viernes, 29 de julio de 2011

ENTRE LA CIENCIA Y LA FE


Entre la ciencia y la fe

INTRODUCIÓN
La sociedad moderna ha exhibido una actitud de generosa apertura en la comprensión de los fenómenos humanos, particularmente en cuanto se refiere a su conducta. Como puede suponerse, dada la variabilidad individual, esta apoteosis ha significado para unos moderación, adaptación o extremo para otros.

En esta segunda mitad del siglo hemos sido testigos de actitudes bastante impactantes para el pensamiento y la organización conceptual de los hombres: dos Guerras mundiales marcan el siglo; el terrorismo sacudió el mundo tiñendo de sangre su geografía en varios lugares del mundo; las dictaduras a pesar de herir el principio de libertad se extendieron sin escrúpulo alguno en toda Latinoamérica; la mujer luego de siglos recién empieza a encontrar mayor espacio para asumir los derechos que le corresponden desde la antigüedad; las drogas con su dramático impacto se incrustan en grandes grupos poblacionales; los principios morales entran en crisis y muchos agonizan como la lealtad, autenticidad, honradez y similares. Se viven momentos de bienestar y gran progreso tecnológico pero no sabemos si el hombre se ha hecho mejor y si es más feliz que sus antepasados. Las muestras de vaciedad interior y nihilismo muestran que no todo lo que brilla es oro.

El razonamiento se ha hecho bastante concreto y pragmático, la sobrevivencia constituye un tema nuclear y en su diseño de vida el resultado pone en evidencia que luego de semejante avance científico, técnico y cultural, 25% de la humanidad se alimenta muy bien pero el 75% restante revela condiciones que harían empalidecer a todo individuo consciente: mientras que en los países industrializados 8 de cada 10 individuos tienen sobrepeso por exceso de alimentación, en otros mueren de hambre por millares. Mientras algunos países desarrollados viven inmersos en el progreso cibernético y telemático en otros todavía la gente no sabe ni leer ni escribir

Si analizamos otros rubros en el panorama mundial las contradicciones son muy patentes entre otras las provenientes de la riqueza-pobreza, libertad-sometimiento, conocimiento-ignorancia, salud-enfermedad, dicotomías indiscutibles que presentan un mundo claroscuro donde no siempre resulta fácil distinguir la claridad de la oscuridad y viceversa. La tecnología por ejemplo, con su magnifico potencial aplicado en la industria parecía uno de los tópicos más claros en la historia de la humanidad, sin embargo, conocer sus efectos en la atmósfera mediante el efecto invernadero y sus daños al ozono la convierten en un tema bastante oscuro.

Y a ello se asocian otros argumentos con similar perspectiva: emergió el sexo libre que pronto tuvo que replegarse a causa del SIDA; se descubrieron drogas en apariencia benéficas pero que su abuso reveló el temerario mundo de las farmacodependencias, sin ignorar el alcohol y el tabaco, drogas cuyos efectos destructivos son conocidos en detalle pero que la sociedad cultiva con una dignidad socio-económica que no deja de asombrar.

El hombre se ha erguido dominante sobre la naturaleza penetrando en su micro y macrocosmos. No puede negarse que la historia del hombre es maravillosa y sus éxitos son una prueba de ello, pero también puede equivocarse y lo hace cotidianamente: en este siglo fue capaz de exterminar en dos guerras mundiales nada menos que cien millones de personas; desde 1945 a 1996 un período denominado "época de paz" ha provocado 187 conflictos bélicos y en uno de ellos, inspirado en luchas tribales pudo aniquilar alrededor de un millón de personas en Ruanda, nada menos que en dos semanas sirviéndose para ello de palos, cuchillos, machetes y algunas armas de fuego. Y ¿qué decir de las últimas pruebas nucleares francesas que soberbias e imperturbables ante la censura mundial asesinan nuestro ecosistema? ¿Dónde quedan los conceptos de democracia, libertad, justicia, cooperación, igualdad, convivencia pacífica?

Un panorama similar naturalmente que no hace justicia a las mejores virtudes del hombre. ¿Está mal orientando?, ¿ha perdido el rumbo?, ¿qué le sobra?, o en todo caso ¿qué es lo que le falta?

La "Ciencia y la Fe" se han convertido para el hombre en referencias de capital importancia. Según datos obtenidos, de los más de 6.500 millones de habitantes que pueblan la tierra, nada menos que 5.000 millones afirman tener "Fe en un Dios". El resto se proyecta en una dimensión atea para quienes la existencia de un Dios sobrenatural, trascendente, Creador del mundo seria una ilusión en cuanto la vida termina con la muerte; no creen ni en el alma ni en el espíritu, tampoco en una vida en el más allá (Castañón-Gómez, 1995).

