BRAVO, Brad. That's one he ...aven of an extended metaphor!

And teen pop idol, Tiffany, sings ethereally:

Still, what could've been
is much better than
what could never be at all

Yes, only jboy could turn a schmaltzy pop tune into a Thomistic Anthem, but, in all seriousness, that's what those words always represented to me ... possible being and impossible being in a dance with Necessary Being ... oh, and of course, it also represented, vis a vis Shakespeare's better to have loved and lost - all the girls I've loved before, who've travelled in and out life's doors; I'm glad they came along; that's why I wrote this song ... oh, never mind

Heck, Thomas Aquinas has been so busy channeling me that I cannot keep up with what I've posted and what I haven't. I think this is new:

In an engaging essay, Roots and Fruits of Quantum Physics, Metanexus: Views 2003.03.28, V. V. Raman wrote: "While creativity and imagination should never make us hesitate to embark on new ways of looking at the world or even considering outrageous notions, it is also important to remember that the roots of physics are instruments, clearly defined concepts, and testable theories. When we stray too far from these, we may be transported into metaphysical musings which have little meaningful consequences. Even if they happen to be formulated on high-powered mathematics, worldviews which are immune to the scientific criteria for truth and falsehood, may be no more than scholastic sophistry, and that is not exactly part of science. The roots of scientific theories are as important as their fruits."

I wholeheartedly agree and would like to more heavily nuance what these roots might be and how and why they might be fecund even when growing in very different ontological grounds.

Some have described the Lakatosian research program, such as adapted by Nancey Murphy, such as I have so often invoked and intoned in my mnemonic script of coherence (internal), consistency (logical), congruence (external), consilience (interdisciplinary) and consonance (both hypothetical and cognitive), as a minimalist science. My recollection is that Gregory Peterson did this last year in a Zygon article, for instance, setting it in contrast to a Popperian maximalist science.

Now, insofar as I pretty much reject any insufficiently nuanced NOMA thesis, because, for one thing, it leads almost algorithmically to the naturalistic fallacy, which I don�t buy, it seems that the Lakatosian approach more so makes for a maximalist metaphysics and is a good tool to use when researchers "as philosophers" are dealing with that body of indirect evidence that supports such claims as can never be empirically demonstrable due to systematic constraints. Such systematic constraints, for example, might derive from presuppositions of ontological discontinuity and would deal with such matters as tacit dimensionality, formal and nonenergetic causation and perhaps even some physical anomalies, including the paranormal.

This would be contrasted with the use of a Lakatosian approach as a minimalist science, which I do believe can be useful, when dealing with that body of indirect evidence that results from methodological rather than systematic constraints, which may one day be elucidated by direct evidence leading to empirical proofs.

Still, I know this line of demarcation doesn't leave the physical versus metaphysical areas of convergence and overlap neat and tidy, at least not just yet, for when we are dealing with indirect evidence we are engaging reality at the level of inference and inferences, as we know from both religion and science, can be quite compelling. They can become increasingly compelling when the bodies of indirect evidence supporting them survive ever more rigorous statistical analysis. The degrees to which an inference may seem compelling and the amount of rigor available in any given statistical analysis exist, of course, on a continuum. However, I still think we can tidy this junction up. Let me try to set forth some concrete examples.

In the field of medicine, indirect evidence and inferences abound. Still, is it not clear that the inexplicability of today�s pharmaceutical efficacies result from methodological constraints while, contrastingly, the efficacies of subtle energy manipulations result from systematic constraints derived from ontological presuppositions as can never be empirically demonstrated in principle?

As in the fields of biochemistry and biophysics above, in physics, is it not clear that Bohm�s implicate order results from similar systematic constraints while the inexplicability of nonlocality, superluminality and various simultaneities could, in principle, one day yield to superstring theory ? So, too, in biology with Sheldrake�s morphic resonances and morphogenetic fields, which can be distinguished from notions of irreducibile complexity, the former never to be empirically demonstrable and the latter yielding, more fully one day, perhaps, to better understood coevolutinary processes? In psychology, Jung�s synchronicity and other psychic phenomena explained immaterially, when grounded in an a priori ontological discontinuity, gather indirect evidence on an entirely different order from the empirical side of modern neurochemistry, this notwithstanding the intractable "hard problem" of consciousness. Even in the sociology of economics, Soros� ideas of indeterminacy and reflexivity cannot, in principle, meet the scientific criterion for predictability though it seems to be an indispensable explanatory idea, to borrow a phrase from Jack Haught in his own Polanyian consideration of extraneous causation (in addition to the mechanical and energetic causes operative in the biosphere), morphogenetically active but energetically passive, remaining, therefore, unspecifiable by science.

All of the above is just to suggest that although there is a nexus where both physics and metaphysics seem to dwell together in the empirical methodologies of indirect evidence gathering and statistical analyses, these disciplines properly diverge when sufficiently nuanced according to their respective built-in systematic constraints. Methodologically we encounter intrinsic limits that can be eventually transcended by growth processes, at least, in principle. Systematically we encounter extrinsic boundaries that are impassable no matter how expansive our intrinsic limits become.

None of this is to suggest , however, that the inferences that can be drawn from indirect evidence in philosophy are any less compelling than those that can be drawn in science or vice versa. And that�s the rub. The thing is, I think we can all be more clear about when it is we are doing science and when it is we are engaged in philosophy or metaphysics. None of this speaks directly to the issue of a privileged epistemology either. Some bodies of indirect evidence result from methodological constraints, some from systematic constraints. Both types of indirect evidence have yielded very compelling inferences, many of great existential import to humankind. An outright rejection of inferences drawn from indirect evidence would toss out, not just all of metaphysics, but much of modern science. Any decision to keep those of science because they are pregnant with a future promise of empirical demonstrability while abandoning those of metaphysics, which may give birth only eschatologically, is essentially arbitrary and must be grounded in philosophy. Like I said, let�s be clear. Why, otherwise, should any inferences drawn from any indirect evidence ever be accepted, especially once considering that the empirical measurement and statistical analysis methodologies are often the same?

