Dear George,

"... a self-sustaining Universe could also have a place in theology."

I agree. It all has to do with First Cause. If a divinity, is present outside of existence said entity could be posited to create existence. Alertnatively, existence is self-sustaining.

However, were there such an entity, we would still need to validate its association with historical religions.

Davies, Hartle-Hawkings et al. postulates are or will become testable. With faith we have a similar situation as with the Mind-Body problem. How can the organic know the inteallible?

I appreciate your warning about reading Penrose.

Dear Squeers,

Greetings.

Hello Oliver and George,
I'm just a quiet presence here as find myself out of my depth---though I've read my share of pop-science and respectable names like Hawking, Gardner, Dawkins, Gribbin, Pinker and others. They do, I think you'll agree, fall into the golly-gosh David Attenborough camp of scientists, at least, as I say, their pop stuff---it's all in the packaging :-)

Dear Oliver,
>>If a divinity is present outside of existence said entity could be posited to create existence. Alertnatively, existence is self-sustaining <<.

Your (or my) identity is not OUTSIDE of what DNA can describe but BEYOND (in the sense of “encompassing but not reducible to”) that. “Outside“ would mean a strict body-soul dualism, a model that has already served its purpose before we came to understand the hardware-software situation and use it to model things.

So I would call the alternative to the Sagan maxim the belief in the existence of Something (you call divinity) BEYOND the physical. Since you admit that a self-sustaining &#8232;(or self-creating) Universe is compatible with the belief in such “divinity”, self-sustaining Universe cannot be the alternative of such belief, although I repeat my apology that it was originally I who equated “self-sustaining“ with “being its own cause and purpose“ (for those for whom “cause and purpose” make sense).

>>were there such an entity, we would still need to validate its association with historical religions<<

I agree: the ”association” is through religious (mythological etc) models of this reality, of which there are many. Here the problem is even harder than the “validation” of mathematico-physical models of physical reality (e.g. through agreement with observation). And this is not that easy either, as some people with a naive understanding of (the philosophy of) science believe.

The term “evidence” is not self-explanatory; neither in the “physical” nor in the “religious” case, like it is in every-day situations. The postulates of mathematical physics are not necessarily testable, only some of their consequences, that are amenable to observation, are testable.

My understanding of your question of validation: even if one is willing to admit that there is Something beyond the physical, how does one know to which extent does this or that “model” (i.e. historical religion) reflect that Something? (ctd)

(ctd)
The simple answer is “we don’t know“, and so faith - which is a state of mind that cannot be argued for or against, and depends on many personal and cultural factors that in the case of physics play a negligent role - must enter. I personally believe that the differences between various advanced religions are only temporary and superficial, that they converge to something that is yet beyond our understanding. Perhaps not unlike the hoped for “theory of everything” in physics. Measured in cosmic proportions, we are (hopefully) just at the very beginning of (the rational stage in) human development.

A naive believer in God can claim that what scientists see as a Universe 13.7 billion years old (or evolution in biology) is just a delusion put there by God to test his/her faith.

A naive believer in the Sagan maxim can claim that what many people over millennia, right up to our scientific age, have experienced as something beyond, and irreducible to, the physical, is also just a delusion.

There are people on both sides of the theist-atheist divide, who are not naive in this sense. I am convinced you are one of them: you are a seeker like myself, although we apparently proceed along different paths.

Hello Squeers,

I have just rechecked David Attenborough, and I did not find any indication that he could understand mathematical physics (dealing with the essence, the structure of physical reality) at a level comparable to Steve Hawking, Paul Davies, or even James Gardner.

However, I have just discovered one further thing common to modeling physical reality through mathematics, and numinous reality through religion (mythology, scriptures or philosophy/theology): you like to show contempt for both of them (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#93645).

Nevertheless, I agree with you when you say “we can only conceive reality in our minds via the signs we've learned to identify with our sense perceptions of it” (ibid): these signs, if rationally organised, constitute what I (and others) call models - visual, mathematical, mythological, or based on other sensual or conceptual constructs or languages.

Dear George,
thanks for throwing the bone.

Quite right about the sainted David Attenborough; I wasn't including him in the Math Phyz school. He has come in for criticism for sensationalising the natural world into gee-wiz commercial images, the same way some physicists sex-up or dumb-down their science to make saleable commodities. Good thing for me, too, as wouldn't have a clue about "mathematical physics". I was referring to "Martin" Gardner, incidentally, not "James".

"Contempt" is a bit strong, though one does on occasion resort to rhetorical effect, as earlier in that thread. The comments you point to are incomplete, though I am not contemptuous in it of our "capacity" for numinous experience. I do not write such experience, or "aporia", off as "necessarily" delusional (as I've said I've had my own experiences and epiphanies which I cannot explain). What I do have contempt for is the certitude religious folk often profess in their beliefs, when it seems to me the more humble and sensible stance (while continuing to strive to understand) is to be in awe at the profound ignorance of reality we abide in. This applies obversely to both types of "modeling" you mention: religion should not be conflated with empirical science, and science shouldn't be conflated with doctrine.
I find your approach (as I understand it) to the search for meaning eminently reasonable, though I'm not sure why you've selected a denominational lens, or why you don't discard it. Isn't it better to remove all cultural-tinting, or at least to try to critique doctrine with a more phenomenological eye?
At bottom, I'm in awe of our reality, and think science and philosophy/mysticism offer valid lines of enquiry--I just can't accept the findings as gospel. My ignorance is far too precious to be thrown away lightly.

The other matter I have contempt for is navel gazing while the world burns. The here and now should be our prime concern as it's the only reality we have a firm(ish) grasp of.
I have contempt for the way religion (in the popular mind) demotes this world to disposable reality status.

>> What I do have contempt for is the certitude religious folk often profess in their beliefs, when it seems to me the more humble and sensible stance (while continuing to strive to understand) is to be in awe at the profound ignorance of reality we abide in. <<

I too have been a 'quiet observer' to these pages. Along with Squeers I have no issue for the search for the numinous, having plenty of doubts and questions of my own. Again, I ruminate in parallel with Squeers upon the why of formal religious text; why is it taken as the absolute "truth" and not open to growth and change?

An inquiring mind into the metaphysical is unlikely to find any enlightenment while continuing to treat gospel as Gospel.