i s s c i e n c e c l o s i n g i n ?
|
Last updated 04/20/09 Back in 1980, Da Free John a.k.a. Franklin Jones, titled one of his many books about integrating eastern and new-age spiritualism- Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the White House. It was meant as a satirical construct to emphasize the absurdity of that possibility, because he believed in the conventional wisdom that science would forever be incapable of finding such evidence. This blog is the result of my arriving at advanced age in a still unenlightened state but hearing hints of evidence that suggests we may be on the verge of discovering a rational answer to this archetypal question. Is our understanding of time-space, energy, mind and matter reaching such profundity that science will embrace a theory of God? The term God I use exclusively in the generic sense and specifically refer to a cosmic consciousness to which we can ascribe a name but whose nature outside the phenomenal universe will always outstrip our understanding. The point cannot be overemphasized so that all the proprietary theist attributes commonly associated with God can be left out of the discussion which follows.
In the past few years, threats that have been lingering seem to have precipitated out as major crises. Record hurricanes and tornadoes, tsunami, global warming, bioata extinction, nuclear-armed terrorism, a flood of illegal immigration, epidemics, religious fanaticism, global financial meltdown- all have created what is perhaps the most all-encompassing, threat-filled, politicized and passionate decade in our nation's modern history. Could it be, that as I near my life end, maya is scripting a logical scenario for the catastrophic extinction of a solipsistic reality- perhaps as in one of the doomsday scenarios in Our Final Hour by scientist Martin Rees? May this be the final step in my realization of Brahman the Supreme Cosmic Being of infinite Consciousness and bliss? Or am I about to join a cosmic consciousness aware of the infinite unfolding of a phenomenal universe that will survive my irrelevant exit and is there such promise in the exponential increase in scientific revelations regarding a consciousness matrix that new paradigms will arise, guiding humankind to avoid its own extinction? Two books- Privileged Planet and Rare Earth, have recently come to my attention which have sparked a debate over their similar hypotheses. They propose that the combining of all the conditions, each of which is essential for a celestial body to support the evolution of intelligent life, is an event that is- as the Fermi Principle suggests- astronomically rare. This contention is in direct opposition to the Mediocrity Principle which was endorsed by Carl Sagan in accord with the Drake Equation which concludes that extraterrestrial intelligent life could be commonplace. Privileged Planet goes a step further than Rare Earth in observing that those features that combine to nurture intelligent life also provide optimum conditions for celestial observations and thus enable self-discovery of the universe. Each of these factors incidentally lend support to the Anthropic Principle. Much of the criticism over both book's hypotheses center on the implied notion that a consciousness may be responsible for arranging this confluence of favorable conditions. In Roy A. Varghese's The Wonder of the World there is a comprehensive bibliography of work in which many of the world's most imminent scientists and philosophers express their advocacy for such a notion. So although this is hardly the first time such an idea has been advanced by respected scientists- in both RE and PP it is presented as a hypothesis created from observable evidence. This has resulted in the Creationist and Young Earth Society religious fundamentalist community, to claim the RE Hypothesis provides scientific evidence that cascades down to support all aspects of Biblical truth- foremost, the reality of God and the story of Genesis which replaces Darwinian evolution. In contrast, RE hypothesis is rejected by most of the secular materialist scientific community which views it as advocating the presense of a "divine being" from insufficient evidence and therefore nothing more than a metaphysical, ontological or epistemological issue for philosophical debate. Obviously there is great divide over whether a synthesis can ever be possible between science and religion or even if that would be necessarily desirable. In Science Without Bonds Art D'Amano presents a minority view that is both positive and compelling. In a clear and conscise style D'Amano describes concepts held over the broad spectrum of knowledge and belief, scrupulously referencing quotations from leading scientists, philosophers, mystics and religious notables, then in a process of methodical distillation builds an argument for why a unification between science and monism (God is Not A Person) mysticism is most promising. The complete book is available as a free download.
