel constitutes a redemptive history; secondly, it includes docetism which rejects the passing on of redemption through the life and death of Christ and hence the denial of the redemptive significance of an event that occurred in time; and thirdly, it rejects the early church’s eschatological expectations (and time between present and future ages) and replaces it with the Greek metaphysical distinction between this world and the timeless Beyond (ibid. 56). So, one can see that these three points collectively extinguish any concept of Christ through his redeeming life, death and resurrection, being the centerpiece of time. Cullmann is concerned with the biblical understanding of time; not a philosophical, ontological one. Although Cullmann says his book was not written as an elucidation of linear time (ibid. xxv), one could be forgiven for getting that impression on occasions. What is missing is perhaps any dialogue with contemporary thinking especially scientific thinking which in turn might derive from an epoch before the scientific writings of people like Hawking, Davies, Polkinghorne, Peacocke, and Ian and Julian Barbour, and the awareness and publicity that the ecological movement has brought through the works of

6 • Time as Clockwork

107

Berry, Swimme, Edwards, Fox and others. For example, the common creation story (that the world is about 15 billion years old and that life has evolved slowly over that time with human beings making a very late appearance), is now more widely acknowledged and accepted. Cullmann does not engage these ideas in his book. He is interested in the present-future tension; the redemptive-historical story moving from plurality to the unique particularity of Jesus Christ, and then the events of the first decades of the Christian era. With Cullmann’s emphasis on the biblical understanding of time, we are at the heart of the Christian perspective. With the Christ-event, time has changed. Even from a purely secular viewpoint, world time, world history has been so profoundly shaken that eventually all events are referred to as either “B.C.” or “A.D.” All history is re-aligned anew into two parts, before, or after, Christ. The Christ-event becomes the defining point in the story of humankind. This is a faith perspective of western Christian origins, which has influenced the secular and religious worlds, although now for the first time in history there is a movement to use the more generic terms, “Before the Common Era” and “After the Common Era” in an attempt to acknowledge the existence and validity of other world religions that might measure time by other significant calendars. Cullmann would have been unhappy with this evolution, because the centrality of the Christian perspective on time is lost. However religious views and attitudes of Christians and others have changed much in the modern period. It has shifted from a Christian Europe, to a secularized world, to the recognition of Christian denominations (among themselves), to the recognition of the validity of all world religions (among all believers). How we talk about calendars and spacetime is one dimension of how we respond to this intellectual and attitudinal challenge today. Another point of divergence between the bible and other perspectives is this: if the bible is seen as only proposing linear time, the time will be seen as the unwinding of predetermined events along the passage of time rather than the bringing to being of unpredictable events in history. And one would have to say that it is possible to read the bible either way. It could be seen as God’s grand plan being unwound in history, or it could be seen as all these kairic moments such as the call of Abraham, the exodus from Egypt, and the birth of a Messiah.

108

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

This dynamic way of viewing time contrasts with the old cyclic time in Eastern cultures, of re-incarnations and rebirth, where events are less important as history repeats itself endlessly. So physics and a biblical view actually support each other in the importance of time and events.

Points of convergence Having identified those points of seeming divergence, can we see any points of convergence, or points that offer the opportunity for further dialogue between the bible and the modern approaches to spacetime? I think there are. It has been pointed out above that it is not at all correct so to say that the bible projects linear time only. It is incorrect to say that the bible starts at the beginning with creation and moves forward in time. That is only the way the books are currently arranged in the one-volume anthology known as “the bible”. Scholars would agree that the first books to be written were most likely those of an historical nature, probably centered around Moses and the Exodus, in other words, those events that were central to Israel’s identity and experience of their warriorGod ,Yahweh. Only afterwards were the questions of the origin of this world (Genesis, Chapters 1-11) and its end (Revelation) added. The redactors then gave the final logical format to the arrangement of the books into a single volume with the logical touches like beginning with creation and ending with the heavenly Jerusalem. Even given that the current bible is mostly linear in its arrangement and perspective of reality, there is also a mystical or mysterious dimension to time that is often overlooked. Furthermore in the bible, there are some opportunities for synchronicity (or simultaneity) or the suspension of linear time. New interpretations of texts must be allowed according to the principles of modern hermeneutics, taking into account the acquisition of new knowledge. Let us take the familiar text from John’s gospel: ”I tell you solemnly, before Abraham ever was, I am” ( Jn 8:58). What does this puzzling text, which echoes Ex 3:14, mean? The context of the saying is this: there was a dispute between the Jews and Jesus. The Jews were challenging Jesus to explain how he could make them free since they were

6 • Time as Clockwork

109

already free. They claimed to be descended from Abraham and had never been the slaves of anyone (which is not really true anyway). How can this man Jesus set them free? (This reference to Abraham in verse 33 is referred to again in v.58 by way of an inclusion.) Jesus says they do not know the truth since they are trying to kill him and the devil is their father. Then Jesus adds, “whoever keeps my word will never taste death”. This the Jews, taking everything literally, find ridiculous since Abraham is dead and so too are the prophets. In his rejoinder Jesus makes this cryptic comment, “Abraham rejoiced to think that he would see my day”. This is too much for the Jews. Jesus is hardly fifty, how could he have seen Abraham? This leads into two dramatic statements. Firstly, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to think that he would see my Day; he saw it and was glad” (v.56) and secondly, “I tell you solemnly, before Abraham ever was, I Am.” (v.58). One interpretation (The Jerusalem Bible) points out that although “the day of Yahweh” is reserved for God in the Old Testament, here it is adopted by Christ for himself. Thus “Abraham saw Christ’s ‘day’ but from a distance because he saw it in the birth of the promised Isaac which was an event prophetic of Christ. Jesus claims to be the ultimate fulfillment of this promise made to Abraham; he is Isaac according to the spirit.” But one could also see in the text, the meaning as simply the setting aside of time and seeing Christ’s death and resurrection being effective in Abraham’s life. It could be a journey back into time. From our viewpoint the salvific meaning Christ’s death and resurrection follows in time to those who come after him. From God’s viewpoint Christ’s merits might apply to all human beings in one, simultaneous “now”. There is no time with God. Glimpses of this latter viewpoint can be found in this and other texts. The whole illogicality of the tenses should alert us to something strange happening in the text. We normally try to harmonize seemingly disparate statements by rational explanations, (often seen in the footnotes), but I am suggesting we ought to let our imagination run riot and place ourselves in a time-free zone. So, there are at least two meanings here. Firstly, it points to the timeless way Christ’s paschal mystery is with everyone, everywhere and everywhen. Secondly, we could see the absolute “ego eimi” saying of Christ, “Before Abraham was, I Am” as a final christological statement of who Christ is, the divine son of God. Moloney

110

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

seems to have a similar interpretation of this text: “As Jesus’ opponents apply this measure (fifty years), his reply in 8:58 mocks them. He is outside any measure of the span of time (1998, 286) ”. The scientist Reanney, uses the text repeatedly in his book, but never once explains what he means by the text (1991, 202). He implies that it is self-evident. Since he is writing in the context of the relativity of time and the misapprehension of truth, he may well mean, that Jesus, Abraham and all of us, are contemporary. There is a certain synchronicity or simultaneity in reality which normally escapes us. There is not “before” and “after” when one goes beyond time. We all simply “are”. This interpretation finds support from an unexpected quarter. The incident has been mentioned above in Chapter One, with the intuitive comment from Warlpiri Christians that Adam, Moses and Jesus all lived on the same day. No one is before or after. All are present. Jesus is everywhere and everywhen. Jesus, Moses, Abraham all lived together. There are a few other biblical texts which give us food for thought regarding synchronicity. 1 Pt 3:19 is a case in point. The theme (v.18-22) is Christ’s victory over sin applied to Christians by baptism. According to Dalton, “the spirits to whom Christ made proclamation are the archetypal angelic sinners, who, according to Jewish tradition, instigated the ‘original sin’ of human beings at the time of the flood and who continue to induce human to do evil” (1996, 906). The occasion is Christ’s ascension, though not all commentators agree on this, some think it is a visit to Hades. In any event, it is a mythical way of saying that, by his death and resurrection, he has conquered all evil: he proclaimed himself the Risen One. Just as Noah was rescued from the evil world of his day by water, so are Christians rescued through the water of baptism. This interpretation sees Christ as ascending into heaven, not descending into hell. Certainly later speculation was concerned with the activity of Christ in the abode of the dead. The Jerusalem Bible opts for the later, saying the incident “probably alludes to the descent of Christ to Hades.” Whichever interpretation we adopt, the death and resurrection of Christ has conquered all evil and made salvation possible even for those deceased thus annulling the time difference. This is what we could take from the text: the time differential is negated,

6 • Time as Clockwork

111

Christ’s salvific death and resurrection (the Paschal Mystery) is synchronic with all lives in a mysterious way. We move on to 1 Co 10:4. The theme is Israelite’s history in the desert. Paul compares the situation of the Israelites with the Corinthians. Under Moses they all ate the same spiritual food and drank from the same spiritual rock, “and that rock was Christ”. In spite of this, some failed to please God, and presumably others did. Murphy-O’Connor explains the use of the past tense, “that rock was Christ”, thus: The past tense is used not because Christ existed in the past but because the rock is not in the present (1988, 807). James Dunn has his own interpretation of this passage. Dunn is not so sure that the pre-existence of Christ is the appropriate interpretation for this passage. He acknowledges that this interpretation was based on Philo’s comment in Leg.II.86, where he says the flinty rock is the wisdom of God. Christ himself who in the form of a rock and in the personification of wisdom, gave his life to the people of God, in the past as in the present. Paul then identifies the pre-existent Christ with Wisdom. The rock represents Christ in some way or other. Dunn thinks “it is not sufficiently probable that 1 Co 10:1-4 refers to Christ as pre-existent for us to make anything of it in our inquiry” (1980, 184). Dunn questions the figure of speech used by Paul. He thinks this reference to Christ is not an allegory of the realities that operated at the time of Moses, but a typological allegory of the realities in operating for the Corinthians. The rock then is seen as equivalent to Christ now. Where Philo used the historical narrative as a picture of the more timeless (Platonic) encounter between God and man, Paul used it as a picture of the eschatological realities that now pertain since the coming of Christ. I would suggest there is another interpretation of Christ in this passage which is apt today in the same way as Philo and Paul made use of their contexts, and which goes back to the Platonic viewpoint to some degree. One assumes we are dealing with the pre-existent Christ. Jewish writers had already identified the rock with Yahweh and now Paul is crediting the pre-existent Christ with the attributes of Yahweh. However one could also see it as the grace of Christ being available before and after the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Not simply the preexistent Christ as the second person of the Trinity but as the merits of

112

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

the death and resurrection of Christ being synchronic with all peoples of all times. In this way we can suggest a way forward in finding room for both the linear and synchronic understanding of time, or the marriage between the eternal and temporal. We mentioned above, as a point of divergence, that the bible reflects a future eschatology. However it is also true that the bible speaks of a realized eschatology. And there is no better place to go than John’s gospel to illustrate this point. There is an inbreaking (process theologians would prefer “intensification”) of the eschaton into this world. This is found particularly in John’s gospel and Cullmann makes much of it. In John’s gospel, Jesus is the unique once-for-all revelation of the Father. The moment of judgment is “now” (1988, 50). One must make one’s decision now (3:16-21, 35-36; 4:23-5:24-25; 6:46-47; 9:39-41; 12:31, 44-46). This is often seen as the only possible (realized) eschatology that could arise from John’s Christology (“The Father and I are one”, 10:30). However there is also mention of a future resurrection in the gospel and in the last discourse there is mention of the tribulations that will mark the coming of the messianic age. Thus John also has a future eschatology operating (arising from the Christology of “The Father is greater than I”, 14:28). Thus the tension between the two is to be maintained rather than resolved. (Some authors tried to resolve the tension by saying that a later redactor added the future eschatology pericopes.) The gospel made sense to the Johannine community. The tension between the revealing presence of Jesus and the coming period of the Spirit is captured in 14:25-26. The Johannine community experienced the revelation of the Father through the action of the Spirit, not through direct contact with Jesus himself. It should be added that the disciples themselves saw the post-Resurrection presence of Jesus in the Incarnation as salvation now. There was a thread in early Christianity, as Schillebeeckx points out, that saw Jesus as bringing salvation now: The miracles stories and accounts of the calling and sending out of the disciples seem to cohere in a particular complex of traditional material, pointing to Galilee. No maranatha Christology here, on

6 • Time as Clockwork

113

the contrary, the disciples already receive salvation from Jesus here and now (1979, 427).

By way of a little digression here, one could point out that in John’s gospel, realized eschatology, looked at from another angle, is the theology of the present moment, of spacetime as “now.” I refer to John’s use of the “hour”, w{ra in Greek. It can mean a season of the year, or time of the day, a short period, or, the sense that interests us here, a destined hour or a point of time. In this sense it is often combined with the kairic sense. At the beginning of the priestly prayer of Jesus, he begins with the words: “Father, the hour has come: glorify your Son so that your son may glorify you” (17:1). This is going to be a significant moment when Jesus is arrested and his passion begins leading to Calvary. He must decide to stay and not to run. He must discern the will of the Father at that moment and accept it. At the wedding at Cana, in reply to his mother who mentioned that the wine had run out, Jesus replies: “Woman, why turn to me? My hour has not come yet” (2:4). In fact it seemed he reviewed the situation later and decided it was a significant moment or “hour” to begin his “signs” of God’s kingdom. Perhaps it is not always easy to discern the kairos. At the feast of Tabernacles “the Jews” were mad at Jesus and wanted to kill him, but no one laid a hand on him because “his hour had not yet come” (7:30). His arrest will be a vital point in his journey. There are other such uses, but the point is made that “the hour” in John’s gospel can be a kairic moment. For the Johannine community, the present (life in the Spirit, post the ministry of Jesus), includes the past (the ministry of Jesus on earth which is alive in the stories and inspiration of the Spirit). They bring the past to life in the present. For, as Moloney has pointed out (given that the Johannine community found themselves cut off from Judaism and hence from their traditional roots because they had been expelled from the synagogue), the author of the gospel, John, cleverly takes four major feasts of the Jews, situates the ministry of Jesus within the setting of those feasts, and shows the community that the presence of the living God, once celebrated in the feasts, has now been incarnated in the person of Jesus ( 1986, 178). So today, is it in the liturgy where the deeds and actions of Christ are made present in the readings and prayers.

