Skip to comments.'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design
Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Perhaps nothing that you would credit, RightWhale -- as long as you hope to apply the scientific method to problems of human creativity: Wrong tool, wrong language!!!
FWIW, the "what else?" would be mind and soul. But since we cannot put these "under a microscope," perhaps you will not consider them to be real entities.
There is only revelation. Nothing else. That much falls out of claustral philosophy so far. Give it certainty and highest priority, but it comes with that whether we decide so or not.
If that is the case, you should never attempt, nor even offer opinions, in the field of science. You lack the qualifications.
There is no human creativity. All creativity is Divine. What else you got?
Goes for that opinion, too. The only creativity is Divine. Neither Mozart nor Sagan need think about that: it happens anyway.
It’s probably just terminology, but I would say function or process rather than spiritual. Like I say, this claustral philosophy is, while far from new, relatively undeveloped as such and the concepts will sound somewhat odd at first.
you: If that is the case, you should never attempt, nor even offer opinions, in the field of science. You lack the qualifications.
In your view, only atheists can "do" or "comment on" science and presumably, mathematics. How funny!
A long illustrious line of Christian and Jewish scientists and mathematicians who went before you - and are in the field today - would no doubt be amused.
Amen. If I know nothing else at all, I give thanks that I know this.
The most certain - and therefore, highest priority - type of knowledge for me is divine revelation.You have, by your statement, disavowed the scientific method. Why should you then feel qualified to offer opinions in the field of science?
(Mathematics is not a science.)
Time to discard Gregor Mendel's studies then, as he lacked the qualifications. (I bet he didn't spend 6 years to finish grad school either)
Did Gregor Mendel use divine revelation as his source of knowledge, or did he use the scientific method?
With the advent of Christ and spiritual regeneration for the individual human spirit within the human soul (behavior mechanism = soul; humankind have the added instructor of spirit complimenting our animal soul), an evolving of spiritual consciousness is happening, but, like evolution of species, this change is so minor when placed against the backdrop of the history and 'aliveness' of the entire species, we fail to see it for what it is, change, growth on a spirit level.
The left is seeking to bring change/evolution also, but the increments appear to be counter to the over-all welfare of the species and certainly inhibiting to the individual ... spiritually of course, when/if compared to the teaching and example of Our Lord.
In deference to Coyoteman, it may well be that the anchoring effect of scientific inquiry will tend to hold culture together as the left seeks to divide and segment and obliterate that which speaks of competition, growth, superior results-oriented behaviors. Science is not the enemy of philosophy, being but one brilliant child of same. Science may turn out to be the stronger child, the one which offers the protections and environment under which individuation can continue despite the leftists tendency to obliterate competition and individuation.
If it is the case that we as a species are evolving on a level not readily sensed in our familiar spacetime, then it will go on regardless of the piddling efforts of humans to direct or thwart it in paroxysms of pride.
That doesn't follow although I suppose one could say instead that she has disavowed the scientific method as the most certain source of knowledge.
An interesting point of view. So what aspect of humans is supposedly in God's image?
That's an encouraging word to me particularly, on a spiritual level actually, and I'm glad you included me in the ping to your whole post!
There was no disavowing in her post. You read into her post what you see due to your preconceived denigrating notions of people of faith. ... I use the occasional pneumatic nailgun, though I own more than four good hammers for various tasks.
So I guess Mozart and Sagan are personally dispensable. Their only meaning and value consists in their function as dumb and blind vessels of divine will.
Is that what you're getting at, RightWhale?
edsheppa got it right, i.e. I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Modern science has limited its inquiry by methodological naturalism. By definition, it doesn't look for - or (allegedly) form conclusions about - anything that is not knowable and predictable and thus can be explained as caused by something which is natural, material or physical.
Science excludes miracles by definition, i.e. every phenomenon must have a physical cause to fall within the reach of science. That does not mean ipso facto that everything has a physical cause though certainly some scientists think so (Dawkins, Lewontin, Singer, Pinker, et al.)
Divine revelations are beyond the boundaries of science. They are miracles per se. For those of us who have experienced a divine revelation, it is the most certain knowledge of all.
God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. Science can't "lay a glove" on Him.
I am amused by metaphysical naturalism. How arrogant of man to presume that if he cannot perceive it with his senses or mind, or put it to a test, it doesn't exist. [visions here of deep sea creatures having the same attitude, being astonished later on to discover there is life beyond the water...]
I catch a whiff of nihilism in RightWhale's remarks.... I can't imagine what revelation he is plugged into.
As you say, we have an "observer problem" here -- with RightWhale, you, and me, three different observers. Funny thing is, you and I see the same world virtually always. But I don't see RightWhale's world at all.
