Survival of the Fittest?

“It is not the strongest of a species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but ones most responsive to change.”

Charles Darwin

Well, so much for the survival of the Republican Party!!

PROCESS PANEGYRIC

Troythulu the Skeptophrenic Blogger, must think I’m mad.  I respond to some of the posts on his blog, but I don’t seem to respond directly-my responses have a non sequitur feeling.  The reason I respond is because the ideas in some of his posts are as close as they can be to mine, but just far enough way to make it very satisfying to attempt to build a bridge between the skeptical point of view and mine.  Thus the non sequitur feeling of my responses.  I wonder if he feels the same way?

I suppose partly in response to something I wrote, Troythulu blogged that “it is often claimed by those who seek to misrepresent science…that science is no more epistemically valid than religion, because both rely on prior assumptions as the basis for their arguments and conclusions.”  He also says that supernaturalistic religion is based on faith, dogma, and people and books that claim to be ultimate authorities without giving arguments or evidence, etc.  (the entire post is HERE).  Rather than responding directly to this, I launched into a Process Panegyric.  I posted it here because I think it’s interesting to see that a more subtle and informed metaphysical point of view can produce a more robust and satisfying scientific view, as well as a more satisfying religious view:

Continue reading

#1: (TGT): Let’s Begin…Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith (TGT)

This is a discussion of David Ray Griffin’s book: “Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith” (here identified by “TGT”) with a foreward by Howard J. Van Till.

It’s all over the media, in synagogues, mosques, churches, scientific labs, and universities everywhere: there’s gigantic conflict between science and religion.  Well, of course there is!  It’s a huge and direct conflict, after all, EVERYBODY knows it is.  (Argumentum ad Populum)  Well, David Ray Griffin (and process philosophy/theology in general) would rather delve deeper into both science and religion and take a more informed, synoptic view.

Continue reading

10% of Your Brain Myth!

nervecell.jpg

Above is a brain cell.  Just to set the record straight, the following statement is a myth: “People only use 10% of their brains.” While this may be true for the people who propogate this myth, it’s not true for the rest of us…Happily, we use 100% of our brains!  What’s the evidence?

Continue reading

Reinventing the Sacred

Kaufmannnnsacred

TROYTHULU turned me onto this:

“…The unfolding of the universe – biotic, and perhaps abiotic too – appears to be partially beyond natural law. In its place is a ceaseless creativity, with no supernatural creator. If, as a result of this creativity, we cannot know what will happen, then reason, the Enlightenment’s highest human virtue, is an insufficient guide to living our lives. We must use reason, emotion, intuition, all that our evolution has brought us. But that means understanding our full humanity: we need Einstein and Shakespeare in the same room.  Yet what is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly? I find the latter proposition so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of ‘God’.”

From: “Reinventing the Sacred” by Stuart A. Kauffman

This is nice, except I question the antirationalistic slant, as it’s perfectly reasonable to employ emotion and intuition.

Solidity of Science

Troythulu put up a nice post on “Skeptics, Science, and the Fallacy of Consensual Reality.”  I Commented:

Troythulu—Great stuff!  You mention, “…giving all the evidence a fair shake,” and having “…the will to discover the truth by way of logic and evidence.” (And I’d add “coherence” and “adequacy” as Whitehead does, because every element of our experience has to be explained, not just the ones we pick and choose).

Also, you’re right to point out, “…400 years of history has shown that science works as well as it does…because the Universe ultimately makes sense, and is not arbitrarily or capriciously supernatural in its workings.”  I certainly agree, as long as you mean “universe” in the wider sense–i.e. prehension and concrescence, and not just our cosmic epoch (big bang until now).  And I agree as long as you’re taking into account that science is based on physical law which in turn is based on the contingent nature of current configurations of actual entities.  (By “current” I mean Planck Time until now.)  (Actually…I’m editing later…Science isn’t based on physical law.  Science is a methodology used to discern physical law.  What I’m saying is that law is contingent upon the configurations of actual entites.)  And I agree as long as you’re not saying that somehow our current set of interpretations are ultimately the only ones. 

(Aristotle thought that; so did the neoplatonists and renaissance scientists; so did the moderns and Newton; so did Maxwell; and so did Einstein.  In fact, as you probably know, Einstein’s vehement questioning (mostly directed at Bohr) of the Copenhagen Interpretation spurred Bohr (and Heisenberg and the rest of them) to seriously refine the Copenhagen Interpretation.)

The point is, that many people would probably read what you wrote, and having a very narrow view, and not understanding the history of paradigm shifts in science, and not understanding, really, what physical law is, draw the conclusion that you’re somehow closing the books on reality…we’ve figured it all out and got it all down pat.

Moving onto Supernaturalism:  Of course, it’s pointless to entertain the idea of the supernatural.  How can something “be” “supernatural?”  The scare quotes are to show the idea is an utter contradiction.  For something to be supernatural, it would have to take place outside of reality!  Since there’s no such thing as being “outside of reality” it follows that the concept of supernatural is nonsense.  Oh, God exists, and so do other things that seem supernatural and seem to defy logic (e.g., certain elements in the quantum realm), but they are all perfectly logical and perfectly natural and part of reality.  What most people call “supernatural” can really be subsumed under “natural.”

I have a bit of an issue about the parochial nature of your statement that reality is “made up of…atoms, energy, and multidimensional space-time.”  These are all high level abstractions as opposed to fundamental and concrete entities.  (I think you agree, when you start talking about what reality is “made up” of, and start talking about ultimate structures and fundamental structures, you have to be specific and concrete and necessary, not abstract and contingent.)  Atoms and energy are high level abstractions–even from the scientific point of view, subatomic particles are more fundamental, moreso are virtual particles and moreso are quarks other structures.  Further, from a metaphysical point of view, even the quantum realm is an abstraction.  The only thing we can say for certain about reality “really” being “made up” of is actual entities or actual occasions (that which concreses and prehends).  

And multidimensional space-time is another abstraction—another contingency.  Space and time are (or spacetime is) created by concrescence, and multidimensionality is contingent upon particular conditions at a singularity which are highly variable (as far as we can tell).  By “particular conditions” I mean primarily velocity, but not only velocity.  Further, logic dictates that extending out from this electromagnetic epoch we have a context that simply exhibits geometrical axioms, then outside of that four-dimensionality, then outside of that “mere” dimensionality, then the logical limit is what Whitehead calls “mere extensiveness” or the Extensive Continuum.  Hubble is looking back into “spaces” that border on dimensionality and extensiveness about which we don’t know the particular contingent workings of for sure…  Even if we assume spacetime exists there, there’s no logical necessity that the behavior of entities are exactly the same as those in our current epoch.  That the behavior is exactly the same remains to be seen.  (I use the word “seen” loosely, because if things are significantly different, observation may not be possible—if wave functions don’t collapse in the sense that we understand, then those dimensions are utterly removed from us.  (This is a corollary to the nonsensical nature of supernatural—why even begin to talk about supernatural when there are logically possible worlds that make what we call supernatural phenomena seem fairly straight forward.  (OK, sorry… looking over the last several sentences I see each one would need about 5 pages of text to put into context and argue correctly……….))

Enough….it’s almost 2am already.  Aloha.