Discrediting Anti-Anthropism

Discrediting Anti-Anthropism:

WIKIPEDIA’S TAKE ON AUTHOR OF THE DEVIL’S DELUSION:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski :

David Berlinski (born 1942 in New York City) is an educator and author of popular books on mathematics. He is a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement and author of numerous articles on the topic. Berlinksi is a secular Jew and self-described agnostic, and according to a 2008 Slate magazine profile "a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank."
....
An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Berslinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."
....
He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn't there and seeks out the things that can't be proved.

GEORGE GILDER’S TAKE:

See: www.nationalreview.com, re May 5, 2008 issue, Vol. LX, No. 8, page 58, “Blinkered Sages,” with review by George Gilder of book by David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions:

As Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg sums up the argument, in a transparent tautology preening as science, “Any scientists who study nature must live in a part of the landscape where physical parameters take values suitable for the appearance of life and its evolution into scientists.”
....
... this stupendous circularity is called the Anthropic Principle and is touted as an explanation of the universe superior to the idea of God. As Dawkins puts it, “Better many worlds than one god.”
....
But Dawkins affirms, if a tornado cannot do the job of creating life, then God cannot do the job of creating the Universe.... The ultimate 747 gambit, Dawkins writes, “comes close to proving that God does not exist.” Got that?
....
Berlinski concludes that “the willingness of physical scientists to explore such strategies in thought might suggest to a perceptive psychoanalyst a desire not so much to discover a new idea as to avoid an old one.”
....
The scientific community remains oblivious to these problems chiefly because of its insularity and defensiveness, protected by a trumpery of “peer review” and immunity to outside criticism.
....
... expressions not of bottom-up random processes but of heirarchical planning in which the ideas and schematics precede their physical embodiment.
....
Reifying mathematics and pushing its equations to extremes that could not be sustained in a Godelian universe, grand scientific theories lost all contact with the foundations of engineering reality.
....
Bill Buckley, in his final days, declared: “Berlinski’s book is everything desirable; it is idiomatic, profound, brilliantly polemical, amusing, and of course vastly learned. I congratulate him.”


MY TAKE:

First off, I would define each “holography” as consisting of all that manifests in respect of the interpretation of a sensing perspective.

I intuit that a holography may not in indefinite continuity present a perception of an accelerating dissipation at its fringes without synchronously presenting a continuing sensation of accelerating sentience in respect of its conscious core.

An appreciation of “anthropic coincidentalism” may enlighten three universal attributes:
1) HOLOGRAPHY: A role for holographic continuity in facilitating the guiding, interacting with, and rendering of our consciousness by Something that is not merely physically random, and which is beyond definite discreteness in particle physics;
2) WILL: a complex concentration of Will (spirituality beyond reduction to physics) at each local core of conscious sentience, which somehow reacts in appreciation of feedback in respect of interpretations of physically sensed perceptions of randomness at or beyond fringes of its control;
3) INCOMPLETENESS: an inherent incompleteness in any suggestion that all complexity and consciousness of “The Universe As A Whole” is dissipating.

In other words, anthropic coincidentalism is no answer for discrediting a Source (aka, “God”) beyond physics that guides intuitions and interactions among our respective holographies.

EDGING ASIMOV:

Sensing silliness in religious inclinations for imaging a God who dispenses eternal justice based on temporal trivialities (such as how one may mentally process magic word formulas of belief), Isaac Asimov, in youth, proclaimed himself an atheist. In maturity, rather than focusing upon what he did not believe, he tried to express what he did believe, considered under a rubric of “humanism.”

But, reflect on some notions Asimov expressed, such as in Foundation’s Edge. In a way of thinking, there seems little therein that need be inconsistent with a mature notion about God. I doubt Asimov meant Gaia is like wysiwyg (what you see if what you get). Rather, by Gaia, I suspect he was referring to that living ineffability that consciously represents that which is represented by us and to us.

Asimov fancied a living Gaia, spreading into a living Galaxia. As a conception for modeling reality of consciousness, what would be other than rational to consider that Asimov’ian Galaxia is what we have always had? Apart from degree of anthropic representation, what difference is there between Galaxia now and Galaxia later?

Concerning an Interconnecting Consciousness (God?) as a basis for enlightened empathy, was Asimov “really” an atheist?