Magic Math and the Anthropic Observation:
Dave,
I glanced at: http://talkreason.com/articles/super.cfm .
In subtle service of an apparent agenda, the line of reasoning there, meant to discredit the anthropic principle insofar as implicating a creator deity, fails to consider whether even our present universe might not be hospitable for life, absent a governing interface at a point of something like “virtual particles” between the natural and the supernatural.
It is only my intuition, not evidence, that suggests the author’s agenda led him to fail to consider as much. After all, he does appreciate that a supernatural power could sustain life even in a universe with laws that are not life-friendly.
The author says, “the observation that our universe is "life-friendly" can never be evidence against the hypothesis that the universe is governed solely by naturalistic law.”
Well, duh!!! “Evidence,” by definition being empirical, could never prove empirical probability regarding either the existence or non-existence of a supernatural power. So, of course the Anthropic intuition could never be empirical evidence that our universe is not governed solely by naturalistic law.
A better question pertains to whether it may be defined as “rational” (not necessarily empirically evidenced), based on intuition and the Anthropic Observation (or “Anthropic Razor,” not principle), to intuit and/or believe that a supernatural agency may have designed our universe and may even continue to sustain it.
The author says, “Indeed, it might well be that a fundamental "theory of everything" in physics would predict that only a very narrow range of physical constants, or even no range at all, would be possible.” This smacks of desperation. Indeed! It may well be that a “theory of everything” will explain how monkeys eventually will fly out the asses of everyone. But, I do not intuit that to be likely.
The author says, “for an inference to be valid, it is necessary to take into account all known information that may be relevant to the conclusion. In the present case, we happen to know that life exists in our universe.”
Well, there he goes again. He is using inference in relation to evidence. But, we already know that the supernatural is not empirical, thus not subject to probability testing in terms of empirical evidence. But, I repeat the obvious.
In other words, the author, by assuming it as given that it is irrational to intuit a supernatural agency without empirically testable or statistical evidence, merely purports, trivially, to prove what he has assumed.
He has only defined it as irrational to hold any belief that cannot be empirically tested or falsified. Well, if that is true, HE HIMSELF IS IRRATIONAL, since he cannot empirically test to prove his own “irrational” belief that a supernatural agency does not exist, beyond detection in nature by mortals.
In other words, the supernatural agency may very well exist within a natural scape that is inaccessible to mortal comprehension. For example, there may be a “nature” that is relevant and accessible to God, but not accessible to mortals.
This guy’s math is sideshow, hide-the-pea crap. Surely, these talk-reason guys can do better than this!
Were the author to say that the Anthropic observation is interesting only for intuitive purposes, not for empirically evidentiary purposes, I would agree. But, I would not have needed such a long process to show such an obvious truism.
***
I notice where the logician ponders, well, what if the Big Bang HAD to happen, just and so — would that not prove that there could not likely have been any supernatural involvement? Well, there he goes again. (Must be some sort of short term memory deficit —-- keeps repeating the same kind of mistake.)
The answer is, no. This is because merely assuming there is only natural involvement (i.e., no supernatural involvement) is not proving it. It is merely putting lipstick on a bias. If nature had no choice but to do as nature did, then it would be true that nature had no choice — but only trivially so.
That is, unless one wants to say, well the dice came out in just such a way that there was no choice. But, then, that takes us back, to doors 1, 2, and 3: numerous universes, crazy ass luck, or creation with shaved dice.
I think good sense of believers is often blinded by light, and good sense of mathematicians is blinded by some kind of love affair with pettifoggery. It being inappropriate for believers to pretend to prove empirical probabilities for the supernatural, it is no less inappropriate for math whizzes to pretend by pettifoggery to disprove probabilities for the supernatural.
When math can make sense, it should be possible to express the sense logically, in words. When sense cannot be expressed in words, it is suspect for pettifoggery. (Thus spake Zarfog.)
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Finding One's Own Way
Dave,
As a good scientist, it is not necessary that you also come to terms with "God" in words --- whether or not precise. As a scientist, your acts are devotion enough. It is not necessary that we have quite the same quality of intuition.
Many may consider me not a Christian. Regardless, I have been conditioned to respect Christianity’s parables. Their meanings are not so unlike those of many other spiritual traditions. I often wonder what may account for why the moral foundations of so many spiritual traditions are so similar?
In any event, we only toy about the immeasurable quality of "God"s" goodness and limitations in respect of Nature.
Regarding variations of religion that use "God" to "justify" war, it is the wish of many that religion should be reformed, to become less literal and dogmatic, but more empathetically appreciative of shared arts and purposes.
Regardless, feeding our propensity for violent competition hardly requires religion. Plenty of alternative ploys for stirring our psychological soup and conditioning us to war have been found and exploited, every bit as well as religion.
We will expunge neither religion nor metaphysics in the foreseeable future. However, we may better humanize them.
Many perspectives prefer to assault and expunge religion, and not to see the humanizing or civilizing of religion as such a good thing. For others, "God" is a common reference for meeting and displaying "body language" — hoping to "jaw," not "war."
In respect of "definitions" and semantics, I generally use "God" as a placeholding, backstop word, for referring to that which is ultimate source for empathetic, purposeful, choice making. I think upon all forms of consciousness or sensateness as perspectives of God.
I do not expect to comprehend God. To me, the utility of my reference is merely so others may appreciate it as useful backstop — not for those gaps we may fill, but for those gaps I expect mortals may never reasonably expect to fill. In that relation, my usage is both general and precise.
Even in my usage, people disagree in feelings about the quality of objectivity (of moral empathy and God) in relation to (indifferent) Nature. People also disagree about the quality by which God may appreciate or interact with mortals (and vice versa).
Some scientists view God as: not so great, dimly witted, source of pain and strife, arbitrary, Indifferent. They include those who care, emphatically and Empathetically, about Indifferent nature. ( By some trick, I suppose they are "indifferent about the fact that they care.")
Some among them even see God as "slow." (Although it took me 14 billion years to get here, I hardly noticed the time. You?)
Others appreciate God in somewhat different light.
But, no side "knows." And, no side is able to expunge metaphysics. Rather, varying perspectives arise, apparently in respect of combinations of experience, conditioning, attitude, insight, and intuition, which seem, in the complexity of their relations, beyond precise fathom of mortals.
In any event, Francis Collins says, and I agree, we must each seek our own way, in respect of our own intuitions and insights. Peace be with you.
As a good scientist, it is not necessary that you also come to terms with "God" in words --- whether or not precise. As a scientist, your acts are devotion enough. It is not necessary that we have quite the same quality of intuition.
