The Science of God - II

So, again, writing about the convergence of science and God and have no intention of proselytizing. Really trying to engage my own mind on these topics by writing them down, and if someone happens to read them, well that makes me happy too…

According to Schroeder, perhaps the longest held belief which has historically driven a wedge b/w both sides was the debate between the universe being eternal – is it w/out beginning and end? Though now the concept of the big bang is pretty well established in the minds of scientists everywhere, apparently it wasn’t resolved until the mid 20^th century. From Aristotle until Einstein – the large majority of scientists and thinkers strongly argued that belief in a beginning point to the universe was silly. However, it has never been a secret that the Bible claimed this all along. Schroeder notes that Einstein in fact said this misunderstanding in the face of so much evidence that the universe was expanding was the “biggest blunder of his life.” This demonstrates a major shift in thinking within scientific history toward Biblical philosophy - unintentionally to be sure.

Does this shift prove the existence of a Creator? Absolutely not – but it at least gives credence to the possibility.

Dr. Schroeder then begins to go into the mathematics of certain known scientific realities – yes, a bit abstract but useful nonetheless. He discusses the unlikelihood that carbon, the 4^th most abundant atom in the universe, would form in such abundant quantities as it requires some pretty unlikely conditions for formation. Apparently it does not exist naturally, it requires the combination of Berrilyium and Helium both at the exactly correct energy level and exactly right distance from each other and a few other unlikelys which get lost in numbers – again, not proving anything, just lending some credence to the possibility of some time of guidance.

Ah, and then Dr. Schroeder goes on to discuss a more familiar topic – the popular understanding of Darwinian evolution and its relation to the fossil record. I hear people throw around the phrases/terms “according to Darwin” and “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” all the time, yet I bet few of those folks have read or really understand his theory? Sure, on the surface “survival of the fittest” seems simple and logical, yet reading the mathematical probability associated with this reasoning (at least as presented by Dr. Schroeder) are troubling. For example, the Burgess shale fossil collection is apparently the best known collection of fossils ever found because it demonstrates all five different phyla (or body plans) of current animal life. However, it also apparently demonstrates that all five phyla appeared on the scene w/in a 70 million years span – stark contrast to the proposed two-hundred million years of gradual change described by Darwin. The difference may not seem like much (70 million vs 200 million), but according to Dr. Schroeder, 70 million years is not enough time for random genetic events to have produced such vastly different phyla – random genetic events or mutations being the foundation of Darwinian evolution.

The period of time demonstrated in the Burgess shale is better known as the Cambrian explosion, and again the question is whether or not there was sufficient time for such random evolution to occur. Apparently Dr. Schroeder is not alone in his assumption that there was not, as he states the scientific community now believes one of two things: either life was planted here from outer space or there were exotic properties of self-organization AND self-replication present on Earth in order to bring forth the capacity for life. It’s no secret that many scientists disregard the book of Genesis for one reason or another, but it is worth noting that written millennia prior to any understanding of evolution or modern science – Genesis says that “the earth brought forth life” – cryptically indicating that second possibility from before. Not only that, but in the same book of the Bible, again written millennia prior to our current understanding, there is a correctly described order in which the aspects of life appear - water and then life.

Dr. Schroeder does concede the physical reality which many physicists believe, that given enough time, even apparently miraculous events become possible – such as the spontaneous emergence of a single cell organism from random couplings of chemicals. Yet as a mathematical expert, he knows that it is just very very unlikely. For a better understanding of the sheer odds of such random events leading to the formation of humans, Schroeder quotes a British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (and I’ll do the same): “Such an occurrence is about as statistically likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirly through a junkyard.”

God proven? Nope, not by a long shot. However, it’s worth contemplating that even the simplest forms of life are far too complex w/out some inherent chemical property of molecular self-organization and/or reaction enhancing catalysts at every step of their development – a concept the Bible has no problem with.

Before concluding this section, seems like a quote from before may be appropriate: “Render unto science that which is science’s: a proven method for investigating our universe. But render unto the Bible the search for purpose and the poetry that describes the purpose.”

As always, thanks for reading. :-)

AMDG.

