I don't think that a rigorous proof of how evolution works would be all that
earth-shaking. Most openly non-scientific religions have had much experience at
simply ignoring such proofs and the more liberal religions have found ways to
co-exist with science ("Maybe God used evolution to create the world". In my
own religion (Unitarian-Universalism) sermons that mention God usually include
formulations such as "God, as you understand the term". Buddhism does not
require a belief in God.
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of George Duncan
<gtdun...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:44:18 PM
To: Stephen Guerin; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Proofs of God?
By
Jeremy England
Oct. 12, 2017 6:29 p.m. ET
311
COMMENTS<https://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-brown-cant-cite-me-to-disprove-god-1507847369#comments_sector>
I recently learned that I play a role in Dan Brown’s new novel, “Origin.” Mr.
Brown writes that Jeremy England, an MIT physics professor, “was currently the
toast of Boston academia, having caused a global stir” with his work on
biophysics. The description is flattering, but Mr. Brown errs when he gets to
the meaning of my research. One of his characters explains that my literary
doppelgänger may have “identified the underlying physical principle driving the
origin and evolution of life.” If the fictional Jeremy England’s theory is
right, the suggestion goes, it would be an earth-shattering disproof of every
other story of creation. All religions might even become obsolete.
It would be easy to criticize my fictional self’s theories based on Mr. Brown’s
brief description, but it would also be unfair. My actual
research<http://www.englandlab.com/publications.html> on how lifelike behaviors
emerge in inanimate matter is widely available, whereas the Dan Brown
character’s work is only vaguely described. There’s no real science in the book
to argue over.
My true concern is with my double’s attitude in the book. He is a prop for a
billionaire futurist whose mission is to demonstrate that science has made God
irrelevant. In that role, Jeremy England says he is just “trying to describe
the way things ‘are’ in the universe” and that he “will leave the spiritual
implications to the clerics and philosophers.”
Two years ago I wrote in Commentary magazine that it is impossible simply to
describe “the way things are” without first making the significant choice of
what language to speak in. The language of physics can be extremely useful in
talking about the world, but it can never address everything that needs to be
said about human life. Equations can elegantly explain how an airplane stays in
the air, but they cannot convey the awe someone feels when flying above the
clouds. I’m disappointed in my fictional self for being so blithely
uninterested in what lies beyond the narrow confines of his technical field.
I’m a scientist, but I also study and live by the Hebrew Bible. To me, the idea
that physics could prove that the God of Abraham is not the creator and ruler
of the world reflects a serious misunderstanding—of both the scientific method
and the function of the biblical text.
Science is an approach to common experience. It addresses what is objectively
measurable by inventing models that summarize the world’s partial
predictability. In contrast, the biblical God tells Moses at the burning bush:
“I will be what I will be.” He is addressing the uncertainty the future brings
for all. No prediction can ever fully answer the question of what will happen
next.
Humans will always face a choice about how to react to the unknowable future.
Encounters between God and the Hebrew prophets are often described in terms of
covenants, partly to emphasize that seeing the hand of God at work starts with
a conscious decision to view the world a certain way.
Consider someone who assumes that all existence is the work of a creator who
speaks through the events of the world. He can follow that assumption down the
road and decide whether God seems to be keeping his side of the bargain. Many
of us live like this and feel that with time our trust in him has been
affirmed. There’s no scientific argument for this way of drawing meaning from
experience. But there’s no way science could disprove it either, because it is
outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Some religious adherents do make claims that deserve to be disputed by science.
For instance, they may openly acknowledge that their deepest beliefs are
incompatible with the existence of dinosaurs. The fictional me—and perhaps Mr.
Brown too—might hope to put these holdouts back on their heels. But disputes
like this never answer the most important question: Do we need to keep learning
about God? For my part, in light of everything I know, I am certain that we do.
Mr. England is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Appeared in the October 13, 2017, print edition.
George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com<http://georgeduncanart.com/>
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
luminous chaos.
"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then
be a valuable delusion."
>From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power."
Joanna Macy.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Guerin
<redfishgroup...@gmail.com<mailto:redfishgroup...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Do you have a non paywall copy?
On Oct 13, 2017 12:32 PM, "George Duncan"
<gtdun...@gmail.com<mailto:gtdun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Following up on a FRIAM discussion this morning at St John's College: Truth
comes in various guises. Jeremy England recognizes this.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-brown-cant-cite-me-to-disprove-god-1507847369
George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com<http://georgeduncanart.com/>
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895<tel:(505)%20983-6895>
Mobile: (505) 469-4671<tel:(505)%20469-4671>
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
luminous chaos.
"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then
be a valuable delusion."
>From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power."
Joanna Macy.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
