David,
I was going to stop this. I promised myself. I'll try not to make it too
long...
>The complete and formal definition of energy a quantum physicist ...
>
>Not in the least! This is completely wrong, I'm afraid.
>
>Nothing has changed in the definition since the 18th century.
OK, I stand corrected. What about gravity, then?
>In fact, with comments about "evolving social constructions" of what
>terms in science mean, I'd say you're sounding dangerously close to
>the proponents of the deconstructivism view of science in the
>so-called 'science wars'. :-)
I am not sure what deconstructivism is. However, I am pretty sure that I
don't subscribe to the view I think you think I subscribe to. This is a
fascinating subjec to get into more deeply, but not now.
>Let the cold sword of experiment and mathematics be one's
>bullshit-sensor; nothing else is nearly as effective.
I fully agree with you.
>That sensor is
>the sole source of science's power and insight.
I partly agree with you. Science has to get the theories from somewhere
that are expressed in mathematics and tested by experiment.
>Ah! So what is that definition?
I don't know! That is what I am hoping to work toward!
You say you value non-verbal creativity. You have to get from the
non-verbal to the verbal and then to the formal somehow, and it helps to
talk about it with smart people -- but only if you're not afraid of being
squashed because the metaphors you're using evoke the wrong images in them,
and they conclude you're a muddle-brained nonscientific idiot. I find that
many people who call themselves religious are *afraid* to talk about it to
scientists. So they talk among themselves, but they never go beyond
talking in metaphors, and they remain uneasy at not being able to integrate
their religious beliefs with their scientific understanding. Also,
communication is very difficult when no one knows what anyone else is
really saying.
>In passing, please note that there is a huge distinction between
>spirituality and some monotheistic God...
Agreed. Is there any way we could frame the question "Is the One God
hypothesis correct?" in a way that could be approached scientifically?
>It is extreme hubris to imagine that we can safely throw away the
>accumulated wisdom of humanity when setting our priors.
>>>>
>
>On the contrary, it is extreme credulity to ascribe any significance
>at all to "the accumulated wisdom of humanity".
>
>Said 'wisdom' has included the flat earth...
Yes, that's why we need science.
By "accumulated wisdom" I was talking of what Aldous Huxley calls the
"Perennial Philosophy," which he identifies as the common esoteric core
underlying the wildly divergent exoteric manifestations of the world's
religious systems. I don't think it's "right" by any means. But it
strikes me that if there are common elements to traditions that arose
separately and were largely insulated from each other, then those common
elements might represent something fundamental.
The perennial philosophy might be a starting point in developing a formal
theory one could evaluate and refine.
>I'd say that if something is adhered to by the vast majority of
>humans, it's almost a reason to assign it a *low* prior.
But only a tiny fraction of people appreciate the esoteric core of any
religious/spiritual system. In most systems there is a long and arduous
training process in which one works with a mentor or teacher or guru to
attain the deeper understanding that goes beyond the surface rituals and
cultural practices.
>Kathryn, certainly in the US, nothing has "died down"...
>This is why I find it to be downright dangerous to use terms like
>"God" loosely, to apply to things other than those "straw men" -
>because those straw men are on the loose.
Oh, but I don't want the term God to continue to be co-opted by adherents
of these straw men!
>We accord this respect to science - and no other field - not because
>the scientific priesthood has us hoodwinked, or because we trust
>science's *conclusions* per se. But because we trust the field's
>*methodology* so thoroughly.
And that's why I'm interested in whether there is any scientific way to
address the question of whether there is a God, and if so, what God is
like.
>Anyone willing to put such trust in the "methodology" of personal
>religious revelation?
Absolutely not! My own "personal revelations," for example, are more often
utter nonsense than profoundly wise. Nevertheless, if I don't let the
nonsense frighten me, and if I work on trying to tease out the underlying
nugget of truth, I often find that pursuing something in the general
direction of what I felt was "revealed" is well worth the effort. There
have also been times when I've given up a "revelation" as nonsense, only to
find that someone later publishes something remarkably close to my
"revelation."
Consider the dilemma I faced (and to a degree, continue to face). I had
this experience which felt profound and seemed to be encouraging me to
change my life. If I "believed it" (i.e., adopted as an assumption of my
working model that God really did talk to me, whatever that meant), I was
energized and enthusiastic and found myself making a difference in the
world. If I "believed" it was "just a hallucination," I tended to get
depressed and lose energy and have difficulty believing in myself or
performing. Please don't misunderstand me -- it's not that I was looking
for a parent figure or for God to tell me what to do. But the gestalt that
went with that experience, and to a lesser extent, to other experiences
since then, was so beautiful and harmonious and meaningful, that it was
difficult to find any meaning for my life if I dismissed it as "just
neurochemistry."
But as a scientist, I detest self-delusion.
As a pragmatic matter, if I choose to place my faith in the reality (in
some sense yet to be determined) of my conversation with God, I am happy
and effective and do good things, and I get those spontaneous hugs from
students telling them how much I mean to them. If I place my faith in
drug-induced hallucination, I'm too depressed to carry out this mission I
believe is a figment of my imagination. As a scientist, I will keep an
open mind about what "really happened." But I have chosen to adopt as a
working hypothesis, cognizant that it is only a working hypothesis, that
what happened to me was something more than neurochemistry due to drugs.
For me, this is my personal answer to Bruce's question of how I shall live
my life.
Kathy
