NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15824

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 11.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!nscf!lakes!kalki33!system
From: kalki33![e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: RE: On God and Science
Message-ID: <V7gZVB1w165w@kalki33>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 10:07:18 EST
Reply-To: kalki33![e-mail]
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA
Lines: 209

[e-mail] (James G. Acker)    writes:

> One final attempt at addressing some of the points here.

> : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
> : by Sadaputa Dasa
> : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
> : Used by permission.

> [intro, comments from O'Keefe, Pope Pius, and Hawking deleted]

> : Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for
> Astrophysics. In a : lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical
> creation, Gingerich also : interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of
> creation. He went on to say : that we are created in the image of
> God and that within us lies a : "divine creative spark, a touch of
> the infinite consciousness, and : conscience."[5]
> :
> : What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
> : spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior
> involving : conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of
> a nonphysical : conscious entity that influences matter. Could
> "divine spark" be just : another name for the brain, with its
> behavioral programming wired in by : genetic and cultural
> evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he : certainly chose
> misleading words to express it.

>         This is absolutely beautiful writing by Sadaputa.  First of
> all, Gingerich, who basically said that science and religion should
> not cross borders at the Washington Cathedral Conference on
> Origins, does come quite close to the borders in his statement.
> Sadaputa plays on the implication that "objectively observable
> behavior involving conscience" is possible.

Well, I can observe that I have a conscience. Therefore that conscience
is an "object" of my perception. It is objectively observable. I can
also observe that other persons behave in a way that matches my own when
I am having an "attack" of conscience. Therefore I conclude that others
have consciences too. They even tell me that they do. Is this not
scientific?

>  His (Sadaputa's)
> statement implies that conscience is an inherent property of the
> brain, that is, there is a section of the brain that controls
> "conscience", just as there are areas devoted to the senses of
> smell and hearing.

Actually, Sadaputa is mentioning this explanation for conscience not
because he himself embraces it but because it is one possible
explanation for conscience that does not stem from nonphysical entities
such as "the divine spark." This whole article is meant to point out
that one can not extend the materialistic paradigm indefinitely, and if
one pretends to do so he will eventually contradict himself. Sadaputa
does not, of course, think that conscience (or consciousness) is caused
by neurological activity.

> Conscience, however, is a product of moral
> training and is therefore a learned behavior, and not an inherent
> "wired-in" property. Thus, the "divine spark" lies at a level more
> fundamental than where science could find it, and being a
> nonphysical entity, the "spark" does not influence matter.

But according to the materialistic paradigm, the propensity of humans to
"morally train" their children must have a basis in biology, chemistry
or physics, as must the propensity of children to exhibit "learned
behavior." Therefore the argument that conscience is "acquired, not
innate" just pushes the issue back a notch. One still must explain how a
bunch of molecules and cells operating solely under the laws of physics
and chemistry are feeling pangs of conscience, and knowing that they are
feeling them!

>         Assumption:  The "divine spark" is observable, just like
> the proof of the bottom quark, by interaction with matter (neurons
> and synapses).
>         Implication:  Given enough evidence, the behavior and
> existence of the "divine spark" could be proven.
>         Implication #2:  A connection between the "divine spark"
> and God can be shown, hence, God is proven scientifically to exist.
> QED.
>         AS faith relies on the evidence of things unseen, and by
> this description the "divine spark" can be "seen", were it
> provable, it would not be related to my God.  According to the
> Bible, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically.

That depends on your definition of science, doesn't it? If science is
only the quantitative study of matter, then yes, the existence of God
can not be proven within science. But if science includes the study of
the entire field of perception, then if God is ever perceived, He must
necessarily be real, and if He is never or can never be perceived, then
there is no meaning or purpose in investigating Him, not even from the
standpoint of "faith."

Faith indeed "relies on the evidence of things unseen." But if those
things remain forever unseen, i.e. unperceived, then it would seem that
faith is useless, since one can never have any actual contact with the
object of one's faith. Faith must turn into certainty, into direct
knowledge, or it will be lost eventually. This is exactly what has
happened in Western civilization, since Western theologians have been
ineffective in providing methods of directly contacting God and instead
have developed a purely speculative, intellectual kind of theology.

That scientists have reacted with scorn to the eclectic concoctions and
academic exercises of Western theologians is understandable, given the
scientific drive for hard, perceivable evidence.  However, the fact that
a large body of theologians are making statements about God without
really knowing Him is not proof that God does not exist. If even one man
could step forward with a bona fide method by which anyone could make
direct contect with the Lord, that should be sufficient to end all the
controversy. Of course, there is always the possibility that even if one
knows that God exists, he might not like the idea, and might therefore
prefer to pretend that God is a fiction. There are undoubtedly persons
who do this. After all, the existence of someone more powerful than
oneself is very unsettling to some people. Such people would certainly
try to avoid contact with God, even to the point of embracing atheism.

> : Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies
> arrived at : ideas similar to those of Gingerich, but from a
> non-Christian : perspective.
>.... The existence of a world soul is a question that :
> belongs to religion and not to science.[6]
>
>         Note Dyson's final statement, which Sadaputa chooses to
> ignore.

Ignore? Hmmm, the whole article is about the impossibility of
maintaining any total separation between science and religion. If a
world soul exists, then certainly such an entity would play a role in
the functioning of the universe, and therefore it cannot be solely a
religious question.

> : Dyson fully accepts Darwin's theory of chance variation and
> natural : selection. But he also explicitly grants mind an active
> role in the : universe: "Our consciousness is not just a passive
> epiphenomenon carried : along by chemical events in our brains, but
> an active agent forcing the : molecular complexes to make choices
> between one quantum state and : another."[7] He also feels that the
> universe may, in a sense, have known : we were coming and made
> preparations for our arrival.[8]
>
>         Dyson's quotes here are pretty amazing!  I don't think that
> he's right -- I think consciousness is a product of electrochemical
> interactions in our brains.  But this thing about "choice" is
> troubling, because (example, activating an old memory) I seem to
> affect the quantum state of molecular complexes in my brain.
>         But wait!  I can affect the quantum state of any molecule I
> want. Just put it in the path of a laser tuned to the right
> frequency, and it'll jump states and emit photons.  So,
> consciousness does affect quantum states.  Internally and
> externally.
>         Tough nut, though.  Take it up, anyone.

Yes, consciousness does affect matter! We can all see how a chain of
events, starting with our free will, can cause a change in the physical
universe. What is not as easily accepted is that consciousness can act
directly on matter although it is not matter itself. (Refer to the
quantum mechanical measurement problem about where to draw the line
between observer and observed).

> : Dyson is verging on scientific heresy, and he cannot escape from
> this : charge simply by saying he is talking about religion and not
> science. : Quantum mechanics ties together chance and the conscious
> observer. Dyson : uses this as a loophole through which to
> introduce mind into the : phenomena of nature. But if random
> quantum events follow quantum : statistics as calculated by the
> laws of physics, then mind has no choice : but to go along with the
> flow as a passive epiphenomenon. And if mind
>
>         I think the key word here is "random".  Sadaputa is
> implying that the entire molecular framework of the brain operates
> randomly, according to the laws of quantum physics.  If I read his
> implication correctly, he's wrong.  The primary nature of brain
> function is electrochemical, and not quantum mechanical.  It
> therfore operates according to rules which are much more stringent
> than quantum statistics.

Well, again, you are pushing it back a notch, but the problem is still
there. According to modern (speculative) physics there is some sort of
unified quantum field that governs the interactions of all known forces.
If this quantum field operates in a manner similar to standard QED, then
the basic particle interactions must all be probabilistic, so that even
electromagnetic and gravitational forces are ultimately indeterminate in
principle. The existence of higher level systems (living organisms) that
exhibit highly non-random effects like consciousness and conscience must
therefore be due to some organizational principle as yet unknown to
science.

>         Damn, Sadaputa is a good writer!
> (I inadvertently deleted the last part of the paragraph.  Sorry.)

He's really a good scientist too. :-) I wish I was adequate to present
his thesis.

I had to stop here, because this is just sooooo long! I will forward
your review (all 3 of them) to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. They have
asked me to send them any interesting responses I get from these posts,
and yours are certainly some of the best!

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33![e-mail])            |
       -------------------------------------------------------