The Mind of God 305
| The Mind of God | |
| author | Paul Davies |
| pages | 250 |
| publisher | Touchstone/Simon & Schuster |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-671-79718-2 |
| summary | science and the search for a rational world |
Einstein once said that the thing which most interested him wasn't whether God existed or not, but whether God had any choice in creating the world as it is. Einstein wasn't religious in the conventional sense, but he liked to use God as a metaphor for expressing the deeper questions about human existence, an instinct that runs deep in many scientific disciplines, especially physics.
As someone who was for years unnerved by the very term "physics" -- memories of high school, maybe -- one of the most pleasant surprises in recent years has been reading physicist/authors like Freeman Dyson and Evan Harris Walker and discovering the surprisingly strong link between physics and spirituality.
Physicists seem to have taken on some of the heaviest questions of human existence: "Why are we here? Why is the world the way it is? Where have all the Gods gone?"
In The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis For a Rational World, (just published in paperback by Simon and Schuster, US $12) Paul Davies, a professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia (and the author of God and the New Physics and The Cosmic Blueprint), continues this tradition brilliantly.
"The modern world is plagued by a greater diversity of beliefs than ever," writes Davies, "many of them eccentric or even dangerous, and rational argument is regarded by a lot of ordinary people as pointless sophistry. Only in science, and especially mathematics, have the ideals of the Greek philosophers been upheld (and in philosophy itself, of course). When it comes to addressing the really deep issues of existence, such as the origin and meaning of the universe, the place of human beings in the world, and the structure and organization of nature, there is a strong temptation to retreat into unreasoned belief."
Just what is rational thought, anyway? asks Davies, and true to his word, he jumps into a beautifully written, lively -- and yes, profoundly rational -- romp through some of the biggest mysteries in the universe: human reason and common sense, metaphysics, time and eternity, the creation, real and virtual worlds, theoretical physics, the necessity of God, and finally, "the mystery at the end of the universe."
Rather than a book of answers, this is a surprisingly readable, fast-paced inquiry into whether or not science and rationality can unlock the mysteries of the world, from the nature of consciousness to the notion that the world is really a kind of supercomputer, and all of us bits and data swirling around inside.
"I cannot believe," writes Davies near the end of the book, "that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."
Perhaps because they are trained to deconstruct the matter that makes up the universe, physicists go deeper into questions like this than almost any other contemporary subculture of writers.
If Paul Davies were teaching physics, every kid might learn to love science and appreciate its potential for tackling, and perhaps one day even answering, these age-old questions about life. Davies' ruminations here on Metaphysics: Who Needs It? ought to be required reading for anyone who needs to be reminded of the importance of science in the contemporary world. Since most scientific language is arcane and inaccessible to much of humanity, the rest of us tend to forget just how seminal, even spiritual, subjects like physics can be.
If you care about issues like the existence of God, rationality, and the reason for our very being, you can hardly do better than The Mind of God. Davies doesn't have all of the answers, nor does he pretend to, but he sure has the right questions.
This stuff is not physics. (Score:1)
Katz and similar people should be ashamed of themselves for the enthusiasm with which they claim this sort of pop-physics will give you deep insights. These sort of willingness to tell people that they can understand things without working hard is the reason foreigners have to come into America to do all the technical jobs Americans can't do. On the one hand people like Katz lament the fact that American technical education in high school sucks, yet on the other hand they promulgate precisely the mind-set that has led to this poor quality high-school technical education, namely this belief that certain intrinsicly mathematical subjects can be understood without mathematics in terms of pretty word pictures.
Maynard Handley
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:1)
Re:The Mind of God explained (Score:1)
Re:The problem... (Score:1)
It's the Ego Of Mankind that assumes the structure of the universe must conform to some ideal of pleasing symmetry, balance, or whatever.
I ask for proof of God for a couple of reasons: 1. There is no immediate and compelling reason to assume the existence of such a being. 2. The only reasons given are contained in books written by human beings with far less of an understanding of the universe than we have today. 3. These reasons are not emprical, not verifiable, and not required. The Universe appears to function just fine in the absence of the God theorem. 4. No verifiable phenomenon requires an explanation beyond and above what the non-God based theorems can explain.
Given these, I tend to simply ignore the God theorem as irrelevant. God was 'created' as an 'imaginary' superfriend by a far more primative society than ours. As such, it deserves no more serious consideration than my child's imaginary friends. Just because we can't explain the origin of all creation, it does not mean we can start filling in the gaps with our imagination. That is NOT science and does not enhance the corpus of scientific knowledge by a single iota.
If you don't understand how to live, I can't help you. I have taken personal responsibility for my actions and understand that the day-to-day business of living is actually some serious shit. Science won't help you either. It deals with emprical realities. People tend not to. They want someone to be in charge of them. They want someone to say definitively whether something is right or wrong. That may be an unfortunate evolutionary side-effect of intelligence evolving in a social hierachy.
I tend to agree with John Lennon on this subject. Paraphrased: 'Christianity will vanish. It will fade away completely. I'm right and I will be proved right.' There's no reason to believe otherwise if you can get a perspective that's outside of Western Civ. Greek and Roman paganism vanished utterly. Whether it's replaced by true reason or a civilization in chaos will probably be determined in the next 100 years.
Science has made huge inroads. It has explained a large number of things that were previously in the realm of religion alone. As the realm religion owns diminishes, it's validity and utility will diminish. I percieve an enormous backlash to this building from the evangelisic community, especially in our schools and universities. If the evangelists win, there may be several generations of Americans who have as slipshod a grasp on science and reality as, say, Dan Quayle. A world of Dan Quayles scares the hell out of me.
On the other hand, if science and reason prevails, we may find ourselves in a hundred years at an evolutionary watershed.
And at the last, I know one thing for sure. If there is a being that resembles your concept of God, we'll find him/it by looking up at the universe, not down at our feet.
Freeman Dyson URL? (Score:1)
Re:Closed mind :-( (Score:1)
For me where it breaks down is when the religious types believe that God came to Earth and had a nice chat with humans and blah blah blah. It's nonsene, IMO, of course.
But, while I doubt there is/was a God, I don't think it's immpossible. And it seems to me that atheists are going on faith just as much as religious people by pretending to know that God doesn't exist.
I guess my point is that no one knows. If you want to think you do, fine, but don't think you're superior to everyone else. And that goes for atheists as well as Bible-thumping Christians.
moderate down (Score:1)
http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/co
Wow, and ten paragraphs in the post, too. Could that be a coincidence? I doubt it.
Here's an example:
"When assessing Bytme's manuscripts, one need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets. One need only present the facts. But before I continue, allow me to explain that Bytme's cowardly attacks not only demean Bytme's victims, they dehumanize all of us and are contrary to the principles of a free society. Looking at it another way, he evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of his intended victims. Why doesn't Bytme try doing something constructive for once in his life? Still, there are no easy solutions for dealing with ribald scientists ("easy" being defined as a solution that will not create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions).
Above all, until we fight to the end for our ideas and ideals, he will continue to make a big deal out of nothing. It's not that I have anything against know-nothings in general. It's just that Bytme's hideous cronies seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions. Someone needs to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Who's going to do it? Bytme? I think not.
To treat the disease, not the symptoms, we have to work diligently and effectively to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Likewise, the poisonous wine of sesquipedalianism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. Bytme is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. I will not quibble with him as to whether or not his lackeys have been arrested in numerous murders, violent assaults, and bank robberies across the nation. Instead, I'll simply state that whenever I ponder over the meanings and implications of Bytme's intrusive methods of interpretation, I feel little peace, and leave it at that. Judging by the generally neo-impertinent nature of his henchmen, I can see that he and other manipulative fanatics continue to whine and pule about how their rights are so much more important than anyone else's. What I'm saying is this: Bytme's mottos are doubtlessly despised by everyone but cynical adolescents. The Bytme Foundation's latest report on insensitive clericalism is filled with fabrications, half-truths, innuendo, and guilt by association. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now."
