Keith, I think one has to think of "truths" in two ways. There are truth, like
scientific truths, that are derived by reason and that can therefore be proved
or disproved by the application of reason, and there are faith based truths
that are unproveable and must therefore either be accepted or rejected as part
of a belief system. We will never know whether the universe has a purpose or
not. If you want to believe that it has, then it has. If you don't want to
belief that, well then it hasn't.
A few years ago, while doing some work for an NGO in Jamaica, I had a book by
Thomas Merton with me. On the matter of the universe and the reality of our
existence, Merton argued that you can take reason as far as you possibly can
but that you will eventually reach a boundary beyond which lies a vast unknown.
With reason, you can keep pushing that boundary outward, but the unknowable
will continue to be far, far larger than the knowable - we can't even begin to
know how large it is. Milton took a positive view of the unknowable,
suggesting it was the realm of God.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, ,EDUCATION
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:39 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Where's my consciousness?
A brilliant op-ed by a brilliant scientist appeared in the Los Angeles Times of
1 April. It suggests that we shouldn't be worried if the universe doesn't have
a purpose. It is headed "A universe without purpose" and is written by Lawrence
M. Krauss who heads the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He implies
that all good people (that is, sensible people, lay-people as well as
scientists) should be comfortable with the fact.
His key sentence is: "For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose,
and no creator, is unthinkable." Then, in the next paragraph, he leads off
with: "But science has taught us to think the unthinkable." Well . . . for one
thing, the sentence is self-contradictory. We cannot think about what we cannot
think about. For another, the main thing -- the only thing -- that science
teaches us is that whatever we may happen to believe now may, in fact, turn out
to be wrong.
In fact, belief in a particular scientific theory is no different in kind from
a particular religious belief. The only difference is time-scale. A particular
religious belief may last for generations or centuries or even millennia before
it is "disproved". It changes when the surrounding culture has become
sufficiently dissonant so that, usually, a chief spokesman (together with a
close-knit group surrounding him) announces a replacement belief or a
modification that sits more comfortably with the new culture. His flock usually
adopt the new belief pretty instantly or, sometimes, a maverick youngster
decides he wants to keep with the old "purity" and starts a new schism.
On the other hand, as soon as a scientific spokesman announces a new belief,
then other scientists will immediately try to devise a new culture (a
controlled experiment) which will seek to disprove it. If the experiment is
successful then the new belief is abandoned, or modified or it's substituted by
an even newer belief. The point is that the belief is usually challenged well
within the lifetime of the innovator. Science is a history of disproofs rather
than a grand revelation.
But, essentially, there's no difference between scientific belief and religious
belief. They are both seeking some sort of coherent explanation of the universe
and life -- almost exclusively human life in the case of religious belief. I
rather think that Richard Dawkins' life-long, over-aggressive arguments with
religious believers has done science, and evolutionary biology in particular, a
lot of damage.
As for me, I remain very uncomfortable that the universe may not have a
purpose, whether self-generated or initiated by something else. Until science
can come up with a testable theory that would adequately explain why I (at
least!) experience what we call consciousness and free-will and set them both
well within the modern culture of science -- quantum physics -- then I'm quite
happy with the belief that the universe might be designed beforehand or is
being designed now by one method or another. So far, quantum physics tells us
that the electrons in my brain that are producing personal experiences of
consciousness and free-will are also having simultaneous effects on electrons
somewhere elsewhere in the universe, even at its furthest ends -- if ends there
be. Might it also be the case that electrons elsewhere in the universe are
affecting those in my head? Where's my consciousness?
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
