우주를 이루는 원리를 이해하기 위해, 이론물리학은 매우 중요합니다. 그중, 양자역학이 최근에 가장 주목받고 발전되는 중입니다. 하나님이 만드신 모든 피조물을 구성하는 기저원리를 파악하면, 그 경이로움으로 하나님을 찬양하게 될 것입니다.
이를 위해, David Bohm의 양자역학을 연구하는 것은 현대 그리스도인들에게 매우 의미 있습니다. 여러 방향으로 그것을 분석할 수 있지만, 핵심적인 것은 '가시적으로 보이지 않으면서도 분명히 존재하는 것을 설명할 수 있는 길이 열렸다'는 겁니다. 유대인인 그가 불가지론으로 빠진 유대교적 원인을 기독교인은 반드시 교훈으로 삼아야 합니다.
모든 기독교 종파가 이로부터 다양한 교훈과 신학적 선도방향을 얻거나 예상할 수 있겠지만, 특히, 개혁교회는 신학체계상, 인간의 전인격을 하나로 연결된 것으로 여김을 기억해야 합니다. 개혁교회는 현대에 많은 사람들이 'contemplation(기도하는 상태를 일반적으로 의미함)'을 강조하고 추구하는 점을 기억하며, 양자역학을 신학의 틀 안으로 끌어오고, 신학의 영역에 이용 및 설명해야 합니다. 이런 시도적 강의가 정교회에서 진행중이니, 부럽기도 합니다.(불교에서도 최근에 이런 강의를 많이 하지요..)
*contemplation에 관한 개혁신학적 정의는 다른 기독교종파의 그것과 상당히 다릅니다. 제가 에바그리우스의 신학체계에 관해 쓴 논문을 필히 읽어보시길 바랍니다. 가장 기본적이고 필수적인 관상에 대한 '단어 정의'부터 해야 합니다. 가장 아래에 링크를 추가합니다.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=303Beca07Ss
*이하 강의에 관한 논문(PDF포함)과 그것의 내용을 첨부합니다.^^
The Cosmology of David Bohm, Scientific and Theological Significance.pdf
0.60MB
The Cosmology of David Bohm: Scientific and Theological Significance
Richard de Grijs1,2 and Doru Costache3,4
1 School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Balaclava Road, Sydney,
NSW 2109, Australia;
2
Research Centre for Astronomy, Astrophysics and Astrophotonics, Macquarie University,
Balaclava Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia;
3 Sydney College of Divinity’s Graduate Research School, Macquarie Park, NSW 2113, Australia;
4
Studies in Religion, School of Humanities, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006,
Australia.
Corresponding author: Doru Costache dcostache@stcyrils.edu.au
Abstract: We discuss David Bohm’s dual contributions as a physicist and thinker. First, de Grijs
introduces Bohm’s universe, with an emphasis on the physical quest that led Bohm to the elaboration
of an original cosmology at the nexus of science and philosophy. Next, Costache takes his cue from de
Grijs’ explorations by highlighting the affinity between Bohm’s scientific cosmology and patristic
ideas that are central to the Orthodox worldview. It is our hope that this approach will stir the interest
of Bohm scholars in the Orthodox worldview and also lead Orthodox theologians to nurture an
appreciation for Bohm’s cosmology.
Keywords: cosmology; David Bohm; Orthodox theology; quantum physics; relativity; science and
theology
This article is the outcome of our research within the framework of the project “Science and
Orthodoxy around the World” (SOW), running at the Institute of Historical Research of the
National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens (2020–2023).1 We have chosen to examine David
Bohm’s thinking for various reasons, beyond our personal interest in his ideas. Since he showed an
aptitude for bridging scientific, spiritual, and theological representations of reality, we wondered
whether his approach could be extrapolated for the purposes of making sense of the Orthodox
worldview in contemporary terms. The first part of this study shows that Bohm himself
demonstrated that certain Eastern religious and spiritual philosophies can inspire the scientific
quest, on the one hand, and facilitate the presentation of scientific ideas in meaningful ways,
relevant to the human experience in its entirety and complexity, on the other hand. Could not the
Orthodox worldview be used as a similar platform? We believe that it can. To that end, Orthodox
theologians themselves should overcome their scientific apathy and boldly formulate what Dumitru
Stăniloae called “a theology of the world” that “reconciles the cosmic vision of the Fathers with a
vision which grows out ... of the natural sciences.”2 Without such an effort, tomorrow’s David
Bohms will never be able to appreciate the Orthodox worldview.
Herein, we focus upon the possibility of articulating holistic and dynamic worldviews—including
the theory of everything (after Bohm’s fashion) and its ramifications—as a way of bridging the
Orthodox representation of reality and contemporary cosmological ideas. After mapping, in the first
part of this article, Bohm’s scientific contributions and philosophical cosmology, we examine the
Orthodox worldview in conversation with his views. Our aim is dual, namely, to determine whether
Orthodox theology is compatible with modern cosmological ideas, and to do so from the vantage
point of Bohm’s holistic and interdisciplinary approach to reality. In turn, the latter will bring to the
fore the theological significance of Bohm’s cosmological thinking.
1. A Theory of Everything3
Particle physics and cosmology are the most fundamental sciences that aim at answering
humanity’s existential questions, Who are we? Where do we come from? and What is the nature of
reality? Of all disciplines in the physical sciences, cosmology is perhaps best placed to make
significant inroads towards addressing the complexity governing the universe at large, as it resides
at the nexus of physics, philosophy, and even consciousness, offering some insights into crossover
aspects of science and spirituality.
Among the great twentieth-century thought leaders in this area, David Joseph Bohm (1917–
1992) is perhaps the most poorly known.4 A student of the “father of the atomic bomb” and leader
of the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer, and a close friend and collaborator of Albert
Einstein, Bohm realised that for science to truly benefit mankind, “something” beyond science itself
was required. This is the premise of the first half of this essay.
Physicists have long attempted to describe the natural world we can see and explore with our
senses using a single, all-encompassing theory, the Theory of Everything.5 It would combine the
macroscopic cosmos described by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity with the subatomic
world of Werner Heisenberg’s and Niels Bohr’s quantum physics and quantum mechanics. Such an
all-encompassing theory describing the nature of our physical reality has thus far eluded all efforts.