Many may consider me not a Christian. Regardless, I have been conditioned to respect Christianity’s parables. Their meanings are not so unlike those of many other spiritual traditions. I often wonder what may account for why the moral foundations of so many spiritual traditions are so similar?
In any event, we only toy about the immeasurable quality of "God"s" goodness and limitations in respect of Nature.
Regarding variations of religion that use "God" to "justify" war, it is the wish of many that religion should be reformed, to become less literal and dogmatic, but more empathetically appreciative of shared arts and purposes.
Regardless, feeding our propensity for violent competition hardly requires religion. Plenty of alternative ploys for stirring our psychological soup and conditioning us to war have been found and exploited, every bit as well as religion.
We will expunge neither religion nor metaphysics in the foreseeable future. However, we may better humanize them.
Many perspectives prefer to assault and expunge religion, and not to see the humanizing or civilizing of religion as such a good thing. For others, "God" is a common reference for meeting and displaying "body language" — hoping to "jaw," not "war."
In respect of "definitions" and semantics, I generally use "God" as a placeholding, backstop word, for referring to that which is ultimate source for empathetic, purposeful, choice making. I think upon all forms of consciousness or sensateness as perspectives of God.
I do not expect to comprehend God. To me, the utility of my reference is merely so others may appreciate it as useful backstop — not for those gaps we may fill, but for those gaps I expect mortals may never reasonably expect to fill. In that relation, my usage is both general and precise.
Even in my usage, people disagree in feelings about the quality of objectivity (of moral empathy and God) in relation to (indifferent) Nature. People also disagree about the quality by which God may appreciate or interact with mortals (and vice versa).
Some scientists view God as: not so great, dimly witted, source of pain and strife, arbitrary, Indifferent. They include those who care, emphatically and Empathetically, about Indifferent nature. ( By some trick, I suppose they are "indifferent about the fact that they care.")
Some among them even see God as "slow." (Although it took me 14 billion years to get here, I hardly noticed the time. You?)
Others appreciate God in somewhat different light.
But, no side "knows." And, no side is able to expunge metaphysics. Rather, varying perspectives arise, apparently in respect of combinations of experience, conditioning, attitude, insight, and intuition, which seem, in the complexity of their relations, beyond precise fathom of mortals.
In any event, Francis Collins says, and I agree, we must each seek our own way, in respect of our own intuitions and insights. Peace be with you.
Monday, August 27, 2007
About Bio-Logos
Dave,
I am a third through Collins’ book. So far, it begins in somewhat wishful thinking, but matures towards astonishing, lucid, and concise expositions about: The Moral Law; The Drake Formula; and The Anthropic Principle. It also discredits a few, not all, parts of Coulter’s overreaching (such as where she occasionally wagers faith based on mere gaps in present explanations).
While Collins clearly believes we likely evolved from but one initial organism, he himself may wager too much upon the specialness of humanity. I think our empathetic specialness is not in our empirically measurable form, but in “That Aspect Of Alter-Ego Of which All Our Forms Are Expressive.”
My default belief is that every existing form of consciousness, at some level, intuits an encompassing, alter-ego perspective. What makes humans distinct is their capacity for representing such-like consciousness in communicable symbols and words. Thus, “The Word” becomes appreciated as something like “living flesh.”
Perhaps, our common, empathetic purpose is to communicate the Art Of The Word until our common puzzle teems with appreciation (“Oommmm”). Once “solved,” the puzzle, as puzzle, may blink out of existence, subject to being resurrected, again and again.
If Sisyphus, after pushing his rock near the mountaintop, is never allowed to rest, then neither is Meta-Sisyphus very long allowed to rest after having solved his puzzle. Whether Sisyphus is forever anew, chasing after his falling rock or resurrecting his puzzle, he must be imagined, not as indifferent, but as happy. Each of us, as an alter-perspective of Sisyphus, must engage with all kinds and degrees of emotions or cares. After all, the potential variety of artistic ways for expressing rock-pushing is wondrous, astonishing, and infinite.
I will read more of Collins, to see whether he hints about a synchronizing permeation of "The Free Artist," who participates asymmetrically within all degrees of freedoms and all limits of mathematical constants.
Pythagoras may not have been entirely wrong. The Soul Of The One Artist (“God”) may be something like a Spiritually Logarithmic Array Of Elohim (choir of angels) --- which is far from “indifferent” to feedback in respect of empathetic expressions of music and artistry.
In any event, I hope humanity, as it seeks to “divine” what it should be about, will continue to be empathetically invested.
Who knows --- when it comes to empathetic purposefulness, if we invest faith for civilization, more so than for sacred literalism, we may happen upon intuition and insight enough to sustain the civilized progress of our story for a fair bit longer. Maybe even long enough to put the parameters of "units of space" to unifying, mathematical rigor! ):
Without civilized caring, I doubt that mere "indifference" in pursuit of science will much longer sustain science.
rg
***
When it comes to rules about empathy (which is what religion is about), I am not sure what should be the role of "rigor," as opposed to insight. Surely, were you God, your concern for rigor and abiding by rules would not cause you to flagellate yourself. ): Regardless, Collins points out how the heart of most great religious traditions DO abide with certain perennial, common "rules."
rg
****
"I am deeply concerned that meta physical arguments do not demand rigorous rules."
dg
I am a third through Collins’ book. So far, it begins in somewhat wishful thinking, but matures towards astonishing, lucid, and concise expositions about: The Moral Law; The Drake Formula; and The Anthropic Principle. It also discredits a few, not all, parts of Coulter’s overreaching (such as where she occasionally wagers faith based on mere gaps in present explanations).
While Collins clearly believes we likely evolved from but one initial organism, he himself may wager too much upon the specialness of humanity. I think our empathetic specialness is not in our empirically measurable form, but in “That Aspect Of Alter-Ego Of which All Our Forms Are Expressive.”
My default belief is that every existing form of consciousness, at some level, intuits an encompassing, alter-ego perspective. What makes humans distinct is their capacity for representing such-like consciousness in communicable symbols and words. Thus, “The Word” becomes appreciated as something like “living flesh.”
Perhaps, our common, empathetic purpose is to communicate the Art Of The Word until our common puzzle teems with appreciation (“Oommmm”). Once “solved,” the puzzle, as puzzle, may blink out of existence, subject to being resurrected, again and again.
If Sisyphus, after pushing his rock near the mountaintop, is never allowed to rest, then neither is Meta-Sisyphus very long allowed to rest after having solved his puzzle. Whether Sisyphus is forever anew, chasing after his falling rock or resurrecting his puzzle, he must be imagined, not as indifferent, but as happy. Each of us, as an alter-perspective of Sisyphus, must engage with all kinds and degrees of emotions or cares. After all, the potential variety of artistic ways for expressing rock-pushing is wondrous, astonishing, and infinite.