What humankind finds compelling, in the way of inferences drawn from the indirect evidence of physics or of metaphysics, is not just an exercise in cold deductive logic drawn from axiomatic presuppositions and essentialistic propositions. Why we find this or that body of indirect evidence more or less compelling is largely and profoundly influenced by post-experiential reflection and inductive logic drawn from concrete human experience and existential orientations. If this is true in science, then how much more true this is going to be in religion. If this is true in physics, which has immense practical consequences (think of gravity and apple trees), then it is more so true in metaphysics, which has enormous existential import (think of serpents and apple trees).

So, we shouldn't�t be surprised at the tenacity of the inferences drawn from cosmological, ontological, teleological, epistemological and moral bodies of indirect evidence for an Unmoved Mover, a Necessary Being, an Intelligent Designer, the Ground of Meaning, Absolute Truth or an Eternal Lawgiver or at how compelling these inferences have been down through the centuries and so remain. As core and auxiliary hypotheses, they clearly meet the Lakatosian criteria that I like to apply to a maximalist metaphysic. Neither should we be surprised at how compelling the inferences are as drawn from bodies of indirect evidence in medical science, particularly in the field of pharmaceuticals and more especially, perhaps, in the inexplicable efficacies of many psychoactive drugs, meeting as they do the Lakatosian criteria that can be applied to a minimalist science.

What continues to surprise me, however, are attempts to facilely collapse a maximalist metaphysics into a minimalist science (and vice versa) when they are two clearly different enterprises. This is perhaps most evident in recent attempts to scientize Intelligent Design Theory. However, it is no less surprising, to me, when Darwinian theory attempts to go beyond a minimalist science to philosophize materialism. IDT thus degenerates into a fideism and philosophical Darwinism into a scientism. They become, respectively, a theology of nature and a philosophy of nature. Nothing wrong with that except when their proponents make disingenuous disclaimers to the contrary. A natural theology, as contrasted with a theology of nature, does not confuse its metaphysics with physics, but for many good reasons, can accept the inferences drawn from bodies of indirect evidence and sort them out as more or less compelling, based on the shared criteria of the Lakatosian research program.

Dr. Raman wrote: "Reflective thinkers, perceptive poets, awakened mystics, simple people, and thoughtful scientists: all whose hearts are touched by the majesty of the starry heavens and the joy of love, have always recognized that that there is more to human experience than gross matter, ordered laws, and cerebral interactions with these, and that the Ultimate will for ever be a realm for research, or remain a mystery. It is not clear that we need to drag in quantum mechanics to reinforce this insight."

And to that I add Amen. And I think we should include implicate order, morphic resonance and intelligent design in a converse fashion, which is to say that they should not be drug from metaphysics into physics, even if I don't mean to say that they will necessarily lack in hypothetical fecundity providing indispensable explanatory ideas and increasingly compelling inferences from such a body of evidence as could be ever more rigorously analyzed statistically. Such inferences, however, will not ever approach empirical demonstrability, even asymptotically, gathered as they are on a different plane of existence, rooted as they are in different grounds of being, one maybe even primal. Who knows? Mysticism thus perdures.

pax,
jb

Yes, only jboy could turn a schmaltzy pop tune into a Thomistic Anthem

So let me get this straight. You're using today's pop stars as an argument FOR intelligent design in the universe? I sure hope that fever comes down soon, JB.

BTW, love that Willie Shakespeare song.

FEVER Fever when you hold me tight FEVER !! Fever all through the night . . .

Oh, sorry guys

We just haven't had much female company around these parts in a while.

So, too, in biology with Sheldrake�s morphic resonances and morphogenetic fields, which can be distinguished from notions of irreducibile complexity, the former never to be empirically demonstrable

Just a thought. Have fractals been explained? Would this not be suggestive of morphogenetic fields (or whatever)?

Any decision to keep those of science because they are pregnant with a future promise of empirical demonstrability while abandoning those of metaphysics, which may give birth only eschatologically, is essentially arbitrary and must be grounded in philosophy.

I'm quite sure them is fightin' words in some quarters.

What humankind finds compelling, in the way of inferences drawn from the indirect evidence of physics or of metaphysics, is not just an exercise in cold deductive logic drawn from axiomatic presuppositions and essentialistic propositions. Why we find this or that body of indirect evidence more or less compelling is largely and profoundly influenced by post-experiential reflection and inductive logic drawn from concrete human experience and existential orientations.

Something must be wrong with me. I understand that and I don't know why it spurs the following thoughts. Like I've said before, it's really remarkable what science has discovered and made possible, but equally incredible is the peace one finds sitting near a babbling brook. Science ISN'T everything. And like you said in the beginning of your post (I think), we must be sure not to play science with things that aren't scientific in character. But science must also know its own boundaries and I get the impression from you that it doesn't always. We all like to play with our little thought experiments and perhaps none of them have any grounding in reality EXCEPT if you consider that our mental functions ARE reality in a sense. Quantum physics and Chopra (and many others) believe that our thoughts have a very real effect on reality.

Oh�I see Raman beat me to some of this. Oh well.

Okay, JB. You've seemed to have done a great job of outlining what we can talk about and how we should talk about it (which I will probably quickly abuse anyway), so how about some practical examples of intelligent design? Other than the cellular stuff you mentioned, what else seems to need ID to explain it?

We just haven't had much female company around these parts in a while.

You do know we're talking about Intelligent Design, doncha?

Oh, geez, I'm sure to be in trouble now.

FEVER Fever when you hold me tight FEVER !! Fever all through the night . . . Oh, sorry guys

w.c. , you know we appreciate ya

but, if you don't mind, keep your kundalini musings in the proper forum, will ya?

re: So, too, in biology with Sheldrake�s morphic resonances and morphogenetic fields, which can be distinguished from notions of irreducibile complexity, the former never to be empirically demonstrable

Just a thought. Have fractals been explained? Would this not be suggestive of morphogenetic fields (or whatever)?

If it weren't for the fact that I am time travelling and arrived here from 2525, then I would have already explicated all of holographic reality. OOOPS - I see where there was a leak at url = Dionysian Triad Fractals and Epistemological Holism in an Integrative Methodology for Science and Theology - a constructive postmodern approach using a pre-modern mystagogy

re: Any decision to keep those of science because they are pregnant with a future promise of empirical demonstrability while abandoning those of metaphysics, which may give birth only eschatologically, is essentially arbitrary and must be grounded in philosophy.

I'm quite sure them is fightin' words in some quarters.