Para numerosos grupos humanos la ciencia y la tecnología han asumido un rol muy definido. Son méritos propios dicen, los que han permitido el incremento de la expectativa de vida, la curación de enfermedades, la conquista del espacio, propuesto un mundo de telecomunicaciones instantáneo, transportes aéreos regulares por todo el mundo, creado el movimiento de las imágenes, "milagros" en el sonido, servicios de robots, trasplantes de órganos. Para aquellos la ciencia y el hombre han conformado una simbiosis que regula el destino del mundo y el de los hombres.

Reconociendo en la tecno-ciencia estos alcances y muchos otros más, este quehacer humano se convierte en un vector orientador determinante para el hombre moderno, la Ciencia guía el pensamiento y conducta de los hombres: "los científicos han dicho que las vitaminas hacen bien"... y la población sigue estos consejos, aún cuando propusieron directrices equivocadas con consecuencias funestas como el caso de la talidomida o se vivieron accidentes como los de Chernobyl junto a miles de casos análogos conocidos y no. Pero la ciencia es una vertiente conceptual de amplio alcance y muy difícil de ignorar.
Las culturas antiguas han comprobado a lo largo de su historia que el desarrollo de sus pueblos estuvo muy unido al ejercicio de una Fe en uno o más dioses creadores del mundo, de los hombres, protectores de la tierra. Los griegos poblaron el Olimpo de dioses especializados en diferentes sectores de la actividad humana y de los eventos terrenos: guerras, sexo, mares, fuego, truenos, etc.; los egipcios crearon un estilo de vida religioso centrado en el Faraón que se convertía prácticamente en un dios sobre la tierra; los romanos y otras culturas llenaron sus palacios de dioses aptos para ayudar a los hombres en toda circunstancia; para el amor, la fertilidad, o la misma libación, siempre había alguno. Nuestras culturas latinoamericanas vieron en el sol, la luna, la tierra deidades fundamentales.

Parecería que el hombre cuenta con un "gen divino" que lo une a un Dios visible o invisible y que a pesar de tantas negaciones y discusiones ha acompañado constantemente la vida de los hombres.

Esta actitud de "religación" (unión con Dios) o de genetización de Dios (Dios está en el hombre desde que él vive), pone a luz una constante: "!Dios existe!", que sin embargo en muchos momentos de la cronología humana se tiende a cuestionar: "!Dios No existe!".

En un siglo impregnado de materialismo y relativismo, el positivismo imperante (que enfatiza la validez sólo de aquello que pueda verificarse empíricamente), se impone gradualmente estimulando la opinión que ve a la ciencia como contrapuesta a la fe. Si la ciencia se ocupa de hechos concretos, mensurables y objetivos, ¿cómo se podrá relacionar con su antítesis que es abstracta, inmensurable y subjetiva?

Afrontar el tema "Ciencia y Fe" se hace una necesidad primordial en cuanto la relación de las mismas en la cosmovisión moderna, no invita a pensar a una interacción complementaria sino más bien opositora. Nosotros creemos que si la ciencia busca la verdad en el conocimiento humano y natural y la fe propone Verdades sobrenaturales importantes para el hombre, ambas deberían estar al servicio de la Verdad.

En todo caso, el alcance que el hombre tenga en reconocer la verdad natural, debería facilitar la búsqueda de la Verdad Suprema y no vestirse con el ropaje de aquella soberbia que confunde al individuo con doctrinas subjetivas, nada científicas, pretendiendo en casos extremos, nada menos que la anulación o desconocimiento de Verdades trascendentes. ¿No seria mejor que en vez de separar el conocimiento o las verdades el hombre las complemente o las unifique?

CONSIDERACIONES SOBRE LA CIENCIA

La ciencia también supone, no sólo registra hechos; sin una hipótesis no habría tal vez la experimentación que luego demostrará la veracidad de la misma. Antes de la demostración ¿no es ciencia la hipótesis? La ciencia está hecha de ideas, cálculos y experimentos, luego se integran pero cada uno tiene su momento que ulteriormente se combina en la medida que sea oportuno.

Después de las promesas de Comte sobre la conquista del mundo a través de la ciencia, la idea se ha arraigado y vivimos muy pendientes de la misma aún sin saber los alcances de sus postulados. Por otra parte, se aviva en nosotros una constante confusión cuando un científico afirma algo y otro le refuta; el trillado tema del colesterol es un ejemplo que ha desorientado al público al igual que las aseveraciones sobre los teléfonos celulares o el empleo de la silicona en cirugía estética, junto a tantas otras preocupaciones de actualidad.