At the basis of this prevailing stalemate is the inherent tension between Einstein and Bohr,
exhibited through the fundamental incompatibility of their two sets of equations. Einstein and Bohr
were fundamentally unable to agree on the ultimate question: What constitutes the true nature of
reality?6
Bohm’s early ideas related to this conundrum gravitated around the commonly held notion that
the vacuum among the stars is inert and empty. He posited that the vacuum represents a plenum,7 a
space completely filled with matter and energy. The vacuum would thus be infinitely full rather
than infinitely empty. Here, space refers to a multidimensional concept, a highly varied “structure–
process” of which our observable space is merely a projection.8 In this context, matter is
represented by small holes in the plenum, which would hence make space a “living organism.”9 Of
course, this discussion was not without antecedents. The representation of space as either full or
empty has been a source of tension since Antiquity, and Bohm was certainly aware of this.10 The
ancient Greek school of the pre-Socratic philosophers Parmenides (fl.ꢀlate 6th/early 5th century
BCE) and Zeno (ca. 495–ca. 430 BCE) of Elea promoted the idea of space as a plenum. Democritus
(ca. 460–ca. 370 BCE) and his mentor Leucippus (fl. 5th century BCE), on the other hand,
suggested that space was empty (the “void”) in which particles of matter (atoms) can move around
freely.11
By ascertaining the plenitude of space and by redefining matter against this backdrop, Bohm
challenged the basic ideas at the core of the prevailing, classical theories, calling them out for the
unclear nature and inherent contradictions of their underlying assumptions. He suggested that
physics required a radically new order.12
2. Undivided Wholeness
Instead of focusing on the contradictions inherent to quantum mechanics on the one hand and
general relativity on the other, Bohm appealed to the scientific community to consider what both
theories have in common, a property he referred to as “undivided wholeness.”13 This formed the
basis of his developing intuition that science needed a new means to connect the very large to the
very small, the universe on the largest scales to the subatomic nanoworld. The visible world we see
around us—the “explicate order”—is merely a surface order, which is neither deep nor profound;
external order is merely skin-deep. In turn, the profound underlying order that connects it all Bohm
called the “implicate order.”14 He would spend most of the rest of his career trying to uncover this
fundamental, deep order.
Bohm’s new way of thinking about the physical universe at any scale, where everything is
internally related to everything else and each part of the cosmos contains the whole universe,
represented a radically new approach to reality.15 In this reality, the implicate order is a structure, a
constant unfolding and enfolding (embracing) into the classical world, where the explicate order
unfolds from the implicate order into the reality as we perceive it.16 In turn, these insights imply that
we need to develop a more organic perception of reality than our prevailing, rigid three-dimensional
idea of space where time progresses linearly. Rather than adopting a mechanical worldview, Bohm
suggested that by drawing instead on biological processes we might be better off describing the
physical world on the basis of more organic processes.17
Bohm appears to have wholeheartedly embraced the philosophical implications of his stream of
consciousness. He saw direct parallels between the movement of electrons and the possibility of
individual human freedom. He compared these grand concepts to what a number of Oppenheimer’s
other students called the “Russian Experiment.” The latter refers to the idea that a Marxist society
as a whole would facilitate the transformation of the individual and potentially improve human
welfare at large.
Taking these philosophical insights to their natural conclusion led Bohm, in collaboration with
his physicist colleague and friend David Pines, to his quantum-mechanical theory of plasma
oscillations in a free-electron gas (and, equivalently, in metals; see below for the philosophical
equivalence).18 The movement of electrons in a plasma, a gas-like substance of ionised (charged)
particles, appeared to follow the same rules as individuals in the collective defined and constrained
by the “Russian Experiment.” Bohm realised that, perhaps paradoxically, electrons in a metal,
inherently composed of atoms in a lattice structure, were relatively free, similar to individuals in the
collective. In turn, his scientific efforts which culminated in the theory now known as “Bohm
diffusion”19—the diffusion of electrons in a plasma across magnetic field lines (with significant
losses, scaling linearly with temperature and inversely with the strength of the magnetic field)—
raised the philosophical question as to the extent to which individuals who are members of a
collective can have individual freedom.
Bohm’s insights made the leading scientists of the day sit up and pay attention. As a case in
point, Einstein sent him a letter stating, “I am very astonished about your announcement to establish
some connection between the formalism of quantum theory and relativistic field theory. I must
confess that I am not able to guess how such unification could be achieved.”20 The same intention,
of course, had preoccupied Einstein himself in the last thirty-odd years of his life, although
Einstein’s efforts ultimately proved fruitless. However, in Bohm’s case the quest for a unified
theory—in contrast to Einstein’s field equations—necessitated consideration of the wild world of
quantum physics.21
But Bohm’s focus on standard quantum mechanics did not last, in essence because of his
conversations with Einstein. He was asked to teach a course on the subject at Princeton, and
although he did so adequately, he confessed to not fully understanding the subject. And so he set
out to write22 a comprehensive and much lauded monograph on quantum mechanics, titled
Quantum Theory.23 Here, unexpectedly, Bohr’s theoretical digressions led him to pursue the idea of
wholeness, where everything is interconnected at a deeper level of reality.
3. Hidden Variables
Yet, Bohm felt that Bohr’s classical formalism did not represent a full description of the quantum
world. He questioned the orthodox, Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics espoused by
Bohr, Heisenberg, and their followers, for instance the notion that the particle–wave duality of light
cannot be broken. Instead, he proceeded to develop his own formalism, which has since become
known as Bohm’s “hidden variables,” perhaps his most enduring intellectual legacy. Resonating
with Einstein’s conviction that an objective reality and order must underlie the chaos of the
unpredictability that characterises quantum physics,24 but from a very different vantage point, he
affirmed that the behaviours of subatomic particles are not chance processes, since the motions of
electrons are guided by underlying “pilot waves.”25
Bohm suspected that an unknown underlying reality, process, or potential somehow informed the
behaviour of electrons, for instance in Young’s famous two-slit experiment. In essence, he agreed
with the view of the Copenhagen school that the quantum world is radically different from our
classical view of physics. He believed that the separate events we observe in our three-dimensional
world of space and time are, in fact, connected at a deeper level in the quantum world, since they
are part of a single system where that separation does not exist. In so doing, he hinted, however, at a
degree of unity and order of the quantum world that went beyond the received views of the
Copenhagen school. More specifically, among the “hidden variables” Bohm introduced
hypothetical, unobservable entities to explain quantum-mechanical properties in the context of a
deterministic theory. He objected to the classical quantum-mechanical idea of Heisenberg’s
indeterminacy between a particle’s speed and location, for instance. Einstein fundamentally
disagreed, calling Bohm’s theory “a physical fairy tale for children.”26 This is surprising, given that
Einstein famously declared that “I am convinced God does not play dice.”27 In fact, Bohm’s
reference to order at the quantum level should have pleased him. But Einstein’s opposition is
understandable. It is well known that he believed that quantum mechanics is an incomplete
description of reality.28
Leading physicists, most notably his former mentor Oppenheimer, tried their best to find flaws in
Bohm’s theory. They were unable to, and so they ignored him. In Oppenheimer’s own words,
expressed at a conference in Princeton dedicated to Bohm’s work, “If we cannot disprove Bohm,
then we must agree to ignore him.”29 Wolfgang Pauli, in turn, considered Bohm’s “extra wave-
mechanical predictions … still a cheque, which cannot be cashed,”30 while Bohr called him “very
foolish.”31 That said, in time Bohm’s scientific contributions received due recognition, as Robert
Russell has already shown32—and so did his philosophical thinking. Specifically, Bohm’s
theoretical framework is not subject to the usual measurement problems. Once the latter important
constraint is properly recognised, his advances are (finally) set to receive their due recognition.