It might have better been written: Any decision to keep those of science because they are pregnant with a future promise of empirical demonstrability while abandoning those of metaphysics, which may give birth only eschatologically, is essentially arbitrary and, despite claims to the contrary, just so happens to be grounded philosophically.

This would further reinforce the bone of contention. Yes, it is the crux of the matter.

Okay, JB. You've seemed to have done a great job of outlining what we can talk about and how we should talk about it (which I will probably quickly abuse anyway), so how about some practical examples of intelligent design? Other than the cellular stuff you mentioned, what else seems to need ID to explain it?

Go to http://www.metanexus.org/index.html and type in as search terms: bacterial flagellum or William Dembski or Urusla Goodenough .

This was a good exchange, too:

165: Intelligent Design Theory Revisited

Metaviews 165. 1999/12/16. Approximately 2006 words.

Below are four messages in response to William Dembski and Michael Behe. All deal with Intelligent Design Theory and the question of Emergence. Paul Arveson writes to quote the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) in defense of emergence and complexity theory. George Murphy writes to also raise theological questions about Intelligent Design Theory. R. Sollod writes to urge that we not vilify alchemy. Finally, Bill Bruehl writes to advocate religious naturalism, in contrast to theistic transcendentalism in response to Michael Behe.

-- Billy Grassie

From: "Paul Arveson" <bridges@his.com> Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] Metaviews 158: Alchemy and the Emergence of Complex Systems, by Wm. Dembski

Dr. Dembski:

For a long time I was of your opinion, that "emergence" is simply a word for our ignorance before we had clear and distinct ideas about processes. It was analogous to a term like "protoplasm" before DNA was discovered.

However, having read about complexity theory, I concluded that indeed there is a physical substrate for what was ignorantly called "emergence", although we don't know how to fully elucidate it yet. However, we have all the necessary ingredients to conclude that special extra-physical principles such as "intelligent design" are not necessary to account for what happens in one part of the universe as opposed to any other part. The general reason is that matter is a lot richer substrate that we have given it credit for. Dust is far from nothing.

Much has to do with how we define our terms. Recently I asked Paul Nelson how he would define "chance" or "random" matter. He suggested a pile of leaves lying on the ground. But of course, if I look at a dead leaf through a microscope, I will see vistas of complex order. I don't know that one can find an example of randomness that involves actual matter.

Gratuity, the principle that Monod elucidated to illustrate the way matter can form unconstrained new levels of order, is another way in which to deal with the "alchemy" accusation that you posit. I wrote an article on this which will be published in the Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences in the near future.

Incidentally, none of this has any necessary linkage to the question of God's existence. Most theists believe that God operates in many ways in the creation, as for example was carefully stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge, and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

Paul Arveson

From: George Murphy <"gmurphy@raex.com"@raex.com> Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 158: Alchemy and the Emergence of Complex Systems, by Wm. Dembski

William Dembski wrote:
>
> "...there's reason to think that alchemy is staging a comeback within
> science. Of course, it's not called alchemy. Instead, it's referred
> to as 'the emergence of complex systems.' Now it is perfectly true
> that complex systems emerge from simple systems (e.g., the spiral
> structures of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction). But unless the
> process by which a complex system emerges from simpler systems is
> specified, emergence remains an empty word. In this essay I argue
> that a significant proportion (though I wouldn't say a majority) of
> what is called 'the emergence of complex systems' is alchemy by
> another name."

This column is a cogent criticism of those who explain the origin of life &/or consciousness simply by quoting the phrase "the emergence of complex systems." The phrase itself, as Dembski points out, has no "causal specificity." But his criticism leaves quite untouched those who understand "emergence of complex systems" as simply an abbreviation for a research program to deal scientifically with those difficult problems.

We can ask, in turn, if "intelligent design" has the causal specificity needed to explain the origin of life &/or consciousness. The answer is "Yes" since no limitation is placed on the intelligence or power of the "designer". I.e., you can explain anything you wish by an appeal to omniscience or omnipotence - which in fact is what is being done, since "intelligent designer" is just an alias for the God of traditional philosophical theism.

& of course those who believe in God as creator are committed to saying that life & consciousness _are_ the result of God's activity. But for those like myself who believe that God normally works through natural processes, that simply means that we will begin again to look for the processes through which God may have worked to do these things, of which "emergence of complex systems" is one promising candidate. Theologia naturalis delenda est! George

George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

From: "r.sollod" Subject: What is alchemy

Let's not vilify alchemy. The alchemists represented an esoteric spiritual tradition in which the transformation of lead into gold was a metaphor for the transformation of a person into a more highly evolved (today we would say enlightened or maybe "self-actualized" human being"). Even some Christian mystics used alchemical metaphors in their writings, but for the most part, the alchemists were operating outside of the Churcha and risking persecution from it. The characterization of alchemy in some of the previous comments misses any real understanding of the purpose of the alchemical endeavor. Let's not knock alchemy!

Subject: IDT From: bruehl@juno.com

"For the materialists, it is a case of believing that physical laws unfold deterministically or algorithmically throughout time." says Behe.

I'd like to respond to Behe's review of Haught's book "God After Darwin" He continues to recite the old arguments for both sides: IDT vs Not.But when you come down to it his position rests on pure Faith. As does the other side which I am on. It is a matter of Faith on both sides of the argument. You can marshall all the scientific data on Earth and it will still be a matter of Faith. Neither position can be absolutely established. So Behe says, "All we need is data that makes it "easily recognizable."

"Intelligent design," he says, "is easily recognizable in the specified complexity of the coherent sentence, in the information carried by the ink marks on paper which transcends the laws of physics and chemistry while nonetheless obeying them. So, too, is intelligent design recognizable in DNA and the structures it specifies, such as, say, the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum which I discussed in Darwin's Black Box. " "Easily recognizable"? Really? Not to me. To me these examples exhibit only the Faith of their author that an intelligent designer exists. Nothing else.

There is another way to think about this that never seems to get discussed. It does not resolve the debate, so I offer it as just another candidate for discussing the process of a developing universe. It seems to me that the universe and everything in it is the product of the dynamics of spontaneity. When you look at something which is the product of the dynamics of spontaneity you might well think it was planned from the beginning. It wasn't.

