God & The Higher Power
this article was deleted by mistake and is being rebuilt;
work in progress; higher power notes; atheism is logically indefensible; it is impossible to prove a negative; why do so many bright people embrace atheism? maybe the thought of denying the existence of a higher power relieves atheists from a sense of accountability for their omissions and commissions; or perhaps a badge of intellectual hubris for many in-to-themselves intellectuals - see list of atheists: on the other hand, maybe ordinary folk are simply not smart enough!
One story comes to mind; and I wish I thought of the argument first because I could have used it on my metaphysics examination. The story goes like this: An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger." The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?" "Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no GOD or no Heaven or Hell or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly. "OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?" The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which the little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no GOD or no Heaven or Hell or no life after death, when you don't know shit?" And then she went back to reading her book.
Some of us who know little are still determined to brace the issue of existence of God.
One way to bring the subject of God to a head: When we are dead, we are dead. Precisely how things play out after our death is beyond our control. What is important is how we feel now. So the issue is How do I feel now about the existence or non-existence of God. How does it make me feel?
Shing-Tung Yau is the protégé of Michael Green who is the
protégé of Stephen Hawking. Professor Green now
holds Sir Isaac Newton's Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, most recently occupied by Hawking. Green was the keynote pioneer in String Theory. His former student, Yau, [the inventor of the Calabi-Yau 11
dimensional manifold shown at the left], said: “it is a compact Kahler manifold with a
vanishing first Chern class will admit a metric that is Ricci flat.” The Calabi manifold is the pedestal upon which
String Theory has been built. String Theory has come under some criticism
because of lack of progress [see Lee Smolin's: The Trouble with Physics]
by the best minds after 35 years of collaborative research. The
October 2010 issue of Scientific American contains an exclusive
interview with Hawking concerning "The (Elusive) Theory of Everything".
Hawking concludes that Physicists may not find a final theory that
would unify all of physics. A final thought, string theory may not be demonstrable. Some of this
introductory paragraph and graph of the Calabi was based on a book
review of Yau’s book that appeared in
NewScientist, September 25, 2010. Well, what does it have to do with atheism?
It seems a stretch to think that the Calabi emerged from nothingness as Hawking claims in his newly co-authored book, "The Grand Design". The odds are de-minimisly infinitesimally close to nothingness. Hawking maintained for many years that science and religion could coexist. He seems to have strayed recently with the publication of his book: "The Grand Design". In this co-authored book, Hawking now asserts that: "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required." Hawking maintains that Gravity is the proof that God is not necessary. It is interesting to note that Newton who discovered or formulated Gravity, did not try to explain it; he left it to God. An excellent review and cretique of Hawking's book {specifically: "Why God Did Not Create the Universe"} can be found in the 9/3/2010 issue of the WSJ. (Here is a link to a critique of the hawking article by renowned artist and philosopher, Jean Vallieres.)
Hawking, a pioneer in [M-Theory, ] parallel and multiverses, maintains that at least [10^500] parallel universes co-exist. Such a large number provides a sufficiently large enough base for the laws of chance to produce a Calabi to support the existence of life on earth. This actuary, and surely many more would argue that Hawking's 10^500 is not large enough to produce a 50 % chance to assure an [Alpha.]
One must argue, like [Max Tegmark] that the multiverses are indeed infinite. See his article [Parallel Universes] in the May 2003 issue of [Scientific American.] Tegmark cleverly argues that the combinations of material in the universe is finite and must repeat itself every 10^(10^28) meters in the simplest of the cosmological models. The consequence is that we all have a twin in a galaxy far away. Well, well, if we are in an infinite multiverse, then the logical consequence is that we have an infinite number of twins in far away galaxies. I do not have a problem with the mathematics, but the consequences seem bizarre albeit it they may also be correct. When we are dealing with the infinite, then one might argue that the Star Wars scenario is not only possible but likely. This leads me to a conclusion that God, the Creator is as likely as it is not likely, and at least as equally likely as Gravity, the Creator.
