RESOLVING THE
GOLDILOCKS ENIGMA
AN EVIDENCE BASED
APROACH
Abstract
The
Goldilocks question is answerable but neither of the two main answers
considered by Paul Davies, the existence of an interventionist “hands-on” God
or the existence of a Multiverse, is convincing. The evidence provided by Cosmology and by
the process of Emergent Evolution shows the Universe to be a purposeful process
involving the self-organisation of Matter and Life and the self-creation of
Humanity. The Universe exists for a purpose. The world is humanity’s
“do-it-yourself” kit.
THE
GOLDILOCKS QUESTION
Paul
Davies asks: "Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?" He produces a
significant amount of evidence of the life-friendly tendency of the Universe
but he fails to propose an answer to the Goldilocks question based on this
evidence. There is sufficient evidence to provide a reasoned answer. I
propose such an answer in my Thesis, published as "The Process of the
Cosmos: Philosophical Theology and Cosmology" (1999)
Davies
is on the right track when he suggests that for an intelligent designer:
"to select a set of laws that, without any periodic fixing up and
micro-management, can bring a universe into being and bring about
self-organisation, self-complexification and
self-assembly of life and consciousness - well, that looks very clever
indeed!" I argue in "The Intelligent Design of the Cosmos" and
in "The Process of the Cosmos" that these autonomous processes exist
by design.
On
the God question Davies argues: "Unless there is already some other reason
to believe in the existence of the Great Designer then merely declaring ‘God
did it!' tells us nothing at all. It simply plugs one gap - the mystery of
cosmic bio-friendliness - with another - the mystery of an unknown intelligent
designer. So we are no further forward." (2006, 226) But is this the case?
There
is good reason to believe in a self-existent entity as designer. The
intelligent design of the Cosmos provides evidence of the nature and motive of
the designer, as well as a criterion by which more primitive concepts of the
designer might be judged. Consideration of the designer's possible motive for
creation can make sense of the universe and of our role in the universe. There
is far too much evidence for the intelligent designer to be considered a
complete mystery.
DAVIES'
ALTERNATIVES
Davies
considers two responses to the Goldilocks question, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
idea of an interventionist God and the sceptical counter-proposal of a Multiverse, which argues this universe is "just
right" because it is only one among many universes, the totality of which
exhaust every logical possibility of organisation. I will show that both these
alternatives are problematic.
The
idea of an interventionist "hands on" God is part of the ancient
baggage that the concept of God carries. I examine the origin of this concept
and seek to replace it with the more rational concept of a God who is
necessarily "hands-off" the Universe.
WHAT
KIND OF GOD?
The
concept of a "hands-off" God is based on the evidence that the
Universe is a freely operating but purposeful process, constituted by a series
of freely operating Emergent Stages. In "The Process of the Cosmos" I
consider God's possible motives for creation. I develop the concept of a
"hands-off" God, based on the evidence of increasing freedom at each
Emergent Stage of the Cosmic process and the complete
freedom reached at the Human Moral-Cultural Emergent Stage.
As
the pre-scientific concept of God developed over time, new features tended to
be grafted on to old concepts that people were reluctant to discard. The
earliest gods were all "hands-on", as they were personifications of
natural phenomena and forces that were necessarily active in the world. The
monotheistic God of Judaism is theologically a more sophisticated concept than
earlier multiple deities, but the concept originated as an active tribal Deity,
protecting the Hebrews and killing their enemies.
The
Christian Church identified itself and its teaching with the God of the Hebrews
from the beginning, tying itself to the categories and concepts of the Old
Testament. J.N.D. Kelly notes that Christian theology took place in
predominantly Judaistic moulds until the middle of
the second century, utilising Jewish categories of thought. (1960,
17).
The
Judaeo-Christian concept of an interventionist Deity becomes even stronger in
Islam. Islam is a Christian heresy, a perversion of Christian doctrine,
as Hilaire Belloc shows in
Chapter 4 of "The Great Heresies" (1991). The God of Islam is a
reversion to the tribal God that protects the tribe and kills the tribe's
enemies.
Christianity
also adopted an interpretation of God's creative role which Judaism had derived
from ancient Mesopotamia. This interpretation held that God created all things,
bringing them into existence out of nothing. It also held that God governs the
whole universe, exercising an all-pervading control and sovereignty. (Kelly
1960, 83)
Initiation
of the universe out of nothing was a brilliant insight, but it is not difficult
to find the origin of the concept of detailed control in the ancient
Mesopotamian tyrannies. The effect Mesopotamian myth had on biblical
cosmogonies has been detailed by Clifford (1988).