I will read more of Collins, to see whether he hints about a synchronizing permeation of "The Free Artist," who participates asymmetrically within all degrees of freedoms and all limits of mathematical constants.
Pythagoras may not have been entirely wrong. The Soul Of The One Artist (“God”) may be something like a Spiritually Logarithmic Array Of Elohim (choir of angels) --- which is far from “indifferent” to feedback in respect of empathetic expressions of music and artistry.
In any event, I hope humanity, as it seeks to “divine” what it should be about, will continue to be empathetically invested.
Who knows --- when it comes to empathetic purposefulness, if we invest faith for civilization, more so than for sacred literalism, we may happen upon intuition and insight enough to sustain the civilized progress of our story for a fair bit longer. Maybe even long enough to put the parameters of "units of space" to unifying, mathematical rigor! ):
Without civilized caring, I doubt that mere "indifference" in pursuit of science will much longer sustain science.
rg
***
When it comes to rules about empathy (which is what religion is about), I am not sure what should be the role of "rigor," as opposed to insight. Surely, were you God, your concern for rigor and abiding by rules would not cause you to flagellate yourself. ): Regardless, Collins points out how the heart of most great religious traditions DO abide with certain perennial, common "rules."
rg
****
"I am deeply concerned that meta physical arguments do not demand rigorous rules."
dg
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Light And Puzzles
ABOUT LIGHT AND PUZZLES:
“I always find it fascinating, that theory of the creation of the universe where God says "let there be light" . Certainly agrees with the Big Bang. Which one do you favor?”
Dave, have you ever read the last page of “The Last Question”? It’s here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3509/Isaac-Asimov-The-Last-Question
I think God said, “Let there be light.”
So, I believe in Meta-Reality.
Although, I find it unnecessary to my purposes to suppose whether, before God and Nature, there may have been Meta-God and Meta-Nature. ):
ABOUT REALITY:
“… purely rational means that 'meta' is a valid form of reality.”
Yes, I intuit there was a reality, even before the Big Bang.
And, by definition, that reality would be “meta,” i.e., beyond empirical falsification using only the physics availed within our present universe.
ABOUT INTUITION VS. EMPIRICISM:
About what can be relatively measured or statistically assessed, we Mortal Relators can test or falsify, empirically.
About what cannot be subjected to relative measurement, such as about “God” or the beginning or end of time for the first or last of all possible universes, we cannot empirically test.
So, empiricists often consider such “Ultimates” to be unworthy of consideration, while spiritualists consider them especially worthy.
Notwithstanding the delusions and denials that are commonplace among most of us, I suspect almost everyone is a bit of both, empiricist and spiritualist.
For example, I think Dawkins is often comically deluded about his pure “objectivity.” (Check out “The Dawkins Delusion.”)
If I were rationalizing mere intuition as a basis for believing that my cat were outside, I could readily test or falsify, merely by finding where my cat actually is.
But, it is not analogically valid to compare rationalizing the existential whereabouts of my cat with the existence of God.
ABOUT FLOODGATES:
One may easily ridicule a belief that a “Giant Spaghetti Monster” (“GSM”) controls all our world.
One easily shows the GSM is superfluous to practical empiricism; one also easily shows the GSM is superfluous to practical attempts to inspire common acceptance of civilizing mores.
Simply put, it is not necessary to attribute “Whatever may be the Metaphysical Force that synchronizes choices and effects within parameters allowed by Nature” as consisting of, or being in any way limited to, a GSM.
So, GSM-like reasoning should not open any “floodgates,” because such reasoning should be discredited.
LOOK TO THE COMMON CORE:
Most spiritual traditions relate to a common perennial core of concerns. They tend to advocate parables for teaching variations on: the Rule of the Veil, one divides the other chooses, the Golden Rule, the Great Commandment, and Enlightened Empathy --- as variously interpreted by Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and Dali Lama. (For a more questionable example, consider Mahomet, with regard to lack of empathy towards God’s expressions in humanity.)
I think we need to live with those traditional stories, but we need to “progress” to appreciate that the stories are mainly only figurative, not literal or empirical.
The practical value we interpret and find in our traditional or sacred stories needs to evolve as we evolve, in our niche, humanity, and culture.
CHALLENGES:
Therein are our great challenges: Towards what purposes should we progress; and, how should we design or participate in the ongoing evolution in our environment and genetics?
Oddly enough, we seem presently primed for being stewards of our environmental evolution, but not for our genetic evolution.
Of course, our history explains much about that.
We have become learned and conditioned not to trust in the wisdom of any single person or group to direct us regarding whom or what should be allowed or encouraged to survive.
Since we cannot so invest such trust, in what forms of balanced and checked institutions should we invest our trust and empathy?
After all, it seems apparent that the course of “progress,” mutation, evolution, and change are unavoidably accelerating.
And, our “genetic overload” from Diversity being imposed beyond all traditional boundaries seems also to be accelerating.
UNAVOIDABILITY OF FUNDAMENTALLY NON-TESTABLE INTUITIONS:
An intuition about what is empirical can often be easily discredited or confirmed. Sometimes, an intuition may constitute a theory about empirical materialism. If the theory is new, it may take awhile to find a way to test it. But, if the theory is valid in respect of science, then it should be testable and, if false, falsifiable.
About Ultimates, however, we lack means for testing or falsifying. When scientists postulate “virtual particles,” they are not postulating something that can be proven. In respect of “virtual particles” “in themselves,” scientists are not practicing science, but working with a usefully FIGURATIVE notion.
It is only in respect of testing how such a figurative notion may help with some sort of “temporary explanation” that may lead to unexpected practical applications that they are “practicing science.”
Still, as you say, most do not “really” believe in virtual particles --- even though the figurative belief is quite USEFUL.
Regardless, such useful beliefs will not lead us to a grand unifying explanation of science, morality, and/or purpose. (See principle of uncertainty, principle of incompleteness, and “The Last Question,” above.)
So, what about God? Here, the USEFUL PURPOSE is not scientific. Rather, the purpose is to inspire forms of civilizing consensus. We no more know what “God is” than we know what virtual particles are.
Nor is it necessary to know what God is. It is merely practical and helpful to have a starting point for bringing people together to try to build empathetic trust and to seek purposeful, moral, civilizing consensus.
SEMANTICS:
If secularists believe there is a “real” basis for that, apart from God, that is great! Even though, I see no difference, apart from emotional attachment to semantics, between their supposed “real” basis and mine.