Parece, no obstante, que todo pensamiento se hace válido y confiable si viene de la ciencia aunque se ignore la fuente del concepto y su respectivo funcionamiento. Las revistas de divulgación científica populares han encontrado un gran mercado en estos rubros, allá se escribe por ejemplo que muchos compuestos alimenticios provocan cáncer porque en ratas se comprobó tal consecuencia, pero nadie explica que una rata es un animal de experimentación que no necesariamente replica el metabolismo del cuerpo humano y que para provocar ese cáncer el humano tendría que consumir porciones tan elevadas que en toda su vida no sería capaz de acumular.

Hasta el presente sigue faltando el famoso "eslabón perdido" que demuestre la evolución del hombre, pero pocos dudan de la relación existente entre el hombre y los simios... pues la ciencia lo ha dicho, aunque siga partiendo de una hipótesis hasta hoy no demostrada.

El libro de Stephen Hawking sobre la "Historia del tiempo" ha tenido mucho éxito... pero al preguntar a las personas el significado de la obra, pocos la entienden pero repiten sus aseveraciones y pocos se han interesado de conocer los textos de aquellos autores competentes que la rechazan. La obra de Erick Von Dániken, "Recuerdos del futuro" fue escrita mientras este se encontraba en una prisión de Suiza por problemas económicos y deudas, no es ni un científico ni un investigador, fue fantasioso e imaginativo, lo cual es una virtud, pero su obra no tiene el sentido científico que la propaganda comercial le ha otorgado y para muchos es la "prueba" de la existencia de extraterrestres.

Muchos escucharon hablar de Einstein, algunos recuerdan su primer nombre, menos saben si nació en Suiza, Austria o Alemania y si fue un buen o mal alumno en la escuela. Conocemos pocos detalles porque nuestra información es relativa y globalizada, pero es importante saber más de él para poder entender mejor el sentido de su postura hacia la ciencia y la verdad. Una de las cosas más importantes que hizo fue romper los modelos de pensamiento establecidos por la física de Newton que destacó una visión mecánica del mundo por tiempo prolongado. Se pensaba que el mundo era como una máquina inmensa y que al conocer las piezas y leyes que regían su funcionamiento, sería posible explicar perfectamente los fenómenos del universo.

Esta perspectiva inspiró por ejemplo a Julien de La Mettrie a publicar en el s. XVIII el libro "El Hombre Máquina", el postulado final concluía que "todo es materia". Como explica Artigas (1992), hasta el s.XX el mecanicismo se difundió sin dificultad; para muchos la ciencia era inductiva, obtenía sus leyes mediante la acumulación de observaciones, hasta que se enunciaron principios como los de la relatividad y de la física cuántica poniendo en claro que la cosa era mucho más complicada.
Desde que Newton la publicó en 1687, reinó con preponderancia hasta que el joven Einstein envió en 1905 a la revista alemana "Anales de Física" cuatro artículos. Siendo Max Planck el director, publicó uno sobre el efecto fotoeléctrico, que le valió el Premio Nóbel años después, y otro sobre la teoría especial de la relatividad. En esta teoría modifica conceptos básicos de la física newtoniana que en casos ya no explicaba ciertos fenómenos. La teoría de Eistein muestra que la masa ya no es constante pues depende de la velocidad. Las medidas del espacio y del tiempo no son siempre las mismas, cambian en función del movimiento de quien las mide.

Las leyes de la mecánica victoriosa de Newton cambian y se comprueba que la estructura básica propuesta tenía que ser igualmente modificada. ¿Cambia la ciencia? La teoría general de la relatividad formulada en 1915 mostraría sus importantes aplicaciones en el estudio del universo. El trabajo de Einstein denunciaba revolucionariamente que teorías aparentemente consolidadas podrían comportar errores y no dejó de decirlo en Viena: "Si encuentran hechos contrarios a mi teoríahabría que cambiarla..."

Este caso puntualiza los alcances y límites de la ciencia misma. Ante esta preocupación Popper escribe: "Buscamos la verdad, pero nunca podemos estar seguros de haberla alcanzado. La verdad es como un faro que guía nuestra búsqueda, pero se trata de una búsqueda sin fin. No sin razón su autobiografía la tituló: "Búsqueda sin término" (1979).

Por último, tampoco esta aseveración es inmanente, es dinámica y nos invita a pensar que pese a nuestra falibilidad el hombre está en grado de alcanzar verdades.