114

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

The future for the Johannine community, the future eschatology, eternal life, is brought into the present by the commencement of eternal life. We are reminded of John 5:24: “The one who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life (zwhv ajiwvnio~).” Not will have, but has. Alison suggests a better translation for the phrase “eternal life”. He suggests: “life without end” which means without beginning, and we do indeed have a beginning. He also says the important word in the phrase “life without end”, is “life” while the descriptive “without end ” points to the abundance of life “which we receive when we allow ourselves to be re-created by God” (1996, 110). So this Johannine community, in a way, experiences the past and the future in the present! To say that the bible only gives a linear concept of time is thus, we can repeat, quite inaccurate. The idea of mystery both in the bible and in the modern world is another point of convergence or dialogue. Both the bible and modern science, for example, acknowledge the presence of mystery in human life. Modern physics with the string theory and curled up strings, is a whole new world of mysterious subatomic particles, which leave us astounded and in awe. Scientists are not afraid to say this is a mystery. The bible speaks of the mystery of Christ which carries with it time implications. I am thinking of the Pauline verses that speak of the plan that God has formed from all eternity, the musthvrion, mystery, which as we shall see, implies time dimensions. In Chapter Three of his letter to the Ephesians, the author speaks about this mystery. Paul says if they read his words they will get some idea of the mystery of Christ. He goes on “This mystery that has now been revealed through the Spirit to his holy apostles and prophets was unknown to any men in past generations” (v.5). He has been given the task of explaining how the mystery is to be dispensed (v.9). Now part of this mystery is the time factor. The mystery has been hidden in God from all eternity (v.11), unknown to people of past generations, but now made known to the author and others through the Spirit. Part of the surprise is that now pagans share in the same inheritance (pagans that died ages ago, or only those alive in the first century?) The same promise has been made to them in Christ Jesus through the gospel, says the author. Today many Christians cannot contemplate that Muslims, for example, can be saved through the mystery of Christ,

6 • Time as Clockwork

115

citing the christological hymn (Ph 2: 9-11) that “every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord”. The author of Colossians has more to say about this mystery. He says the mystery is God’s message to them, a message “which was a mystery hidden for generations and centuries and that has now been revealed to his saints” (Col 1:25). The author again says the message is for the saints and for the pagans; “It was God’s purpose to reveal it to them and to show all the rich glory of this mystery to pagans. The mystery is Christ among you, your hope of glory (v.27).” How this mystery which is salvation through Jesus Christ saves the pagans of the past and the future, is certainly something which we have not worked out and which divides Christians of this millennium living in societies which are characterized as multicultural and multifaith, and which have made great efforts at interfaith dialogue in the light of global terrorism perpetrated by religious fundamentalists. The reality of this world including what Christ has done, is a great mystery which we will never fully comprehend. How the mystery of Christ reaches back into the past is one puzzling dimension of that belief. The contemplation of this mystery can lead to mystical knowledge which is a long established mode of knowing in Christianity and other religions. A little digression is called for here. How does the mystery of Christ reach back into the past to “save” individuals or peoples? While we contemplate that question with its pre-suppositions about what “salvation” is, let us note a not too dissimilar theological discourse from the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission’s publication on Mary entitled, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (2005). The document refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that “the most blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin”. The problem is how to explain this doctrine. The document does this at some length, but I want to refer to just one sentence in this explanation. It says that in view of her vocation to be the mother of the Holy One, “we can affirm together that Christ’s redeeming work reached “back” in Mary to the depths of her being, and to her earliest beginnings” (#59). Is this

116

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

not a still-in-the-future event influencing the present? Is this not the future telescoped into the present? Is there a parallel that would allow Christ’s redeeming merits to reach back into the past and save those pagans of whom Paul speaks? Is God’s salvific grace untensed? Let us return to the science/bible dialogue on mystery. Scientists too have found that the reality of this world is mysterious in its complexities and beauty. Greene speaks about the “elegance” of the world, Davies about the intriguing cleverness of the laws of nature, and others about how mysterious the subatomic world of quarks and strings is. Davies notes how some scientists have pursued mysticism, like Einstein, Pauli, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Eddington and Jeans (1992, 226-9). Mystics, says Davies, ask “why” while scientists ask “how”. “Most important, mystics claim that they can grasp ultimate reality in a single experience, in contrast to the long and tortuous deductive sequence (petering out in turtle trouble, as Hawking would say) of the logical-scientific method of inquiry” (ibid. 227). Some mystics define it as a compassionate stillness and joy, or a cosmic religious feeling, a sense of oneness with God beyond words, a kind of shortcut to truth, a direct and unmediated contact with a perceived ultimate reality. They see Reality as One. Perhaps what is happening here, is that linear time is about a certain level of consciousness, but when that level of consciousness is changed, so too, the experience of time changes. We might reflect here on the relationship of physics to mysticism which is made difficult by the underlying problem of biblical fundamentalism or literalism. The physics/mysticism relationship has been taken up in some detail by Ken Wilber, himself a physicist. Wilber, and many other famous physicists, are adamant in rejecting any attempts at thinking that quantum physics and mysticism/religion have something in common. Wilber is sharp in his criticism of books like Capra’s Tao Physics which have promoted this kind of loose thinking. Physics and mysticism are completely different disciplines with their own methodologies, aims, and content. This opinion is best exemplified by a story of Albert Einstein. When Archbishop Davidson enquired of Einstein what impact the theory of relativity would have on religion, the latter responded: “None. Relativity is a purely scientific theory, and has nothing to do with religion” (1984, 3). Not only do the two disciplines have nothing in common, but physicists would

6 • Time as Clockwork

117

reject the idea that the new physics could be said to support mysticism. Arthur Eddington, knighted in 1930 for his work in physics, was greatly aggrieved that he was misrepresented by Bertrand Russell and the general public, as saying that the new physics supported a mystical worldview. His opinion was the opposite. This being the case, the question is: why are so many physicists interested in mysticism? The answer is precisely that because physics could not give them the answers to the metaphysical questions, could not make assertions about “something wider” than physics, they turned to mysticism. Accepting the limitations of physics, they realized they needed to look elsewhere for answers to the deep and meaningful questions about life. One needs here to distinguish between the old, classical physics and the new because there is a significant difference which touches on our topic. The new physics acknowledges that it is dealing with symbols of reality - a point to which we will return shortly. Secondly, the new physics has removed any obstacles which the old physics might have placed between itself and mysticism. Some of these obstacles were the lack of acknowledging the difference in the fields of enquiry between religion and physics. One thinks of how a fundamentalist reading of the bible would create problems of interpretation with texts dealing with historical and scientific matters (as with the Galilei case). Underlying all this was the literalist approach of many theologians and physicists to their respective disciplines. Contrary to Wilber, I would suggest that we could say that the two disciplines have something in common which cannot be dismissed as trivial. Firstly, as just mentioned above, they both use symbolic language. This was a big breakthrough. The old, Newtonian physics thought it knew reality firsthand, as it is in itself; that its formulae were the ultimate answers. Now the new physics realizes that it is dealing in symbols or formulae to describe something that is more than a formula. Mysticism also acknowledges that it is dealing in symbols as is seen when mystics say they cannot accurately express the mystical experiences that they have had, in human language. What they write is a lame, hopelessly inadequate attempt to do so. Theologians have now, somewhat belatedly, also realized the importance of saying that all religious language is symbolic. Unfortunately not all theologians (and

118

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

churchmen) realize this, and some continue to speak as if they are describing God, heaven, eternal life as it is in reality; they still think that when they make statements of the transcendent, that they are literally true. For example, how many theologians today still speak of heaven as “up there” when on reflection they might say heaven is a state, not a place. Likewise with the “fires” of hell. This question of symbolic language is certainly no trivial matter in religion, nor in physics. Secondly, they both have mystery in common. This is a trickier point. They are both confronted with the presence of mystery but in different ways. Physics is faced with a mystery, or rather a mysterious world, in its exploration of the microworld of quantum mechanics. The ending of strict causality in 1927 has, to some extent, unnerved physicists. The superficial confidence of Newtonian physics has given way to a humbler attitude of awe. From a different perspective, mysticism is also confronted with awe and mystery in its experience of the transcendent. There is the potential and possibility for physics and mysticism to converge on this issue but one would not want to claim more than that. Mysticism, Wilber would say, is faced with a direct experience of the transcendent, although I would qualify that and say a “more ” direct experience of the transcendent, because after all, the mystics still have to deal with symbols, even in the way they experience the transcendent. I think we can make these points of commonality while still preserving the point about the disciplines being different fields of enquiry and maintaining that the new physics is neutral regarding mysticism, not supportive thereof. We have spoken about the bible in terms of time, but we need also think in terms of space/place. If we are to take modern science seriously when they say that time and space are united in spacetime, we need to think about the gospels and spacetime. Not that Jesus had any foreknowledge of the theory of general relativity! But in the gospels, the space/place where things happen do seem to be significant. Jesus does seem to make conscious use of space/place. The mountains are important, and not only as a teaching strategy for the redactor of Matthew’s gospel when he wants to underline the Jesus/Moses comparison, or the plains for Luke’s emphasis on equality. Jesus goes to the synagogue (a place of solemn reflection and prayer) to read out the section which he appropriates for his mission from Isaiah. He could

6 • Time as Clockwork

119

have done that at home or elsewhere, but the synagogue is the appropriate place for that profound statement. Jesus goes into the desert/ wilderness to prayer and fast. Today we have wilderness societies to bring us back to nature and its spiritual wealth. Jesus in fact does a lot of traveling, moving about, and each place seems to have a particular value. Jesus enters private homes to affect cures, like the paralytic. It is interesting that the communities after Jesus’ death remember these events (called “actual occasions”, in process theology) tied to places. In fact time is often not so important; it is often treated rather cursorily with a “One day…”, or “The next day…”, “As he was walking along…”, “Then Jesus said…”, or even simply the one word “now”( how important is that, after the above chapters!). They obviously cannot remember exactly when, but they can remember what happened and the place where it did. On the other hand, there were other events that were tied to special times. The Last Supper is the “the night before he was crucified”, and it was at the Last Supper that the eucharist was instituted. The Resurrection occurs three days after the crucifixion, although this too might be a conventional biblical way of saying important things happen on the third day. That is one of the problems of biblical hermeneutics: we never can be absolutely sure whether some things should be taken literally or not. Still on a biblical theme, we need now to turn to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and see what influence that has on space and time. What does the resurrection mean? What are its implications for our understanding of space and time? The resurrection means that time is directed to a future of glorification with Christ, with God. It gives linear time a further teleological boost, a thrust towards an apotheosis, as opposed to repetitive circles of meaninglessness and despair. Resurrection which is primarily God’s affirmation of the life and death of his Son, is also a guarantee that all will rise again as Christ has risen. Resurrection as being glorified with God, gives added dimensions to the “moments” of eternal life experienced here and now. It seems too one can say that the resurrection is truly a kairos moment, a turning point, a tremendous happening springing from God’s action. It shakes the foundations of linear time. Things are very different after the resurrection. Paul speaks about the “spiritual body”, suggesting the “transformation” of the whole self that the resurrection will

120

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

bring to everyone. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the resurrection “transcends and surpasses history (#647)”. The spacetime limitations of this world will be overturned and transformed. Indeed the post-resurrection appearances of the risen Christ to the disciples are full of ambiguities and contradictions which suggest the world has been turned upside down. The resurrected Christ walks through the walls of a room, he is not recognized at first by the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, but later is; Mary Magdalene sees a gardener and then when he speaks, she realize it is Jesus; he appears to eat like anyone else; he shows his wounds to Thomas. All this suggests a new order. So does the Ascension which cuts across our normal spacetime limitations. But not only do Christians have Christ’s resurrection as a model of future gloried life outside the limitations of spacetime, but they also have the example of the assumption of Mary. She, we read in the document cited above, was taken up “ in the fullness of her person into his glory” (ARCIC 2005, #58). The model reflected upon in this chapter was Newtonian time or time as a succession of events. The biblical data, which itself is ambiguous though mainly linear, gives us the opportunity to look at points of divergence and convergence between biblical time and a modern views of spacetime. The two views can be brought into dialogue although not all aspects can be reconciled. Nor should they be, as time is a multi-dimensional reality. There are valuable biblical insights here which will also be a part of a theology of spacetime together with what was developed in Chapter Five regarding the liturgy and sacraments. In the next chapter we take our exploration further with a consideration of time as becoming.

Chapter 7 Time as becoming

H

aving considered time as an illusion and the more customary Newtonian model of time as a succession of events or clockwork, we now turn to a more challenging model in many ways. This, with Model 1, are the two most demanding models of spacetime in terms of challenging us to think outside the square, which seems to be what is required if our understanding of space­ time is to be updated with what knowledge is currently available to us through relevant disciplines.

Model 3: Time as becoming In this model, time is seen as past, present and future but the emphasis is on the present moment as an instant of becoming. This model assumes the world as an open system. It admits of other causality factors other than the primary and secondary ones mentioned in the previous models. The emphasis is that things “become” in each “instant”; things are actualized and are moved further along the line of self-realization or becoming with each instant. Underlying this model is that of life as evolving, dynamic, striving for fulfillment and self-actualization and each moment is precious and vital for this growth. Berry expresses the becoming nature of the cosmos in a striking way. He says: “Awareness that the universe is more cosmogenesis than cosmos might be the greatest change in human consciousness that has taken place since the awakening of the human mind in the Paleolithic Period.” In some ways this Model is almost the opposite of Model 1 and 2, where everything is orderly, proper and staid in its “givenness”. It

122

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

admits of certain intrinsic unpredictability about the evolution of the world, without supporting the concept that time is no more than “chaotic flux”. Process theology is the theology that promotes this view of time and whose overall view of the God-world relationship seems best suited to develop a theology of spacetime. It will be noted that the view of time as becoming has, in some ways, a certain affinity with the view of time as “now”, a point to which we will return below. This model allows for divine special providence in the history of the universe. Because of the multiple causalities that it will allow, it makes room for the eye of faith to see God’s hand in what evolves throughout the cosmos. It allows for kairic moments in the evolution of the cosmos. It leaves unresolved the exact relationship between the different causalities that operate in a given situation. It also affirms without defining, the relationship between grace and free will.

Process theology In pursuing the searching for a theology of spacetime, one might firstly ask why current traditional theologies are not embraced. The response to this is well known in the dissatisfaction shown by many theologians with the traditional, classicist (or neo-classical) theology of late medieval times. The rigidity of the old systems, the commitment to absolutes, the categories used in their metaphysics of substance and being, the meaninglessness of some theological statements today, the firm opposition to change and thus a lack of any dynamism, the determinism to use only the deductive method of theologizing, sometimes a refusal to learn from other disciplines – these are all good reasons to look for new theologies in a spirit of creativity and retrieval rather than simply jettisoning the tradition. In short, in an era of very rapid change and process, we need some new theological paradigm to throw light on the world and how it functions; the static Greek view of the world and gods is no longer adequate. In is in this spirit that process theology is identified as a (relatively) new theology which is promising for our purposes. But what is process theology? It is a theology based on the writings of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), a Cambridge mathematician who in the mid-twenties went to Harvard University as Professor of Philosophy. His ideas were then further developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897-

7 • Time as Becoming

123

2000) and others. In Bracken’s opinion, “Whitehead is clearly one of the most philosophically sophisticated” philosophers of last century, and “even though details of his system are defective and will have to be revised or replaced, the system as a whole is the most comprehensive attempt at a general cosmology which this century has produced.” One way to characterize it would be to say that it re-visits the ever-recurring problem of how to intellectualise and live out the transcendence and immanence of the divine. This will be a theme as we move along. In brief, process theology sees the universe as in the process of becoming, creative, interrelational, dynamic, and open to the future. To say that God is relational means that God is present in every moment of our lives and in all entities and levels of being. The vision of the world underpinning process theology is that of the world as interconnected, in effect a giant ecosystem where what harms or blesses one, harms or blesses all. In this respect it dovetails with an ecological worldview. Bracken picks up on this in his model of the God-world relationship as we shall see below. Having said that, one should firstly further speak about what kind of God process theology entertains. It must be said that process theology has given the traditional or classicist image of God a thorough shaking up. In Chapter Five above we discussed an “inclusive infinity” and an “exclusive infinity” and pointed out the importance of being aware of the image of God being used in whatever theology we care to name. Most theologians in the western tradition, we said, belonged to the second. Process theology, on the other hand, belongs to the “inclusive infinity” school. Hence much of what we find in process theology is a rejection of traditional, classical (Greek) ideas of God and for this reason Hartshorne refers to this theology as “neoclassical”, being as it is, a revision of the classical image of God. We have already mentioned the profound importance and controlling role of one’s image of God with respect to all theology and spirituality. Process theology has rejected the old Greek ideas of God as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, impassive and immutable. Polkinghorne himself, who is not uncritical of process theology, nevertheless does support a dynamic view of God. He argues for a more positive engagement of God with time without jeopardizing the divine excellence. He wants us to conceive of a dynamic understanding of perfection which resides “not in

124

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

the absence of change, but in perfect appropriateness in relation to each successive moment.”

