AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

The Rev John Polkinghorne was on the Today Programme this morning - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7918000/7918145.stm - being interviewed by John Humphries about his new book (with Nicholas Beale) called "Questions of Truth". - Some bits I picked up from the conversation: It doesn't offer answers just "responses". Scientific facts are "interpreted facts" and incorporate opinion. Religion is search for truth through "well-motivated" beliefs. The Universe is wonderfully ordered and deeply fruitful. Science involves an "act of faith", committing oneself to a belief that the world is intelligible. Science deals with impersonal experience, whereas personal experience is not reproducible or amenable to repeated experiment. - As I've expressed before I don't consider that science requires any act of faith. How would one make sense of anything by starting with the assumption that it was unintelligible? - There is a website for the book: - http://www.questionsoftruth.org/ - In the Foreword, by Tony Hewish, he gives some account of quantum theory and concludes with what seems to me to be a non-sequitur: "When the most elementary physical things behave this way, we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries such as the existence of God and that God became Man around two thousand years ago." You could just as well use this argument for belief in absolutely anything! - I thought this, and the general question of the relation of quantum theory (which was Polkinghorne's speciality) to religion might be worth a separate thread.

--
GPJ

4473 views

Thanks for pointing this out George. I wasn't aware that Tony Hewish is a Christian - I read Maths as an undergraduate at his college in Cambridge. - One area where science does require faith is the assumption that things will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today. Science cannot prove that. If all we relied on was pure logic, I could say that just because the speed of light has one value today doesn't mean it will be the same tomorrow. Every time we apply science we trust that the same orderliness holds. - John Polkinghorne makes the same point that I've tried to make more than once on this site - that science abstracts a particular aspect of our experience of the world and builds theories on that. It is a huge leap of faith to claim that all reality is comprehensible under the same approach, including personal experience - especially when there is no conceivable means to get from the physical to the personal. - I can understand that you find Tony Hewish's comment frustrating. I suspect he was making the limited point that Christian faith should not be dismissed on the ground that it is mysterious and contrary to common sense to believe, for example, that God became incarnate, for the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive that, despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding.

4253 views

the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive that, despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding. - I appreciate George's post about John Polkinghorne. Having read several of his books, I find him very fascinating, going from quantum research, having worked with Stephen Hawkings, to Anglican priest is an amazing personal journey. It is one that Paul Davies seems to be gradually following to some degree, in the sense that the 'wonder' behind some of the science findings brings out religious considerations. That is my story as I have noted in the past. What I have also noted is that the 'fundamental level' is where "A Concealed God" (Einhorn) is most likely to be found, but science (we) cannot ever get there, even if we can mathematically model averages of its quantum components.

4255 views

George has drawn our attention to John Polkinghorne's book "Questions of Truth", in the foreword to which Tony Hewish writes: "When the most elementary physical things behave this way, we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries such as the existence of God and that God became Man around two thousand years ago." George says (in my view quite rightly) that this is a non sequitur, and comments: "You could just as well use this argument for belief in absolutely anything!" - Mark, in support of Tony Hewish, thinks he means that Christian faith should not be dismissed on the ground that it is mysterious and contrary to common sense to believe, for example, that God became incarnate, "for the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive that, despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding." - I agree with George that all of this gives licence for anyone to believe in anything, but I'd go even further: this particular argument seems to me to provide a far more powerful case for atheism than for theism. If the physical world is so mysterious, counter-intuitive and incomprehensible that we should be prepared to believe in an equally mysterious creative power called God which has organized everything, why not simply argue: we don't understand the behaviour of the physical world, so we should be prepared to believe in the creative power of physical matter to organize itself? Both hypotheses may seem equally incredible, but at least the second cuts out one mystery. Game and first set to William of Ockham (and George)?

4285 views

despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding[/i]."
 
> why not simply argue: we don't understand the behaviour of the physical world, so we should be prepared to believe in the creative power of physical matter to organize itself? Both hypotheses may seem equally incredible, but at least the second cuts out one mystery. Game and first set to William of Ockham (and George)? - But we do understand the quantum world. dhw has twisted Mark's meaning of the word 'understanding'. Our math formulas follow quantum mechanics beautifully. What is really amazing is how complex the quantum world is. Non-locality is the rule despite all efforts to disprove it (EPR thought experiment). There is a veritable zoo of subatomic particles, all organized in symmetrical patterns as if a designer took charge. The standard theory of particle cosmologic theory will be just about fully validated if the CERN LHC can get its act together and produce the predicted HIggs boson. And other weirdness involves the fact that a single quantum packet of energy is both a point or wave depending on how we decide to measure it. "We" control the form we 'see'. I think one needs to read a couple simple books on quantum theory to fully appreciate Mark's comment, but I know Mark is fully capable of defending his own viewpoint.

