Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lost and Found: Modern Science and Ancient Faith
BreakPoint ^ | 19 Dec 03 | Chuck Colson

Posted on 12/19/2003 7:47:15 AM PST by Mr. Silverback

G. K. Chesterton once told a story about "an English yachtsman who slightly miscalculated his course and discovered England under the impression that it was an island in the South Seas."

The yachtsman "landed (armed to the teeth and speaking by signs) to plant the British flag on that barbaric temple which turned out to be the pavilion at Brighton." Expecting to have discovered New South Wales, he realized "that it was really old South Wales."

Chesterton was talking about the way in which we cast off the truths we learned as children, only later, if we are fortunate, to rediscover them as adults. What we dismissed as "simple" often turns out to be far more profound than we ever imagined.

According to Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Delaware, what's true about people is also true about science. In his new book, MODERN PHYSICS AND ANCIENT FAITH, Barr tells us that after the "twists" and "turns" that science took in the twentieth century, it, like Chesterton's yachtsman, wound up in "very familiar surroundings": a universe that "seems to have had a beginning . . . [and is] governed by laws that have a grandeur and sublimity that bespeak design."

Instead of man being merely the result of a "fortuitous concourse of atoms," we now know that the "universe and its laws seem in some respect to balance on a knife's edge" -- exactly what is needed for the possibility of life. A slight deviation here or there, and we wouldn't exist -- the anthropic principle.

These and other "recent discoveries have begun to confound the materialist's expectations and confirm those of the believer in God," writes Barr.

Notice, he said "materialist's," not "scientist's." As Barr makes clear, sciences like modern physics can and must be separated from materialism. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists besides matter, and it is a philosophical opinion. It may have, as Barr puts it, "[grown] up alongside science," but it's not science. Remember that, a critical point.

The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong. There's nothing about physics, for example, that assumes, much less demands, that view of the universe. In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.

Despite these facts, philosophical materialism has become so identified with science that scientists, and the general public, often have trouble telling them apart, which is why the discoveries that Barr describes come as a surprise, and their implications are resisted by many within the academy.

These implications aren't inconsistent with science, but rather with their dogmatic materialist worldview. Resisting these implications has required ingenious, almost fanciful, attempts to interpret the evidence in a way consistent with the materialist worldview.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about some of these discoveries and how they have "damaged the credibility of materialism." It's an important story about how science, far from being the enemy of faith, is only at war with those who, against the evidence, insist that England is "Tahiti."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ancientfaith; bookreview; charlescolson; modernphysics; stephenbarr; stephenmbarr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-180 next last
To: betty boop
he had no purely original genius

Yes, he did. He departed the world of Psychologism. This was Husserl II. Like many philosophers, he did not come up with one, but two philosophies. The one he is known for, and the good one.

141 posted on 12/23/2003 5:59:44 PM PST by RightWhale (Close your tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It is not necessary to know anything before Husserl

Sorry sucker, but that's an F. Big fat red zero. Other key words: negatory; non; zippo; nope; na; nuh-uh; bummer; crash-and-burn; afu;

142 posted on 12/23/2003 6:14:04 PM PST by cornelis (A is A and that's the only song I have to play.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; All
Extraordinarily interesting discussion, and very in kind with my philosophies.

If someone does have a science budget, then how does he go about studying non-scientific type issues?
Good question, it might not be possible.

I have argued on other threads that science is by it's very nature, limited in scope.

Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, or so it is said.

What science deals with is the MECHANICS of things. The nuts and bolts. The scaffolding.

It has little to say about the MEANING of things. The morality. The beauty. The truth.

Here is an example. Imagine we knew absolutely everything we ever could know about a hydrogen atom. Does that explain the macro cosmos? Of course not.

I could name a single item here that even a total understanding of it would not yield even a small vision of the results.

A box of Legos.

We could know everything there is to know about every Lego that ever existed. It would not tell us a single bit about the things that have been built, their meaning or purpose.

