[Dialogue] The Grand Design

Thu May 17 08:34:23 PDT 2012

Thanks Jack.

I don't think the book characterizes reality as the result of 
mindless randomness. But here's a question: if the universe is an 
"intelligent system," how did it get started? Was the big bang caused 
by something else? This can lead to infinite regression.

My argument with scientists is not with what they do or how they do 
it. It's when they step outside their own discipline and attempt to 
argue theology which is difference from science. Us theologians also 
need to be careful in evaluating science! Galileo found that out the hard way!

Saying "God created heaven and earth" is not a statement about 
science. it's a faith statement that accords value to all of 
creation, whatever it looks like.

Thanks again for your comments.

John

At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote:
>John,
>
>I appreciate your insights regarding the book.  I have no real 
>interest in debating string theory or Theory M.  There are those 
>whom I respect who have profound questions regarding them and 
>certainly they struggle with any ability to confirm the theory in 
>practice, instead relying on mathematics to "prove" their points.
>
>It is easy for secular scientist to pooh pooh the intelligent design 
>arguments as they are, for the most part, presented by those who are 
>more literalist in their theology.  They tend to externalize God 
>which is just another form of the two story universe.  But for me, 
>the intelligent design is really about the entire universe as an 
>intelligent system.  It is not a mindless result of random 
>collisions.  I won't go into the depth that is required to present 
>the alternative, but it is there.
>
>The more interesting point is that mindless randomness means there 
>is no basis for the emergence of values.  In deed, there is no 
>meaning nor purpose for anything.  But our personal experience tells 
>us something else.  And is not simply a way for us to live with 
>meaninglessness of reality.  I won't expand on this because this is 
>not the forum for a long discussion.  But we shouldn't allow the 
>scientist to set all the rules for how to debate these questions.
>
>Thanks for the review!
>
>Jack
>On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM, 
><mailto:jlepps at pc.jaring.my>jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>
>>Some thoughts you might enjoy:
>>
>>
>>Reflections on "The Grand Design[1]"
>>
>>May 2012
>>
>>Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov have undertaken to challenge 
>>the "Intelligent Design" theory of creation with the latest science 
>>from Quantum Physics and the M-Theory. In my opinion, they deserve 
>>each other. One says an intelligent being created and runs the 
>>cosmos. The other says no such being is necessary to account for 
>>reality as we know it scientifically.
>>
>>Neither "side" seems aware of the distinction between faith 
>>statements as expressive vs. faith statements as explanatory. The 
>>former occurs in rituals, creeds, worship, and hymns and is 
>>primarily intended to express one's interior posture of 
>>affirmation. They are poetic and not intended to be taken as 
>>literal. The latter can be found in theological formulations that 
>>attempt to provide a rational understanding of that posture. 
>>Theological formulations are intended to be taken literally and 
>>tend to provide a viable model of reality ("model-dependent 
>>realism" is the mode of Hawking and Mlodinov) which is compatible 
>>with contemporary scientific understanding.
>>
>>The Intelligent design movement misses this distinction and tends 
>>to take expressive statements as literal, sometimes even missing 
>>the deep truth they express. The scientists also miss the 
>>distinction and wind up creating a straw man which they demolish 
>>with considerable relish and humor.
>>
>>The book, however, is a useful history of scientific achievement, 
>>and filled with informative and entertaining graphics. When 
>>compared with the works of Brian Greene[2], the book seems a bit 
>>simplistic; still it's a useful introduction to the present state of physics.
>>
>>Particularly interesting is its perspective of "model-dependent 
>>realism." Instead of attempting to establish the external reality 
>>of anything outside of the viewer, it says that what we perceive is 
>>shaped by the brain which uses a model to coordinate and make sense 
>>of our perceptions. Whether or not the model accords with some 
>>external reality is beyond the possibility of establishing. Instead 
>>one establishes the usefulness of the model in accounting for 
>>experience. There are four criteria a model must meet to be 
>>regarded as accurate: 1) elegance; 2) contains few arbitrary or 
>>adjustable elements;  3) agrees with and explains all existing 
>>observations; and 4) makes detailed predictions about future 
>>observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not 
>>borne out (p.51). Unfortunately the book does not show how 
>>intelligent design fails to meet those same criteria for validity. 
>>Still, the authors insist that no God hypothesis is required to 
>>account for all we observe, including creation ex nihilo (which, 
>>though we do not observe it, seems to be the way things got started).
>>
>>It may be that the book is most useful if the reader dispenses with 
>>the theological issues the authors purport to raise. It is indeed a 
>>useful capsule of string theory and M-theory along with quantum 
>>physics, and provides a useful look into a model of reality that 
>>may hold possibility for the future. Maybe the theology was just a 
>>gimmick to attract readers to a subject that is covered more 
>>adequately elsewhere, and is essentially uninteresting to most. It 
>>seems to have succeeded as a marketing effort since the book is 
>>currently on the NY Times best seller list at #18 of 20.
>>
>>
>>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New 
>>York: Bantam Books, 2012)
>>[2] See his The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), 
>>The Fabric of the Cosmos (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), The 
>>Hidden Reality (New York: Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating 
>>presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel.
>>
>>Your responses are more welcome.
>>
>>John
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dialogue mailing list
>><mailto:Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120517/1032d91d/attachment-0001.html>