-------------------
The following videos show PM Tony Blair and First-name Hitchens debating the existence of God:
work in progress; higher power notes
This article is about God as a Higher Power (tooltip=not to be confused with the 12 step program of AA), and not about religion. A Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion (insert tooltip here) is an organization promoting a codified belief system about a divine or supernatural being. For the purpose of this article, Atheism, which is a movement of “Brights,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement (insert tooltip here) should be considered an extreme, austere intellectual form of a religion.
One cannot prove the non-existence of God, any more than you can prove that there are not teapots circling Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars [tooltip=the mathematician Bertrand Russell was the first to use the teapot metaphor], as stated by Professor Daniel Dennett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett [tooltip=a well respected philosopher], a renowned “Bright” and an expert on Atheism.
The atheism battle cry: where reason reigns, God retires! - but the battle cry does make atheism a science. First atheism cannot be falsified. Secondly, it cannot be proven. Thirdly, it has never been amenable to inquiry by socialists, many of whom profess atheism(3). Essentially atheism has been a blind spot in research. Of all the religious positions, atheism appears as untenable as Far Right Fundamentalism and will discounted in our continuing discussions about God, a Higher Power.
This article is not about Faith or Fedeism either. Richard Dawkins called Faith: “self-indulgent, thought-denying skyhookery.” Since the publication of his book: The Death of God in 2004, the percentage of non-believers has been decreasing. Some attribute the decline to the invective rampant in his writing and comments. He clearly does not convincingly educate his readers or make a cogent case for his belief system. the there is a clear correlation between education and belief in God. 17% of secondary educated people profess a lack of belief in God; whereas only 14% of university educated people professed a lack of belief in God. On the other hand 30% of elementary educated people believe in telepathy (an irrational belief) compared to 52% of people with degrees. (1) not to be confused with the 12 step program of AA. (1) interview with robert wright (2) karen armstrong, prior to 17th century, belief meant commit http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explicandum explicandum - (logic) a statement of something (a fact or thing or expression) to be explained, explicandum logic - the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference statement - a message that is stated or declared; a communication (oral or written) setting forth particulars or facts etc; "according to his statement he was in London on that day" explanation, account - a statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances etc.; "the explanation was very simple"; "I expected a brief account" http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/weber.htm max weber (3) Where do atheists come from? NewScientist, 5 March 2010. Social-biologists, psychologists, economists and, cognitive anthropologists have become skilled at explaining why humans seem to have such a widespread bias towards theistic beliefs. Perhaps we not to find out why some people do not get it. Psychologically, we need to know how the self functions with theistic belief, and how our emotional resources might be altered by its absence additional notes for article on God the Higher power
1. Religion tends to divide people rather than unite them. Why? Perhaps it is often hijacked by unscrupulous politicians. Richard Dawkins is a good example of a "hateful" unscrupulous politician who desperately seeks attention and approval from his peer set.
2. Belief in God and related doctrines is a matter of faith but also one's belief is greatly influenced by one's culture and polity which in many places are a tightly woven fabric. Irish Catholics are reminded often to "Keep the Faith." Our religious beliefs, therefore, go well beyond our "religious beliefs."
3. The Celts had a viable pagan religion which contributed significantly to their success as an important civilizing force as they spread westward from the Steppes to dominate Europe. The Celts were superstitious and believed in a continuum (so often reflected in their artwork) between life and after-death, and a spiritual life after death in places in the forests or on the other side of the surfaces of water. The Celts were very flexible in their definition of Celtic deities to accommodate their polity. Writer Frank McCourt said: "The Irish had a very good pagan religion until, unfortunately, it was replaced by Christianity
4. Although religious beliefs systems differ widely around the world, they seem to have common elements: [a] tribalism and socialization; [b] the human need for leadership, a priesthood and ritualization; [c] rules and guides to behavior; [d] rewards and penalties associated with such behavior; [e] expectations about a spiritual world or a resurrection or reincarnation or a life hereafter; [f] answers to cosmic questions or mysteries; [g] sources of comfort, guidance, mediation and intercession; [h] an outlet to express gratitude, thanks or to seek forgiveness and atonement.