4298 views

George quoted Tony Hewish: "When the most elementary physical things behave this way, we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries such as the existence of God..." - Mark interpreted the Hewish quote as meaning that Christian faith should not be dismissed just because it is mysterious and contrary to common sense, "for the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive that, despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding." - George had written that Hewish's comment justified belief in "absolutely anything", and I wrote that the comment in fact favoured atheism, because if incomprehensibility justified belief, it would be simpler to believe in the creative powers of physical matter itself than in God. Why have two mysteries instead of one? - David has responded: "But we do understand the quantum world. dhw has twisted Mark's meaning of the word 'understanding'. Our math formulas follow quantum mechanics beautifully." - As you say, Mark will defend his own viewpoint, but let me clarify mine. You argue that "particles are organized in symmetrical patterns as if a designer took charge." There is a perfectly logical link between the concept of design and the concept of a designer, but that ... unless I have misunderstood both Hewish and Mark ... is not Hewish's point at all. Mark understood why George found the comment "frustrating", and to explain it he has emphasized not the clarity of maths formulas that "follow quantum mechanics beautifully" but the mystery of the physical world. I don't think I have twisted the meaning of "the physical world...is so mysterious...that it defies understanding". The argument seems to be (but I stand open to correction) that if you can accept the incomprehensibility of the physical world, you can accept the incomprehensibility of God, and of God becoming incarnate. My response, let me repeat, is: in that case, you can accept the incomprehensible power of physical matter to organize itself without an incomprehensible God. Both hypotheses stretch the bounds of credibility, and I see no difference in the degree of faith required, but faith in physical matter at least removes all the awkward questions like how did God get here, and what is his nature? That is why I see the Hewish comment as a bolster to atheism, though as our discussions and the rest of Mark's post have made clear, there are plenty of other points to ponder.

4251 views

George quoted Tony Hewish: "When the most elementary physical things behave this way, we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries such as the existence of God..."
> 
> Mark interpreted the Hewish quote as meaning that Christian faith should not be dismissed just because it is mysterious and contrary to common sense, "for the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive that, despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding."
> 
> George had written that Hewish's comment justified belief in "absolutely anything", and I wrote that the comment in fact favoured atheism, because if incomprehensibility justified belief, it would be simpler to believe in the creative powers of physical matter itself than in God. Why have two mysteries instead of one?
> 
> David has responded: "But we do understand the quantum world. dhw has twisted Mark's meaning of the word 'understanding'. Our math formulas follow quantum mechanics beautifully."
> 
I wish a theologan would come to my help, but what Mark and Hewish are describing is exactly the effect my early studies of cosmology, particle physics, quantum mechanics and symmetry of the particle zoo had on my thinking. I went from agnostic to accepting a 'greater power' even before I found the huge gaps in Darwin's simplistic theory. Those latter discoveries simply confirmed what the physics was strongly suggesting.
To me 'beyond understanding', 'mysterious', 'defies understanding' can also be interpreted as 'wonderment' at the very neat designed-appearing underpinnings of the evolution of the universe and the enormously complex machinations of the living cell, a veritable factory of activity. And even more suprisingly the invention of mathematics, a rational system from our minds, that is able to describe all of this in math terms creates a concept expressed elsewhere that mathematics seems to have a predetermined existence of its own. It even can predict missing information such as the Higgs boson! dhw's argument seems to be splitting our reality into 'how' and 'why' as though they are totally separate and cannot be brought together at certain points. Note the first sentence in this entry: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091231.htm The weirdness of quantum theory does greatly influence philosophic thought. Why is it that we can model quanta with math systematically, yet not quite "get our hands" fully on this portion of reality? Why is it can we model everything else?
I can feel myself being forced to look at why, not just throw it aside, and accept that this one limitation in our ability to understand creates more wonderment. It appears to me that agnositicism will not accept any sense of wonder. The whole of our reality looks magical. Perhaps there is magic underlying the entirety of what we experience. 
Again as I have warned, going to the lengths of describing a 'loving God' creates all sorts of problems of theodicy, problems that we may simply conjure up going that far into an area we really KNOW NOTHING about, some accepting it on faith.

