Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize
New York Times ^ | 03/13/2008 | Brenda Goodman

Posted on 03/14/2008 5:08:51 AM PDT by iowamark

The $1.6 million Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”...

Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.

In doing so, he has argued against a “God of the gaps” strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot.

Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.”

Professor Heller said he planned to use his prize to create a center for the study of science and theology at the Pontifical Academy of Theology, in Krakow, Poland, where he is a faculty member....

On returning years later to Poland, where Communist authorities sought to oppress intellectuals and priests, Professor Heller found shelter for his work in the Catholic Church. He was ordained at 23, but spent just one year ministering to a parish before he felt compelled to return to academia....

The prize will be officially awarded in London by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in a private ceremony on May 7 at Buckingham Palace.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: award; creation; creationism; evolution; heller; michaelheller; poland; templeton; templetonprize
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

Michael Heller, 72, winner of this year’s prize. He says science and religion “are prerequisites of the decent existence.”

Templeton Prize bio

1 posted on 03/14/2008 5:08:52 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Mark for later read.


2 posted on 03/14/2008 5:24:07 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

One really needn't work too hard to find clues as to why NYT finds it useful to run such a story.

Separately, let's distinguish, please, between "the theory of evolution" as a cause for the existence of life or species, and "evolution," which is synomymous with "adaptation," as a natural occurance manifested in existing life and species.

Yeah, do you think we're smart enough to make that distinction, academia? Do you, NYT? If I can do it, you can do it. If you want to.

3 posted on 03/14/2008 5:26:14 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (A moderate Muslim is one who acts like a Christian,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
Oh yeah I meant to ad, "there is no contradiction between God and chance." It's another of his tools.
4 posted on 03/14/2008 5:27:23 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (A moderate Muslim is one who acts like a Christian,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
Yeah, do you think we're smart enough to make that distinction, academia? Do you, NYT? If I can do it, you can do it. If you want to.

Yes, but most evolutionists are NOT smart enough to made that distinction - or at least they pretend not to be.

5 posted on 03/14/2008 5:30:41 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Men fight well when they know that no prisoners will be taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

LOL, I thought it was Priest-cosmetologist and I was picturing this priest cutting hair and doing nails and my gaydar went crazy. LOL


6 posted on 03/14/2008 5:33:11 AM PDT by Mercat (The LORD is my Banner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
I thought about posting the London Times article: Professor wins prize for maths link to God but I thought that the title was borderline sacrilegious.
7 posted on 03/14/2008 5:34:23 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; marron; curiosity

Interesting God/science article ping...


8 posted on 03/14/2008 8:34:50 AM PDT by TXnMA (Don't vote for McCain. Vote AGAINST the Democrats!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Good for him. The problem with the epoche has still not been worked out and more should give it a try.


9 posted on 03/14/2008 8:37:48 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Thanks for the ping!


10 posted on 03/14/2008 8:46:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; IowaHawk; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; metmom
Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.... In doing so, he has argued against a “God of the gaps” strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot.... Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

It seems to me that the entire universe exists in a tension between that which does not change (God's Will and Word) and that which does (i.e., "chance"). Ultimately, God is not "of the gaps"; He is the foundation of everything that exists, the ultimate source of the order of the changeable things....

I'm thrilled that Professor Heller has been honored with the Templeton Prize.

Thanks so much for the ping to this excellent article TXnMA, and to Iowahawk for posting it!

11 posted on 03/14/2008 9:14:21 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It seems to me that the entire universe exists in a tension between that which does not change (God's Will and Word) and that which does (i.e., "chance"). Ultimately, God is not "of the gaps"; He is the foundation of everything that exists, the ultimate source of the order of the changeable things...

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

12 posted on 03/14/2008 9:16:20 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
Oh yeah I meant to ad, "there is no contradiction between God and chance." It's another of his tools.

Professor Heller agrees with you. It's made very clear in the article. Why the hostility?

13 posted on 03/14/2008 9:47:32 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
". . . most evolutionists are NOT smart enough to made that distinction - or at least they pretend not to be."

'pretend' is the operative word, I think.

14 posted on 03/14/2008 10:34:16 AM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In doing so, he has argued against a “God of the gaps” strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot....

God explains everything.

Science being able to offer its own non-God explanations for things doesn't mean that they are correct explanations, nor that we don't need God any more, nor that He isn't what's behind everything any way.

Following that line of reasoning, when we are finally able to explain everything, then God will not be relevant because He's not needed anymore to explain what we don't understand.

God is far more than a handy catch-all excuse to explain what we don't understand. People who think that have a very warped and incomplete view of who God is and what He's about.

15 posted on 03/14/2008 11:29:40 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Quix; Forest Keeper

[ a tension between that which does not change (God’s Will and Word) and that which does (i.e., “chance”). Ultimately, God is not “of the gaps”; ]

Things that are thingly and things that are not thingly dancing with each other. Amazing how magnetism, heat, and light and even conductance morph into electricity and electricity morphs into them.. I suspect these other scientific variations of “dance” have been considered also..

Charleston, bob*, boogie, boogie down*, bunny hop, caper, careen, cavort, conga, flit*, foot it*, foxtrot, frolic, gambol, get down*, hoof it*, hop, hustle, jig, jitter*, jitterbug, jive*, jump, leap, one-step, prance, promenade, rhumba, rock, sambo, shimmy, skip, spin, step, strut, sway, swing, tango, tap, tread, trip, truck, twist, two-step, waltz, whirl

Amazing what “matter”(whatever that is) can do ain’t it..

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html


16 posted on 03/14/2008 11:35:47 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
17 posted on 03/14/2008 12:01:01 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Thanks for the ping! This is fascinating stuff!


18 posted on 03/14/2008 12:38:29 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

19 posted on 03/14/2008 12:45:09 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

As a rule, the Templeton Prize winners are indeed deserving of the award, unlike the Nobel or the Pulitzer Prize winners, which have grown more and more politicized and perverse over the years.

The New York Times article doesn’t give a very clear explanation of his work, but that’s not really surprising. This is an area that the Times will never really understand.

Maybe we’ll read more about it in a future issue of First Things.


20 posted on 03/14/2008 1:24:54 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Amazing what “matter”(whatever that is) can do ain’t it..

Yup. :^)

The short form of what I said is the universe is the offspring of the "tension" of spirit and matter. All things are composed of the relation between the two.

We are smitten by "the thingly things." We should not forget their Source -- that's the most important thing....

Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

21 posted on 03/14/2008 3:38:17 PM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Why the hostility?

Why what hostility? Did you read my post?

22 posted on 03/14/2008 3:50:04 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (A moderate Muslim is one who acts like a Christian,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

interesting alright.

Thanks for the ping.


23 posted on 03/14/2008 4:01:51 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
[ We are smitten by "the thingly things." We should not forget their Source -- that's the most important thing.... ]

Smitten is the best word.. God is Spirit, the father, son and Holy Spirit and probably the seven spirits of God are Spirits also(Rev.).. Angels are spirits, Satan and minions are spirits and last of all WE are spirits.. Its a very spiritual place we live in.. For all I know plants and animals, even insects have some level of spiritual life.. maybe even microbes.. Hey how can you tell when a carrot dies?.. Are carrots alive?.. Oh! well.. nobody seems to know what life is.. Don't even ask what spirit/Spirit is?..

Darn you always present the hardest of questions/subjects.. The source of matter is probably spirit.. The question is which is the most tangible.. The worms eye view says matter.. but that could be WRONG..

24 posted on 03/14/2008 4:02:16 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; IowaHawk; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; metmom; curiosity
Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of "chance"...

In my discussions with anti-evolutionists/ID adherents, I have often heard/seen them say, "God is a god of perfect, planned order; He does not do things randomly -- like the (eeevil) evolutionists claim things happen."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To them, I answer, "au contraire!

Random processes {or, as Keller says,"chance"} are some of His greatest and most vital creations!"

Without random processes, you would surely die.

Consider the air in the room where you are: its molecules are in continous, rapid, random motion.

The energy of their random movement, we call, "Heat". The velocity of their random movement, we call, "Temperature". Their random impact on surfaces we call, "Pressure".

If their random motion suddenly stopped, you would freeze instantly. (Temperature = "Absolute Zero".)

If they suddenly ceased their random motion and headed off in a single, "orderly" direction, the walls of your room would explode, and you would find yourself in the most vicious windstorm possible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indeed, randomness ("chance") makes our very existence possible. Aren't you thankful that God designed His Creation so randomly for us?

25 posted on 03/14/2008 4:28:26 PM PDT by TXnMA (Don't vote for McCain. Vote AGAINST the Democrats!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
26 posted on 03/14/2008 9:51:46 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop; IowaHawk; hosepipe; marron; metmom; curiosity
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

However, I object to the casual use of the word “random” unqualified by scientists when what they really mean is “unpredictable.”

A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn’t know what the system “is.”

The full extent of physical reality is both unknown and unknowable (dimensionality.) We, as observers, are also part of what is being observed – we cannot see “all that there is” all at once. We can never assure that something which we observe as “random” – and for which stochastic methods work – is in fact, a uniform distribution.

Wolfram on Random Numbers

A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers. Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved for the output of unpredictable physical processes. When used without qualification, the word "random" usually means "random with a uniform distribution."

Scientists and mathematicians understand the actual meaning of the term – but when the word “random” is thrown out, unqualified, in casual conversation about science it causes many to believe it means a uniform distribution when it does not. It merely means the output of unpredictable physical processes.

