Abstracts of the published books
9. ROJKA, L.: The Eternity of God : Comparative Study of Bernard Lonergan and Richard Swinburne. Italian translation. Cittadella Editrice, 2013.
Abstract: Bernard Lonergan argomenta che Dio dovrebbe essere postulato, in un contesto esplicativo, come assolutamente atemporale, perché la più perfetta comprensione (non ristretta) non può esistere come una sequenza di atti. Diversi atti di conoscenza (e di esistenza) implicano alcuni fatti non spiegati, e perciò limitazioni riguardo all’intellegibilità dell’essere primario. Se la realtà dell’essere primario non fosse pienamente intellegibile, la comprensione divina sarebbe ristretta. Inoltre, dato il concetto di tempo di Lonergan, è logicamente contraddittorio postulare un Dio esistente nel tempo. Richard Swinburne argomenta che Dio dovrebbe essere postulato come (eterno) temporale, perché una tale spiegazione teista è significativa, coerente ed ha un potere esplicativo maggiore in confronto con le altre teorie teiste. Swinburne non è in grado di vedere alcun senso nel concetto di un Dio atemporale, ed argomenta che le spiegazioni che usano analogie con un «istante» temporale o una specie di «durata» o «periodo» atemporale sono incoerenti. Anche se il concetto di Dio di Lonergan come atto non ristretto di comprensione sembra essere significativo, e la sua teologia filosofica sotto molti aspetti ben elaborata, la sua affermazione dell’atemporalità di Dio non sembra essere sufficientemente ben giustificata per due principali ragioni. Innanzitutto, nella definizione di tempo di Swinburne, più di senso comune, l’esistenza temporale di un essere perfetto non sembra implicare alcuna imperfezione incomprensibile. Gli attributi temporali di Dio possono essere spiegati dalla scelta divina di creare l’essere temporale, e la scelta di creare l’essere può essere spiegata dalle buone ragioni per creare un tale universo buono e bello, come noi percepiamo che è questo universo. In secondo luogo, dato il concetto di tempo di Lonergan, anche il Dio di Swinburne sarebbe «a-temporale». Lonergan rifiuta il tempo di Swinburne come un’illusione (perché, secondo lui, non c’è nessuna evidenza empirica a favore di un tale tempo), ma è con il concetto di tempo di Swinburne che si può veramente dire che il Dio di Lonergan è atemporale. L’evidenza della radiazione cosmica di fondo sembra mostrare che c’è un parametro di riferimento privilegiato nell’universo reale. Dunque, tutti gli intervalli di tempo potrebbero essere sincronizzati nella comprensione temporale divina (impossibile nella definizione di tempo di Lonergan). Complessivamente, la spiegazione di Swinburne della relazione fra un Dio eterno e le creature temporali sembra mostrare un maggior potere esplicativo, perché spiega meglio come Dio può conoscere ciò che noi percepiamo come fatti temporali (in aggiunta alla sua comprensione della loro piena intellegibilità), e rende l’idea di come Dio mantiene in esistenza l’universo temporale plausibile nel linguaggio ordinario. Inoltre, la spiegazione di Swinburne è più semplice. L’idea di Lonergan è difficile da comprendere per una persona di senso comune, e nel contesto esplicativo richiede un’elaborazione analogica molto complessa degli attributi di Dio. Dunque, sulla base dei criteri di Swinburne del potere esplicativo e della semplicità come evidenza della verità, la teoria di Swinburne è più probabilmente vera. Questo non significa che la teoria di Lonergan non è vera, ma soltanto che un difensore del concetto di Dio di Lonergan avrebbe bisogno di elaborare meglio (di come io sono stato in grado di ricostruire dall’opera di Lonergan) la fondazione filosofica a favore della sua affermazione dell’atemporalità di Dio, o di rivedere radicalmente i criteri su cui la teoria di Lonergan sarebbe preferibile a quella di Swinburne.
8. ROJKA, L.: Who is God and whether he really exists. (Kto je Boh a ci vobec jestvuje.) Vol. 2. In Slovak. (Forthcoming)
Abstract: A short history of ateism. The possibility of miracles. Mind-body dualism.
7. ROJKA, L.: Creation of the Universe out of Nothing. A Critical Evaluation of the Discussion between W. L. Craig and Q. Smith. (Stvorenie vesmiru z nicoho: Quentin Smith proti Williamovi Craigovi.) Trnava : Dobra kniha, 2012. In Slovak.
