<\/p>\n
Two weeks ago I got involved in a discussion with two local <\/p>\n Science and God, I am both fascinated and frustrated by the Mark asks about science and the brain whether there is any It might mean that in fact the brain manufactures Another possibility that fits the observed data: the brain Telling me this is just brain chemistry is making a Another possibility – consciousness is everywhere but needs Another possibility – consciousness is an emergent quality Of course a skeptic could reply that we cannot measure I have my problems with Deepak Chopra, and do not base my “Nobody What consciousness puzzling. Despite the we seem as far from ago.” <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n My point is that the certainty with which certain people Anyone who is well acquainted with the history of science But they also know it is a deeply human enterprise, and that
\nand very sharp “skeptics,” Mark and Paul, concerning science and religion. <\/span>The exchange took place in the Wacco Bulletin
\nBoard<\/a>, a wonderful local online communication media for Sonoma and Marin Counties
\nhere in California. <\/span>An online
\ndiscussion had gotten started on science and God<\/a>, and became dominated by some
\nimpassioned arguments from the atheistic side. <\/span>I sent in a reply, there was a
\nresponse, and I then made a second post, shifting from defense to offense, so to speak. <\/span>At this point
\nthe “skeptics” withdrew. <\/span>Either it
\nhad become too much work for them or I had “won” (to the extent such things are
\never won). T<\/span>he posts stand pretty well on their own and might prove useful to others involved
\nwith the more aggressive atheists.
\n<\/span>So I share. <\/span>Here is part I.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nsubject. <\/span>Since there is no
\nagreement about what God is, the debate seems to me in many ways a waste of
\ntime. <\/span>But because I do believe the
\nworld is much stranger than modern skeptics seem willing to grant, and have had
\nexperiences that fit spiritual explanations better than any physical one I have
\nyet encountered, I am annoyed by what seems to me undue certainty on their
\nside. <\/span>So I’ll add some comments.<\/p>\n
\nevidence consciousness exists apart from the brain. <\/span>There appears to be, (Dean Radin’s<\/a> <\/span>and Stephan Schwartz’s<\/a> <\/span>work are both highly suggestive. <\/span>David Bohm offers one (possible) way<\/a> to
\nfree consciousness from encapsulation within the narrow physical body from the
\nperspective of a leading physicist.) but let’s assume for the moment there isn’t. <\/span>What does that mean? <\/span><\/p>\n
\nconsciousness and when the brain goes, so does consciousness. <\/span>Might be true. <\/span>Based on my experiences I doubt it, but
\nit might.<\/p>\n
\ntranslates consciousness into dealing with this particular reality. <\/span>It “filters” it, to use Aldous Huxley’s
\nterminology<\/a>. <\/span>If the brain is akin to a TV and
\nconsciousness to the signal, the condition of the TV has a huge impact on the
\nway the signal is received, but the TV is not the signal. <\/span>Is it true? <\/span>Damned if I know, but it fits some of my conscious
\nexperiences better than the first hypothesis. <\/span>If I had not had those experiences I might not be so
\nintrigued by the argument, but I have.<\/p>\n
\nfundamental logical error. <\/span>It is
\none thing to say phenomena cannot violate laws of physics. <\/span>It is another thing to say they are
\npredicted by those laws. <\/span>Stuart
\nKauffman goes into this issue in depth in his work – without invoking anything
\nthat could be called supernatural.<\/p>\n
\nphysical means to make an impact on the physical world. <\/span>In the absence of life – defined for
\nthe moment as when metabolism occurs and so it is possible to respond to the
\nenvironment in ways that make it possible to succeed or fail – there is no way
\nfor consciousness to act on the environment. <\/span>Consciouness is universal but needs bodies to act in a
\nphysical way. <\/span>This seems to me to
\nfit a number of theistic models, but not a traditional Protestant Christian
\none.<\/p>\n
\nin the sense that it cannot be predicted from a reductive model of
\nphenomena. <\/span>Stuart Kauffmann of the
\nSanta fe Institute has done very interesting work<\/a> in this area, and Kauffman suggests a strictly scientific theory about the issue. <\/span>Kauffman does research and publishes in
\nthe natural sciences. <\/span>It might be
\nthat emergent phenomena can ultimately be reduced to simpler components, but we
\nhave no means currently of doing so or even any very clear means for going
\nabout it. <\/span>If emergent phenomena
\nexist then something like Teilhard de Chardin’s conception of deity<\/a> is possible. <\/p>\n
\nconsciousness outside the body.
\n<\/span>But we cannot measure it inside the body either. <\/span>What we can measure are physical
\ncorrelates. <\/span>For most of human
\nhistory radiation could not be measured.
\n<\/span>Does that mean it did not exist until Geiger counters were
\ninvented? <\/span>How do we know that
\nother phenomena does NOT exist that we cannot yet measure? Again, it is the
\nabsolute certainty of the skeptics – their deeply unskeptical attitude – that bothers
\nme.<\/p>\n
\narguments on his, but his quote l<\/a>
\nfrom John Maddox, former editor of Nature, seems well chosen to make this
\nparticular point:<\/p>\n
\nunderstands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nconsists of, or how it should be defined, is equally<\/span><\/p>\n
\nmarvelous success of neuroscience in the past century,<\/span><\/p>\n
\nunderstanding cognitive processes as we were a century<\/span><\/p>\n
\nmake claims based on “science” seems way overblown. <\/span>A little humility when talking about ultimate questions
\nwould be in good order. <\/span>Compared
\nto the competition, science is good at winnowing out bad theories. <\/span>I think it has eliminated a number of
\npopular images of God from serious consideration. <\/span>But that falls far short of eliminating all theories of a
\nhigher dimension of conscious reality not arising from and limited to physical
\nmetabolisms.<\/p>\n
\nknows that it is the best way we have ever discovered as a species for
\nunderstanding the nature of physical reality, that is, that reality which we
\ncan explore using measurement, prediction, and experiment. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nmeans that in the short run -sometimes a very long short run – it can be
\nblinded by people’s commitments to their theories and assumptions about the
\nvery nature of reality. <\/span>In 1912
\nAlfred Wegner had found enormous evidence that some continents were once joined
\nand drifted apar<\/a>t. <\/span>His theories were dismissed, the
\nevidence he gave ignored or reinterpreted, because no one could find a
\nmechanism that enabled continents to move. <\/span>Once they did, the field of geology was transformed and
\nWegner’s evidence accepted. <\/span>The
\nevidence was the same but the context in which it was evaluated changed. Some
\nof this evidence had been correctly interpreted (in retrospect) as early as
\n1596, and took over 350 years to be accepted.<\/p>\n