Does God know beforehand? Let us take the question of God’s foreknowledge for example. What is important in the process theology of the image of God is the point made that God is self-limiting in some ways. This helps us out of the previous dilemma of God’s foreknowledge. The old problem was, if God knows everything then God knows what we will do next and hence we do not have free will which in turn, was interpreted by some, as equivalent to predestination. (The traditional answer was: although God has foreknowledge, it does not interfere with our freedom to choose, in a somewhat similar way to my knowing (through experience of him) the way my friend will act, does not in fact deprive him of his power to choose.) Instead process theology would say God has self-limited Godself, in terms of foreknowledge, to allow for our free will which God has given us and therefore even God does not know what action we will take. There is an element of surprise for God in what will happen, both with human action and the material world in itself through working out its physical nature, in subatomic particles “deciding” what they will do next. God is at work in the world as an Improviser of unsurpassed ingenuity. Aquinas’ approach to the problem of foreknowledge was different to this: he said that it wasn’t so much that God had foreknowledge of the future, but that, from the perspective of eternity, God simply knows it. It can be easily seen that those who hold to absolutes in God, such as omniscience, will reject this idea of God. Here it seems quantum mechanics has made it easier for us to accept this intellectually, although the idea that God is self-limiting is also challenging. We are asked to accept a God who has self-limited Godself insofar as human free will is concerned and therefore does not know the choices humans will make. This God does, in a way, play dice with human beings, although one might not choose to express it that way. For God there is an element of surprise and not-knowing in what happens! Whereas the Greek God was a God of absolutes and did not tolerate any ambiguities or contradictions, the God of process theology is inclusive and apparently tolerant of seemingly opposites. The God of

7 • Time as Becoming

125

process theology is immanent to this world (without losing transcendence). This is based on natural theology but also from the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the New Testament it is in Jesus Christ that God revealed Godself as immanent in our world. God is not merely the prime mover of the philosophers, nor even the warrior-God, Yahweh of the Old Testament. This God is more intimate to me than I to myself. This immanence is seen in that process theology is said to be, not pantheistic, but panentheistic, that is, everything is in God but God is not limited to what is. God is not contained by what is. This God is not the impassive God of the Greeks; it is a God who can change, can suffer, is influenced by us, a God who interacts, not just one who acts. Hartshorne and others reject as idolatrous the identification of God with the absolute, infinite, immutable or necessary. God he says, is on both sides of such contraries, so he would define God by saying God is both finite and infinite, active and passive, eternal and temporal, necessary and contingent, immutable and open to change. How, one may ask, can the God of process theology hold these seeming contradictions together? The first point to make is that the God of process theology is a di-polar God. This creative theory of Whitehead is certainly a handy way of accommodating many of the problems one had with the Greek image of God, since a monopolar view of God denies that God can in any way be genuinely temporal or related to others. So what does di-polar mean? It means that God has two natures, but we must understand this correctly for he is not using it in the sense in which Aquinas used it. By nature Whitehead means an abstract way of talking about how something relates to other realities. The first nature is the “primordial” nature; God alone within Godself. As primordial, “God is the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality”. And the second is the “consequent” nature of God; God as intrinsically related to physical reality. Pittenger speaks about the way in which God is limited thus: “… God is indeed “infinite”, beyond any such limitations as our minds might devise; but this does not mean that he is absolutely unlimited. His nature, the purpose which he is accomplishing in his world, the love which is his supreme characteristic, must in some sense limit him”. And in terms of the relationship of God to the created world, process theology prefers to state God is not before all creation, but with all creation. This is in

126

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

fact what Ruth Page suggests with her term “synpantheism”. It suggests that God is “with” every person and thing at every moment. She prefers “with” to “in” God as the former seems to guarantee the freedom and independence of both God and the individual. This worldview acts as a counterbalance to one of excessive christocentrism which might overlook the divine Activity with and in everything. The idea of a vibrant acting God and all creation to be “with” or “in” God, gives a platform for God and humans to be dynamically involved in what happens in time, as opposed to a transcendent God that seemed to be, literally and figuratively, above human affairs. The temporal is where the growth, dynamism, love takes place. It is a distinctively new approach since it distances itself from a past spirituality which gave the impression that only eternity was of any worth. Now, both time and eternity are equally valuable; the earth is our home and one should feel at home here. As Keller says, we are in the process of making the earth our home again, or making it our native place again, as Berry frequently says. This is indeed a change from the past!

The God-world relationship In constructing a theology of spacetime, it is necessary to define what model of the God-world relationship one has as the controlling model. It is clear that process theology is promising in this respect. But we need to pursue that more specifically in terms of the God-world relationship. Bracken has done this in his writings. For Bracken, who espouses process theology with some modifications, the controlling image of God for a systematic theology must be the Trinitarian God. His societal or communitarian model of the God-world relationship is a form of panentheism based on the image of “an all-embracing community or society in which the three divine persons of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity share their own communitarian life with each of their creatures”. (By panentheism I mean that all finite things must somehow be contained in God and be sustained by the divine power of being while retaining their identity as a finite realities.) The advantage of this societal model over the organismic model (such as the monarchical one which inevitably implies subordination of parts to the whole), is that the former “presupposes parts or members which retain their individual identity even as they together constitute something

7 • Time as Becoming

127

bigger than themselves as individuals, namely the community or society to which they belong”. As stated earlier this seems to dovetail nicely with the contemporary emphasis on ecological systems, environments and interdependencies. The societal model also gives a response to those who criticize process theology as not doing justice to the identity of the individual person who may get lost in the group process. In the older systems such as those of Aristotle and Aquinas, the first category of being was “substance” and realities such as communities, environments or social groupings, were derivative. In Bracken’s model, God understood as a community of three divine persons (perichoresis is the ancient term that has been retrieved in trinitarian theology) becomes the archetypal expression of life in community. This model takes in all levels of creation, not just human beings. So everything that exists is part of some socially organized reality (or, as the ecotheologian, Thomas Berry would says: “The universe is a community of subjects, not a collection of objects”). This covers everything from the protons and electrons that make up the atom, to plant and animal organism that make up an environment, to human beings making larger groups like families, nations, international organizations, etc. The point Bracken makes then is that social entities, not individuals, are images of God (imago Dei) which means they are finite imitations of the communitarian life of the Trinity. This we can accept as a controlling image for a Christian theology of spacetime because it starts with the Trinity and allows for the dynamism and interaction that modern insights into spacetime seem to require. There are other key terms and insights into process theology which need to be noted to fill out the larger picture for us as well as having an impact, directly or indirectly, on how one sees spacetime. Let us therefore identify some of these basic concepts in Whiteheadian philosophy. How does a thing become what it is? How does it constitute what it is? The process of how a thing becomes, is more fundamental than the being that is achieved. Becoming is more important than essence. The verb, “being” suggests continuous being. To think of tiny bits of matter as the smallest units of reality is to think in static terms, of beings instead of becomings. The fundamental elements of reality are “actual occasions” (actual entities or occasions of experience relating to what went before and after). This gives a process concept of re-

128

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

ality. Process and interrelation are built into this idea. Everything has experience even if not felt. A rock experiences the earth on which it rests. Eternal objects are pure possibilities, like Aristotle’s universals or Plato’s forms; they are colours, sounds, scents, and geometric patterns. The way in which every actual occasion is the subject of experiences brings us to “prehensions”, another Whiteheadian word. Prehensions are the concrete facts of relatedness. Before apprehending something, one must be related to that object; it is more fundamental than a subjective perception of that object. Birch and Cobb seem to echo this idea when they say: ”every element behaves as it does because of the relations it has to other elements in the whole…” Another key idea is that of the interplay of divine grace or the Holy Spirit and human nature in process theology. Like many theologies it wants to avoid both Pelagianism and the condemnation of human nature as evil and corrupt. Human nature is grounded in the Divine Word, but it is not itself that Word. And this is where panentheism comes in. God is in a person, but not identical with that person, otherwise there would be no individuality, identity and free will. However human beings have the potential and urge to strive after completion, to become what they are destined to become, and be more like God through the operation of the Holy Spirit. This attraction to God through the Holy Spirit, is called the “divine lure” in process theology. It is based on the belief that persuasion or love is stronger than sheer force or coercion. While the response can truly be said to be that of the individual, it is the individual’s through the subtle and persuasive presence and power of the Spirit working in a particular person. Having outlined the basic concepts of process theology, we may now ask: where does this take us in terms of our topic? The becoming stresses the moment and in a way is re-enforcing the points made in Chapter Five about the positive use of time. The present moment is precious because it is all we have, and because it is a moment of becoming rather than being. Every prehension is a wonderful moment for relatedness and growth. Moments are certainly not to be wasted, life is valuable. One thinks of Augustine’s memorable words, cited above: “Every particle of sand in the glass of time is precious to me”. We can replace the Latin slogan, Carpe Diem! (Sieze the Day!) with “Seize the moment!” Every actual occasion is vital for the Christian and presents

7 • Time as Becoming

129

an opportunity for growth and love. It is a moment of outreach. Not a moment for sitting back and resting on the assurance that our total well-being has been secured, that we have been saved.

Incarnational dimension At this point a word needs to be said about the Incarnation in the context of process theology although Chapter Eight will return to the topic with particular focus on its meaning, nature and implications for daily living as part of the response to model 4. Within the perspective of process theology and the importance of every prehension for relatedness and growth, the Incarnation takes on a special importance. Process theology would say that through the human life of Jesus, the divine Activity is at work, but this is true not only of that historical figure Jesus, but it is also true about the world in general. The Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ is focally but not exclusively true of Him. God’s work applies to the whole cosmos as well. God is self-giving love, who lives and moves and has His being, not so much as First Mover, not at all as Sheer Omnipotence, but in relationship with that in, and through which, love is working. Any theology of spacetime would have to take the Incarnation seriously. It seems to me that this foundational teaching of Christianity is not always reflected upon with the focus that it deserves. Many modern day Christians often do not see the huge difference between Christianity and other world religions in terms of the Incarnation. In pursuing interfaith dialogue some find it very difficult to find the balance between asserting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ on the one hand, and affirming the universal salvific will of God on the other. Other Christians again seem not to realize the enormity of the Christian claims regarding the divinity of Christ in spite of the teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon. Perhaps attention is given in dialogue only to the points of similarity between religions out of a misguided eirenic sense. Nevertheless Incarnation is an earth-shaking doctrine. The significance of the death and resurrection is that God is immanently present in Jesus. God has taken what is human and worldly into Godself in a complete and positive way. What Christ did not assume he did not save. The Church Fathers realized this and wrote extensively on the topic although their context was a vibrant Christian world in

130

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

which everyone was talking theology, and in which the dramas of the two ecumenical councils took place. This God who relates so intimately with the world, sent God’s own son to be born into this material world, in a given cultural setting for the sake of God’s creatures. This single act meant that everything, including spacetime, was transformed because of this most intense touch of the divine. As far as any theology of spacetime goes, it must take this into account. The way we look at space and time must change. How Jesus of Nazareth might have seen space and time has been mentioned above in Chapter Five.

Some weaknesses in process theology Process theology does appear to be most useful in framing a theology of spacetime, although like any system it is not perfect. Müller has commented on the fact that it has not taken root in the American Catholic community, “While the construct is intellectually stimulating, no popular groundswell clamors for a dipolar God.” For whatever reasons, it does not seem to have caught on like, for example, liberation theology, black theology or feminist theology. There are some problems with the system as we shall see. A weakness of process theology has been mentioned in terms of relating God’s infinite, nontemporal nature to God’s finite, temporal, growing and consequent nature. The problem arises when we try to describe God as alive and responding to human beings as a sentient being rather than an impassive Greek god. The hypothesis of a foundational and consequent nature helps one to overcome this abyss to some extent. (Polkinghorne speaks about a dipolar God, one pole being the eternal, the other the temporal ). But given we are working with analogies when it comes to speaking about God in the first place, none of the analogies is going to be adequate. God’s nature is impenetrable. The question is rather does a shift in analogy from the old explanations, grown increasingly inadequate to Christians because of a new world context, bring new insights and breathe new life into the theological debates and understandings and can it be said that it is not contrary to Christian teaching? I believe the answer is yes. And in addition to this, as has been mentioned, the dipolar God seems closer to the biblical God that the Greek God.

7 • Time as Becoming

131

Related to this objection is one pointing to a problem of seeing unity of experience in each moment of God’s omnipresent existence in view of the teaching of relativity physics that there is no simultaneous present throughout the universe. On the one hand we have physics, from its own human vantage point, insisting on the impossibility of any universal “now”, and the other hand, each moment of God’s omnipresent existence is assumed into one “now”. This poses a problem and an intractable one at that. However we have to live with the ambiguity of a cause-and-effect world which demands linear spacetime and an infinite God who penetrates this world in mysterious ways. A theology of spacetime will have to live with many ambiguities and in this it can empathize with the insecurities of postmodernism. A third problem, frequently raised is the question of the religious adequacy of panentheism. This touches on the image of God. Is the God Christians worship a God who needs the world in order to be a complete personal being, or it is a God who is a complete personal being prior to the world? Let me take the second part first. Here I feel one is venturing into the area of God’s mind and intention. What was God’s purpose in creating the world in the first place? To show that God’s nature is love and it is of the essence of love to express itself. Creation then is an expression of God’s nature. God couldn’t but express his love ad extra. All these are conjectures since who knows the mind of God? The mystery of why God made the world is ineffable. To return to the first part of the question about panentheism: as Ward has said, it is whether we see God as infinite inclusive or infinite exclusive. One of the dualisms of classicist theology was to keep world and God separate. Process theology and panentheism as defined by this theology, tries to unite them while not identifying the two. Let us repeat: everything is “in” God to some extent although God is not limited to what exists. In God we live and move and have our being, is how Paul expressed it. One of Polkinghorne’s problems with process theology was that it was framed as a proposal to deal with the world in organismic rather than mechanical terms. However we have chosen Bracken’s modification of this in terms of his societal model of the trinity and, as seen above, he deliberately avoids the organismic model. Like any theological system or proposal, process theology needs to be critiqued and

132

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

changed or adapted where necessary. Whitehead was developing a philosophy not a theology. Polinghorne is further concerned about the God of process theology being a God without power. Perhaps that is no bad thing! It probably requires one to analyze power and what it could mean for the divinity. Again here we might have to de-construct the old idea of militaristic, co-ercive power and imagine what it could possibly mean for God. I would suggest that Yahweh as a warrior God which seems to be the origins of Yahweh in Canaan, might subsequently have had too great an influence on our western traditional theology of divine power. Is God’s power, in process theology terms, not now the divine lure? Edwards comments that “Divine power is the power of love”. Polkinghorne also finds it difficult to reconcile Whitehead’s ideas of discrete events, “actual occasions” and “prehensions” with scientific knowledge and what we know about physics. Leaving divine action solely to a “persuasive lure” is for Polkinghorne, too weak an account of the Christian God and the power of Christian prayer. Thus we have looked at the third model of time, time as becoming, and outlined how process theology can be used in formulating a theology of spacetime within this framework. Process theology gives the flexibility to accommodate a world open to change and growth which includes a growing understanding of the complexities of spacetime. This view takes this world seriously and therefore the Incarnation is central to process theology and sheds a whole new light on spacetime. The Incarnation refers to our world (space) and the history of salvation (time) and and has had a dramatic influence on how we see spacetime and therefore must be a key element in any theology of spacetime. This is an important anchor point as we explore one of the more bizarre scientific theories of parallel universes, or multiworlds interpretation, in the next chapter.