Abstract: The book explores in detail the theme of one of the chapters of his previous, rather introductory book, Who is God and whether he really exists. (Kto je Boh a či vôbec jestvuje: Úvod do filozofickej teológie, Trnava 2010). This new publication is on the kalãm cosmological argument for the existence of God, which has been defended by W. L. Craig since 1980’s. The book is divided into three parts, each of which tackles one of the theses of the argument (justification of the principle of causality, scientific and philosophical explanations of the beginning of the universe, clarification of the concept of a personal God), with a particular attention paid to the positions of Q. Smith and W. Craig. The most important feature of the book is its analysis of recent interpretations of quantum theory and their implications for understanding causality (and determinism) and the beginning of the universe. The atheistic explanation of the origin of the universe by Q. Smith consists of five particular arguments against the possibility of the creation of the universe by a necessarily omnipotent person. Briefly, according to this theory, if there is a scientific probability that the universe began to exist out of nothing, then the universe could not be caused by on omnipotent person. The theory of Q. Smith is inspired by S. Hawking and J. Hartle, and their understanding of the role of the wave function of the universe in the overall explanation of its existence. In the present book, it is argued that the atheistic explanations are inadequate in comparison with the theistic alternatives and that a deeper analysis of the most recent debate on the nature of causality and the beginning of the universe provides a substantial support for the position of W. Craig who defends the kalãm cosmological argument.
6. ROJKA, L.: Who is God and whether he really exists. (Kto je Boh a ci vobec jestvuje.) Vol. 1. Trnava : Dobra kniha, 2010. In Slovak.
Abstract: Faith and reason. Religious language. Ontological argument for the existence of God (Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Plantinga). The five ways of Thomas Aquinas. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God. The teleological arguments for the existence of God. The concept of God (omniscience, omnipotence, eternity, aseity). The problem of evil.
5. ROJKA, L.: How to think and write meaningfully and reasonably. An Introduction into the Philosophical Methodology. (Ako sa vyjadrovat rozumne a zmysluplne: Uvedenie do filozofickej metodológie.) Bratislava : Dobrá kniha, 2009. 75 s. ISBN 978-80-7141-643-2 In Slovak.
Abstract: Useful instructions and examples how to read , analyse and coment philosophical texts, how to write a philosophical (argumentative) paper and a longer thesis in philosophy.
4. ROJKA, L.: The Eternity of God : Comparative Study of Bernard Lonergan and Richard Swinburne. Saarbrücken, Deutschland : VDM, 2009, 301s. ISBN 978-3-639-12807-9 In English.
Abstract: Bernard Lonergan argues that God should be postulated in an explanatory context as absolutely timeless, because the most perfect understanding cannot exist as a sequence of acts. Different acts imply some unexplained facts, and thus limitations on the intelligibility of the primary being. If the primary being were not completely intelligible, the divine understanding would be restricted. Furthermore, given Lonergan’s concept of time, it is logically contradictory to postulate God as existing in time. Richard Swinburne argues that God should be postulated as temporal (everlasting), because such a theistic explanation is meaningful, coherent, and it has greater explanatory power in comparison with other theistic theories. Swinburne is not able to see any meaning in the concept of a timeless God, and he argues that explanations using analogies with a temporal ‘instant’ or a kind of timeless ‘duration’ or ‘period’ are incoherent. Even though Lonergan’s concept of God as unrestricted act of understanding seems to be meaningful, his affirmation of the timelessness of God does not seem to be sufficiently well justified for two main reasons. First, on Swinburne’s definition of time, the temporal existence of a perfect being does not seem to imply any unintelligible imperfection. The temporal nature of God can be explained by the divine choice to create temporal being, and his choice can be explained by good reasons for creating the universe. Second, Lonergan refuses Swinburne’s time as an illusion, but it is only with Swinburne’s concept of time that Lonergan’s God can really be said to be ‘time-less.’ Since the evidence of cosmic background radiation show that there is a preferred reference frame, all the temporal intervals could be synchronized in a temporal divine understanding. Swinburne’s explanation of the relation between an everlasting God and temporal creatures seems to display more explanatory power, and it makes the conception of God conceivable in ordinary language. Based on Swinburne’s criteria of explanatory power and simplicity as evidence of truth, Swinburne’s theory is more probably true.
3. BLAZEK, M., DURCEK, K. a ROJKA, L.: Philosophical and Physical view at the Universe. (Filozofický a fyzikálny pohlad na vesmír. Bratislava : Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis; VEDA, 2006. 316 s. + xxxviii s. ISBN 80-8082-079-1; ISBN 80-224-0929-4
Abstract: The night sky full of stars fascinated human being a long time ago. Usually it evoked the feeling of smallness and more contemplative man was brought to the idea of the Creator as the origin of that grandiose work. In the course of centuries the contemporary state and finite destiny of the universe has hanged and
adjusted. However, the twentieth century brought a fundamental turn-over in the views on the universe. In the past, the cosmology – as a teaching on the universe – belonged to the speculative branches of the human activities. But, in the second half of that century the cosmology started to be a genuine scientific
discipline, being firmly rooted in sufficiently general assumptions and leaning on concrete facts and experimental evidence. And on elaborated methods allowing
to predict the further evolution of the universe (of course, under certain assumptions). Moreover, during last decade it was possible to arrive at a better and quite
appropriate understandig of the processes taking part in the first stages of evolution of the universe. This portion of knowledge comes from the observation that evolution of the universe is characterized by its decreasing temperature while the results obtained by means of the humans made still bigger and bigger accelerators are chcaracterized by processes appearing at still higher and higher temperatures. And a certain overlap of those two temperature tendencies allows to conclude that the presence and properties of the processes appearing in macrophysics and microphysics are essentially the same (bearing in mind the opposite direction of the temperature evolution). With respect to those circumstances, the authors of the present work describe and explain several steps which lead to an apt understanding of the contemporary status of the universe. And, at the same time, they emphasize that cosmology itself, together with its successes and achievements, is not able to answer all questions related with existence and mission of the human being. In this respect, the Christianism involving the belief in one personal God in three persons, gives the reliable orientation in complex problems which are usually met by a more thorough and deeper-minded man. In the first part of the present work (Philosophical point of view on the universe) also some details concerning history of cosmology are found there together with the cosmological aspect involved in the Old and New Testaments. An appropriate place is reserved there also to the problems of the space, time and matter as well as to the Big-Bang and relation between science and belief.
The second part (Physical point of view on the universe) is concentrated on the basic achievements in classical, quantum and relativistic physics, with the
aim to see more clearly the elements approving evolution of the universe. In the main text attention is paid to the experimental evidence allowing to conclude that the universe had its beginning, this beginnig was hot, all parts of the universe appeared at the same time and the universe will have its end. Incorporation of the corresponding basic knowledge leads to what is known as the Standard Cosmological Model. However, the evidence just mentioned, does not require a Big-Bang event. Combination of that Standard Model with the assumption on existence of the Big-Bang leads to the Extended Standart Cosmological Model; more details are included in corresponding chapters. Also the determistic but still unpredictable phenomena are discussed in the present work. They are represented by events which are prepared under the limits of our detecting possibilities and our abilities to observe them. Especially, evolution of general complex systems (and the universe is certainly one of them) indicates that at least sometimes they were influenced by immense number of events whose individual appearance was nearly improbable and they appeared in a "needed" sequence. Of course, it is not quite appropriate to try to deduce the existence and properties of God on the basic of such phenomena; the God (at least the God of the Old and New Testaments) cannot be considered as a subject of a material search. Moreover, it is argued that several hypotheses e.g. on existence of the oscilatory universe, of many universes (and perhaps with their permanent onset), etc, have no experimental support. The authors of the present work try to show that the science and the belief are complementary, not contradictory. Moreover, in the course of looking for answers to several question outlined also in the present work, the light in darkness is represented by the idea of John Paul II (expressed in Encyclical Fides et Ratio, 1998), namely, the belief and the reason are like two wings which help to advance the human spirit towards contemplation on the truth. The desire to recognize the truth and eventually to know the God was put into the heart of the man by God with the aim that whenever the man will know and love the God, he can arrive also to the full truth on himself.
2. ROJKA, L.: Philosophical Methodology. (Filozoficka metodologia.) Bratislava, 2006, 51s. ISBN 80–7141–536–7
Abstract: Useful instructions and examples how to read , analyse and coment philosophical texts, how to write a philosophical (argumentative) paper and a longer thesis in philosophy.
1. ROJKA, L.: The Eternity of God. Trnava: Dobrá kniha, Február 2005, 388 p. ISBN 80-7141-484
Abstract: Bernard Lonergan argues that God should be postulated in an explanatory context as absolutely timeless, because the most perfect understanding cannot exist as a sequence of acts. Different acts imply some unexplained facts, and thus limitations on the intelligibility of the primary being. If the primary being were not completely intelligible, the divine understanding would be restricted. Furthermore, given Lonergan’s concept of time, it is logically contradictory to postulate God as existing in time. Richard Swinburne argues that God should be postulated as temporal (everlasting), because such a theistic explanation is meaningful, coherent, and it has greater explanatory power in comparison with other theistic theories. Swinburne is not able to see any meaning in the concept of a timeless God, and he argues that explanations using analogies with a temporal ‘instant’ or a kind of timeless ‘duration’ or ‘period’ are incoherent. Even though Lonergan’s concept of God as unrestricted act of understanding seems to be meaningful, his affirmation of the timelessness of God does not seem to be sufficiently well justified for two main reasons. First, on Swinburne’s definition of time, the temporal existence of a perfect being does not seem to imply any unintelligible imperfection. The temporal nature of God can be explained by the divine choice to create temporal being, and his choice can be explained by good reasons for creating the universe. Second, Lonergan refuses Swinburne’s time as an illusion, but it is only with Swinburne’s concept of time that Lonergan’s God can really be said to be ‘time-less.’ Since the evidence of cosmic background radiation show that there is a preferred reference frame, all the temporal intervals could be synchronized in a temporal divine understanding. Swinburne’s explanation of the relation between an everlasting God and temporal creatures seems to display more explanatory power, and it makes the conception of God conceivable in ordinary language. Based on Swinburne’s criteria of explanatory power and simplicity as evidence of truth, Swinburne’s theory is more probably true.