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF UNBELIEF
In
Baechler's view, the most significant consequence of
this ancient intellectual paradigm is the present triumph of unbelief. He
argues that unbelief could not have triumphed unless people had been driven to
seek another basis for the order of the world. This need arose from the
failure of the religious understanding of the world to maintain its relevance.
Science now provides a more acceptable basis for the order of the world. The
scientific order of nature has been gradually endowed with greater precision,
scope and depth, enabling science to take the place of faith in explaining the
world. The apparent rationality of science appeals to the mind of Western man,
while the violation of rationality that is implied in some religious teaching,
tends to repel. (1975, 90-1)
In
1926, Alfred North Whitehead pointed to the fact that
religion had been on the defensive in Europe for over two centuries. These
centuries had been marked by significant intellectual progress in every field
except Theology.
Whenever
a scientific discovery caused people to reassess old ideas, it was hailed as a
triumph for science, but it often created a problem for theologians because of
the association of theology with an outdated imagery.
Arthur
Koestler quoted Whitehead's
views a generation later. He stated that the need for religion to abandon its
pre-scientific world view had become even more urgent. Koestler
noted that the world in which Christianity had been established was a closed
world of comfortable dimensions, in which a well ordered drama, with a simple
outline, a clear beginning and an end, was taking its pre-ordained course.
(1959, 538-53)
In
the same year that Koestler quoted Whitehead's words, Pope John 23rd announced his intention
to call an Ecumenical Council. When the Council opened on 11th October 1962,
the Pope stated that the whole world expected a leap forward in doctrinal
penetration, a new presentation of the substance of ancient doctrine.
The
Pope also pointed out that world-views change from age to age and that the
errors of the past often vanish "like fog before the sun". (Wiltgen 1967, 14-15)
The
Pope's expectation of a new leap forward has not been met, although the Council
noted in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,
(Introduction, 5) that "the human race has passed from a rather static
concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one". It also noted
that this new concept of reality had given rise to a new series of problems,
"a series as important as can be". The Council then called for
"new efforts of analysis and synthesis" to attack these problems.
Such efforts are still rare.
Koestler noted that in the past, Religion provided
meaningful explanations for everything that happened. This world-view was
unchallenged before 1600 AD. The present scientific world-view, by contrast,
appears to have mankind's destiny determined from below, by sub-human agencies
such as glands, genes and atoms. As a result Koestler
considered that mankind had entered a spiritual ice-age, in which the
established Churches provided no shelter. (1959, 548-51)
Another
significant development is the pattern of thinking of contemporary Western man.
David Jenkins calls this the thinking of post-Copernican man. For post-Copernican
man, as new knowledge is gained, it changes our understanding. (1965, 66)
Post-Copernican man has a dynamic approach to knowledge. He is not bothered by
the fact that yesterday's theory, whether in physics, biology, cosmology or any
other discipline, has just been overthrown and replaced by a better developed
theory.
Our
view of the world has changed dramatically since Cosmology became a science,
but the religious picture from the past has remained frozen in place. The
ancient paradigm persists, built upon God's all-pervading control, but Religion
no longer provides meaningful explanations for everything that happens. A more
critical mind-set now finds fault with the religious explanations which
satisfied earlier generations. There is a need for a better theory of the
relationship between God and the world, but we first have to consider whether
there is any evidence to support the alternative proposal of a Multiverse.
MULTIPLE
UNIVERSES
There
is a total absence of evidence of a Multiverse, so
little time should be wasted on this concept. As other Universes would have to
exist in other areas of space-time - should any such exist - there could never
be any evidence of them available to us. As there is and there can be no
available evidence, Multiple Universes are simply a matter of faith, red
herrings from an evidentiary perspective.
A
Multiverse is a logical possibility but this does not
make it a real, ontological possibility. Any supposed entity that is not
self-contradictory is logically possible, but only real entities are
ontologically possible. It is a logical possibility that I am writing this, or
you are reading it, on a train line and there is a train only seconds away. If
this was an ontological possibility, rather than a logical possibility, this is
where we stop. But we continue.
It
does not make sense for the idea of an interventionist God, which originated as
a reasonable but unscientific explanation of the world in pre-scientific times,
to be replaced in the present scientific context by a purely speculative belief
with no possible evidentiary foundation, the idea of a Multiverse.