4301 views

David Turell comments that "mathematics seems to have a predetermined existence of its own". This is correct, it does, it is a matter of logical necessity. But this does not mean we need a God to have invented it. Any Gods or super-aliens that might exist are necessarily governed by the laws of logic and mathematics. - None of this takes away from the wonder we, even atheists, can experience when we contemplate the strangeness of the quantum world, or the chemistry of cells, or, say, the Riemann hypothesis in mathematics. - The problem with "understanding" quantum theory or relativity is that all the measurements are so much smaller or larger than in our familiar middle-scale of existence. We try to explain quantum events in terms of particles (like tiny billiard balls) and waves (like those we see in water), but these concepts are inadequate; sometimes one picture works, sometimes another, sometimes none. - David continues: "The whole of our reality looks magical. Perhaps there is magic underlying the entirety of what we experience." - Again, I agree that there is much in our understanding of the world that is "magical". But that doesn't mean there is some mystical force called "Magic" that is responsible for it. One of my own interests has been in "magic knight's tours of the chessboard", where "magic" is used in a technical sense to mean that they add up to the same total in ranks and files (and sometimes diagonally). What is "magic" in the other sense (i.e. remarkable) about these is that they exist at all, since they combine two very stringent conditions. Like Fermat's Last Theorem, another magical discovery, they are outcomes of mathematical necessity. - In case someone says I am worshipping "mathematical necessity" in place of a God, I don't think this is so. The mathematician Erdos used to talk about the "Supreme Fascist" who knows all mathematical theorems, but keeps them secret, presumably to give mathematicians something to do. But I prefer to think that what is unknown to us is unknown, not known by some great Knowall.

--
GPJ

4314 views

I shall try to explain what I meant ... and what I didn't mean. - It is possible to use the idea of mystery as an excuse for not thinking. Christians sometimes do this. A readiness to use it as an argument-stopper can be just laziness. That is not, I hope, what I am doing here. Richard Feynman once said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics". He didn't mean that we don't understand the equations, or that we are not sure what the equations should be. He meant that even though we can say precisely in mathematical language what is happening it remains baffling and counter-intuitive; completely different from the world on the scale at which we experience it. Anyone who doubts this should read and think about the double-slit experiment. - Now the reason we accept quantum mechanics is because of hard experimental evidence. I am not at all suggesting that the mysteriousness of quantum mechanics implies that we should be ready to accept other mysterious theories without evidence. Rather, I am saying that we should not dismiss an explanation simply because mystery remains in it. Einstein struggled to the end of his life with quantum mechanics because he couldn't accept the mystery. Now everyone accepts it. We have no choice. - I don't know what Hewish meant, and I think he should have elaborated. But I am suggesting that he could have meant that we should not dismiss Christian doctrine simply because it contains the paradoxical and mysterious. As a Christian I would argue that it is on the basis of evidence and testimony that I hold the belief that God is both three and one, and that Jesus was fully divine and fully human. You may dispute the evidence (and theology differs from science in that it cannot be based on repeatable experiments). But you cannot dismiss such beliefs on the basis that they are not completely explicable, for on that basis you would also have to dismiss quantum mechanics.

4355 views

Mark has kindly explained what he meant and what he didn't mean by his post of 3 March at 08.54: "I don't know what Hewish meant, and I think he should have elaborated. But I am suggesting that he could have meant that we should not dismiss Christian doctrine simply because it contains the paradoxical and mysterious." - Hewish's exact words were "we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries etc.", which seems to me to go a step further than not dismissing them. As an agnostic I am not prepared to accept the theory of abiogenesis, but I certainly won't dismiss it. If you substitute "abiogenesis", or "godlessly self-organizing physical matter" for "Christian doctrine / religious mysteries", you will see why I found this particular argument more conducive to atheism than to theism. One mystery is less mysterious than two. But unless Hewish joins in our discussion, we can't take it any further, and I appreciate the comprehensiveness and clarity of your response. Incidentally, here is another Feynman quote: "If you think you understand quantum theory...you don't understand quantum theory." - David Turell wrote: "It appears to me that agnosticism will not accept any sense of wonder." Not true, David, and since I'm in quoting mood, let's try this one: "The evolution of complex life, indeed its very existence in a universe obeying physical laws, is wonderfully surprising. [...] Think about it. On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter." - I share this sense of wonderment, and partly because I cannot conceive of the molecules gathering themselves together spontaneously to create these astonishing faculties, I am an agnostic and not an atheist. The author of the above also quotes another source: "Live life with a sense of joy and wonder." I do, and so evidently do you, and Mark and George and our author. I disagree with much of what he writes, but absolutely not in this case. His name is Richard Dawkins.

