33. Conclusions

This book introduces connections between theism and the sciences, and so it enables us to begin what can be called ‘theistic science’. On the way, it had to clarify exactly what the essential parts of theism were, making what was called a ‘scientific theism’ built on deductions from basic postulates about God. Connections have been made between theistic science and the sciences of physics and psychology. There will be further consequences for biology, neurophysiology, and the theory of evolution. I admit that we only have a skeleton for a scientific theory, not the detailed structures and mechanisms that come from further observations and analyses, but a body without a skeleton cannot stand.

This progress has been enabled by recent advances in the theory of dispositions. One primary new step is taking ‘loves’ and ‘propensities’ seriously as kinds of dispositions, with the ontological framework that allows such dispositions to be the substances underlying objects (physical as well as mental). A second step is to take seriously some ideas of practical religion, such as that ‘God is Love’. The third new step is to systematically apply a theory of ‘derivative dispositions’, in order to enable a general theory of ‘multiple generative levels’, some of which are already known in physics and psychology. Such a theory of multiple levels has been deduced as a consequence of theism. We interpreted this as the spiritual, mental and physical that we already know (or at least, should know). The existence of a multilevel theory including the mental and physical degrees, as distinct but related, goes a long way to formulating an alternative metaphysical view to naturalism. It should enable scientists to consider a wider range of theories than hitherto, when trying to understand the phenomena they observe in and outside themselves.

Overall, the presentation of this book has a bearing on the validity and possible acceptance of theism as a coherent theory. We see specific elements of psychology and specific relationships in physics that are better explained with the theistic postulates than before. The theistic claims can provide novel predictions or at the very least explain what we already know with more rather than less understanding. Theism may also make some things that are left still contingent (but factually certain), like evolution, growth and development, be necessary with the addition of theism. I am offering a way to be theists and still be scientifically respectable, and maybe I am also showing that there is a better explanation of science, and that we might have to accept theism to have that explanation. Which it is will depend your underlying prior dispositions (your loves), and on how successful these explanations will be in the light of further research.