4. Krishnamurti’s Influence
Bohm’s philosophical leanings became more overt during the next stage of his career, especially
under the influence of Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ideas about the observer and the observed.33 He
realised that Krishnamurti’s Eastern philosophy and his own physical framework appeared to have
much in common, which in its simplest form can be expressed as “the observer is the observed.”34
Specifically, Krishnamurti’s ideas suggested that the act of observing something inwardly—an
emotion, an attitude, a thought—changes it, which resembled the basic tenets of quantum physics.
Against this backdrop, Bohm naturally reverted back to his earlier work on the big picture in
physics. Leaving his hidden variables behind, he once again focused on the challenging situation,
with physicists, foremost Einstein, having been unable to reconcile quantum theory with general
relativity. He was most concerned that modern physics appeared to require two foundational
theories rather than a single, overarching framework. In turn, this spawned his thinking of the
implicate order. But his mind was grappling with even bigger questions—regarding humankind’s
wellbeing—at the nexus of science, philosophy, and religion.35
Bohm’s and Krishnamurti’s ideas met in their respective descriptions of the nature of thought,
reality, and consciousness, considered a coherent whole that is never static nor complete, but a
continuous “holomovement” between the enfolding and the unfolding aspects of reality.36 Both
Bohm and Krishnamurti questioned the foundations of their own areas of emphasis, ultimately
rejecting the prevailing orthodox definitions of physics, or of science more generally, and of
society, as very limiting. Krishnamurti’s fundamental tenet was that thought itself is an actual
movement in our lives, a physical and physiological movement of great power. Bohm was
profoundly influenced by Krishnamurti’s Eastern philosophy. His attraction to Krishnamurti’s
philosophy may be best described as his adherence to the wholeness of life. Life, nature, and
consciousness were a single, indivisible whole, a notion shared by both men.37
Krishnamurti’s ideas, at their essence, address the separation between the observer and the
observed in a similar way as quantum physics defines these concepts as forming part of a whole—
no wonder Bohm’s interest in his views. It also was Bohm’s conviction that one has to transcend
science that brought him within Krishnamurti’s philosophical sphere.
5. A Split Duality
Bohm next developed a new theory, which he referred to as a “structure–process.” The underlying
idea is that the basis of our reality is part of a process.38 More precisely, reality does not emerge
from particles moving in space-time, but from a process from which both particles and space-time
can emerge. Unexpectedly, this new approach to reality facilitated the resurrection of Bohm’s
earlier notion of hidden variables. His insights revealed that Young’s double-slit experiment was
naturally consistent with his own theory of hidden variables. The split duality of electromagnetic
radiation, manifested by its dual form of waves and particles, could now be explained—although
this notion was strictly forbidden in the context of the standard quantum theory. In essence, Bohm’s
theory suggested that particle trajectories explain the interference pattern resulting from Young’s
double-slit experiment.39
The resulting framework, known as the quantum potential, implied the interconnectedness of the
universe at the fundamental quantum level. A “dip” in the quantum potential corresponds to a rate
of change, which is equivalent to a force. In turn, underlying variations in the quantum potential
give rise to the observed interference pattern. The quantum potential energy only functions on those
occasions when quantum phenomena are actually of importance. In other words, when a particle
approaches the double slits, instead of adopting the classical physics waveform, the quantum
potential is responsible for organising the particle’s trajectory. This theory is now known as the
pilot-wave or the Bohm–de Broglie theory.40
6. Wholeness
Remarkably, Bohm’s hidden variables theory was in agreement with this new development, in
particular with predictions of the nonlocality of reality, that is, the interconnectedness of the
universe, where Bohm’s hidden parameters would be nonlocal.41 This concept is problematic from a
classical perspective, where communication is limited by the finite speed of light, suggesting that
events are localised rather than nonlocal, and information is not transmitted instantaneously to any
remote corners of the universe. The universal acceptance among physicists of the finite speed of
light is, hence, a major obstacle to Bohm’s concept of hidden variables as a nonlocal concept.
The theory behind the nonlocality of reality also suggests that there exists a hidden regime of
reality that cannot be accessed and which will, hence, remain beyond the realm of science and the
scientific method42—a domain of reality that, perhaps, we have not yet understood, or at least not
well enough. If the putative quantum potential is eventually confirmed, the existence of nonlocality,
the profound interconnectedness of the physical universe, is consequently also confirmed. What
matters for the present discussion is that the premise of wholeness pertaining to the quantum
potential framework also agrees with Bohr’s classical quantum physics ideas.
Bohr posited that when dealing with quantum-mechanical reality, one cannot follow a classical
physics approach of creating silos for the analysis of individual ideas. However, one could
mathematically unfold individual elements of space into the whole, subsequently enfolding them
into their own domains once the analysis has been completed. This would work best if done
cyclically. Therefore, what may appear like a continuous trajectory is, in fact, a series of unfoldings
and enfoldings.43 Of course, all this needs validation, especially through observation and
experiment. Validation of Bohm’s ideas regarding the wholeness of the universe, of its
interconnectedness at the most fundamental level, would then directly support the unification and
holism of all aspects of the universe. In turn, this would provide, it seems, a direct parallel to
religious ideas that have long advocated a similar description of the universe, both seen and unseen.