Chapter 8 Time as a Secondary Construction

I

n this chapter, the fourth and final model of time will be discussed and then a theological response given to that model. The main reaction to this model, time as a secondary construction, centers around the Incarnation, so in the theological response some attention will be devote to that aspect of theology although we have mentioned it in the previous chapter. One of the Christian teachings about Incarnation, indeed the fundamental one, is that Jesus Christ was truly human and truly divine. If truly human he must have had free will which is the ability to make choices during his life. His life it seemed to him, and to others, was purposeful, had an aim or goal, telos. Thus each decision he took was a step in achieving that telos. Thus this chapter also discusses the issue of human freedom and free will as central to being human.

Model 4: Time as a secondary construction This model relies on quantum mechanics and is more complicated and scientific than the previous models. The explanation we follow is that of Polkinghorne (1998, 335), although Julian Barbour has something similar in his theory of Triangle Land which was touched upon above. It goes back to the desire of physicists to reconcile the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, something the TOE (theory of everything) is searching for. It refers to tracing back ordinary time to a

134

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

fraction of a second prior to the Big Bang when no time and no space existed, except imaginary time. The theory is that before the Planck time of 10 -43 seconds, there was no space or time. A sequence of “spatial geometries” were stacked in such a way that their succession could be susceptible to temporal interpretation (which means in plain English, it was seen as time). At this point space is given priority over time which is given a secondary role. According to Polkinghorne, “The rules of quantum mechanics are applied to the immense variety of spatial geometrics that might be conceived to exist and probability amplitudes evaluated for transitions between them” (ibid. 335). When the spatial geometrics stack up to form a succession it can be interpreted in a temporal way which is then seen as the beginning of ordinary time. Polkinghorne asks the question: how does it come about that the fitful quantum world yields a definite answer on each actual occasion of its experimental interrogation when the theory itself only assigns probabilities for a range of possible outcomes? The answer is the socalled many worlds interpretation put forward by Hugh Everett III. Every possible outcome of an observation is in fact realized and our belief to the contrary is due to the division of the universe at each such act of measurement into a series of parallel worlds in each of which only one outcome is perceived to happen. So, if every possible outcome is realized, one has enormous prodigality in physical reality, with all these parallel universes. There is a vast variety of differing parallel cosmic histories out there. These parallel universes represent a variety of alternative and equally valid temporal unfoldings. Quantum cosmologists support this interpretation but many physicists would not, let alone those outside the scientific world who find it mind-boggling.

A Theological response From a theological viewpoint, there are obviously problems with this, the main one being that Christianity is an historical religion that assumes one human history and the story of Jesus of Nazareth which is seen as an event in this history. Are other Incarnations possible? The Hindus have no problem is seeing the divine as incarnated in a number of different avatars, one of whom is Jesus Christ. But what about Christians? Could the second person of the trinity be incarnate in other universes? Theoretically, yes. Aquinas says other Incarnations

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

135

are possible but maintains that in fact they have not occurred. To propose parallel universes on the scale that Everett III is proposing, in millions of other universes, is to make nonsense of salvation history in this universe. It makes a game of creation and humans, trivializing the Incarnation. However this is not to say that life on other planets, even in other universes is not possible. Polkinghorne says that this model abolishes any notion of a true history capable of accommodating God’s dealings with humankind. He refers to the absurdity of a universe in which Judas betrays Christ and another universe in which he does not. That expresses the absurdity well. (One is left wondering which of all the universes is the real one, like Anderson in Matrix I: is it the world in which Anderson works or is it the trans-time machine world of Morpheous and his co-workers?) However this is different to saying there may be life on some other planets and in which God may have a different story of their “wellbeing” or salvation. A second objection to this model, according to Polkinghorne, is that it undermines the significance of human biography and responsibility. The idea of God having this multi-screened theatre in which every conceivable scenario is enacted, is incompatible with human dignity and moral choice. One of the cornerstones of a Christian theology is surely the dignity of human beings and their freedom to make moral choices both of which are denied with this model. As the historical importance of the Incarnation is central to a rebuttal of this, the fourth model, we will reflect further on it although the topic has arisen in dialogue with Cullmann and in the discussion of process theology. The Incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ are foundational to Christianity and therefore to any theology of spacetime. And as the human Jesus of Nazareth made real life choices which made a difference, such as choosing to do the will of God as he saw it, we will reflect on the issue of human freedom and free will. Our concept of ordinary time implies that decisions can be made and the future shaped and hence the value of the moment in which those decisions are made. This will be part of the theology of spacetime we are developing.

136

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Incarnation In theology today there is a certain retrieval of the importance of the Incarnation and a search for its implications for theology. It is useful to recall some of the facts and figures. The Incarnation means that Jesus Christ appeared within a Middle Eastern culture at a given place and at a given time. The place was Nazareth in Galilee and the time was about 6 B.C. The coming of Jesus was more than Jewish history evolving to a point of his coming, as if the path of prophecies and promises of salvation could be followed logically to the Incarnation without doubt. There is nothing inevitable or mechanical about it. The faith perception of it was quite different. It was a radical and revolutionary innovation of the spirit. It is useful to remind ourselves of Paul in Galatians 4:4, where he refers to the Incarnation as a kairos moment: “But when the time (kairos) had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman… to redeem those under the law”. A new level of conscious spirit had broken upon the structures of history. In Paul’s words: Christ is New Creation, the New Man. There is therefore a need to reassert this transcendent truth of the Incarnation. “When we speak of this event as the New Creation, we point up the work of God in history as grace transcending the moral and rational consciousness, as love transcending the law” (Cousins 195). The human side of the Incarnation, the identification of Jesus Christ with the human condition, is attested by some beautiful passages in the Church Fathers. Let me cite just one from the greatest of the Greek Fathers, John Chrysostom in Homily 23 on Genesis: He who belongs in the bosom of the Father did not decline to take the form of a slave, and submit to all the other limitations of the human condition, to take life of a woman, be born of a virgin, to spend nine months in the womb and take on swaddling clothes, to be known as the son of Joseph, Mary’s husband, to grow up gradually, be circumcised, offer sacrifice, to hunger and thirst and feel weariness, and finally to suffer death, and not just death but the kind of death thought most shameful, I mean death on a cross – and all this he accepted for you and for your salvation…(PG 50, 20 5B)

Because of the high christology of the past which characterized the traditional, classicist theology, it is necessary to emphasize the full humanity of Jesus of Nazareth which so-called Incarnational theolo-

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

137

gies do. High Christology emphasized the divinity of Christ at the expense of his humanity. It was a theology as well as a form of piety and religious art. Christ was seen in the gospels as having the power to perform miracles, because he was God (rather than Yahweh working through him); he knew everything (in spite of what the gospels say about his limited knowledge); in Christian piety his divinity was the focus of religious art where the divine aspects was painted. Today the emphasis seeks to restore the balance. Jesus was a genuine first century Jew, in and of this world, not a divine visitor; a man for others, the man for God; his whole life was a filial surrender to God. All of Jesus is human; there is nothing absurd about claiming that in this instance of humanity, under its own conditions and with the factors which necessarily limit any human beings to their space and time, there was a bringing to special fulfilment or actualization of genuine human possibilities. Christianity holds that the second person of the Trinity was truly human. In Jesus, God explicitly expressed God’s own nature and purposes with the created world. God was totally operating in the human person of Jesus, that is, “at every level from his atoms and molecules, via his DNA and genetic constitution and physiology to his behaviour, psychology and social enculturation” (Torrance 1969, 24). There is a cosmic dimension to this fact. Scientists have drawn up a new history of the cosmos in quite a different approach to that of Genesis, in what is now known as the common story of creation, mentioned earlier. In that account the cosmos began with the Big Bang some fifteen billion years ago. A question we might therefore ask is: where do the atoms that make up our bodies come from? They came from the long and complex process that resulted in the creation of the stars (Edwards, 1992, 39-41). In this process, hydrogen was the main fuel in the process and the heavier elements the outcome. Hydrogen and helium were produced in the Big Bang but the other elements were cooked in the stars. When some stars collapsed or died out, the matter that they flung into space included these chemicals which formed part of our universe and planets, including Earth. Our bodies are made up of many elements. The hydrogen comes from the Big Bang but all the rest from the stars: oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, sodium, chlorine,

138

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

magnesium, iron and manganese. Human beings are truly made from stardust; therefore Jesus of Nazareth, was also truly made from stardust! Human beings are cosmic creatures whose history goes back to the stars and the Big Bang. Jesus of Nazareth is truly an earthling like us and shares our cosmic history. Can we imagine greater identification of Jesus Christ with humankind? Jesus of Nazareth however, is also divine, so the Incarnation is indeed a magnificent example of divine condescension, and a wonderful example of the meeting of the eternal and the temporal in a cosmic way. John Paul II has expressed some of these profound meanings of the Incarnation in his 1986 encyclical, Dominum et Vivificantem: The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, of everything that is “flesh”: the whole of humanity, the entire visible and material world. The Incarnation, then, also has a cosmic significance, a cosmic dimension. The “firstborn of all creation”, becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also “flesh” – and in this reality with all “flesh”, with the whole of creation. (#50)

The Incarnation makes a difference to the Christian’s understanding of time. For Cullmann, Christ is at the center of linear time. This is because of the redemption he wrought. As Chrysostom said above, he became a human being, he assumed the human condition, “for you and for your salvation”, or, as he says in Homily 27 on Genesis, “so as to lift our human nature lying under its sins and raise it from earth to heaven” (PG 53, 240B.) Christ gives new meaning to time and the future. As we pointed out above, Christ made an enormous impact on time. Prior to the Incarnation time in the west was determined by the foundation of the Roman empire, “ab urbe condita” which was c753 B.C. With the Christ-event, ordinary time was divided into “before” Christ and “after” Christ. The Incarnation also brings time and eternity together. It allows us to talk about the inbreaking of eternity into time. Schillebeeckx has expressed it well: “Expressed in terms of time, the Incarnation of God is the personal entry of the Eternal into the boundaries of time; Eternity itself in temporal form. And this happens in such a way that the

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

139

historical actions of the man Jesus are personal actions of the eternal Son of God. Eternal divine act is realized in historical human form. This divine-human reality therefore covers two dimensions which are neither separate nor merely contiguous. (1963, 55).” Part of the difficulty with the Greek concept of God was that God was way above everyone and all mundane events. God lived in silent contemplation removed from messy human affairs. Schillebeeckx is showing us in this quotation that eternity has a temporal form with which process theology would like to agree. Divine acts are realized on earth in spacetime. Divine acts can now be located in a place and at a given time. God has got God’s hands messy with spacetime and indeed the whole human condition. The Incarnation brings together the divine and human which had been separated and keep separate. The Incarnation is not merely a topic for intellectual discussion; it has certain implications for Christian living. Let us refer back to kairic time. The meaning of kairic time, was that time in which the emphasis falls on taking the appropriate action under grace. Now we see a strong kairic theology of time expressed in a strong Incarnational theology, the here and now, and realized eschatology. There are many manifestation of this kind of Incarnational theology: liberation theology, feminist theology, attempts at everyday theologies, theologies anchored in a particular nation, region and its people and their life situations. They go by different names as local theologies, or the contextualization of theology, or inculturation. This springs out of consideration that the Incarnation took place in one place and at a particular time amongst a particular people, and was expressed in those very circumstances. The Incarnation was not generic. It was particular. The particularity of the Incarnation has sometimes been swamped by universal theologies that did not connect with given people of particular circumstances. Kairic time sees “now” as the acceptable time, as the time of grace. It sees the present moment as all that we have, and hence action must be “now or never”. It says that as Christ could only act in his place and his time, so Christians must act in their particular place and their particular time. For Roman Catholics, the Second Vatican Council called for the reading of the “signs of the times”, which is an expression of Incarnational theology. This needs to be constantly updated. A group of Roman Catholic theologians (International Network of Societies of

140

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Catholic Theology, INSeCT ), from all the continents, meeting in St Louis, MO, in 2005 had this call for a re-reading of the signs of the times, as one of the conclusions to their convention. This is taking space and time seriously. For the World Council of Churches (WCC) the issue is no less serious. It has been promoting local theologies and contextualization for many years, and is conscious that now in this space and time, the reality is that we theologize in a multi-faith world. There is a commitment to embrace God in the here and now, in this space and at this time. Many of the WCC documents and prayers, use precisely the phrase “in this place” and “at this time”, which is a beautiful way of raising our awareness of this moment in spacetime. The Roman Catholic Church has sometimes been very general and generic in its statements on world issues not wanting to upset anyone, wanting to be all things to all people, while the World Council of Churches is rather given to making specific statements about specific issues in specific countries, and taking actions now, in this particular situation, at this particular time. That often leads to unsettling or annoying some people. In the gospel story, the priest and Levite passed by, but the Samaritan saw that moment as kairic time and took action. Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church needs to ask itself if it is sufficiently Incarnational in its theology and actions. Among theologians and following in good patristic tradition, Barth emphasized the Incarnation with great vigor. In Jesus Christ, in the Incarnation, Barth points out, God can be said, to use a colloquial phrase, ”to have time for us” (1970, 50). To give someone one’s time is to give of oneself. Here one can add an anthropological insight. Many cultures have the custom of individuals simply spending time with others, be it at a time of sorrow, celebration or no particular occasion. At these times no words need to be spoken, no gifts given, no words exchanged, just one’s presence. This is giving one’s time, the most precious thing that one has, truly giving one’s self. Today in the west, time is often considered money, and people are more stingy about “giving time”. How often do we hear the expression “my time is precious”, “time is money” or “don’t waste my time”. God was so generous that God gave us time, his whole life, in fact, in the Incarnation. If one takes the Incarnation seriously, one will value spacetime. One can see spacetime in the light of faith in a passive sense as the place

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

141

and time when Jesus Christ came to save us, redeeming time. Alternatively, one can see spacetime as the opportunity for making decisions, under the grace merited by Jesus Christ, for the kingdom. Either way spacetime is valued as a graced spacetime, be it seen more from the ontological than existential viewpoint. Cullmann for example, puts much stress on the Incarnation and revelation as saving time, whereas Rahner stresses temporal time as the time for humans to make decisions in freedom for God. Either way, spacetime is precious.

Free or not? In speaking of Jesus being truly human in the Incarnation, one can add that if this is the case, then he must also have made truly human decisions. This issue of free will is one which raises its head from time to time in discussing spacetime. Free will could be defined as the ability or capacity to achieve what is of worth or value in a range of circumstances. If there is no time as succession of events, if time were synchronic, then decisions would not be made. Our assumption in our theology is that decisions are made freely and that they are for good, bad or indifferent in the long term. As Rahner maintains, temporal time implies the ability to make decisions in freedom for God. The history of the acknowledgement of free will has had its ups and downs. In the early centuries of Christianity, John Chrysostom pointed to God’s thoughtful love for humankind and “For this reason he bestowed on us free will and implanted in our nature and our conscience the knowledge of wickedness and virtue”( PG 53, 205B). Augustine struggled with the idea of free will and left scholars debating exactly what he meant by it (Stump, 2001, 4). Then the Council of Braga (561), affirmed human free will and rejected blind fate with the words, ”If any one believes that human souls are bound to a blind fate as pagans and Priscillian said – anathema sit” (Rahner, 1967, 120). Much has happened since then. John Calvin never sought to make predestination a pillar of Calvinism but some of his followers did. Yet Calvin was following on what Augustine taught. If some are predestined to perdition it is difficult to see how they have a choice in life. This raises the question of foreknowledge which we discussed above. Moving on in time, we know that the Newtonian laws led to predic-

142

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

tion and determinism (a rigid lock-step unfolding of the universe). We also know that people like Laplace supported this theory. In the contemporary debate for or against free will, there are three basic positions which can be identified for the sake of clarity. No doubt many will be somewhere in between these three positions. (1) The first is held by those who affirm that humans do have free will, plain and simple. It is strongly affirmed by people such as the philosopher, Dennett: Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us … Human freedom is real – as real as language, music, and money – so it can be studied objectively from a no-nonsense, scientific point of view. But like language, music, money, and other products of society, its persistence is affected by what we believe about it. So it is not surprising that our attempts to study it dispassionately are distorted by anxiety that we will clumsily kill the specimen under the microscope (2003, 305).