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
hahahah you are like a Homer looking for Lincon's Gold. You look everywhere and when you find it, you read it is a note that the gold is in the hearts of every American. Dejected you walk away angrily, cursing Lincon as a fraud.
The evidence you look for is all around you, especialy in physics. The line of extrapolation clearly points to God. But since you don't have the gold you are looking for you turn away cursing those that are enjoying the treasure.
The very existance of everything around us, and the magnificent inclenations in humans that are not found in any animal are great evidences. Well becuase you dismiss it doesn't mean I don't see it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
God Does Not Play Dice (Score:1)
I read most assertively those that boast that Einstein met his match with Quantum Physics. It brought down his relativity and showed the random froth that the universe is made up of.
However Einstein is still correct, Quantum Physics relies on statistics (randomness) as a patch or glue to express the universe where the laws are not known (or as Heisenburg pointed out cannot be known in classical scientific ways of measurement.)
Einstien spent many years trying to see those laws and fought that they have to be there. He wished for a series of mathmatics that could express the world without having to resort to statistics.
Now like ancient days before Columbus, science simply believes that there is nothing there beyond what it can see. Whether the world is flat or the Universe random both are based on ideas of what the unseeable relm must be like. And just as maps were easier to express the world as flat, so are these theories easier to represent statistcaly.
Time and science will yet prove Einstein right. God does not play dice with the universe.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
For one, I did not accuse you in particular of using circular logic. I mearly stated that I have seen people discredit evidence I make and eventualy it comes down to that kind of argument. I agree you never made such an argument. But then I have never seen any evidence that even remotely suggests there is not a God.
I wish to also in the spirit of rationality express that I only offer evidence. That is what we are talking about isn't it? Not proof. Evidence, I have and have shared in part. I don't suggest it as proof, and I definatley don't suggest it as "look we can't explain it so it must be God." When I look at a good piece of Art I appreciate its creator. That is the same as how I see the universe through Science. I don't see it as drawing back the curtain to find there is no God, but I do see a real appreciation for the creator of it all. That appreciation comes from seeing the evidences of the genius at work.
I also appreciate your discussion of light. I have found light to be more than mere luminosity, but that is really immaterial. Blindness comes from not seeing what is there. In that way they are blind and freely admit it (for they cannot evangelize that there is no God, they will never have proof of that. Nor do I see them presenting any evidence.)
I'm sorry for lumping you in that catagory.
And what I assume you say in jest I can say is true. I wrote something a long time ago on slashdot about how the pursuit of God is an avenue to discover the Universe and its Laws. That is true. Some people inherantly wonder why the universe exists. What is the purpose? Well whether or not one believes in a purpose to the Universe, you can't argue that for there to be a purpose to the universe there has to be an intelligence for there to be a purpose.
Some figure that they should get in contact with that intelligence to gain a more direct access to the information as to the purpose of their existance. You can't blame them, the progress of thought is only logical. It fits in Occam's Razor very neatly.
But to reach out to that intelligence requires faith. Now faith is not imagination, and definately does not need to be conjered up in this case. It is taking an extrapolation of data at hand. I exist, and when I make something I have a purpose. Therefore for me to exist I must be created, and there must be a purpose. Where there is pupose there is intelligence. Since we both have intelligence there should be a way to communicate. If we can communicate then I should be able to learn about the Universe from this intelligence that created it.
This forming of a hypothesis does not require a floating cross. Sure there are leaps of faith in it, where you are extrapolating with Occam's Razor a hypothesis. But this hypothesis is provable, and personaly so.
Yet many do not even try, or if they do they expect the universe to bow to their will if they are going to make such an investment of faith. They seek a direct sign. This is not the nature of the Universe, you know that and I do. Laws are discovered by seeing them in action. If you recieve laws (information of them) from a divine source, and indeed you find that obedience to them does make your life (not your neighbors or your uncle in slovenia) better then you must have recieved true information. The formulae works, it must be true.
This is the same way we investigate scientific laws. But we find that we need to learn moral laws before we learn scientific ones or we can destroy ourselves. I say this to point out that if one of Adam and Eve's children asked about Nuclear Power but didn't know about self restraint and controlling temper then they could have made a mess of the whole earth very early in the game.
Self Restraint and Temper are moral laws we learn from Religion and can see evidence of it scientificaly. Nuclear laws are found out scientificaly, and even show evidence or a correspondance (abstractly) with moral laws.
There is a need for both is what I'm saying. The Grand Intelligence in the Universe who you mock does have lines of information open. Science is one of them, and religion is one of them but they both require personal discovery and faith.
I appreciate your more even handed responce and I appologize again for jumping the gun. I'm home from work now and have calmed down somewhat. I hope you accept my appologies and find this responce more in the same friendship you sent the last one.
Sure we have all trodden these paths before, and have come up with cute labels for each turn we anticipate the other to take. (much like martial arts.) But seriously when it comes down to it we are both just people and what we say will only survive as long as the slashdot server.
It won't mean much in the world perspective. But individualy, it means more and that is the battleground where we get to make the best descisions we can, and hope for the best. We are all looking for truth, and it is childish to mock what others know rather than live and let live.
I would appreciate if you did have any truth that I can live by that will aid me to be happier. I haven't seen any yet, but you don't seem unhappy so you must have some. (I'm not mocking I'm serious.) If you have better truth, don't keep it to yourself. You'll find it more effective in pursuading me than simply holding up judgement to what I know is true.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
That dog story is cool. That is an attempt to lie. Cool. We'll wait for Fido to create something still.
The marriage deal I assume you are accusing me of overly constraining the behavior. I don't think that is what I did, all it requires is forming contracts with a third party that isn't a being. Contracts are very basic.
my definition of Morality is not acting for a common good. Computer robots can do that. But can they -discover- that. In fact, many humans do not, but no one disputes that they can.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
Seriously, if animals are a just a catagory of life that doesn't photosynthesize you are right. Go find a conversation where that is what they are talking about.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Re:I hate history rewriting (Score:1)
Thanks those were the exact quotes I was looking for to make my point.
And when did we ever make this into a war on religion?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Re:Bell's Theorem (Score:1)
Very interesting. And yeah I don't know why they are attached to reality either.
I rember Feinman (My other favorite Scientist) imagioning he was a fly on a pool (this was from a PBS Nova episode.) He wondered if he was that fly, could he tell everything that was going on in the pool by the waves he rode on.
It seems this is a manifestation of Quantum Mechanics, where you could say that two different events could produce the same results, and then you can only statisticaly guess which of those two events occured. But then maybe you could gather the information fast enough to be able to distinguish between two said events. But then could you really account for the measurements effecting the pool enough to hide the information in noise?
I don't mean to bore you with a common example. But that is how I've understood it since, since I only took one class on it in college. How do they test for the existance of unknown variables again? That seems interesting.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^
Re:God Does Not Play Dice (Score:1)
QM does nothing to disprove relativity. (That is the frustration.)
Einstein did accept Qm as a way of expressing those laws, but beleived strongly that there was a better way of deterministicaly describing them.
The flatness of the Earth is based on ignorance, and so is the belief that behind the curtain of laws we see is mere randomness. QM provides a way to deal with the things we observe but can't explain, and it is proven useful in doing so.
I believe in QM, as I believe in Natural selection and other theories as being useful ways to describe the world around us. But the philosophies that rest on them many times are just wrong.
I'm really not expressing that QM is false, just the notion people have, the philosophy that God does play dice with the universe (and sometimes he throws them where he can't see them.)
Einstein had occasion to argue against mathmaticians (one who invented the mathematics he was using to describe E=mc2 if I remember right) who showed him the mathematical flaws in his proofs. However time and physics did show him right.
As another public service anouncement QM is fascinating, and does manifest and explain very true and deterministic laws also. I have nothing against it and actively want to learn it better.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
In reality we all live in the same universe and are welcome to explore it to find the truth. I even like to hear you tell me the truth you've found. (I'm waiting...)
In the mean time there is evidence around us, all around us. I point to that evidence as my support. All I see in the way of disproving the world around us is what amounts to "There is no God, therefore that is not evidence."