Intelligent Design is the major popular artifact for promoting challenges to the scientific status quo regarding matters like divinity and evolutionary theory. Consequently it has become the furnace into which all such ideas are thrown, whether scientifically sourced or religiously inspired, to fuel the passionate and often vitriolic debates that have ignited throughout both academia and popular culture. Unfortunately it is here where RE and PP have wound up. One scientist who is trying to better define ID as a legitimate science-based hypothesis is mathematician William Dembski, who states in Signs of Intelligence- "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes...and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. For this very reason the Creationist and ID people share a mutual objection to being lumped together in the debates which tend to confuse all the factions. In this discussion I will use the abbreviation SID to specify that it is the Dembski version of Scientific Intelligent Design that is referred to rather than ID which in most links commonly refers to a broader version that includes all the Creationist and Young Earth baggage. Sadly there is a Catch 22 for any evidence that supports a cosmic consciousness in that the more credible it is, the more politized it becomes as the religious community exploits it for their evangelical agenda, causing greater resistance by the science orthodoxy to accept it. On the other hand, hypotheses such as RE and SID gain some credibility in the face of the growing intensity of debate over a variety of unresolved fundamental issues within the scientific community itself. Are subatomic interactions by particles or waves; enumerable cosmology controversies over the composition of space and the problem of the cosmological constant; from where does consciousness arise and is it involved in a quantum event; is a new metaparadigm evolving where quantum reality is superceding a strictly materialist view of the physical universe? Although open to spirituality, I am essentially agnostic and view the debate between Darwinian evolutionists and Creationists as one between reason and superstition. When the notion of intelligent design arose I tended to agree with the consensus of the scientific community that this was just a thin edge of the axe of exploitation that creationists were using to insinuate their dogma into the public school science curriculum. But one evening in 2006, while switching channels, I accidentally caught a presentation of The Privileged Planet documentary on a religious cable channel. Thoroughly impressed, I followed up researching internet blogs and forums about that subject. I selected science-friendly websites to avoid the predictable bias of the Christian and Creationism sites thinking I would get the most objective overview. I was surprised at the amount of gratuitous, knee-jerk dismissal by the contributors in these communities over the notion that there was any possibility for a consciousness behind astrophysical or molecular reality. Many dismissed the hypothesis out-of-hand without presenting any scientific argument due to what they perceived was the tainting by the religiosity of both the source and the faith community that supports it. Criticism often wrongly confused the Rare Earth Hypothesis with Creationist theosophy and having set up that straw horse, refuted anti-evolution arguments as default to the material actually in the books. The reality is that each book deals exclusively with cosmology- astrophysics, galactic astronomy and geophysics and is specifically supportive or neutral in regards to biological evolution. It was apparent that much of the critical posting was made by those who had not actually read the books or viewed the documentary but whose perceptions were based on biased 2nd-hand reviews that were being recycled throughout the secular scientific community. Overall, the science forums generated a level of ad hominem commentary revealing a palpable, anti-God bias that approached the level of passion typical of the Creationist congregations. Nobel Laureate physicist Charles H. Townes offers one explanation for this subjective defensiveness by pointing out that science is based on faith in scientifically unprovable foundations. "We scientists believe in the existence of the external world and the validity of our logic...Nevertheless, these are acts of faith. We can't prove them."
RE and PP benefit by feeding into a postulate that is gaining increasing significance and support in prestigious circles of theoretical physics- the Anthropic Principle-(AP) which in its weak version (WAP) says- that the laws of nature must be such that they allow the existence of an intelligent observer. How is it that AP has become the 800 pound gorilla in the laboratory of theoretical science- since it seems to be merely a common-sense, rhetorical speculation of an idea that most of us would find unambiguous? In fact many scientists agree- in fact say that WAP is so obvious that it is a tautology or truism with little or no scientific significance. Many theoretical scientists on the other hand- view the fine-tuning of the properties of constants of nature and physical laws which have combined into the perfect landscape for the evolution of intelligent life, as the ultimate challenge for science to explain. The reason WAP has become a gorilla is that there are over twenty (and counting) theoretical versions- some mixing other concepts like multiverses and implicating human consciousness to greater degrees. SAP- The Strong Anthropic Principle says- the universe actually had to bring mankind into existence. FAP- The Final or Participatory Anthropic Principle says- we are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. In addition, when the scientific evidence is subjected to the laws of probability, it appears to favor the notion that the universe came into being through intention rather than coincidence. This perspective has caused science Jihadists to charge that it is a teleology and just another face of the ID conspiracy and cosmology's creationism. The ideological implications has prompted respected scientists like Henry Tye, credited with pioneering theoretics which anticipated the discovery that expansion of the universe was accelerating, to say that a major goal in his future research is to "find a way around the anthropic principle". Leonard Susskind, the father of string theory is a major champion of AP. Of course there are other equally prestigious scientists like Lee Smolin, an advocate of loop quantum gravity and his theory of Cosmological Natural Selection who are opposed to the principle. None of these scientist suggest that AP is evidence for SID and some maintain that AP argues against the credibility of SID. An online debate between these two on their diverging theories can be found on The Edge website. Andre Linde another visionary physicist suggests a multiverse theory to account for the cosmological constancy supporting an anthropic principle our universe seems to manifest by chance out of billions of other universes evolving out of the Big Bang. There are other detractors in the category of professional debunkers whose passion may be accounted for by physicalist/materialist scientific biases or shaped by skeptical, cynical or uber-atheistic world views. Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic Society argues that science and religion must be kept separate because- "when scientists are doing science, collecting data, running experiments, testing hypotheses, building theories- we have nothing to say about religion unless claims are made that scientific evidence supports some religious belief, such as the Earth is 6000 years old or that intercessory prayer heals the sick." Shermer claims the character of the skeptical "watchman" is inquiring, reflective, thoughtful- acting as "the consumer advocates of critical thinking". But this does not prevent his expressing a heightened imperative to attack AP precisely because it offers credible evidence suggesting that a synthesis between what Stephen Jay Gould refered to as the Non-Overlapping Magisteria of science and religion, may be possible. John Horgan- The End of Science who is even more cynical than Shermer and who has assumed the role of The Scientific Curmudgeon- coined the term ironic science- unfathomable speculation more akin to philosophy and literature than genuine science- "The science is ironic in the sense that it should not be considered a literal statement of fact" and gives as examples the theoretical work from Stephen Hawking to Leonard Susskind, disparaging not only string "theory of everything" but particularly Susskind's championing the anthropic principle. The obvious question Horgan leaves unanswered is- what literal statement of fact has ever been proved scientifically? Richard Dawkins is atheism's Rottweiler and regularly argues the theme of his 2006 book The God Delusion in public debate with various theistic philosophers. Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief. In Anthropic Bias- Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy Nick Bostrum claims to give an account of how to reason in light of observational selection effects that is both more rigorous and more general than any other in the literatures on fine-tuning, the anthropic principle, and the Doomsday Argument. He abandons the term "anthropic principle" and seeks to develop a principle that is clearer, more general, and capable of solving the freak-observer problem- starting with "the Self-Sampling Assumption."
Our world appears to be in the midst of the epoch referred to in the Chinese expression- May you live in interesting times which may be interpreted either as a curse or blessing. Most apparent in global geopolitics, the unsettling dynamic reverberates throughout every aspect of our civilization and is manifested in the sciences by the conflict arising over the role consciousness plays in shaping our emergent metaparadigm to describe nature. The John Templeton Foundation is a major player in promoting consciousness into the scientific paradigm since it is a well-funded advocate whose stated mission is to facilitate a rich and robust dialogue between the scientific and religious communities by forging a common vocabulary. However because it is conspicuously evangelical it takes great pains to sponsor educational programs, conferences and symposia that feature the most prestigious scientists willing to participate whose work may not necessarily support the Foundation's theological agenda, and therefore retain credibility and objectivity. Of course this does not mean that contributors avoid being vilified ad hominem, not on the basis of their science but for "sleeping with the enemy". For an example of one such conference see Biochemistry and Fine Tuning. Andre Linde- physicist at Stanford University whose research involves multiverse theories regarding quantum and inflation cosmology and keeps an open mind regarding an anthropic principle is among many top scientists who participated in the 1999 conference Multiverse, Inflation, Life, and Probabilities sponsored by the Templeton Foundation and has received a research grant in their 2008 awards program. Back in 1971, when I was middle aged and involved in a hedonistic lifestyle, I had an extraordinary Neo-Tantric-like mystical experience which I described in a website a few years later. The Maya-Gaia website is an early blog describing my effort to integrate the event which I eventually recognized as a classical Nirvikalpa Samadhi episode. Consequently I was surprised to find virtually no mention in the discussions that considered the subject of transcendent episodes which suggest direct insight to a cosmic consciousnes. The growing body of contemporary anecdotal evidence as well as documentation of NDE field consciousness compiled on sites such as IONS and OBERF and IANDS as well as TASTE added to its deep history in Vedantic, Buddhist and other traditions may mean that science simply has not yet found a way to detect or explain such immaterial phenomena. In D'Amano's book there is a chapter entitled Knowers sighting many accounts by those whose superior knowledge and intellect bring credibility and significance to the transcendent episode. In physicist David Bohm's Implicate Order a groundbreaking premise is presented applying quantum theory to explain both phenomenal and conscious reality. A further adaptation of Bohm's theories is presented in Entangled Minds by Dean Radin, senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Science who implicates recent string theory and quantum entaglement to describe how psi effects may manifest throughout the entire metaphysical spectrum. The book's Bibliography Online is a comprehensive compendium of quantum literature. (I've created a page of links to articles and papers with pro and con viewpoints about synthesizing Vedanta and new physics concepts.) See also NeuroQuantology© 2009 An interdisciplinary journal that makes available the rapidly accumulating empirical data in the neuroscience, cognitive science and technical domains that crosses the boundaries of neuroscience and physics to stimulate a synthesis or provoke new models for understanding consciousness.
