Proofs of God?
Locked
 
|
Following up on a FRIAM discussion this morning at St John's College: Truth comes in various guises. Jeremy England recognizes this. George Duncan Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University georgeduncanart.com See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895 Mobile: (505) 469-4671
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos. "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Do you have a non paywall copy? On Oct 13, 2017 12:32 PM, "George Duncan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
By Jeremy England 311 COMMENTS I recently learned that I play a role in Dan Brown’s new novel, “Origin.” Mr. Brown writes that Jeremy England, an MIT physics professor, “was currently the toast of Boston academia, having caused a global stir” with his work on biophysics. The description is flattering, but Mr. Brown errs when he gets to the meaning of my research. One of his characters explains that my literary doppelgänger may have “identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life.” If the fictional Jeremy England’s theory is right, the suggestion goes, it would be an earth-shattering disproof of every other story of creation. All religions might even become obsolete. It would be easy to criticize my fictional self’s theories based on Mr. Brown’s brief description, but it would also be unfair. My actual research on how lifelike behaviors emerge in inanimate matter is widely available, whereas the Dan Brown character’s work is only vaguely described. There’s no real science in the book to argue over. My true concern is with my double’s attitude in the book. He is a prop for a billionaire futurist whose mission is to demonstrate that science has made God irrelevant. In that role, Jeremy England says he is just “trying to describe the way things ‘are’ in the universe” and that he “will leave the spiritual implications to the clerics and philosophers.” Two years ago I wrote in Commentary magazine that it is impossible simply to describe “the way things are” without first making the significant choice of what language to speak in. The language of physics can be extremely useful in talking about the world, but it can never address everything that needs to be said about human life. Equations can elegantly explain how an airplane stays in the air, but they cannot convey the awe someone feels when flying above the clouds. I’m disappointed in my fictional self for being so blithely uninterested in what lies beyond the narrow confines of his technical field. I’m a scientist, but I also study and live by the Hebrew Bible. To me, the idea that physics could prove that the God of Abraham is not the creator and ruler of the world reflects a serious misunderstanding—of both the scientific method and the function of the biblical text. Science is an approach to common experience. It addresses what is objectively measurable by inventing models that summarize the world’s partial predictability. In contrast, the biblical God tells Moses at the burning bush: “I will be what I will be.” He is addressing the uncertainty the future brings for all. No prediction can ever fully answer the question of what will happen next. Humans will always face a choice about how to react to the unknowable future. Encounters between God and the Hebrew prophets are often described in terms of covenants, partly to emphasize that seeing the hand of God at work starts with a conscious decision to view the world a certain way. Consider someone who assumes that all existence is the work of a creator who speaks through the events of the world. He can follow that assumption down the road and decide whether God seems to be keeping his side of the bargain. Many of us live like this and feel that with time our trust in him has been affirmed. There’s no scientific argument for this way of drawing meaning from experience. But there’s no way science could disprove it either, because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Some religious adherents do make claims that deserve to be disputed by science. For instance, they may openly acknowledge that their deepest beliefs are incompatible with the existence of dinosaurs. The fictional me—and perhaps Mr. Brown too—might hope to put these holdouts back on their heels. But disputes like this never answer the most important question: Do we need to keep learning about God? For my part, in light of everything I know, I am certain that we do. Mr. England is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Appeared in the October 13, 2017, print edition. George Duncan Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University georgeduncanart.com See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895 Mobile: (505) 469-4671
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos. "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I humorously sugest that beer, silly shows, and perhaps poodles are proof. I then step out of this talk before someone coments that was indeed rather silly. And perhaps sugests that only certain beers are. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Duncan-2
I don't think that a rigorous proof of how evolution works would be all that earth-shaking. Most openly non-scientific religions have had much experience at simply ignoring such proofs and the more liberal religions have found ways to co-exist with science ("Maybe God used evolution to create the world". In my own religion (Unitarian-Universalism) sermons that mention God usually include formulations such as "God, as you understand the term". Buddhism does not require a belief in God. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of George Duncan <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:44:18 PM To: Stephen Guerin; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Proofs of God?
By
Jeremy England
I recently learned that I play a role in Dan Brown’s new novel, “Origin.” Mr. Brown writes that Jeremy England, an MIT physics professor, “was currently the toast of Boston academia, having caused a global stir” with his work on biophysics. The description is flattering, but Mr. Brown errs when he gets to the meaning of my research. One of his characters explains that my literary doppelgänger may have “identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life.” If the fictional Jeremy England’s theory is right, the suggestion goes, it would be an earth-shattering disproof of every other story of creation. All religions might even become obsolete. It would be easy to criticize my fictional self’s theories based on Mr. Brown’s brief description, but it would also be unfair. My actual research on how lifelike behaviors emerge in inanimate matter is widely available, whereas the Dan Brown character’s work is only vaguely described. There’s no real science in the book to argue over. My true concern is with my double’s attitude in the book. He is a prop for a billionaire futurist whose mission is to demonstrate that science has made God irrelevant. In that role, Jeremy England says he is just “trying to describe the way things ‘are’ in the universe” and that he “will leave the spiritual implications to the clerics and philosophers.” Two years ago I wrote in Commentary magazine that it is impossible simply to describe “the way things are” without first making the significant choice of what language to speak in. The language of physics can be extremely useful in talking about the world, but it can never address everything that needs to be said about human life. Equations can elegantly explain how an airplane stays in the air, but they cannot convey the awe someone feels when flying above the clouds. I’m disappointed in my fictional self for being so blithely uninterested in what lies beyond the narrow confines of his technical field. I’m a scientist, but I also study and live by the Hebrew Bible. To me, the idea that physics could prove that the God of Abraham is not the creator and ruler of the world reflects a serious misunderstanding—of both the scientific method and the function of the biblical text. Science is an approach to common experience. It addresses what is objectively measurable by inventing models that summarize the world’s partial predictability. In contrast, the biblical God tells Moses at the burning bush: “I will be what I will be.” He is addressing the uncertainty the future brings for all. No prediction can ever fully answer the question of what will happen next. Humans will always face a choice about how to react to the unknowable future. Encounters between God and the Hebrew prophets are often described in terms of covenants, partly to emphasize that seeing the hand of God at work starts with a conscious decision to view the world a certain way. Consider someone who assumes that all existence is the work of a creator who speaks through the events of the world. He can follow that assumption down the road and decide whether God seems to be keeping his side of the bargain. Many of us live like this and feel that with time our trust in him has been affirmed. There’s no scientific argument for this way of drawing meaning from experience. But there’s no way science could disprove it either, because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Some religious adherents do make claims that deserve to be disputed by science. For instance, they may openly acknowledge that their deepest beliefs are incompatible with the existence of dinosaurs. The fictional me—and perhaps Mr. Brown too—might hope to put these holdouts back on their heels. But disputes like this never answer the most important question: Do we need to keep learning about God? For my part, in light of everything I know, I am certain that we do. Mr. England is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Appeared in the October 13, 2017, print edition. George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos. "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Guerin
<[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
John writes: Buddhism does not require a belief in God. Nor does science. The Abrahamic God is akin to--perhaps even derived from--the concept of the Logos of Heraclitus. In this context, the concept may even be believed to be the initial physical conditions ("genetic code") of the universe dictating how all matter will unfold after the initial creation moment. And it may be believed to be the creative force itself that makes the universe so comprehensible to our "God-given" minds. As Einstein observed, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” Jeremy England's Theory of Life is an intriguing new theory about how organic life emerged from inorganic substances based on dissipation-driven organization, maximizing Gibbs free energy. So, it was bound to happen ... it was "written in the stars" so to speak. And, it doesn't seem to require a "guiding hand" for it to happen, which would be consistent with the Deism of our American forefathers. The Genesis story is another "theory" about the same as it tells us we were made from inorganic dust or earth. The "breath of God" would be like the self-organized ignition of a new metabolic homeostatic event that prevailing conditions have made easier than before. These events are always accompanied by a "psychological" need to escape death through replication or immortality. Some, like French nuclear physicist, philosopher and writer Jean-Émile Charon believe that this force is embedded in all of Matter. Still, I agree with England's rhetorical question and answer: Do we need to keep learning about God? For my part, in light of everything I know, I am certain that we do. In any case, learning about "God" is to remain curious about things we do not know and to continually challenge what we think we already know. In this sense, Science can be your god. And, Buddhism can be your god. There is nothing incompatible between these two secular disciplines of thought. Neither requires a belief in the Abrahamic God; they are just ways of understanding the human condition: being thrown with a human consciousness into a seemingly chaotic, purposeless universe and seeking solid ground on which to stand. In this context, we all need a belief system to sustain our conceptual moorings to this universe. It seems to be the price of human consciousness that understands its own death as in inescapable event. The proof of "God" is in our human condition. God == Learning about God == human need to find purpose. Learning about "God" is to be contemplative as it is in the Buddhist tradition. It is mindfulness. Finally, IMHO, "God" is the inherent psychological force to understand our raison d'être. It has many manifestations as it does in Hinduism and as I have explained here. Cheers. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:47 PM, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |