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
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, jlepps@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 Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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 Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Jack Gilles <icabombay@igc.org> Sender: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.netDate: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:49:27 To: Colleague Dialogue<dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Reply-To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
From an old friend:
14. To see and accept the boundaries of the human mind without vain rebellion, and in these severe limitations to work ceaselessly without protest-- this is where man's first duty lies. 15. Build over the unsteady abyss, with manliness and austerity, the fully round and lumnous arena of the mind where you may thresh and winnow the universe like a lord of the land. 16. Distinguish clearly these bitter yet fertile human truths, flesh of our flesh, and admit them heroically: (a) the mind of man can perceive appearances only, and never the essence of things: (b) and not all appearances but only the appearances of matter; (c) and more narrowly still: not even these appearances of matter, but only relationships between them; (d) and these relationships are not real and independent of man, for even these are his creations; (e) and they are not the only ones humanly possible, but simply the most convenient for his practical and perceptive needs. 17. Within these limitations the mind is the legal and absolute monarch. No other power reigns within its kingdom. Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Thu, 5/17/12, Jack Gilles <icabombay@igc.org> wrote: From: Jack Gilles <icabombay@igc.org> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 10:49 AM 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, JackOn May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, jlepps@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, jlepps@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 Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant dialogue!!?! 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. 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. 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'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. 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! 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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, jlepps@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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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 Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
This two sided conversation needs broadening. Consider, for instance, Butter Pecan -- home made, with fresh roasted pecans from the back yard . . . On another subject, I recall a moment in some collegium or something when JWM was being a philosopher and got talking about your principal of reality and your principal of value and which was prior to which. His point seemed to be if you start with the principal of reality, then "good" is a description of what is. If you start with the principal of value, then you have some notion of good by which you judge what is. I was wandering around the Realistic Living website and found these two comments there. My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally. They knew what they were doing; we don't." - John Dominic Crossan The notion of depth is a valuation of experiences and the real question is whether such a value can be assigned to any experience or complex of experiences in our secular culture. Schliermacher's feeling of absolute dependence or Tillich's ultimate concern would qualify for a valuation of depth if we had such experiences. Traditional concepts of revelation cloaked in numinosity would qualify if we had such experiences. A secular postmodern theology begins with an acknowledgement of a lack of such experiences in many of our lives and asks if any such experience can be had or so transformed such that it can be valued as real and important." - Charles E. Winquist Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Thu, 5/17/12, jlepps@pc.jaring.my <jlepps@pc.jaring.my> wrote: From: jlepps@pc.jaring.my <jlepps@pc.jaring.my> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM 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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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 Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
My thought on the subject of values is that some perception of reality precedes, and becomes the context from which I select, what I consider to be of value. A value is chosen based upon some expected promise, and the question of the validity of the value is, can it deliver on what it promised to deliver, as I perceived it, when I decided it was of value. (I do, by the way, have to distinguish between "preferences" and "values." Butter pecan over strawberry is a preference, and I may choose one tonight and another tomorrow night. On the other hand I acknowledge that ice cream may be a value!) It is possible that the "value" of values is somewhat relative, depending upon what I value it for. If my perception of reality is that to live one must procure and ingest food, then I may value money for its ability to help me procure food. In that instance it delivers and I experience that my assignment of value to money to procure food is valid. On the other hand, I may perceive that the reality is that there is depth meaning to be found in life, and that the source of that meaning is material acquisition. Therefore I may come to value money for the promise that if I have enough of it I can find the meaning of life. I amass material wealth but find that regardless how much I have I am unhappy and unfulfilled to the point of chronic depression. At some point, therefore, I may conclude that money is not delivering what I thought it promised and in this case it is therefore not a "valid" value. This may cause me to reexamine my perception of reality, change my story and my values, and subsequently live my life differently, with a new story of reality and corresponding new values. A dilemma occurs when two or more values which I consider to be "valid" come into conflict with each other, and I must choose one over the others by making a "value judgment." (This, of course, is what we dealt with in the Freedom section of RS-1.) For a grounding example, four and one-half years ago Mary Beth and I decided we had had enough of city life and the daily grind and decided to move to the lake country of east Texas where we bought a nice little waterfront cottage amidst the piney woods, leaving our friends and associates behind. The two conflicting values were the quiet serenity of nature versus relationships with close friends. We knew both to have value, but we decided serenity was of more value in delivering ultimate meaning in life than relationships. Four and one-half years later, after much reflection that you can sit on the back porch gazing out over the water just so long and take just so many nature treks, we sold our waterfront cottage and moved back to a suburban home with a small back yard in order to reestablish our relationships. Several people asked, "Are you crazy?" The question was asked from an assumption of value. Our conclusion is, that as far as depth meaning in life is concerned, place and relationships are both of value, but relationships are more valuable than place. So we will live in the city, surrounded by our friends and associates, and we will find other ways to partake of and participate in nature, which we also discern also to be of great value. I hope this adds something to the conversation about value. Randy "Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the course of being in the world; not to be supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires." -Martin Buber (adapted) ________________________________ From: James Wiegel <jfwiegel@yahoo.com> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design This two sided conversation needs broadening. Consider, for instance, Butter Pecan -- home made, with fresh roasted pecans from the back yard . . . On another subject, I recall a moment in some collegium or something when JWM was being a philosopher and got talking about your principal of reality and your principal of value and which was prior to which. His point seemed to be if you start with the principal of reality, then "good" is a description of what is. If you start with the principal of value, then you have some notion of good by which you judge what is. I was wandering around the Realistic Living website and found these two comments there. My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally. They knew what they were doing; we don't." - John Dominic Crossan The notion of depth is a valuation of experiences and the real question is whether such a value can be assigned to any experience or complex of experiences in our secular culture. Schliermacher's feeling of absolute dependence or Tillich's ultimate concern would qualify for a valuation of depth if we had such experiences. Traditional concepts of revelation cloaked in numinosity would qualify if we had such experiences. A secular postmodern theology begins with an acknowledgement of a lack of such experiences in many of our lives and asks if any such experience can be had or so transformed such that it can be valued as real and important." - Charles E. Winquist Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Thu, 5/17/12, jlepps@pc.jaring.my <jlepps@pc.jaring.my> wrote: >From: jlepps@pc.jaring.my <jlepps@pc.jaring.my> >Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design >To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> >Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM > > >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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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 creationex 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 >>>>>>>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ >>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ >>>Dialogue mailing list >>>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>_______________________________________________ >>Dialogue mailing list >>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > >_______________________________________________Dialogue mailing listDialogue@lists.wedgeblade.nethttp://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________Dialogue mailing listDialogue@lists.wedgeblade.nethttp://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
John E., question: is it only the point of Christianity? 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. Good dialog. John C. _____ From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of jlepps@pc.jaring.my Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:52 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design 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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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, jlepps@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 Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Probably not. And it's also probably not the ONLY point of Christianity! I still recall your comment in Kelapa Dua that the Muslim Blueshirts had no problems understanding sacrifice, but cruciformity stumped them! That has been a long-remembered insight. Thanks John At 07:25 AM 5/18/2012, you wrote:
 John E., question: is it only the point of Christianity?
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.
Good dialog.
John C.
---------- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of jlepps@pc.jaring.my Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:52 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@pc.jaring.my>jlepps@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@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
participants (6)
-
Jack Gilles -
James Wiegel -
jlepps＠pc.jaring.my -
John Cock -
lhpiercedds＠gmail.com -
R Williams