In a strong affirmation of free will, this first group of people are inclined to overstate their position by denying that there are many factors that influence or mitigate one’s free will. Roderick Chisholm is one of these. He promotes an ancient doctrine known as “agent causation”. He is the chief architect of the contemporary version of this doctrine. His rather extreme position can be stated thus: If we are responsible … then we have a prerogative which some would attribute only to God: each of us, when we act, is a prime mover unmoved. In doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen, and nothing – or no one – causes us to cause those events to happen (1982, 32 ).

(2) The second position is located at the opposite end of the continuum. It is determinism, which denies that humans have any free will at all, or that decisions are made outside of the individual (Smullyan 1981, 321-341). This position has affinities with Model 1 above (time as an illusion). Determinism can be expressed thus: “There is at any instant exactly one physically possible future” (Dennett 2003, 296). No choice is possible. In a sense one is compelled to follow a particular course. According to Tom Wolfe (ibid. 15), E.O. Wilson is sometimes cited as a supporter, or even chief ideologue of this position and the

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

143

biologist Richard Dawkins is seen as a reductionist tending toward this position. Wolfe explains it this way: Since consciousness and thought are entirely physical products of your brain and nervous system – and since your brain arrived fully imprinted at birth – what makes you think you have free will? Where is it going to come from? (Wolfe 2000, 97).

This second position is in fact reductionist in that conscious experience is reduced to matter in motion some way or another. They are sure in their bones that free will, real free will, is strictly impossible in a materialistic, mechanistic, reductionist world. Human beings are seen as animated material objects, therefore nothing is right or wrong. It is completely scientific, materialistic theory. It projects a society in which nobody is responsible and “everybody is the victim of one unfortunate feature of their background or another (nature or nurture)? (Dennett 2003, 292)”. The cause of behavior is reduced to some aspect of nature or nurture. It does not matter to which area the causation is reduced. For geneticists causation is reduced to genetics which becomes the sole cause of action. In other words, by it, supporters mean that we are programmed to be what we are, these traits are ineluctable. We can channel them, but we cannot change them. They are beyond redemption as it were: neither will, education, nor culture will change these traits. One is doomed by one’s genes. Dennett however claims that there are no genetic determinists. His comment is: ”I have never encountered anybody who claims that will, education and culture, cannot change many, if not all, of our genetically inherited traits (ibid. 156).” Similarly there are those who attribute the cause of actions to neuroscience, so that the way the brain is programmed to work, determines or causes action. 3) The third position is in between these two extremes and would have many supporters from across disciplines including theology. It affirms that human beings do have free will, but that there are a number of factors which influence or even inhibit freedom to greater or lesser extent. For example, a pedophile may be said to be strongly inclined to behave in a certain way so that his condition mitigates against general responsibility. When one reflects on this, one finds that there are indeed many other agents that could possibly influence free will, such

144

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

as : the degree of flexibility of mind, general knowledge, social comprehension, impulse control, or, in general terms, neuro-chemical, social, and genetic conditions. The point is that with this position the presence and influence of a variety of factors on free will (including God’s grace, the “divine lure”) are acknowledged without however conceding free will. It might be impaired or hindered, but it still functions. When Heisenberg produced his uncertainty principle (the more accurately we determine the position of an electron, the less accurately we can determine its momentum, and vice versa), it seemed to make everything unpredictable and undercut determinism at least with regard to the material world. But the question was, if things are unpredictable, does not even God know what will happen next in the material world? It is interesting to note that a person like Einstein never went along with this theory, maintaining that God would not play dice with the universe. Quantum wave functions tell us only the probability that any given particle is here or there, or that it has this or that velocity. However process theology replies to this problem with the idea of God’s self-limitation on God’s foreknowledge, as we saw above. Needless to say, theologians have been strong in their support of free will. Peacocke is firm in maintaining that humans are rational agents, making choices for what appears to them as solid reasons – even though these reasons are often the complex net sum of other motivations. Humans have a sense of freedom in choice; this enables them to act with creative novelty; this free will is only possible in an environment where natural process follow law-like regularity; otherwise you would not be able to make a choice (if things were totally unpredictable). “Furthermore in making choices persons irreversibly shape their own lives as they bring about their own intentions and thereby transcend the processes of individual development and the evolution of species which characterize all other living organisms (Peacocke 1993, 75).” Peacocke brings out so well how the reality of free will empowers one with the ability to fashion one’s own future, one’s own life, and in this way, he emphasizes that humans are not like animals that cannot plan and fashion their own lives. The history of humankind is full of examples of individuals who have made personal choices which

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

145

resulted in famous deeds and heroic lives. Hans Küng, who has contributed so much to theology, in his memoirs, mentions his conviction that humans have free will even if there are many other factors which limit this free will. Above all, his experience of life convincing him that he is free to choose this rather than that. He rejects the existentialists and Sartre’s view of a certain determinism (2003, 68, 93). There is a distinct dilemma regarding causality created by teleology and mechanism on the one hand, and synchronicity on the other. Let me explain. Teleology allows for human free will. This ability to choose presupposes a sequence of events, a before and after, which is one way of seeing time. So too does the theory of mechanism, which in saying there is always cause and effect, implies a before and after, that is, a succession or sequence of events. So neither of these two theories accommodates the popular synchronicity of “everything happening at once”, mentioned in Chapter One. In fact, popular synchronicity while helping us to see Christ’s redeeming power somehow reaching to all in the past and in the future in one moment, actually undermines the very firm christian conviction of cause and effect, of choice to do right or wrong, of evil deeds reaping punishment and good deeds harvesting rewards. At least, so it seems to us today with our current, logical insights. So while seemingly solving one problem the theory of popular synchronicity creates new, formidable ones. Here we come face to face with the difficulty of the meeting of transcendence and temporality. If all are saved at one moment, whether they lived before or after Christ, there is no room for them to do good and gain merit, or do evil and be punished. Rahner would be most uncomfortable if temporal time were not seen as the time for humans to make decisions in freedom for God. So while we affirm the belief that salvation is possible for anyone before or after Christ, we must live with the paradox of everything happening at once (from God’s viewpoint) and choices for good or evil occurring from the human viewpoint. But here on this point of merit and punishment, Hartshorne challenges traditional theology and asks why there should be any merit or punishment at all? He is happy to do good deeds for their own sake and is even happy to die without eternal life as a reward. The whole idea of rewards and punishments should be debunked. That might be

146

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

very noble-minded of Hartshorne, but would go counter to all those passages in the gospel where Jesus speaks of merit in the kingdom of God and punishment in hell, and go counter to two millennia of the christian tradition. On the other hand, was Jesus, on occasions, merely using the conventional method of speaking, and should we be happy to love God for the sake of God’s goodness, not because of a promised reward? Indeed in John’s gospel, Jesus often speaks about keeping Jesus’ commandments out of love for him, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. Some authors have seen the potential problem between human freedom and a certain divine determinism, in say, evolution. God has willed that life on this world should evolve and so human freedom is not free to frustrate this through its decisions. One person who saw the problem was Teilhard de Chardin. He never succeeded in throwing light on the vexed problem of how one can believe in both human freedom and divine determinism. On the one hand, he speaks of evolution in terms of random mutations and blind chance, and on the other hand, he also sees evolution as being inevitable, inexorable or necessary (I. Barbour 1971, 334,335). He attempts to reconcile these differences by calling on three principles. Firstly the law of large numbers. He holds that each individual person may fail but, according the infallibility of large numbers, the evolutionary wave of humankind will win out. Secondly, he sees the universe as a unified power, that is, the universe as a single agency will prevail regardless of the vagaries of individuals. And thirdly, God’s control of the world: only Omega can guarantee the outcome.

Process theology and free will We mentioned above that process theology has its way around the dilemma of human free will and divine foreknowledge. Fausto Sozzini (1539-1604, also known by his Latinized name, Socinus) was the first to say that human freedom is incompatible with immutable divine knowledge of our free acts. As Hartshorne expresses it: “To say that God eternally knows all decisions is to imply that the totality of decisions is a single all-inclusive eternally complete set of realities” (1971, 51). Process theologians get around the issue by insisting on “becoming”: our freedom is nothing but that case of becoming which we expe-

8 • Time as a Secondary Construction

147

rience from the inside or by direct intuition. A decision is the settling of the otherwise unsettled. If this were not the case then there would be no more decisions to be made; all will have been decided in advance and humans would be playing out a script written by someone else. Events which are free must be created, come into being, at a given time. Only as, and after, they occur can one speak of an entity to be known. They cannot be known eternally since they do not exist from eternity. It is imprecise to say that God is “ignorant” of these events, because they are not yet in existence to be known. The becoming of new knowledge in God however is met by the idea of the “consequent ” nature of God in process theology. So with a growth of reality must come a growth of divine knowledge of reality. One ancient Egyptian theist, Ikhnaton of Egypt, hinted at this with his allusion to God “fashioning himself ” (ibid. 52). From the viewpoint of process theology, time and history do make a difference. Human beings’ free decisions are seen to share truly in God’s creative activity and produce real novelty that really matters; God really waits upon human beings’ free decisions, strange as this will sound to some ears; so that there are things that God does not know relating both to the material world and to the human world of decisions and actions; there is real novelty in humans’ free decisions. God is seen as “self-relating” rather than “unmoved mover”. Morality in this perspective is human beings’ call to responsible creative activity. Process theologians make the point that it is the image of God in human beings that makes them decision-making beings. Their ability to choose, the freedom implied in their choice, their sense of difference and value, are surely aspects of what is divine in them. Human beings bear the image of God in their temporality as well as their participation in eternity, in suffering as well as in peace (Cobb 1971, 179). In this chapter we have set out the concept of time as a secondary construction which leads to the parallel universes theory. We must conclude that this model has to be rejected since it appears to trivialize the Incarnation which is of tremendous importance and centrality to Christianity. The Incarnation relates directly to a theology of spacetime since Jesus Christ was born in a given place at a given time and thus, we believe, transformed spacetime. Consideration of the Incarnation also brings us to the conclusion that human freedom and free

148

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

will are basic to our understanding of being human and that therefore both divine determinism and foreknowledge could benefit with a new interpretation without departing from the Christian tradition.

Chapter 9 Conclusion

W

e have come to the stage where we need to bring together the theological insights that have been made in a more orderly way into a theology of spacetime. It is important at this point to reminder ourselves of the context of our searching for a theology of spacetime. Our context is quite different to the ancient Greeks, or the scholastics, or even the children of the Enlightenment. At the beginning of the third millennium we live in an age that already experiences space travel, not only for trained astronauts but now too for the paying tourists. Science fiction and Playstations have filled the minds of the younger generations with fact and fiction about Star Wars, parallel universes and time machines. We are also keenly aware of the possibility of the human race coming to an end, either through catastrophes such as massive pollution, pandemics, nuclear warfare perpetrated by mavericks or terrorists, or natural disasters like global warming or meteors from outer space colliding with planet earth. Many of us also enjoy a certain western lifestyle in which a rushed life is dominated by the clock, in which people seem too busy, in which work often supplants relationships, and “time is money”. There is another angle on this contemporary view of time. A case could be made for saying that many today are avoiding the present moment, especially the challenges of the present moment which admittedly are enormous, both personal and societal. Hence the various forms of escapism, or distractions as Eliade calls them (1975, 112-130). We like to flee ordinary time and enter into primordial time. People like to flee historic time (or secular time) and share in some glorious, primordial time, to “get beyond” duration and enter a time qualitatively dif-

150

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

ferent from that which creates their own history. Modern people seek this escape by visual entertainment (including electronically entering “virtual reality”) or reading (a residuum of magic-religious time) or “concentrated time”, with such activities as bullfighting, racing, athletic contests and many others. In fact sport is a good example of how one can escape the humdrum world and enter into a world of “play” that can help one to relax and re-create one’s spirit. Other well known (but destructive) ways in failing to be fully conscious to the present moment, are drugs, alcohol and other addictions. A theology of spacetime will hopefully provide a pastoral dimension of faith and hope for those struggling to face the present moment. Taking all these aspects of our context collectively we have good reason to be interested in seeing what christian faith says about the topic of spacetime. The first thing to be said, and this is indeed one of our conclusions, is that there is no one definition of space or time so that one must be prepared to see the issue from different perspectives. The second point is that modern science (and science fiction) more than any other discipline, has profoundly changed our thinking on spacetime. Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity, and the whole field of quantum mechanics has revolutionized thinking around spacetime. And the third main point would be that process theology, or elements in process theology, seems to provide the most promising theological framework to cope with the new thinking on our current understanding of the cosmos, creation, ecology, evolution and spacetime. What we conclude from our discussions above is that a theology of spacetime, must be informed by many disciplines especially modern physics, and must have a scriptural and doctrinal basis and be anchored in liturgical, sacramental, and the mystagogical life of Christians. Having said this much, we can now bring together the elements of a theology of spacetime which will include philosophical, psychological and anthroplogical insights. These elements have already been discussed in the previous chapters, so here what we want to do is impose some order on them without repeating all the arguments while identifying the main features of this theology.

9 • Conclusion

151

A new concept: spacetime A theology of spacetime takes into account the new way of seeing spacetime. In forming any theology of spacetime, one must acknowledge that the concepts of space, time and subsequently spacetime are complex and multifaceted. Time has been given more consideration than space in the writings and thinking of scholars - our reflections have reflected that fact. Space is now taken to be the place where events happen, rather than a receptacle in which things are found. This is a novel but fundamental conclusion of recent scientific writings. Space is enormously vast as can be seen by contemplating the distance across this galaxy from star to star, yet it is finite, difficult as this is for us to grasp. Our galaxy which is one of some hundred thousand galaxies, is about one hundred thousand light-years across (Hawking 1988, 38, 9)! In addition there is the reality that the universe continues to expand at great speed. Space came into being with creation and with time. From our discussions above, time is taken to have more than one dimension. For many centuries it has been (mainly) seen as linear, a bit like the persistence of the flat earth theory for so many centuries. Now we have to use our imagination and think things never before contemplated as other dimensions are becoming more apparent. For example, the relationship between gravity and time: should gravity collapse, there would be no spacetime at all. Who knows how we might further have to change our thinking when more is known about the invisible curled-up strings? From all that has been said in the previous eight chapters, we can conclude that openness and flexibility are essential pre-requisites for anyone who would construct a theology of spacetime. The current findings, like any scientific theory, are open to correction. There is no final word in our explorations. What we have seen is that time has a subjective as well as an objective side. To some extent time is illusive, but we wouldn’t say time is an illusion; it can be seen as the now, since the past and future are not with us. Seeing time as “now” is particularly important for our theology of spacetime because it links in with sacramentality and the eucharist in particular, and the spirituality of the present moment and kairic time. On the other hand, the past and future are real in the sense that they impact on the present. Time is also seen as the succession of events which gives us linear time. We accept this as another valid way