The Science of God

This will be a quick intro to a series of a few posts that I would like to write about what I feel is a seldom spoken about but often thought about topic… where is there - or is there convergence between what we know about the origins of our world/universe from physics and the Biblical creation story. With these words, I by no means intention proselytize – it is actually more of a personal attempt to rationalize my understanding of these concepts. I am writing about it because I feel they probably don’t seem to fit for many folks and at the same time, there is probably some room for open mindedness on both sides of the argument. One has to believe there is always new information to be considered about even our most basically held beliefs.

Given my young career in a heavily evidence based scientific field, I would never dismiss any evidence collected and analyzed in the same way which I myself plan to make decisions after decisions affecting the lives of people’s health. Yet, at the same time, I know in my heart that constantly developing Christian faith has an infinite limit of understanding when it comes to that truth. In this way, after a recent conversation with a friend regarding how one could possibly reconcile belief in both, I realized that he nor I sufficiently were able to support what we were saying with logic. After all these years of education, I felt like that should be remedied. That conversation propelled me on a search for literature on the topics and I luckily stumbled upon the book I plan on writing about: “The Science of God – The Convergence of `Scientific and Biblical Wisdom” by Gerald L Schroeder.

Just some quick background on the author: he is an Orthodox Jew, he is a well respected scientist (having earned his PhD and couple other degrees in nuclear physics and planetary science from MIT), he has written 4 books on this topic. For his work, I am grateful. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, his effort to seek the truth is inspiring and I hope to emulate that in my own life. At the heart of his thesis, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young Earth creationist Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old. To do this, he analyzes perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe and that it varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. Certainly a difficult feat, and to do this he critiques the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Next time I’ll get into some of the nitty gritty of his book, (like the beginning of time, the existence of the dinosaurs, the concept of 6 days of creation…) but as a lead to set the stage, here is a quote from a philosopher that Schroeder quotes a couple times named Maimonides:

- “…conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible. Acknowledged experts in science may assume that although scientific research requires diligent intellectual effort, biblical wisdom can be attained through a simple reading of the Bible. Conversely, theologians who have devoted decades to plumbing the depths of Biblical wisdom often satisfy their scientific curiosity through articles in the popular press and then assume they can evaluate the validity of such discoveries. The opposition is viewed with a level of knowledge at a high school pre-high school level. No wonder the other side seems superficial, even naive… It is time for the religious believer to render unto Einstein that which is Einstein’s … and colleagues who follow in the footsteps of Einstein would do well to render unto the Bible that which is the Bible’s, the search for purpose” because science has its limitations when discussing the “why” of life…

And of course, thanks for reading. J

AMDG

Be Like the Moon

In a book called A LONG WAY GONE written by Ishmael Beah about his experience as a child soldier in Sierra Leone, there is a quote which stuck with me -

"We must strive to be like the moon... people complain when there is too much sun and it gets unbearably hot, and also when it rains too much or when it is cold. But, no one grumbles when the moon shines. Everyone becomes happy and appreciates the moon in their own special way. Children watch their shadows and play in its light, people gather at the square to tell stories and dance through the night. A lot of happy things happen when the moon shines..."

I guess one could interpret this in quite a few ways after finishing the book, but to me it is simply saying -

Don't be like the sun - occasionally scorching those who stand too long in your presence.

Don't be like the rain - leaving people uncomfortable and wishing to escape to some shelter.

Be an agent of tranquility and peace in the world, bring out the best in others, basically - just be like the moon.

:-) As always, thanks for reading. AMDG.

The Assault on Reason

Saying former VP Al Gore and I see eye to eye on everything would be quite an overstatement, but there are a few things... probably more than few. Actually, one issue which he has written about I am in full support of. In his book “The Assault on Reason” he describes, among other things, how “television’s quasi-hypnotic effect is one reason that the political economy supported by the television industry” has (among other things) polarized us and changed political discussion from its more intelligent past.

Unfortunately, I find this to be true in my own interaction with the TV. It’s really uncomfortably refreshing to turn on one of the cable news stations and hear them talking about something I agree with – and the complete opposite when I don’t. When considered, it seems obvious that these cable news stations, while providing “news,” mostly are businesses attempting to sell their product just as much as McDonalds wants you to buy a hamburger. It seems the result of watching these programs consistently is not original ideas and thoughtful discussion, but virtually regurgitated opinions of charismatic talking heads, and this (like Mr. Gore describes) is assaulting our ability to reason.

