Reinventing the Sacred --- A New View of Science, Reason and Religion?

by hamilcarr 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hamilcarr

  I've just finished one of the most awesome non-fiction books I've ever read. It's entitled 'Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion' and written by Stuart Kauffman, well known for his theories on the origin of life and other complex systems, and author of the highly acclaimed 'Origins of Order', a must read for anyone interested in contemporary post-Darwinian biology. In RtS, Kauffman tries to transcend the huge divide between secular humanists and those believing in a transcendent God by exposing the inadequacies of both world views.

  Some quotes from an introductory video to trigger your interest and curiosity:

  'A new scientific world view, real science, is just beginning to be visualizable.'

  "Is it more awe-inspiring to suppose that a transcendent God fashioned the cell, or to consider that the living organism was created by the evolving biosphere? I think the latter is more astonishing and I find myself honest enough to say it's God enough to me."

  "Science can't predict what the biosphere is going to do, it can't predict what technology is going to do. That means being rational is broader than science. Finding out about the world is broader than science, so we need Shakespeare and Einstein."

  Watch the full video at: http://reinventingthesacred.ning.com/video/video/show?id=1986926%3AVideo%3A33

  Feel free to drop a comment.
• 

  Eyes Open

  Thanks for the post.
  
  So what's the gist of it? That there is no actual transcendant God, but we could/should respect our universe and the things in it as if we're all part of it (it being his "God")? Or am I way off?
  
  Thanks.
• 

  Satanus

  'living organism was created by the evolving biosphere?'
  
  bios - living, life
  sphere - area, stratum
  
  That sounds a bit circular, unless he's into the gaia hypothesis.
  
  S
• 

  hamilcarr

  Eyes Open,

  A transcendent being is just one of the many definitions being given to 'God' throughout human history. I think Kauffman intends to reinvent or perhaps redefine the divine so as to align it with our better understanding of the marvels of nature. Both secularists and believers have neglected a comprehensive theory of the 'divine'.

  It's more a putting into perspective than a mere rejection of the word God.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Satanus,

  Check out his previous work on abiogenesis.

  According to Kauffman, life didn't originate from an individual molecular entity with a particular trait such as self-replicating RNA, but from an autocatalytic set.
• 

  trevor

  Personally I think that the way ‘God’ is portrayed in the bible is one of the main reasons many people claim to be Atheists.

  Once we step outside of such a limited view and apply the knowledge that the modern world has, we can start to put together a much more plausible understanding of what is taking place in the universe.

  There does appear to be a unifying intelligence at work but how that intelligence works needs careful open minded observation.

  Closed minded Westernised religion stands in the way of progress. We need to clear our minds of Old and new Testament tales so we can form an acurate and scietific view of what is really going on. Maybe we will end up calling that force 'God' but perhaps it would be better to think up a new name.
• 

  Blueblades

  The puzzle remains.

  How did the first of the first come about? It did not come about, it was always there, by whom, by what?

  There is really no new view. Just a revisiting of many other views.

  Something was always there, nothing was always there, space between the space. Who, What, Why, Where, and When????

  The theory of everything and so it goes.

  Through death we will come to know or not know what all mankind has been searching for...the meaning of life, the purpose of life, how the first of the first came about or the endless sleep.

  Pay me no mind, just thinking outloud. I know with a certainty, that I don't know. In my 63 years I have read many books all claiming to have the answers from both sides of the camp.

  Both sides claim scholarly backgrounds, both are convinced that they have found the answers,. How old is this current new view of science, reason and religion?

  And when will the next "New View" be presented and by whom?

  Hamilcarr, I realize that you are only trying to be helpful. I will look into this, it will take some time to digest.

  Blueblades
• 

  Satanus

  Hamilcarr
  
  That was, of course, an observation from a rank amateur. Checking out the autocatalytic set theory, it does seem to have some sound ideas.
  
  S
• 

  hamilcarr

  The puzzle remains.

  How did the first of the first come about? It did not come about, it was always there, by whom, by what?

  Profound questions, which, I hope, are beyond the scope of my opening post

  Yet, some loose thoughts on these questions. Do we really need a first cause? We now know it's impossible to pinpoint an originally pure starting point for any structure in movement. Humans used to think differently. The Jews were supposed to descend from one couple, Adam and Eve; Aeneas was believed to be the ancestor of all Romans and Germanic tribes could trace down their lineage to the legendary Mannus. Original purity, however, appears to be a mere figment of the human imagination (where do all the Americans come from? ). This may sound a little bit silly, but it shows that we're dealing with an originary complexity, to be understood as a default of origin in its traditional sense. Because this is so counterintuitive I'm sure the puzzle will remain, hopefully!
• 

  Terry

  Language can be a pesky wabbit!

  Words, in order to communicate thoughts, must be something the listener/reader can duplicate as to intended "meaning".

  Otherwise, words only seem to "mean" something.

  A word that doesn't mean what it "means" isn't communicating.

  TRANSCENDANT BEING, for example.......

  To go beyond existence is what that intends to say.

  Imagine that! Going beyond existence! What can that possibly be communicating?

  The fact that we have to guess causes each one of us to jump in and do the heavy lifting FOR THE AUTHOR!

  Like MAD LIBS, we create our OWN meaning and have our own little joke!

  You either exist or you don't. To go beyond existence is not even conceptually feasible.

  There was a very intelligent debator named Anselm a long time ago. Nobody wanted to tangle with him. He came up with the perfect debate tactic to PROVE the existence of God. It used REASON ALONE!

  His argument went like this.

  God is---what? God is that which nothing greater can exist. A god which does exist is greater than one who doesn't. Therefore, God exists!

  That use to stop debate dead in its tracks.

  For us today, we have to admire his efforts---but, laugh.

  The same is true when language today is used to TRANSCEND BEING.

  A genuine discussion uses words that are a legitimate currency of thought.

  A phoney discussion uses words like passing counterfeit money. Sometimes you get out of the store with the goods---but, somebody else is left holding the debt!