4397 views

Mark wrote: "One area where science does require faith is the assumption that things will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today." - This is not "faith" in the sense of faith in God. It is simply a philosophical necessity. Surely religious people work on this assumption too! If we can take nothing for granted then existence would surely be a rather too exciting roller-coaster. - Mark also says: "/// there is no conceivable means to get from the physical to the personal." But our physical and personal natures are very closely related, and scientific study (e.g. in neurology) is finding out the relationships in more detail every day. - Mark concludes: "/// Christian faith should not be dismissed on the ground that it is mysterious and contrary to common sense to believe, for example, that God became incarnate, for the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive ///." - If Hewish meant this he should have said it. But it is still no argument to say that things "mysterious and contrary to common sense should not be dismissed", on that basis we should be perpetually mystified and confused. We have to dismiss much and the way we do that is by looking at all the evidence and filtering out the more improbable unsupported claims.

--
GPJ

4338 views

Mark: "One area where science does require faith is the assumption that things will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today."
 
George: "This is not "faith" in the sense of faith in God. It is simply a philosophical necessity. Surely religious people work on this assumption too! If we can take nothing for granted then existence would surely be a rather too exciting roller-coaster."

It is not a philosophical necessity. For much of history intelligent people have believed in polytheism or animism, considering the world to be governed by competing, capricious forces. Observation of nature and tribal war encouraged this. Monotheism was a remarkable development, arising not from consideration of the origin of the universe but from an experience of salvation, leading to the belief that nothing can compete with their God - in the case of Israel, for example. All too often the resistance of Christianity to scientific advance is cited, but the reality is that a strong case can be made that the belief in one God who is the source of all is the basis from which we can trust creation to be ordered and comprehensible and go on to do science. Atheists may think it is an easy assumption to make, but it took millenia to achieve. And atheism offers nothing to support it.

4333 views

Mark wrote; "For much of history intelligent people have believed in polytheism or animism, considering the world to be governed by competing, capricious forces. Observation of nature and tribal war encouraged this. Monotheism was a remarkable development, ///" - On this basis 'Zerotheism' was an even more remarkable development! It began with the early Greek philosophers, particularly the atomists, who were able to offer explanations of such happennings as eclipses, earthquakes and storms in materialistic terms, and the Pythagoreans and Platonists who sought mathematical harmonies and symmetries. - Mark also claims: "Monotheism was a remarkable development, arising not from consideration of the origin of the universe but from an experience of salvation, leading to the belief that nothing can compete with their God - in the case of Israel, for example." - The concept of a God who belongs to one tribe or people has been one of the most ghastly developments ever, justifying wholesale massacres of people (the Amalekites etc) because they believed in another God. Yahweh was originally just one among many gods (the Elohim), and he had many rivals among other tribes (Baal, Moloch, etc). - Mark continued: "All too often the resistance of Christianity to scientific advance is cited, ///" - That is because such opposition actually occurred, and continues to occur. - Mark claims: "/// but the reality is that a strong case can be made that the belief in one God who is the source of all is the basis from which we can trust creation to be ordered and comprehensible and go on to do science." - This view of God is that of the Deists and only came in with the Enlightenment period, which was after the scientific revolution, which in turn owed its origin to the Renaissance, which was based on the rediscovery of ancient Greek science. It is a purification of the concept of God, resulting from the discoveries of science. - Mark: "Atheists may think it is an easy assumption to make, but it took millenia to achieve. And atheism offers nothing to support it." - A rational outlook took millennia to achieve because the forces of anarchy and unreason took hold of the reins of power, in the Roman Empire and wider, and inaugurated the Dark Ages of theocracy.