I do not expect to prove what God is, because I do not believe God (or basis for morally empathetic meaningfulness) is provable. I think this is a concern for intuition of a kind that is beyond empiricism. I appreciate that empiricists prefer an empirically provable definition of intuition.
I also appreciate, comically enough, that empiricists are unable to avoid exercising non-provable intuitions and beliefs --- whether they appreciate them or not.
“I always find it fascinating, that theory of the creation of the universe where God says "let there be light" . Certainly agrees with the Big Bang. Which one do you favor?”
Dave, have you ever read the last page of “The Last Question”? It’s here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3509/Isaac-Asimov-The-Last-Question
I think God said, “Let there be light.”
So, I believe in Meta-Reality.
Although, I find it unnecessary to my purposes to suppose whether, before God and Nature, there may have been Meta-God and Meta-Nature. ):
ABOUT REALITY:
“… purely rational means that 'meta' is a valid form of reality.”
Yes, I intuit there was a reality, even before the Big Bang.
And, by definition, that reality would be “meta,” i.e., beyond empirical falsification using only the physics availed within our present universe.
ABOUT INTUITION VS. EMPIRICISM:
About what can be relatively measured or statistically assessed, we Mortal Relators can test or falsify, empirically.
About what cannot be subjected to relative measurement, such as about “God” or the beginning or end of time for the first or last of all possible universes, we cannot empirically test.
So, empiricists often consider such “Ultimates” to be unworthy of consideration, while spiritualists consider them especially worthy.
Notwithstanding the delusions and denials that are commonplace among most of us, I suspect almost everyone is a bit of both, empiricist and spiritualist.
For example, I think Dawkins is often comically deluded about his pure “objectivity.” (Check out “The Dawkins Delusion.”)
If I were rationalizing mere intuition as a basis for believing that my cat were outside, I could readily test or falsify, merely by finding where my cat actually is.
But, it is not analogically valid to compare rationalizing the existential whereabouts of my cat with the existence of God.
ABOUT FLOODGATES:
One may easily ridicule a belief that a “Giant Spaghetti Monster” (“GSM”) controls all our world.
One easily shows the GSM is superfluous to practical empiricism; one also easily shows the GSM is superfluous to practical attempts to inspire common acceptance of civilizing mores.
Simply put, it is not necessary to attribute “Whatever may be the Metaphysical Force that synchronizes choices and effects within parameters allowed by Nature” as consisting of, or being in any way limited to, a GSM.
So, GSM-like reasoning should not open any “floodgates,” because such reasoning should be discredited.
LOOK TO THE COMMON CORE:
Most spiritual traditions relate to a common perennial core of concerns. They tend to advocate parables for teaching variations on: the Rule of the Veil, one divides the other chooses, the Golden Rule, the Great Commandment, and Enlightened Empathy --- as variously interpreted by Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and Dali Lama. (For a more questionable example, consider Mahomet, with regard to lack of empathy towards God’s expressions in humanity.)
I think we need to live with those traditional stories, but we need to “progress” to appreciate that the stories are mainly only figurative, not literal or empirical.
The practical value we interpret and find in our traditional or sacred stories needs to evolve as we evolve, in our niche, humanity, and culture.
CHALLENGES:
Therein are our great challenges: Towards what purposes should we progress; and, how should we design or participate in the ongoing evolution in our environment and genetics?
Oddly enough, we seem presently primed for being stewards of our environmental evolution, but not for our genetic evolution.
Of course, our history explains much about that.
We have become learned and conditioned not to trust in the wisdom of any single person or group to direct us regarding whom or what should be allowed or encouraged to survive.
Since we cannot so invest such trust, in what forms of balanced and checked institutions should we invest our trust and empathy?
After all, it seems apparent that the course of “progress,” mutation, evolution, and change are unavoidably accelerating.
And, our “genetic overload” from Diversity being imposed beyond all traditional boundaries seems also to be accelerating.
UNAVOIDABILITY OF FUNDAMENTALLY NON-TESTABLE INTUITIONS:
An intuition about what is empirical can often be easily discredited or confirmed. Sometimes, an intuition may constitute a theory about empirical materialism. If the theory is new, it may take awhile to find a way to test it. But, if the theory is valid in respect of science, then it should be testable and, if false, falsifiable.
About Ultimates, however, we lack means for testing or falsifying. When scientists postulate “virtual particles,” they are not postulating something that can be proven. In respect of “virtual particles” “in themselves,” scientists are not practicing science, but working with a usefully FIGURATIVE notion.
It is only in respect of testing how such a figurative notion may help with some sort of “temporary explanation” that may lead to unexpected practical applications that they are “practicing science.”
Still, as you say, most do not “really” believe in virtual particles --- even though the figurative belief is quite USEFUL.
Regardless, such useful beliefs will not lead us to a grand unifying explanation of science, morality, and/or purpose. (See principle of uncertainty, principle of incompleteness, and “The Last Question,” above.)
So, what about God? Here, the USEFUL PURPOSE is not scientific. Rather, the purpose is to inspire forms of civilizing consensus. We no more know what “God is” than we know what virtual particles are.
Nor is it necessary to know what God is. It is merely practical and helpful to have a starting point for bringing people together to try to build empathetic trust and to seek purposeful, moral, civilizing consensus.
SEMANTICS:
If secularists believe there is a “real” basis for that, apart from God, that is great! Even though, I see no difference, apart from emotional attachment to semantics, between their supposed “real” basis and mine.
I do not expect to prove what God is, because I do not believe God (or basis for morally empathetic meaningfulness) is provable. I think this is a concern for intuition of a kind that is beyond empiricism. I appreciate that empiricists prefer an empirically provable definition of intuition.
I also appreciate, comically enough, that empiricists are unable to avoid exercising non-provable intuitions and beliefs --- whether they appreciate them or not.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Collins: The Language Of God
Re: Francis Collins' book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
I think I’m going to see if I can GET THIS BOOK, in paperback or at half price.
Like Francis Collins, I may be a THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST (or "George Bush Compassionately Conservative Evolutionist," as opposed to a Radical Evolutionist).
For me, Coulter, Behe, et al, are too discounting of natural speciation (which I take to be fact, not theory).
However, like me, they recognize the "Hand of God," in not being indifferent to the mutation process (or any other natural process, for that matter).
Jerry Coyne laughs at a concept of "The Great Mutator." But, I think his point is sillier.
I would differ from Francis Collins, however, in that I see no reason to suppose that Theistic Evolution of some aspect should not be equally applicable to every mutation (in fact, to every change).
Natural laws account for parameters.
But, "Something Else" (some Interpenetrating Inclination, Meta-Energy, or Intelligence) accompanies or accounts for every actual "choice" that is effected within allowed parameters.
