شانس کور و هدایت‌شدگی الهی: بازسازی دیدگاهی سازگاری‌گرایانه با الهام از رویکرد پوکینگهورن درخصوص سازوکار فعل الهی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر مرکز علم و الهیات، پژوهشکده مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد گروه فلسفه علم، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران.

3 استادیار گروه غرب‌شناسی، پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

10.30497/prr.2025.246561.1933

چکیده

سازگاری‌گرایی موضعی است که نظریۀ تکامل و خداباوری مداخله‌گرا را قابل جمع می‌داند. سازگاری‌گرایان هدایت‌شده‌ بودن اجزاء یا ویژگی‌های زیست‌کره را با شانسی‌بودن فرایند تکاملی قابل جمع می‌دانند. یکی از پرسش‌های مهم پیش‌ روی سازگارگرا آن است که: چگونه ممکن است رویدادهای شانسی که کور و بی‌جهت هستند زیست‌کره‌ای هدف‌مند و هدایت‌شده را شکل دهند؟ برای پاسخ، سازگاری‌گرا باید مدلی از رویدادهایی شانسی ارائه دهد که مجموعۀ آن‌ها را می‌توان هدایت‌شده تلقی کرد. در این مقاله، به دو  مدل نامزد برای چنین منظوری می‌پردازیم. مدل نخست که آن را «مدل پوکینگهورن» نامیده ایم، دربردارندۀ این عناصر است: نابسندگی فروکاست‌گرایی، علّیت بالابه‌پایین، شکاف‌های هستی‌شناختی، کل‌گرایی و وابستگی به زمینه، وجود شانس در جهان، عاملیّت الهی و اطلاعات فعال، یگانه‌گوهرانگاری دووجهی و صیرورت عینی. سپس استدلال می‌کنیم سه مؤلفه اخیر  برای منظور ما ضروری نیستند و مدل مناسب‌تر، که آن را «مدل پوکینگهورن تعدیل‌یافته» نامیده ایم، از مدل پوکینگهورن نحیف‌تر است. بدین‌ترتیب، نشان می‌دهیم که نظریۀ تکامل به لحاظ منطقی یا مفهومی سازگار است با این ادعا که علی‌رغم شانسی‌بودن رویدادهای سازندۀ زیست‌کره، دست‌کم برخی از جنبه‌های زیست‌کره  هدایت‌شده هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Blind Chance and Divine Guidedness: Reconstructing a Compatibilist Account Inspired by Polkinghorne's Approach Regarding the Mechanism of Divine Action

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Ebrahim Maghsoudi 1
  • Seyed Hassan Hosseini 2
  • Roozbeh Zare 3

