<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19222"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=796121413-18052012><FONT color=#0000ff>John
E., question: is it only the point of Christianity? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=796121413-18052012><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>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. <BR><BR><SPAN class=796121413-18052012><FONT
color=#0000ff>Good dialog.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=796121413-18052012><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=796121413-18052012><FONT color=#0000ff>John
C.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>jlepps@pc.jaring.my<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:52
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Colleague Dialogue<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Dialogue] The Grand
Design<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Just one more thought tonight, Jack.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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
<U>Fabric of the Cosmos </U> 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. <BR><BR>Thanks again for your
insights.<BR><BR>John<BR><BR>John<BR><BR><BR>At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, <A
href="mailto:jlepps@pc.jaring.my">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</A> wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Who said the list serve can't be
a place for significant dialogue!!?!</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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!<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><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.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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. <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><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.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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!<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><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.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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? <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><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.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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? <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><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!</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Amen to that!<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><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 class=cite cite="" type="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 class=cite cite="" type="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 class=cite cite="" type="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 class=cite cite="" type="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><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>