Much of the art of the Modernist Movement was unplanned and spontaneous. Jazz improvisations are characteristically spontaneous. Most cities are the products of spontaneous dynamics. Most were not planned. Giant ant hills, ditto. No. They do not have licensed architects. There is an ancient tradition of spontaneously creating songs and dances. I'd wager that 99% of our conversations between one another are spontaneous. The development of a forest is spontaneous. The development of a storm is spontaneous. The theory of planetary development is an example of spontaneous dynamics. All this is in the new work of chaos theory. The dynamics of spontaneity are everywhere.

And it is important to note that not all spontaneous acts are successful. Not every improv works. Some are not *selected* to thrive. If we go back to a point near the beginning, to a point sometime after the Great Radiance we find that the Little Bits of incipient energy bumped and jostled each other for X thousand years before the energy stuff cooled enough to start making matter. All those early spontaneous bumps and collisions that took place in the early hot time failed to work.

Then the energy stuff cooled to a point that brought this universe into being. We can imagine the negative little bits and the positive little bits coming together. When they did they formed hydrogen, according to some, the very hydrogen we drink when we drink water, the hydrogen that helps form our bodies.

But so what? Suppose both sides are satisfied with my candidate "Spontaneous Dynamics"? The question of how the Great Radiance began still lies there unresolved.. And it has not been resolved empirically. It is a matter of faith.

My Faith is that IT - The Great Power - The Magnificient Mystery
is all in this system, this Great Cosmic Dance of Energy and Matter, in every piece of it. And no where else because there is no where else. There is no beyond. There is only That Which Is.

The Beginnings and the Endings are all in the system. So my God is All That Is and we share a little piece of that Divinity. Sharing doesn't make us Divine but it makes everything that is in the energy/matter system share in the Sacred. We even say that about human life. It is sacred. But then so are all the other children of Earth and Universe. If we and all our Earth relatives are sacred we must take good care of ourselves, our relatives, and all our material things.

But then someone asks, "How about the bad things?" What "bad things"? I don't see any "bad things" except some of the behaviors humans do. Apart from humans I certainly don't see any "badness" at all in the universe. If "bad" has something to do with the great destructive events in the Universe like tornados or Supernovas, get a new word. The Hindus did. They call it "Kali", the fearsome goddess who dances her dance of creation out of her thunderous stomping destruction.

And that is exactly what goes on. Out of the explosion of the Great Radiance came matter which developed into stars, out of the explosions of stars came the stuff we are. Out of an enormous collision of a comet or meteor in the Yucatan probably came the destruction of the great lizards and new niches for the development of mammals even unto our own time and selves.

The only part of the universe that is bad is confined to human behaviors. We are also that part of the universe which is not indifferent. The rest of IT -unless there are more like us - is totally indifferent. ...except in so far that it is all about relationship which is what gives the push to the spontaneous dynamic.

It has been relationship from the beginning: the relationship of the electron to the proton. The relationship of gravity to dust to galaxy to galaxy, of stars to galaxy, of planet to star, of creatures to planet, of creatures to each other, etc. It is in the operation of relationship that we will find cooperation, collaboration, love. Caritas.

So, finally. We can and probably will, continue to argue and snarl about a universe that waited some billions of years just to see us come along, a universe willed into being just to go to the trouble of making homo sapiens, or we can believe everything we need is in the system; that the system does it all. Either way, both sides will find everything they need, and either way, it is a matter of Faith. And either way we will be The Universe Aware of Itself.

Bill Bruehl

Footer information below last updated: 1999/12/10.

Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service dedicated to promoting the constructive engagement of science and religion. Subscriptions are free. For more information, including archives and submission guidelines, go to <http://www.meta-list.org>.

There are now four separate meta-lists to which you can subscribe: is commentaries and bookreviews posted three to five times per week. is announcements and news and is posted as frequently as needed. is a monthly digest. is a higher volume discussion list which is lightly moderated. You can subscribe to one or all of the meta-lists.

If you would like to unsubscribe or change your subscription options, simply go to <http://www.meta-list.org> and follow the links to subscribe or unsubscribe. Note that all subscription changes entered on the web forms, requires your confirmation by email.

Copyright 1999, 2000 by William Grassie. Copies of this internet posting may be made and distributed in whole without further permission. Credit: "This information was circulated on the Meta Lists on Science and Religion <http://www.meta-list.org>."

Dembski: But unless the process by which a complex system emerges from simpler systems is specified, emergence remains an empty word.

LOL. Now THEM is fightin' words. Of course, I would say we could say the same thing about cause and effect in the deepest sense of it all. We don't know WHY or how the cause implements the effect, only that it appears to behave by rather strict rules � until you get down to the quantum level and its all probabilities. I guess something appears to be explained and rational if there is predictability to it in the sense that it adheres to certain mathematical rules. And when it doesn't adhere to mathematical rules then we're comfortable in saying that probability is the new rule. So I wouldn't be too tough on the notion of "the emergence of complex systems" because maybe alchemy is much more common than is generally admitted � or realized.

"For the materialists, it is a case of believing that physical laws unfold deterministically or algorithmically throughout time." says Behe.

Trumped again. I just comment on this stuff as I read it.

But when you come down to it his position rests on pure Faith. As does the other side which I am on. It is a matter of Faith on both sides of the argument. You can marshall all the scientific data on Earth and it will still be a matter of Faith. Neither position can be absolutely established.

I would agree with that.

So Behe says, "All we need is data that makes it "easily recognizable."

That's obviously a major tenet.

"Intelligent design," he says, "is easily recognizable in the specified complexity of the coherent sentence, in the information carried by the ink marks on paper which transcends the laws of physics and chemistry while nonetheless obeying them.

That seems to be a very compelling argument.

"Easily recognizable"? Really? Not to me. To me these examples exhibit only the Faith of their author that an intelligent designer exists. Nothing else.

Well, things like the blood clotting cascade are certainly at least amazing designs, or rather, amazing accidental structures. Of course they're not accidental. They're designed by evolution which develops things only because it can, not because it wants to. But "can" opposed to "want to" seems to be a faith judgment.

It seems to me that the universe and everything in it is the product of the dynamics of spontaneity.

That is an interesting reading of cause and effect. If things are not deterministic, if there is free will, then how can cause and effect, how can mathematics and scientific principles lead to spontaneity and creativity? To me spontaneity automatically implies some type of spirit or consciousness quite outside normal cause and effect.