--
GPJ

4329 views

Well, there's plenty here for us to discuss and you certainly raise some points that need answering. An instant reaction for now to your amusing "zerotheism", and the implication that this is a progression: If everyone in the world were now atheist, I wouldn't call it zerotheism but sixbillionsevenhundredandsixtymilliontheism, since each would be their own god. I wonder what that would be like?

4426 views

There seem to be two different discussions going on at the same time on this thread. The first concerns the existence of something beyond the physical world. Mark writes: "There is a fundamental difference between what physical science talks about and, for example, my experience of listening to music, smelling flowers, thinking etc." - We have been discussing precisely this subject in threads dealing with The Arts, The Paranormal, Science and love, music, art etc. George kindly drew our attention to various articles on research into the areas of the brain that are affected by emotions, and the chemicals that are released. Science has come up with some interesting facts, but my favourite quote ... which I've repeated three times already, and am delighted to repeat again ... is from Susan Greenfield: "Just how the water turns into wine ... how the bump and grind of the neurons and the shrinking and expanding of assemblies actually translate into subjective experience ... is, of course, another story completely." I agree with Mark and David: there is a gulf between the physical body and the subjective experiences of the mind. It seems inexplicable, and it leaves open the possibility of something beyond the physical world as we know it. 
 
The second discussion centres on religion, and particularly monotheism. Mark's idea that the latter "is the basis from which we can trust creation to be ordered and comprehensible and go on to do science" is one that I find pretty bewildering. George has already given you some direct answers, with most of which I agree, but I will add my twopennyworth. Are you saying that the Ancient Greeks, the pre-Christian Romans and the Ancient Egyptians, with their detailed knowledge of engineering and astronomy, and even the builders of Stonehenge (one theory is that it may have been an observatory) had no ability to "do science"? And in what way does monotheism make creation ordered and comprehensible? When confronted with questions like the origin of evil, the need for God's creatures to kill one another in order to survive, the randomnness of natural disasters, diseases etc., the monotheist's general response seems to be: "God knows what He's doing, God is good, so trust Him." Monotheism relies on mystery, not comprehensibility. - Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on books of dubious origin and authenticity, written or transcribed by humans, selected by humans, translated and interpreted by humans and, let's face it, used by humans to justify acts of the utmost cruelty, exploitation and corruption. That is not to deny the good that has also been done and is being done by religious people of all faiths ... including polytheistic ... but I see no justification for the suggestion that monotheism is superior to other forms of religion or to other systems of thought like Buddhism or humanism. We've even had one monotheist on this forum claim that "Jehovah is much greater than Allah", which scarcely aids the cause. George says: "The concept of a God who belongs to one tribe or people has been one of the most ghastly developments ever." I would like to expand that slightly: while I accept that people need to belong to groups, and need the security of shared values, any concept that sets one group against another, encouraging exclusion and intolerance, is to be deplored. In this respect, I agree with George that the concept of monotheism has one of the worst records of all. - As for "zerotheism", and the suggestion that "each would be their own god", the functioning of society does not depend on religion, and love and altruism are not exclusive to theists. Given the choice between a secular democracy and a theocracy, I wouldn't hesitate to go for the former.

4269 views

dhw: Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on books of dubious origin and authenticity, written or transcribed by humans, selected by humans, translated and interpreted by humans... - For someone who claims to "live by a humanist code" it is ironic that you dismiss such a wealth of tradition and witness because it originates from humans! I hope you never sit on a bench, for all witnesses before you could be dismissed on that basis. In fact, it is hardly possible to live as a human without learning to trust. That doesn't mean that we do not use any critical faculties. But we certainly are not so cynical as to dismiss everything that is from a human source. - I think one of the difficulties atheists and agnostics can have is an insistence on evidence for God which is direct and unmediated, in the same way that we can all go and verify the existence of Nelson's column in Trafalgar Square. Yet according to the Christian understanding of God, naked deity can never be an object to our senses. Everything that we can sense is created by God. There is nothing that you can imagine as evidence for God which a sceptic could not interpret some other way. That is why trust is central to an awareness of God, and it begins with being a little less sceptical about our forebears.

