Years ago Archbishop Prof. Józef Życiński put forward his own model of cognitive integration that takes into account the sacred, the beauty of nature, modern scientific discoveries as well as philosophical and theological theses. In this intellectual undertaking, bringing together in a single perspective poetic imagery and the Christian affirmation of nature, openness to new ideas of science and the quest for a new metaphysics, an important role was to be played by the Christian interpretation of Darwinism. The task still awaits realization. However, it seems that the Author’s death set in motion contrary tendencies. The article presents a brief overview of contemporary tensions between Darwinism and the Church in the context of the integration model proposed by Józef Życiński and signalizes these contrary trends. Outlining, as the title suggests, principles of dialogue, it points to modern man’s ambivalent attitude to cognition and nature as well as to the need to take into account the perspective of Fides et ratio, so vital in the teaching of Pope John Paul II, along with the so called criterion of “Christian rationality” that arises from it. Of help in this task may be further search for the truth about the world recorded in two books: the Book of Nature and the Book of Revelation as well as efforts to develop appropriate methodology of reading them.
PL
Przed laty ks. abp prof. Józef Życiński zaproponował własny model integracji poznawczej uwzględniający zarówno sacrum i piękno przyrody, współczesne odkrycia nauki, jak i tezy filozoficzne i teologiczne. W owym projekcie badawczym, gdzie w jednej perspektywie łączyły się metaforyka poezji i chrześcijańska afirmacja przyrody, otwarcie na nowe idee nauki i poszukiwanie nowej metafizyki, istotną rolę miała spełniać chrześcijańska interpretacja darwinizmu. Zadanie ciągle czeka na realizację. Wydaje się jednak, że śmierć Autora uruchomiła tendencje przeciwne. Artykuł prezentuje krótki zarys współczesnych napięć między darwinizmem a Kościołem w kontekście modelu integracji zaproponowanego przez Józefa Życińskiego oraz sygnalizuje owe przeciwne tendencje. Sugerując, zapowiedziane w tytule, zasady dialogu wskazuje m.in. na ambiwalentny stosunek współczesnego człowieka do poznania i do przyrody oraz potrzebę uwzględnienia perspektywy Fides et ratio, tak istotnej dla nauczania papieża Jana Pawła II, razem z wynikającym z niej tzw. kryterium „chrześcijańskiej racjonalności”. Pomocą w tym zadaniu może być dalsze poszukiwanie prawdy o świecie zapisanej w dwu księgach: Księdze Przyrody i Księdze Objawienia oraz wypracowanie właściwej metodyki ich czytania.
In this paper we discuss the idea of theology of science, which is understood as a new branch of the- ology concerned with the problems arising in the context of natural sciences. Theology of science has been developed since 1980s. The authors of this concept are Michał Heller and Józef Życiński – philosophers involved in discussions between science and religion, who tried to find a new common area to develop this dialogue. The aim of the paper is to present the concept of theology of science in the historical and problematic perspective, taking into account the various challenges and research perspectives faced by this concept.
Emergetism is a theory which explains the mechanism of evolutionary development of nature by stipulating that in complex natural systems on the higher levels of complexity there appear some functions and properties that can not be reduced to and accounted for by functions and properties of the lower levels of complexity. It is therefore the theory of emergence – which stands for some special way the complex systems arise (emerge) from a multiplicity of their relatively simply components. The idea of evolutionary emergentism appears in the philosophical writings of Joseph Życiński in the context of a discussion on the possibility of creating a interpretation of evolutionary processes in which biological theory of evolution could be combined in a coherent way with a theological doctrine about God, the creator of the universe. This paper presents the main ideas and opinions Życiński formulated about this theory; the first part of it contains some basic characterization of emergetnism, the second one compares the notions of emergence and of supervenience; the third one concerns some theological interpretation of this two notions.
In the two-volume work Theism and the Analytical Philosophy (1985; 1988a) Joseph Życiński took up the challenge of renewing Christian metaphysics so that it could appear as a full-fledged partner in the dialogue with other streams of contemporary philosophy. This renewal should use two sources: the methodological principles of analytic philosophy, especially its philosophy of language, and certain elements of Whitehead’s process philosophy. This study presents a critical reconstruction of Życiński’s arguments contained in the first two chapters of (1985), which are devoted to the problem of language. Main results of this part of Życiński’s work are negative, that is, they refute the arguments and interpretations of those analytical philosophers who show the meaninglessness of the theistic language or try to assimilate it to other standard languages, depriving it of a reference to the transcendent reality. How can a positive part of the Życiński program be developed? It seems that only by formulating specific problems in the field of philosophy of God, or even theology, and choosing the right linguistic tools to drill down on a given problem and seek its solution. This is in line with Wittgenstein’s concept of language games. Życiński tries to do this in (1988a). Życiński turned out to be a precursor of nowadays increasingly developing analytical theology.
We set several aims for this paper: first, we wanted to attempt to show that from the perspective of historical and philosophical research, it is legitimate to accept the thesis for the existence of the Kraków School of Philosophy in Science, which was rooted in the activities of Michał Heller and Józef Życiński. We also wanted to make a comparative analysis of the basic specific determinants of the Lvov-Warsaw School (as a model for a philosophical school) and their correspondence in the Kraków School. Further, we wished to show how the Kraków School of Philosophy in Science is actually an adaptation of Kazimierz Twardowski’s model, of course taking into account the differences between them. Finally, we wanted to illustrate the nature of the philosophy in the Kraków School and discuss the current efforts to develop it further.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.