We need to look at the universe as a reservoir of patterns. It is the macroscopic patterns that hold the interesting ideas. If we can combine the micro with the macro, we will be closer to seeing what roles science and spirituality play.
143 posted on 12/23/2003 6:17:36 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Bummer. Oh, well. Start over looks like.
144 posted on 12/23/2003 6:53:44 PM PST by RightWhale (Close your tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: djf; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; marron; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer
Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, or so it is said....

What science deals with is the MECHANICS of things. The nuts and bolts. The scaffolding.

A persistent cultural myth holds that the origin of science can be discovered in the activities of alchemists or in the forms of "shamanistic" activities. If you're a "high priest" of whatever persuasion, then the main thing is: You've got to get things "right," and most of the time. (If not, then you're presumably out of the job of foretelling the future....)

Questions: What is such scaffolding for??? What purpose does it serve?

It would perhaps be comforting to imagine that humans can freely intercede with Reality so as to adapt it to human "collective convenience." Then it merely reduces to a problem of:

Who determines what the "collective" is? Who determines what properties of Nature "universally" benefit whatever that "collective" is discovered to be?

These be the problems. JMHO FWIW.

145 posted on 12/23/2003 7:49:28 PM PST by betty boop (God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. -- Paul Dirac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Perhaps is should be Perhaps if.

Apparently (in my case), the meaning of is is if.

146 posted on 12/23/2003 8:03:42 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Who determines what the "collective" is? Who determines what properties of Nature "universally" benefit whatever that "collective" is discovered to be?

There weren't supposed to be any determiners. Just value-free leadership seminars.

147 posted on 12/23/2003 8:19:43 PM PST by cornelis (A is A and the rest are all fossicking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Did you read his book ?

Admittedly, he doesn't sound like he's much of a PR person for his views.

148 posted on 12/23/2003 8:39:24 PM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
bttfl
149 posted on 12/23/2003 8:55:17 PM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"What is such scaffolding for?"

Good question, because my answer will clarify bit more what I am trying to say.

My answer is: That's not a valid question.

Asking what is such scaffolding for is like asking "What is the meaning of this castle?.." by examining the Legos the castle is made of.

It's an unanswerable question, like "What is the color of A-flat?" Different spheres, apples and oranges.

But don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing you for asking the question.

If we were in fact made of Legos instead of atoms, we would be asking the same question, and end up getting the same non-result.

We need to determine the purpose by looking at the functions, not the ingredients. Mix tin and copper, two of the softest metals, and you get brass, one of the hardest. Totally unpredictable.
150 posted on 12/23/2003 9:18:23 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: All

PatrickHenry wishes you all a Merry Christmas
151 posted on 12/24/2003 9:25:32 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: djf
A box of Legos.

Good find, etymologically. Is Legos Danish? Anyway from leg- to collect, bind. As also the greek word for word--logos, and its useful relative legein, to discourse or develop by logical argument. Also the root of the word legal, as in law, lex, meaning close to the word logos. And, not the least, logic. All the same root. All in a box of toy wooden blocks, and in the town that box of toy blocks built.

152 posted on 12/24/2003 1:09:26 PM PST by RightWhale (Close your tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I've seen some collections of massive construction with Legos.

It leaves one absolutely dumbfounded that such immense, complex designs can be made with simple plastic blocks.
153 posted on 12/24/2003 7:12:04 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Phaedrus; js1138; PatrickHenry; djf
Thank you so much for the heads up to this excellent discussion, betty boop! I’m sorry to be coming to it so late, but Christmas was much too busy to give the most interesting subjects a blush of a reading.

betty boop, I certainly agree with you that much of our scientific observations must be made by indirect observation. This is particularly apparent in astronomy and quantum mechanics where size and force prohibits. For example, black holes and dark energy are predicted by theory and inferred from other observations.

Phaedrus, I’m so glad you brought all of the Barr quotes to the thread. He is one of my favorites because of his focus on dimensionality. His publications along with Cumrun Vafa’s are often used as references in new publications on the subject!

University of Delaware

His research has spanned many areas of theoretical particle physics, but with special emphasis on grand unified theories, theories of CP violation, the problem of the origin of quark and lepton masses, theories with extra space-time dimensions (such as Kaluza-Klein and superstring theories), and the interface between particle physics and cosmology. He has made significant contributions in all these areas, perhaps the most notable being the development of classes of models that solve the important "strong CP problem" (the problem of why the strong interactions unlike the weak are symmetric under CP), the development of the idea that the pattern of quark and lepton masses is due to effects at the unification scale, the co-discovery of the important "flipped SU(5)" grand unification scheme, work on theories of baryogenesis (the origin of matter at the time of the big bang), the discovery of large contributions to the electric and magnetic dipole moments of elementary particles in theories with an extended Higgs structure, contributions to the development of realistic SO(10) grand unified models, and a mechanism for explaining the large mixing observed in atmospheric data between muon and tau neutrinos.

js1138, you challenged betty boop at post 136:

What quantifiable effects of spiritual forces have you observed? Or if not quantifiable, what regular, predictable effects have you obwerved?

If I may offer a response... There are many which I have observed though I do not expect you to accept my testimony as proof because you have not known me all my life. If you had, you might accept these predictable effects of spiritual forces:

1. Before I became Christian I was entirely unlovable – selfish, rude, mean-spirited. A changed life is predicted by Scripture and occurs regularly among Christians.

2. I have twice felt the spirit of a loved one lapsing into a coma before death going through me with a clear communication of good will, joy, reassurance and peace – once with my mother and again with my sister. After having experienced it with my mother, I could have predicted it with my sister. And should another loved one pass this way, I predict it will happen once again.

3. When in deep worship and meditation on the person of Christ and the Father I am uplifted spiritually and am able to move, view and experience beyond time and proportion. I call these “night travels” though I can now also experience them in the daylight. This is a highly predictable result for me and others. Such experiences are the subject of scientific research.

4. I have not personally had a near death experience (though I wonder sometimes if that is the essence of the night travels). However, NDEs occur with sufficient regularity and predictability that they too are the subject of scientific research.

Other subjects of research include collective consciousness, precognition, retrocognition, remote healing, power of prayer.

And one might consider this Voegelin thought experiment on the moving soul. Or the meaning of language, thought and consciousness.

Just some food for thought in response to your challenge, js1138!

djf, thank you so much for the lego example. As betty boop said, ”What is such scaffolding for??? What purpose does it serve?” I understand why you believe it is not a valid question but I disagree. You said:

My answer is: That's not a valid question. Asking what is such scaffolding for is like asking "What is the meaning of this castle?.." by examining the Legos the castle is made of. It's an unanswerable question, like "What is the color of A-flat?" Different spheres, apples and oranges.

It is the Aristotelian worldview which says to stop looking:

It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible. – Aristotle

I am of the Platonist worldview – like betty boop, Penrose and Gödel. We would not assign an imponderable to the anthropic principle and quit looking. We would continue until it makes sense.

The Plato/Aristotle debate will never be won, but it is helpful for Freepers and Lurkers to know what the debate is all about so that we can appreciate one another’s views.

Max Tegmark on Parallel Universes

According to the Aristotelian paradigm, physical reality is fundamental and mathematical language is merely a useful approximation. According to the Platonic paradigm, the mathematical structure is the true reality and observers perceive it imperfectly. In other words, the two paradigms disagree on which is more basic, the frog perspective of the observer or the bird perspective of the physical laws. The Aristotelian paradigm prefers the frog perspective, whereas the Platonic paradigm prefers the bird perspective....

A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime--the bird perspective--these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta--a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: the universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.

As a way out of this conundrum, I have suggested that complete mathematical symmetry holds: that all mathematical structures exist physically as well. Every mathematical structure corresponds to a parallel universe. The elements of this multiverse do not reside in the same space but exist outside of space and time. Most of them are probably devoid of observers. This hypothesis can be viewed as a form of radical Platonism, asserting that the mathematical structures in Plato's realm of ideas or the "mindscape" of mathematician Rudy Rucker of San Jose State University exist in a physical sense. It is akin to what cosmologist John D. Barrow of the University of Cambridge refers to as "pi in the sky," what the late Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick called the principle of fecundity and what the late Princeton philosopher David K. Lewis called modal realism. Level IV brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, because any self-consistent fundamental physical theory can be phrased as some kind of mathematical structure.

What is Mathematics?

The view [Platonism] as pointed out earlier is this: Mathematics exists. It transcends the human creative process, and is out there to be discovered. Pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is just as true and real here on Earth as it is on the other side of the galaxy. Hence the book's title Pi in the Sky. This is why it is thought that mathematics is the universal language of intelligent creatures everywhere....

Barrow goes on to discuss Platonic views in detail. The most interesting idea is what Platonist mathematics has to say about Artificial Intelligence (it does not think it is really possible). The final conclusion of Platonism is one of near mysticism. Barrow writes:

We began with a scientific image of the world that was held by many in opposition to a religious view built upon unverifiable beliefs and intuitions about the ultimate nature of things. But we have found that at the roots of the scientific image of the world lies a mathematical foundation that is itself ultimately religious. All our surest statements about the nature of the world are mathematical statements, yet we do not know what mathematics "is" ... and so we find that we have adapted a religion strikingly similar to many traditional faiths. Change "mathematics" to "God" and little else might seem to change. The problem of human contact with some spiritual realm, of timelessness, of our inability to capture all with language and symbol -- all have their counterparts in the quest for the nature of Platonic mathematics. (pg. 296-297)

Ultimately, Platonism also is just as problematic as Formalism, Inventionism and Intuitionism, because of its reliance on the existence of an immaterial world. That math should have a mystical nature is a curiosity we are naturally attracted to, but ultimately does not really matter. Platonism can think of a mathematical world as an actual reality or as a product of our collective imaginations. If it is a reality then our ability to negotiate Platonic realms is limited to what we can know, if it is a product of our collective imaginations then mathematics is back to an invention of sorts. True or not our knowledge of mathematics is still limited by our brains.

Do there exist mathematical theorems that our brains could never comprehend? If so, then Platonic mathematical realms may exist, if not then math is a human invention. We may as well ask, "Is there a God?" The answer for or against does not change our relationship to mathematics. Mathematics is something that we as humans can understand as far as we need.

My two cents…

154 posted on 12/30/2003 12:40:28 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; js1138; djf; Phaedrus; marron; RadioAstronomer; XBob
To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: the universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different.

Cannot help but wonder, indeed! So much to wonder about: Why is the Universe the way it is and not some other way? Why is it "there" at all? What is it for? (i.e., does it have goals, purpose? If so, whose or what's?)

I never did get back to js1138 with an example of an existent of the "spiritual" type -- Christmas was hugely busy for me, too, this year!

I will just say this out loud, and let the gaffaws begin!!!: the collective consciousness field is a "spiritual entity" and it is very real. It is manipulatable, too: Hitler played on the collective nationalist consciousness of the German people like a violin. And just look what happened!

How do you think Svengali Clinton manages to be such a big star, still -- in spite of everything that is objectively known about his depredations in office and his pathological mania for lying? He's "massaging the consciousness" of the like-minded: He is making of them a "single mind," so to speak -- a collective mind -- that adores Bill and would even sacrifice for him. All to feed his boundless narcissism. (Which is itself a "spiritual existent" in the present sense.)

In short, he is working in the field of collective consciousness, and he's very, very good at it. Hitlery is less good at this, by far. But as long as Bill is there, working the shadows for her, she doesn't need to be all that good.

In short, the collective consciousness is the field for which "spin" is designed and in which it is intended to work. "Spin" is itself a "spiritual existent," for that matter.

155 posted on 12/30/2003 1:48:46 PM PST by betty boop (God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. -- Paul Dirac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for your reply!

You'll get no guffaws from me about collective consciousness. Clinton and Hitler's ability to manipulate the masses like so many bees or ants was a great example.

There's also that sense we get when we walk into a roomful of ideological hostiles or friendlies when there is no visible or logical cause for such a reaction. Or am I just "weird" in picking up on the attitude of a group?

