Notes
- A. N. Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Macmillan Co., 1926), p. 58.
- Philip Wheelwright, The Burning Fountain (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1954), passim.
- Niels Bohr. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 10.
- C. F. von Weizsäcker, The World View of Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 93.
- Henry Margenau, The Nature of Physical Reality (New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Co., 1950), p. 315.
- Because in classical electrodynamics the energy of the light waves is considered to be distributed equally over the wave front. Therefore, only a very small proportion of it, and about the same proportion, would be absorbed by each electron.
- The function is (with the mathematics simplified) p = hv, so that Δ=Δv. It follows from the above relation that DLΔ≤Δp ≤ h.
- Because of the uncertainty relations, a causal account (one which follows out precisely the energy and momentum transfers from one state of the system to the next) will have to be vague about the spatio‐temporal locations involved, and an account which accurately specifies the locations cannot give energy and momentum values accurate enough for the conservation laws to be applied.
- Bohr, op. cit., p. 56.
- AagePetersen, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , Xix (September, 1963, 8–14.
- See, e.g., Mary Hesse. Models and Analogies in Science (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963).
- See John Baillie, The Sense of the Presence of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962), p. 217; and Niels Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: Science Editions, 1961), pp. 80 ff.
- Pseudo‐Dionysius, De mystica theologia, chaps. iii and v.
- Unspecifiable” in the sense that the qualification cannot be “written into” the assertions: we cannot reformulate them so as to take it into account. See the last sentence of this paragraph.
- The other two models are more strictly plausible in relation to God because they are both capable of being qualified by “infinitely” or “perfectly.” A perfectly just judge we can (in a way) imagine and an infinitely forgiving lord and master (cf. Hosea). But an infinite case of a “generally fair but kindly lenient” parent?
- Some lines along which such research might be conducted are suggested in the last two chapters of my Waves, Particles, and Paradoxes (Rice University Studies, Vol. LIII, No. 2). The justice‐mercy paradox and the christological paradox are there treated in more detail, along with some more general suggestions based on the work of Ninian Smart.