Or to put it another way, the careless use of the term makes matters worse. It leaves many with the impression that whatever it is, is pure dumb, blind, happenstance with no first or final cause. No room for God there.

And pure, dumb, blind, happenstance truly is the worldview of Dawkins, Pinker, Singer, Lewontin et al who market atheism under the color of science. So for them, the obfuscation is an effective marketing tool. Therefore, I counter by stating:

A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."


27 posted on 03/14/2008 10:40:38 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop; IowaHawk; hosepipe; marron; metmom; curiosity
Oops, I forgot to give an example.

If one were to extract a series of numbers of the extension of pi, it would appear to be "random" when it is fact highly determined.

By knowing what the system "is" - the extension of pi - one also knows the extracted series of numbers is not "random" at all.

A "random" event in nature is like that. We don't know what the system "is." What we really mean is that part we are observing is "unpredictable."

28 posted on 03/14/2008 10:48:20 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Milady, methinks ye be flexing your ego and gagging on semantics.

As far as we are able to measure, the behavior of the molecules in a volume of gas is predictably "random with a uniform distribution."

I submit that our God's use of such processes in His Creation was a brilliant way of establishing repeatable, self-controlling equilibria. You may not find the trustworthiness of the behavior of our atmosphere (despite the random motion of its individual molecules) to be worthy of admiration of Him who created it that way -- but I do.

29 posted on 03/14/2008 11:19:20 PM PDT by TXnMA (Don't vote for McCain. Vote AGAINST the Democrats!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
[ A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is." ]

Well Duuuugh.. LoL..

30 posted on 03/15/2008 3:34:52 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
[ As far as we are able to measure, the behavior of the molecules in a volume of gas is predictably "random with a uniform distribution." ]

You say semantics I say pedegogy she says unpredictable..
BUZZ... shes more accurate.. When you dont know the full system you're teaching is random observation..

31 posted on 03/15/2008 3:45:55 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ping


32 posted on 03/15/2008 3:48:20 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


33 posted on 03/15/2008 5:46:21 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


34 posted on 03/15/2008 5:47:03 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
How about "Psalmist author wins prize for astronomy links to God"?

("The heavens proclaim the glory of God; the skies show forth His craftsmanship")?

There's no blasphemy in that.

35 posted on 03/15/2008 7:26:01 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"Charleston, bob*, boogie, boogie down*, bunny hop, caper, careen, cavort, conga, flit*, foot it*, foxtrot, frolic, gambol, get down*, hoof it*, hop, hustle, jig, jitter*, jitterbug, jive*, jump, leap, one-step, prance, promenade, rhumba, rock, sambo, shimmy, skip, spin, step, strut, sway, swing, tango, tap, tread, trip, truck, twist, two-step, waltz, whirl

Very good post. Your thoughts are poetic. Your Thesaurus, even, is poetic!

36 posted on 03/15/2008 7:30:11 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Beauty demands as much courage and decision as do truth and goodness," Hans Urs von Balthasar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TXnMA
Interesting! Thank you, both of you! ( I think I understood about 85% of it, with gusts of up to 90 )...

:o)

37 posted on 03/15/2008 7:37:23 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Beauty demands as much courage and decision as do truth and goodness," Hans Urs von Balthasar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop; IowaHawk; hosepipe; marron; metmom; curiosity
Milady, methinks ye be flexing your ego and gagging on semantics.

As Obama and his supporters are discovering in the Wright scandal - words have meaning. There is a price for carelessness even in a secular sense.

More importantly for us Christians, in a Spiritual sense, creating doubt in the minds of His little ones is a price no one can bear.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. - Matthew 12:36-37

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! - Matthew 18:6-7

You also said:

As far as we are able to measure, the behavior of the molecules in a volume of gas is predictably "random with a uniform distribution."

In your above statement "uniform distribution" is directly tied to "as far as we can measure." This is excellent because it suggests that science cannot measure the distribution of the molecules in the cosmos or across universes or dimensions - but for those volumes it can and has measured, the random distribution is uniform.

And your following paragraph praising God for it is a beautiful testimony for any who might otherwise be offended by such observations.

If other scientists would qualify their statements as you have, there would be no risk to the spiritually young and less contention with the spiritually mature. But obfuscation benefits the atheist agenda of Dawkins et al. So I will not hold my breath that they will speak as clearly as you - and instead will continue to counter their "spin" with the mantra:

One cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."

To God be the glory!

38 posted on 03/15/2008 9:25:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
A "random" event in nature is like that. We don't know what the system "is." What we really mean is that part we are observing is "unpredictable."

In science, chemistry for example, a random sample would be exactly like the next random sample, all the same and predictable to any degree you care to measure.

39 posted on 03/15/2008 9:30:14 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
40 posted on 03/15/2008 9:32:47 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom
As far as we are able to measure, the behavior of the molecules in a volume of gas is predictably "random with a uniform distribution."