Victor J. Stenger God: The Failed Hypothesis is one of the most activist opponents to reality theories that incorporate metaphysical notions involving human or cosmic consciousness. In a 1992 article in The Humanist he claims this seemingly profound association between quantum and mind is an artifact, the consequence of unfortunate language used by Bohr, Heisenberg and the others who originally formulated conventional quantum mechanics. In describing the necessary interaction between the observer and what is being observed, and how the state of a system is determined by the act of its measurement, they inadvertently left the impression that human consciousness enters the picture to cause that state to come into being. . Stenger argues that experimental results confirming Bell's Theorem regarding conventional quantum mechanics have since been made which refute Bohm's premis and that the popular paradigm that has arisen from New Age science gurus such as Fritjof Capra The Tao of Physics and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Transcendental Meditation and others which involves human consciousness in quantum theory is based on pseudo-science. But directly refuting Stenger's "artifact" claim, Anthony Freeman in Consciousness: A Guide to the Debates says: Von Neumann, and those physicists such as Eugene Wigner (1902-1995) and Henry Stapp, who followed his lead, drew the inference that there is no logical end to the chain of events in a quantum experiment until the point of recognition of a measurement in a conscious observer's mind. He therefore amended the standard Copenhagen interpretation- which says, remember, that the quantum world can only be understood in relation to the classical world of measuring instruments-to say that not just any recorded measurement but only conscious observation could precipitate physical actuality out of quantum possibility.
From Copernicus and Newton to Hubble and Hawking, our understanding of the universe on both the macro and micro cosmic scale grows exponentially making it certain that paradigm shifts will be made in our future definition of reality. In my lifetime, hypotheses once considered absurd like The Big Bang, plate tectonics and stem cells evolved into theory and subsequently became incorporated into the scientific model. An enormous landscape of theoretical possibilites has arisen in cosmology, molecular physics and biology of the mind which are considered scientifically legitimate despite the fact that some on today's science forefront like loop quantum gravity or string and knot theories may never yield testable consequences. Even the two icons of theoretical physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics are scientifically contradicting. A hypothesis of major significance still awaiting scientific consensus is global warming. It may prove no coincidence that the debate over that, despite it's considerable scientific credentials and the Gaia Theory, both of which can have repercussions in regards to our very survival, have become politicized to the same degree as those over RE, SID and SAP- with each, on occasion, being disparaged as junk science.
For anyone interested in an open-minded exploration of cosmic consciousness, I've compiled a list of links featuring scientifically qualified resources that appear fair-minded to RE, SID and SAP especially when these are distinguished from the debate that pits evolution versus creationism. Also included are those expressing certifiably keen intellects outside the field of science who have addressed the issues substantively. I've listed sites with forums (identified with asterisks) which seem the least biased but have included examples which are obviously evangelical as well some anti-religious ones for perspective. For the most part, the sources speak in a popular rather than technical language so even I, a scientific layman of just average intellect, can at least get their drift. Distinct from my discussion, when the terms "God" or "Intelligent Design" or "ID" appear in any of these links, they assume whatever qualities the site's author ascribes.
Email: smalltownsATusaDOTcom | |||||||||||||||