Still, I think it inconceivable that any such a form of Conscious Intelligence as we can comprehend should be bothered to synchronize, judge, focus on, or attend to every detail, right down to atomic minutia.
Whatever IT’s aspect, perhaps "IT" has some sort of singular-plural capacity, or layered logarithmic capacity, as in God-Elohim. Whatever.
I think I will see what Francis Collins has to say.
I am more interested to see the take of the fellow who headed up the Human Genome Project than the take of that Federal Judge.
(All he did was to sign off on an opinion that was 95% written up for him by the ACLU).
******
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins :
In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he prefers to term BioLogos. BioLogos rests on the following premises: (1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, (2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life, (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time, (4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required, (5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, (6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
...
During a debate with Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the object of the unanswered questions about the universe that science does not ask, and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins accused this as "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain."
...
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
***
MY TAKE:
Dawkins' argument about "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain" -- I have to say: What incredible, sophomoric chutzpah!
I think I’m going to see if I can GET THIS BOOK, in paperback or at half price.
Like Francis Collins, I may be a THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST (or "George Bush Compassionately Conservative Evolutionist," as opposed to a Radical Evolutionist).
For me, Coulter, Behe, et al, are too discounting of natural speciation (which I take to be fact, not theory).
However, like me, they recognize the "Hand of God," in not being indifferent to the mutation process (or any other natural process, for that matter).
Jerry Coyne laughs at a concept of "The Great Mutator." But, I think his point is sillier.
I would differ from Francis Collins, however, in that I see no reason to suppose that Theistic Evolution of some aspect should not be equally applicable to every mutation (in fact, to every change).
Natural laws account for parameters.
But, "Something Else" (some Interpenetrating Inclination, Meta-Energy, or Intelligence) accompanies or accounts for every actual "choice" that is effected within allowed parameters.
Still, I think it inconceivable that any such a form of Conscious Intelligence as we can comprehend should be bothered to synchronize, judge, focus on, or attend to every detail, right down to atomic minutia.
Whatever IT’s aspect, perhaps "IT" has some sort of singular-plural capacity, or layered logarithmic capacity, as in God-Elohim. Whatever.
I think I will see what Francis Collins has to say.
I am more interested to see the take of the fellow who headed up the Human Genome Project than the take of that Federal Judge.
(All he did was to sign off on an opinion that was 95% written up for him by the ACLU).
******
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins :
In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he prefers to term BioLogos. BioLogos rests on the following premises: (1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, (2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life, (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time, (4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required, (5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, (6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
...
During a debate with Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the object of the unanswered questions about the universe that science does not ask, and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins accused this as "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain."
...
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
***
MY TAKE:
Dawkins' argument about "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain" -- I have to say: What incredible, sophomoric chutzpah!
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Radical Evolution As Religion
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Radical Evolution As Religion:
Dave,
Please allow me license, not unlike John Edwards, to speak as a “virtual fetal focus,” from within Ann Coulter’s brain.
RADICAL EVOLUTIONIST:
By “Radical Evolutionist,” I should mean one who assumes it neither valid nor worthwhile to intuit or believe that any factors, other than those that can be physically measured and empirically tested, can ever play any role in directing or guiding any thing that is, can be, or should be, experienced.
NOT SCIENCE:
But, how may a radical evolutionist test radical evolution, without admitting of any means of testing or falsifying, apart from looking to lack of proof that any addition or alternative is true?
If radical evolution cannot be tested, then, either as hypothesis or as explanation, how can it be said to be “science”?
Is it “scientific” to take it as proven that everything worth teaching or believing can be explained solely by resorting to empirically measurable, physical factors, merely because any philosophical role regarding metaphysical factors has not been empirically proven and, perhaps, cannot be empirically proven?
Insofar as practitioners and experimenters in genetics rely upon controlled samples and experiments, they practice science. But, radical evolutionists are more dogmatic. They wish everyone to pretend to believe and know that the whole of processes within all of existence are ultimately derived from indifferent or random changes and mutations in underlying, natural blueprints for all patterns.
LIKE RELIGION:
In such greedy application, dogmatic, radical evolution is metaphysical, much like any religion.
In that respect, radical evolutionists are more like dogmatic, whinny children than like scientists. They do not believe even in the possibility of “God” or of any “metaphysical source.” This is not because of scientific proof, but because they do not want to believe. And, neither do they want anyone else to believe.
SECURITY IN PRETENSE:
In a nutshell, radical evolutionists need a blanket for securing themselves from any inherent, ambiguous aspect or source of existential, cognitive dissonance. Therein cloaking themselves, they pretend to be in some scientific Eden, eventually to become secure from all ambiguity, uncertainty, and incompleteness.
TEST YOUR OWN BIAS:
If Radical Evolutionists wish to be “scientific,” they should follow their own rules: i.e., sit down with respected colleagues, justify, and set out by what test it may be sufficiently evidenced, proved, or falsified whether the occurrence of mutations, always or even significantly, is random or “indifferent” to any higher, guiding purpose.
Until they admit of a test for falsification, they have no more claim to being scientific in their dogma than would a “Conservative Evolutionist” (being one who, perhaps similar to George Bush, may believe mutations to be more “compassionately conservative” than indifferent).
NO MORTAL CAPACITY FOR COORDINATING HOLISTIC MORALITY WITH LOCAL RELATIVISM:
However immeasurable, the extent to which directly-intuited God, through punctuating Elohim, may invest CARE (i.e., non-indifference) --- in any particular effect, change, or mutation --- may somehow coordinate with the extent to which such effect finds association with local expressions of rational, moral consciousness that are empathetic --- both to God and to humanity, and both in humility and in appreciation.
For figurative or historical exemplars, consider Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, or Dali Lama.
For a more questionable example, consider Mahomet, with regard to lack of empathy towards God’s expressions in humanity.
Most great religions or perennial traditions may be subsumed in respect of enlightened empathy. However, Islam is far less respectful of enlightened empathy. This is because Islam, not having undergone a reformation, renaissance, or enlightenment, has not yet appreciated whether its stories should provide better guidance were they interpreted less literally, more contextually, and more figuratively.
Apart from direct intuition, the empirical calculation of any coordination between a Holism and a Relativism, both by principle of uncertainty and by principle of incompleteness, seems beyond both mortal capacity and whinny dogmatism.
MUTATIONS --- INDIFFERENT OR CARING:
Here is a difference: What I term a Conservative Evolutionist likely admits any belief in the spiritual guiding of mutations is metaphysical; but, a Radical Evolutionist pretends that all mutations are “indifferent,” and likely will not admit such belief is only a matter of metaphysics, not of science.