At a fundamental level, Bohm’s theory suggests that out of perceived emptiness, resembling the
“vacuum state,” particles interact with, respond to, and are informed by a quantum potential which
allows the cosmos to emerge. This information in the quantum potential makes it possible for the
universe as we know it to exist. In other words, everything we know (and do not know—yet) is
equivalent to information, which at some point is expected to unfold into reality. The implicate is
waiting to become explicate, thus showing the true nature of the split duality of particles and
trajectories.
Reality is thus undivided wholeness, combining life, the universe, and everything.
However, Bohm remained undecided as to whether a higher intelligence, a “God” if you like,
was present in his implicate order. He continued thoughtfully, “The implicate order does not rule
out God, nor does it say there is a God. But it would suggest that there is a creative intelligence
underlying the whole, which might have as one of the essentials that which was meant by the word
‘God’.”44
Similar views have been put forward with increasing frequency in more recent years,
corroborating Bohm’s integrative approach to philosophy, science, and spirituality.45 And while
Bohm’s approach has already received attention within the Western theological context,46 Orthodox
theologians are yet to assess its relevance. The ensuing reflections propose a way of doing so.
7. Theological Narratives of Everything47
As de Grijs showed above, Bohm’s thinking draws parallels to religious ideas, bridging science,
philosophy, spirituality, etc. As such, it diverges from the abstract rationalisations and
compartmentalised knowledge of modern culture.48 Bohm’s thinking therefore deserves attention
from theologians, including Orthodox ones, and especially from researchers of early Christian and
medieval cosmology. Above all, Bohm’s ideas fascinate by integrating what Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin called “the Whole and the Person,” the universe and consciousness. True, for Teilhard it is
“the Christian phenomenon” that harmonises these poles of existence.49 The extent to which Bohm
would have sympathised with Teilhard’s solution is uncertain, but their respective perceptions are
not inconsistent.50 Bohm himself contemplated the nexus between “the thing and the thought”51 or
“thought and non-thought”52 within the context of a reality that ultimately remains “unknown and
unknowable.”53 But to compare their respective approaches falls outside the scope of this study.
What matters is that their efforts converge into the modern quest for comprehensive views of
reality, with or without articulating theories of everything. These views of reality, by definition,
integrate all things, mind and matter. Even more important is that these views resonate with the
related concerns of many early Christian and medieval theologians.
The tradition documents many corresponding attempts. Certain early Christian and medieval
authors compiled catalogues of reality’s components, listing the objects that populate the created
realm. Others produced encompassing depictions of the universe. By contemporary standards, their
efforts do not count scientifically. However, as Werner Heisenberg and Michio Kaku observed that
some ancient intuitions about reality foreshadow contemporary physics,54 the same must hold true
for the early Christian and medieval worldviews that redeployed the ancient intuitions within other
cultural contexts. By drawing on Heraclitus and the insights of other ancient Greek theorists, Bohm
himself agreed to Heisenberg’s and Kaku’s point implicitly.55 And while he did not seem aware of
the efforts of the early Christian and medieval theologians to map reality, these belong with the
broader history of scientific ideas.56 Therefore, they should be treated after the manner of Bohm’s
own approach to Eastern religious philosophies. Here are two examples from the Christian tradition
that would require this kind of treatment.
An anonymous second-century treatise known as Letter to Diognetus includes a list of cosmic
regions. These are “the skies and things celestial, the earth and the earthly things, the sea and things
aquatic, (as well as) fire, air, the abyss, (namely,) things on high, things in the depths, things in
between.”57
While mapping the cosmos, the passage refers to the fundamental elements known at the time,
earth, water, air, and fire. These are the province of contemporary quantum physics. But the small
scale of fundamental elements—“the depths”—is but one side of things. Reality also encompasses
the familiar universe, the sky and the earth, and all things that populate them. In a brushstroke, the
passage links the two dimensions of reality we currently access through Bohr’s quantum physics
and Einstein’s relativity. But the above catalogue is not complete. Given the theological nature of
the treatise, “the depths” and the universe feature together as a dynamic field where divine
providence operates, God’s Logos “organising, defining, and connecting all things.”58 The divine
activity links the various parts of reality, securing order much in the way Bohm’s “creative
intelligence,” mentioned at the end of the previous section, does. It does so from within and through
the laws of nature, not superimposing order from outside (the verb hypotetaktai, translated above by
“connecting,” suggests just that, the preposition hypo denoting a process that occurs within things).
The idea echoes Heraclitus, for whom the wise person is able to grasp “the will that leads all things
through all things.”59 And since modern physicists, including Bohm, credit Heraclitus with
scientific intuitions about reality, the same could be said about later, Christian authors who shared
in his views.
Apart from the explicitly theological statements of Diognetus, Bohm would have been thrilled to
read these lines. After all, he searched for ways of explaining how the quantum world and the
relativistic universe—the implicate and the explicate, the enfolding and the unfolding orders—are
woven together.60 Immediately relevant, here, is that Diognetus bridges the various layers of the
ancient worldview into a comprehensive picture.61
Diognetus completes the cartography of the universe by referring to what our culture knows as
the anthropic cosmological principle: “God loves human beings. He created the cosmos for them
and to them he subjected all things on the earth.”62 This is not a detailed point about the mutual
attunement of humankind and the cosmos, but it definitely shows that a holistic cosmology cannot
ignore human presence, or mind, or consciousness. The author, therefore, was not insensitive to the
concerns more recently expressed by Teilhard and Bohm.63
Centuries later, Maximus the Confessor (d. 662) presented a much more detailed map of reality.