The postulation of a Multiverse, based upon the
premise that it is logically possible, appears to be nothing more than a device
to avoid a more serious consideration of the role of an intelligent designer or
God.
THE
QUESTION OF ORIGIN
What
is needed to resolve the issue of the origin of the life-friendly Universe is a
rational, evidence-based approach to the origin of the cosmic process that
began with the Big Bang. There is ample evidence of this process available, as
Paul Davies shows.
There
are only two possible answers to the question of the origin of any contingent
entity. Either the entity is contingent upon some other contingent thing or
things, and so on ad infinitum, or there is somewhere a point of origin, a
self-existent, non-contingent entity responsible for the existence of
contingent entities.
Aristotle
considered this question and concluded that there had to be a non-contingent,
self-existent entity, a God, to account for contingent things. This conclusion
created a problem for Aristotle because he also reasoned that a perfect God
would only produce another perfect entity.
SELF-EXISTENCE
The
concept of a self-existent entity cannot be rejected on the basis that what is
postulated of a self-existent entity is inconsistent with what is known of the
existence of contingent entities. To do so constitutes a category mistake. Paul
Davies makes this mistake when he asks "Who designed the designer?"
(2006, 228)
The
present problem with the conventional Judeo-Christian idea of God is not with
the concept of a self-existent entity as such, but with the pre-critical and
pre-scientific concept of an interventionist God. I have discussed the origin
and development of the idea of an interventionist God. We now need to consider
a more critical, evidence based concept of God.
THE
CREATIVE PROCESS
As
shown in "The Intelligent Design of the Cosmos" (2006), the present
state of the Universe, including our life-friendly planet and life itself, is a
product of certain precise Mathematical Constants that were imprinted into the
Cosmos with the Big Bang. As Martin Rees explains in his "Just Six
Numbers" (2000) "Mathematical laws underpin the fabric of our universe
- not just atoms, but galaxies, stars and people… . everything takes place in the arena of an expanding
universe, whose properties were imprinted into it at the time of the initial
Big Bang." (2000, 1)
These
Mathematical Constants provide the information that ultimately informs the laws
of nature of the various Emergent Stages. The Mathematical Constants pre-exist
by millennia the development of the Emergent Stages to which they eventually
apply. This evidence of intelligent design is difficult to explain away.
LAWS
OF NATURE
Laws
of nature are not prescriptive laws. They do not make things happen. They are
simply statements of observed regularities at the various Emergent stages,
which distinguish the stages. A new Emergent Stage, with its new laws, becomes
possible when some matter or aspect of an existing Emergent Stage develops to a
degree that makes it capable of utilising or expressing a previously
unexpressed aspect of the information that the Mathematical Constants make
available.
Davies
suggests that for an intelligent designer: "to select a set of laws that,
without any periodic fixing up and micro-management, can bring a universe into
being and bring about self-organisation, self-complexification
and self-assembly of life and consciousness - well, that looks very clever
indeed!" (2006, 226) I argue that the intelligent designer does not even
have to select the laws.
The
development of each stage of the process of Emergent Evolution is free. The
information provided by the Mathematical Constants is sufficient to freely
initiate a new Emergent stage when this becomes possible. Thus life emerges
when some matter develops to a form that makes it capable of expressing the
information that establishes the laws of life. These laws reflect the capacity
of living matter to develop and to evolve, involving the process of Emergent
Probability. (For a discussion of Emergent Probability see for example,
"Emergent Probability and the Anthropic
Principle" Vicente Marasigan, 2000)
The
evolutionary process eventually produces large-brained Hominids, including Homo
neanderthalis, some 230,000 years ago, and Homo
sapiens, some 160,000 years ago. The large-brains of these Hominid species
provide the potential for them to develop their information gathering capacity
beyond that which is necessary for each species survival. Both these Hominids
evolve as species of animals, not as humans.
Homo
neanderthalis had larger brains than Homo sapiens,
whose brain was indistinguishable from that of modern humans. Homo sapiens'
brain has not changed since the species evolved, but the species has developed
a mind. The human mind is primarily the result of a process of cognitive
self-development, which begins to change Homo sapiens from hominid to human.
This
gradual process of human self-development is outlined in "The Intelligent
Design of the Cosmos" (2006). The aim of the process has been
summarised by Bernard Lonergan: "Man's
development is a matter of getting beyond himself, of
transcending himself, of ceasing to be an animal in a habitat and of becoming a
genuine person in a community." (1974, 144)
The
next Emergent stage, Human Moral-Cultural life, emerges when some individuals
develop their cognitive ability to a stage that enables them to cognise the
Moral law, and these moral perceptions begin to have an effect within their
culture. This is the beginning of human spiritual self-creation. It is no
longer merely self-development. It is the creation of something new.