SPIRITUALLY PERVASIVE POWER OF GOD:
In considering whether mutations may be spiritually guided, how else should Radical Evolutionists expect God to relate, in order to effect changes, other than through logarithmically, spiritually leveraged and empathetically influenced changes in quanta and mutations?
After all, were God to appear and act physically, rather than from beyond certainty and testability, then God would no longer be God, or spiritual.
One may not disprove spiritual God merely by demanding non-spiritual proof, silly. Nor may one disprove an all-pervading, spiritual basis for inspiring enlightened empathy merely by evidencing a physical basis for localized expressions of altruism or selfishness.
SILLY HIVES:
I appreciate this gives Radical Evolutionists the silly hives. So, I have no problem with their seeking solace in security blankets of pretense, as if metaphysics should have nothing to do with inspiring or assimilating expressions of morality. While wrapped in their blankets, I suggest they click their heels three times while saying “there’s no place like home.” Thereby, they may hope to find themselves in Kansas, where, no doubt, they really long to be.
JUDGING GOD:
Caution to Liberals: Before licensing yourselves, as you may be wont, to judge the empathy of God, as may be thought manifested in some particular, awful mutation, you may wish to take a few mental steps up a higher stairway to abstraction. There, ask, what often spurs meaningful passion and progressive inventiveness, if not horror and war? Why suppose the holistic perspective of God must be so compromised for compassion and the feeling of pain as to inspire us with only the sort of morally spineless leadership of a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton?
UNDERMINING MORALITY:
No doubt, Ann Coulter is hyperbolic. Her purpose is to sell books and to fight the liberalism of throwbacks. But, her opponents are at least equally hyperbolic. Their purpose is not merely to sell, but to reinforce the undermining of traditional moral codes. Their throwback agenda is to discredit any spiritual basis for inculcating enlightened empathy. Their consequence is “moral guidance” for throwbacks, not unlike the guidance of Peter Singer.
MORAL SLOUCHING:
If liberal parents can ever "say no" to their children based on any inspiring or practical principle that can help sustain a culture and assimilate a civilization, I would like to hear just what their "principle" is.
PRINCIPLE OF COPERNICUS:
While performing scientific investigations, one is rarely disappointed upon respecting the Principle of Copernicus; that is, acting as if our universe were indifferent to human needs and purposes.
PRINCIPLE OF ENLIGHTENED EMPATHY:
While inculcating competitive cooperation and civilizing assimilation, one is rarely disappointed upon respecting the Principle of Enlightened Empathy; that is, acting as if some aspect coextensive with the universe were not indifferent to human character and morality, such as in general respect of the Principle of the Veil, the Golden Rule, and the Great Commandment, as variously interpreted by Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and Dali Lama.
NON-SCIENTIFIC, PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF MORAL PRINCIPLES:
But, neither the Principle of Copernicus nor the Principle of Enlightened Empathy, as stated, is shown probable or provable by scientific empiricism.
Simply put, science has no place and no basis for claiming capacity to prove it more probable than not that no aspect that is coextensive with our universe is sympathetic to expressions of moral character.
Rather, the "real" and perennial basis for Enlightened Empathy is direct, philosophical intuition. Its reality is not scientifically demonstrable, but directly intuited; that is, by persons with capacity for, or ability to be honest with themselves about, their direct intuitions.
Radical Evolution As Religion:
Dave,
Please allow me license, not unlike John Edwards, to speak as a “virtual fetal focus,” from within Ann Coulter’s brain.
RADICAL EVOLUTIONIST:
By “Radical Evolutionist,” I should mean one who assumes it neither valid nor worthwhile to intuit or believe that any factors, other than those that can be physically measured and empirically tested, can ever play any role in directing or guiding any thing that is, can be, or should be, experienced.
NOT SCIENCE:
But, how may a radical evolutionist test radical evolution, without admitting of any means of testing or falsifying, apart from looking to lack of proof that any addition or alternative is true?
If radical evolution cannot be tested, then, either as hypothesis or as explanation, how can it be said to be “science”?
Is it “scientific” to take it as proven that everything worth teaching or believing can be explained solely by resorting to empirically measurable, physical factors, merely because any philosophical role regarding metaphysical factors has not been empirically proven and, perhaps, cannot be empirically proven?
Insofar as practitioners and experimenters in genetics rely upon controlled samples and experiments, they practice science. But, radical evolutionists are more dogmatic. They wish everyone to pretend to believe and know that the whole of processes within all of existence are ultimately derived from indifferent or random changes and mutations in underlying, natural blueprints for all patterns.
LIKE RELIGION:
In such greedy application, dogmatic, radical evolution is metaphysical, much like any religion.
In that respect, radical evolutionists are more like dogmatic, whinny children than like scientists. They do not believe even in the possibility of “God” or of any “metaphysical source.” This is not because of scientific proof, but because they do not want to believe. And, neither do they want anyone else to believe.
SECURITY IN PRETENSE:
In a nutshell, radical evolutionists need a blanket for securing themselves from any inherent, ambiguous aspect or source of existential, cognitive dissonance. Therein cloaking themselves, they pretend to be in some scientific Eden, eventually to become secure from all ambiguity, uncertainty, and incompleteness.
TEST YOUR OWN BIAS:
If Radical Evolutionists wish to be “scientific,” they should follow their own rules: i.e., sit down with respected colleagues, justify, and set out by what test it may be sufficiently evidenced, proved, or falsified whether the occurrence of mutations, always or even significantly, is random or “indifferent” to any higher, guiding purpose.
Until they admit of a test for falsification, they have no more claim to being scientific in their dogma than would a “Conservative Evolutionist” (being one who, perhaps similar to George Bush, may believe mutations to be more “compassionately conservative” than indifferent).
NO MORTAL CAPACITY FOR COORDINATING HOLISTIC MORALITY WITH LOCAL RELATIVISM:
However immeasurable, the extent to which directly-intuited God, through punctuating Elohim, may invest CARE (i.e., non-indifference) --- in any particular effect, change, or mutation --- may somehow coordinate with the extent to which such effect finds association with local expressions of rational, moral consciousness that are empathetic --- both to God and to humanity, and both in humility and in appreciation.
For figurative or historical exemplars, consider Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, or Dali Lama.
For a more questionable example, consider Mahomet, with regard to lack of empathy towards God’s expressions in humanity.
Most great religions or perennial traditions may be subsumed in respect of enlightened empathy. However, Islam is far less respectful of enlightened empathy. This is because Islam, not having undergone a reformation, renaissance, or enlightenment, has not yet appreciated whether its stories should provide better guidance were they interpreted less literally, more contextually, and more figuratively.