Perhaps the following quote from the book can help sum it up:

- “Our systematic exposure to fear and other arousal stimuli on television can be exploited by the clever public relations specialist, advertiser, or politician…”

This fear can be attached to you name it: taxes, gays, religion, war, etc… It is easy to see ourselves or people we know respond with deeply emotive responses to such topics.

I am not trying to state that visual media is all bad. Indeed I agree again with how Mr. Gore states it:

- “visual images—pictures, graphs, cartoons, and computer models— communicate information about the climate crisis at a level deeper than words alone could convey. Similarly, the horrifying pictures that came back to us from both Vietnam and the Iraq war helped facilitate shifts in public sentiment against failing wars that needed to end.”

These are important things to be disseminated, without a doubt, but when they are repeatedly driven at emotive responses, and we let ourselves be taken by them - it crosses the line.

Of course, Gore goes on to bash President Bush and the GOP which I felt was a bit unnessecary, but when using it as an example, it helps to drive home his major point.

I find the best way to discover my own thoughts on an issue is to read; read an article or a book. Reading does still enable the "trapping" into regurgitated opinions, but it sure does a better job of encouraging thought.

In the same vein, I encourage everyone to read this article written by Ted Koppel called “Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news.” It really does a great job of describing his first hand perspective on how modern news has been denuded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

As always, thanks for reading J. AMDG

Understanding a trip to Maine and "generational amnesia"

I imagine most people have had at least one experience in their lives where they have been in complete awe of nature. I have had my share and hope to continue to pursue many more during my life, but my most recent - this past August in Maine, specifically Acadia national park – was particularly special for me. In a word… wow. The place is simply breathtaking.

We camped, car camped that is, for one entire week. I’d say it was pretty rugged for a couple quasi-urbanites, but the best part of these rustic accommodations was that it forced us to be at surrounded by the natural beauty of the place for nearly every minute we spent there.

I didn’t begin to fully appreciate the effect this vacation had on me until driving home when we happened to hear some quote on the radio (the exactness of which escapes me now). It was something like “the more people replace natural beauty with things virtual, they start to forget.” Hearing this and comprehending its meaning made my heart ache for all the natural beauty which has been lost over the years and for folks who just can’t/haven’t had the chance to experience such things.

I assure you that this is not some left wing plea for saving this and that, just a bit of reflection on something I find important to my life.

The next 11 hours of the drive provided ample opportunity for these thoughts to really sink in, and thus when I got home, I tried to do a bit of reading on the issue. The most original information I found was a thoughtful study by psychology researchers at the University of Washington who investigated specifically the effect of modern technology and its increasing encroachment on to human connection with the natural world…

Specifics of the study:

- Subjects under stress had much better quality recovery by actually personally viewing a scene of nature (outside) versus seeing the same scene in real-time high-definition television.

- Children were found to develop deeper and more social relationships with real-life pets versus robotic pets – however, they did actually develop one way superficial relationships with the robotic animals

At first thought, these may seem like trivial findings, yet if thoughtfully considered, it can be understood that over time, an increasing number technological nature experiences will do two things to our psyche as humans.

First, there will be a large void in our ability to find solace and healing in nature b/c we will be deprived of such experiences – perhaps w/out even knowing what is missing.

Secondly, and I find more interesting, the baseline of what people perceive as the full human experience of nature will shift - the researchers actually referred to this as “generational amnesia.” The reason for this is that people naturally believe the environment they encounter during childhood is the norm – thus measuring all environmental degradation later in their life versus their ‘norm.’ It can then be assumed with each generation the degradation baseline moves further and we become oblivious to changes of previous generations.

Take poor air quality and asthma as an example. There wasn’t always such rampant asthma in cities, but it is considered today to be a normal part of the human condition. Those coming up today will thus not see pervasive asthma as an environmental issue to contend with. More simply, what about the creek/stream you knew from when you were a kid, chances it’s close to being dried up today. Those coming up today won’t even see the difference by that dried up creek-bed.

That is an uncomfortable picture for me. I guess the point of this reflection is best summed up by a quote from one of the researchers: “We are a technological species, but we also need a deep connection with nature in our lives.”

Thanks for reading. A.M.D.G.

Anniversary Thoughts

This past summer my wife and I celebrated our first wedding anniversary.

What a special thing for me to write. And with the coming and going of that day, I guess it is easy to ask myself 1) what is the significance of that first year and 2) did I learn anything?

Well the easy answer is 1) tons and 2) you’re darn right I did. I felt it would be beneficial for me to think and write about it, so here are some of my thoughts.

First, perhaps I have started to develop an understanding of one of the points of my friend’s homily during our ceremony. This point was that he believed we were ready to enter marriage because we had reached a point in our respective lives of love for ourselves, an understanding of who we are as individuals – our own hopes and dreams and faults and failures altogether. Though at the time, I admit I didn’t really understand this, I do now. Without that love and understanding of self, this past year would have been much more difficult.

For example, as I sit and think about the times we have disagreed as a couple; it has usually been the times when I have felt out of sync with myself. A continued understanding of this will help us grow together. It is interesting then for me as I take that reflection one step further. I feel most in sync with myself when I feel in sync with God - when I am devoting time to prayer and service. I find this synchrony directly translates to excitement about my foreseeable path in life, and makes me even more excited because that foreseeable path involves spending it with my wife. Awesome.

And then I have considered the meaning of the often said phrase “marriage involves sacrifice.” …which ‘defining’ things of my first 29 years did I give up in order to make this marriage work? I guess it may seem odd, but honestly I feel basically like not much. Sure, I have not done a few things here and there which I may have done otherwise, but it seems that the result of that decision each time to do something or spend time with her has always resulted in more harmony and understanding of who we are as a couple. Since I voluntarily made a commitment to her to make her needs and our growth as a couple a priority (and I am a man of my word J), I don’t find it overly difficult to do such things. Really, it seems that sacrificing things of self enable me to better understand my love for her, and this feels great.

And then there is also the old adage that “marriage is hard work.” Yeah, I guess that is true. However, of the more recent years of my life which I can remember very clearly, I don’t think any year has been as easy or as fun as this past one. Challenges are easy with her to depend on. Fun things are more fun with her involved in them.

During our ceremony I recall that we were given a blessing that we were to live our life as one spirit. When I realize that I have accepted that blessing fully, I find something proven of what I already felt to be true – that God’s love is life giving. If I take the example of JC – the humble servant himself, I find that doing things for her energizes me again and again to get up and do it again the next day. This then has many implications of how I can interact with the world as a whole – I can use the love and energy I get from her as a springboard to spread that same love to others… Man, this marriage thing is getting better and better the more I think about it.

My dad once spoke to me many years ago about marriage – he said that marriage is not a union of convenience, a temporary set up, or even a way to beat loneliness… to succeed in marriage we have to commit to our love and to each other each day. At that time I must have thought, “wow, that sounds terrible and really hard.” However, after a year of it I feel like as long as we continue to love ourselves, keep our spiritual connection a priority, and continue to understand the concept of self-sacrifice, this whole marriage thing is not nearly as difficult as it sounds.

Thanks for reading and special thank you to my super awesome wife for being well, super awesome I guess.

Counting Crows and their honesty

People are attracted to honesty… freely offered honesty, the kind that offers a window into who we are.

My wife and I recently went to the Counting Crows concert. We had the uncommon opportunity to stand at the very front of the stage. During the show, I turned around and looked out into the audience – taking in the scene of thousands of fans singing along and dancing – and then I turned to Adam Duritz. As he sang and the band played The Rain King, I took a quick moment to consider something which I guess I had not considered previously or at least recently... at the core of this band’s music (and many other musicians) is deeply personal reflections on life and love.

It was then even more interesting to me to think about how we seem to experience the opposite of what was happening here… people in general are usually turned off or uncomfortable by such openness? Yet these people were not uncomfortable, they were enthralled.

Is there something about Duritz’s honesty that makes it special? Background guitar and drums, is it the fame?

Perhaps… but I think it is simply people are captivated by the ability of this person to stand in front of millions and just speak from w/in. Very few of us have really unique experiences, and even fewer have unique emotions related to those experiences. Most people can and will relate to you, even if it doesn’t seem like it on the surface. My guess, after a brief 29 years of life, would be that everyone not only can relate each other, but for the most part, wants to feel personally connected with each other -- what better way than to use honesty?

Consequently, that is why the Counting Crows are loved so much, people feel like they have a personal connection with the lead singer and his honesty.

I’m sure someone once said this so I can’t quote myself, but the biggest obstacle to honesty is fear, fear of what others will think or how they will react to what we are truly feeling. I guess I should take a tip from Mr. Duritz, especially if I could include a catchy song with it.