For instance, I see that ecosystems are built to destroy life when it challenges the survivability of the ecosystem. Look at lemmings, sardines, etc... They have built in deficiencies that keep them from overrunning their environment even though they could easily still be classed as fit as the only species in the environment. In deed close relatives do not suffer from such quircks. Such "curiosities" are just one of many evidences of a design greater than the "every species out for itself" theory of evolution.
Now the argument against it looks like "but there is no grand design or designer so you can't say there is. There are just laws at work that science is still discovering!" Or maybe you can quote some theory from a dusty college text book that is even more unsupported that promises to resolve such a fundamental flaw.
Nevertheless it is evidence. Your presumtions that I have no evidence is probably just hopeful that I'm bluffing. I repectfuly counter that you are the one with blinders on, and you can't see evidence you refuse to see. But that is your choice. Asking others to accept your blindness may be your choice, but not mine.
Believing that there is no God is not only blindness it is the belief of blindness. Essentialy it is unprovable (yet presumes itself scientific). Therefore you blindly believe there is no God and are forced to if that was the truth.
You can believe what you want to believe, and I can declare what I know is true. And in the end it doesn't matter becuase the slashdot readers and every other individual that wathces such discussion is welcome to find out the truth for themself. Who realy cares who is right, we only care about what is right.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
I didn't quite follow where you went.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Re:God Does Not Play Dice (Score:1)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Bell's Theorem (Score:1)
But doesn't such an example simply show that things are determined by influences we may never have a way of knowing? After all, as you point out if they don't both know what to look for the very act of probing for the information interferes with the experiment redering it useless. And unfortunately we to often don't know what to look for.
Anyway, thanks for the info. This is what I like slashdot for, the information from the community.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
Happiness is the design of our existance... (Score:1)
Truth is one thing, belief is another. Randomness is not even part of the other two.
Maybe you would agree that we can create our own purpose, our own reason for being. I believe that is true.
Maybe you believe that the more your purpose coincides with the laws of the universe, the less likely your purpose meets with destruction. That is physicaly proven, and is indeed the method of physical proof and the scientific method, where a hypothesis is the purpose of the experiment. I believe it to be true also.
But that only makes the pursuit of the question of "is there a God" more important, if you are seeking to bring harmony with your purpose and the laws of the Universe.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
I hate history rewriting (Score:1)
In short, the explanation of Einsteins belief in God is not accurate. He did believe in a God manifested as the higher laws of the universe. Not as a metaphor of such. While he clearly mentions he does not believe in a personal God, he did in quotes clearly indicate he believed in God.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:1)
oh shucks. You did ask.
Here's a few questions to ask...
Do Animals Create? One person once said that everything that makes humans different from animals can be summed up in a human's ability to tell a lie. To lie you have to be able to create a universe based on evidence and know that it isn't true. You have to be able to communicate the untruth. You have to have the selfish interests to want to relay the untruth. Lying isn't a magnificent inclenation but the investigation and exploration of evidence, the creation of new universes (even if they are only personal universes), and the communication of it is something that animals have not demonstrated.
Do Animals Marry? Marraige is not just a choosing a life long mate, or contracting between the two people. Marriage (even old secular marraiges) involved the contracting with a third party to provide the neccisary environment to raise kids to survive and be harmonious with that third party.
Do Aminals have Morality? Morality is not an imposing of harsh laws by the inergalactic boss. Morality is the realization of a connection we all share where my happiness is somehow related to your happiness. A realization that we all have a connection that is impericaly felt but not measurable (very sensitive to the Heisenburg principle this is). Morality is a force, it drives and influences even nature and matter. (After all, when your girlfriend is mad doesn't that influence your body to go to the store and pick up flowers? Thats matter manipulation through Morality.) In fact morality is expressed by harmonizing our personal universes with the laws of the universe around us.
Sorry I can't write more or explain it better, the boss is coming
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:It's still belief (Score:1)
The difference may seem slim, but it is there. I know for myself that I have beliefs that have been reasoned out... and others that I hold on to that I haven't really thought through. I think that he is attacking the later and suporting the former.
for the stragglers (Score:1)
There is a neat paradox: "that which is everywhere is nowhere" and "that which is everything is nothing". So atheism is the more rational position. At least they try to look at things in a cold clear light instead of imagining miracles, incarnations, apparitions, and such nonesense.
To attempt to prove the existence of God scientifically is obviously futile and not desirable. If someone could prove the existence of God the way we prove the existence of the polio virus or vitamin C then life would surely be pointless. Everyone would go over to God's side and the whole human drama would colapse. The point of life, the thrill of life, the leavening in the loaf of life is the leap of faith. Take the leap of faith out of life and you really have a pointless existence.
But for those who are looking for God I will give you a clue. Look for that which is everywhere and nowhere...that which is everything and nothing. That is of course conciousness. God is conciousness.
The limitless arrogance of modern man has sunk us so low that we demand that God show himself to us in microscopes, telescopes and mathmatical formulae. Even the mystics of old told us that you cannot see God. Even if you take the leap of faith and realize that God is conciousness and devote your entire life to purifying your conciousness through prayer, meditation and self-denial you cannot see God. The meaning is that the ego, the self must die before you can see God and of course when that happens you are not you anymore. You are someone else. Someone else reaps the rewards of your lifetime of sacrifice.
Have a peaceful day oh lovers of paradoxes and sweet subtle understanding.
The problem... (Score:1)
However, there's a problem with this. It pains me to say it, but only a small fraction of the population seem to be able to think rationally on a consistent basis. (If this were not the case, then professional wrestling would be a dead sport.) Even of those who can think rationally, a large percentage don't.
And you know what? They're right. You see, to the true scientist, everything expresses itself in terms of probability. As a scientist, I can conceive of some non-zero chance that, when I drop a ruler, it will float up to the ceiling. And I might be concerned with that possibility, because my purpose is to understand how it works. Understanding is a goal of its own, and needs no application to be worthwhile.
However, in day to day life, we must make assumptions on inadequate data on a continual basis. If we applied scientific scepticism on a continual basis, we would never get out of bed. Visualize having to enquire, on seeing a red light, as to whether that light was really red? So, the good and useful scientific scepticism that gives us great technology when applied to "simple problems" gives way to harmful, radical scepticism when applied to mundane problems.
The thing is that the class of problems I label "mundane" are often much more complex than those currently dealt with by science. So, we solve them on an intuitive, emotional level, and on the whole do pretty well with it.
Which leads me to my beliefs. As any Slashdot comment reader who doesn't just skip over-written, wordy comments probably knows by now, I am a Christian. Further, I fall into the more conservative range of Christian belief. I am a traditionalist and an evanglical.
Constantly on /., people ask me to "prove there's a God" (or prove that Yahweh is God, or Jesus, or whatever). I cannot offer any proof that they will accept. Why? All my proofs rest on my own experience. Many readers apply radical, pseudo-scientific scepticism to religion, and so it is assumed that the least explanation for my belief is that I am either a liar or deluded. When my experiences of God are discounted, I have no evidence to argue from that can stand under the light of radical scepticism.
That's okay: I still believe. Why? Because I find belief in God to be functional. It's Pascal's wager: whether there is a God or not, I am able to see great and consistent results from believing in him and choosing to follow him that I did not see when I was caught up in other faiths. (I progressed from atheist to agnostic to Hinduism to Taoism to Christianity between the age of about 12 and 23 or so -- as I learned more, my beliefs changed, and so did my life).
Don't get me wrong: I believe based on reasonable evidence (5 ancient witnesses for starters) that Jehovah is God and that Jesus is his son who rose from the dead in the literal sense. What I'm rejecting is the assumption that I (or anyone) should have to subject this to some involved process of proof based in the Greek philosphical tradition.
And that is where this book would appear to miss: I have not yet see the Greek philosophical tradition offer any help for how to live. And that's the problem I want religion to solve.
Footnote: Contrary to my usual tradition, I'm not going to respond to replies to this post. Apologetics make me tired, and I've already fought two big flame wars in the last week. I just don't have the energy or the time to write another 20,000 words this week.
I hate to say it... (Score:1)
Sorry...