Apart from direct intuition, the empirical calculation of any coordination between a Holism and a Relativism, both by principle of uncertainty and by principle of incompleteness, seems beyond both mortal capacity and whinny dogmatism.
MUTATIONS --- INDIFFERENT OR CARING:
Here is a difference: What I term a Conservative Evolutionist likely admits any belief in the spiritual guiding of mutations is metaphysical; but, a Radical Evolutionist pretends that all mutations are “indifferent,” and likely will not admit such belief is only a matter of metaphysics, not of science.
SPIRITUALLY PERVASIVE POWER OF GOD:
In considering whether mutations may be spiritually guided, how else should Radical Evolutionists expect God to relate, in order to effect changes, other than through logarithmically, spiritually leveraged and empathetically influenced changes in quanta and mutations?
After all, were God to appear and act physically, rather than from beyond certainty and testability, then God would no longer be God, or spiritual.
One may not disprove spiritual God merely by demanding non-spiritual proof, silly. Nor may one disprove an all-pervading, spiritual basis for inspiring enlightened empathy merely by evidencing a physical basis for localized expressions of altruism or selfishness.
SILLY HIVES:
I appreciate this gives Radical Evolutionists the silly hives. So, I have no problem with their seeking solace in security blankets of pretense, as if metaphysics should have nothing to do with inspiring or assimilating expressions of morality. While wrapped in their blankets, I suggest they click their heels three times while saying “there’s no place like home.” Thereby, they may hope to find themselves in Kansas, where, no doubt, they really long to be.
JUDGING GOD:
Caution to Liberals: Before licensing yourselves, as you may be wont, to judge the empathy of God, as may be thought manifested in some particular, awful mutation, you may wish to take a few mental steps up a higher stairway to abstraction. There, ask, what often spurs meaningful passion and progressive inventiveness, if not horror and war? Why suppose the holistic perspective of God must be so compromised for compassion and the feeling of pain as to inspire us with only the sort of morally spineless leadership of a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton?
UNDERMINING MORALITY:
No doubt, Ann Coulter is hyperbolic. Her purpose is to sell books and to fight the liberalism of throwbacks. But, her opponents are at least equally hyperbolic. Their purpose is not merely to sell, but to reinforce the undermining of traditional moral codes. Their throwback agenda is to discredit any spiritual basis for inculcating enlightened empathy. Their consequence is “moral guidance” for throwbacks, not unlike the guidance of Peter Singer.
MORAL SLOUCHING:
If liberal parents can ever "say no" to their children based on any inspiring or practical principle that can help sustain a culture and assimilate a civilization, I would like to hear just what their "principle" is.
PRINCIPLE OF COPERNICUS:
While performing scientific investigations, one is rarely disappointed upon respecting the Principle of Copernicus; that is, acting as if our universe were indifferent to human needs and purposes.
PRINCIPLE OF ENLIGHTENED EMPATHY:
While inculcating competitive cooperation and civilizing assimilation, one is rarely disappointed upon respecting the Principle of Enlightened Empathy; that is, acting as if some aspect coextensive with the universe were not indifferent to human character and morality, such as in general respect of the Principle of the Veil, the Golden Rule, and the Great Commandment, as variously interpreted by Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and Dali Lama.
NON-SCIENTIFIC, PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF MORAL PRINCIPLES:
But, neither the Principle of Copernicus nor the Principle of Enlightened Empathy, as stated, is shown probable or provable by scientific empiricism.
Simply put, science has no place and no basis for claiming capacity to prove it more probable than not that no aspect that is coextensive with our universe is sympathetic to expressions of moral character.
Rather, the "real" and perennial basis for Enlightened Empathy is direct, philosophical intuition. Its reality is not scientifically demonstrable, but directly intuited; that is, by persons with capacity for, or ability to be honest with themselves about, their direct intuitions.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Critique of “Godless”
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Critique of “Godless,” by Ann Coulter:
I find myself engrossed in this wonderful book of Ann Coulter’s, “Godless,” and expect to recommend it highly to family and friends. So far, Ann displays more cut-to-the-quick insight than I have encountered in a long spell. If Tom Delay thinks “stupid liberal” is one word, Ann may be close to proving it.
However, I have spme quibbles, where, to my taste, Ann is partly right and partly wrong.
EVOLUTION:
Within a safely consistent, larger, nourishing niche, patterns react, receive and “interpret” feedback-sensations, mutate, and eventually self-preserve. When feedback interpretations are effective, patterns more likely endure. When especially effective, on at least some level, they self-appreciate, endure, and replicate.
Ann seems not to appreciate how seemingly random or seemingly indifferent mutations may occur as populations become cut off, such as by sudden boundary and climate changes, such as in regard to rivers, bridges, islands, continents, glaciers, volcanoes, magnetic polarity, increases in cosmic radiation, and asteroid collisions. Eventually, such mutations may so accumulate as to render breeding between long separated populations no longer feasible. Thus, new species may develop, or evolve.
Nevertheless, I agree with Ann that evolutionary processes are part of a method whereby a common Force or Spirit synchronizes choices and changes, which eventually affects how our physical bodies become designed. Such a process does not devalue specialness, either of ongoing creative activities or of capacities for making moral choices.
SPECIAL-NESS:
Ann seems to believe that only humans are special or endowed with capacity for making and communicating moral choices. I am no PETA fanatic, and I do empathize much more with human needs and civilizations than with those of non-humans. (I also think Peter Singer, of Princeton, insofar as he strives to imagine a moral system without inculcating common respect to “God” or Spirituality, is without compass or clue.)
Still, I do not believe only humans are special. Nor do I believe human special-ness is devalued by recognizing how much of what exists is interpenetrated with special-ness. Rather, I find it not unreasonable to consider that all that exists is special, insofar as it is quite astonishing that anything at all exists.
What is especially special about everything that exists is how, intuitively, it depends for its continuous and changing expression upon some sort of common, omnipresent, spiritual, empathetic, meta-energy or capacity (aka “God,” “Elohim,” or “The Force”) for appreciating and effecting choices within coextensive limits that govern our sciences, mathematics, and designs.
CIRCULAR REASONING:
“Evolution,” in itself, when considered to be purely a product of random mutations occurring within the laws and limits of science, physics, and Nature, without regard to any Spirit or aspect for appreciating feedback and guiding choices, decisions, and designs, “explains” nothing. Rather, it merely labels, circularly, whatever may result from whatever may be the choice making process, from whatever level it may be expressed. Saying “It is what it is” is neither to say what it is, nor what it should be.