Los cambios en el espíritu del tiempo dieron espacio a una revolución del pensamiento. El famoso "Círculo de Viena" de gran influencia en el pensamiento científico, vende exitosamente en la primera mitad del s. XX el criterio arraigado de la "verifícabilidad científica" : "sólo los enunciados empíricamente verificables estarían dotados de sentido y podrían ser verdaderos o falsos". Este neopositivismo proponía una ciencia en la cual sólo adquiere valor la experiencia sensorial, eliminando cualquier otra pretensión cognoscitiva como "carente de sentido" (Artigas, 39). En la ciencia no hay profundidades, todo es superficie, por lo tanto todo es accesible al hombre y el hombre es la medida de todas las cosas... la ciencia no conoce enigmas insolubles... no acepta ningún tipo de misterio. Aquí es donde Artigas habla de las "fracturas de la racionalidad" (p.64). ¿Por qué el hombre cree poder responder a todo? ¿Cómo es que el médico hace un trasplante y no puede curar un resfriado fútil?

Con ésta orientación el hombre anula el alma, el espíritu o a Dios, simplemente porque no los ve. Pero si no reconoce una realidad con los repertorios que tiene ¿quiere decir que por eso no exista? Si el hombre no mejoraba esta postura obtusa habría ignorado hasta hoy la existencia de microbios o neuronas, bastaría luego un microscopio para abrirle las puertas de un microcosmos desconocido.

Gran víctima de este extremo experimentalista y positivista fue la misma Psicología, postergada en su avance científico cognitivo y emocional, sencillamente porque las premisas metodológicas del momento definían que el pensamiento y la vida afectiva no podían conocerse en cuanto no se podían pesar y medir.

¿No es factible que la reconocida capacidad cognitiva del hombre esté en grado de revelar otras verdades aún trascendentes? ¿Quién pone el límite al pensamiento y a la verdad intelectual? John Eccles, Premio Nóbel en medicina por la neurología, afirma que nuestro mundo consiste en experiencias del alma: sentimientos, emociones, pensamientos, valores, que se relacionan con una voluntad que sí dirige nuestras acciones, haciendo notables realidades que no veíamos antes como puede ser una expresión de afecto o estima (1991).

Nadie podrá negar que la materia es una realidad patente, pero no parece "ser suficiente" para explicar el origen del "concepto del yo, la autoestima, el criterio ético, el amor". Si el materialismo científico fuese real como el neopositivismo rígido lo presenta, hace tiempo que "su ciencia material" habría dejado de existir, pues habría mutilado "los procesos mentales de pensamiento" que "inspiran" su elucubración.

Pero el hombre vive en un devenir constante, y no podemos pensar que una teoría humana elimine la "vida eterna que Dios propone". Por cierto que somos conscientes de la diferencia metodológica el tratamiento de la información por parte de la ciencia y de la Teología... Nosotros, creemos que los años '90 han estimulado una profunda necesidad de búsqueda interior, por ello grandes universidades han empezado a incorporar sus departamentos de Ciencias Religiosas. Cada uno tiene su perspectiva, pero todas tienen un denominador común: hablar del espíritu, hablar de fe, de razón y ciencia... Veamos, qué es lo que podemos exponer acerca de ello.

Nuestro punto de vista, brinda para la reflexión argumentos científicos recientes, que nos animan en esa búsqueda, pues, a pesar de la oscuridad en la cual a veces nos sume un cierto pensamiento humano, divisamos una luz llena de esperanza que se realiza ciertamente más allá de la sola materia



jueves, 28 de julio de 2011

How many dimensions have the Universe ...?

Degrees of Freedom
The boundless dimensions of math and physics
Degrees of Freedom HomeAboutContact

What Do You Mean, The Universe Is Flat? (Part I)



Hubble's viewThe universe is three-dimensional.
The universe is four-dimensional—three for space, one for time.
The universe has nine, or ten or eleven dimensions.
Matter curves spacetime.
The universe is flat.
The universe is infinite.
The universe is 84 billion light-years wide.
The universe is a bubble, or an onion.
Or a hall of mirrors, shaped like soccer ball.
Or a shape out of Dante’s Divine Comedy.

Statements like these appear quite frequently in popular science magazines–including Scientific American–and they seem to be in utter contradiction with one another. But all of them are true, or at least plausible. What gives?
The subtlety is that the word “universe” has different meanings in different contexts. In colloquial English, the word is often taken to mean “everything that exists.” So this intuitive notion of universe seems like a good place to start. If we follow this line of thought, the first thing we notice is that the present tense of the verb “to exist” implicitly assumes that we are referring to “everything that exists now.”
Leaving aside the issue of whether “now” can have a universal meaning–and the even subtler ontological question of what it means to exist–it makes sense to think of the totality of space and all of its contents at the present time, and to imagine this totality as a contiguous entity.