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:1)
Just because certain event is very unlikely, it does not mean that it will never occur.
For example, flip a coin 50 times and write down the sequence of heads and tails. Now the probability of this particular event occuring is 1/2^50 (which is pretty small). Was it a miracle?
Do the same with 1000 flips. Is an event whose probability of occuring 1/2^1000 a miracle?
No yet. Try 10,000. See...
Re:Philosophy and physics overlap (Score:1)
Re:Philosophy, not physics (Score:1)
After all how would you react if a philosopher started writing books on physics?
Being an expert in one field does not make you an expert in another.
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:1)
The question of probabilities had to do with deducing the existence of God from the fact that people and the universe exists.
What I was trying to say, that the event of humans coming into existance is a low probability event, which nevertheless occured. The fact that probability of something is very low, does not preclude the event from occuring, without the intervention of any supernatural being.
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:1)
Re:NOT A NEW BOOK! I had this in paperback 6yrs ag (Score:1)
Re:DAMNIT! (Score:1)
Re:moderate down (Score:1)
Thanks.
If you like this: (Score:1)
Re:I think it's humor (Score:1)
Bwaahahaha
To be specific, it is not a joke (a little humor in it) or a troll... It is actually a PROTEST. It is an intentional long-winded, meandering and Katzesque diatribe. I do not like his style or contribution to the forum. Rather than 'Katz Sux doodz', I prefer a little sarcasm.
Peace
Re:This stuff is not physics. (Score:1)
BTW, I didn't get the impression that anyone was claiming this book explained the difficult in "pretty word pictures," or that this book was about physics qua physics.
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:1)
Of course, "experiments" require an intelligent being behind them. "Going mad" also has connections to sentience.
True but... (Score:1)
Our ability to observe is finally getting to the point where we can answer some of those "philosophical" questions.
Re:Science vs Mysticism (Score:1)
And how do you observe that which is unobservable? Or are you just too narrow to approach anything non-material? Science has scope and there are important questions that lie outside that scope.
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
Huh? Not following my argument? Say I offer you {a small fraction of Bill Gates' personal wealth, a gaggle of incredibly attractive members of the appropriate sex to do whatever comes naturally, Alan Cox as your personal bug-hunter and nifty-feature-that-I-don't-have-time-to-implement coder} for you to be an atheist. You decide to take the option of guaranteed instant gratification rather than the long-term gamble on the joy of eternal life with God, if God exists. I've just altered your personal payoff matrix in favour of atheism. Has this one iota of influence on the existence of God? Not one bit!
Therefore, Pascal's wager, IMHO, is a philosophical red herring, and I don't know why it is treated with such significance.
Been wanting to vent this (Score:2)
Whew.
Miraculous experiment you can do (Score:2)
That must be.. (Score:2)
Person you want to bash: Jon
Re:Oh Christ man! (Score:2)
But you then go on to point out perceived fundemental flaws in physics, such as this "nothing but a mathematical abstraction" bullshit argument you drag out to neatly present some fluffy mystical thinking.
No, my point is not to allow 'fluffy thinking', but to indicate that there are other 'levels' of interaction occuring which may be governed by very simple mandelbrot type alogorithms, but will likely be beyond our comprehension simply because their effects on our universe are so 'apparently random and complex' that we will not ever be able to derive their underlying simplicity.
Guess what? This means that science, with physics at the vanguard is ALWAYS revising/refurbishing/theorizing ideas, explanations, and mathematics that attempt to explain to varying degrees of completeness the multitudinal plethora of natural phenomenah that nature puts in our path (Thumbing her nose at us all the way too, that bitch)
Of course, and my point wasnt to say that traditional reductionist science is not usefull, of course it is! But the fact remains that it is not complete, and that many more usefull findings and theories will be found once we realize that the reductionist approach is fundamentally restrictive and simplistic when dealing with complex, seemingly chaotic or random effects.
There is much that is explained rather well, within the limits of the HUP
True, and there is much that isnt. My point again is that for a more complete view of the universe around us, we have to accept the limits of reductionism.
Re:Evidence of intelligent design (Score:2)
You would have to know both values not just for the particles in which you are concerned, but for every particle in the universe because every particle affects the behavior of every other to some degree or another. It is this fact which goes back to the point I was trying to make about assumptions in the reductionist approach.
There is an absolute, multilayed interconnectedness between matter which causes many confusing effects, and is quite chaotic/complex in nature. The fact is, it may be simple and straightforeward in design, but we may never know because all we can and ever will be able to see are the 'effects', or the fractal image as referred to in the original example.
Re:Umm mind providing a reference for that claim? (Score:2)
You dont need to, because they cant explain it. The point is that there are extended effects, of an indirect nature, which cannot be accounted for in a reductionist approach because of their very nature.
It is these types of issues that require a diffrent approach, and an acceptance of the fact that in some areas the reductionist approach to scienitific discovery will fail.
Re:Evidence of intelligent design (Score:2)
What many people attribute to Intelligent Design in the order of the universe is actually a simple process that will not be discernable by the reductionist approach to scientific discovery.
Sorry for any confusion on the previous title. I dont beleive in god, but I do beleive there is a lot more going on in this universe of ours than is given credit in biology/physics/ etc...
We are tainted by our traditional reductionist approach to science. This leads us to ignore the more complex, (currently) unexplainable phenomenon as irrelevant exceptions, rather than very important clues to the things we are overlooking or brushing aside.
Re:Scientific method (Score:2)
Its called money. bIIIIIIg fucking heaping piles of that green shit.. enough to wipe your ass with $100's and never let it cross your mind...
Re:Umm mind providing a reference for that claim? (Score:2)
This is a LONG way from understanding as I meant it. However, its still incredibly fascinating. And, bernard cells are probably the simplest of disspative structures. When you begin to deal with biological structures complexity begins to melt the brain..
Evidence of intelligent design (Score:2)
A few examples: dissapative structures like those seen in very hot liquids, to biological cells.
The effect of the observer in 'collapsing' the wave function describing the probabilities for various characteristics of quantum particles.
Things like these are baffling and puzzling because they are very hard to explain. The reason for this is the fact that they are complex.
A nice mental illustration of this would be the following:
- Given a large wall sized image of the Mandelbrot set mapped into fractal form, you are asked to determine what created this image.
If you have no previous knowledge of fractals, it would appear to be an increbily complex algorithm which generated this image, and the complexity of the images within evidence of this.
However, it is actually a very simple iterative algorithm that produced the image. The algorithm is complex because each iteration depends on a previous iteration. Thus, a small change in initial conditions yeilds wild variety from similar initial conditions. This is chaos theory, and im sure you've heard all about it.
So where does this come into play in physics?
Physics is mathematical relationships based on verifiable experimental results. We call atoms and subatomic particles particles because they behave as such (for the most part) but they are actually something else. We now know that the subatomic particles arent really solid at all, but interact according to complex wave functions that predict their behavior on average. That last but is important, because it shows that our understanding of sub atomic particles and matter in general is based on a large number of assumptions wich may not be valid.
For example, consider that each particle is in fact a solitron, or a collection of smaller peices (super strings? M-theory?) that are acting as a whole particle, yet very distinct in and of themselves.
These solitrons would function identical to the subatomic particles they represent, however be comprised of intirely different units.
The point is, physics is nothing but a mathematical abstraction for generalized behavior. And that this fact alone bases many of the assumptions of science on shaky ground. It is becoming more and more evident that there are additional levels of interaction at work in all aspects of matter, from the subatomic to the biochemical. The fields of complexity, chaos, self organization all relate to this abstract 'other' quality in this universe of ours, and have a striking symmetry with the Tao and eastern philosophy.
The modern style causual approach to science with every element of our world conforming to a chain of effect is coming to its limits. It is certainly usefull, but it is absolutely limited and incapable of viewing the entirety of the processes at play within our universe.
In the end I think we will find that god is not a single entity outside our universe, but a common fundamental effect on every part of this universe.
Woohoo! I created life! (Score:2)
Davies is a good author, but... (Score:2)
When Stephen Hawking published his "Brief History of Time", he was fond of recounting how his publishers warned him against using mathematical formulae in the book - that each formula would result in the corresponding loss of x-thousand sales. As a result, the only formula published in the final book, IIRC, was E=mc^2.
Davies' expression of faith in the meaningfulness of humanity's existence is similarly oriented towards mass appeal. Regardless of whether Davies believes this or not, he probably would have been forced to say something along these lines, or risk reviews describing his book as "painting a bleak picture of man's ultimate insignificance", which would turn off the masses of people who are looking for people with fuzzy beards to tell them what their life means.
Nobody ever lost money telling people what they want to hear...
Re:It's still belief (Score:2)
The problem with this is that when you are talking about something that is subjective, everybodies beliefs tend to be equally valid.
How can you insist that your beliefs about pink fluffy elephants are any more valid than mine when we have not (yet) found any pink fluffy elephants to quantifiably measure.
You can argue over points of logic, but arguments about things which cannot (yet) be proven are subjective arguments based in a persons other beliefs.
That was getting circular, but because we do not share an identical path in space time our perceptions and the beliefs founded upon those perceptions are going to be skewed, but neither of us is going to be _wrong_.
-- reality is just a product of my imagination.
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
(By the way, when you claim that "The evidence you look for is all around you, especialy in physics. The line of extrapolation clearly points to God", I hope that you either (a) meant that purely as personal opinion or (b) have very good, previously unknown, completely conclusive, scientifically sound evidence... because otherwise you're just another theist with an extraordinary claim, and we've already got enough of those.)
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
(Sorry for the pointless Paranoia reference... just hope I won't get moderated down...
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
Blairgh.
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
Just last night (after I got tired of discussing philosophy with On Lawn on Slashdot... and went to discuss philosophy with the #atheism crowd on IRC) I made that exact same argument about Occam's Razor, although it hadn't occurred to me that it would apply in this case. It does seem now that using Occam's Razor would be a circular argument. So maybe there isn't any default position. Okay.
Regarding the request for evidence: I do tend to follow along the general lines for skeptics (you can look at the sci.skeptic FAQ). So, I consider historical evidence often acceptable, depending on the source and reliability (although I'm not really in much of a position to judge myself, not being a professional); OTOH, testimony from the Bible, a book which claims that pi = 3, is much less so. (And yes, I do know about all the historical stuff in the Bible that was found to be true, but I think that only proves that it's not entirely fictional; having been raised in the Jewish culture, I personally consider the Bible to be a fascinating account of the religious and cultural traditions of our ancestors throughout the ages... and that's all.)
Eyewitness testimony isn't much relied upon even by courts of law (human fallibility); much less so "testimony" about answered prayers; taking into account the witnesses' predisposition for believing in these explanations for their claims, as well as the emotional need for beliefs to support their mental state... well, I think you get my point.
(Re. evidence for evolution, well, of course you can't replicate the evolutionary history of the Earth in a lab, but I think we know enough about the fossil record to make a solid claim that either they are records of evolution in process, or the Almighty is a really clever guy who's trying to mess with our little heads.)
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
First, "But to reach out to that intelligence requires faith": I don't see how that's true a priori; I can well envision an universe whose Creator is right at hand, ready to speak to its creation at any time (through means that are natural to them - i.e., that exist within the realm of what the creation considers "natural", and which don't require "tapping into another dimension" or any such things). In short, I can't see why a God couldn't have made his presence natural in his own universe.
Right afterwards, you bizarrely define faith as "taking an extrapolation of data at hand". Where I come from, faith is belief held without supporting evidence, and has nothing to do with the perfectly rational process of extrapolating. I have observed many theists try to claim, unsuccessfully, that their faith in God is of the same kind as a child's "faith" in her mother, or our "faith" that the sky won't fall on our heads. It's just not so.
Further on, "If you recieve laws (information of them) from a divine source, and indeed you find that obedience to them does make your life (not your neighbors or your uncle in slovenia) better then you must have recieved true information. The formulae works, it must be true." This not true at all. First, you only have evidence - and the flimsiest, at that - that said "laws" are "true" (inasmuch as a law can be considered "true" - i.e., in the sense that it's generally appliable and useful). If your mother-in-law is driving you crazy, and I come to you and tell you "you should kill your mother-in-law", and furthermore I give you the means and opportunity as to kill the old hag without leaving any trace, you might very well be happier (depending on what kind of ethic code you follow, you might not even feel bad about it at all). But does that mean that the "law" of "thou shalt kill your mother-in-law" is true? Does that mean that everyone should always kill their mothers-in-law whenever they have the opportunity? And second, even if those "laws" handed to you are "true", that doesn't necessarily tell you anything about their origin, does it? What one calls divine inspiration, another one might as well call a hallucination. (Likewise with many UFO claims.)
Your assertion about the "necessity" to "learn moral laws before we learn scientific ones" also seems very unfounded. In its entirety it sounds extremely obscurantist and reeks of the moralist, pseudo-humanist discourse about "people before technology" of which I believe we're all sick and tired. First of all, it confuses knowledge and science with its application - technology; it also confuses reason and good judgement with morality. It is, in its essence, a bet in the essential evil of mankind, and an assertion that we're not good enough to be allowed this forbidden knowledge. Shades of Genesis... (as in the Old Testament, not as in Peter Gabriel!)
As an atheist and a scientificist, I found this really strange: "Self Restraint and Temper are moral laws we learn from Religion and can see evidence of it scientificaly. Nuclear laws are found out scientificaly, and even show evidence or a correspondance (abstractly) with moral laws." Are you claiming that religion is th only possible source of morals? That I, as an atheist, cannot be self-restrained or well-tempered? That self-restraint and temper are absolute "laws", as opposed to being merely useful guidelines for behaviour in civilised society? Furthermore, what do you consider to be scientific evidence for the "laws" of self-restraint and temper? Are you counting sociology and psychology as sciences, or are you asserting something more profound? Finally, just what is this correspondence between nuclear and moral "laws"?
"There is a need for both is what I'm saying. The Grand Intelligence in the Universe who you mock does have lines of information open. Science is one of them, and religion is one of them but they both require personal discovery and faith." I'm sorry, but I can't consider that anything other than a personal, subjective opinion - and a poor one at that - at least until you explain in minute detail how it is that science requires "personal discovery and faith". (When you do, keep in mind my previous point about the meaning of the word "faith".)
Finally, as for your "request for truths" - frankly, I can't claim to have any deep insights regarding the nature of mankind and the universe; all I have is my opinion, and it was once said that opinions are like asses. In this spirit, I can only translate a Brazilian saying: "if advice was any good, it would be sold, not given."
Re:It's still belief (Score:2)
LOL! So you did read my reply to that post!
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
(P. 3) All I see in the way of disproving the world around us is what amounts to "There is no God, therefore that is not evidence." In other words, you are accusing me of using circular logic. How fresh!
(P. 4) The evidence you present is not very earth-shattering, nor does it by itself indicate design, seeing as though there are better ways to fit our model around them then by introducing a deity into it. It's the kind of evidence that would only be accepted as such by someone already inclined to believe in a God and who would see this as confirmation of their beliefs. Quite frankly, considering that you are making the ultimate extraordinary claim - that there is an omni-everything deity of some sort or the other - I would expect, likewise, that you would present extraordinary evidence. (A 10 mile high cross hovering over Ithaca would suffice.)
(Of course, I should also point out that, even if your "evidence" represented serious contradictions in the modern theory of evolution by natural selection as it stands, that still wouldn't be enough to make creationism - design of any kind, much less of your preferred brand - automatically true. Evidently, Neo-Darwinism and creationism aren't the only two possibilities.)
(P. 7) Your comparison of atheists with the blind also doesn't follow. The blind have plenty of rational reasons for acknowledging the existence of light and the sense of sight (I believe it's not necessary to enumerate it), even though they aren't able to directly experience it with their own sensory apparatus. The same isn't true of atheists regarding God or the "sense of God" that many theists claim to perceive. In the end, of course, it boils down to Occam's Razor.
Also, I must reiterate that I am making no assertions in this discussion, regarding the issue of whether God exists. There's an enormous difference between not actively believing in the existence of a God (so-called weak atheism, which is the case for me, just as I don't believe in pink fluffy elephants that can read minds) and actively believing in the non-existence of a God (so-called strong atheism). So your accusation of "belief of blindness" would be erroneous even if the general comparison between atheists and the blind did apply.
(P. 8) I can declare what I know is true. Now, this has made me curious. Pray tell, where did you obtain your knowledge of the truth? Divine revelation? I guess that's one of the perks in being a believer, eh? I mean, why subject yourself to murking around in this vast sea of relative thoughts and subjective experience, when you've got direct access to the latest scoop on the objective nature of the universe, straight from the head of the Creator?
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
Okay, maybe you're right - I must admit I haven't read this book. However, as said sentence seems to stand alone and, by the way it's presented, seems to represent the entirety of the author's feelings on the subject, I'd say that, if my analysis was in fact lacking, JonKatz' poor quoting certainly would deserve some of the blame...
Second, the burden of proof does NOT lie upon the party making the affirmative claim. It lies upon the party making the claim, regardless of its being affirmative or negative.
Again, my fault.
In this case, Davies is making an ontological claim that he must support. If he fails, then that is all that has happened!! It does not show that his case is unsalvagable, nor does it automatically lend support to whatever position you believe. Failure to prove a case means just that; trying to extend the implications beyond that is tricky and requires additional work.
Did I say otherwise? Quite frankly, I think I'd be glad to find that there is a purpose to us being here, and I'm always willing to hear on it, even though to my knowledge previous attempts at proving such claims have always failed.
In other words, folks, THERE IS NO DEFAULT POSITION!
Whoa. That's a non-sequitur! I'm sorry, I may be missing something, but how does that assertion follow from the previous paragraph? I'd have to say that, in this case, the default position is established by Occam's Razor.
Kaufmann may "believe otherwise", and he may tell us what that position is as a matter of sharing information about his current mental states. Once he makes statements about the way the world is as opposed to what's in his head, HE has to prove his case. Whether or not Davies can prove his case makes no difference as to whether Kaufmann is justified or unjustified in his position. That becomes important only when Davies' position is analyzed and its premises, true or false, can be used in a separate argument attacking or defending Kaufmann's position, whatever it may be.
That's all nice and fine, but - here's the rub - I don't remember actually making any statements. I only said I believed otherwise, and as you said, my position and Davies' are independent until either are analysed. My position, personally, is that we do exist by chance; I believe that this position is well funded. However, my position could be entirely different - I might as well be a solipsist, or a Randroid, or merely believe in the "chance" position by faith, as it seems that Davies does for the "purpose" position. That makes no difference regarding my attack of Davies' position.
Considering that above I merely restated the second paragraph of your message, where I think we differ is that you assert that there is no default position, while I consider that Occam's Razor applies (as it does in my ongoing discussion with On Lawn (?) re. the existence of God). However, although I stand by what I consider to be the default position (and although I think it is a well-fundamented position), I'm not inflexible.
As for "actual evidence", I suspect that demand is spurious. I rather suspect Kaufmann would submit any such evidence to a Procrustean bed. I'll go ahead and read his responses and see if my hunch plays out.
Not true. I like to consider myself very open-minded on all-matters - not in that I'm gullible, but in that I'm willing to change my mind if suitable motivation for doing so is presented.
Finally, I'd like to thank you for presenting a good counterpoint to my post.
Re:Oh please... (Score:2)
Agreed. However, two points:
(1) The new (relativity + quantum) physics allows many more interesting things to happen as compared to old Newtonian physics. The world "became" more complex, more interesting, and in a sense more open. This has implications for spirituality.
(2) The famous one-electron-two-paths (or Schrodinger's cat) problem. If you pick the Copenhagen interpretation, there is that "observer" figure and the consciousness of that observer seems to mean something. If you pick the multiple-worlds interpretation, the fact that we live in a contiuously forking universe with billions of almost-the-same copies of everybody is a major statement for spirituality that it has to deal with.
Spirituality may not apply to physics, but physics certainly gives philosophers things (or non-things) to think about.
Kaa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh please... (Score:2)
Yes there is, later on in the book (at the point where the Babel fish is mentioned): ``Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.''
Re:Oh please... (Score:2)
Granted, if you choose to define ``God'' as the laws of physics (resp. the Universe as a whole, resp. pure luck, resp. something of the kind), then I believe in the existence of God. But we already have words for those, so I do not think adding ``God'' as a new one is appropriate or wise.
It probably offends religious people even more if I say ``God is merely a term for the laws of physics'' than if I say ``I do not believe in God''. And I have no desire to anger people, it is a pointless activity.
But perhaps a more important and useful alternate definition of God would be, not whatever created us, but whatever we should use as the basis of our ethics. It is an error to think that the basis for ethics should be sought in science. Nor do I wish to appeal to a Higher Consciousness to do so. One of my favorite lines is from Molière's Dom Juan, when Dom Juan gives the pauper a coin and says ``I give it to you for the love of humanity'': maybe now this seems flat and unremarkable, but at the time it was written, that Molière should have dared write something else than ``for the love of God'' is wholly remarkable.
Re:Selling philosophy disguised as science... (Score:2)
Now we are seeing more and more philosophers BASING their ideas on what our scientists have discovered. I think this is the better approach to reach a "Theory of Everything" and even explain consiousness (which as Godel showed, we can never "prove" since we are stuck within the system)
Much like how the human being consists both of mind (philosophy) and body (science), I believe this is the correct approach to explain how it all works together to create the reality we all swim in each and every day.
--
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:2)
how about this.
I think therefore I am. I am therefore I'm special. That's all he's really saying.
so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here
We ARE here, that's enough for me. (yes, it's a circular argument, but that seems to be the only way to play when trying to explain your own existence)
--
Science vs Mysticism (Score:2)
The universe follows rules, and by observation, and experimentation, we can discover those rules. That's science.
You can speculate about mystical explanations for things like the purpose of the universe, and it may serve as entertainment, but to take such thoughts seriously is unjustified, and a waste of time.
It's true that a scientist should keep an open mind. That means always being ready to consider any credible evidence that an accepted explanation might be in error. It doesn't mean giving credence to every wild speculation that might be proposed.
Anyone can say that we are all walking around with gremlins on our heads, but if you want me to consider the idea seriously, you must first demonstrate a contradiction, i.e. some situation or event that cannot adequately be explained by current scientific laws, that would be better explained by your Gremlin-Kopf theory.
Meanwhile, I will continue to rely on the laws of momentum and friction when I drive my car, the laws of chemistry when I brew my coffee, and the laws of electronics and logic when I write my programs. And, I will continue to look both ways before crossing the street, confident that my eyes are providing me with mostly correct information about the world around me.
The modern university teaching that "every idea has equal value", and "science is just another form of faith" are crap. When you can prove what you say through observable events, and logic, then let's talk, otherwise, don't waste my time.
This book would be a waste of my time.
A whole lotta madness goin' on. (Score:2)
As one might expect, the conversation got a bit out of hand. Before I knew it, I was having to lower my voice on a regular basis. In a particularly impassioned moment, she grabbed me by my shoulders and said, "Ryan, see that out there? All that water, might and majesty? It could destroy both of us in a second and be damned if I understand it. I can't even wrap my mind around the idea of it's bredth. It litertally exerts God-like control over us, and you know what? That's good enough for me. That's my God, right there."
I reflected on this for a few moments and considered mentioning to her that my microwave is something which I personally don't have a real firm understanding of, and my cat is capable of physical feats which I have a difficult time fathoming. I decided against doing so.
In any event, I hear a whole lotta people talking about how stupid everyone else is, and bashing one another over the head with semantics and frankly I can't help but find comfort in her perfectly lucid understanding of the world around her.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
You, know, I think I'll just take the money, the chicks, and Mr. Cox.