So, finally. We can and probably will, continue to argue and snarl about a universe that waited some billions of years just to see us come along, a universe willed into being just to go to the trouble of making homo sapiens, or we can believe everything we need is in the system; that the system does it all. Either way, both sides will find everything they need, and either way, it is a matter of Faith. And either way we will be The Universe Aware of Itself.

That's quite an interesting summing up.

Brad, thanks for continuing to hang in, most substantively, too. Let me more heavily nuance emergentism below.

It is becoming clearer to me that RN and Thomism both cohabitate in a both-and dyad doing very much the same thing when Thomism is engaging in natural theology. Both engage in the analogical (what things are) and anagogical (what things are not), in construction and deconstruction, in kataphasis (the via positiva) and apophasis (the via negativa) [I'm being redundant to reinforce my point, but these dyads do have their nuanced differences]. They don't really bifurcate out, unambiguously, until they resolve their dialectics triadically, which for Catholicism is a process including the analogical, the anagogical and the mystagogical. This third leg of the tripod is where Transcendence with a capital "T" enters in, where the emergentistic perspective goes from dealing with merely qualitative differences and informational discontinuity to involving possible ontological and physicalistic discontinuities.

An emergentist perspective can surely account for unobtrusive effectiveness and some energetically derived nonenergetic causations. It can account for many efficacies of tacit dimensionality. It does not imply ontological or physicalistic discontinuities. It is the causal inference of Thomism, implicit in its distinction between possible being (with its potentiality and actuality) and necessary being (with its pure actuality), which introduces the type of formal causation that an emergentistic perspective would positively eschew . If the emergentistic perspective has its own telos, Thomism accepts this but rejects that "something more from nothing but" can infinitely regress thus introducing the hypothesis of "primal" telos, "primal" being the descriptor for that which is putatively atemporal, immaterial, nonenergetic and nonspatial.

The God of the Gaps ad hominem is still operative but shouldn�t be too facilely applied. It belongs to unsupported truth claims in the space-time plenum but not to hypotheses in a system that deals with primal being, primal ground, primal support, primal destiny and primal origin.

Thomas Merton, in his own experiential and academic exercises of comparative mysticism, East versus West, set forth four major dyads. They don't exhaust Catholicism's expansive both/and-ish landscape but they do capture most of the "compare and contrast" dynamism of our own dialogue between RN and RSupernaturalism. These four dyads are immanent/transcendent, existential/theological, impersonal/personal, and natural/supernatural.

The best mental picture of this both/and landscape that I can conceive is to picture Jack Haught picking up the classical hierarchical chain of being and turning it on its side, transposing it from the vertical to the horizontal axis, thereby more fully comporting with Jerome Stone�s minimalist transcendence and Ursula Goodenough�s description of our emergent semiotic capacities, a description she has described as employing a sweeping Polanyian style and as positively reeking of telos. The both/and landscape that emerges from this "methodology" is indeed a vista to behold, noetically, ethically and aesthetically.

We have already mentioned the minimalist version of the transcendent side of the immanent/transcendent dyad (the horizontal transcendentalism). As far as the existential/theological dyad, to the extent that we have accounted for how the existentialistic RN orients toward truth, beauty and goodness and "does" noetics, ethics and aesthetics, we have also properly considered a minimalist version of theology inasmuch as we have dealt with what has otherwise been described as the divine attributes and even how they "function" in human life, through religion and otherwise. Regarding the impersonal/personal dyad, I suppose a good minimalist version of the personal side is best elucidated by consciousness and the "relationality" it permits, such as towards beauty, making possible "ways to evaluate health and meaning". Even finally regarding the natural/supernatural dyad, which might best be described as that axis dealing with "appearances" of ontological discontinuity, a "minimalist supernaturalism" might properly be conceived as precisely identified with the "emergentist approach", which I think would describe the discontinuities not as ontological but as merely qualitative, not as physicalistic but as informational.

I think these particular heuristical hatracks are useful. It speaks to the issues Ursula Goodenough and I have explored regarding whether or not the Eastern natural mysticism has any analogue within RN.

In summary, above we have conducted the "compare aspect" of a compare and contrast exercise between the both/and of Catholicsm and that of RN. As with any analogy, however, the contrast exercise would yield up far more dissimilarities than similarities between the two. In this regard, I have hinted elsewhere that it is a matter of methodology. My previous critique of the "Roots and Fruits of Quantum Physics" by V.V. Raman might be conceived as the beginning of such a contrast exercise, the anagogical counterpart to the analogical exploration that I fleshed out above. Still, it may be that, with respect to our approaches to truth, beauty and goodness, there is much resonance in the way we proceed both analogically (describing our similarities) and anagogically (describing our dissimilarities).

Toward these "divine" attributes we orient through processed of kataphasis, the via positiva, and of apophasis, the via negativa, alternately describing what truth, beauty and goodness are and what they are not, again, in the first instance, analogically, and then, in the next, anagogically. So, when we suggest that both RN and SN might agree with a both/and approach, it makes me think that we haven't properly located our most fundamental differences or, at least, we haven't exhausted them, for, you see, neither the Thomistic metaphysic nor the Dionysian mysticism is essentially dyadic in nature. They are, rather, triadic and resolve the dialectic between the analogical and anagogical in a mystagogical synthesis. This, then, is the juncture of our greatest bifurcation.

Metaphysically, if we have considered how all beings are alike by the very fact of existence (that they are), or what Thomism calls esse, and if we have also considered how all beings differ in the manner in which they exist (how they are), what Thomism calls essence, again, engaging, respectively, in the analogical and anagogical, in alternating kataphasis and apophasis, of construction and deconstruction, relating these processes as we set forth our approaches to truth, beauty and goodness, still, we have not touched upon the mystagogical. Thomism describes three ways of knowing God. For our purposes, let's say three ways of knowing truth, beauty and goodness, those ways of knowing being esse (existence received and limited), essence (quiddity, intrinsic limitation of esse, the crystallization of existence) and esse subsistens (existence unreceived and unlimited).

It is in esse subsistens (pure actuality) that transcendence susbsists. And so, we have the two ways of knowing God that we have often talked about, the via positiva or kataphatic and the via negativa or apophatic, or construction and deconstruction. But there is the third way, the way of transcendence or eminence, for saying what God is, analogically or metaphorically, and saying what God is not, anagogically and apophatically, does not yet address that intuition that God's very "isness" necessarily must differ from our "isness", that the very thatness of God's existence differs even from our own thatness inasmuch as there is an ontological chasm between such a thatness as is contingent and such a thatness as is uncontingent. We are talking about two very different "thatnesses" and, so, after our construction and deconstruction projects, there is a reconstruction effort.