In place of “The Force” (somethingness), radical evolution pays homage to "The Indifferent" or “The Random” (nothingness). Yet, in respect of such nothingness, radical proponents somehow expect to fashion a common, guiding, “code of secular morality.” To appreciate just how bankrupt such a code is, one need only refer to the writings of Peter Singer.
Personally, I think Nature and Spirit dance as a duality. In other words, God/Elohim do(es) play dice, in respect of deciding how to entrust or empower various processes, entities, or Elohim. But, between limits of incompleteness and uncertainty, “God” is continuously loading the dice. For that, we are imbued with capacity for enlightened empathy, aka, morality.
GUIDING INCLINATION OR DEMI-URGE:
Over time enough, a consistent Inclination may be guidance enough. A consistent Inclination to appreciate feedback from reactions and sensations and to seek to preserve and replicate may be all the “designing intelligence” needed.
If so, the question may not be what accounts for intelligent design, but what accounts for consistent Inclination (or Demi-Urge). Evolution, by itself, without such an omnipresent, consistent, synchronizing, driving Inclination, would hardly seem enough. Certainly, nothing in logic or science proves “evolution,” in itself (whatever that is) to be enough.
Thus far, the process for genetic design seems not unaccompanied, at least at some level, by an Immeasurable, Interwoven, Inherent, Synchronizing, Spiritual Capacity for feedback appreciation and sensation of choices. What continuously comes into manifestation is not solely in respect of scientific limits, but also in respect of synchronizing choices.
A name for the synchronizing Author(s), whether conscious or not, perhaps as good as any other, is “God,” or even “Elohim.”
Notwithstanding Godel’s incompleteness theorem of mathematics and Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty in physics, somehow, choices are made and results are effected.
In respect --- insofar as how choices are made at the levels of infinity, eternity, uncertainty, irreducibility, and incompleteness is forever beyond mortal calculation --- a word in reference that seems as good as any other is “Spiritual” --- notwithstanding the knee-jerk consternation such word elicits among atheists and materialists.
Critique of “Godless,” by Ann Coulter:
I find myself engrossed in this wonderful book of Ann Coulter’s, “Godless,” and expect to recommend it highly to family and friends. So far, Ann displays more cut-to-the-quick insight than I have encountered in a long spell. If Tom Delay thinks “stupid liberal” is one word, Ann may be close to proving it.
However, I have spme quibbles, where, to my taste, Ann is partly right and partly wrong.
EVOLUTION:
Within a safely consistent, larger, nourishing niche, patterns react, receive and “interpret” feedback-sensations, mutate, and eventually self-preserve. When feedback interpretations are effective, patterns more likely endure. When especially effective, on at least some level, they self-appreciate, endure, and replicate.
Ann seems not to appreciate how seemingly random or seemingly indifferent mutations may occur as populations become cut off, such as by sudden boundary and climate changes, such as in regard to rivers, bridges, islands, continents, glaciers, volcanoes, magnetic polarity, increases in cosmic radiation, and asteroid collisions. Eventually, such mutations may so accumulate as to render breeding between long separated populations no longer feasible. Thus, new species may develop, or evolve.
Nevertheless, I agree with Ann that evolutionary processes are part of a method whereby a common Force or Spirit synchronizes choices and changes, which eventually affects how our physical bodies become designed. Such a process does not devalue specialness, either of ongoing creative activities or of capacities for making moral choices.
SPECIAL-NESS:
Ann seems to believe that only humans are special or endowed with capacity for making and communicating moral choices. I am no PETA fanatic, and I do empathize much more with human needs and civilizations than with those of non-humans. (I also think Peter Singer, of Princeton, insofar as he strives to imagine a moral system without inculcating common respect to “God” or Spirituality, is without compass or clue.)
Still, I do not believe only humans are special. Nor do I believe human special-ness is devalued by recognizing how much of what exists is interpenetrated with special-ness. Rather, I find it not unreasonable to consider that all that exists is special, insofar as it is quite astonishing that anything at all exists.
What is especially special about everything that exists is how, intuitively, it depends for its continuous and changing expression upon some sort of common, omnipresent, spiritual, empathetic, meta-energy or capacity (aka “God,” “Elohim,” or “The Force”) for appreciating and effecting choices within coextensive limits that govern our sciences, mathematics, and designs.
CIRCULAR REASONING:
“Evolution,” in itself, when considered to be purely a product of random mutations occurring within the laws and limits of science, physics, and Nature, without regard to any Spirit or aspect for appreciating feedback and guiding choices, decisions, and designs, “explains” nothing. Rather, it merely labels, circularly, whatever may result from whatever may be the choice making process, from whatever level it may be expressed. Saying “It is what it is” is neither to say what it is, nor what it should be.
In place of “The Force” (somethingness), radical evolution pays homage to "The Indifferent" or “The Random” (nothingness). Yet, in respect of such nothingness, radical proponents somehow expect to fashion a common, guiding, “code of secular morality.” To appreciate just how bankrupt such a code is, one need only refer to the writings of Peter Singer.
Personally, I think Nature and Spirit dance as a duality. In other words, God/Elohim do(es) play dice, in respect of deciding how to entrust or empower various processes, entities, or Elohim. But, between limits of incompleteness and uncertainty, “God” is continuously loading the dice. For that, we are imbued with capacity for enlightened empathy, aka, morality.
GUIDING INCLINATION OR DEMI-URGE:
Over time enough, a consistent Inclination may be guidance enough. A consistent Inclination to appreciate feedback from reactions and sensations and to seek to preserve and replicate may be all the “designing intelligence” needed.
If so, the question may not be what accounts for intelligent design, but what accounts for consistent Inclination (or Demi-Urge). Evolution, by itself, without such an omnipresent, consistent, synchronizing, driving Inclination, would hardly seem enough. Certainly, nothing in logic or science proves “evolution,” in itself (whatever that is) to be enough.
Thus far, the process for genetic design seems not unaccompanied, at least at some level, by an Immeasurable, Interwoven, Inherent, Synchronizing, Spiritual Capacity for feedback appreciation and sensation of choices. What continuously comes into manifestation is not solely in respect of scientific limits, but also in respect of synchronizing choices.
A name for the synchronizing Author(s), whether conscious or not, perhaps as good as any other, is “God,” or even “Elohim.”
Notwithstanding Godel’s incompleteness theorem of mathematics and Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty in physics, somehow, choices are made and results are effected.
In respect --- insofar as how choices are made at the levels of infinity, eternity, uncertainty, irreducibility, and incompleteness is forever beyond mortal calculation --- a word in reference that seems as good as any other is “Spiritual” --- notwithstanding the knee-jerk consternation such word elicits among atheists and materialists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)