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:2)
I think it is humankind's hubris, though, that we are some special thing and that the universe revolves around is. The universe doesn't give a damn about us, and our own stupidity could very well get us all exterminated. I think we should humble ourselves and realize we are really but a few specks of dust in the global scheme of things.
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
Since there is absence of proof of a God, the default assumption is to not believe in the existence of God. This is not the same as believing in the non-existence of God. Most athiests (weak atheists, empirical agnostics) will happily change their opinion if evidence for the existence of God is presented.
However, with the traditional undetectable God, the real question is whether we care. Is this an "interesting" argument? What is the difference between a non-existent God, and a God which is unmeasurable and has no effect on reality? I guess the latter at least provides hope or affirmation to people who want it.
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:2)
And the truth is..?
You are making the same mistake that many others are. You say that those who believe in God are blind to the "truth." But you have nothing to substantiate your truth. All you have are countless unproven theories.
I haven't read the book, but I think I understand where this guy is coming from. When you first delve into science, you are confronted with a lot of "proofs" against certain religious beliefs. You come to accept that if something can't be proven scientifically, it must not be. Either it doesn't exist, or a previous belief in it was wrong. But when you go farther than just basic scientific findings, you start seeing an order to things that doesn't make sense. You are then confronted with a huge array of odds. 'What are the chances that this thing I'm researching could come about without help?' If you are really honest with yourself, you realize that the odds are actually in favor of a consiousness being behind the universe.
Science has the basics down. But scientists are far from knowing everything. Just be careful not to go down the same road that you are busy condemning.
A blind belief in science is just as bad as a blind belief in religion.
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
All other things being equal, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Occam's Razor applies, and the "default" conclusion is the former. Davies provides no evidence to change that.
Re:It's still belief (Score:2)
This is one of the real keys! If it looks like a Santa Clause, smalls like a Santa Clause, quacks like a Santa Clause, then it's probable not real.
Seriously, we can draw some conclusions from "reproducibility," i.e. velcro works every time I use it, so I may as well start trusting it, but prayer works about as well as any placebo (in the same situation), so it's pretty safe to assume that vecro is real and prayer is a placebo.
Now this comparison gets a little sticky when we start talking about things with less evidence, like evolution, the big bang, quantum mechanics, etc., but we attempt to verify these things by maing verifiable predictions. Notice that religious predictins have tended to be a load of shit.
Now, I would like to make some comments about the book's topic (which I have not read). Why do scientific people want to call the universe a "mind?" This seems highly anthropomorphic. The universe may share some interesting properties with out minds, like an entropy driven system which produces effect which are roughly analogous to biological evolution (our thoughs process vs. universe's possible "evolution" of the laws of physics), but the diffrences seem to far far out weight the simillarities. You know little things, like the the fact that the speed of light would limit anything like "thoughs" which were spread accrost the universe.
I think we need to quit pandering to the religiious people with this "conshious universe" bullshit.. and get down to talking about the same stuff in a less anthropomorphic way. I understand that people want to make analogies, but I expect some real discussion about how entroy and boundery conmditions always leed to evolution like processes, not some vague bulshit aboutthe universe thinking (any kind of meaningful notion of thinking probably entails non-omipotence).
Re:Oh please... (Score:2)
The point is "Quantum Mechanics talks about the results of experements!" The experemental aparatus is built into the most basic theory as the bra and ket!
The real problem that some educated people (einstein) have with Quantum Mechanics always that they think Realitivity dose "more" then describe the results of experements and they want Quantum Mechanics to do "more." The real question is "Are our ideas about physics doing more then predicting experements a load of crap?" The smartest physicists I've known say yes, i.e. we should not expect physics to do mroe then predict experements as predicting experements is the hart of the scientific method.
Now, people claim that Bomian Mechanics (when you pretend that there really is a phase space particl there) dose do "more" then what Quantum Mechanics dose, but I think you can prove that Bomian Mechnaics predicts nothing which Quantum Mechanics dose not predict, so people who are sticklers for the scientific method claim that they are no diffrent as theories.
Re:"New"? It's been out since at least 1993! (Score:2)
Forgive me, but I even checked the Boycotted Patent Abuser to confirm this. It appears to me that there has only ever been one edition, in paperback, published in 1993.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but why is Jon insisting on calling this book new?
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
In order to believe in anything (even live Ceolocanths) I must be given proof that such a thing exists.
To take the opposite position is to be completely unable to believe in anything, really. If I find it impossible to disbelieve in unicorns because I have no proof of their nonexistence, then I find it impossible to disbelieve that all of my coworkers are not evil robots masquerading as human, merely because I have no proof. Everything becomes potentionally possible, and I end up being unable to know anything.
"You can't believe [the world is round] because there's no proof of [a flat earth]!"
I think you meant "of a round earth". But anyway, in this case, it is indeed not logical to believe in a round earth until such time as evidence that the earth is round is found. (I would note that such evidence was known to the ancient greeks, BTW).
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
The trouble is that we have no idea that those are the only two possibilities. It could be that there is a God, and he punishes those who believe falsely, just because they want to bet on the good horse, and brings nonbelievers who do good works into heaven. In such a case, those taking Pascal's wager are screwed, while those who don't are not.
Since there are an infinite number of theoretical possibilities of what God wants, there's no way you can just "bet" and be sure.
Re:you make the same mistake! (Score:2)
Let P = Existance of unicorns.
"You can't believe [unicorns don't exist] because there's no proof of [unicorns existing]!"
The rest is left to the reader.
Re:Scientific method (Score:2)
I cannot believe
But nevertheless it is true.
I don't envy those poor scientists that have for centuries tried to demonstrate rationally something that is simply emotional. They often lose credibility when they try to mix up reasonning with vague opinions and become mistrusted by the scientific communauty as a result. It's a bit as if Linus was a Microsoft employee. Would you trust him?
meaning of life (Score:2)
It is human nature to believe we are here for some other purpose. Arrogance plays a large role in keeping the human species from giving up. If we think we're here for a purpose then we'll continue to exist. What happens if we all thought it was meaningless?
Re:It's still belief (Score:2)
In short, I believe that when religion and science are at odds, science must win (because, while both methods of thought attempt to reveal truth, only science does so provably,) and that when there is NO outright contradiction, (For example, "God brought the universe into existance" vs. "The universe came into existance",) science will again win because the theist view explains nothing more; the difference is, in fact, irrelevant. "God did it" is nothing more than an easy way out--it tells us nothing we need to know--and implies that no further study is required.
Up until now I have discussed a relatively harmless kind of theism. Perhaps "god" created everything, but what about the devil? One way of looking at the world is to see some things as "godly", and some things as less godly, not godly, or even evil. This dualistic view is dangerous because it leads to divisiveness, prejudice, and hate. Even if two such dualistic-minded religious groups agree on something, they will always find a third to demonize and persecute. Often religious value judgements are based on old, outdated writings, which are, (among other things,) often sexist and anti-homosexual, and in my personal opinion contain little wisdom whatsoever. Something someone wrote a long time ago does not justify making value judgements today; in fact, it justifies nothing. No reasonable human being would actually believe that those words came direct from god--we just want someone or something to tell us what to believe because we are too lazy or stupid to think for ourselves, and many of us simply want to hate and to feel justified in doing so. I hope that science maintains a safe distance from religion, because dogmatism could spell the end of science, and indeed of the individual. I am not being overly melodramatic--what are we if we cannot think for ourselves anymore?
Re:The Big Question (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not really a sticking point in Christian theology (yes, some theologians might disagree). In a Christian worldview, there can really be only three different states in which a created entity can reside...
- Unfallen (e.g. Biblical angels and the like)
- Fallen and redeemed (humanity in the Bible)
- Fallen and unredeemed (e.g.Biblical devils/demons and the like)
So if/when we meet up with some extraterrestrial race, the question is going to be "which one of these are YOU?"As an aside, C.S. Lewis touched on topics like these in his allegorical Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). It's not hard sci-fi, but they're great stories! And if I remember correctly, he has an essay titled "Religion and Rocketry" (or something like that) in the book Of Other Worlds, edited by Walter Hooper.
Enjoy!