5. People who profess to be atheists or agnostics surprisingly have structured their belief systems around similar common elements, and do believe (of course, this is argumentative) in a "Higher Power" but lack the vocabulary to express their inner feelings.
6. Belief in a God, or Supreme Being, or Deity, or Higher Power seems to be a natural part of the human condition. It seems to be a vitally important component of living and coping for most people, and when threatened or challenged, may explain why religion divides rather than unites.
7. more on writings and current trends on anti-religious movements
8. to be continued: additional arguments; more on the soul, the spirit, thoughts, the mind, reincarnation, reality, cosmology, infinity, the next steps of evolution, limits of the scientific method, knowledge, existence of mathematical truths, limits of understanding, limitations of Darwinism, intelligent design, the higher power, atheism.
9. It is fairly straightforward for some intellectuals to describe how matter is created randomly out of empty space or a vacuum, obviously from negatively and positively charged particles at the smallest scale. But it leaves unanswered the "boiling cauldron of frenzied fluctuations." (see note N10). Or perhaps, then, the universe had no beginning? This seems to beg the question: was mathematics invented or discovered? The fundamental question, therefore, seems to be: describe how information and knowledge is created out of nothing? Or does it simply exist.
10. The previous line of reasoning continues to support the notion that intelligence is simply part of the fundamental stuff of the universe, which in turn supports the notion that there is a God or Higher Power. This notion of "God or Higher Power" does not imply "heaven, or resurrection, or life hereafter."
Note 10: The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Green, pages 332-2, "There is now little doubt that the intuitive notion of empty space as a static, calm, event-less arena is thoroughly off base. Because of quantum uncertainty, empty space is teeming with quantum activity. ....the fabric of space on scales smaller than the Planck length - a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth (10^-33) of a centimeter - space becomes a seething , boiling cauldron of frenzied fluctuations."
***************************************************
I started to write to ask you some questions. The subject of infinities stimulated by imagination once again, so I am just rambling to make notes for myself. I believe all this stuff probably has some bearing on philosophical thought and the dialogue about the existence of God.This stuff is not in any particular order. And there are a few question buried here. .
1. Where did William Lane Craig proof mix finite and infinite math?
2. You raised the question in a previous email, regarding the St. Anselm proslogium; viz: does one have to believe in God to accept Anselm’s proof. I believe the answer is “Yes.” (1) Belief or non-belief (active) or dis-belief (passive) seems to be an intuitive or emotional response. (2) There are regions of the brain that “light up” under new brain scan technologies, when associated with spiritual and religious experiences and/or expectations. Not surprisingly: the particular regions of the brain do not “light up” for Dawkins. (3) Emotions: I have a cousin (MD) who lost his two teen age children in a car accident. Since then he has bitterly turned away from God and the Catholic Church; as well as his marriage. And he has become a well read, well studied critic of theology and the old and New Testament. I spend two weeks with him last year on his farm in Montana. I forgot to ask him if he is an atheist.
3. When I was studying to be a Trappist monk, I read Aquinas many times under close supervision. Always got hung up on his proofs of God relying on backward infinities.
4. There are two types of infinities; bounded and unbounded. And yes, some infinities are more infinitely dense. Infinities are useful in set theory but lead to paradoxes. And I believe they have screwed up number theory. If I had all the votes, I would ban Number Theory and start over with a different paradigm. I do not believe actual countable unbounded infinities can exist. It seems intuitively clear to me that *w (lower case Greek omega) infinities are paradoxical.
Bounded infinities (like 1 + .5 + .25. +.125 + .0625 …….) can exist until you run in the Planck constant. I believe that if the fundamental stuff of reality is a wave form, then it should be possible to divide it without end. Even Brian Green hints at stuff below the Planck Scale: The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Green, pages 332-2, "There is now little doubt that the intuitive notion of empty space as a static, calm, event-less arena is thoroughly off base. Because of quantum uncertainty, empty space is teeming with quantum activity. ....the fabric of space on scales smaller than the Planck length - a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth (10^-33) of a centimeter - space becomes a seething , boiling cauldron of frenzied fluctuations."
5. James Newman’s four volume “World of Math” contains an illustration of a bounded infinite universe by Pascal or Poincare or Frenchman but I can’t find it for some reason.
6. Referring back to point [2 above and 18, 19 following], Ray Kurzweil believes that we are the most advanced civilization (supported by a good logical argument around the dazzling force of exponential growth) in his “The Singularity is Near” and a companion book co-authored with Terry Grossman MD: “Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever.”I am a Kurzweil fan. It seems clear to him and to me that knowledge will increase 20,000 fold this century. If we can get through this century without destroying ourselves, [I am an optimist – I fear asteroid type events and Yosemite cauldron type events, not humans] we may be in a position to manage reality and the universe – if not in this century, certainly in the next when info will increase again at least 20,000^2 times since we are dealing with exponential forces.
I would visualize a time when time ends, and we humans (in whatever form we exist) would be outside time. There would be no need to be inside time. It is a simple idea, but it takes too long to develop the point here.
7. In the 2nd paragraph, first page of Grand Design, Hawking states that “philosophy is dead.” One of the questions I want to raise in class is “how have the frontiers of science and philosophy changed, merged, overlapped, or moved.”
8. Btw, the assertion I made in class was not correct when I said that Hawking stated that the universe had no beginning. I confused this with another event mentioned in paragraph 16 below. Hawking states there are 10^500 multiverses, each potentially with its own unique laws of physics. Therefore the probability is very high for “alpha conditions to support life as we know it” to appear at least once.
9. Hawking states in GDesign that the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. I believe the best current thinking states that there must be a “nudge” like “observation” to collapse of the quantum wave function.
10. Most of the reviews that I read indicate that there is nothing new in GDesign that we didn’t know in 2000. I am not a fan of Hawking, (he is a product of media hype) and would guess that Mlodinow wrote the book and Hawking jumped on board for the royalties.
11. The notes in paragraph 12 below, I wrote a few months ago. And I chuckle every time I read them. Hawking is pessimistic about string theory, yet he is certain that gravity is the explanation for the cause of the universe. Again, I am not a fan; I believe Hawking is a legend in his own mind.
12. Shing-Tung Yau is the protégé of Michael Green who is the protégé of Stephen Hawking. Professor Green now holds Sir Isaac Newton's Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, most recently occupied by Hawking. Green was the keynote pioneer in String Theory. His former student, Yau, [the inventor of the Calabi-Yau 11 dimensional manifold shown at the left], said: “it is a compact Kahler manifold with a vanishing first Chern class will admit a metric that is Ricci flat.” The Calabi manifold is the pedestal upon which String Theory has been built. String Theory has come under some criticism because of lack of progress [see Lee Smolin's: The Trouble with Physics] by the best minds after 35 years of collaborative research. The October 2010 issue of Scientific American contains an exclusive interview with Hawking concerning "The (Elusive) Theory of Everything". Hawking concludes that Physicists may not find a final theory that would unify all of physics. A final thought, string theory may not be demonstrable. Some of this introductory paragraph and graph of the Calabi was based on a book review of Yau’s book that appeared in NewScientist, September 25, 2011.