In his Book of Difficulties, he proposes a genuine theory or narrative of everything.64 The relevant
chapter outlines five layers of reality, each containing two poles: first, the created and the
uncreated; second, the intelligible and the sensible orders; third, the sky and the earth; fourth,
paradise and the inhabited land; fifth, male and female. Every second term of each layer shelters a
narrower layer within itself—a smaller circle within the larger one.65 The largest circle is the
ultimate division of reality, of God and the universe. The narrowest layer is the gender division,
comprising masculinity and femininity. The other three circles contain the visible and invisible
universe in its entirety, then only the visible universe, divided into the sky and the earth, and finally
the earthly domain, divided into paradise and the inhabited land. This schematic representation does
not exhaust reality—the terrestrial biosphere is not even mentioned—but it still sketches a
comprehensive worldview. Furthermore, it combines a range of cultural and disciplinary
perspectives, that is, doctrinal (the first circle), metaphysical (the second circle, of Platonic
resonance), scientific (the third circle, of Aristotelian resonance), and scriptural (the final two
circles).66 But more important are two further details of Maximus’ theory. On the one hand, the
regions of the created realm and all populations nestled within them, human and nonhuman, can be
unified into a higher form of complex harmony. On the other hand, the agent of unification is the
human being, mind and body alike—as long as it adopts a divine, or virtuous, lifestyle that leads to
insight.67
What makes possible the unification of all layers of created reality is the fact that within each
particular being are found—enfolded, Bohm would say—the characteristics of its species. In like
manner, on a deeper level, within each species enfolds the nature of the universe. In Bohm’s words,
“in some sense each region contains a total structure ‘enfolded’ within it.”68 Since the universe’s
stuff is the nature of all things, all things are one, they are compatible, they are present in one
another, naturally intersecting and combining in more complex structures within the universe.69 No
wonder the human being, related to all things—“constituting something like a natural connector of
the whole through mediating by its own parts between the extremities”70—is able to access them
and to contribute to their unity. The observer and the observed are one, Bohm would say.71 Here,
Maximus and the tradition he represents come close to the conclusions of Ted Peters, Carl Peterson,
and Russell regarding the need for “fertile” theological models, such as Bohm’s own, able “to
progressively open up new vistas and expand horizons of our understanding.”72
Both theologians, the author of Diognetus and Maximus, agree that to grasp human existence
entails to understand the place humankind has within the universe and the universe in its entirety.
This amounts to saying that we need a theory or a narrative of everything—which corresponds to
Bohm’s fundamental intuition about reality, as discussed in the first half of this study.
8. Chaos to Cosmos
The examples reviewed above document an interest in cataloguing realms and beings; they also
bring to the fore the dynamic of cosmic unity. As it happens, there are patristic authors whose ideas
come even closer to modern concerns, including Bohm’s, pertaining to bridging the quantum world
and the relativistic universe. Once again, let us consider two examples.
In An Apology for the Hexaemeron, Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)73 discusses the processes that
led from chaos to the universe. He addresses this topic through his theory of matter and by
pondering how the unified light of the origins has become the many lights of the cosmos. He takes
as a starting point the view that “some wise and organising principle lies within each of the
beings.”74 This matches Bohm’s idea of God as “creative intelligence,” mentioned above, as much
as Diognetus does. This organising principle in nature facilitates the generation of beings by
activating the fundamental elements and qualities towards material combination.75 Gregory’s
particle physics is not important. What matters is his view of nature as the outcome of converging
qualities, spurred by the divine factor.
Corresponding to Diognetus, Gregory’s divine principle, the Logos—designated as “wisdom,
will, and power”76—is not an extraneous factor. It operates from within the universe by facilitating
the combination of the elements. This understanding is reminiscent of Heraclitus’ point that “all
beings become in accordance with the Logos.”77 That said, for Gregory matter emerges from the
aggregation of immaterial qualities of which we know but that cannot be grasped before we see
them as concrete beings: “none of these [qualities], of itself, constitutes matter; they become matter
when they converge into one another.”78 This resonates with our experience with the quantum
world via its material phenomena—or with Bohm’s implicit, enfolding order through the explicit,
unfolded one.
The process of universe-making is analogous to the process of matter-making. As a preliminary
stage for discussing the emergence of the cosmos, Gregory considers the manner in which the
original darkness at Genesis 1:2 had become the light of Genesis 1:3. The darkness of chaos
possessed the potentiality of light, or order, and became light at God’s prompting.79 The divine
energy—“radiating through the darkness and flow of nature”80—transformed the darkness into light
or the chaos into order. To explain how this occurred, Gregory makes reference to Aristotle’s idea
of actualisation: light is the actualised form of the potentiality represented by darkness. Here, he
anticipated Bohm’s own notion of unfolding order.81
Gregory’s physics of light does not end here. In the universe are found various forms of light—
solar, lunar (reflected solar), stellar, etc.—not merely one.82 But how did the unified light of the first
day of Genesis 1 become the many lights of the fourth day? In Apology 8–9 and 64–74, Gregory
tackles this topic epistemologically and ontologically. Epistemologically, the unified light of the
first day denotes reality as “perceived by the divine eye.”83 It is God’s grasp of things; a theological
and a contemplative lens are at play here. In turn, the many lights of the universe, materialised in
the seven spheres of Ptolemaic cosmography and in the celestial bodies that populate them,
represent the human viewpoint, analytical and scientific.84 In turn, ontologically, the differentiation
of the original light into the universe’s many lights denotes physical processes: light “was gathered
within itself, coextensive with the whole, but after [the commandment] it diversified into what was
shared and what was distinct in regard to its parts.”85 Gregory does not attempt to bridge the
epistemological and the ontological explanations, but what matters is that both, and especially the
ontological one, affirm the manifestation of the quantum or enfolding order as the unfolding shape
of the relativistic universe.
What causes differentiation is cosmic motion, the fact that the various parts of the universe move
differently. What conditions their specific movements are the manners in which they combine the
qualities inherent to the light—or fire—that is fundamental of all things.86 Like Heraclitus,87
Gregory believes that all beings derive from the dynamic factor called fire88 or, in scriptural
parlance, light. Thus, whether or not he knew of Heraclitus’ views, Gregory had a strong intuition
of the dynamics pertaining to the manifestation of what we call the quantum world into/as the
material universe—in Bohm’s terms, the unfolding of the implicate into the explicate order. Thus,
as he was concerned with the same issue, Bohm would have appreciated this insight.
The second witness is John Damascene (d. 749), who, in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith, pursued a similar idea, although not to the extent to which Gregory did. Chapters 19–24 of
the text’s critical edition map the universe by showing what cosmic regions correspond to the
fundamental elements known to the ancients; also, what natural phenomena occur and what kinds of
beings are found in those places. Alongside the four material elements John lists a more profound
level of reality, the sky, which shelters all of creation: “the sky is the container of the visible and the
invisible creations.”89 The cosmic sense of our own age is already present here, in a nutshell. And
although in the next line John mentions invisible creations—namely, the noetic beings called
angels—his worldview is basically physicalist. The sky is neither the metaphysical realm of the
eternal forms nor the religious heaven. It is of one piece with the four material elements of earth,
air, fire, and water.
