Between Science and Spirituality

The Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | Nov. 29, 2002 | John Horgan

[Hank Kerchief]

Since science and reason are inherently agnostic

Without reason it is not possible to know anything. One is agnostic to the exact degree they repudiate or evade reason.

(Of course, you are probably using the word agnostic in the very narrow theological sense. I am not constrained by your narrow usage.)

Hank

[f.Christian]

To: edsheppa

Me: It could logically be self evident to some that natural causes do not explain even the most obvious thing in ones life, i.e. consciousness.

You: That sounds contradictory or maybe I just don't take your meaning. How can something be logical and self-evident? Self evidence requires no argument but logic does.

It is a given even for a child that he/she is a conscious individual and logically so. But beyond this, should truth be logical as well? If not, it seems logic should dismiss it as truth. (as you pointed out)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
-Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
(although self-evident was originally “sacred and undeniable”)

Oh, but I seem to have digressed once again. Western science and thought were based on the theory of design. In science, sure they observed natural causation but from an engineering standpoint. In thought, it was believed that free-will is part of a plan and choice should not be imposed. (Now exceptions can be presented but I believe they can be distinguished from an individual belief and the entire philosophy or theology)

Now back to ‘how do we detect design?’ We use our consciousness to detect design and IMHO our consciousness cannot be explained by naturalistic causes and definitely not by material causes.

I read your text, detect design, transcription takes place, I respond. This is intelligent design from man (not to mention the means by which this is taking place). Now, no one denies that DNA contains information but beyond this; transcription takes place, it responds, and builds in a precise sequence based on inside stimuli and outside stimuli. IMHO this is design. Again, I do this with my consciousness but within your self-consciousness you can deny this and attempt to explain it another way.

Let’s do a little ‘Zen thing’ here – I know you are familiar with ‘If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make any noise?’ Let’s take it to a different level, ‘If a universe exists without life or intelligent life, does information exist?’ Regardless if you believe information exists in that universe, the information would be meaningless for that universe (and you must use your consciousness to determine this one way or another for a universe without consciousness). Take this random, meaningless universe; ‘just add humans’, and why does or should this change the universe? Consciousness? So now we are able to view this universe… This expanded reality doesn’t sound like a boon, more like a boondoggle. (But it seems that I have digressed again)

So we use our consciousness to give us an acceptable explanation and meaning to the universe and our existence. Our explanations are thoughts and for the materialist, these thoughts must also be material processes. This takes away the “I” or “self” in our own consciousness and shifts it to matter or nature. For the materialist, since human consciousness exists, nature somehow has formed individual ‘ I’s ‘ to observe all random events.

I see everything as designed, planned, and for purpose. It is self-evident and logical IMHO.


1169 posted on 12/06/2002 7:09 PM PST by Heartlander

[Hank Kerchief]

A completely idiotic post which makes wholly unsupported assumptions...

Could be. Name one!

(How come someone so philosophically astute gets so easily excited?)

Hank

[freedumb2003]

At last, as real response. Good to see you out from behind the curtain :)

[f.Christian]

My disgruntalier is the latest one out---I got the wires crossed!

[Hank Kerchief]

I would like to respond to your post, but have a little trouble from the beginning. Would you explain what you mean by the following sentence:

It is a given even for a child that he/she is a conscious individual and logically so.

My question has to do with the intent of the sentence. I am particularly confused by the phrase "a conscious individual and logically so. My cat is conscious, but not logical. I do not believe newborns are capable of logic (or reason) and therefore, at that point have no knowledge (neither does my cat, for the smae reason).

Just for the record, nothing is self-evident, if by self-evident one means knowledge of any kind. A perception is not knowledge.

I may have completely misunderstand your meaning, however, so correct me if I've missed your point.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

...concepts of math have routinely predicted the existence and behavior of the material universe...

The predictions do not make it happen. The predictions would only be predictions if the material universe happens to conform to them. Science and math can only discover what is. Neither is a cause of anything, with the possible exception of some student's headache.

Hank

[Gary Boldwater]

You sir, are a man who thinks. I would be proud to shake your hand. A is A, existence exists.

[beckett]

Look, Ayn "To Be Anti-smoking is To Be Anti-life!" Rand's A = A is fine as far as it goes. Yes, there is an objective reality out there. And yes, A = A throughout the knowable universe. But Rand's problem, a direct outgrowth of her grandiosity (the same grandiosty that impelled he to announce her atheism at 14, setting the course for a lifelong suppression of the emotional abuse she suffered as a child, which, in turn, lead directly to her over-reliance on and over-hyping of the power of reason), is that she assigns meaning to A = A far beyond its utility. It's fine, but in the end it is a banal observation.

The very certainty of Objectivism discredits it. You either understand that or you don't.

[f.Christian]

bttt

[MHGinTN]

I will apologize for addressing this to you, but I made a choice ... ignore me and it will not offend moi.

From the essay: After decades of searching, astronomers have found no signs of life elsewhere in the cosmos; Electromagnetic waves have been the object of the search. It's logical since light is bounding all over the universe and the radio wave lengths are also. So far, as best science can tell, not a single repeating source has the feel of an intelligence directed signal. Let's look at that for a moment.

How long have we been capable of generating electromagnetic signals that would traverse space? How much longer will we be limited by the necessity to generate electromagnetic signals? Are the particular signals we generate and in turn search for from the cosmos the last developmental stage of signal generation, or merely one stage in our evolving understanding of the physical realities of the universe?

Is there some next stage in our understanding that will cause us to then search the cosmos for those type of signals? I ask this seemingly nonsensical question from the framework of our past signal generations and information sharing ... smoke signals work if the sender and observer are co-aware/knowledgable, but the medium of light (specific range of electromagnetic waves) is at the heart of the process. A radio begs the capability somewhere of someone able to generate radio waves to be received.

Our reliance on electromagnetic wave generation and reception assumes that if other intelligent creatures in the cosmos exist and learn of electromagnetic wave manipulation, they too would send and eventually seek to receive signals from other intelligent creatures. For how long have they been sending, intentionally or unintentionally?.. it won't matter for our search. Would these signals generated traverse the cosmos in a sort of expanding pattern and thus have a limit of reach based on how long they've been sending? Yes, and that may be one of the limiting factors for why we have yet to discover the signals ... intelligent life reaching the proper level of technical ability may be sparse, so it may be a while yet before a signal generated would reach us.

There are mathematical calculations which would generate statistical probabilities and time frames for arising intelligence and technical capabilities, to generate in turn a window of likelihood for our receiving extra-terrestrial signals. We have yet to detect, but that doesn't imply we never will, even if our reliance on electromagnetic wave generation may someday give way to a more sophisticated paradigm than electromagnetic energy for our processes ... there should be electromagnetic waves zipping about the cosmos from other intelligences even if those others have moved on to more sophisticated paradigms.

Now, that tedious flow out of the way, what do we make of the witnesses who've described interactions with Angels? I'm not inclined to dismiss those described events as imagination, yet we don't appear to have the same phenomena occurring in this modern, science oriented world. For arguments sake, lets accept that those events actually occurred and were not merely schizophrenic anomolies, but were real visitations. Just for discussion purposes, if you're so inclined.

The physical implications of such visitations beg for an as yet undiscovered means to manipulate electromagnetic energy send-and-receive systems, simply because these visitors appear and disappear! This dismisses the notion of supernatural occurrence and puts the discussion on a physics level, for the supernatural is just that, 'beyond our natural' as we define it at that stage in our development ... to shorten this screed, our science may not be sufficiently developed to detect this 'natural' level of phenomena generation or blocking of electromagnetic waves for our detection. A character in one of my books has as her hobby an effort to try and discover how God did the mircales described in scriptures, not as a blasphemy, for she doesn't think God is offended by our searching to discover more of Him and His universe, she tries for explanations based on her level of scientific understanding, and to stretch her extent of knowledge. If we don't make such efforts (try to imagine how things are done), perhaps we will be stuck with forever trying to detect electromagnetic signals, a search that will eventually detect one or more but it may well take a very much longer time. By taking such an approach as assuming miracles are beyond our explanation merely because we haven't learned enough about the nature of the universe, we may discover a next stage/reality level in the fundamental design of the universe of the Creator's composition in which we dwell.

The argument can be offered that humankind's development has generated science as a means to better comprehend the Creator's handiwork.

[Gary Boldwater]

Mathematics is the science of measurement. It can't predict anything if the problem is ill-posed.

[Heartlander]

Just for the record, nothing is self-evident, if by self-evident one means knowledge of any kind. A perception is not knowledge.

Must one learn they are conscious before they know they exist? If anything is self-evident it is ones own consciousness. (Did people wander aimlessly before, “I think therefore I am?”) Furthermore, try to obtain knowledge without perception.

[beckett]

Nihil Obstat :-)

[Sabertooth]

Without reason it is not possible to know anything.

Again, how do you know? It's not a kid's question.

One is agnostic to the exact degree they repudiate or evade reason.

(Of course, you are probably using the word agnostic in the very narrow theological sense. I am not constrained by your narrow usage.)

OK. Can you define your non-theological usage?

[Sabertooth]

The physical implications of such visitations beg for an as yet undiscovered means to manipulate electromagnetic energy send-and-receive systems, simply because these visitors appear and disappear! This dismisses the notion of supernatural occurrence and puts the discussion on a physics level, for the supernatural is just that, 'beyond our natural' as we define it at that stage in our development ... to shorten this screed, our science may not be sufficiently developed to detect this 'natural' level of phenomena generation or blocking of electromagnetic waves for our detection.

Wouldn't an easier explanation be that angels exist in more than four dimensions?

If you add an extra spatial dimension (call it "warp"), beings in that dimension could appear and disappear while interfacing with ours just as you or I could appear and disappear in the planar dimension along the wall beside you.

Add another temporal dimension (call it "eternity") and such six dimensional beings could interact with our universe in ways that would appear instantaneous or even simultaneous.

[Cicero]

I guess Christianity or Judaism are too traditional or jejune for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Some of the writers and scientists he cites are worth knowing, but this passage strikes me as psychobabble. Too much LSD and Berkeley-style Buddhist dabbling (which is quite a different thing from classical Buddhist writings).

[MHGinTN]

Using your better way of expressing this phenomenon, I would offer that the temporal dimension perhaps has three variables just as the spatial has three. Our sensing may be limited to one (or at most two) of the variables, while Angels may possess existence in three. I like the way you express it better than the tortured way I tried to express this notion to Physicist. [Would it make sense to pose the temporal dimension as past, present, and future for the variables?... analogous to past=linear, present=planar, future=volumetric.]

[cornelis]

Science and math can only discover what is

Hank, man, get a hold of yourself. Who led you to confuse knowing with existence? Where have you been in all these threads? Only a crackpot pseudo-intellectual posing as a philosopher could suggest "existense" identical with "knowing."