13. Mark Tegmark wrote (and continues to write) about “Parallel Universes” in Scientific American in 2003? He asserts that the multiverse is infinite in all directions. He shows how the COBE [http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=cobe&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=u9FNTf6VNIrqgQfR6YET&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=9&ved=0CGUQsAQwCA&biw=1920&bih=983] supports this assertion, but points out one deviant value point in the graphs, that others use to argue that the multiverse is finite in spatial dimension. Of course, if his assertion is true, then bizarre things happen like multiple copies of humans elsewhere in the multiverse at a distance.
On the other hand, spatial infinities are paradoxical. Brian Greene on a TV documentary (I do not have a copy) described space as a Brillo pad. The stuff between the Brillo wires is “nothingness.” It is not a vacuum or a true vacuum, it simply does not exist. So, if his assertion is true, then infinities might have to be discontinuous to describe reality.
14. I graduated from Fordham with a double major; math and philosophy. It doesn’t mean I know anything about philosophy. I do recall that mathematical proofs were much easier to perform as well as understand than philosophical proofs.
15. My metaphysics professor from McGill U, can’t remember his name yet, argued that we do not have free will. Rather we have free choice. Our will is not free, it is directed towards goodness. Is this nit-picking semantics or is there a real difference?
16. Recently, a group of scientists reported finding “fingerprints” in the COBE radiation indicating the existence of a universe prior to the BIG BANG. Both Penrose and Hawking commented on the finding and for the life of me I can’t find the article. It may be in one of my science journals and I have not recorded it as yet.
17. But the implication of the report was that there may have been a chain of BIG BANGS going “infinitely” back in time.
18. I read “The Phenomenon of Man” every 5 years. I met de Chardin once at a talk in St Ignatius Church, NYC before he died in 1955. I remain a big fan. I had a long discussion with Stephen Jay Gould about de Chardin. Gould despised de Chardin as a charlatan because of the Piltdown Hoax controversy incident.
In my younger years I was a devout believer in Chardin’s theory of complexification, but I did not understand how we could evolve into the noosphere. But now I can visualize how we can evolve into a god-like state, outside of time. When I say “we,” I do not mean “me.” I am agnostic as to the immortality of my soul. But I do believe that humans, if we do not destroy ourselves, will evolve quickly in knowledge and acumen to manage the physics of reality.
19. Kant’s antinomies of Reason. Kant says the world has a beginning in time. I would rather say “the changing world has a beginning in time.” Time slows as we approach the speed of light. One can argue that everything is traveling at the speed of light, considering the motion of electrons in atoms in our cells. Of course, we have a lot of conflicting directions of motion, considering the earth’s rotation, the galaxies rotation, etc. If the net effect is that we are not traveling at the speed of light, then we experience a measurable elapse of time to make up the difference. So if nothing is changing, there is no time elapsed. If Kurzweil is correct in his forecasts about the direction (increase) in human intelligence, then an advanced human society, capable of managing the universe, can simply exist.
20 Paley's formulation of the teleological argument: I have never bought into his argument because I see the universe as chaotic via-a-vis clock-like. If one slows time, the world we see seems very harmonious. But if we speed time up a million fold, we would perceive the world as very chaotic and dangerous. The best example of chaos that I have come across is in Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything.’ On page 467 (illustrated edition), he describes the chaos and sheer terror of living inside a human cell.
20. Liebnitz’s Proof. Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...a necessary is Being bearing the reason for its existence within itself.
21. The buck stops in 21. above. This is where I always end up. Because of the existence of mathematics (which I believe exists waiting to be discovered) and consciousness, I believe the first cause to be an intelligent Being. Teilhard talks about pre-consciousness in his works. Penrose and Hammeroff found similarities between the silicon structures in computer chips and the structure in glial cells in our neural networks. And they both believe that consciousness is a quantum event.
22. Of course, none of the above gets to the question of issues like: a loving God, heaven, immortality.
24. Craig’s proof gives me some hope of a Creator with Free Will and purpose for Creation. But I am not sure I really understand it yet.
No comments