Space or spacetime?
If we take this route, we may first notice that space appears to us to be three-dimensional. Thus, we could make the assumption that we can locate anything in the universe using three Cartesian coordinates: at this frozen moment in time that we call the present, every object occupies a certain x, y and z in our three-dimensional continuum.
So here is one natural notion of the universe: all of three-dimensional space at the present time. Call it the nowverse.
But what about all those other dimensions?
Fanciful theoretical constructs such as string theory postulate that, in fact, there is more to space than we can see, but for now those theories have no experimental evidence to support them. So, for the time being we may as well just focus on our familiar three dimensions.
spacetime with 2D space
In this schematic of spacetime, the disk at the top represents space at the present time; the ones below represent space at earlier times
Time, on the other hand, is indeed an additional dimension, and together with space it forms a larger, four-dimensional entity called spacetime. It is natural to think of the nowverse as a 3-D slice in this 4-D space, just like horizontal planes are 2-D slices in our 3-D world. Because most people (including yours truly) have a hard time visualizing 4-D objects, a common way of thinking of spacetime is to pretend that space had only two dimensions. Spacetime, then, would have a more manageable total of three. In this way of looking at things, the nowverse is one of many parallel planes, each of which represent the universe at a particular time of its history.
Thus, the seeming inconsistency of
The universe is three-dimensional.
The universe is four-dimensional—three for space, one for time.
The universe has nine, or ten or eleven dimensions.
is just a matter of clarifying language. For all we know, space is 3-D, and spacetime is 4-D; but if string theory is true, then space turns out to be 9-D, and spacetime 10-D.
Incidentally, when cosmologists talk about the expansion of the universe, they mean that space has been expanding, not spacetime.

Flat or Curved?
sphere and plane
A plane and the surface of a sphere are the prototype for flat and curved space
In the last decade—you may have read this news countless times—cosmologists have found what they say is rather convincing evidence that the universe (meaning 3-D space) is flat, or at least very close to being flat.
The exact meaning of flat, versus curved, space deserves a post of its own, and that is what Part II of this series will be about. For the time being, it is convenient to just visualize a plane as our archetype of flat object, and the surface of the Earth as our archetype of a curved one. Both are two-dimensional, but as I will describe in the next installment, flatness and curviness make sense in any number of dimensions.
What I do want to talk about here is what it is that is supposed to be flat.
When cosmologists say that the universe is flat they are referring to space—the nowverse and its parallel siblings of time past. Spacetime is not flat. It can’t be: Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that matter and energy curve spacetime, and there are enough matter and energy lying around to provide for curvature. Besides, if spacetime were flat I wouldn’t be sitting here because there would be no gravity to keep me on the chair. To put it succintly: space can be flat even if spacetime isn’t.
Moreover, when they talk about the flatness of space cosmologists are referring to the large-scale appearance of the universe. When you “zoom in” and look at something of less-than-cosmic scale, such as the solar system, space—not just spacetime—is definitely not flat. Remarkable fresh evidence for this fact was obtained recently by the longest-running experiment in NASA history, Gravity Probe B, which took a direct measurement of the curvature of space around Earth. (And the most extreme case of non-flatness of space is thought to occur inside the event horizon of a black hole, but that’s another story.)
On a cosmic scale, the curvature created in space by the countless stars, black holes, dust clouds, galaxies, and so on constitutes just a bunch of little bumps on a space that is, overall, boringly flat.
Thus the seeming contradiction:
Matter curves spacetime. The universe is flat
is easily explained, too: spacetime is curved, and so is space; but on a large scale, space is overall flat.