All of this is just to reiterate that we might more properly characterize Catholic both/and-ed-ness as both/and/neither and that it is in this triadic approach that we might better locate the most fundamental differences between RN and Thomism. Using some comparison ideas I got from a correspondence with Michael Cavanaugh, it may be that it is the original both/and dyad of a Catholic natural theology and an RN minimalist transcendence, minimalist theology, minimalist relationality and minimalist emergentism that we cohabitate, in which we share a methodology, where we both go when we "go there", that we both affirm as rationally efficacious, in which we both see the emergence of consciousness from inanimate matter and affirm the awareness of beauty this consciousness births. It may be from this awareness that we are given a clear path from the given to the normative, from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from is to ought it, allowing us to travel as fellow sojourners, following, really, the same noetical, ethical and aesthetical terrain of the same both/and landscape. This shared both/and-ed-ness allows us to affirm that nature is enough in some ways.

This is not to say that RN may not have its own thesis, antithesis and synthesis, its own Hegelian-like dialectic, its own triadic nature. This is just set forth to suggest that, yes, we do cohabitate in a metaphysical dwelling wherein a dyadic methodology denies any strict nonoverlapping magisteria and any alleged naturalistic fallacy, wherein we even share a Lakatosian approach with its embedded fallibilistic Popperian critical rationalism. But after our metaphysical renovations (for the processes of conjecture and criticism and of construction and deconstruction are ongoing for anyone with a hermenutical bride) the Thomistic cohort reconstructs part of the dwelling, not so much building another room but moreso adding on a porch.

The activity on this porch is much like that of a Louisiana Saturday night and can be ontologically cacophonous, epistemologically rowdy and even morally ambiguous with the traditions it preserves, the rituals it celebrates and the Church laws seemingly flaunted there. On this front porch, they party like its an eschatological 1999, and imagine what it would really be like if the shadows on their wall came, not just from the fire that burns on the hearth but, from some sunlight that has penetrated into their Plato's Cave-ish Cajun dwelling (for it is truly otherwise dark outside). It's not so much the methodology that differs in our metaphysical reconstruction projects but where we frame up our hermeneutical windows. It's not so much the body of indirect evidence we look at, maybe even not so much how we look at it, but moreso how compelling we find the inferences that can be drawn therefrom, thus effecting which planks we choose to include in our platforms, something we cannot be indifferent to if we want to avoid noetically tripping and ethically falling as much as aesthetically possible.

The maximalist transcendence, the maximalist theology, the maximalist relationality and the maximalist supernaturalism do submit to a maximalist Lakatosian metaphysical approach in order to derive their inferences from the body of indirect evidence that supports their fundamental presuppositions and they employ the same methodology as the minimalist Lakatosian scientific approach with the indirect evidence it treats and the inferences it draws. In both approaches we draw compelling inferences that are not empirically conclusive or unambiguously demonstrable. There is more than science going on when we sort through such inferences, tossing some claims and keeping others. It seems to me that it is otherwise quite arbitray to suggest that we will preserve only those inferences as have the possibility, due to system characteristics and constraints, of being conclusively proven eventually, by direct evidence and empirical demonstrability. After all, the Lakatosian program and Popperian critical rationalism both suggest that there is much more than this as to how it is we are to determine how compelling various inferences are. Such a sifting of inferences is a de facto exercise in philosophy, whether an essential pragmatism, a radically deconstructive postmodernism or a critical realism, etc If ultimate falsifiability and verifiability are the ultimate criterion for the acceptance of this set of inferences versus that, then what is the substantive difference between temporal and eschatological verifiability from a practical perspective?

More fighting words, I know

pax,
jb

thanks for continuing to hang in

Crack...slip...

Both engage in the analogical (what things are) and anagogical (what things are not), in construction and deconstruction, in kataphasis (the via positiva) and apophasis (the via negativa) [I'm being redundant to reinforce my point, but these dyads do have their nuanced differences]. They don't really bifurcate out, unambiguously, until they resolve their dialectics triadically, which for Catholicism is a process including the analogical, the anagogical and the mystagogical.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...ker-plunk.

It's hard to tell how intelligent the design of the universe is when you're inside the design itself. Only if we started from scratch and tried to create our own would we have a perspective on how crude or clever the universe really is. What we have, at least at the moment, is a handful of elementary particles and three forces that make the whole thing work. In the area of computer intelligence we're finding out just how powerful rather simple rules can be. When one tries to create artificial intelligence with billions of if-then statements and a huge database of rote data one finds the going is slow and the hope of creating anything half-way intelligent to be ever out of reach. But when one uses a few simple rules, like an insect, one can begin to create quite complex behaviors.

If there is intelligent design in the universe it is more of a Timex intelligence then a Rolex one. We're built to get the job done but not to do so in style or for very long. We humans could be made more durable with gold plating (an exoskeleton along with our internal one), have more accurate mechanisms (eyes that could see better than an eagle), and have more robust works (an immune system that would make short work of the common cold) but we're not. We get through life like a cheap Timex: it does 99% of what we need it to do and when it's busted we just throw it away (we live on through our children). One would naturally think that God, being a sort of king, I suppose, would want the best of everything. He would make the German craftsmen look like amateurs. Everything would be over-built and include every amenity you could think of. We might literally have eyes in the back of our heads. But that's not the way it is.

But perhaps the true genius is built into the back end of the universe � the elementary particles and forces (or superstrings). It's a robust system that builds "good enough" structures and anyone in business knows that "good enough" can mean very efficient and cost effective. Getting that extra 10% of perfection can take a tremendous amount of time and resources. The universe is quite frugal. Perhaps it's no coincidence that God's incarnation on earth was in the form of a Jew. (Okay, that's bad, but you know I love Jews.)

And it's quite interesting that God appears to want to protect his patent, his secret formulas for how the universe works. When we look very closely at nature we run into the Uncertainty Principle. Clever bugger. Although built into the universe is the ability for an intelligence equal to or greater than our own to evolve, one that presumably could be great enough to engage in universe building of its own, the most important secrets IN the universe may be forever out of reach. Now that's intelligent design (as well as a sign of monopolistic practices).

The biggest story of all, though, may come when we discover the fate of the universe. Will it keep expanding forever? If so, then after trillions of trillions of trillion of years the universe will have become cold, dark and lifeless. If the universe begins to contract and perhaps produces another Big Bang we may find out that God is the ultimate recycler. I'm not quite sure what either scenario would say about intelligent design but I suspect that the former would suggest a God who had planned the purpose of the universe to be fulfilled long before it became cold and dark and the later that God was not quite sure of the outcome and was giving himself the option at singularity of whether to give it another go or not.

My last post was not written for this forum but grew out of a recent exchange with RN, which stands for religious naturalism, something I failed to note. It did however directly address emergentistic dynamics and that was its purpose.

Brad, your metaphors and analogies are truly amazing and maybe revealing of your own ideas about providence and theodicy. With that type of creativity and that type of depthful philosophizing, we may be poised for another collaborative effort such as writing another novel about the human condition. Clearly, we need to give this thread a rest eh? If Terri and w.c. and Phil are up to it, we could write quite the story of creation, a little Kafkaesque, a little Capraesque, a symphony, a cacophony ... but most definitely a mystery.

So, anyway, you were saying that God uses encryption techniques to protect Creation from intellectual property theft?

pax,
jb

Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seen irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation , which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. attributed to JPII

Some general thoughts on the nature of indirect evidence, inductive reasoning and inferences

Like classical realism, the meaning of truth in critical realism is correspondence with reality (i.e., reference) and the key criterion of truth is agreement of theory with data. But we often have only indirect evidence for our theories; moreover, networks of theories are tested together. Thus internal coherence and scope also serve as criteria of truth, as stressed by rationalists and philosophical idealists. Even this is insufficient when competing theories are equally coherent and comprehensive; hence fruitfulness serves as a fourth criterion of truth, as pragmatists, instrumentalists and linguistic analysts stress. Thus intelligibility and explanatory power, and not just observableness or predictive success, is a guide to the real.

http://www.meta-library.net/rjr/bcrit-body.html

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true'." The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
http://www.str.com.br/English/Scientia/nonsense.htm

This "blind watchmaker" thesis is often touted as a fact, but it is not. For one thing, Darwinists have never demonstrated empirically that natural processes can create the complex structure that characterize living organisms. Like common descent, the blind watchmaker thesis is based on indirect evidence. It accounts for hypothetical transformations by extrapolating small observed changes over immense periods of time. Thus, the blind watchmaker thesis is not a fact, but an inference.

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpage...151/151teachnote.htm

This most general presupposition - that our experience is not misleading - is the fundamental presupposition; from it derives the possibility that we can benefit from our experience. With this presupposition, the possibility arises that we can use our limited experience to form generalisations about nature as a whole, about the future and about the past, and about situations that we have not experienced. Without it, we would be limited to truths about our immediate experience, and recollection of such experience.
Scepticism concerning the method of simple induction has a long history. David Hume defends the view that since we only experience particular associations of one atomic event with another (experience of flames and burning), not necessary connections, we have no justification in believing that the next flame will burn us, nor that these things are necessarily connected. We have no justification in forming the universal generalisation that, as a matter of fact, all flames will burn us - that all things with the property of being flames will also have the property of burning us; we have no justification, furthermore, in forming the conjecture that these properties are necessarily connected.
http://www.thonemann.org.uk/philosophy%20pages/methodology/inductivepresuppositions.ht ml
the hypothesis of evolution � an hypothesis which is legitimate and reasonable, and which, though incapable of proof, can appeal to a considerable volume of indirect evidence in its support.
http://www.bbmhp.org/ra/buddha02.html
First, that it really is on evidence of this kind that the whole of our practical knowledge is based. There is not a single object outside a man�s personality, of the existence of which he is certified either by logical proof or indirect perception. Of his own sensations, feelings, emotions he has direct knowledge, but of nothing else whatsoever. It is from these that he leaps by an instinctive inference to the belief of a world outside him, of fellow men like himself, and even of the identity and permanence of his own individual self. By an instinctive inference, we repeat, not by a process of logic; that certain fact is the key of our whole position.
These primary beliefs are utterly incapable of demonstration; they spring up of themselves in the mind; they are intuitive, indigenous, the offspring of a rational instinct, but no logical justification of them is possible. Yet they are practically irresistible, and no sane person refuses to act upon them. If a metaphysician questions them speculatively in his closet, he does not the less make them the basis of his life, as soon as he steps out to converse with his family or mix with the world. Illogical they are, but inevitable, and ineradically rooted in human nature.
http://orin.net/paper.html
Message ID 0215a-4:
Name: Imran
Where: MA
Comments: I fail to understand why some people try to keep evolution separate from religion on the basis that religion offers no evidence or; religion is inconsistent with evolution. Much of science is based on indirect evidence but accepted as true, e.g. the existence of quarks.
Why is religion disparaged just because there is no direct observable evidence, but plenty of indirect evidence-the universe. Perhaps there is a lot of truth to Godel's theorem that you cannot find proofs for the existence of the system when you reside within the system
http://archives.theconnection..../2000/02/0215a.shtml

So, clearly indirect evidence and inference are everybody's portion and cup for so much of science, everyday life and religion. This is not to suggest a stalemate. I advocate a common methodology in order to critique all forms of indirect evidence and the hypothetical inferences that we draw from them, whether historically or scientifically or what have you.

Such is much of the evidence for modern physics, modern medicine and even for evolution. Such is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. All of this evidence can and should be analyzed by the same criteria with equal rigor. I am speaking here of indirect evidence. I thus close and reiterate:

In Pursuit of Modeling Power for Uncertain Reality � JSS' Critique Checklist

In order to draw more compelling inferences in both the natural & theological sciences, and in our search for a privileged epistemology, the following hypothetical criteria have been recommended for our physical and metaphysical models:

Does the model possess:

� logical consistency
� internal coherence
� external congruence
� interdisciplinary consilience
� hypothetical consonance
� cognitive-affective consonance ?

Does its methodology employ:

� alternating conjecture & criticism
� critical realism & fallibilism ?

Does the model nurture a creative tension between an:

� epistemological foundationalism and a
� non-foundationalist epistemological holism (versus either premodern or modern hubris or excessive postmodern humility and a nihilism, which hoist itself on its own gallows) ?
--- in a progressive research program wherein hypothetical core commitments are surrounded by a constellation of auxiliary hypotheses, such as the:

� cosmological
� ontological
� moral
� teleological
� epistemological ?

--- honoring both:

� creatio ex nihilo
� creatio continua

--- yielding ever-increasing:

� intelligibility
� interpretability
� meaningfulness
� explanatory adequacy
� comprehensiveness
� insightfulness
� relevance
� predictability
� testability
� confirmability � direct and indirect (eschatological & temporal)
� corroboration
� verifiability
� falsifiability
� fecundity ?

pax,
jb

We humans could be made more durable with gold plating (an exoskeleton along with our internal one), have more accurate mechanisms (eyes that could see better than an eagle), and have more robust works (an immune system that would make short work of the common cold) but we're not.

Perhaps the intelligence of the design is in recognizing that we are not made more durable, that in the fragility of life is the key TO life. Perhaps it is in the realization that each moment is a wisp that can never be lived again...most precious, most valued, most cherished. For if we were indeed made more durable with more accurate mechanisms and more robust works, would we ever see the beauty of this intricate existence we experience for such a short time? Perhaps the intelligence of the design is the mystery of the design. And perhaps the Designer was deliberate in His choices so that mankind would wonder....and learn...and be in awe.

You do know we're talking about Intelligent Design, doncha?

We just haven't had much female company around these parts in a while.

Oh, geez, I'm sure to be in trouble now.


*where's my paintball gun when I need it*

If Terri and w.c. and Phil are up to it, we could write quite the story of creation, a little Kafkaesque, a little Capraesque, a symphony, a cacophony ... but most definitely a mystery.

There's that "mystery" word again... .

side note: Daughter #2 just got her driver's license..all prayers are appreciated

Blessings!
Terri

Daughter #2 just got her driver's license..all prayers are appreciated

And doing so inside the safety of a thick-walled old church might be prudent. The most important thing for her to do is to learn the rules of the road; and then to learn that few people follow them. Expect the unexpected. She'll be fine.

Perhaps the intelligence of the design is in recognizing that we are not made more durable, that in the fragility of life is the key TO life. Perhaps it is in the realization that each moment is a wisp that can never be lived again...most precious, most valued, most cherished.

That might be so true. Of course the other side of the coin is that because we are so fragile we spend an inordinate amount of our time protecting ourselves from danger and thus we lose the bigger picture.

Of course the other side of the coin is that because we are so fragile we spend an inordinate amount of our time protecting ourselves from danger and thus we lose the bigger picture.

How right you are!! Sometimes folks exist, but do not live because of that very thing. That would call for a whole nother thread lol .

I'll pass on the advice to the daughter. She's actually a very good driver, but you know how parents are .

Blessings!
Terri

Sometimes folks exist, but do not live because of that very thing.

Well, I gained some spiritual value by seeing the glass as half empty and you gained some spiritual value by seeing it as half full. The universe seems to be full of things that are not cut and dried, that seem to suggest one thing or the other � or both � but neither clearly. It�s almost as if God wants us to play this guessing game, thus I do understand those who say that faith is an integral part of being. But so is non-faith and skepticism I suppose. And who doesn�t have flashes of both from time to time? Perhaps that's normal and healthy.

Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seen irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation , which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. attributed to JPII

I wish he had the time to take part in this discussion because he sounds like a smart and interesting fellow. But I wonder if the moment of transition to the spiritual can be the object of observation if one considers one's one mind and feelings? I remember some of Phil's reflections on meditation when he said he felt the presence of God � that sort of thing.

There is not a single object outside a man�s personality, of the existence of which he is certified either by logical proof or indirect perception. Of his own sensations, feelings, emotions he has direct knowledge, but of nothing else whatsoever. It is from these that he leaps by an instinctive inference to the belief of a world outside him, of fellow men like himself, and even of the identity and permanence of his own individual self.

That's such an important thought, at least in my book. We are pleasantly deceived all the time by magicians. We see reality as one thing � are sure of it � then "oops" it turns out to be something else. Our lives are so shaped by what we believe, not by just what "is". (One could argue that what "is" can be of little relevance at time.) We constantly are coming to the wrong conclusions about someone else's motives. We are often very confused even about our own motives. We quite literally perceive the world through whatever biases we have at the time, a state that is obviously not helped by the fact that our senses are quite arbitrary and that provide their own filter of things. Thus one should have a healthy respect for reality in terms of illusions. When Einstein says that mass curves space one should note that one may never find this curvature � it may be simply a mental picture to help explain things. Even atoms remain mental pictures. At first they were thought to be neat little universes with electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets. Now it is thought that there are no planets, only a fuzzy cloud of electrons. And this picture too may have changed since last I learned about the fuzzy electrons. But the point is NONE of these mental pictures describe what REALLY IS. And as a Buddhist would say (and many a quantum physicist) it may make no sense to say what things REALLY ARE without taking into account our own minds and perceptions.

You've really outdone yourself with the supplied links and excerpts, JB. There is much to think about.

Brad, there is one thing I wanted to mention before, which I forgot. Insofar as you brought up the Buddhist perspective and the implications that has for how we perceive (or not) reality and insofar as you followed the Thomistic line of reasoning re: impossible and possible and necessary being, only needing me to explicate the relationship between necessary and possible being vis a vis shrinkage and kenosis and insofar as this all seemed to set quite well with you except for the pain and suffering part, now therefore be it resolved that suffering being delusion, Thomism is a darned good working hypothesis for you?

pax,
jb

now therefore be it resolved that suffering being delusion, Thomism is a darned good working hypothesis for you?

In truth, I still haven't replaced my Bradistic "life sucks and then you die" philosophy completely with the Thomistic one � but I'm working on it. I don't think I can or am drawn to proving the existence of God because, taking into account your idea that our philosophies are often shaped by our experiences of life, I can't find enough personal evidence for one. But I'm drawn to the idea of God animating all things at all time; that things need some kind of motivating force in order to remain in existence.

I haven't read By Design (Science and the Search for God), by Larry Witham but wondered if anyone else had and could offer some opinions on it. I found an ad for this book on National Review Online.