|
Author
|
Topic: Michael Behe's Mousetrap Revisited
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. January 2005 10:34
Feynman also said that scientific discovery is like a religious experience. Having made a few myself, I know exactly what he meant. There is no evidence that life ever existed anywhere except on this planet. To postulate it came from elsewhere only further obscures understanding its origin or more likely origins. Why make matters worse than they already are? That is not my style. Of course you might be correct but what does that do for us as seekers of the truth?
"Men believe most what they least understand."
Montaigne
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 11. January 2005 17:24
Charlie,
I shouldn't be making this post, since it is way off topic, in regards to:
quote:
I do reject the Big Bang theory. I usually reject any theory that gives you something from nothing. The whole problem of primary cause is solved very simply by assuming that the universe has always existed. If, as theists claim, God always existed, then in my view, if anything can have no cause and can have always existed, it might as well be the universe as God.
and
quote:
"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore". Richard Feynman
but I'm just too interested in this topic after a semester on Spinoza.
The first quote ignores a distinction that might be made between the sort of thing that has necessary existence (and thus has, necessarily, always existed) and the sort of thing that has contingent existence. Contingent existence is the sort of existence that needs explaining (at least in relation to our epistemic desires and standards of satisfaction).
The second quote, through Feynman, really depends on a naive reading of history and the typical monotheists concept of God (if, and only if, he is addressing the monotheists God - and I'm assuming that he's addressing all concepts of God). As Pascal put it, the God of the philosophers (and the scientists) is not the God of traditional theistic believers. Sure, if you're conception of God amounts to nothing more than a catch-all for explaining the world, then as you find alternative explanations with greater specification and articulation, you might ditch the more general concept because it doesn't do enough epistemic work. But, let's actually think about this for only a few more seconds than is typical. Then we'll realize that the God of the monotheists consists of more (both in concept and, if such a God exists, in being) than the list of propositions that we suppose suffice to explain the world. Indeed, scientific explanation seems to be peripheral in the typical monotheists interests. Just take a brief look at a paradigm case like Mother Theresa or Bonhoeffer or Kierkegaard. Even Newton and other scientific monotheists didn't see God as being explained away via law. Rather, somehow they saw in the law reason to stand in awe and be thankful/grateful. Thus, it certainly can't be, that for them, God consisted only in the explanation of mystery.
In other words, Feynman's concept of the monotheistic God is impoverished. I'm not here arguing that the monotheistic God exists, but only pointing out that the "invented God" that Feynman addresses seems to clearly be the God of the philosophers and scientists, not of the monotheists.
[ 11. January 2005, 17:26: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 11. January 2005 22:25
Micah,
Thanks for your post. Nothing is "off topic" as far as I'm concerned. I'll give you some thoughts on the subject as best I can, not being too familiar with the context re: Spinoza.
In my opinion, all living organisms are biochemical machines, systems made up of structures and processes that work together to maintain the living state and to reproduce. These systems are controlled by an advanced analog computer made up of the brain and the genome. The genome manufactures proteins, regulates expression and assembles structures and processes while the brain and nervous system process information, make decisions and maintain overall homeostatsis and equilibrium.
Now it is clear to me that machines of this level of organization and integration of structure, process and function did not build themselves or bootstrap themselves into existence without the guidance of a much higher intelligence. The nature of this intelligence is not known, but what is known is that this "creator" hard-wired into the human brain the concept of what we call "god". This is clearly seen across all cultures, in all time periods and across the entire range of human experience: the archetype of "god".
So, all of the reality with respect to the existence of God is a conceptualization, and there are as many variations on this theme as there are human beings thinking about it. While much of religion is "formalized" into dogma by the various religious groups, the notion of a personal God, unique and individualized to each person is more in line with reality.
So why limit the number of distinctions to two? Or ten, or a hundred or more? "God" has existed for as long as human beings have existed. Not one day more, or one day less. The very first question was asked on the very first day by the very first human: "who made me". And the answer was given back immediately: "God made you".
Now keep in mind, we're talking about the conceptualization of "God" that exists in the human mind, not the actual creator of these biochemical machines which are called living organisms. They are probably two completely separate and distinct issues.
I wouldn't call Feynman's concept of "God" "impoverished". How are we to judge one person's concept against anothers? It's just different, perhaps. To Feynman, "God" is a "gap-filler", there to simply bridge the gap between what we know and what we don't know. As our knowledge of the universe and our ability to transcend it grows, the stature of "God" appears to decrease, just as the stature of the ancient gods that controlled weather and men's fates decreased as science advanced. Unfortunately, there's little left for God to do these days, other than to try to explain to us mere humans why he saw fit to kill thousands of innocents last month in Asia for no apparent reason.
What is clear to me, however, is that there is a lot more going on than we are aware of. The question: "why is there anything instead of nothing", remains unanswered in either an eternal universe or an emergent universe.
Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com
http://www.charliewagner.com
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. January 2005 06:17
I am inclined to think that the stature of God is on the increase. The great complexity of even the simplest living things is making it less and less reasonable to accept a random view of either abiogenesis or subsequent evolutionary progress. The "anthropic principle" championed by Hugh Ross and others is another example of the recognition that order and purpose have been operating in both the living and nonliving world.
Of course that God need not be the God of Christianity as some would insist, including Hugh Ross. The God of Spinoza and Einstein is all that need be postulated. That is my position at least and I think it is unavoidable.
Like it or not the evolutionary establishment is still dominated by the fundamentally Godless, aimless and randomly generated Darwinian hypothesis, an hypothesis which is without a shred of experimental or observational support beyond the production of varieties or subspecies.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 12. January 2005 18:35
In response to Micah but for everyone
Back when science was called Natural Philosophy, and through the 18th century and into the 19th century probably, there was no conflict between Science and Religion. Science was seen as revealing the intricate design of God.
As long as science's revelations dealt with the universe and nature, everything was fine. It was only when Darwin applied science to humanity and basically said we are just smart animals, people took offense. We are, after all, supposed to be made in God's image, not in the image of an ape. That is when the conflict between the two realms seemed to spring up.
But I know many people who are happy to let evolution and God co-exist. To think that God could not have designed evolution is to arbitrarily limit God's powers and planning capability. As Niels Bohr said in response to Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."
How God may have created the Universe and the life in it has nothing to do with His role in religion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 12. January 2005 18:53
Charlie,
I definitely have to agree with John. If you say
quote:
The only plausible explanation is that life came to earth from elsewhere, with all the information needed for its evolution on earth.
only pushes the question to another location, it does not eliminate it. To say that life came from elsewhere does not explain the origin of life.
While, scientifically, one might say that the answer is beyond our reach, philosophically, the question of origin is still legitimate.
Say that life on earth was seeded by an alien race. It is fair to ask, where did the aliens originate. Did they evolve? Were the created by something else, ab nihil? Did the aliens always exist? Inquiring minds want to know. That is what science is always about. Always asking the next question.
Speak Freely
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 12. January 2005 22:23
John Davison,
I don't think the stature of God has changed all that much in the recent past. The "fundamentally Godless, aimless and randomly generated Darwinian hypothesis" is a mere blip on the radar screen. It doesn't have anywhere near the support that you might imagine. In fact, I would suspect that a distinct minority of people give it any credibility at all. Look at the Soviet Union. For 75 years it was dominated by atheistic communism. Every effort was made to eradicate belief in God and they all failed. God went on as usual with little inconvenience. The reason for this, as I explained, is that "God" is a concept that is hard-wired into our psyche. You can't force people to abandon it against their will, no matter what you do. And the percentages seem to remain pretty much the same, with theists in the overwhelming majority and atheists in the overwhelming minority.
The Minnesota Twin studies showed clearly the hereditary components of such things as social potency (61%), traditionalism (60%), vulnerability and sensitivity (55%) imagination (55%) and alienation (55%). I would suspect that traditionalists, who follow rules of authority, endorse high moral standards and strict discipline would correlate very nicely with religious piety and belief in God.
In some ways it's comforting and some ways distressing, but it's an absolute fact that our personality traits are largely inherited to the tune of at least 67%.
(NYT Dec 1, 1986 C-1)
[ 12. January 2005, 22:27: Message edited by: Charlie Wagner ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 13. January 2005 00:07
Charlie Wagner writes:
quote:
This is clearly seen across all cultures, in all time periods and across the entire range of human experience: the archetype of "god".
quote:
Look at the Soviet Union. For 75 years it was dominated by atheistic communism. Every effort was made to eradicate belief in God and they all failed. God went on as usual with little inconvenience. The reason for this, as I explained, is that "God" is a concept that is hard-wired into our psyche. You can't force people to abandon it against their will, no matter what you do.
This is just politically correct talk which overlooks for instance traditional Buddhism's refusal to have recourse to God or gods.
Seriously, no scientist should treat Zeus, Jupiter, Jahweh or Christian God as real entities. They all arise from ancient socially constructed myths. I believe that the sooner we get a majority of the worlds people to see that this is all based on fantasy the better off we all will be.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. January 2005 10:57
I agree with Mark that we should not treat God as a personal entity in any way, but I am quite incapable of dispensing with him entirely. That is the whole thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
"The book of Nature is written with mathematical symbols."