THE
EMERGENT PROCESS
Matter
is the first Emergent, produced from the energy and some of the information
provided by the Mathematical Constants. In a Universe wide, freely operating
process of self-organisation, Hydrogen, the initial form of matter, develops
into the other elements, and combinations of elements. Solar systems with
planets are formed. At least one planet which is capable of supporting life is
eventually produced by this freely operating, self-organising process. Given
the size of the cosmos and the unlimited availability of time, such an outcome appears
inevitable. Earth is such a planet.
Life
becomes the second Emergent when some matter on a life-friendly planet, or
planets, develops to a stage that makes it capable of expressing some
previously unexpressed aspect of the information provided by the Mathematical
Constants imprinted into the Big Bang. Life begins to freely evolve.
Evolution is a further process of free self-organisation.
Each
new species that evolves has its own pattern of instinctive behaviour, which
differentiates it from the species from which it evolved. New species are
usually better adapted to their environment, suggesting that new species may be
a genetic response to a prevailing environment. Perhaps so-called "junk
DNA" has a role in this response, as Professor John Mattick
of Queensland University has suggested (2001).
Life
evolves from its initial bacterial forms to a series of large-brained Hominids.
There is very little variation in the instinctive activities of these Hominids.
The most recent Hominid species to evolve are Homo neanderthalis,
some 230,000 years ago and Homo sapiens, some 160,000 years ago. Both these
evolve as species of animals, not as humans.
Homo
sapiens' brain has not changed since the species evolved, but the species has developed
a mind in a process of self-development, as distinct from self-organisation.
This process of self-development gradually changes Homo sapiens from a hominid
to a human. The human mind is a product of the process of cognitive
self-development, which I outline in "The Intelligent Design of the
Cosmos" (2006).
THE
EMERGENT STAGES
Samuel
Alexander, in his "Space, Time and Deity" (1920) distinguishes the
Emergent Stages of reality on the basis that each Emergent Stage had its own
specific level of natural law. Alexander showed that each Emergent stage is
based on the previous Emergent Stage, operates according to the same laws of
nature as the previous Emergent Stage, but also operates in accordance with its
own new level of natural law. He postulated four Emergent stages, Matter, Life,
Mind and Moral Personality.
Nicolai Hartmann, in his "New Ways of
Ontology" (1953) distinguished four ontological strata of reality; the
physical, the biological or organic, the conscious or psychic and the spiritual
or moral. His four ontological strata correspond to Alexander's Emergent Stages
of Matter, Life, Conscious Life and Moral Personality.
Hartmann
notes that mankind is the only real being in which all four of the ontological
strata of reality are found. He was the first to recognise the pattern of an
increase in freedom at each of the ontological strata of reality, and the total
freedom that was achieved at the human moral or spiritual stratum.
Hartmann
was an atheist. He did not accept that there were any disembodied spiritual
entities. For Hartmann, spirit is the specifically human in the human being, in
contrast to the individual's other material, organic and mental or psychic
aspects. He also argues that individual humans grow into a common spiritual
sphere which is more than the sum of the individuals which comprise it, a
sphere of historical or objective spirit. Beliefs, convictions and ways
of viewing things can also be shared, and all of these belong to the sphere of
the spirit. While consciousness separates people, Hartmann maintains that
the spirit unites them.
CULTURE
AND THE HUMAN SPIRIT
Hartmann
distinguishes three forms of spirit, personal spirit, objective spirit and
objectified spirit. Objective spirit is temporal, but it has a history, so it
is not limited to a single lifetime. It is the spirit of a living group,
a community or nation, which exists and vanishes with the group. This
common spiritual sphere is the fundamental basis of any human culture. Personal
spirit occupies a unique position as it can see within itself, as
self-consciousness demonstrates.
While
the individual organism unfolds as determined by its DNA, the individual
personal spirit always has to make itself what it is. As with
consciousness, it comes into being anew in every individual and, Hartmann
maintains, it is not inherited. Spirit is not the unfolding of what is already
given but it is developed, as practical wisdom, only by the individual's
efforts. (Werkmeister 1990, 162)
Human
spiritual consciousness, Hartmann argues, only begins with man's escape from
the tyranny of instincts, and is ultimately realised with his achievement of an
objective relationship to the world. The subject-object relationship is
regarded by Hartmann as the characteristic creation of spirit. In its
objectification of things and events, the subject-object relationship is what
gives meaning to the world.