Finite or Infinite?
coordinate axesIf everything in the nowverse has an x, a y and a z, it would be natural to assume that we can push these coordinates to take any value, no matter how large. A spaceship flying off “along the x axis” could then go on forever. After all, what could stop her? Space would need to have some kind of boundary; most cosmologists don’t think it does.
The fact that you can go on forever however does not mean that space is infinite. Think of the two-dimensional sphere on which we live, the surface of the Earth. If you board an airplane and fly over the equator, you can just keep flying—you’ll never run into the “end of the Earth.” But after a while (assuming you have enough fuel) you would come back to the same place. Something similar could, in principle, happen in our universe: a spaceship that flew off in one direction could, after a long time, reappear from the opposite direction.
Or perhaps it wouldn’t. Cosmologists seem to believe that the universe goes on forever without coming back—and in particular, that space has infinite extension. But when pressed, most cosmologists would also admit that, in fact, they have no clue whether it’s finite or infinite.
In principle, the universe could be finite and without a boundary—just like the surface of the Earth, but in three dimensions. In fact, when Einstein formulated his cosmological vision, based on his theory of gravitation, he postulated that the universe was finite. Einstein’s Weltanschauung was rooted in his deep, almost mystical sense of aesthetics; the most symmetric, aesthetically perfect three-dimensional shape is that of a three-dimensional sphere. (Some have suggested that the way Dante describes the universe in his Divine Comedy has something to do with a 3-D sphere, too: I guess that will have to wait for a future post, too.)
In more recent times, some cosmologists have taken this possibility quite seriously, and have tried to check whether space might be a 3-D sphere, or perhaps a more complicated 3-D space that is essentially a sphere wrapped around itself [see “Is Space Finite?” by Glenn D. Starkman, Jean-Pierre Luminet and Jeffrey R. Weeks; Scientific American, April 1999]. In a universe that has one of these shapes, one could observe trippy hall-0f-mirror type of effects.
The reason why we don’t know if space is finite or infinite is that we seem to have no way of observing beyond a limited horizon. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, we don’t have any information about events that happen beyond a certain distance. (For reasons that would be too complicated to go into here, that maximum distance is actually not 13.7 billion light years.)

The observed universe
So one thing we know is what we cannot know: the universe we can observe has finite extension. Cosmologists often refer to it as the observable universe.
How large is the observable universe? That is a surprisingly difficult question, which will be the subject of yet another future post.
For now, let’s just notice that the most distant galaxies whose light we have detected emitted that light about 13.2 billion years ago. Because the universe (meaning space) has been expanding ever since, those galaxies are now at a much greater distance—some 26 billion light-years away.
Even farther away than the farthest galaxies, the most distant object we have been able to observe, the plasma that existed before the age of recombination [see Under a Blood Red Sky], existed about 13.7 billion years ago, a puny 400 millennia after the big bang. Light coming from it has taken 13.7 billion light years to reach us. The matter we “see” in that plasma has also moved farther away: that matter is now an estimated 42 billion light years away. So that’s what cosmologists talk about when they say that the observable universe has a radius of 42 billion light years. (Of course, the answer had to be 42.)
The  bizarre fact about the observable universe, however, is that it is not part of the nowverse. Because light from distant galaxies took millions of years to reach us, what we see is in the past, not in the present, and the farther it is, the older it is. So if the observable universe is not part of the nowverse, how can we picture it? Where in spacetime should we place it?  [to be continued]
Hubble Ultra Deep Field view courtesy of NASA. Sphere-and-plane image by Joe Doliner.
Many thanks to Scientific American cosmology guru George Musser.
About the Author: Davide Castelvecchi (@dcastelvecchi) is an editor at Scientific American magazine. Follow on Twitter  @dcastelvecchi.

Source : Scientific American Communication. 

martes, 19 de julio de 2011

Interpretacion Alegorica o Literaria de Genesis...???

 De acuerdo con la Iglesia Catolica la lectura de Genesis debe hacerse de manera alegorica. De acuerdo con las Iglesias Protestantes debe hacerse de manera literal. Cuales son las implicaciones de dos lecturas tan diferentes..?

 

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Part of a series on
Creationism
The Creation of Adam.jpg
History of creationism
Neo-creationism
Types of creationism
Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Intelligent design
Mythology and theology
Creation myth
Genesis creation narrative
Framework interpretation
Genesis as an allegory
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Baraminology
Flood geology
Creation geophysics
Creationist cosmologies
Intelligent design
Controversy
History
Public education
Teach the Controversy
Particular religious views
Deist · Hindu · Islamic · Jewish
Pandeist
Wikipedia book Book · Category Category · PortalPortal

v · d · e
An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a symbolic, rather than literal, reading of the biblical Book of Genesis. An allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation; interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo maintained that the Bible is true on multiple levels at the same time.
Genesis is part of the canonical scriptures for both Christianity and Judaism, and thus to believers is taken as being of spiritual significance. The opening sequences of the book tell the biblical story of origins. Those who read Genesis literally believe that it teaches the creation of humanity and the universe in general in a timeframe of six successive days of 24 hours duration. Those who favor an allegorical interpretation of the story claim that its intent is to describe humankind's relationship to creation and the creator.
Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description, indeed much earlier than the development of modern science. Two notable examples are Augustine of Hippo (4th century) who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain account of Genesis would require;[1] and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[2]

Contents


] Interpretation

[ Church Historians on Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis

The literalist reading of some contemporary Christians maligns the allegorical or mythical interpretation of Genesis as a belated attempt to reconcile science with the biblical account. They maintain that the story of origins had always been interpreted literally until modern science (and, specifically, biological evolution) arose and challenged it. This view is not the consensus view, however, as demonstrated below:
According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams: "[For] most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time.[3]
Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his Bible and Science:[4]
"Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers."[5]
However, the Russian Orthodox hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose has argued that leading Orthodox saints such as Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Ephraim the Syrian believed that Genesis should be treated as a historical account.[6][7][8]

[ Ancient Christian Interpretations

Finding Allegory in History

This article uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.
The earliest recorded Christian allegorical interpretation of a passage in Genesis is Galatians 4:22-26 KJV.[citation needed] The wording of the phrase, "this is being allegorized," indicates that Paul sees the passage as being true both literally and allegorically.[citation needed]
Other New Testament writers took a similar approach to the Jewish Bible. The Gospel of Matthew reinterprets a number of passages. Where the prophet Hosea has God say of Israel, "Out of Egypt I called my son," (Hosea 11:1 KJV), Matthew interprets the phrase as a reference to Jesus. Likewise, Isaiah's promise of a child as a sign to King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14 KJV) is understood by Matthew to refer to Jesus. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews saw symbolism in the rituals of ancient Israel, foreshadowing events in the life and death of Jesus.[citation needed]
Later Christians followed their example. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work Against Heresies from the middle of the 2nd century, saw the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent pointing to the death of Jesus:
"Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he did eat. For God said, 'In that day on which ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death.' The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death."[9]
In the 3rd century, Origen and others of the Alexandrian school claimed that the Bible's true meaning could be found only by reading it allegorically.[10] Origen explained in De Principiis that sometimes spiritual teachings could be gleaned from historical events, and sometimes the lessons could only be taught through stories that, taken literally, would "seem incapable of containing truth."[11]

[ Days of Creation

Early Christians seem to have been divided over whether to interpret the days of creation in Genesis 1 as literal days, or to understand them allegorically.
For example, St. Basil rejected an allegorical interpretation in his Hexaëmeron, and affirmed 24-hour creation days:
"I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel' [Romans 1:16]."[12]
"'And there was evening and there was morning: one day.' And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day."[13]
Origen of Alexandria, in a passage that was later chosen by Gregory of Nazianzus for inclusion in the Philocalia, an anthology of some of his most important texts, made the following very modern-sounding remarks:
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."[14]
And in another passage, writing in response to the pagan intellectual Celsus, he said:
"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."[15]
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:
St. Augustine of Hippo
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."[16]
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."[17]
In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.[18]
In The City of God, Augustine also defended the idea of a young Earth. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings:
"Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."[19]
St. Augustine also comments on the word "day" in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult:
"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"[20]

Contemporary Christian considerations

In light of scientific findings regarding the age and origins of the universe and life, many modern Christian theologians, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, have rejected literalistic interpretations of Genesis in favour of allegorical or poetic interpretations such as the literary framework view.
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the section "The Divine Work of Creation," (pages 92–122) covers the "biblical hexahemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:
"...as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood."[21]
"As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis -- opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest."[22]
Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:
"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven."[23]
The "Clergy Letter" Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting science and faith, states:
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator."[24]
Prominent evangelical advocates of metaphorical interpretations of Genesis include Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher who advocate the literary framework view. In Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, evangelical author Gordon J. Glover argues for an ancient near-eastern cosmology interpretation of Genesis, which he labels the theology of creation:
"Christians need to understand the first chapter of Genesis for what it is: an 'accurate' rendering of the physical universe by ancient standards that God used as the vehicle to deliver timeless theological truth to His people. We shouldn’t try to make Genesis into something that it’s not by dragging it through 3,500 years of scientific progress. When reading Genesis, Christians today need to transport themselves back to Mt. Sinai and leave our modern minds in the 21st century. If you only remember one thing from this chapter make it this: Genesis is not giving us creation science. It is giving us something much more profound and practical than that. Genesis is giving us a Biblical Theology of Creation."[25]

