[Dialogue] The Grand Design
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Thu May 17 19:52:22 PDT 2012
Just one more thought tonight, Jack.
I think our point of difference is in the matter of values (of which
we share many). You describe them (beyond the ice cream) as "part of
the fabric of creation itself that are always present and can't be
negated." That sounds a lot like how Hawking describes laws of
science. But I assume you mean something different.
When I use the term "values" I am pointing to a relationship between
two entities, usually me and the item valued. The value is not a
thing that can be eternal, absolute, and unchanging. It's a
relationship I take to the entity, whether it be life, being-itself,
or strawberry ice cream (actually I prefer mint-chocolate). I believe
the point of Christianity is that a positive relationship to all of
reality (animal, vegetable, mineral, and whatever else is real) makes
for authentic humanness. We often fail to attain that positive
posture (speaking for myself, at least), but that doesn't make the
point less valid. If that point is what you mean by "absolute value",
a structure of the cosmos, then OK. But that's a faith statement, a
decision, and not a scientifically-provable one.
That position has been communicated in a large number of scientific
world-views, many of which have been discarded -- though our
expressions meant to communicate that posture seem to lag behind the
changing world views by decades or centuries.
Your desire to create a grand union of science and religion leaves me
a little uneasy. Clearly it does not now exist. But there have been
times when it did -- the Middle Ages, for example. The science was a
two-story universe bridged by the hierarchy, both religious and
feudal. People were able communicate the goodness of reality in that
universe of discourse.
My guess is that there is not a world view established enough to
merge seamlessly with faith statements, so I choose to keep them
separate. This leaves me at liberty to enjoy reading Brian Green's
Fabric of the Cosmos without understanding much of it. There are
entire paragraphs that seem to be in English -- at least the words do
-- but I have no idea what he's talking about. It's sort of an
exercise in humility. But it's also valuable to keep up with what
changes are taking place in understanding the world.
Thanks again for your insights.
John
John
At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote:
>On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM,
><mailto:jlepps at pc.jaring.my>jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>
>>Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant dialogue!!?!
>
>You're right about that. I'm getting some heat from Steve
>Herrington that we are talking in abstractions and I guess we need
>to include some groundings. So I hope he likes my comments on ice cream!
>>
>>Thanks Jack, Jim, and Randy for your comments. Here are a couple of
>>additional thoughts mostly in response to Jack's latest (below).
>>
>>First of all, I thoroughly agree with Jack's assertion about our
>>being able to cooperate in the ongoing creation of reality. We are
>>able to apprehend a dimension of awesomeness.
>>
>>Secondly, I don't agree with the idea that creation ex nihilo (out
>>of nothing) renders all values void. In fact, creation from nothing
>>has been a Christian principle since the second century. (Google it
>>for more details.) It does not render values void at all. If
>>anything, it increases the wonder of it all.
>
>John, it may be a "wonder" but where do the values come from? It is
>just our personal opinion, or are they indeed universal - present as
>part of the eternal. But if we have all of creation just coming at
>a particular point in time, some 21 billion years ago, then are
>values part of the "energy" set that began the whole thing, or they
>just creation of our minds? And as for creation out of nothing (ex
>nihilo) I agree, but let's be clear that when you say "no-thing"
>your saying that it is coming from the void, which is not a thing,
>or place, or a time, it is a repository of all.
>>
>>Thirdly, if "All that is, is good" -- HR Niebuhr), then the idea of
>>absolutes gets a good kick in the shin! If everything is good, what
>>more is needed? That would also mean that whatever science
>>discovers about reality, that's good too.
>
>I'm not to clear about what you're saying with this. Are you saying
>there are no absolutes?? Not to be picky, but wouldn't a statement
>that there are no absolutes be an absolute? Certainly whatever
>science discovers about this world is good and valid. It is just
>not complete nor the final word. I'm glad someone discovered
>medicines, engines and a few other helpful things! Hell, I even
>have a few patents myself!
>>
>>Fourth, I don't quite understand your statement that unless some
>>version of science is valid, then nothing is valuable. It seems to
>>me that there are things and people I value, regardless of whether
>>or not there is a superior intelligence that also values them. In
>>fact if there is, then (s)he/it has good taste! But whether or not
>>there is, I still value you, the people reading this, our common
>>past experiences, music, and much more. Their value to me does not
>>depend on some scientific view of reality.
>
>I hope I didn't say that, and if I did, I misspoke. Of course much
>of science is great, sound and highly beneficial. But I think we're
>not talking about just any values. I like vanilla ice-cream and you
>value strawberry. It may be relative and/or subjective. We live
>with those difference in values every day. The question is; are
>there a set of universal values, part of the fabric of creation
>itself that are always present and can't be negated. And are these
>values something we can intuit, access and live. If so, how did
>they emerge from nothing (as in a Big Bang) or are they inventions
>of our minds?
>>
>>
>>I'd like to pose a position: I do not think faith depends on any
>>scientific world view. Time after time, scientists have made
>>discoveries that the religious regarded as incompatible with faith,
>>and proceeded to hold back progress for ages. I believe that the
>>two speak of different dimensions: the surface (science) and the
>>depth (faith). Whatever science allows to be the case, I am quite
>>prepared to accept. If they are questionable, it will be disproven
>>on their own terms.
>
>This question you raise is at the heart of the matter. Are we
>destined to live forever in two realms, science and faith? Or, is
>there a way that enables the integration of both into one system,
>that validates both and allows both to communicate with a
>discipline? The point I'm trying to make is that "surface" and
>"depth" are not two things, they are one thing. Isn't that what our
>insight and breakthrough is when we say NSV/NRM are the same thing
>seen in two different lights?
>>
>>I'm not a scientist! But I am quite interested in what they have
>>to say about reality and looking for implications. Some of it seems
>>pretty far-fetched -- like the notion of an infinite number of
>>universes, which, if true, would mean that somewhere in some other
>>universe there is another carbon copy of me writing another carbon
>>copy of you! The reasoning seems to be that since you and I and our
>>surroundings are all composed of a finite number of atoms (or
>>strings or whatever), in an infinite number of universes, there
>>would have to be duplication! I can appreciate the shock of
>>discovering that Earth is not the center of the universe, but the
>>notion that you and I are not necessarily unique and un-repeatable
>>seems a bit much!
>
>Amen to that!
>>
>>
>>Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others.
>>
>>Grace & Peace
>>John
>>
>>At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote:
>>>John,
>>>
>>>That (where did they come from?) is one of the issues regarding
>>>values as well. If it all started as "nothing" then there is no
>>>reason to say there are any absolutes regarding values. Nothing
>>>has value, including us. That is why they can talk about a "selfish gene".
>>>
>>>But there are more serious problems with the the scientific theory
>>>as it is presently modeled. For one, they speak of space and time
>>>as a continuum separate from the creative process. It is stated
>>>that everything started from a "place" of infinite density and
>>>singularity of space. A theory that can never be proven but only
>>>is a mathematical equation. The same thing for "time". To speak
>>>of what "started" something is to see time (like space) as
>>>something independent of matter, like "Everything exists in a
>>>space and time continuum". So if we exist "in space" and space is
>>>expanding (like a balloon), like the Big Bang says we are all
>>>growing away from each other, then why aren't the parts we can see
>>>like atoms etc. (which also exist in this independent space time
>>>continuum) expanding?
>>>
>>>The third problem area is "causality". Something outside (of
>>>what?) must have caused things to happen if it wasn't the Big
>>>Bang, an intelligence, which if followed to infinite regression
>>>leads to no answer.
>>>
>>>So we are left with the scientist saying "accept the Big Bang" and
>>>YOU deal with all the questions that arise. But think for a
>>>moment of what you're being asked to take on "faith" (science
>>>would say "almost confirmed theory"). It all started from
>>>singularity, (and we can tell you within a billion years of so) of
>>>"when" that was, that every morsel of "stuff" was somehow
>>>compacted in some way so that it all fit in basically no space at
>>>all, and, oh by the way, there is also 95% of it we can't see,
>>>identify, detect only by inference or indirectly, but our model
>>>tells us exists and we'll call that "dark matter". Talk about a
>>>leap of faith!!!
>>>
>>>No, there was no "beginning" and there is no "end". The creative
>>>process is inherent in the universe and is present everywhere (and
>>>nowhere). Space and time are an integral part of the creative
>>>process. All "things" exist in space and time, but they also
>>>exist in the void that transcends space and time. That is what
>>>the quantum reality is. GOD is not "outside" of anything, because
>>>there is no outside, but there is a void, which is just another
>>>aspect of what is. If you only base all your knowledge on the
>>>ability of left side of the brain to "understand", that is,
>>>language and mathematics, you get these contorted expressions of
>>>explanations that require alternative universes, 10-11 dimensions
>>>of reality, and stories that everything came from nothing. But we
>>>have access to another side of the brain, the intuitive side, one
>>>that is capable of direct knowledge of the void.
>>>
>>>People from the beginning of civilization have struggled with
>>>understanding the purpose of it all, the Mystery, the wonder, the
>>>awe of life. And it cannot be reduced to "Oh, we just haven't had
>>>enough time to figure it out, or the mathematics to confirm". "If
>>>you only knew the "facts" then the "unknown unknown" as a friend
>>>once put it in a poem, would be known and understood". No!! GOD
>>>is not that which we haven't quite figured out yet. To be "made
>>>in God's image" means that we have the inherent capacity to
>>>directly know, to access the Void and to be part of the one and
>>>only creative process. Indeed, that one creative process, like a
>>>fractal, can be seen and understood to be a system that operates
>>>at any level you want to focus on; the atom, the cell, the body,
>>>the community, the organization, the biosphere, the earth, the
>>>solar system or the galaxy.
>>>
>>>It is so easy for people like Bill Maher to destroy religious
>>>statements or beliefs. But if you want to counter his stupid put
>>>downs, you have to play only on the field of his (and scientists)
>>>definition; objective, explicit causality. But there are
>>>alternatives to this field, which take into account both objective
>>>and subjective, explicit and implicit reality and allows one to
>>>understand how the creative process unfolds.
>>>
>>>That is why our work on The Other World (in the midst of This
>>>World) is of such earth shaking importance. We are not talking
>>>about how we found some words to hold awesome experiences and that
>>>can really be helpful. No, we (and many others) stumbled upon a
>>>reality that was hidden from us for centuries because of giving
>>>credence and truth only to objective, explicit and verifiable
>>>dimensions of reality. Everything else was just waiting its turn
>>>to be understood and figured out. The Universe is just a gigantic
>>>bake shop and us muffins are just random products of a rather wild
>>>cooking process. No recipe, no cook, just rather marvelously
>>>looking and behaving "accidents" of a whirling soup. Get over
>>>your importance, your sense of purpose, your sense of awe and
>>>wonder. These are just psychological inventions we have created
>>>to deal with that which we don't know and they really don't exist
>>>except as helpful coping concepts.
>>>
>>>I won't go on, this is far to much already. But let me conclude
>>>with the following. Most physicists and mathematicians would have
>>>you believe that the Big Bang theory is the only real game in
>>>town. But if you Google "Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory"
>>>you'll see there are many other answers. I think most are still
>>>trying to play on the Objective, Explicit playing field (because
>>>that is the boundary science has put on understanding reality) but
>>>it ain't quite the consensus that you would be led to believe from most people.
>>>
>>>Peace brother,
>>>
>>>Jack
>>>On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM,
>>><mailto:jlepps at pc.jaring.my>jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>><mailto:Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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
>>><mailto:Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20120517/07462c19/attachment.html>
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list