The
human individual is thus a creative factor in the world, in a process in which
he is both forming and being formed. Humans create the forms and structures of
a new stratum of being, a world of spirit in a previously spiritless world, and
in the process emerge as persons. Personality, Hartmann argues, is the basic
characteristic of the spiritual being. The world exists for a person in a
more profound way than just as an object for a subject. The person is not
only aware of events, he is actively involved in them, and he contributes to
his own formation by his activities. (Werkmeister
1990, 163-5)
The
individual also enters into relationships of shared experiences with other
persons, of joint action and solidarity, and of common responsibility. In doing
this he transcends his mere subjectivity. In his relationship to others
he becomes more aware, from their reactions to him, of the bases of his own
actions. He grows in his self-knowledge in this process, although,
Hartmann maintains, he seldom knows himself fully. All man's initiatives,
effective interventions and creativity, rely upon the knowledge of self, which
Socrates challenged man to acquire. (Werkmeister
1990, 165-7)
EMERGENCE
AND FREEDOM
The
initial provision in the Big Bang of Time, Energy and in particular, of the
Mathematical Constants, enables the process of Emergent Evolution to operate,
which makes the process of human spiritual and cultural self-creation possible.
Alexander's Emergent stage of Moral Personality - otherwise Hartmann's
spiritual or moral stratum - is made possible by that part of the information
provided by the Mathematical Constants that informs the Moral Law.
Every
Emergent Stage operates with a degree of freedom but the Third Emergent Stage,
which I identify as the Human Moral-Cultural Stage, operates with complete
freedom in relation to the law of the stage, the Moral Law. The process of
Emergent Evolution thus appears to have both direction and purpose, but it also
appears that its purpose can only be achieved with freedom and through the
exercise of freedom. Increasing freedom thus appears to be an essential aspect
of the Cosmic Process.
NATURAL
THEOLOGY
In
their natural theology, as Patrick Madigan (1988) noted, the classical Greek
philosophers were able to argue their way up from the existence of contingent
things, to the necessity of a self-existent, perfect being, or God. They had
far greater difficulty in arguing their way back down again. A self-existent,
perfect being was necessary for the existence of contingent things, but such a
being should be able to create a perfect world. Why then did this imperfect
world exist? An unnecessary and imperfect world, contingent upon a perfect God,
should not exist. What was needed to resolve this antinomy was some account
which provided a motive, or a sufficient reason, for God to make an imperfect
world.
The
disparity between a perfect God and an imperfect world is the greatest obstacle
to an understanding the role of God in relation to the world. Christian
philosophers maintained that the motive for God to create the world was love of
man. But Aristotle had already provided an argument which counted against this proposed
solution.
Aristotle
analysed friendship, which is an essential aspect of love. He found that love
and friendship has to be reciprocal, and could be based on goodness, pleasure
or utility. Friendship based on pleasure or utility is transient, and Aristotle
argues that the only real and lasting love, or friendship, can be between those
who are good, and who resemble one another in their goodness. (Ethics 1156b)
Resemblance in goodness is the crux of the matter. Because he could find no
resemblance in goodness between God and man, Aristotle denied the possibility
of friendship or love between the self-existent God and man. (Ethics 1159b)
ARISTOTLE'S
ANTINOMY AND ITS RESOLUTION
Aristotle
could not resolve the problem of the failure of the self-existent God to
produce a perfect world. This antinomy could not be resolved from the static,
Aristotelian perspective but it can now be resolved from a process perspective,
understanding the cosmos as a process of linear development. Aristotle did not
have this category available to him. His concept of process was based on the
circular biological model.
We
have the evidence of the processes of Big Bang cosmology, of biological
evolution and of the phenomenon of Emergent Evolution, each of which is an
extended linear process. From our process perspective we can understand our
imperfect world as simply one stage in a cosmic process, a process which could
lead to the production of a more perfect entity, one which is similar to God in
goodness, in creativity and in mode of existence.
I
argue in "The Process of the Cosmos" (1999) that as the self-existent
God can have no needs, God's only possible motive for creation is to make
possible the self-creation of an entity that is similar to God and appropriate
for God to love. God cannot directly create such an entity. God can only
create creatures. The only way such an entity could come to be is for that
entity to be self-created in those aspects of its being that make it similar to
God, aspects such as creativity and goodness.
It
requires a self-existent intelligent designer to set in train a process that
could produce an entity with the capacity to self-develop beyond the
limitations of instinct and eventually to self-create in a new, spiritual
dimension.
Intervention
by God in the process would frustrate the objective of self-creation. God would
have to be "hands-off" the process, which would have to operate
freely. The question is whether the cosmos, from the Big Bang on, can be
understood as such a process?
A
process comprises a series of stages leading to a product. The universe has
developed through a series of Emergent stages. Each one of these Emergent
stages is built upon the previous stage, is more complex than its predecessor
and has a greater degree of freedom to develop, to evolve or to self-create.
THE
SELF-DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANITY
The
self-existent God initiates the cosmic process, providing the Time, the Energy
and the Mathematical Constants that could eventually lead to the evolution of
large-brained animals somewhere in the Cosmos. Such large brained animals would
have the cognitive capacity to develop a mind, but this could only occur by a
process involving both self-development and self-creation.
All
life instinctively accesses the information that is necessary for survival.
There is no understanding involved in this instinctive process. It is the
pursuit of understanding that distinguishes humans from animals. Homo sapiens
achieve this distinction by using their cognitive capacities to acquire and
utilize information beyond the instinctive information that is necessary for
their survival. In seeking not merely to survive, but to understand and make
sense of their experience, Homo sapiens begin to develop a mind, becoming human
in the process.
Eventually
some humans begin to become aware of the moral values that find their
expression in the Moral Law. In the history of Homo sapiens this is a very
recent development, as Bruno Snell shows in "The Discovery of the Mind in
Greek Philosophy and Literature" (1982). Snell argues that Socrates is the
first Greek teacher of morality. I argue in "The Process of the
Cosmos" that morality first develops among the Hebrews. I contrast the
moral development of Hesiod and Hosea, who were
approximate contemporaries.
As
Kohlberg has shown, principled morality based on the human capacity to make
principled moral decisions is still extremely rare. Morality is a spiritual
development. Once humans begin to become moral they have begun the task of
making themselves similar to God in goodness. We are involved in this
self-creating process. God is not. God is necessarily "hands-off" the
world, which is our "do-it-yourself" kit.
REFERENCES
Alexander
S. (1920) Space, Time and Deity London,
Macmillan.
Baechler J (1975) The
Origins of Capitalism Oxford,
Basil Blackwell.
Belloc H.
(1991) The Great Heresies USA TAN Books.
Clifford
R. (1988) ‘Creation in the Hebrew Bible' in
Physics Philosophy & Theology
Vatican, Vatican Observatory.
Macmillan
Davies
P. (2006) The
Goldilocks Enigma Allen Lane.
Hartmann
N. (1953) New Ways of Ontology Chicago, Henry
Regnery Co.
Jenkins D. (1965)
"Whither the Doctrine of God
Now?" in Marty M.E and
Pearman D.G. (Eds)
New Theology No.2 N.Y. Macmillan.
Kelly
A.B. (1999) The
Process of the Cosmos:
Philosophical Theology and
Cosmology USA Dissertation.com
Also at www.philosophy.27south.com
Kelly
A.B. (2006) The
Intelligent Design of the
Cosmos PHILICA.COM Article No. 50
Kelly
J.N.D. (1960) Early Christian Doctrines London
Adam & Charles
Black.
Koestler A.
(1959) The Sleepwalkers
Great Britain,
Penguin Books.
Lonergan B. (1974) A
Second Collection Philadelphia
The Westminster Press.
Madigan
P. (1988) Christian Revelation and the
Completion of the Aristotelian
Revolution Lanham, UPA.
Marasigan V. (2000) Emergent
Probability and the
Anthropic Principle
http://www.lonergan.on.ca/dialectics/marasigan2000-epap.htm
Mattick John (2001)
Bulletin EdDesk Article at:
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/0/3ceab9713945f774ca256cd80003fb17?OpenDocument
Rees
Martin (2000) Just Six Numbers
London, Phoenix.
Snell
Bruno (1982) The
Discovery of the Mind in
Greek Philosophy and Literature
New York, Dover Publications Inc.
Werkmeister W.H. (1990) Nicolai Hartmann's New Ontology
Tallahassee,
Florida State
University Press.
Wiltgen R.M (1967) The Rhine Flows into the Tiber
New York, Hawthorne Books