Life In An Expanding Universe

Bookmark and Share

July 31, 2011 Related topics: Worship, Devotionals and Art |

Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Today's entry was written by Mark Sprinkle. Mark Sprinkle is Senior Fellow of Arts and Humanities for The BioLogos Foundation. A painter, craftsman, and writer living in Richmond, Virginia, Mark received his master’s and doctorate from the College of William & Mary, studying how artworks are experienced and come to represent complex relationships within domestic environments.

Life In An Expanding Universe

HUDF WFC3/IR Image (cropped) / Credit: NASA, ESA, G. Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz), R. Bouwens (University of California, Santa Cruz, and Leiden University), and the HUDF09 Team.

Last Sunday’s post focused on the way photographer Lia Chavez sheds light on the interrelatedness of the physical and spiritual aspects of human relationships as both are stretched out through our experience of time. But while last week I suggested that—in contrast to Chavez’s work—photographic images of the heavens like those captured by the Hubble Space Telescope may obscure the elements of time and change, we may still rightly celebrate the astronomers’ careful analysis of such images precisely because they do allow us to peer into deep time as well as into deep space. Hubble’s Deep Field Survey, especially, brings the connection between time and space into view by seemingly picturing the very expansion of the universe, as well as almost-unfathomably old and distant objects. This week and next we will continue to delve into the connections between time and space as a source of metaphors that can inform our understanding of the human place and role in the cosmos, today turning to poet Pattiann Rogers’ vision of the power perception has to create the world, not just record it.

A central element of the concept of cosmic expansion is that the stars, clusters and galaxies we see are not just fleeing apart and further into pre-existing space, like marbles scattering into an empty room; rather, space itself is expanding, carrying all matter along with it. Yet if we follow on with the suggestion that the essential nature of the cosmos is relational, not just material, then we will also see that there really is more of the universe every second, not just more empty space between the clumps of matter: the “truth” of the cosmos is in the way the matter and not-matter speaks to each other, carrying on a conversation of distance, change, movement, gravity, light—a conversation we join when we describe those relationships with formulae, but also when we look into the dark night sky to experience awe and joy.

This sense of cosmic expansion—as something we can recognize everywhere we are willing to pay attention to relatedness—seems to be at the heart of Rogers’ poem “Life In An Expanding Universe,” given below. True to this “expansive" and generous understanding of the way matter makes it own meaning, Rogers begins and ends with celestial imagery, but centers her poem on the life-speech of creatures both nearer to home and less obviously grandiose: the crow, the bighorn sheep, and the poet, herself. Because all engage their worlds beautifully by flight, by speech or just by lovingly-careful observation, all participate in a kind of world-making that we must recognize as more than merely metaphorical. But, because we of all creation may also imaginatively engage with these others, re-expressing their worlds through song, or image or poem, the relational universe is expanded here and now, within us, not just out there or back then, without us. Our dwelling in the universe—in short, our humanity—is enriched when we pay attention to what’s outside ourselves and ask it in.

Finally, though, Rogers’ vision of attentiveness to the infilling universe is not only about creating or imagining, but most importantly about receiving what we perceive, regarding such insights as gifts from our fellow creatures, from the cosmos, and foundationally, from the Lord. Her words confirm that it is by receiving and responding that we, ourselves, become more full, and more fully who we were made to be.

Yet does the claim that the world really does (and we really do) exist more fully when we are attentive to it and participate in its relational, material community mean that none of it would exist without us, or that what we perceive as meaning is only illusion? No, as Christians we know that our participation matters deeply and has real consequences, but only, beautifully, because it is at the invitation of the first Creator who continues to be both present and active. Rogers' receptiveness to the way she and all of us may have our own presence to the world expanded by “flutter-widths” and “lizard-slips” may remind us that though subtle and fleeting, consciousness is not merely a material epiphenomenon; rather, it is life’s loving response to the One who first loved, and who showed us in the person of Christ what it means to humbly enter into, be present for, and redeem even an ever-expanding cosmos.

“Life In An Expanding Universe”

by Pattiann Rogers

It’s not only all those cosmic
pinwheels with their charging solar
luminosities, the way they spin around
like the paper kind tacked to a tree trunk,
the way they expel matter and light
like fields of dandelions throwing off
waves of summer sparks in the wind
the way they speed outward,
receding, creating new distances
simply by soaring into them.

