CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIPLER'S OMEGA POINT THEORY

Abstract. An attempt to discover what can be learned from the recent work of Frank Tipler on the Omega Point theory requires an analysis of his framework of understanding from scientific, philosophical, and theological perspectives. A critique of his crucial ideas, and of the salient points raised by some of his critics, can then be undertaken within the compass of his strengths. A critique of the critiques of Tipler's work allows one to evaluate the extent and limitations of his contributions.     

Mission and reconciliation

Conflicts and wars often occur, with devastating consequences in society. Attaining reconciliation is a challenging task, especially if each side in the conflict articulates its identity in terms of victimhood through education, history, and memories. Can theology offer an adequate answer and help overcome conflicts and bring forgiveness? Each time we serve the liturgy, we are reminded to remember the future and remember Christ’s ultimate forgiveness. In that sense, worship as a communal and God-oriented event can remind us of our mission, which is participation in God’s salvific work. This paper offers some theological insights as guidelines for Christians and their respective communities to pursue. Hopefully, theology will prove its ability and strength to foster reconciliation and unity in a suffering world.     

The Orthodox Understanding of Marriage in the Ecumenical Context

This article deals with interchurch and interreligious marriage as a challenge to Orthodox theology and its self-conscience. The canons of the church came into being at a time when the church identified itself with history, and the Empire with the kingdom of God. Their purpose was to strengthen the historical construction of the church and the Empire. In such a context, the “other” was a threat to the historical existence of the church. Eschatology offers a different perspective, seeing the whole world as a church “in becoming.” Mixed marriages pose the following questions: How do we understand ourselves? How do we understand others? Our tradition has been challenged with new events and new realities, demanding bravery to solve them.     

Chaos Theology: A New Approach to the Science-Theology Dialogue

Comparison of the concepts of creation from chaos and creation out of nothing ( creatio ex nihilo ) leads me to reject the latter for several reasons: it is not the biblical concept, and it presents serious conceptual, scientific, and theological problems. Chaos theology is outlined under the headings creation from chaos; chaos and contingency; chaos, evil, and creativity; chaos and incarnation; chaos and eschatology. It is shown to be well suited for the science-theology dialogue by some examples of its application to aspects of cosmic and biological evolution: initial mystery, separation and ordering; chaos and entropy; contingency and fine-tuning of the universe; purpose and progressiveness in evolution; and complexity theory and chaos events.     

The Human Mind in This World and the Next: Scientific and Early Theological Perspectives

The understanding of the mind usually adopted within the current science-theology dialogue is questionable. It fails to take into account something necessary to provide a non-reductionist understanding of religious faith: what in ancient and medieval theology was termed the nous. While this concept may require re-interpretation for our present age in terms of a different philosophical framework, any recognition of its reality will have a major impact on two aspects of current discussion: our response to philosophical idealism and our understanding of the eschatological state.     

EXPLORING OLD AND NEW PATHS IN THEODICY

Christopher Southgate's work raises questions about God, evolution, and suffering. In this article, I begin by contributing an alternative to Southgate's “only way” argument and by offering a third option in speculations about the nature of nonhuman animals in heaven. The second half of the article starts with Southgate's approach of evolutionary theodicy as “an adventure in theology” and proposes a new path branching off his work. “Compassionate theodicy” is a reworking of the method and audience of traditional theodicy in the hope that it might become something that could offer theological resources to those who suffer.     

God and Evolutionary Evil: Theodicy in the Light of Darwinism

Pain, suffering, death, and extinction have been intrinsic to the process of evolution by natural selection. This leads to a real problem of evolutionary theodicy, little addressed up to now in Christian theologies of creation. The problem has ontological, teleological, and soteriological aspects. The recent literature contains efforts to dismiss, disregard, or reframe the problem. The radical proposal that God has no long–term goals for creation, but merely keeps company with its unfolding, is one way forward. An alternative strategy to tackle the problem of evolutionary theodicy is outlined, with an implication for environmental ethics and suggestions for further work.     

SERGIUS BULGAKOV'S CRITIQUE OF N. F. FEDOROV'S TECHNOLOGIZED RESURRECTION (AND WHY IT STILL MATTERS FOR THE CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE WITH TRANSHUMANISM)

Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944) was one of the centrally important Russian Orthodox theologians of the past century. His theological system (Sophiology) is among the most detailed and comprehensive attempts at a novel, Orthodox systematic theology developed in engagement with western philosophical and theological movements. His first major work of theology, Unfading Light (1917), incorporates an early Orthodox critique of the radical Christian transhumanism propounded by Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1829–1903). Fedorov had developed an account of humanity's prospects for a technologically facilitated eschatology. The goals of this article are: (1) to provide a concise summary Fedorov's ideas on technologized resurrection; (2) to provide an overview of Bulgakov's sympathetic critique of Fedorov's model; and (3) to discuss the ongoing relevance of that critique vis-à-vis current and future Christian dialogue with the transhumanist movement.     

Theology, Science, and Postmodernism: Responding to Stanley Grenz

This article responds to Stanley J. Grenz's Templeton Lecture, “Why Do Theologians Need to Be Scientists?” published in the June 2000 issue of Zygon (Grenz 2000). In the first part I outline my reasons for finding the kind of theological reflections in which Grenz engages worthy of attention by noting my disagreement with the view that a sufficient response to theological issues can be formulated on the basis of an examination of our biological nature. I assert, in that connection, the autonomy of reason as a way of investigating and understanding the world. In the second part I respond directly to Grenz by explaining my disagreement with the postmodern critique of science upon which he relies and his adherence to Christian eschatology as an answer to the conundrums into which, he posits, we are drawn as a result of that critique. I note that I agree with Grenz, however, that the activity of valuing is necessarily a forward‐looking Godlike endeavor that is not derivable from science. In the third part I suggest that we must be open to the investigation of the possible existence of an objective realm of value and that, in any case, rejection of the postmodern critique of science in many cases pro‐vides a sound basis for the disciplined resolution of factual questions that frequently lie at the base of disagreements about values.     

Moving Ahead on Southgate’s Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy

Southgate offers a remarkable evolutionary theodicy that includes six affirmations and arguments; together they form a unique and very persuasive proposal which he terms a “compound only-way evolutionary theodicy.” Here I summarize the arguments and offer critical reflections on them for further development, with an emphasis on the ambiguity in the goodness of creation; the role of thermodynamics in evolutionary biology; the challenge of horrendous evil in nature; and the theological response to theodicy in terms of eschatology, with its own severe challenge from cosmology. Using a text box, I suggest how the 6 arguments create a unique synthetic whole, and how the removal of any one of them would diminish the argument as a whole. I then suggest how Southgate’s treatment of the key question, “Why not just heaven?” adds a crucial seventh argument to produce an even more splendid and promising whole.