Rabbinic teachings

Main article: Judaism and evolution
Philo was the first commentator to use allegory on Bible extensively in his writing.
Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.[26] Before him Saadia Gaon set rules in the same spirit when allegoric approach can be used, for example, if the plain sense contradicts logic.[27] Solomon ibn Gabirol extensively used allegory in his book "Fountain of Life", cited by Abraham ibn Ezra.[28] In 1305 Shlomo ben Aderet wrote a letter against unrestricted usage of allegory by followers of Maimonides, like Jacob Anatoli in his book "Malmad ha-Talmidim".[29] In spite of this Gersonides copied Maimonides' explanation the story of Adam into his commentary on Genesis, thinly veiled by extensive usage of the word "hint". The main point of Maimonides and Gersonides is that Fall of Man is not a story about one man, but about the human nature. Adam is the pure intellect, Eve is a body, and the Serpent is a fantasy that tries to trap intellect through the body.[30]
Zohar states:
If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a Torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets. Thus the tales related in the Torah are simply her outer garments, and woe to the man who regards that outer garb as the Torah itself, for such a man will be deprived of portion in the next world. Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. See now. The most visible part of a man are the clothes that he has on, and they who lack understanding, when they look at the man, are apt not to see more in him than these clothes. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body. Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond.[31][unreliable source?]
Nahmanides, often critical of the rationalist views of Maimonides, pointed out (in his commentary to Genesis) several non-sequiturs stemming from a literal translation of the Bible's account of Creation, and stated that the account actually symbolically refers to spiritual concepts. He quoted the Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah which states that the actual meaning of the Creation account, mystical in nature, was traditionally transmitted from teachers to advanced scholars in a private setting. Many Kabbalistic sources mention Shmitot - cosmic cycles of creation, similar to the Indian concept of yugas. According to the tradition of Shmitot, Genesis talks openly only about the current epoch, while the information about the previous cosmic cycles is hidden in the esoteric reading of the text.[citation needed]
A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among Jews today is rare among non-Orthodox groups. Indeed, most Conservative and Reformed denominations hold to the view that the creation story can safely be viewed as allegory.[citation needed]
The position of Orthodox Jews has, for some time, been more or less favorable of a literal approach, as evidenced by the uproar that occurred when modern-day biblical commentators expressed their nonliteral interpretations of the accounts related in Genesis, despite being based heavily on views taken by classical commentators such as Rambam and Ralbag. Rabbi Natan Slifkin, in his work The Challenge of Creation, elaborates on his perspective as it relates to Judaism's encounter with science, cosmology and evolution. Reconciliation of modern science with orthodox literal interpretations is the subject of the works of Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and an expert of theology.[citation needed]

[edit] See also

References

This article uses bare URLs or very simple external links in its references or external links section. Such references are threatened by link rot. Please use proper citations containing each referenced work's title, author, publisher, date, and source, so that the article remains verifiable in the future. Several templates and a tool are available to facilitate formatting.  (March 2011)

This article lacks information such as ISBNs for the books listed in it. If the {{Cite book}} or {{Citation}} templates are in use, you may add ISBNs automatically. Specific concerns can be found on the Talk page. Please improve this article if you can.
Nuvola kdict glass.png
  1. ^ Rüst, Peter (September 2007). "Early Humans, Adam, and Inspiration". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59 (3): 182–93. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF9-07Ruest.pdf. 
  2. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html
  3. ^ Rowan Williams (2006-03-21). "Transcript of Archbishop's interview with The Guardian". London: Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury. http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735404,00.html. Retrieved September 9, 2007. 
  4. ^ Christendom Press, 1996
  5. ^ Jaki, pages 110-111
  6. ^ Genesis, Creation and Early Man, Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 2000
  7. ^ http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx
  8. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp
  9. ^ Irenaeus (2nd century). "5.23.2". Against Heresies. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxiv.html#ix.vii.xxiv-p6. 
  10. ^ The School of Alexandria
  11. ^ De Principiis IV.15, Origen, 3rd century
  12. ^ Homily IX:1
  13. ^ Homily II:8
  14. ^ De Principiis IV, 16
  15. ^ Contra Celsus 6.60
  16. ^ The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
  17. ^ The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2:9
  18. ^ Young, David A. (1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (American Scientific Affiliation) 40 (1): 42–45. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html. 
  19. ^ Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]
  20. ^ City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6
  21. ^ Ott, page 92
  22. ^ Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8
  23. ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
  24. ^ An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
  25. ^ Glover, Gordon J. (2007). Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree. ISBN 0-9787186-1-5. 
  26. ^ The Guide for the Perplexed 2:25
  27. ^ Emunoth ve-Deoth, chapter 7
  28. ^ "Alternative commentary" to Gen. 3:21
  29. ^ "ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION" in Jewish Encyclopedia
  30. ^ The Guide for the Perplexed 2:30
  31. ^ Hermeneutics of Scripture in Formation, p 34

External links

Fuente: Wikipedia (textual). Solo he eliminado las indicaciones de Editar para una lectura de corrido.