But it’s also how the noisy
crow enlarges his territory
above the landscape at dawn, making
new multiple canyon spires in the sky
by the sharp towers and ledges
of its calling; and how the bighorn
expand the alpine meadows by repeating
inside their watching eyes every foil
of columbine and bell rue, all
the stretches of sedges, the candescences
of jagged slopes and crevices existing there.

And though there isn’t a method
to measure it yet, by finding
a golden-banded skipper on a buttonbush,
by seeing a blue whiptail streak
through desert scrub, by looking up
one night and imagining the fleeing
motions of the stars themselves, I know
my presence must swell one flutter-width
wider, accelerate one lizard-slip farther,
descend many stellar-fathoms deeper
than it ever was before.

from Firekeeper, Expanded and Revised Edition (Milkweed, 2005). ©Pattiann Rogers.

Pattiann Rogers is an award-winning poet and essayist, the author of fourteen books including the most recent, The Grand Array: Writings on Nature, Science, Spirit. (Trinity University Press, 2010.) Born in Joplin, Missouri, she graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a BA from the University of Missouri before receiving her Master of Arts from the University of Houston. She has taught at the University of Texas, the University of Montana, Washington University of St. Louis, and Mercer University as the Ferrol Sams Distinguished Writer-in-Residence. She is the mother of two sons and the grandmother of three grandsons and lives with her husband, a retired geophysicist, in Colorado. A complete list of her work and honors may be found here, and a previous post featuring her poem “The Answering of Prayers” may be found here.

For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
liberale - #63596

August 1st 2011

Juxtaposition of Mark Sprinkle (author of this blog entry) with Pattiann Rogers (the quoted poet) demonstrates the sad contamination of Nature’s pure beauty (Rogers) by the superstitious narrow-minded Judeo-Christian brand of theism (Sprinkle). br>br>Pure reverence to the wonders of Nature with religious depth (without resorting to superstition) is Religious Naturalism:  a href=“http://faculty.uml.edu/rinnis/2000_stone_2_1.pdf” target=“_blank” rel=“nofollow” link=“external” style=“font-size: 1em; color: rgb(85, 26, 139); “>http://faculty.uml.edu/rinnis/2000_stone_2_1.pdf

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63626

August 2nd 2011

Liberale,

Thank for the reference so I can understand what you mean by Religious Naturalism.  It was very interesting.  One thing that was interesting was the absence of a reference to ecology in the essay.  It seems that the poem above that you liked reflects an ecological spirit that I share. 

The problem with Darwinism is that it is too often atomistic.  Dawkins portrays living beings including humans it seems as survival MACHINES competing with one another.  If you are going to base your naturalism on nature I hope that you will base it on the ecological view of nature, not the Darwinian.

The problem with physicalism which the essayist endorses as do scientism is that it reducing living beings including humans to things.  Are things as important, or even more important, than living beings are physical naturalism suggests?   

On the other hand the sacred events he describes are human orientated, the demonstration for civil rights and his relationship to his wife.  Also the ecological encounter of the junco and bird of prey.  Physical nature, the biosphere, and humanity are all important.  When you put one over another, you create problems.  Fortunately the concept of God solves this problem.  God is the Source of nature, ecology, and humanity.  All are important.  None is supreme.

You reject God or the Christian view of God as superstitious without really explaining this position.  In my view superstition is wrong because it makes the fate of humans dependent on “natural forces,” astrology being a prime example, as opposed to moral law.  If we are simply products of our environment, or the stars, then we are unable to make moral choices.  God makes it clear that we do have choices and humans are able to make them.  God governs nature by natural law and humanity by amoral law.  This is not superstition because it asserts to the freedom and responsibility of human beings.         

Reply to this comment
S. Scott Mapes - #63651

August 5th 2011

Well stated, Roger.  Especially the distinction regarding what superstition really is.  To liberale:  I would like to see further clarification of your views, simply for the sake of understanding.  I myself have been guilty in Biologos of “hit and run” comments.  In light of Roger’s thoughts, would you favor us with a response? 

Reply to this comment
liberale - #63660

August 5th 2011

I appreciate your effort of reading the reference to Religious Naturalism.  Thank you!

All living things are molecular structures, things.  Yet these structures are beautiful and inspire deep reflections (thus “religious” naturalism).  The human species is a member of the biosphere, the appreciation and preservation of biodiversity, which human is a part, brings the concern for ecology.

For the definition of the word “superstition,” I would like to borrow from Wikipedia (with Christian examples I added in parentheses): 
Superstition is a…belief or notion (God being personal like humans), not based on reason or knowledge (based on a book)...It is also commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding…prophecy (Second Coming, Rapture) and spiritual beings (God, Holy Spirit, Satan)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

What is “important” is determined by human beings.  We do it, whether God exists or not.

“Morality” is a behaviour pattern higher animals evolved to facilitate group living.  An imaginary higher morality-giver is unecessary.
Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63662

August 5th 2011

Liberale,

Thank you for your response.  I looked at the Wikipedia article on superstition before I responded to you but clearly I did not see it the same way you did, so I looked at it again.  This time it seemed to that the most appropriate aspect of the article is the following:   

SPAN style=“mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition. Likewise, atheists and agnostics may regard any religious belief as superstition.

Clearly you do regard religious belief as superstition, but I would say that when a word or idea is so flexible and subjective as this one seems to be, it is almost meaningless.  The example that I used, astrology, is not religious at all and in my observation most, if not all, superstition is akin to magic, which again is not religious.

SPAN style=“mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>Superstition is a…belief or notion (God being personal like humans), not based on reason or knowledge (based on a book).  

I take issue with this aspect of your analysis.  Christians do not believe that God is personal like human, we believe that humans are personal like God.  I see many reasons to believe this and no reason to not believe this. 

As far as our knowledge is based on a book, or really a library of books, it seems that most people learn science from books.  Certainly we can do all the experiments ourselves to prove science for ourselves.  I do not think that a science teacher would buy the excuse that we could not prove a particular theory for ourselves, when the answer is in the textbook.

On the other hand faith is a very personal experience.  We learn it first hand and from those we know, so it is being continually tested.  This part of the reason there is so much variety in religion, not uniformity as it would seem from your statement.  Believers do know God and communicate with God through prayer and meditation, while most people know science second or third hand.     

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>What is “important” is determined by human beings. We do it, whether God exists or not.

 

True, but God does exist, and what human beings determine to be important is important.  When some people determined that Marxist-Leninism was important, it brought many, many deaths.  When some people determined the deficit was very important, it almost brought the US economy to its knees.     

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63663

August 5th 2011

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>“Morality” is a behaviour pattern higher animals evolved to facilitate group living. An imaginary higher morality-giver is unecessary.

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>

Are you saying that all morality is created equal? I disagree. Slavery is wrong. Infanticide is wrong. Murder is wrong, etc. Some forms of morality facilitate group living and individual development better than others.

We have public morality and private morality, which is the reason we have the Church to encourage people to live moral lives and help one another. Sadly non-believers seem to lack this type of institution. /SPAN>/SPAN>

Liberale, we seem to agree about many things, such as ecology. I really do not see why you feel the need to put down my faith as superstition, when it is not. People of good will need to accept our differences and work toward common goals. /SPAN>/SPAN>/SPAN>

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63625

August 2nd 2011

Mark
the essential nature of the cosmos is relational, not just material,

Let me correct you on this.  The “essential nature” of the universe is relational, not material, because matter is relational.  Matter is governed by natural laws which are relational.  Matter is composed of particles which are relational.  Energy which is the flip side of mass is relational.

Because the physical is relational, it can be governed by natural law which is intellectual or ideational and relational.  Because the physical is relational, it can give rise to living creatures, who are able to think and make an impact on their environment,

Because thinking is relational, humans are able to understand themselves and their environment and order their worlds in good and not so good ways.  Humans are moral and spiritual beings, who can relate rationally to others, the universe and the Source of all that is. 

Because God is essentially relational, according to the Bible, especially the New Testament, God created a relational universe as the home for relational humans created in God’s own image.   We are all part of a beautiful, magnificent, complex/one Reality, which we constantly try to ruin by ignoring the needs of others.   

Reply to this comment
S. Scott Mapes - #63652

August 5th 2011

In your view, how does your concept of a relational universe differ from the philosophy of personalism, which conceives of reality as a hierarchy of persons? 

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63656

August 5th 2011

S. Scott,

Thank you for your comment and question. 

I definitely do not see reality as a hierarchy of persons, but I do see reality as complex/one, both complex and one, while persons are also both complex and one.  This is the reason why a personal Complex/One God is essential, because only the personal model of God can encompass the complex/one nature of reality, unlike the Simple/ One model of Allah or the monistic model of physicalism. 

The Complex/One Triune God is the Source of the physical complex/one universe, the biological complex/one universe, and the human complex/one universe, but only YHWH and humans can truly be called persons

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63655

August 5th 2011

Mark,

Thank you for your comment.  You are correct, what set me off was the comment that the cosmos as “essentially” relational as well as material.  The problem I have with this is: in my view the cosmos has physical, intellectual, and spiritual aspects or dimensions.  Therefore I would not say, and this might be a matter of definition, that the cosmos is not essentially (or basically) material, because ideas are real and they are not material. 

Relationships are real and they are not material.  I would certainly agree that matter is “real,” but in a true sense its reality is based on its essential relationality, not the other way around (that matter gives rise to relationships.)

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63665

August 5th 2011

Roger, all that you offer in the comments on this thread fit well within the prescribed boundaries of theo-logical thought premised by the silly notion of attributing teleological intentionality  to the cosmos.  


To suggest that the universe has been deliberately manufactured in order to sustain homo sapiens is precious in the extreme.  And pretty smug to boot.  To suggest that, “... the cosmos has physical, intellectual, and spiritual aspects or dimensions”,  is an extension of this misplaced application of teleology to a material and natural universe.

You say,  “The Complex/One Triune God is the Source of the physical complex/one universe, the biological complex/one universe, and the human complex/one universe, but only YHWH and humans can truly be called persons.”
This is pure proselytization.  It is a religious explanation founded at a time and the absence of science as we know it be now.  Religion was humanity’s very first formal attempt at a ‘scientific’ explanation, pooled from all the then current stories, the latest histories,  legends, and contemporaneous knowledge and understandings of the natural world as was up-to-date at the time of committing it to historical record.  

Roger, this whole ‘human-Yahweh’  special relation thing is simply not supported by the evidence, no matter how one tries to contort or contrive it.  The useful halcyon days of Apologetics is behind us.  The continuing attempt to flog this old trope as having some form of relevance today is a roadblock to universal human flourishing. Some 30,000-plus followers of other religions have never bought into it. Surely this must signal something about the origin of religions being solely a product of cultural and geographical determinants.

Religion *is* a superstition, replete with a panoply of ‘dramatis personnae’ of gods, angels, archangels, seraphim, cherubim, satan, etc.  in which all of these characters purportedly  react, relate and influence our lives on a daily basis, concerned about what we eat, who we go to bed with, what we think, how we think.

Of course, you will say, “well, this is not the my kind of christianity”.  

You say, “Relationships are real and they are not material.”  This old furphy is simply a matter of how you define these term to suit your argument.  Microwaves waves are real and they too cannot be seen, felt, smelled, tasted and heard.  But they are definitely material, depending on the definition used.  Defining  ‘relationships’ in such a manner is somewhat conveniently obfuscatory and adolescent in character, appealing to a lower order of sophistication.

Liberale’s keen insight,  “Juxtaposition of Mark Sprinkle (author of this blog entry) with Pattiann Rogers (the quoted poet) demonstrates the sad contamination of Nature’s pure beauty (Rogers) by the superstitious narrow-minded Judeo-Christian brand of theism (Sprinkle)”,  highlights the emblematic nature of the practice of theology to overlay a ‘rationale’ for the existence of the cosmos, world, people, and to co-opt ‘nature’s pure beauty’ as justification for their god.  There is not a shred of evidence for this, other than ‘personal revelation’.

    
Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63674

August 6th 2011

Papalinton,

I appreciate your opinions, but not your judgmental attitude.  Unfortunately your attitude seems to override your opinions.  Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged by the same criteria by which you judge others.”  I pointed out to Liberale that the Wiki article on superstition indicates that it is a subjective term used to judge or reject the faith of others.  Regretfully some Christians have used this concept in this way despite the command of Jesus, but this is no license for you or anyone else to use it in this manner.  I have suggested an alternative way to use this term, which you have not accepted.   

I do not agree with Religious Naturalism as I have made clear, but I respect this point of view.  It is not up to me to approve or disapprove anyone’s faith.  That is their decision.  However I do take exception to your and Liberale’s judgmental attitude toward myself and others and declare that it is out of bounds.

You accuse me of being smug.  It is not possible for me to be smug when living on this planet and in this biosphere, which is a gift from God and has been billions of years in the forming, while it is being destroyed by our kind in a matter of hundreds of years.

Human caused climate change is behind the weather that is causing droughts and crop failures in many parts of the world including the USA which is causing famine in the horn of Africa and rising food prices elsewhere is our doing, but few seem to care including you.  It is also the probable cause of severe weather like flooding and tornados in the US and worldwide.   

You have no evidence that God does not exist.  You have no evidence that Christianity is false, except the conceit that it is pre-scientific.  You bring up the question of microwaves as being not detectable, however if I put could put my hand in a microwave oven, I am sure I would feel them.  This is truly a silly response to an un-posed question.

If you can prove that the idea 1 + 3 = 4 is physical, then do so and you will have some evidence that you are right.  If you can prove that relationships are physical, made up of matter/energy, then present your case and we will talk.  If you can prove scientifically that Life has no meaning or that meaning is physical and can be scientifically proven, then we can talk.  Otherwise you have no evidence to prove your case that reality is only physical.    

Reply to this comment
Cal - #63677

August 6th 2011

One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic. Perhaps the tragic ape named man should be forced forward, being remade into something to walk the stars. Clearly our fleshy make-up demands iron to reinforce. What if an omelet needs a few cracked eggs? What if the forced propelling of man need a little violence? There are no gods to tell us what to do, our future is our own and what if I’d rather not die before I see nature take its sweet time moving us along. If the ethical obfuscations for covering the weak will not stop dragging their feet so we can move on along, what shall we do? Man shall be thrust into glory, unwilling if necessary, and be made into a new kind of man.

Ahh but you shall say, “This is not my kind of atheism”

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63682

August 7th 2011

Roger

“However I do take exception to your and Liberale’s judgmental attitude toward myself and others and declare that it is out of bounds.”

Why should it be out of bounds, Roger?  If you wish it to be out of bounds from critique then don’t drag your faith claims into the public arena.  As much as you deride my atheism, I am happy for you to challenge it in discourse about the nature and substance of the theism/atheism divide.  And it is not out of bounds because I chose to discuss it in public fora.  

Even following two millennia to get its act together, it seems that theism, or religion if you will, is increasingly being realized as a wholly owned product of both cultural and social development. The concomitant extra-natural or supernatural elements of religion are accreted by-products of the mythologizing process of cultural change and  development in which the fundaments have been long lost or for which our collective memory has committed to legend over time immemorial.  

In respect of having to prove the non-existence of a non-existent being, my only comment Roger, is that, one does not have to prove a negative, one must *assume* the negative.  

Roger, you say,  “If you can prove that relationships are physical, made up of matter/energy, then present your case and we will talk.”    I ask a corollary question, Roger,  “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? “
Can something exist without being perceived? If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? It is human beings that are able to perceive it.

From this perspective,  relationships completely dependent on the physicality of the relating elements.  In other words, relationships between humans only exist if humans are able to perceive them. 

Roger, you also say, “If you can prove scientifically that Life has no meaning or that meaning is physical and can be scientifically proven, then we can talk.”
Life has no meaning in the religious sense.  Such ideation is a function of special pleading for teleological intentionality.  The very nature of the question, ‘What is the meaning of life?’ has an implied external focus as if life was created for a particular purpose, not of its choosing, but chosen by some other entity.  Of course that perspective is only found in theology.  There is nothing in science, either biology or evolutionary studies etc  that suggests a purpose for life.  It is the wrong question to ask, premised by the false assertion that there is a distinct purpose for which life was ‘created’ on this earth.  That is a purely theological  concept unsupported by any evidence for the claim.  

Rather, having been one of the fortunate ones to have been born, the more pertinent and relevant question is to find a ‘meaning in life’ rather than the ‘meaning of life’.

Roger, you also say,  “Human caused climate change is behind the weather that is causing droughts and crop failures in many parts of the world including the USA which is causing famine in the horn of Africa and rising food prices elsewhere is our doing, but few seem to care including you. “
Disingenuous so say the least.  And a whiff of miff as well.  For an example close to home, it is the ‘drill baby, drill’ mentality of the arch right-wing, overwhelmingly christian conservative Republican party that are denying the advent of climate change.  And as most of these declare and wear on their sleeves, it is their strong fundamental christian ethics and beliefs, that drive their refusal to acknowledge climate change.  

So c’mon Roger.  A little less of the pique

 

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63684

August 7th 2011

Papalinton wrote:

 

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>Roger, you say, “If you can prove that relationships are physical, made up of matter/energy, then present your case and we will talk.” I ask a corollary question, Roger, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? “

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>Can something exist without being perceived? If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? It is human beings that are able to perceive it.

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>

 

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>From this perspective, relationships completely dependent on the physicality of the relating elements. In other words, relationships between humans only exist if humans are able to perceive them.

SPAN style=“FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ‘Times New Roman’; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>

 

For the record in my considered opinion Papalinton has it backwards.  First all it is my position that an event is not dependent on the perception of the event.  If there was a recording devise in the forest when the tree fell, then the sound would not be dependent upon if anyone heard the sound when the recording was played if the recording was played, but if the sound waves were recorded. 

Since one can reasonably assume that if a tree falls there will be a sound, even if someone comes upon the tree days or years after it has fallen, then there is a perception of a assumed sound.  If the tree becomes coal or a fossil, the same is true.  Thus I disagree with Papalinton and say that the tree does make a sound in the forest, even though there is no one to hear it.   

On the other hand if Papalinton is right, if things and events are dependent on relationships, then it disproves the contention that only the physical exists, because according to this type of thinking the physical is dependent on the relationships.

In my considered opinion the physical is not dependent upon our perceptions of it, but we can and do know the physical because it is relational, that is it has form and structure, including history.  Thus our perceptions or ideas about reality are real because they are relational, and the physical is real because it is relational, and the spiritual is real because it too is relational, that is God is Love.  

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63685

August 7th 2011

“For the record in my considered opinion Papalinton has it backwards.  First all it is my position that an event is not dependent on the perception of the event.  If there was a recording devise in the forest when the tree fell, then the sound would not be dependent upon if anyone heard the sound when the recording was played if the recording was played, but if the sound waves were recorded.”

Special pleading, Roger,  ”*If* there was a recording device .... “ 
As is noted, “A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where ‘other’ might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all.”

And you are right Roger, my ‘having it backwards’, is your opinion solely.  And it seems the basis of your opinion is very much predicated on the notion of “deus ex machina”; that is, when a seemingly intractable  problem or circumstance is inexplicably resolved by the intervention of an object or an entity, in your case, god.  As Roger Penrose opined, “It tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed.”    Roger, you position, is again, one of invoked teleological intent summoned conveniently from outside space and time of the known universe. One of the widely acknowledged criticisms is that it is an easy ‘deus ex machina’ which discourages searches for physical explanations.  Your statement, “Thus our perceptions or ideas about reality are real because they are relational, and the physical is real because it is relational, and the spiritual is real because it too is relational, that is God is Love”,  falls fully within the characteristically “deus ex machina” typology.

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63688

August 8th 2011

Papalinton wrote:

 

Special pleading, Roger, ”*If* there was a recording device .... “

As is noted, “A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where ‘other’ might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all.”

 

This looks like your special pleading.  You set up the circumstances.  When did you add this provision.  The fact is, and what I was pointing out, this circumstance does not exist in the “real world,” only in some fantasy world you have set up.  All events have some effect.  The premise of this post is that things are relational.  When you agreed with Liberale you accepted this premise.  When a tree falls it affects the environment, so it “imparts information” so that it cannot be unobserved by your definition and thus does make a sound.  End of story, end of argument.   

FONT face=Calibri>  

SPAN style=“LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>Roger, you position, is again, one of invoked teleological intent summoned conveniently from outside space and time of the known universe. One of the widely acknowledged criticisms is that it is an easy ‘deus ex machina’ which discourages searches for physical explanations. Your statement, “Thus our perceptions or ideas about reality are real because they are relational, and the physical is real because it is relational, and the spiritual is real because it too is relational, that is God is Love”, falls fully within the characteristically “deus ex machina” typology.

Papalinton, you misconstrue the concept of deus ex machina.  While it is true that it is a mistake to use theology as the sole explanation of natural events, it is also a mistake to try to use nature as the sole explanation of realities that so beyond science.  

You have stated that science cannot determine the meaning of life.  The reason for this is because this is a metaphysical question (beyond physics).  You have not accepted my invitation to explain how you metaphysically discover meaning in life, but is the only that this is possible (even for those who do not accept the reality of anything beyond the physical.) 

All of the deeper questions of life are metaphysical, philosophical and theological, not scientific.  So my views in this area are based on metaphysics, not deus ex machina.  I base my metaphysical views on science, in that Einstein and ecology point to the relational nature of the universe, as well as theology and philosophy (the basis of knowledge), so it is a balanced and integrative world view.  

Rejecting someone’s views on because you think that you can dismiss them as deus ex machina is poor thinking.   o:p>

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63686

August 7th 2011

Further to the discussion Roger, you say,  “Since one can reasonably assume that if a tree falls there will be a sound, even if someone comes upon the tree days or years after it has fallen, then there is a perception of a assumed sound.  If the tree becomes coal or a fossil, the same is true.  Thus I disagree with Papalinton and say that the tree does make a sound in the forest, even though there is no one to hear it.”


I ask, Why?  Why reasonably assume?  You were not there to observe it, Nobody was there to witness it.  Why suddenly is it Roger that you only selectively apply physical law to this particular proposition?  Who is to say that god did not purposely lay that tree down  in the forest without making a sound?  Under your model of god, everything is possible; am I correct?  Why now only conveniently constrain the sight of a fallen tree to the limitations of the known physical laws, that it did indeed had spontaneously fallen and had made a sound?  

The only reason you infer that a sound was made is because you are able to  perceive such an event given your knowledge and understanding.  But within your frame, you cannot isolate this instance from the possibility that a god laid that tree down.  After all, you apply the god-function to so many other circumstances as the only possible source of their eventuation, the creation of the universe, the ‘fine-tuning’ of the cosmological constants, man made in the image of god etc etc.  

Methinks a double-standard is being conveniently applied here, Roger, according to the circumstances that best fit with your interpretation.

Roger, your theological explanations remain unconvincing and have not contributed to a clearer understanding of humanity’s existence in this universe. we find ourselves [perceived].
Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63690

August 8th 2011

Papalinton wrote:

SPAN style=“mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>Under your model of god, everything is possible; am I correct? Why now only conveniently constrain the sight of a fallen tree to the limitations of the known physical laws, that it did indeed had spontaneously fallen and had made a sound?

Papalinton, you have a problem which is you do not understand theology or metaphysics.  Thus you read into theology and metaphysics that which is not there.  That is why your accusations of superstition are clearly false.

God is a God of order.  God does not make natural law or moral laws to break them.  All things are possible for God, but God is faithful in all that God does and God does not stoop to cheap tricks to carry out the divine Will.  Therefore there is no reason to expect that the fall of a tree was silent and every reason to think that it was not.   

SPAN style=“mso-ansi-language: EN” lang=EN>After all, you apply the god-function to so many other circumstances as the only possible source of their eventuation, the creation of the universe, the ‘fine-tuning’ of the cosmological constants, man made in the image of god etc etc.

What you call many circumstances are relatively few, but crucial border areas between science and metaphysics, and only where they do not distort either, that is where science and theology are in basic agreement.  It was Voltaire, not known as a Christian or theologian who said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him,” and I think he was right.  God is necessary because God is the Source of the universe, not that God exists because I want God to exist.

It all boils down to the fact that God is necessary to understand reality, not some superfluous concept.  The sooner you accept this, the more realistic will be your world view.   o:p>

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63699

August 8th 2011

Roger

“It was Voltaire, not known as a Christian or theologian who said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him,” and I think he was right.  God is necessary because God is the Source of the universe, not that God exists because I want God to exist.”

My point entirely.  Not because there is a god, but because there is an existential gap in our understanding and in the absence of that knowledge and understanding that gap has to be filled with something, anything.  This is a function of the human brain as part of the manner in which it resolves the concept of incompletion.  It is how we are genetically predisposed, as a highly socially developed and socialized animal, to handle unresolved or complex issues and problems. We fill the gaps. We do it everyday, following a telephone conversation, filling in what was said at a meeting, attempting to read another person’s understanding of a situation, even completing someone’s sentence if they are too slow in completing it, only to be told, ‘No, you got it wrong.  That is not what I meant.  It is ...... ’   And we usually get it wrong as often as we get it right. 

In the so-called ‘deeper’ issues of life, existence, the universe, etc  we apply that exact same process to filling in the gaps of these unresolved areas.  It is conveniently filled by god.  The irony is, while such a singularly identified process is universal in the human species, we have utilized a multitude of strategies for filling these existential gaps.  That is primarily the reason for some 30,000-plus forms of immeasurably diverse religions, extant, not to mentioned the countless numbers of past and fading religions along humanity’s timeline.  Religion was humanity’s very first ‘scientific’ attempt at explaining our relationship to our environment, the world and the cosmos, a time when science and theism were indistinguishable.

The extension to metaphysics is simply an order of classification in our mind’s library.  It helps us to organize and re-organize our thoughts and feelings on particular issues of ideation.  Metaphysics is a descriptor for a particular form of thought patterns dealing with the ‘deeper’ issues of the meaning of life.  And as Douglas Adams articulated in his wonderful cosmic travelogue, the meaning of life is the number, 42.

So in respect of my reasoned review, the necessity of a god to understand reality is indeed a superfluous concept.  

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63701

August 8th 2011

Is 42 your final answer?

Actually I think that he said the answer was 43.  The question for the lab rats was.  What is 6 x 7? 

If you think that life is so superficial, then no wonder you do not believe in God. 

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63702

August 8th 2011

“If you think that life is so superficial, then no wonder you do not believe in God.”


Definitely not superficial, not by any stretch.  As deep and as meaningful, and as constructive as yours but without the mythos. You see, I am a freethinker.  I alone accept full and complete responsibility for my actions, deeds and thoughts.
Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63703

August 9th 2011

FONT face=Calibri>I alone accept full and complete responsibility for my actions, deeds and thoughts.

42,

The fact that you arrogantly think that you alone accept full and complete responsibility for yourself is a very bad sign.  

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63704

August 9th 2011

A bad sign of what?  Maturity?

Reply to this comment
Cal - #63708

August 9th 2011

Slavery me thinks

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63683

August 7th 2011

Papalinton.

I will accept the positive suggest in your negative screed.  How you find meaning in life?  (Even as you say it does not exist.)

Do the laws of nature exist only because humans exist to observe and to understand them or do they exist independently of us and before human existence?

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63713

August 9th 2011

42,

Arrogance is always a bad sign.

This blog is about relatedness.  If life is relational, how can you do something alone?

Christians take full and complete responsibility for their lives too, but we do not claim that we are alone or do it alone.

It is clear that you think that you are free of all mythos, but the Meaning of Life is a logos.  Do you have a logos?

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63716

August 9th 2011

Yes
Meaning in Life

It connotes a purposeful existence full of activity, inquiry, discovery and developing meaningful relationships.  If there is anything like a concept of ‘freewill’, this is it.  

It is somewhat worrying your using words as ‘arrogance’ to describe my .  It is symptomatic of a worldview manacled to a presupposed mindset, its sole purpose to repress personal development of self-control, self-restraint, and self-possession.  

I am reminded of Augustine’s disdain for whatever was outside the boundaries of christian theology:
“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.  [From ‘Confessions’]

Roger, your worldview is that of a soap bubble.  All you need is the courage of touching it with your finger to understand the true nature of the human condition.




Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63719

August 9th 2011

 42,

I can sympathize with you.  Certainly it is not easy to be frustrated at every turn.  However if you are the person you say you are, that you take responsibility for you are, then maybe you need to admit that your ideas are not as good as you thought they were and start all over again.

Now you are trying to play mind games with me.  Sorry it won’t work.

Peace

Reply to this comment
Papalinton - #63720

August 10th 2011

“Now you are trying to play mind games with me.  Sorry it won’t work.”


How can one play games with one whose mind is that of a steel trap?  It ain’t organic and with little potential.

Reply to this comment
Roger A. Sawtelle - #63722

August 10th 2011

Lol

Thank you, 42, for a good laugh and a nice compliment.

Reply to this comment
Page 1 of 1   1
  • Add Your Comment

  • The BioLogos Forum welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.

  • Users are required to log in using a BioLogos or social media account in order to comment. If you already have an account, please log in. If you do not have an account, you may learn about creating your free account here.