152

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

to see time, which corresponds with what happens out there, that is, the more objective side of time. However we must not hold too tightly to this one perspective as people did in the past. Time is also a “becoming” which is closely linked to the previous point made of the present moment. With each moment of time new possibilities of growth, expansion, evolution, achieving potential are possible. Each moment is a pause on the way to an apotheosis which Christians call resurrection, heaven or union with God, but it is also to be valued for its own sake. This too is an exciting way of seeing time. Time as a secondary construction is rejected but contributes in a negative way to our theology of spacetime by helping us re-evaluate and appreciate the importance of the Incarnation and salvation history. Although science tells us to see the two concepts, time and space, together as spacetime, it will be an ongoing challenge since we are not used to doing this. When focusing and valuing space, when trying to fuse space and time into spacetime, we are in fact entering into the ecological appreciation of this material world. Space is not a receptacle as Plato thought but a place where entities are “prehended” and “actual occasions” take place. We do occasionally closely associate time and place, but not always. When a couple think of their honeymoon they instinctively think of space/place and time. Do you remember in 2002 (time) when we were on our honeymoon on Getaway Island (place)? But we do not always do this. In fact we often say: someone told me that but I cannot remember where I was or who said it. So a theology of spacetime should endeavour to bring those two elements together. As modern science is telling us, spacetime is a fabric in which we live. This appreciation of spacetime is already occurring in contextual theologies which to me seems to be saying: what matters is what is happening in this place, at this time. Perhaps traditional theology did not pay sufficient attention to that with its brand of perennial theology. Contextual theology on the other hand, stresses the reality of life as lived in this place and at this time. We are back to the motto of the watchmakers: hic et nunc. It is not going to be easy to unite these two dimensions but we must try in order to combine what has been artificially separated. We tended in the recent past, to emphasize time not space/place. Perhaps primal humans were more conscious of when and where things happened. Because they lived closer to nature they were con-

9 • Conclusion

153

scious of where they were, where and when to catch fish or trap animals for food, where and when to find water, where and when other tribes migrated. With modern city life time seems to have become the dominant co-ordinate, prevailing over place. Every moment of every working day is bespoken in terms of time and corresponding activity. Diaries rule some people’s lives. In order to bring some balance into lives we must begin to think of where, the space or place we are in, and then locate it in time. This is where the ecological or environmental movement could come in. The whole ecological movement draws attention to where we are in this cosmos, the place we inherit on earth, and how we interconnect with all on this planet. We are now more cosmologically conscious, that is, conscious of our place in the cosmos as creatures, as part of the material world come to consciousness after billions of years since the Big Bang. Fifteen billions years ago the Big Bang took place and from that moment, or very, very shortly thereafter, we have space and then time. Space is an abstract concept and in fact, only occurs after things are in “place”, that is, when things are located in physical, specific places, the notion of space comes into being. We are therefore located in spacetime and the elements we are made of, come from the stars. Among all the stars and planets we can identify planet Earth, so we know where we are in the cosmos. We also know that the modern humans emerged only about 120, 000 years ago, which is analogous to a minute to midnight if the history of the cosmos is represented by twenty-four hours. So we also know when we are. In this sense it is perfectly natural to think of spacetime as our co-ordinates and as the fabric in which we live our lives. We inherit a certain place in the evolution of matter and do so at certain times. This is being conscious of spacetime. If we blow up this planet with nuclear bombs, or suffocate it with noxious gasses, we may well make the human race extinct in space and time. We can agree with the philosophers that spacetime is a puzzle. We can agree with all of them that spacetime is a mystery and has different aspects that we cannot reconcile. With Plato and Aristotle we can agree that time has an objective aspect to it and is tied to motion and change. And with Plotinus and Augustine and many others, we agree that it also has the subjective dimension. This is realized when we see

154

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

with Augustine, how time is a distention of the mind, in the sense that human consciousness is able to unite the past and future in the present moment. Time in one sense is the present moment though the past and future are very much part of time too. With Kant we can say that space and time are not illusions but that time is empirically real and transcendentally ideal. We now also know that, in contradiction to Newtonian physics, time is not absolute, and that space and time are intimately tied together. What Heidegger and others like Panikkar are endorsing is that temporality is at the very core of our existence as being, not an addition. We can reject the receptacle notion of space and agree that space is created by the presence of objects and is where events happen or objects are. Without events and objects there is no space. Let us repeat: spacetime is the fabric in which we live.

Trinitarian A christian theology, as opposed to a philosophy, of spacetime we can conclude, will have, above all, the Trinitarian God as its controlling image and basis, for we are, like Augustine, seeing life through the lens of Christianity. The Trinity is seen as a community of persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than a pyramid of persons with the Father at the top. The three persons of the Trinity are seen as living (rather than “being”) in a perichoresis of loving interrelatedness. This controlling image of the Trinity will include the God-world relationship which is the way the Trinity relates to the world and without which the Trinity cannot exist, as the Triune God wishes to share God’s communitarian life with its creatures. The advantages of the communitarian model which we adopt for our theology, as opposed to the monarchical model, is that it ensures that the parts or members retain their individual identity even as they together constitute the larger community or society to which they belong. They are the ultimate expression of societal living to which every other group or system aspires. This fits in well with the contemporary emphasis on ecological systems, environments and interdependencies. The God-world relationship on which our theology of spacetime is based, can be described as panentheism by which is meant that all finite things must somehow be contained in God and be sustained by the divine power of being while retaining their identity as finite reali-

9 • Conclusion

155

ties. This is important for spacetime theology since it allows God to be intimately involved with all that happens in spacetime. It allows for the dynamism and interaction between a Trinitarian God and creation. It overcomes too exclusive an emphasis on transcendence and stresses immanence. This theology of spacetime which we are constructing has some appropriated elements from process theology. The reasons why process theology was adopted are clear: it is a theology of becoming and contributes to an understanding of spacetime as dynamic and relational. There is also a new image of God by way of a dipolar God with two “natures”. This means a departure from the classical, impassive, immutable God of Greek thinking and being able to see God as a God of surprise, change, involvement with the world and its future. It should also be said that the Greek god is not the Hebrew God. By that I mean that the God of the Israelites is in fact a God who is active among God’s people, who feels and suffers with the Hebrew people throughout life’s vicissitudes. So process theology and biblical theology, we can affirm, both share a similarly active, immanent God. In this respect process theology is not that radical. Bracken’s modifications of process theology enable us to remain faithful to christian teachings without being tied to classical theology. From all that has gone before, we can state with conviction that spacetime as becoming, gives a vitality, dynamism to life which empowers people to grasp the present moment for the better. Spacetime is a place where things happen, where choices are made, where growth can occur.

Incarnational A theology of spacetime, we can further conclude from our discussions above, will also be Incarnational. We find in the bible an emphatic affirmation that the Incarnation has made a difference to time. Theology challenges modern science to accept the validity of linear time along with the emphasis on the now, the fact that there is no universal now and the relativity of spacetime. On this particular point Cullmann has made his point forcefully. Time will never be the same again after the Incarnation. The Incarnation anchors Christianity in history, against those, like Bultmann, that would suggest the factual historical reality of the Incarnation is not important, but belief is. In dividing ordinary

156

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

spacetime in “before Christ” and “after Christ” we also incidentally created new problems for theology such as the salvation of those who lived before Christ or who never heard of Christ. The sharper the distinction between those who have heard of Christ and those who have not, the more difficult any statements on the universality of salvation. Both the realization of the importance of the present moment, and the historical/linear character of the bible, bring us to think again on the Incarnation. Emphasis on the given moment in place and time renews one’s appreciation that Jesus lived in one place at a given time and whatever he did, he did with these spatio-temporal limitations. The historical viewpoint stresses that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure and has made an impact of the history of the world. The beautiful statement of John Chrysostom cited in Chapter Eight, illustrates the identification of Jesus with the human condition so well. The world will never be the same again after the Incarnation; the second person of the trinity has entered spacetime. The Christian world reflected further on his life, death and resurrection and has articulated their belief in the Nicean Creed which is a central, foundational teaching of the Christian faith and a guarantee of individual resurrection. This is where we can remind ourselves of the story of Augustine, the death of his mother, and of time’s potential role for good in one’s life. As time passed his memory of his mother, Monica, is transformed into hope of eternal life. Thus reflection on time frequently leads to reflection on death, the afterlife and resurrection. From this study of spacetime and the Incarnation we take the warning seriously that the Incarnation should in no way obscure another important statement of process theology, namely that God is present in every thing, person and event. The nearness of God to us in creation must never be forgotten. These two points should serve as mutually supportive: both the Incarnation and the consciousness of God in everything makes us more appreciative of the importance of the present moment, the here and now.

Biblical As the bible is the soul of theology, any theology of spacetime, we can say with confidence, must be biblical. This is already evident in what we have discussed above. What we learn from Genesis and the cre-

9 • Conclusion

157

ation story, is that spacetime, like all creation, is from God, that is, it is totally dependent on God. Creation in this case is taken as a relationship of dependence, but not in the sense of a carpenter making a table from wood, but rather a flowing stream from its source. The teaching of Christianity of creatio ex nihilo needs to be reclaimed as relating primarily to the relationship of dependence, because it has often been seen as speaking about the matter, the stuff of which the material world was made. The bible also teaches us the importance of linear time which is of great importance when considering salvation history, that is, to formulate a biblical theology of spacetime and see the teleological orientation of salvation history. There is no way of denying this linear aspect of time. There is a succession of events in the bible which lead somewhere. Christianity is an historical religion and salvation history is a succession of important events culminating in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The call of Abraham of Ur to found a people of the covenant, Moses leading the Hebrews out of slavery, the settlement in the promised land of Canaan, the establishment of a monarchy, the exile, the promises of a messiah, the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth, are all stages in this history with a purpose, this teleological story. This is one of the ways in which theology challenges modern science when it says time is an illusion and that the now is all we have. Theology has to remind science that time is also a story of redemption and that the incarnation is historical. At the same time, the bible does not confine itself to the linear understanding of time. In Chapter Five we saw that there is time to stop, reflect and appreciate - to smell the roses on the journey of life rather than rush through successive events to a fullstop. The wisdom literature gives us the opportunity to stand back and reflect on life and its meaning. In the gospel, Jesus encourages us to consider the lilies of the field in their beauty. The present moment and its beauty must be appreciated and valued as the sacrament of the present moment. One thinks of Jesus and the women by the well as another example (among many) of how the present moment can be the kairic moment. There also seems to be room in the bible for the Jungian idea of synchronicity when people seem to be connected by the collective unconscious, as in the case of Jesus knowing of Lazarus’ death before he reached Bethany.

158

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

We also noted eschatological time which is the time of the future, the endtime, and how apocalyptic language is a particular literary genre used to describe the endtime. Another important dimension of eschatology in the bible, is realized eschatology, that is the anticipation of the endtime in the present in some way or other. And this is connected to the second principle of sacramentality. What it means is the possessing of eternal life in the hic et nunc, the here and now, although its fullness is yet to come. The gospel of John was cited as balancing the “now” with the “not yet”, and perhaps a good example of where the principle of non-contradiction needs to be set aside and the tension accommodated. Allied to this is the question of mystery in the bible. Paul speaks so eloquently of the “mystery” which is Christ, of the plan that God had from all eternity, of the coming of the Son in the Incarnation. This overarching plan is a mystery which is unfolded in spacetime. It needs to be added that the gospels and the bible generally, give importance to the concept of space or place. Place is an important dimension of whatever happens. We noted the importance of where Jesus did some things and observed that when he did them was not always as important. And lastly the resurrection is stressed as having occurred, especially through the encounters between the risen Christ and disciples, although what happened is less clear. In fact we do not know the place or the time of the resurrection precisely because it was something that was transtemporal or transhistorical, a glimpse of the eternal. In short, from the bible one can conclude that spacetime is both multifaceted and ambiguous.

Liturgical and sacramental For Christians the liturgy and sacraments are so basic to their religion that attention must be given to them in fashioning any theology of spacetime. In fact we find much in both liturgy and sacraments that give a necessary counterpoise to linear time. Being so prominent in the practice of the christian faith, the important field of liturgy and sacramentality becomes an obvious place to revisit and see in what way they can contribute to a theology of spacetime. The topic of spacetime, it was found, is deepened, and taken to a new level, the level of faith, by

9 • Conclusion

159

one’s understanding of liturgical time when contact is made with the transcendent in a present moment. Let us now refer to some examples. As regards the liturgy of the dead, we can reflect on the use of light. We pointed out some negativities about this in Chapter Four, but now let us suggest something positive. In describing heaven various words are used: it is an eternal home, eternal rest, the life to come, new life, and the fullness of eternal joy. But above all in the liturgy we use the prayer “ may perpetual light shine upon them”. May light always shine on them and may they never fall into a black hole. The absence of light is darkness which is the symbol of evil (in many cultures) and often used by John in his gospel in this sense. The frequent use of light in the liturgy and gospels raises the question of light for us today. I believe we can bring our scientific understanding of light to bear on our religious and liturgical thinking about light. Modern science tells us light travels at 186,000 miles per second and takes ages to reach us from the stars and is bent by the curvature of space. Nothing travels faster than light. If we could travel faster than light we could travel into the past. Approaching the speed of light, we can in fact travel into someone’s future as we saw in Chapter Three. If we do not have light, we grow cold and freeze to death, because light is heat too, especially that of the sun. So light implies life, for without it, nothing grows. One has only got to place a plant in a dark room for a day and see what the lack of light does for growth. And humans without light also grow pale and pallid and die. So we could conclude that light means life force. Light is therefore something complex and wonderful: it means warmth, brightness, growth and life force. It is the opposite of darkness. These are fitting insights and meanings that Christians can bring to the liturgy when they pray with the author of psalm 27: The Lord is my light and my salvation! Jesus Christ is absolutely the opposite of evil, but more than that he is the epitome of warmth, brightness, growth and life force. In this context the Star Wars’ expression, “May the force be with you” could take on a new meaning. Christ is the ultimate specification of all that is warmth, bright, and light. The sun will continue to provide us with light for another five billion years and then die out and leave all forms of life to perish, but Christ’s light is eternal.

160

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

In John’s gospel, Christ is the light that shines in the dark, a light “that darkness could not overpower” ( Jn 1:5). In John’s words, “The Word was the true light that enlightens all men” (v.9). Let us now turn to the theory of sacramentality which makes present a reality of the past and so quietly sets aside linear thinking for something quite extraordinary. The redeeming grace of Jesus Christ is made present and available to someone, in this place and at this time. This is the first principle of sacramentality, the making present of an event from the past, anamnesis. The haeccietas of the moment was stressed. The second is the making present of something in the future, that is, the eschatological meaning of the sacraments. This is bringing the future into the present, although we seldom think of it like this. So, for example, the promise of the resurrection and eternal life is given to one in the sacrament of the eucharist, and is realized to some extent in the hic et nunc, the here and now. John’s gospel stresses emphatically that “you have eternal life”. So in an unexpected way the sacraments actually provide us with retrieving the past, and bringing forward the future. I suggest we have spoken about this in the past but now with the popular debate about time travel into the future and into the past, it takes on a new connotation. It also helps us to conclude that there is more to spacetime than a succession of events in chronological order.

Inclusive of synchronicity This element is important as it provides together with sacramentality, a corrective to any theology that would think only of linear time. The bible also has suggestions of synchronicity of which a few examples were analysed. This is where one has to use one’s imagination and think beyond linear time at which primal societies showed some facility and which I suggest urban societies have largely lost. I believe here we have the clue as to those who lived before Christ or who did not know of him. We should attempt to see spacetime from the viewpoint of God’s perspective, if that does not sound too presumptuous. From one perspective, all takes place at once (Model 1): God’s readiness to forgive through the merits of his Son, in the Incarnation, happens everywhere and everywhen. This seems impossible with linear time but we have found that they are different and mysterious aspects of the one

9 • Conclusion

161

phenomenon. This is an apparent contradiction but there is no easy reconciliation with these two perspectives and we must hold them in a creative tension at least from a theological viewpoint whatever scientist may think. Learning to live with ambiguities is a pre-requisite for a theology of spacetime. Another perspective on synchronicity relates to making contact with the transcendent in a present moment, such as might occur in the liturgy, or anywhere for that matter. Let us expand on this idea. This moment can happen in the liturgy but it is also common outside the liturgy. It can become a form of meditation, of spirituality or mysticism, in short, a religious experience which can transform time. The idea, or method, is for us to concentrate on the present moment by forgetting about the past memories and removing all hopes and plans for the future and just be. We often treat the present moment as a void to be filled (hence too that unthinking and dreadful expression “killing time”). The idea is to “find” (or, better, “heighten our awareness ” of ) God in the present moment. Instead of fleeing from ourselves, the realization that God is closer to us than we to ourselves, begins to take hold. But in order to do this we must get over the barriers of distractions, hopes and fears that separate us from the moment itself. In this way we can truly experience the present moment, or “grasp the fish in the flowing stream” (Eskeland 1990, 459). If we can do this and dwell in the presence of the present moment, our sense and understanding of that mystery we call time will be transformed. What we experience in this moment, this “now”, is what someone else experienced ten thousand years ago, and is the same “now” in a sense. Each is a pure presence, a mysterious “now”, the still point. The representative of Japansese Tendai Buddhism, Annen, taught that all times are identical with the one time, thus stressing the perspective of time being the “now”. To have this experience we must pass through the “eye of the needle”, as Eskeland expresses it, that is, leave behind all one’s repertoire which is all we say, think, or do. “The moment itself however, is finitely small, a tiny point – nothing more, as it were, than a speck of pure potentiality wedged between the two massive, all-consuming unrealities of the past and the future (ibid. 465)”. In this moment God pulses against us and through us and we need not seek out anything to which we need to attend. The value of this

162

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

experience of God is that it awakens new life in us whereas our lives were being “drained away in great fields of vacancy”. So this experience of the present moment can become a mystical moment in which time is experienced from the other side as it were. It suggests that time is in eternity rather than separated from it. We note too that just as we acknowledge “sacred sites” which are sacred places/spaces, this special moment of meditation gives us an analogous “sacred time”. If this meditation were to occur at a special place consistently, we would have “sacred spacetime”.

Acceptance of mystery of spacetime We have concluded that a theology of spacetime must include the new concept of spacetime, be trinitarian, incarnational, biblical, liturgical, sacramental as well as be inclusive of synchronicity. After we have assembled and identified this theology of spacetime, is it well to remind ourselves, as we have done throughout, that spacetime is a mystery and no mathematical solutions are ever going to be discovered, no final equation or theory is going to settle it, even if the curled-up strings reveal their secrets. When all is said and done, spacetime is a mystery. We saw this at the beginning when both science and religion and philosophers point to the mysterious dimension of time. Many great theologians have come back to this point. Augustine, in his Confessions and after all his analysis of time, exclaims in prayer, “how deep is your profound mystery!”. Rahner has a final comment: our experience of time, says Rahner, “ is always a mysterious experience of something more than time (184, 176)”. Life must go on in hope: “It is sufficient to accept for ourselves now the incomprehensibility of our eternal life and nevertheless to go on hoping and trusting (ibid.)”. Mystery means too that we must be content to use more than one model of space and time. If the world is a mystery and difficult to comprehend, so too is spacetime. Human understanding has a conceptual limitation. So it is not a question of “either …or” but, “both…and”. We do not have to choose between causal and spatiotemporal explanations, between wave or particle models, between position or momentum. Perhaps all have a place in our understandings. So in dealing with spacetime, more than one model needs to be considered, as indeed we have done in this book. Complementary ways of seeing complex reali-

9 • Conclusion

163

ties are useful to deepen our understanding. This should be seen as an acknowledgement of mystery and complexities of the issue, rather than a defeat. Ricoeur gives us a timely reminder of the problem: “The mystery of time is not equivalent to a prohibition directed against language. Rather it gives rise to the exigence to think more and speak differently (1988, 274)”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alison, James. 1996. Raising Abel: The Recovery of the Eschatological Imagination. New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company. Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. 2005. An Agreed Statement, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ. London/Harrisburg: Morehouse. Augustine. 1950. The City of God. Trans. by Marcus Dods. New York: Random House. ___ . 1991. Confessions. Trans. by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barbour, Julian. 1999. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in our Understanding of the Universe. London: Phoenix. Barbour, Ian G. 1990. Religion in an Age of Science. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. ___ . 1971. “Teilhard’s Process Metaphysics”. Process Theology: Basic Writings. ed. E. Cousins. New York: Newman Press. 323-350. Barth, Karl. 1957. Church Dogmatics. Vol. II: The Doctrine of God. Trans. by T. Parker et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. ___ . 1970. “The Time of Revelation”. Church Dogmatics. Vol.1 Part 2. Trans. by G. Thomson and H. Knight. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 45-70. Beane, Wendell L and William G. Doty. eds. 1976. Myths, Rites, Symbols: A Mircea Eliade Reader. Vol. 1. New York: Harper Colophon Books. Bernstein, Richard. 1985. Habermas and Modernity.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berry, Thomas. 1999. The Great Work: Our way into the Future. New York: Bell Tower. Betz, Johannes. 1975. “Eucharist”. Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. ed. Karl Rahner. London Burns and Oates. Birch, Charles and John B. Cobb. 1981. The Liberation of Life: from the cell to the community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Birnbaum, Philip. 1964. “Kabbalah”, Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts, New York: Hebrew Publishing Company. 532-534. Blattner, William D. 1999. Heidegger’s Temporal Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

166

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Bracken, Joseph. 1991. Society and Spirit: A Trinitarian Cosmology. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press. Boyer, Paul. 1999. “Apocalypticism,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Brill, 89-96. Butterfield, J. 1999. The Arguments of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catholic Church. 1994. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Homebush: St Pauls. Chauvet, Louis-Marie. 1995. Symbol and Sacrament. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. ___ . 2001. The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. Chisholm, Roderick. 1982. “Human Freedom and the Self ”. Free Will. Gary Watson. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 40-52. Cobb, John. 1971. “The Word and God”. Process Theology: Basic Writings. ed. E. Cousins. New York: Newman Press. 153-172. Copleston, Frederick. 1963. A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Leibniz. Vol. 4. New York: Image Books. 13-73. ___ . 1964. A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy: Kant. Vol. 6 Part II . New York: Image Books. 30-41; 217-229. Crockett, Clayton. 2001. A Theology of the Sublime. London and New York: Routledge. Cousins, Ewert H. ed. 1971. Process theology: Basic Writings. New York: Newman Press. Cullmann, Oscar. 1962. Christ and Time. 3rd Edition. London: SCM Press. Davies, Paul. 1992. The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning. London: Simon & Schuster. ___ . 1995. About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution. London: Penguin Books. ___ . 2002. How to Build a Time Machine. London: Penguin Books. Dawkins, Richard. 1988. The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books. De Chardin, Teilhard. 1957. Le Milieu Divin: an essay on the interior life. London: Collins. ___ . 1959. The Phenomenon of Man. Trans. by Bernard Wall. London: Collins. Dalton, William. 1988. “The First Letter of Peter”. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. ed. R.Brown et al. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Dennett, Daniel C. 2003. Freedom Evolves. London: Penguin Books. DiNoia, Joseph. 1990. “Varieties of Religious Aims: Beyond Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism”. Theology and Dialogue. ed. B.D. Marshall. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. 264-9. Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1991. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division 1. London: The MIT Press.

Bibliography

167

Dunn, James D.G. 1980. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Edwards, Denis. 1992. Made from Stardust: Exploring a place of human beings within creation. Melbourne: CollinsDove. ___ . 1995. Jesus the Wisdom of God. Homebush: St Pauls Publications. ___ . 2001. “For Your Immortal Spirit is in All Things: the Role of the Spirit in Creation”. Earth Revealing, Earth Healing. ed. D.Edwards. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. ___ . 2004. Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit. New York: Orbis Books. Eliade, Mircea. 1975. Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries: The Encounter between Contemporary Faiths and Archaic Realities. Trans. by Philip Mairet. New York: Harper Torchbooks. ___ . 1974. The Myth of the Eternal Return, or Cosmos and History. Trans. by Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ellis, George and Stephen Hawking. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space­ time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, George ed. 2002. The Far-Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and Method. 2nd revised edition. Trans. by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. London: Sheed and Ward. 121-129; 257-258. Gershom, S. 1971. “Kabbalah”. Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Kater Publishing House Ltd. Vol. 10. 490-650. Greene, Brian. 1999. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. London: Jonathan Cape. Hall, Edward T. 1983. The Dance of Life: the Other Dimension of Time. New York: Doubleday. Hartshorne, Charles. 1967. A Natural Theology For Our Time. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court. ___ . 1971. “The Development of Process Philosophy”. Process Theology: Basic Writings. ed. E. Cousins. New York: Newman Press. 47-66. Hawking, Stephen. 1988. A Brief History of Time, London: Bantam Books. ___. 2001. The Universe in a Nutshell. London: Bantam Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Trans. by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Helm, Paul. 1988. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hofstadter, Douglas R. and Daniel C. Dennett. eds. 1981. The Mind’s I: Fantasies and reflections on Self and Soul. London: Penguin Books. Jameson, Frederic. 1991. Postmodernism or The Cultural Logic of late Capitalism. Durham NC : Duke University Press.

168

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Jantsch, Erich. 1980. The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Oxford: Pergamon Press. John Paul II. 1986. Dominum et Vivificantem. Homebush, NSW: St Paul Publications. Johnson, Elizabeth. 1993. “Wisdom was made Flesh and Pitched her Tent among us”. Reconstructing the Christ Symbol: Essays in Femininst Christology. ed. Maryanne Stevens. New York: Paulist Press. 95-117. Keller, Catherine. 2003. Face of the Deep: a theology of becoming. London: Routledge. Kitagawa, J.M. and C.H. Long, eds.1969. Myths and Symbols; Studies in Honor of Mircea Eliade. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Küng, Hans. 2003. My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs. Trans. by John Bowden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakeland, Paul. 1997. Postmodernity: Christian Identity in a Fragmented Age. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Lee, Bernard. 1993. “Sophia Wisdom: Metaphor and Megastory”. Jesus and the Metaphors of God. New York: Paulist Press. 123-143. Lloyd, Genevieve. 1999, “Augustine and the ‘Problem’ of Time”, in The Augustinian Tradition. ed. Gareth B. Matthews. Berkeley: University of California Press, 39-60. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Macquarrie, John. 1972. Existentialism. London: Hutchinson. “Finitude and Guilt”, “Temporality”, 155-157. Marshall, B.D. ed. 1990. Theology and Dialogue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. Mazza, Enrico. 1989. Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age. New York: Pueblo Publishing Company. Maxwell, Nicholas. 1984. From Knowledge to Wisdom; A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science. Oxford: Blackwell. McFague, Sallie. 1993. The Body of God: an ecological theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. McGinn, Bernard. 2001. The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Mellert, Robert. 1975. What is Process theology? New York: Paulist Press. Moloney, Francis. 1986. The living voice of the Gospel: the Gospel today. Blackburn: Collins Dove. ___ . 1998. The Gospel of John. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. 1988. “The First Letter to the Corinthians”. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. ed. Brown. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Ogden, Schubert M. 1971. “The reality of God”. Process Theology: Basic Writings. ed. E. Cousins. New York: Newman Press. 119-136. O’Murchu, Diarmund. 1997. Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics. New York: Crossroad.

Bibliography

169

___ . 2002. Evolutionary Faith: Rediscovering God in Our Great Story. New York: Orbis Books. Osborne, Kenan. 1997. The Resurrection of Jesus: new considerations for its theological interpretation. New York: Paulist Press. ___ . 1999. Christian Sacraments in a Postmodern World. New York: Paulist Press. Osiek, Carolyn. 1996. “Apocalytic”, The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of Biblical Theology. ed. C. Stuhlmueller. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 3740. Page, Ruth. 1996. God and the Web of Creation. London: SCM Press. Padgett, Alan. 1992. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ___ . 2003. Science and the Study of God: A Mutuality Model for Theology and Science. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Panikkar, Raimon. 1973. Worship and Secular Man, New York: Orbis Books. ___ . 1993. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. New York: Orbis Books. Peacocke, Arthur. 1993. Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming – Natural, Divine, and Human. Enlarged Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Phan, Peter. 1997. Responses to 101 Questions on Death and Eternal Life. New York: Paulist Press. Pittenger, Norman. 1967. God in Process. London: SCM Press. ___ . 1976. Unbounded Love; God and Man in Process. New York: The Seabury Press. ___ . 1969. Alfred North Whitehead. Richmond: John Knox Press. Plato. 1961. Timaeus. Trans. by R.G. Bury. London: Heinemann. Polkinghorne, John. 1994. Science & Christian Belief: Theological Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker. London: SPCK. ___ . 1996. Quarks, Chaos and Christianity: questions to science and religion. New York: Crossroads. Rahner, Karl. et al. ed. 1967. The Teaching of the Catholic Church. Cork: Mercier Press. ___ . 1971. “Further theology of the Spiritual Life I”. Theological Investigations, Vol. VII. Trans. by David Bourke. New York: The Seabury Press. ___. 1974. “Theological Observations on the Concept of Time”. Theological Investigations. Vol. XI. Trans. by David Bourke. London: Darton Longman and Todd. 288-308. ___ . 1984. “Eternity From Time”. Theological Investigations Vol. XIX. Trans. by Edward Quinn. London: Darton Longman and Todd. 169-176. Rayment-Pichard, Hugh. 2004. The Myths of Time: From Saint Augustine to American Beauty. London: Darton Longman and Todd.

170

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

Reanney, Darryl. 1991. The Death of Forever: A New Future for Human Consciousness. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Ricoeur, Paul. 1988. Time and Narrative. Vol. 3. Trans. by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Rose. Deborah Bird. 1998. “Ned Kelly dies for our sins”. Religious Business: Essays on Australian Aboriginal Spirituality. ed. Max Charlesworth. Cambridge University Press. 103-119. Schillebeeckx, Edward.1963. Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God. London: Sheed and Ward. ___ . 1979. Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. London: Collins. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature. Rochester: Park Street Press. Sheldrake, Philip. 2005. “Time.” The New Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 620-622. Smullyan, Raymond M. 1981. “Is God a Taoist?” Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett. eds. The Mind’s I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul. London: Penguin Books. 321-341. Stockten, Eugene. 1995. The Aboriginal gift: Spirituality for a nation, Sydney: Millennium Books. Stump, Eleonore and Norman Kretzmann. eds. 2001. The Cambridge Companion to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swimme, Brian and Thomas Berry. 1992. The Universe Story. San Francisco: Harper. Thich Nhat Hanh. 1975. The Miracles of Mindfulness: A Manual on Meditatio. Revised edition. Boston: Beacon Press. Tillich, Paul. 1964. “Time, space, and the limitations of life in general”. Systematic Theology, Vol.3 London : SCM Press. 315-321. Torrance, Thomas. 1969. Space, Time and Incarnation. London: Oxford University Press. ___ . 1976. Space, Time and Resurrection. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans. Tracy, David. 1994. On naming the present: reflections on God, hermeneutics, and Church. New York: Orbis Books. Ward, Keith. 1982. Rational Theology and the Creativity of God. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ___ . 2002. “Cosmology and Religious Ideas about the end of the world”. The Far-Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective. ed. G. Ellis. Philadelphia: The Templeton Foundation Press. 235-7. Weinandy, Thomas G. 2000. Does God Suffer? Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. Whitehead, Alfred, North. 1929. Process and Reality. New York: Macmillan. Whitrow, G.J. 2003. What is Time? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilber, Ken. ed. 1984. Quantum Questions. Shambhala, Boulder and London: New Science Library.

Bibliography

171

Wolfe, Tom. 2000. Hooking Up. New York: Farrer, Straus & Giroux. Yarnold, Edward. 1971. The Awe Inspiring Rites of Initiation: Baptismal Homilies of the Fourth Century. Slough: St Paul Publications. Yates, John. 1990. The Timelessness of God. New York: University Press of America.

