After publishing my last book (“A Theology of the Microbiome“, SacraSage Press), I have been working on a new idea for publication that will take me a really long time. The long time duration is because I have a full time job as a physician. In fact, I am an academic physician, so administrative time is often spent working on lectures, doing editorial work for a journal, writing new articles in my medical field, writing letters of recommendation, etc. All of these things are on top of patient care which is the main part of my job. The practice of medicine is my job, and I expect nothing less. Meanwhile, my DThM degree really has spurred my thoughts surrounding how theism and the study of science could interact better. So…I work on my new book intermittently at times. The time used for writing can seem ephemeral.
image from Popular Mechanics
Time: Time seems to flow. Unlike water, we cannot grasp it as a substance yet we exist in it. Time appears to be a real thing. We are born, we live, and we die. Time moves on. Each human is eventually forgotten. Suns die. The universe continues to expand…in time
As someone who has studied quite a bit in the field of process theology (the cousin to the more well known “process philosophy“), I am of the belief that time is the essential component of reality. Time, not matter, seems to be the basis of reality. Time seems unidirectional (past to future). As someone who is fairly comfortable discussing process theology and its almost similar twin, open and relational theology, I think God experiences time. I believe opportunity arises (prehension) which then solidifies into an experience (concrescence) which then passes on as a temporary but acutal occasion. God is present in all occasions and in actual time seeing us as we learn and grow; as we deal with love and loss; as we deal with birth and death. God is present in real time at all levels of reality. God, in the setting of open & relational theology, loves all entities in their change through time. God desires (but does not force) change for creativity and for love.
Unless time is not real.
In my recent reading, I have been thinking about the hypothesis of the “static universe”, also known as “eternalism.” Eternalism from a universe perspective is not Everettianism (the “Many Worlds Interpretation” or MWI) as MWI is generally (not always) thought to involve time.
J. Ellis McTaggart (1866-1925) was a British philosopher and also an idealist. As an idealist, he felt that we were missing part of the greater reality we lived in. In particular, he questioned if time was even real (i.e., the universe was static). He has written: “It is, therefore, possible that the realities which we perceive as events in a time-series do really form a non-temporal series.”
an illustration of the block universe, from maths.org
If this idea sounds unsettling, just keep in mind that even Albert Einstein found similarity with McTaggart’s work. In special relativity, time may not be that important. Since light travels at “light speed” (299,792,458 meters per second) and nothing is faster than light, then all other entities would seem to not be moving much more slowly as seen in time dilation. Thus, if time is inconsistent for all observers, then there would be no universal “now.” If there is no universal “now”, then metaphysically, the universe could be considered to have all past, present, and future existing together. Spacetime becomes a block universe in many ways.
Such an idea of reality can make us uncomfortable simply because humans experience time or perhaps our brains make us think we are experiencing time.
I must say that I do not accept eternalism as I don’t experience it via my senses. I sense time. My hair is becoming more gray. My excercise tolerance has decreased. I could be completely wrong of course.
Where is God here?
This question is difficult from a theological perspective. If nothing changes eternally like some metaphorical giant crystal then God becomes, in my opinion, weird.
Perhaps then, eternalism would remove any need for God. If the universe if some type of immense static “thing” then God would not or could not intervene or hope for change. God would not care for or love this type of creation. Perhaps deism could accept this type of God if God created an amorphous unchanging mass as opposed to a structure that was made to run smoothly like a deterministic machine. One could argue the Calvinism could have its deterministic beliefs wrapped up in a universe where all is already determined with no need for time or change.
The other aspect to consider is in the setting of Platonic forms. In a block universe / eternalism would our universe be simply an Platonic form or the ultimate Platonic form? Would this form be the “changeless and abiding” as described in the Timaeus?
Here is where I posit the importance of subjectivity in nature. My proposition about subjectivity is metaphysical and theological. I think subjectivity abounds in nature through the possibility of natural randomness and in the experience of love. My theism is showing here. I do not think that God, as described by process theology or open & relational theology has a true determinant nature when it comes to our world. I cannot see how God whether directly involved (which I do not agree with) or not directly involved but luring for evermore creativity (which I do agree with) would love a static, unchanging universe.
It is hard to describe God’s love from a process theology / open & relational theology perspective. I will provide a human example. I have had the same lamp on my desk for several years. It just turns on and off. I don’t love it. I use it sometimes. If it quit working, I would throw it away and not really worry about it.
However, I love my wife. I love my children. I interact with them in time and watch then change over the years. I always am invested in them even when they do or do not do what I would perceive as a “better” choice. From a human perspective, my idea of a “better” choice can be wrong.
My theistic (NOT scientific) argument against eternalism is that a loving (i.e., creative) God would only be a metaphysical reality in a world that changed in time. Time is necessary for the ability to love, for the need of love, for the potential for propitiousness of creativity in reality in time.
Eternalism versus the real presence of time — This debate will continue to influence how we think about God. Such different ideas are helpful in making theology better.
image created by Gemini Advanced
Phi-The-Sci: Equilateral Musings 