I wish he could explain it to me.
I bet miracles work by the same method, if we could but see it. And I think revelations and the fulfillments of visions/dreams are made of the same stuff - numbers in right sequence all down the line (: It hasn't been given to us to see or measure these, which is why it's called faith, for sure, but to my thinking it is not less "reasonable" than the math that is "measurable".
Truly, all Christians have experienced at least one divine revelation, i.e. when it dawned in us that Jesus Christ is Lord. (I Cor 12:3) After that one, we just can't seem to get enough. LOL!
And I would agree that, at the root, there is a mathematical structure related to every phenomenon. That is, btw, the basis of Max Tegmark's Level IV Universe model.
No intrusion, MHGinTN -- you are most welcome!
Your objection has legs. I was painting with too broad a brush, toward the end of falsifying the notion that human nature is not essentially distinguishable from animal nature, and certainly not different than that of our putative immediate ancestors, the great apes.
Of course there is spiritual evolution! I just take that for granted. I have direct evidence of it in my own life; plus as a student of culture, I know that man from the dawn of human history has been trying to understand the Cosmos and his place in it. In the process, certain great spiritual themes or truths have emerged that are astonishingly durable over time. They are so essentially basic, that each age reimagines them in its own way, building on the past with a view toward the future.
God is the ultimate symbol. Christianity is its greatest articulation. I am speaking abstractly here, although God is not an abstraction for me!
There is our risen Lord Jesus Christ, and His Holy Spirit. If human nature "evolves," it is by His ministrations, His workings in us, His drawing of us to Himself....
Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post, MHGinTN!
Duly noted, dearest co-author!
That is the hope of each of us, dear sister in Christ, God willing! :^) Thank you so much for your kindly words and support!
Thank God that will continue no matter what the leftists (or any thing or one) may accomplish. LOL!
And thank God, the Alpha and Omega, the First Cause and the Final Cause - for the purpose of all it, the new heaven and earth, His family - for that is when the spiritual evolution will be complete.
I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Why stop with divine revelation? When you reject science and the scientific method there are so many other sources of "knowledge" to choose from: magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, aching bunions, Ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, hoodoo, voodoo, and all sorts of other weird stuff.
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
Probably turn out that ‘you’ are the revelation, nothing but revelation.
There are no good translations of the Bible in English.
They have no inherent meaning nor value. Those are things we do, name things and assign value for our moral judgements.
Whatever whiff you catch is up to your sensory network. Whatever meaning you name is what you do. Funny thing, the Sultan of Istambul said once that most all lives are the same; maybe he was saying the same thing you said, but he also was making a pattern since there are no patterns in nature and the Sultan must decide many things every day. Some equate pattern and process. I see relation rather than pattern, many kinds; there are many but none in nature.
Amen, my dearest sister in Christ! All thanks, praise, and glory be His, now and forever! Amen.
But what is the basis of our "moral judgments?" Why do we feel impelled to "name things" and "assign value?" Why/how are such things relevant in your universe? Especially when you've already suggested that man is an entirely passive vehicle for divine will. So man doesn't have to make these distinctions at all. All he has to do is submit to being a passive tool. What moral judgment does a tool need?
IMO there is no knowably certain knowledge (yes, I do recognize the amusing self application). But history shows we can aspire to increasingly reliable knowledge. Naturalistic methods have a very good track record of creating it, divine revelation a very bad one. You are foolish to trust it.
He’s trying to blame positivism on the Thomists cuz they read too much King James English!
Well jeepers, dear cornelis, that just about explains everything! LOL!!! :^)
So, how long have you had that problem?
Truth is, great literature written for beginners and the advanced.
That's one way of looking at it.
To reflect his attributes. Sovereignty is a big one. We are all gods, you know. But they say God is love. The power of love can make a blind man see.
Well, we’re getting a little far afield. The 200 milliseconds is the anchorpoint and what we build on that will have to answer the usual problems such as whether today is a good day to go to the mall. Most of the thirty or fifty final judgments of the nature of reality still remain as they were depending on the school. The brain prepares itself for action and the claustrum is the locus where either permission is granted to go ahead or not. Usually not or we would be simple creatures such as microbes that just follow the food gradients.
Yes, being able to good naturedly acknowledge a jibe at your own expense is a good thing even when the humor is weak.
Humor? Plotinus is the jokester! RightWhale is a runner-up.
Ask Paris. She'll have a couple suggestions for what doesn't work.
Well, the parallel becomes even better when you consider what ended up happening to the existing inhabitants and dominant culture, upon passage of said 'closed-door, bipartisan etc. etc.' ;-)
Thx for pointers; the more so about ocular preservation.