Journal Articles Askeland, Luther. 1990. “The God in the Moment.” Cross Currents: Religion & Intellectual Life 40,4 : 457-476. Bhabha, Homi K. 1987. “Interrogating Identity”, Identity: The Real Me. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts, 5-11. Bracken, Joseph. 1985. “ The Two Process Theologies: A Reappraisal.” Theological Studies 46, 1: 115-127. ___ . 1998. “Revising Process Metaphysics in Response to Ian Barbour’s Critique.” Zygon 33: 405-414. Brown, William E. 1990. “Quantum theology: Christianity and the new physics.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33: 477-487. Byaruhanga Akiki, A.B.T. 1980. “The Philosophy and Theology of Time in Africa: The Bantu case.” African Ecclesiastical Review 22: 357-369. Clayton, Philip, D.1985. “The God of history and the presence of the future.” Journal of Religion 65: 98-108. Cobb, John. 1983. “The Presence of the Past and the Eucharist.” Process Studies 13, 3: 218-231. Cowan, Steven, B. 1996. “A Reductio Ad Absurdum of Divine Temporality.” Religious Studies 32: 371-378. Cung, Tse Hue. 1996. “The Implication of the Concept of Time in the theory of relativity for Theological thinking.” Stulos (Bandung) 4, 2: 127-138. Duffy, Regis. 1988. “American Time and God’s Time.” Worship 62,6: 515-532. Everitt, Nicholas. 1998. “Interpretations of God’s Eternity.” Religious Studies 34: 25-32. Gefter, Amanda. 2005. “The riddle of time.” New Scientist 15 October: 30-33. Hill, R.C. 1980. “St John Chrysostom and the Incarnation of the Word in Scripture.” Compass Theology Review 34-38. Horvath, Tibor. 1986. “Theology of time after theology of being.” Science et Esprit 38, 1: 81-96. Lodzinski, Don. 1998. “The Eternal Act.” Religious Studies 34: 325-352. Müller, J. J. 1986. “Process theology and the Catholic Theological Community.” Theological Studies 47, 3: 412-427. Padgett, Alan. 1989. “God and time: toward a new doctrine of divine timeless eternity.” Religious Studies 25: 209-215.

172

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

___ . 1991. “Can History measure eternity: A reply to William Craig.” Religious Studies 27: 333-335. Polkinghorne,John. 1998. “Natural Science, Temporality, and Divine Action.” Theology Today 55, 3 : 329-343. ___ . 2000a. “The Nature of Physical Reality.” Zygon 4: 927- 940. ___ . 2000b. “Science and Theology in the Twenty-First Century.” Zygon 4: 941-953. ___ . 2001. “Time, physics and cosmology.” The Month : 36-42. Osborn, Lawrence. 1996. “Spacetime and Revelation.” Science and Christian Belief 8: 111-123. Rappaport, Roy A. 1992. “Ritual, Time and Eternity.” Zygon 27, 1 : 5-30. Schindler, David, L. 1988. “Theology, science, and cosmology.” Communio Fall: 270-273. Stoeger, William.1998. “God and Time: The Action and Life of the Triune God.” Theology Today 55, 3: 365-388.

Name Index A

Bracken, J., 70, 123, 126, 127, 131, 155, 166, 171 Akiki, B., 44, 171 Brown, W., 70, 166, 168, 171 Ambrose, 86, 91 Bultmann, R., 85, 155 Aquinas, T., 24-25, 69, 79, 106, 124- Butterfield, J., 10 125, 127, 134 Aristotle, 5, 15, 18-20, 22, 24-25, C 30, 40, 50, 56, 69, 127-128, 153 Askeland, L., 171 Calvin, J., 141 Augustine, 5, 15, 17, 19-25, 30, 32, Chadwick, H., 21, 165 35, 36, 61, 67, 69, 71, 82, 85, 86, Chauvet, L.-M., 44, 71, 82, 86, 88, 93, 128, 141, 153, 154, 156, 162, 95, 166 165, 168-170 Chisholm, R., 142, 166 Chrysostom, J., 88, 136, 138, 141, B 156, 171 Clement of Alexandria, 67 Barbour, I., 49, 50, 53, 54, 58, 71, 79, Cobb, J., 128, 147, 165, 166, 171 81, 106, 133, 146, 165, 171 Copleston, F., 25, 166 Barth, K., 31-33, 69, 102, 140, 165 Cousins, E., 50, 70, 136, 165-168 Basil, 67, 170 Cullmann, O., 20, 32, 42, 69, 101, Baudrillard, J., 31, 94 106, 107, 112, 135, 138, 141, 155, Beane, W., 42, 165 166 Becquerel, A., 49 Benedict XVI, 27 D Bergson, H., 30 Bernstein, R., 94, 165 Dalton, W., 110, 166 Berry, T., 77, 107, 121, 126-127, Davies, P., 15, 37, 45, 50, 51, 53, 55, 165, 170 57, 106, 116, 166 Betz, J., 88-89, 165 Dawkins, R., 145, 166 Bhaba, H., 78 Dennett, D.C., 142, 143, 166, 167, Blattner, W., 30, 165 170 Boethius, 31, 69, 82 Derrida, J., 31, 94 Boyer, P., 104, 166 Descartes, R., 79, 94, 95, 166 DiNoia, J., 70, 166

174 Dreyfus, H., 29, 166 Dunn, J., 111, 167 E Eddington, A., 116, 117 Edwards, D., 107, 132, 137, 167 Einstein, A., 15, 16, 24, 26, 30, 49, 51, 57, 59, 81, 116, 144, 150, 166 Eliade, M., 41, 67, 83, 149, 165, 167, 168 Ellis, G., 10, 50, 167, 170 Eskeland, L., 161

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue I Irenaeus, 67 J Jameson, E., 94, 167 Jantsch, E., 41, 90, 168 Jeans, J., 116 Joachim of Floris, 67 John Paul II, 138, 168 Johnson, E., 80, 102, 168 Jung, C.G., 5, 38, 39

F

K

Foucault, M., 31 Fox, M., 107

Kagamé, 44 Kant, I., 5, 15, 24-27, 30, 38, 66, 71, 79, 95, 154, 166 Küng, H., 145, 168

G Galileo, G., 61, 100 Gödel, K., 56 Greene, B., 15, 53, 57-59, 116, 167 Gregory, 67 H Hall, E., 41, 44, 167 Hartshorne, C., 122, 123, 125, 145, 146, 167 Hawking, S., 15, 50, 51, 53, 56, 106, 116, 151, 167 Hegel, G., 65, 79 Heidegger, M., 5, 15, 27-30, 40, 43, 53, 85, 94, 95, 97, 154, 165-167 Heisenberg, W., 49, 116, 144 Horvath, T., 70, 171 Hubble, E., 52 Hue, C., 70, 171 Husserl, E., 28, 95

L Laplace, P., 142 Lee, B., 80, 168 Leibniz, 27, 59, 79, 166 Llyod, G., 93 Lyotard, J., 31, 94, 168 M Macquarrie, J., 28, 167, 168 Marshall, 71, 166-168 Martha, 103 McFague , S., 80, 168 Mellert, B., 168 Merleau-Ponty, M., 31, 94, 95 Michelangelo, 90 Minucius Felix, 67 Miriam, 89 Moloney, F., 110, 113, 168 Monica, 21, 156

Name Index Moses, 39, 45, 62, 72, 89, 91, 93, 108, 110, 111, 118, 157 Mozart, W.A., 90 Müller, J.J., 130, 171 N Newton, I., 25, 27, 50, 74 O O’Murchu, D., 70, 78, 168 Ogden, S., 168 Osborne, K., 94, 95, 169 P Pachomius, 68 Padgett, A., 70, 169, 171 Page, R., 126, 169 Panikkar, R., 5, 40, 41, 43, 154, 169 Parmenides, 69 Pauli, W., 116 Peacocke, A., 49, 52, 64, 99, 100, 106, 144, 169 Phan, P., 68, 70, 169 Philo of Alexandria, 15, 111 Pittenger, N., 127, 169 Plato, 5, 15, 17-19, 30, 32, 56, 69, 128, 152, 153, 169 Plotinus, 5, 17, 19-21, 25, 30, 37, 70, 79, 153 Polkinghorne, J., 10, 50, 59, 77, 106, 123, 130-135, 169, 172 R Rahner, K., 31, 33, 35-37, 42, 43, 69, 97, 101, 141, 145, 162, 165, 169 Rayment-Pickard, 85 Reanney, D., 37, 55, 93, 110, 170

175 Ricoeur, P., 31, 94, 95, 163, 170 Rose, D.B., 45, 170 Rutherford, E., 49 S Sartre, J.-P., 31, 94, 145 Schillebeeckx, E., 64, 69, 92, 103, 112, 138, 139, 170 Schrödinger, E., 116 Sheldrake, P., 83-85, 101, 170 Smullyan, R., 142, 170 Sozzini (Socinus), 146 Spinoza, B., 79 Stanner, W., 45 Stockton, E., 44-46 Strehlow, T.G.H., 46 Swain, T., 44, 45 Swimme, B., 107, 170 T Teilhard de Chardin, P., 69, 146, 166 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 87, 91, 92 Theodoret, 67 Thich Nhat Hanh, 96, 170 Tillich, P., 33, 69, 170 Tipler, F., 56 Torrance, T., 30, 40, 74, 137, 170 Tracy, D., 94, 170 V Vico, G., 27 W Ward, K., 79, 104, 105, 131, 167, 170 Weinandy, T., 170

176 Whitehead, A.N., 31, 78, 79, 122, 123, 125, 132, 169, 170 Whitrow, G., 100, 170 Wilber, K., 116-118, 170 Wilson, M., 46, 142 Wolfe, T., 142, 143, 171 Worthing, 70 Y Yates, J., 27, 99, 171

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue

subject Index A

B

Eschatological, 6, 86, 90-93, 98, 103, 104, 106, 111, 158, 160, 165 Eschaton , 92, 112 Eternity, 5, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 30-33, 35-37, 46, 47, 66-69, 71, 73, 74, 93, 102, 104, 105, 114, 124, 126, 138, 139, 147, 158, 162, 169, 171, 172

Buddhism, 82, 96, 161

F

C

Foreknowledge, 66, 100, 118, 124, 141, 144, 146, 148 Free will, 6, 37, 39, 82, 122, 124, 128, 133, 135, 141-146, 166

Aborigines, 45-46, 66 Anamnesis, 23, 87-88, 92, 98, 160 Anaphora, 72 Arrow of time, 58, 59, 69, 101

Cause and effect, 5, 25, 39, 56, 62, 66, 71, 75, 145 Creatio ex nihilo, 105, 157 D Dasein, 27-30, 95, 97 Determinism, 39, 82, 100, 122, 142, 144-146, 148 Diachronic, 39 Dominus Iesus, 5, 61-62 Dreaming, 34, 44-47, 83 Dualism, 33, 42, 73-75, 104-105 E Ephapax, 91 Epiclesis, 72, 92 Ereignis, 95-96 Eschatology, 22, 32, 67, 103-104, 112-114, 139, 158, 167, 170

G Gnosticism, 106 Grace, 56, 64, 70, 72, 73, 84, 88, 92, 111, 115, 116, 122, 128, 136, 139, 141, 144, 160, 165 H Haecceitas, 95 Hinduism, 41 I Image of God, 5, 6, 64, 65, 75, 79, 98, 123-126, 131, 147, 155 Immanence, 64, 100, 123, 125, 155 Immanentist, 19, 27

178 Incarnation, 6, 10, 73, 75, 106, 112, 129, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138-141, 147, 152, 155-158, 160, 167, 170, 171 K Kabbalah, 32, 42, 66, 166, 167 M

Spacetime & Theology in Dialogue R Resurrection, 11-13, 83, 86, 87, 9093, 106, 109-112, 119, 120, 129, 135, 152, 156-158, 160, 169, 170 Relativity, general, 55, 57, 118 special, 16, 49-50, 151, 155, 170 S

Sacramentality, 6, 86, 88, 91, 151, Mystery, 5, 6, 23, 24, 46, 49, 54, 55, 158, 160 59, 69, 78, 81, 84, 102, 109, 111, Sacraments, 6, 64, 71, 72, 83-86, 91114-116, 118, 131, 153, 158, 16195, 98, 120, 158, 160, 166, 169 163 retro-active, 6, 93-94, 98 Mysticism, 42, 66, 84, 85, 116-118, Space, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-19, 21, 23, 161 25-31, 33, 35, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, 49-53, 55, 58, 59, 61, 63, 69, 71, N 73-75, 77, 83, 99, 104, 118, 119, 130, 132, 134, 137, 140, 149-154, New physics, 53, 117, 118, 168, 171 158, 159, 162, 170 as receptacle, 18, 27, 40, 73-74, P 151-152, 156 Spacetime, 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 16-18, Panentheism, 105, 126, 128, 131, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30-36, 38, 40, 154 42, 44, 46, 47, 49-59, 62, 64, 66Postmodernism, 6, 31, 94-98, 131, 68, 70-78, 80-82, 84, 86, 88-90, 167 92, 94, 96, 98-100, 102, 104, Prehensions, 128, 132 106-108, 110, 112-114, 116, 118, Present moment, 9, 18, 22, 41, 58, 120-122, 124, 126-132, 134-136, 81, 82, 85, 95, 96, 98, 113, 121, 138-142, 144, 146-158, 160-162, 128, 139, 149-152, 154-157, 159, 166-168, 170, 172 161, 162 Synchronicity, 5, 6, 38, 39, 45, 63, Process theology, 6, 12, 31, 65, 69, 72, 93, 108, 110, 145, 157, 16072, 78, 79, 100, 105, 119, 122162 132, 135, 139, 144, 146, 147, 150, Synchronic, 39, 111, 112, 141 155, 156, 168, 171 Synpantheism, 126 Q

T

Quantum mechanics, 12, 16, 49, 57, 59, 118, 124, 133, 134, 150

Tehom, 105 Teleology, 5, 38, 39, 42, 145

Subject Index

179

telos, 41-43, 46, 101, 103, 133 Transcendence, 64, 123, 125, 145, Temporality, 5, 27-31, 64, 68, 71, 94, 155 97, 145, 147, 154, 168, 171, 172 Transcendent, 33, 46, 65, 75, 82, 83, Time, 4-6, 9-33, 35-47, 50-59, 6189, 96, 100, 118, 126, 136, 159, 75, 77-79, 81-89, 91-123, 125161 143, 145, 147, 149-163, 165-172 Trinity, 11, 12, 74, 78, 111, 126, apocalyptic Time, 6, 103 127, 131, 134, 137, 154, 156 becoming, 6, 10, 18, 65, 71, 72, 81, 101, 105, 120-123, 125, 127129, 131, 132, 138, 146, 147, 151, 152, 155, 168, 169 biblical Time, 106-108 as clockwork, 10, 81, 99, 123 cyclical Time, 41, 66 cyclic Time, 5, 52, 66, 108 eschatological Time, 103, 158 as illusion, 10 irreversible 66, 69, 83 kairic Time,6, 84, 85, 98, 139, 151 linear Time, 5, 47, 66, 67, 106108, 116, 119, 138, 151, 155, 157, 158, 160 liturgical Time, 6, 82-84, 86, 98, 159 as mystery, 24, 46, 49, 55, 59, 69, 78, 81 as now, 5, 6, 9-11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 40, 46, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64-66, 68, 69, 73, 77, 81, 82, 85-89, 91-93, 95-98, 100, 103, 107, 109, 111115, 117, 119, 121, 122, 126, 128, 131, 132, 137, 139, 140, 149-151, 153-162 ontological importance, 5, 40, 41 secondary construction, 6, 10, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 152 as standing still, 5, 32, 37, 84 Tjurunga, 46, 66 TOE , 57, 59, 133