156 posted on 12/30/2003 2:14:28 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Or am I just "weird" in picking up on the attitude of a group?

No, you are not weird, A-G!!! You are perceptive. We can "read" a whole lot from dynamics propagating through a group, and I believe most people are capable of doing so. It's just they may not trust it, because it "can't be real" (based on a pre-analytical notion of what qualifies as "real" -- e.g., if one is bogged down in a mind set that requires real things to be material things. But all kinds of things are empirically real without being material.)

Speaking of Clinton (Bill), I have read a number of different accounts from people who have met him personally who report that his effect on them was visceral, physical -- one reported a spontaneous, and very alarming "cold shiver" that ran down her spine when he greeted her in a reception line. They didn't even physically touch -- except perhaps at the level of their respective EM fields.... In a nutshell, she found him "really scary."

Of course, other people find him enormously charming. Maybe you get pretty much only what you expect to get.... (I.e., perhaps people who buy into his spin are less able to "protect themselves.")

It is widely believed that very young children are exceptionally sensitive to this sort of thing, to the point where children in groups will "emotionally infect" each other: One child will start acting out in a certain way, and soon the entire group of children are all doing the same thing. But that as soon as parents start noticing this is going on, typically they will try to stop this behavior in their children.

157 posted on 12/30/2003 4:08:14 PM PST by betty boop (God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. -- Paul Dirac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for your encouragements!

Your friend's reaction to Clinton reminded me of a chat I had back in 1998 on the forum with Freeper Z2. He and I had the same reaction the first time we saw Clinton (and that was on TV). We both described it as the dark foreboding one feels the first time he sees a rattlesnake in the wild, i.e. he doesn't need to know what it is to know something is dreadfully wrong.

I'm very interested in this awareness phenomenon in small children and will see what more I can find on the subject.

Truly I believe children have much to tell us about the nature of our mind and spirit, possibly because they are not otherwise corrupted by life. IMHO, the most fascinating NDEs are those experienced by children.

158 posted on 12/30/2003 9:47:49 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; All
Excellent replies to all.
My inclination is to view the universe in one of two ways: we can simply accept it, determine cause and effect (in a limited, survival base mode) and continue, or we can actively try to understand it, and seek out deeper meanings and truths.

During my life, I have always leaned toward the second nature. We've all heard people be scorned by what they perceive to be anothers excesses and hedonism.

But I have concluded one thing. That a persons life does indeed belong to them. So I find it harsh that some deity would prescibe eternal damnation to some guy or gal who just wants to enjoy life, and not be faced with or exert energies on pondering the unknowable.

BUT...

I have stated in the past that I think when we DO start looking into these things, we may actually find out some kind of truth, something we could never find on the surface, but this search DOES bear some moral responsibility.

After all, we don't know all the variables at all, religious faith may indeed be provable scientifically, but the variables are probably almost infinite, just because if I pray today to win the lottery and I don't win DOES NOT invalidate that SOMETIMES when people pray it does indeed work.

The entire subject is so immense it is almost imponderable. And it might in fact move so slowly we can barely perceive it. A young lady I know had gone rock climbing, and was astounded by the feeling she got on the face of the cliff that the rock itself was a living being. I was happy she noticed!

Whatever the truth is, we cannot use it to agrandize ourselves. We must fit into the ebb and flow, I sincerely believe that charity and faith have a major role, but they must be unconditional, and not for personal profit.

regards all, and have a Happy and rewarding 2004!
djf
159 posted on 12/31/2003 2:31:37 AM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
And doncha know ... here comes PH, that ol' grouch, that Aristotelean party-pooper, to tell us that he's unimpressed by the alleged psychic field surrounding the likes of Clinton, and that he's very unimpressed by the leap from there to a galaxy enmeshed in a collective consciousness field. [Pounding table ...] Data. I want data! Data I can verify, data I can analyse, data I can use for making predictions so I can test this spirit-aether stuff. Gimme data! [PH being exhausted, the table pounding ends.]

Anyway, ladies, I wish you both a happy and blessed New Year! May the Force be with you.

160 posted on 12/31/2003 4:13:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-180 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson