SP: We should see the ceaseless creativity of nature as sacred, argues biologist Stuart Kauffman, despite what Richard Dawkins might say.
...
SP: You’ve suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and incorporates a religious sensibility. Why?
...
SP: You don’t accept traditional beliefs about God. But are you carving out a different space from atheists, especially the scientists who are atheists?
SK: I absolutely am. Take Richard Dawkins‘ book “The God Delusion.” It’s a very good book. And I know Richard, and he lays out the atheist case well. It appeals to the billion or so of us who do not believe in a supernatural God, and who’ve hidden in the corners, particularly in the United States, where religion is so widely adhered to. But it will do no good whatsoever in bridging the gap between those who do believe in some form of God and the secular humanists like Dawkins and myself who do not. We need something else.
SP: Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they’re wrong.
SK: Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there’s a supernatural god. I think that there’s something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it. You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else. Whereas I hope what I’m saying may help create a new kind of sacred space.
SP: Can you explain what emergence is?
SK There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics — life, agency, meaning, value and this thing called consciousness. The fact is that we can act on our own behalf and make choices. So agency is real. With agency comes value. Dinner is either good or bad. There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true. So the first new strand in the scientific worldview is emergence.
SP: And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?
SK: Right. In physics, and in the meaningless universe of Steven Weinberg, there are only happenings. Balls roll down hills but they don’t do anything. “Doing” does not exist in physics. Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values.... end of excerpts.
And here's an apt response in the comment section for the article:
by http://letters.mobile.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/permalink/bba3b48ea0aec88ca7ee8f95b28f79a2.html
Salon must have made some deal with Steve Paulson - he has had a whole series of articles here - all with the "God" apologist message. Salon needs to get some other perspectives from Shermer, Harris, Dawkins, etc. (I know they will say that they have done that, but, not nearly as often as Paulson's stuff).And here's my own responses to Paulson & Kauffman:
This whole "atheists don't experience awe" thing is such bullshit. It is presumptive audacious pomposity. How the hell do these "god believers" know how atheists or agnostics or "non-believers" feel about "awe". I can tell you that as a former "believer" that I never felt REAL awe until I let go of the supernatural "god" stuff and started to study the real and natural world. It pissed me off that I had spent so much time with the phony baloney "awe" of religion.
And - those who say that Dawkins and other "non-believers" are "foaming at the mouth" fundamentalists is so much BS. I've never heard Dawkins speak in that manner. It just shows me that his detractors just don't like what he is saying. ...end of quote.
You guys are basically pretentious a-holes, who pretend that the only way to have awe about the Universe is through the lens of religion. It's not!
Reductionism can bring awe, and it doesn't exclude science working to explain things like morality, love, awe, and existence.
What's the history of science & religion? Religion was a first attempt, and a bad & faulty one. It got key answers wrong! And it worked very hard to kill detractors - and in Islamic countries it still does (because Islam never went through a sustained Renaissance & Enlightenment, or they're having theirs now with our help).
Where Kauffman says "...You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else..."
My response: How the fuck do you know? Have you ever spent one second in any sort of a real religion? I bet not. In real religions they believe in real gods, not in just a nebulous "sense of awe." People's lives in real religion are being curtailed & suppressed. So, the light of science can and does help people see the true light!
Kauffman: "...There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true..."
Response: We'll never explain it unless we try. Science is the best method humans have developed thus far to separate fact from fiction, period. Sounds to me like you don't want us to even try to explain consciousness.
Paulson: "...And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?"
My response: Not in your myopic Templeton-funded view of the world Steve! In your so-called "science" there's no room for honesty.
Kauffman: "...There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics..."
Response: No shit Stuart. That's why we also have neuroscience, and an emerging science of morality that Sam Harris has spoken of.
Kauffman: "...Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values..."
My response: A whole boatload of smoke just came out of your bum Stew. You're blowing smoke and so is Mr. Paulson. May I suggest that you both take your heads out of your proverbial asses and check out where awe really comes from: From continuing to use science as a means of exploring! You both are essentially asking that we stop exploring! That we just sit around thinking about how things are not explainable! And that way, we can placate people still held back by the Abrahamic concept of god? I don't think so! Homey don't play that! You're both being fucking lazy!
Excuse my French and expletives my friends, but these types of bozos don't know where true awe can come from: From finding out how we really came to be here. Keep searching. Keep pushing. And when people are being oppressed by cults, just simply replacing one definition of the word god with another isn't enough! You've got to be honest about definitions, and honest about what the history of science & religion shows. Which one held humanity back for thousands of years, and which one is leading us to the stars?
No comments:
Post a Comment