God created the sky—the space or the container of everything—and the four elements out of
nothing. It is from these elements, then, that God made all else, “animals, plants, and seeds.”90
There is no ontological gap within the created universe. There is an unbroken continuity between
the fundamental elements and the world of our experience, including the earthly ecosphere.
John could not explain how the fundamental elements combine in order to engender the realities
of our experience. Nor is he eager to engage critically the scientific knowledge of his time. He
reviews several hypotheses about the nature of the sky, but does not choose between them.91 His
reluctance matches his conviction that the sky’s nature eludes us,92 a sentiment Bohm shared, as we
have seen in the first part of this study. As we know, the nature of the universe still eludes us, with
more than ninety percent of it being composed of exotic layers of dark matter and dark energy.
Nevertheless, John shows appreciation for other aspects of the available physics. He believes that
all things around us are made of the fundamental elements God created out of nothing. It is at this
juncture that he depicts the various layers of reality together with the fundamental elements. Thus,
in chapters 21–24 he describes the qualities of the four elements and then explores the beings and
the phenomena that derive from them.
As its heading announces, chapter 21 deals with “light, fire, and the luminaries, that is the sun,
the moon, and the stars.” Many other astronomical and astrological topics make cameo
appearances. His discourse about fire includes the primordial light and the celestial bodies; the
orbits of the seven “wanderers” or planets, so called because they move contrary to the apparent
orbits of the “fixed” stars; the solstices and the seasons; the zodiacal signs, comets, and eclipses; the
solar and the lunar years, and the phases of the moon. As with the sky, he says, we ignore the true
nature of these beings and phenomena.93 John is aware of the limitations of the available science
and, it seems, longs for more precise explanations of the cosmos. He anticipates Bohm’s own
attitude, outlined in the first half of this study.
John approaches the other elements in the same fashion, discussing in chapter 22 the nature of
air and the atmosphere; in chapter 23 the qualities of water and the forms it takes, seen as the
habitat of aquatic species; and in chapter 24 the fundamental element of earth and the Earth as a
place of human habitation, shared with animals, birds, and plants.94
These descriptions appear to a modern reader either as overly simplistic or as downright
erroneous. It is for this reason that there is no point in presenting them in any detail. But what
matters is that John was able to establish, within the limitations of the available sciences, a relation
between the fundamental elements and the cosmic regions, all of which he ultimately understood as
belonging together within the one expanse of the sky, the universe. What secures the link between
all things is the fact of being created. This explanation anticipates the criterion of “explanatory
adequacy” formulated by Peters and Peterson.95 It cannot satisfy a modern reader, including Bohm,
but it is a way of affirming the homogeneity of the universe and the connection between
fundamental physics and cosmology, or the implicate and the explicate orders. After all, as de Grijs
observes, for Bohm “everything is internally related to everything else and each part of the cosmos
contains the whole universe.”
9. Further Patristic Topics
Bohm would, perhaps, have been more interested in other early Christian ideas, like the
microcosm,96 inherited from the classical culture and developed further. We have seen above that
many early Christian authors contemplated the ontological solidarity between humankind and the
cosmos, but some preferred to do so through the lens of the microcosm.
For example, Gregory the Theologian (d. ca. 389) shows that human nature is a composition or a
mixture of qualities and processes encountered throughout the universe.97 As such, the human being
is a “world in miniature,” a microcosm.98 Elsewhere, he presents human nature as the midpoint
between the intelligible (accessible through noetic perceptions) and the sensible (accessible through
the senses) regions of the cosmos. Whereas before humankind’s emergence these regions “remained
within their specific boundaries” and silently sang different praises,99 the Logos decided to make
the human being “a kind of second world, great within the small one, another angel, a composite
worshipper.”100 The term microcosm does not appear, but the sense that the “composite worshipper”
gathers within its nature the elements of the visible and the invisible universe is inescapable.
Furthermore, the passage strikingly presents the “second world,” the human being, as “great within
the small one,” therefore larger than the universe. This perspective is provocative, and while
Gregory is not interested in detailing his suggestion, it took the genius of Maximus to explain,
centuries later, that the human microcosm has the calling to change the universe into a “large
human being” through the successive transformative unifications sketched above.101 To paraphrase
Bohm, this amounts to saying that “the thing” becomes “thought,” which would not be a strange
avenue for him to contemplate. After all, he wondered, “May not thought itself thus be a part of
reality as a whole?”102
Bohm would be content with other patristic ideas, too. Perhaps one of his most interesting
contributions is his proposal regarding the rheomode, the “flowing mode” of thinking and talking
about the universe’s fluid nature.103 His concept of an “Undivided Wholeness in Flowing
Movement” is crucial for clarifying how mind and matter interact, but also how the implicate order
of the enfolded becomes the explicate order of the unfolded. However, we shall not consider either
his perception of the nature’s constant flow or his point that in order to capture this situation we
need a language of verbs and adverbs, not nouns and adjectives. In turn, it is more important to
show that certain early Christian and medieval theologians had a similar grasp of the flowing nature
of reality. Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373), for instance, presents the universe as fundamentally
“flowing, insubstantial, and mortal” or “fluid and dissolvable.”104 And even though he neither
developed Bohm’s verbal and adverbial language nor appraised the situation on a global scale,
others after him (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor) developed this intuition, defining
nature as movement and describing it in the dynamic vocabulary of Aristotelian actualisation, as we
have seen above. This intuition is shared by contemporary Orthodox thinkers.105 Heraclitus, the
philosopher of movement who inspired Bohm so much,106 would have been proud of his patristic
heirs, and so should have been Bohm himself.
In this light, and despite the historical gulfs separating him from the authors discussed above, it
is conceivable that Bohm would have been excited about their ideas. Especially their concepts of
the microcosm encapsulating and generating the macrocosm, and of the chaos of the fundamental
elements transformed into cosmos, share an affinity with his view of implicate order as origin of our
universe. Of equal significance are the early Christian and medieval views of the universe as
anthropically conditioned—and as possessing an infrastructure that draws on the Logos behind all
things—as well as their narratives of everything. These ideas prefigure Bohm’s own quest for
bridging “the thing and the thought.” In particular, the patristic perception of reality—holistic and
dynamic—of the chaos morphed into the ordered universe anticipates Bohm’s cosmology, where
enfolding patterns, operating under the guise of hidden variables, are the source of the unfolding,
ordered universe. In this light, Bohm’s ideas and the Orthodox worldview appear to be wonderfully
compatible. Their similarity deserves further study both as such and for the purposes of articulating
an Orthodox “theology of the world” (to paraphrase Stăniloae) able to engage the cosmological
ideas of our age.
In turn, Bohm’s profound cosmological thinking provides contemporary Orthodox theologians
with new opportunities for grasping and for communicating certain traditional intuitions about
reality, especially in regard to topics such as the parts and the whole, and matter and consciousness.
It remains to be seen how quickly contemporary theologians will turn to Bohm’s “postmodern
world of tomorrow,” as Peters has it,107 to find answers to their quest for wholeness and purpose,108
or for making sense of the world we live in and the elusive mechanisms at the heart of things. For
now, contemporary Orthodox theologians seem far less able to grapple with the cosmos than their
predecessors. Appropriating Bohm’s cosmic philosophy might help them to retrieve the early
Christian and medieval roots of cosmic theology, as well as a sense of what their tasks might be
when it comes to articulating the Christian worldview, today and tomorrow.
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Endnotes
1
This publication has been implemented within the framework of project “Science & Orthodoxy around the World”
(SOW), which was made possible through the support of a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation, Inc.
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Project
SOW or the Templeton World Charity Foundation, Inc.
2 Dumitru Stăniloae, Theology and the Church, trans. Robert Barringer (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1980), 224 (slightly edited).
3 The first half of this study is de Grijs’ contribution.
4
Olival Freire Jr, David Bohm: A Life Dedicated to Understanding the Quantum World, Springer Biographies (New
York: Springer, 2019); Robert John Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm and Its Relevance to Philosophy and
Theology” Zygon 20:2 (1985): 135–58.
5
Sean Carroll, From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time (New York: Penguin Books USA,
2010); Stephen W. Hawking, The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe (London: Phoenix Books,
2006); Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature (New
York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011).
6 See Ramin Skibba, “Einstein, Bohr and the War over Quantum Theory,” Nature 555 (2018): 582–4.
7
David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge, 1980), 243; Lee Nichol (ed.), The essential
David Bohm (London: Routledge, 2003), 150 (Conversations with David Bohm).
8
Basil J. Hiley, “David Joseph Bohm. 20 December 1917–27 October 1992,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the
Royal Society 43 (1997): 106–31; Lee Nichol (ed.), The Essential David Bohm (London: Routledge, 2002).
9
David Schrum, quoted in the documentary Infinite Potential: The Life and Ideas of David Bohm by Paul Howard
10 Lee Nichol (ed.) The essential David Bohm (London: Routledge, 2003), 152 (Conversations with David Bohm).
11 W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2: The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus
(Cambridge University Press, 1969), 26–67, 88–100, 383–413; Paul T. Keyser and Georgia L. Irby-Massie (eds), The
Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek Tradition and Its Many Heirs (London and New York:
Routledge, 2008), 235–6, 626, 846–7; Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (London: Simon & Schuster,
1972), 64–5.
12 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge, 1980), Chapter 5.
13 Bohm, Wholeness, Chapter 6.
14 Ibid.
15 See Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 137–41.
16 Bohm, Wholeness.
17
David Bohm, Unfolding Meaning (London: Routledge, 1985); William Seager, “The Philosophical and Scientific
Metaphysics of David Bohm,” Entropy 20 (2018): 493.
18 David Bohm and David Pines, “A Collective Description of Electron Interactions: I. Magnetic Interactions,” Physical
Review 82:5 (1951): 625–34; idem, “A Collective Description of Electron Interactions: II. Collective vs Individual
Particle Aspects of the Interactions,” Physical Review 85:2 (1952): 338–53; idem, “A Collective Description of
Electron Interactions: III. Coulomb Interactions in a Degenerate Electron Gas,” Physical Review 92:3 (1953): 609–25.
David Pines, “A Collective Description of Electron Interactions: IV. Electron Interaction in Metals,” Physical Review
92:3 (1953): 626–36.
19
David Bohm, The Characteristics of Electrical Discharges in Magnetic Fields, ed. A. Guthrie and R. K. Wakerling
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949).
20 Albert Einstein, Letter to David Bohm, 6 December 1951; https://www.newsweek.com/albert-einstein-letters-science-
politics-god-auction-625290#slideshow/625294.
21 Isaacson, Einstein, 458.
22
A. Kojevnikov, “David Bohm” (2021), in Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-
Bohm.
23
David Bohm, Quantum Theory (New York: Dover, 1951). See also David Bohm in Infinite Potential: The Life and
Ideas of David Bohm at min. 23:25. Documentary by Paul Howard (2020). Full transcript:
24
Isaacson, Einstein, 323–36, 352–3, 460–5; David Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in
Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables. II,” Physical Review 85:2 (1952): 180–93, esp. 189. No wonder his acknowledgement of
Einstein at the end of the first part of his study; David Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in
Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables. I,” Physical Review 85:2 (1952): 166–79, esp. 179.
25 Bohm, “Variables. II,” 191.
26
Lee Smolin, Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum (London: Penguin
UK, 2019; ebook), 195 n.3; Peat, Infinite Potential, 132.
27
Albert Einstein, Letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926. Albert Einstein Archives, reel 8, item 180. See also The
Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, col. 15: The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, June 1925–May 1927
(English transl. suppl.), 403.
28
Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be
Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47 (1935): 777–80.
29
Adam Becker, What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics (New York: Basic Books,
2018; ebook), 158–9.
30
Wolfgang Pauli, Letter to Bohm, 3 December 1951. In: Wolfgang Pauli, Scientific Correspondence, Vol. IV, Part I,
ed. K. von Meyen (Berlin: Springer, 1996), 436–41.
31 Becker, What Is Real? 591.
32 Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 141–8.
33 Bohm in Infinite Potential at min. 37:08.
34
Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known, ed. Mary Lutyens (London: Gollancz, 1969); see also Collected
35 Bohm in Infinite Potential at min. 39:27.
36 Bohm, Wholeness, Chapter 6.
37 Bohm in Infinite Potential at min. 45:07.
38
D. Bohm and B. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory (London:
Routledge, 1993); B. Hiley, “Stapp, Bohm and the Algebra of Process,” Activitas Nervosa Superior 61 (2019): 102–7.
39
Basil J. Hiley, “Bohmian Non-commutative Dynamics: History and New Developments,” arXiv:1303.6057 (2013).
See also Nichol, The Essential David Bohm.
40
Sheldon Goldstein, “Bohmian Mechanics,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition),
41 Ibid.
42 See Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 148–9.
43
Wholeness, 204, 211, 233, 230–1, 259–60. See Louwrien Wijers, “Unfolding the Implicate Order: Excerpts from
44 See Ted Peters, “David Bohm, Postmodernism, and the Divine,” Zygon 20:2 (1985): 193–217, esp. 208–212.
45 See Ted Peters and Carl Peterson, “The Higgs Boson: An Adventure in Critical Realism,” Theology and Science 11:3
(2013): 185–207, esp. 185–7, 195–8.
46 See Peters, “David Bohm,” and Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm.”
47 The following sections are Costache’s contribution.
48
Peters, “David Bohm,” 193 (see ibid. 194–8); Peters and Peterson, “The Higgs Boson,” 199–201; Russell, “The
Physics of David Bohm,” 151.
49 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Le phénomène humain (Paris: Seuil, 1956), 331.
50 Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 152–3.
51 Bohm, Wholeness, 68–71. See Nichol, The Essential David Bohm, 248–9.
52 Wholeness, 71–9. See Peters, “David Bohm,” 199.
53 Wholeness, 78.
54
Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, World Perspectives (London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1971), 61; Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions,
and the Future of the Cosmos (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 17–8, 196–8.
55 Wholeness, 4, 5, 15, 25, 27–30, 61, 152, 159, 197.
56 See Doru Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos: Early Christian Representations (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2021),
246.
57 Diognetus 7.2. All translations from Greek are Costache’s own.
58 Diognetus 7.2.
59 Heraclitus, fragment 27.
60 Wholeness 177–271.
61 See Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos, 52–6.
62 Diognetus 10.2.
63 See Bohm, Wholeness, xiii, 7, 14, 27.
64
Doru Costache, “Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene’s Cosmology,” in The T&T Clark Handbook of
Christian Theology and the Modern Sciences, ed. John P. Slattery (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2020), 81–91, esp.
85–7; idem, “Mapping Reality within the Experience of Holiness,” in The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor,
ed. Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil (Oxford University Press, 2015), 378–96, esp. 378–90.
65 Difficulty 41.2.
66 Costache, “Maximus and John,” 86–7.
67 Costache, ‘Mapping Reality,’ 383–4.
68 Wholeness, 188. See Peters, “David Bohm,” 201–3.
69 Difficulty 41.11.
70 Difficulty 41.3.
71 Wholeness, 12, 23.
72 Peters and Peterson, “The Higgs Boson,” 204; Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 155–6.
73 See Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos, 302–26.
74 Apology 10.2–6. See Apology 26.40.
75 Apology 7.16.
76 Apology 7.14–5; 9.19; 64.71–72.
77 Heraclitus, fragment 1.
78 Apology 7.16.
79 Apology 5.11; 16.27.
80 Apology 65.72.
81 See Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 150.
82 Apology 66.73–4.
83 Apology 9.18.
84 Apology 9.18–9; 65.72–3.
85 Apology 65.72.
86 Apology 72.78–74.80.
87 Heraclitus, fragments 30, 32a, 33.
88 Apology 72.78.
89 Exposition 20.2.
90 Exposition 19.4–7.
91 Exposition 20.5–17. See Costache, “Maximus and John,” 90.
92 Exposition 20.81–2.
93 Exposition 21.187–91.
94
See Andrew Louth, St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology (Oxford University Press,
2002), 126–30.
95 Peters and Peterson, “The Higgs Boson,” 203–4.
96 See Peters, “David Bohm,” 199–200.
97 Oration 28.22.
98 Oration 28.22.
99 Oration 38.11.
100
Oration 38.11. See Doru Costache, “Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theory of Everything: St
Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 38,” in Cappadocian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Doru Costache and Philip
Kariatlis (Sydney: St Andrew’s Orthodox Press, 2013), 225–41, esp. 235–40.
101 See Costache, “Mapping Reality,” 381–90.
102 Wholeness, xi.
103 Wholeness, xiv, 14. See Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 141.
104 Against the Gentiles 41. See Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos, 243–4.
105
See Doru Costache, “The Orthodox Doctrine of Creation in the Age of Science,” Journal of Orthodox Christian
Studies 2:1 (2019): 43–64; Christopher C. Knight, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue (Cambridge
University Press, 2022); Alexei V. Nesteruk, The Sense of the Universe: Philosophical Explication of Theological
Commitment in Modern Cosmology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015).
106 Wholeness, 61. Peters, “David Bohm” 198, 204–205.
107 Peters, “David Bohm,” 193. See Peters and Peterson, “The Higgs Boson,” 201–3.
108 Russell, “The Physics of David Bohm,” 153–4.
Biographical Notes
Richard de Grijs is a professor of astrophysics at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. He has
a keen interest in the history of science. He is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Astronomical
History and Heritage and Specialty Chief Editor (Fundamental Astronomy) of Frontiers in
Astronomy and Space Sciences.
Doru Costache is a Romanian Orthodox clergyman living in Australia and an associate professor in
patristic studies at the Sydney College of Divinity. He also is an Honorary Research Associate in
Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney. He serves as co-editor of Christian Perspectives on
Science and Technology.
2020.10.07 - [연구소/연구소장 저작] - 에바그리우스 폰티쿠스의 신학체계에 대한 개혁신학적 분석과 의의 - 초대교회의 신화사상과 콘템플라치오와 『안티레티코스』를 중심으로
에바그리우스 폰티쿠스의 신학체계에 대한 개혁신학적 분석과 의의 - 초대교회의 신화사상과
목차 Ⅰ. 들어가는 말 8 1. 연구동기와 연구목적 8 2. 선행연구와 연구범위 10 3. 본 논문의 전개순서 16 Ⅱ. 초대교회의 신화사상과 에바그리우스의 기도신학과의 관계 17 1. 초대교회의 기도신학 17
cr-ministry-institute.tistory.com
'신학 자료 > 미래신학' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 사도 바울과 세네카의 작품 비교 - 새로운 관점으로 성경 읽기 (0) | 2024.01.02 |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT가 한국교회에 미칠 영향(AI의 신학과 목회로의 적용에 관하여) - 기사 인용, 비평, 적용 예시(실례), 논문 포함 (0) | 2023.02.11 |
| AI(인공지능)시대의 신앙 생활이란? - 기독교적 인격 수양을 강조하며 (1) | 2023.01.01 |
