paper – Page 4 – The Swedenborg Scientific Association

A Reply to the Recent Article by Horand K. Gutfeldt on Rev. 3:19

Rarely do we see someone confronting so boldly our longstanding traditions of translation as Horand K. Gutfeldt has done with respect to Revelation 3:19 in the Oct.-Dec. 1983 issue of New Philosophy. This kind of challenge seems to me quite commendable because it allows us to reflect on the meaning of the biblical text in new ways. Even if the change advocated is later rejected, the process undergone in coming to such a decision is nearly always beneficial and enlightening.

Fae-/Foe-, Praelium

We have already presented a study on the spelling of the words caecus, coena and coenum (see The New Philosophy October-December 1982, pp. 149, 150). Here is a further study of Swedenborg’s indexes to determine which words are to be spelt fae- and which are to be spelt foe-, as well as the preferred spelling of proelium.

New Church Epistemology Part I

New Church thought as reflected in its foundation principles, its general philosophical concepts, and its particular doctrines, represents a continuation of an historical development that stems back to pre-Hebraic times. While this can be said of other systems of thought, yet New Church thought stands apart for at least two reasons. First, it is founded on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1747-1771). These works together with parts of the Bible (the Law and the Prophets, the Psalms, the four Gospels and Revelation) constitute a unique body of literature referred to collectively as the Word, according to the definition given in Swedenborg’s The New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine, “What He [God] has thus revealed, forms with us the Word” (HD 251). (In this study the expression “the Writings” will be employed when referring to the theological works of Swedenborg). Second, in the light of the Writings the now three-fold Word (Old Testament, New Testament, and the Writings) is seen to have an organic unity, for each successive revelation is seen as an unfolding of what is contained interiorly in what preceded it.

Providence, Chance, and Free Will

The laws of Divine Providence would seem to leave nothing to “chance” since it is commonly known in the church that Divine Providence works into the least particulars. However, there is certainly the appearance of chance in the world around us both in nature and in the affairs of men. This appearance must somehow be accounted for and our view of nature made to agree with the teachings of the Word. This paper is divided into three parts. The first sets forth what I believe to be the most pertinent teachings found in the Writings on this subject; the second explains some of the background material of modern mathematics and physics that bears on this issue; and the third gives some applications and interpretations while pointing out some potential difficulties.

Probability: A View of Nature

Much of the complexity and strength of science, especially physical science, is due to the pervasive use of mathematics, a tool for modeling phenomena and then projecting future developments and behavior. This kind of picture of nature, originating about the time Newton, was a departure from the philosophical or rationalist approach of a Descartes or indeed, Swedenborg, and had, I believe, two consequences. First, the mathematization of science eventually gave man a capability of predicting and controlling physical events which seems almost magical to the uninitiated. Second, the emphasis on quantification seemed to have caused a localization of viewpoint, an emphasis on specific problems which are sufficiently confined in scope that there is a reasonable expectation of solution. The idea is that if enough small, local problems are solved the global solution or ‘grand theory’ will evolve. An example of this is the many pieces of physics and chemistry which would be necessary for a complete and satisfactory theory of pre-biotic evolution. In Swedenborgian terms this amounts to the use of what are primarily effects being collected to determine causes, an approach which must be used with caution. Yet having said this, the impression is not to be given that science is somehow invalid or corrupt because it is focused. On the contrary; the models which the human mind lays upon nature are reflections of both nature and the mind itself. These reflections have value and may complement and infill the general structure of a religious and philosophic view of reality.

Philosophical and Ethical Movements Before the Lord’s First Advent

I was led to the study of ancient and foreign religions by a burning question which first arose in my mind when I was in Junior Year Religion during a unit on Church History. The Lord has apparently concentrated His efforts on western man, for His churches have been in Canaan and generally westward. What has He done, and what is He doing for the rest of mankind—the majority of mankind?

Which Diphthong?

A brief explanation must be offered to recipients of the new translation of Arcana Caelestia as to why the title contains the diphthong -ae- rather than -oe-, as in previous editions.

New Church Epistemology

In Part 1 of this series the focus was on man as a whole and his relationship to the spiritual world. In this part we want to expand the treatment of the memory given in Part 1, and touch on sensation, imagination and reason as mental processes. The treatment of these is necessarily brief, and suffers deficiencies on that account. But it provides an essential link to our later consideration of questions central to the study of how and what we know.

Natural Science and the Spiritual Life

My intention in presenting this review-essay is to provide some ideas about the relation of science and religion. As a scientist who has accepted religion as valid and important in his life, I have been in a position to feel harassed, and not always very intelligently so, by both people and writers who claim a religious motive, and by people and writers who assert no such motive—and who, on the contrary, proclaim to be on some value-free neutral ground. And then a third source of intellectual anguish arises from the well-nigh unresolvable clash and intellectual warfare between fundamental religious groups and parts of the scientific community who are allied with constitutionalists and civil libertarians. In my view, both groups have some right on their side, both much wrong. But, can one of any religious persuasion not feel a sympathy for the attack on another’s beliefs? Or from the other view, can a scientist tolerate the misrepresentation of what science is, and what its knowledges are? And from another view, is it wise to allow certain specific doctrines of particular religions to enter public education, there to be taught as though they were science to the youngsters of other faiths, the tenets of whose faith may be diametrically opposed to the doctrines taught.

Correspondences of the Developing Human Form

The human form, to be fully understood, must be seen dynamically, as a process. It is not a static arrangement of forms, but the lens on which all activity in the universe converges and from which it radiates. Each thread of activity consists of two strands, one spiritual and one natural, which are bound together by correspondence and are essential to one another. In following the strands of human development attentively, we can see where and how they touch each other.

Article Type: paper