4350 views

Mark says the Old Testament doesn't always live up to peaceful standards of tolerance, "but at its highest points the blessings known by Israel are seen to be ultimately intended for the whole earth; the foreigner is to be treated with great respect etc." - Try telling that to the Hittites and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, concerning whom the Lord instructed the Israelites to "smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." (Deuteronomy 7). Of course you reject the savagery of the OT, just as you reject the bigotry of the NT. You are, judging by all your posts on this forum, a good kind gentle Christian, for which you have my total respect. And there can be no doubt that the Bible supports your tolerant views. Just as it supports the views of the bigots. It supports whatever pattern you choose to select from it. - Mark: It is simply not true that monotheism necessarily "sets one group against another" as dhw suggests. - I did not say that monotheism necessarily did this (see above). I wrote that I was opposed to any concept that did this, and that the concept of monotheism "has one of the worst records of all". I stand by that. - Mark: The lack of monotheism [e.g. in atheist cultures] didn't prevent evil, therefore the presence of evil in monotheistic cultures cannot be wholly ascribed to the monotheism. - No-one has ascribed evil "wholly" to monotheism. There is evil in all cultures, because of human nature, and there are also different forms of evil. However, as far as I know, atheists/ agnostics/humanists have no canonical texts that actively encourage them to kill non-atheists/non-agnostics/non-humanists (see the OT and the Koran). - I pointed out that monotheism was based on books written, selected, interpreted etc. by humans.
Mark: For someone who claims to "live by a humanist code" it is ironic that you dismiss such a wealth of tradition and witness because it originates from humans! - That is a distortion of my argument. You have ignored the sentence that followed, so let me repeat it: "That is not to deny the good that has also been done and is being done by religious people of all faiths ... including polytheistic ... but I see no justification for the suggestion that monotheism is superior to other forms of religion or to other systems of thought like Buddhism or humanism." I have not dismissed anything ... I have merely pointed out that monotheism, like Buddhism, polytheism and humanism, stems from human sources, and has no grounds for seeing itself as superior. This ties in with your final comment: - Mark: ...trust is central to an awareness of God, and it begins with being a little less sceptical about our forebears. - Trust is central to any faith, since none of us know the ultimate answers. A Hindu may ask why you are sceptical about Shiva and Vishnu, a Buddhist why you are sceptical about Sidhattha Gautama, a Dogon why you are sceptical about Amma and Nommo, and so on. Some Muslim fundamentalists, who of course are monotheists, are killing people who are sceptical about Muhammad, and they trust in God to reward them for doing so. Not that long ago, Christians did the same. I find this appalling, and obviously so do you. I have no quarrel with anyone's faith, whether in one God, in multiple gods, or in the ultimate ability of science to prove that we don't need God to explain our existence. My post of 11 March was an attack on "exclusion and intolerance", and I can only repeat that monotheism has an outstandingly bad record.

4325 views

Just back from a brief vacation, and been reading the current discussion which touches on quantum theory. The article below describes my own thinking almost exactly. If I had been more well-known, perhaps I'd have received the prize: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-p... :-)

4432 views

I would not claim that Christianity is the source of all science. That is plainly untrue. But the flourishing of science occurred in a predominantly Christian context; it didn't have to wait first for atheism to become dominant. - George: This view of God [as the source of all] is that of the Deists and only came in with the Enlightenment period - Not so. Read the first verses of John's gospel. The "Word" (logos; rational, ordering principle) who is God is the source of all that is not God. - George: It [Deism] is a purification of the concept of God... - I wouldn't call it a 'purification'. It is not a theology many Christians would hold today. It removes God from the world, making the universe a machine running on its own.

4337 views

George: The concept of a God who belongs to one tribe or people has been one of the most ghastly developments ever... - dhw: And in what way does monotheism make creation ordered and comprehensible?

If you believe in a God who made wind, fire, water etc. then you no longer can believe that such elements are controlled by competing deities. Similarly, if you believe that your God is also the creator of your neighbouring, rival tribe, then you can begin to believe that it is not essential to be at war. I would be the first to admit that the Old Testament does not always live up to this standard, but at its highest points the blessings known by Israel are seen to be ultimately intended for the whole earth; the foreigner is to be treated with great respect etc. It is simply not true that monotheism necessarily "sets one group against another" as dhw suggests. - If I started to describe the dismal record of atheistic regimes, the response would come quickly along the lines "these regimes were not founded on atheism". It would be argued that it was not the atheism that caused the evil. I might agree with that. But the lack of monotheism didn't prevent evil, therefore the presence of evil in monotheistic cultures cannot be wholly ascribed to the monotheism.