"As far as we are able to measure" is the operative clause here TXnMA. Alamo-Girl acknowledges this; you gloss right over it, seeming to suggest that the universe itself is somehow the product of Brownian motion. But this is the very point A-G gets to with her observation that we cannot know for certain what is "random" in a system if we don't know what the system "is."

The ability to "measure" is the ability to directly observe. This is the heart of "the observer problem": As spatio-temporally located parts of the system that we observe, we are never in a position to observe "all of it." We can only see from where we happen to stand. Thus we cannot know what the total system "is" on the basis of observation in principle. We therefore have no reason to conclude that "what is" can be reduced to what can be measured.

But if we assume that reduction, we foreclose the possibility that the randomness we perceive may be a physical process manifesting a higher-order cause that is not perceptible, detectable by sense perception.

Do we really want to reduce the universe (and human knowledge) to what sense perception can report? In effect, this is to say that Man, not God, is "the Measure" of all things. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that not Man, but his five sensory "windows" on the world, are the "measure" of reality.

It seems to me that the "randomness" that God uses as a tool in nature (so to speak) is indispensable to growth, change, development, evolution. Without it, the creation -- the universe -- would be wholly static. But this is not to say that randomness means "pure, blind chance," as Jacques Monod maintains (along with Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin, Singer, et al.).

Ultimately, it seems to me that God's laws are guides to the system that operate on the random aspects of the system, in such a way as to constrain pure chance. Thus I think we need to see that the words "random" and "chance" are not synonyms, even though typically we speak of them as if they were.

Alamo-Girl is so right: We need to understand what "randomness" really means when we toss the word around in popular debates. In short, it seems to me before we start speaking about randomness and "chance," we ought to acknowledge that the observer problem is inextricably involved in whatever we say about the matter, and there is no single "privileged" human observer in the universe in a position to know the truth, because the sole observer of "all that there is" can only be God Himself.

In contrast, we humans see only partially, and "as if through a glass, darkly."

My two cents, FWIW.

41 posted on 03/15/2008 9:33:49 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
You are quite welcome, dear Mrs. Don-o!
42 posted on 03/15/2008 9:33:53 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
If the observation is qualified "as far as we are able to measure" - and if it is factually a "uniform distribution" - then there is no misleading.
43 posted on 03/15/2008 9:36:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

As far as you care to measure.


44 posted on 03/15/2008 9:40:30 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"We ought to acknowledge that the observer problem is inextricably involved in whatever we say about the matter, and there is no single "privileged" human observer in the universe in a position to know the truth, because the sole observer of "all that there is" can only be God Himself."

Seemingly obvious, and yet it's the key to all these epistomological puzzles.

We think we are "aloof" as "observers," and yet we are always trying to mint coins out of imagined gold, or wondering why we can't stare into our own eyes.

45 posted on 03/15/2008 9:44:18 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Whisper sweet words of epismetology in your ear and speak to you of the pompitous of love. S. Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for outstanding essay-post, dearest sister-in-Christ! And thank you for all of your encouragements!

Truly, it is important for everyone to understand the "observer problem" - but most especially, it is crucial for Christians to understand it. And convey it to others. As you said:

Do we really want to reduce the universe (and human knowledge) to what sense perception can report? In effect, this is to say that Man, not God, is "the Measure" of all things. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that not Man, but his five sensory "windows" on the world, are the "measure" of reality.

The consequence of acquiescing to this reduced worldview is the false supremacy of science as certain knowledge over all else - relegating Spiritual insight, philosophy, theology et al to footnotes.

We need to understand what "randomness" really means when we toss the word around in popular debates. In short, it seems to me before we start speaking about randomness and "chance," we ought to acknowledge that the observer problem is inextricably involved in whatever we say about the matter, and there is no single "privileged" human observer in the universe in a position to know the truth, because the sole observer of "all that there is" can only be God Himself.

In contrast, we humans see only partially, and "as if through a glass, darkly."

Indeed. As far as I can tell, at this moment in time, the most disturbing element in the crevo wars for Christians young and mature is "randomness." The more we can do to explicate the "observer problem" the better.

46 posted on 03/15/2008 9:58:37 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Indeed.
47 posted on 03/15/2008 10:01:03 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
the "observer problem"

Illusion. Nothing but parallax.

48 posted on 03/15/2008 10:01:54 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; betty boop
I will have no response to your philosophical cryptic remarks until you have finished your book and I've had an opportunity to read it. I need context to reply.
49 posted on 03/15/2008 10:12:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."

As we never will know any system in full, the best approach for most practical reasons is to assume randomness - and let the philosophers quibble about the difference between randomness and unpredictability....

50 posted on 03/15/2008 10:54:38 AM PDT by bezelbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson