<html>
<body>
Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant
dialogue!!?!<br><br>
Thanks Jack, Jim, and Randy for your comments. Here are a couple of
additional thoughts mostly in response to Jack's latest (below).<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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! <br><br>
Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others.<br><br>
Grace & Peace<br>
John<br><br>
At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">John,<br><br>
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". <br><br>
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? <br>
<br>
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. <br><br>
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!!!<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Peace brother,<br><br>
Jack<br>
On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM,
<a href="mailto:jlepps@pc.jaring.my">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks Jack.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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!
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Thanks again for your comments.<br><br>
John<br><br>
At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">John,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Thanks for the review!<br><br>
Jack<br>
On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM,
<a href="mailto:jlepps@pc.jaring.my">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Some thoughts you might
enjoy:<br><br>
<br>
<div align="center"><b><a name="_ftnref1"></a>Reflections on “The Grand
Design[1]</b><a name="_ftnref1"></a>”<br>
<br>
<i>May 2012<br><br>
</i></div>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<a name="_ftnref2"></a>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.<br>
<br>
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<i> ex nihilo</i> (which, though we do not observe it,
seems to be the way things got started). <br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn1"></a>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, <b><u>The
Grand Design</u></b><a name="_ftn1"></a> (New York: Bantam Books,
2012)<br>
<a name="_ftn2"></a>[2] See his <b><u>The Elegant Universe</u></b> (New
York: Vintage Books, 2000), <b><u>The Fabric of the Cosmos</u></b> (New
York: Vintage Books, 2004), <b><u>The Hidden
Reality</u></b><a name="_ftn2"></a> (New York: Penguin, 2011). He also
has fascinating presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel. <br>
<br>
Your responses are more welcome.<br><br>
John<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net<br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>