1 Researcher, Center for Science and Theology, Institute for Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Philosophy of Science, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Occidentology, Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought (IICT), Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Compatibilism is the position that considers evolutionary theory and interventionist theism to be compatible. Compatibilists see the directedness of the components or features of the biosphere to be compatible with the chance-driven nature of the evolutionary process. An important question facing the compatibilist is: How is it possible for blind and undirected chance events to shape a purposeful and directed biosphere? To answer, the compatibilist must provide a model of chance events whose aggregate can be considered directed. In this paper, we will examine two candidate models for this aim. First model, which we called the “Polkinghorne model,” includes following elements: the insufficiency of reductionism, top-down causation, ontological gaps, holism & contextualism, the existence of chance in the universe, divine agency and active information, dual-aspect monism, and objective becoming. Then we argue that the last three elements are not necessary for compatibilist purposes, so the more appropriate model, which we called the “modified Polkinghorne model,” is weaker than the Polkinghorne model. Thus, we show that the theory of evolution is consistent with the claim that, despite the chance nature of the events that form the biosphere, at least some aspects of the biosphere are directed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • evolutionary theory
  • theism
  • compatibilism
  • chance
  • divine guidedness
زارع، روزبه. 1396. ««فعل خداوند در طبیعت»: طرح و بررسی دیدگاه جان پوکینگ‌هورن.» جستارهای فلسفه دین 6(2): 107-130.
مقصودی، محمدابراهیم، و حسینی سروری، سید حسن. 1402. «ون‌اینواگن، هدایت‌شدگی الهی و معنای شانس.» پژوهش‌های فلسفی-کلامی 25(4): 5-32.
نریمانی، نیما. 1399. «الگوی نوین پوکینگ‌هورن از ارتباط خدا با عالم با نقد تصور سنتی توماسی.» پژوهشنامه فلسفه دین 18(1): 25-47.
Adlam, Emily. 2022a. “Determinism beyond time evolution.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12 (73). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00497-3
Adlam, Emily. 2022b. “Laws of nature as constraints.” Foundations of Physics 52(1): 28.
Alexander, Denis. 2008. Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?. Monarch Books.
Alexander, Denis. 2020. “Is Evolution a Chance Process?” Scientia et Fides 8 (2): 15 – 41. https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.013
Anderson, Philip W. 1972. “More Is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of the Hierarchical Structure of Science.” Science 177 (4047): 393-396.
Aristotle. 1998. The Metaphysics, Translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. Penguin Books.
Bartholomew, David J. 2008. God, Chance, and Purpose: Can God Have It Both Ways?. Cambridge University Press.
Beatty, John. 1984. “Chance and Natural Selection.” Philosophy of Science 51 (2): 183-211.
Bradley, James. 2012. “Randomness and God’s Nature.” Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 64(2): 75-89.
Chen, E. K. and Goldstein, S. 2022. “Governing Without a Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature.” In Y. Ben-Menahem (ed.), Rethinking the Concept of Law of Nature: Natural Order in the Light of Contemporary Science: 21-64. Springer.
Crain, S. D. 1997. “Divine Action in a World Chaos: An Evaluation of John Polkinghorne’s Model of Special Divine Action.” Faith and Philosophy 14(1): 41-61. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil19971415
Darwin, Charles. 1958. Autobiography. Edited by Nora Barlow, W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
De Smedt, J. and De Cruz, H. 2020. The Challenge of Evolution to Religion. Cambridge University Press.
Dowe, Phil. 2011. “Darwin, God, and Chance.” In Jonathan L. Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Volume 3. Oxford University Press.
Dürr, D. and Lazarovici, D. 2020. Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Springer.
Eagle, A. 2011. “Deterministic Chance.” Noûs 45: 269-299.
Earman, John. 1986. A Primer on Determinism. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Emery, Nina. 2022. “Chance and Determinism.” In Eleanor Knox and Alastair Wilson (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics. Routledge.
Faye, Jan. 2019. “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/qm-copenhagen/
Gillies, Donald. 2000. Philosophical Theories of Probability. Routledge.
Haught, John. 1995. Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press.
Haught, John. 2008. God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Westview Press.
Jung, Carl G. 1960. “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle (reprinted).” In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler & W. McGuire (eds.), The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 8: Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, translated by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press.
Karaba, M. 2021. “Following the Footsteps of John Polkinghorne: In Search of Divine Action in the World.” Religions 12(4): 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040263
Kojonen, E. V. R. 2021. The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyer-Ortmanns, H. 2015. “On the Success and Limitations of Reductionism in Physics.” In B. Falkenburg and M. Morrison (eds.), Why More is Different: Philosophical Issues in Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Systems: 13-39. Springer.
Mills, S., and Beatty, J. 2006. “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness (reprinted).” In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology: 3-24. The MIT Press.
Monod, Jacques. 1974. Chance and necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. Translated by Austryn Wainhouse. Alfred Knopf Inc.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2011. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion & Naturalism. Oxford University Press.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2000. Faith, Science and Understanding. Yale University Press.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2006. Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion. Yale University Press.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2007. One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology. Templeton Foundation Press.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2009a. “The Metaphysics of Divine Action.” In F. L. Shults, N. Murphy, R. J. Russell (eds.), Philosophy, Science and Divine Action. Brill.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2009b. Theology in the Context of Science. Yale University Press.
Pruss, Alexander R. 2021. “God, Chance and Evolution: In Memory of Benjamin Arbour.” In William M. R. Simpson, Robert C. Koons, and James Orr (eds.), Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature: 364-382.
Roberts, J. T. 2006. “Determinism.” In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeifer (eds.), The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia: 197-208. Routledge.
Schaffer, J. 2007. “Deterministic Chance?.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58: 113-140.
Sober, Elliot. 2006. “The Two Faces of Fitness (reprinted).” In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology: 25-38. The MIT Press.
Sober, Elliot. 2010. “Evolutionary Theory and the Reality of Macro Probabilities.” In E. Eells and J.H. Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer.
Sober, Elliot. 2011. “Evolution Without Naturalism.” In J. L. Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, vol. 3. Oxford University Press.
Sober, Elliot. 2014. “Evolutionary Theory, Causal Completeness, and Theism: The Case of "Guided" Mutation.” In R. P. Thompson and D. M. Walsh (eds.), Evolutionary Biology: Conceptual, Ethical, and Religious Issues: 31-44. Cambridge University Press.
Suárez, Mauricio. 2020. Philosophy of Probability and Statistical Modelling. Cambridge University Press.
Suárez, Mauricio. 2022. “Chance.” In Eleanor Knox and Alastair Wilson (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics. Routledge.
Van Inwagen, Peter. 2003. “The Compatibility of Darwinism and Design.” In Neil A. Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge.
Van Woudenberg, Ruitzen. 2013. “Chance, Design, Defeat.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 5(3): 31-41. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v5i3.217
Wharton, Ken. 2015. “The Universe is not a Computer.” In A. Aguirre, B. Foster, and Z. Merali (eds.), Questioning the Foundations of Physics: Which of Our Fundamental Assumptions Are Wrong?: 177-189. Springer.