JimD
Davies' other books are good, as well (Score:2)
Many orders of magnitude to go before we sleep... (Score:2)
yeah whatever... rationalize this! (Score:2)
This one paragraph turned me off the rest of this book. There is no meaning to life, no greater purpose, and no great answer to "Life the Universe and Everything". I dont understand how he finds it so hard to believe that the mind is the culmination of trillions of random events since the begining of the universe. Given a universe so vast it's incomprehensible, and a time span that could just as well be infinite, it would be rediculous not to believe that self consciousness would evolve by chance. 1,000,000 monkeys at 1,000,000 keyboards will eventually write the greatest book ever writen, but they still wont understand a work of english (or latin for that matter).
If I back up a minute and assume there is some purpose to the universe,that still doesn't mean it has anything to do with consious beings! Maybe "God" had a thing for big rocks and the purpose of the universe is to see what happens to all the rocks.
Come to find out, it was all about the mice!
------
www.chowda.net [chowda.net] -- Student seeking summer intership. Chea... inexpensive programmer!
------
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:2)
> Science has the basics down. But scientists are far from knowing everything.
Certainly, and one of the wonders of science is that the more you know, the more you realise you don't know. Scientists are usually the first to admit that they know very little, in terms of all that could be known. I am astounded and frightened by the number of theists who profess to know the absolute truth.
> Just be careful not to go down the same road that you are busy condemning.
Here I have to disagree with you. Science and Religion are profoundly different things. Fundamentally, a religion is a particular belief system (e.g. I believe in one God, whose only begotten son, etc. etc.)
In contrast, Science is a methodology for obtaining particular beliefs. Its a sort of meta belief system. In other words, science tells you how to go about obtaining beliefs, but it doesn't actually have a specific set of beliefs it demands you believe in.
In particular, the beliefs generated by following the scientific methodology are theories that can be changed or even completely thrown away. A fundamental tenet of Science is that you must constantly test, refine and change the particular things you believe in. Hypothesis and the gathering of counter-evidence is the heart of science.
This seems a much more robust approach to gathering (useful) knowledge about the world, than hewing to some particular dogma. The ability to refine your beliefs in the face of new and challenging data is a huge strength and has enabled science to hugely improve the lot of people everywhere in the face of often murderous religions who would drag us back into the dark ages of witchcraft and spirit realms.
All IMHO, of course
It's still belief (Score:3)
Reasoned or not without any conclusive evidence on any side it is not possible to hold a truly rational discussion. There is a very similar thread(s) in the anti-gravity article.
There are a great many forces at work in the universe that we do not fully understand or are not truly aware of. But just because we do not know them, or can not prove them, does not mean they do not exist.
There is nothing to prove or disprove an overriding cosmic consciousness. It is a fascinating discussion though, which this boook would appear to evidence.
OTOH how much can you really learn through rational and reasoned discourse on the subject of pink fluffy elephants?
chris
The many-worlds interpretation (Score:3)
This is related to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. [univie.ac.at] There's a very unsatisfying philosophical problem in quantum mechanics, related to the observer paradox. The Copenhagen interpretation is the classic "the multiple probababilities collapse when viewed by an observer", which works but seems bogus. The many-worlds interpretation (which Hawking says is "trivially true") is consistent with theory and observation, but disturbing to some people, since it involves each universe forking into all possible universes at some rate well below the femtosecond scale.
Physics has been thrashing around on this problem since the 1930s, and not much progress has been made, due to lack of experimental testability.
Science is prediction, not explaination - Fred Hoyle.
Selling philosophy disguised as science... (Score:3)
The Mind of God explained (Score:4)
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
Scientific method (Score:4)
Aye, there's the rub. I too find many things difficult to believe. It is hard to believe that two clocks placed at different distances from the center of a graviational source will run at different rates. I find it hard to believe that a stream of electrons, one electron wide, aimed at a metal plate with two slits in it will produce an interference pattern on the other side of the plate. Pre-Renaissance Europeans had difficulty believing that the Sun was the center of the Solar system. Yet all of these things are true.
How do I know they are true? Have I seen these things for myself? Well, I have observed the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars through the sky and they seem to strongly support Copernicus' theory. The others I have not observed for myself, but I have read the accounts of many others who have seen these things. I have, of course, also read many religious writings - including the Bible and Qu'ran (or Koran, if you prefer) - where people claim to have observed remarkable effects of God's existance.
The difference is that the scientists have given me experiments that I could (I have faith), given time and funding, duplicate to observe the same results they saw and reproduce those results consistently. No religious scholar that I am familiar with has given us an experiment that anyone with the time and funding could duplicate that would either allow one to observe the existance of God directly or observe effects that could only logically be attributed to the existance of a Supreme Being, at least not reproducably. (Besides, Peyote gives me a terrible hangover).
For example, a recent study of "healing" among cancer suffers at the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe showed that the rate of "healing" was somewhat lower than the rate of spontanious cancer remissions in the general population (including those who do not pray or do not believe in God). Now, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so I will withhold final judgment. It is certainly conforting to think that death is not the end and that evil doers will be punished for eternity. I still like to follow the advise of that old Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan used to paraphase, "Trust, but verify".
Is it so hard to accept the possibility? (Score:4)
I've read a lot of books on religion that all use the above argument to stake their claim about the existence of "God". They all sound as if it's not possible that humans may exist simply due to one of the infinite number of experiments of the universe gone mad. We all want to believe that there's more to us than what meets the eye...the truth may be hard to accept.
---------------
Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all (Score:5)
Um, I'm sorry, but coming from an alleged supporter of rational thought, this sounds very out of place. "This can be no trivial detail" - says who, exactly? The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the affirmative claim, so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here (aside from his nigh-religious clinging to this somehow mysterious and supernatural "meaning of existence"), I shall continue to believe otherwise.
Oh please... (Score:5)
...don't try to pass a few books being written on the frontiers of science (pardon the euphemism) as a new trend of any kind. The hayday of the epistemological enquiries on the meaning of physical reality and the mind of God and all that, came with quantum mechanics (a subject which, need I remind, Einstein never believed in, and some will say, probably with some justice, never understood; you know, the ``der gute Gott würfelt nicht'' (``God does not play dice'') story). These glorious days are gone. The day you see Ed Witten (the current ``pope'' of fundamental physics) or some such person writing something about Life, the Universe, God and Everything, maybe that will mean something. But I don't think that will come.
Sorry to disappoint you but, no, there isn't any hidden spirituality in physics. Spirituality is an attribute of the human mind, not one of the world around us. I don't call a book crackpot when I haven't read it, but I would simply like to remind how Sokal made a point by publishing a paper on the hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Spirituality, hermeneutics, whatever, just do not apply to physics, any more than the color ``green'' does.
I am an atheist myself. I do not think science and religion are incompatible, however. In the same way that art is not incompatible with science. But trying to write a book about both seems to me very much like trying to explain Michelangelo's paintings in terms of quantum physics, or vice versa.
--
...more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? (Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Re: ... A modest critique of Katz Essays. (Score:5)
My impression is that Mr. Katz believes every jot and tittle he scribes is worthy of
It would be refreshing and an excellent exercise for Mr. Katz if he were to devote some effort to deconstructing the nature of verbal communication in this increasingly technical society. (That sounds like the name of a Katz article right there...). His essays typify the dichotomy between the technical and the non-technical, the analytic and the artistic, the realist and the impressionist. His writing has the pretense of profound knowledge but the attitude of an outsider, and as a consequence he often conveys to his reader an arrogance typical of those who believe that the non-technically oriented have somehow cornered the market on philosophy. He provokes ire primarily because, at a fundamental level, he underestimates the capaibilities of his audience, and his sloppiness costs him credibility in the long run.
It's sad: in trying to wear the two hats of journalist and philosopher he succeeds at neither, and he really does have some interesting ideas once in awhile.
"New"? It's been out since at least 1993! (Score:5)
I've had this in paperback on my shelf for years now! The publication information says copyright 1992, first Touchstone edition 1993.
It's a fine book, and I really have nothing against a review that appears seven years after publication. But Jon, this is a too important detail to get so badly wrong.