Galileo
Someone or more probably something wrote the book. Of that I remain certain.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 13. January 2005 14:44
quote:
This is just politically correct talk which overlooks for instance traditional Buddhism's refusal to have recourse to God or gods.Seriously, no scientist should treat Zeus, Jupiter, Jahweh or Christian God as real entities. They all arise from ancient socially constructed myths.
I think that's the first time I've ever been accused of being "politically correct". How refreshing!
As a matter of fact, what I said is as true of Buddhists as it is for any other group of people. Since the concept of monotheism was completely unknown at the time, and the Buddah never met a Jew, he never said anything at all about the monotheistic god of the Jews. While the teachings of the Buddah never address the issue of gods or how to worship them, the Buddah himself was a polytheist. But his concerns revolved mainly about the human condition, about suffering, birth, death, sickness, etc.
There are plenty of Buddhists who believe in God (or gods) and still others who do not. A significant number also claim that they don't know. Of course, Buddhists do not believe that the Buddah was God, nor do they worship him or pray to him.
The Buddah was silent on the subject of how the world started. In Buddhism, there is no "first cause". Life is a never ending circle of birth and death made up of many beginnings and many ends. It has no starting place and no ending place.
The focus in Buddhism is on suffering, and knowing how the world started is of little importance. So Buddhists are free to believe in God or the Big Bang or whatever without a problem because God and the origin of the universe is not what Buddhism is about.
So, I suspect that the proportion of theists, atheists and agnostics is probably about the same among Buddhists as it is in the general population.
quote:
Seriously, no scientist should treat Zeus, Jupiter, Jahweh or Christian God as real entities. They all arise from ancient socially constructed myths.
Whether or not scientists treat their gods as real entities is their business, not mine. I don't see that it does any harm to their scientific work. After all, there are thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim scientists who do very good work, despite the fact that they believe in a real God. As for me, personally, I agree that the concept of God arises from ancient myths, but I think that this archetype, this conception of a creator, is hard-wired into our brains and occurs in varying degrees across the spectrum of humanity. Whether God really exists is actually of little importance. What is important, and should not be overlooked, is that the majority of people in the world, across a broad spectrum of cultures, believe it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 13. January 2005 16:28
Charlie Wagner writes:
quote:
So, I suspect that the proportion of theists, atheists and agnostics is probably about the same among Buddhists as it is in the general population.
I don't know of any well conducted surveys that support this but in my experiences with Buddhists I would have to disagree. It has been consistent with the ones I've engaged with that they do not believe in God.
quote:
... this conception of a creator, is hard-wired into our brains and occurs in varying degrees across the spectrum of humanity. Whether God really exists is actually of little importance. What is important, and should not be overlooked, is that the majority of people in the world, across a broad spectrum of cultures, believe it.
I'm skeptical of the claim that this concept is hard-wired into the brain. I get very uneasy about any correlations between meaning and subjective experience being hard-wired to materially concieved brains. Anyway, if this is the case then I do agree that it is important but consider it a sickness that needs treatment. After all, neurotic people describe having religious experiences.
However, I don't consider this to be the case and think I have better reasons the explain the spread of this God idea.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. January 2005 17:12
Normal people also have religious experiences as Richard Feynman indicated. I have had a couple myself although I may not be considered normal. Discovery, which is all that science really is. can definitely be a religious experience but only for those who in Einsteins's words can -"hear the music of the spheres." Convinced atheists, like nearly all pure white cats, tend to be stone deaf.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 13. January 2005 18:50
John A. Davison writes:
quote:
Normal people also have religious experiences as Richard Feynman indicated. I have had a couple myself although I may not be considered normal. Discovery, which is all that science really is. can definitely be a religious experience but only for those who in Einsteins's words can -"hear the music of the spheres." Convinced atheists, like nearly all pure white cats, tend to be stone deaf.
Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein are atheists and, I guess, gem stones.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. January 2005 20:58
Mark
Present a single quote from Einstein to support your claim that he was an atheist. He was a Spinozan theist through and through.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
Albert Einstein
Incidentally, for those that keep trying to make some kind of Bible-banger out of me, that is my kind of God also.
I am also unaware that Feynman ever claimed to be an atheist. Please document that opinion.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 13. January 2005 22:35
John
In Einsteins case you basically said it yourself. He was a nature worshipper and did not believe in the supernatural. Which means God. Likewise, Feynman didn't believe in God but I grant you that he may have been an agnostic. My memory maybe failing but I'm sure I've seen something to indicate that Feynman wasn't into the supernatural.
[ 13. January 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: Mark Szlazak ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