4385 views

George: Mark also says: "/// there is no conceivable means to get from the physical to the personal." But our physical and personal natures are very closely related, and scientific study (e.g. in neurology) is finding out the relationships in more detail every day. - Relationships in the sense of correlations, yes. But absolutely nothing in the way of explanation of how the physical produces the personal. Physical science deals with time, distance, mass, energy etc. How can any theory expressed in these terms ever reach a description of the category of personal experience? This is the hard problem. If physical science is what everything is ultimately reduced to, then there is nothing in this world that cannot ultimately be expressed by such science. Yet there is a fundamental difference between what physical science talks about and, for example, my experience of listening to music, smelling flowers, thinking etc. Do you not see this, George? What about you David and dhw? Isn't it obvious that there is a gulf?

4319 views

Do you not see this, George? What about you David and dhw? Isn't it obvious that there is a gulf? - Your question reminds me of Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind" and his opinion that artificial intelligence will never equal ours. Secondly it brings to mind Mortimer J. Adler's "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes", expressing his conclusion that with our brain and consciousness we are different in "kind" and not by "degree"; we branched off from chimps about 6 million years ago. At autopsy the brains look similar as matter, theirs being 1/4th the size, but the difference in capacity for feelings, ideations, emotions, and productivity at a mental level is light-years beyond four times the chimp. It is so obvious there a a huge gulf.

4345 views

Yes, indeed there is a huge gulf between human and non-human animals which needs to be explained. I am reading James leFanu's "Why Us?" which argues that the failure of genetics and neuroscience to explain this enormous gulf points to the existence of the soul. This chimes with the "new mysterian" view that the hard problem of consciousness will never be explained in scientific terms. Antonio Damasio, though, had a jolly good go with his brilliant "The Feeling of What Happens", the best book I have read on the dissection of self-awareness. It's a problem science takes very seriously and is trying to get to grips with. It may require a new paradigm, a fresh way of thinking. And it may have nothing to do with quantum theory. - It's an enormous challenge to materialists like me and I don't wave it away. Equally, it's so easy to be daunted by the hard problem and so easy to claim that, at last, we have a gap into which we can slip God that will remain inviolable from the encroachment of science. But, beware - history shows that plugging a gap in knowledge with supernature is doomed to be short-lived. - The consensus neuroscientific view is that mind is simply what the brain does. I don't dismiss lightly the huge problems we have in explaining how that happens. Instinctively, most people respond to this with dualism. Children are natural dualists and most people never grow out of it. Indeed, it is tremendously comforting for them to be so since you need to be a dualist to belive in an afterlife, the great consolation of religion. But believing something because it makes you feel good is a poor basis for belief. - Me? I like Daniel Dennett's quote: "Yes, we have a soul and it's made up of tiny robots." I'm a monist.

4275 views

George: We have to dismiss much and the way we do that is by looking at all the evidence and filtering out the more improbable unsupported claims. - I agree.

4391 views

Great knockabout stuff from A. C. Grayling on this: - http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/03/ac-grayling-politely-rebukes-attempt-to.html - Particularly on Polkinghorne launching it from the Royal Society.

--
GPJ

4380 views

In the Foreword, by Tony Hewish, he gives some account of quantum theory and concludes with what seems to me to be a non-sequitur: "When the most elementary physical things behave this way, we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries such as the existence of God and that God became Man around two thousand years ago." You could just as well use this argument for belief in absolutely anything!
> 
> I thought this, and the general question of the relation of quantum theory (which was Polkinghorne's speciality) to religion might be worth a separate thread. - This new approach to Quantum theory and the gap with Relativity by using Fractals is fascinating. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.600-can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quant...

4277 views

Yes I like Palmer's theory too. - "Just as our eyes cannot discern the smallest details in fractal patterns, quantum theory only sees "coarse grain approximations", as if it is looking through fuzzy spectacles." - That's very much in line with my approach. I've long maintained that some new kind of 'quantum geometry' is needed not based on 'real numbers'. - ""What makes this really interesting is that it gets away from the usual debates over multiple universes and hidden variables and so on," says Bob Coecke, a physicist at the University of Oxford. "It suggests there might be an underlying physical geometry that physics has just missed, which is radical and very positive."" - That also sounds great. Multiple universes violate Ockham's razor, and Hidden variables are a bit too Occult for me. Let's hope more comes from this new approach.

--
GPJ

4245 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum