NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15844

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 13.3 KB | 264 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!netsys!ukma!nsisrv!jgacker
From: [e-mail] (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <V7gZVB1w165w@kalki33>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:00:33 GMT
Lines: 250

kalki33![e-mail] wrote:
: [e-mail] (James G. Acker)    writes:
:

Discussing:
: > : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: > : by Sadaputa Dasa
: > : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: > : Used by permission.
:
    {first part appears in previous posting}



ACKER: >         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.
:
KALKI: 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."

ACKER:    Answer to your question:  yes, it certainly does, Ollie.  But my
answer keys more on the meaning of "proof" than a definition of science.
I can prove an object has mass by determing the volume of water it
displaces (volume) and its weight, giving me a density in g/cm3.  The mass
is defined by certain conventions (what a "gram" is, the definition of
"volume", etc.).  Placing the mass of the object in the larger
theoretical framework would proceed to why matter possesses mass, and
our answer would derive from more and more esoteric physics, as you
like, Kalki.  At some point, what is clearly "provable" -- this
object has mass -- crosses over to what is either unprovable, or
"yet to be proven" --  matter is constituted of quarks, one of which
is the "top" quark.  The investigation is similar with regard to the
perception of God -- there are documentable manifestations of personal
behavior related to perception of God.  Yet there is no theological
supercollider to give rise, obviously by smashing inherently "good" and
inherently "evil" moral particles together at high speed, to a God-particle
and an anti-God particle.



{for the following to make more sense, read Kalki's next response before
what is stated next.  My mistake.}

ACKER: Regarding your NEXT point -- I don't really care about faith
turning into direct knowledge of a deity, and how that relates to
the decline of Western Civilization.  The Bible documents that certain
evidences were once made known.  Faith in those evidences, _pure_ faith,
with no more _save the evidence of one's own experience_, is what is
required to know the triune God.
    Amazingly, that's where we agree, Kalki.  But whereas you contend
(as have those on really good LSD trips) that personal experience PROVES
the existence of God, I _know_ that personal experience only provides
a basis for personal faith.  No proof, in the SCIENTIFIC rationale, will
ever be possible.  Even if Pat Robertson claims that God is going to
destroy Aiken, South Carolina on "Nightline", and less than ten seconds
later an uncharted asteroid obliterates Aiken --
    IT'S NOT PROOF!
(However, Robertson would probably be elected President-for-Life...)


KALKI: 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.

ACKER:  Certainty in the Christian sense lies only in the experience of
the individual.  Mother Teresa does not appear to have lost her faith.
Or Archbishop Tutu.  And they might even claim direct knowledge.  There's
a difference between direct knowledge and material evidence.  It's almost
a legal point.

KALKI:  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.

ACKER:    A lot of scientists don't scorn theology.  What they scorn is
the idiotic concoctions of the ICR, trying to come up with hard, perceivable
evidence in the face of opposing evidence.
    Many theologians make statements about God and also believe that
God exists, as well.  I know God too, Kalki -- it's a fundamental part of
my faith.
    If by "bona fide method" you mean a scientifically demonstratable
phenomenon, I again state that such is impossible.  Sorry.

KALKI:  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.

ACKER:  The Bible states that this type of behavior happens.

ARTICLE: > : 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]
: >
ACKER: >         Note Dyson's final statement, which Sadaputa chooses to
: > ignore.
:
KALKI: 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.

ACKER:    No, Sadaputa (and you) are trying to do what Dyson said
shouldn't be done and what I'm stating can't be done.  Science and
religion are separate fields of inquiry.   Both valid, both different.
Even if Gingerich confuses the issue, I won't.

ARTICLE: > : 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]
: >
ACKER: >         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.
:
KALKI: 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).

ACKER:  I'm treading on thin ground here, but the problem is not
where to draw the line, I believe, but the fact that the observer
affects what he is attempting to observe.  I know I'm the observer, and
I know the electron is what I'm trying to observe.  And I just
accurately determined its momentum!  But -- oh darn, I don't know
where it is now!
    THAT'S the problem.

ARTICLE: > : 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
: >
ACKER: >         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.
:
KALKI:  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.

ACKER:    I think I got ya here.  _Interactions_, on the quantum level, I
agree, are causally indeterminate.  But it is clear that the actual
forces are NOT indeterminate!  The _real_ problem is why a system that is
fundamentally indeterminate produces defined and observable, quantifiable
phenomenon -- such as the gravitational acceleration of the Earth, 9.8
meters per second squared (approximately).
    That's a key difference.  Thermodynamics is more constraining
on the system than quantum mechanics.  Thermodynamics can normally be
aligned with "common sense" -- i.e. add heat, increase molecular
motion, more disorder = more entropy.  Many quantum phenomena define
"common sense".  The quantum forces that constitute the strong force
binding neutrons and protons in the nucleus have little influence on the
atomic bonds in a water molecule.  The forces are so determinate that
"bond energy" is defined, and the oscillations and motions of the
atoms in a molecule can be seen as energy absorption bands (which
is related to greenhouse gas warming, but I digress).


KALKI:  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.

ACKER:  An organizational principle as yet unknown to science?  You
might be surprised.  I'm not disputing that _true_ scientific inquiry
might find some underlying rules.  The _Washington Post_ yesterday had
book reviews of two books on "complexity", which in essence, addresses
how seemingly unrelated events -- everyone selling or buying small
quantities of business stock, for example -- produce apparently organized
behavior, like the long slide of the Japanese stock market.  (An
admittedly poor example, but that's what the _Post_ used.)  I believe
that a lot of phenomena -- like consciousness (the organized firing
of neural synapses) or abiogenesis (increasingly organized combinations of
simple molecules) -- will fall under this theoretical umbrella.  More
for you and I to read, Kalki.


KALKI: 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!

ACKER:  When Sadaputa calls me up to personally discuss some of this
stuff, how many points do I get?  (Not that I'm not enjoying this.)

    Jim Acker
    [e-mail]


    Oh, and by the way, Kalki -- just because I'm not going to
commit another penalty doesn't mean I'm dropping back into zone
coverage.  Count on it ;-)