No Easy Answer for Evil

Another interesting talk from Ted.com. This one by Tom Honey, an English clergyman, who addresses the issue of how God can allow devastating tsunamis. I won't spoil the surprise of his answer. But I will say that I think the strongest part of his argument is that so long as we view God as outside our world when explaining evil, as puppet master, powerless, uncaring, etc. we have something unsatisfying and even offensive. The best case: find God with us, suffering right along with us. The question is: "Why?"

God, Inc.

God, Inc. wonders what would happen if the afterlife were run like a modern corporation. The fact that it might be run so irrationally would perhaps make this world make more sense. (Kind of reminds me of David Hume's observation that the world seems to have been made by a committee of gods.) The series features very short, cleverly written and crisply acted episodes. I think you'll enjoy it. Check out this first episode here, and then try the rest on YouTube.

The Final Explanation of Everything . . . Not!

As discussed in the previous post, numbers seem to be at the bottom of everything in physics. As Stephen Hawking noted, "a physical theory is a mathematical model."

Father Stanley Jaki has been arguing for years that Kurt Gödel's famous mathematical theorem says something very important about such physical theories, and their ability to provide a complete explanation of reality.

By complete, I mean one that says there is nothing more, and what is has to be here and behave in a fixed, deterministic manner. And that because it is necessarily this way, it is not contingent upon God.

"It should also be obvious," notes Jaki in an important essay entitled "A Late Awakening to Gödel in Physics," "that the more advanced is a physical theory the more mathematics it contains and the more advanced is the mathematics. From this the ground for connecting Gödel's theorem with physics readily follows.

"For insofar as Gödel's theorem states that no non-trivial system of arithmetic propositions can have its proof of consistency within itself, all systems of mathematics fall under this restriction, because all embody higher mathematics that ultimately rests on plain arithmetic. Then it follows that there can be no final physical theory which would necessarily be true at least in its mathematic part."

You may have a physical theory, but because it is based upon mathematics, you cannot know that it is final, and you can never show that the universe is a certain way "necessarily."

The essay goes on to bemoan the fact that many prominent physicists have not picked up on this little inconvenience to their search for a final answer to the universe.

Particularly ironic, as Jaki notes, the close relationship between Einstein - who searched for a unified field theory -- and Gödel, whose work showed he'd fail.

As Jaki notes in another essay entitled "Reflection on Einstein's Theories," "the application of Gödel's theorem to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open."

Interesting to ponder.

A Philosophically Rich Slice of Web Television

Here is a marvelous video discussion on Fora.Tv with Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of "String Theory." What will you learn from it? Some very interesting ideas from physics:

• That when you get to the "basement" of the world as Susskind calls it, you find material reality evaporating into numbers.
• That at the bottom of everything you discover multiple dimensions of reality, maybe up to 11, which makes you wonder why we only have three (or four!).
• The "multiverse" theory of the universe, which suggests that our world is but one emanation from the multiple potentialities that those basement numbers possess.

Also contained in this rich discussion is insight into the origins of the "Intelligent Design" theory, as championed these days by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, and its intellectual roots in philosopher William Paley's "watchmaker" argument for God. It states that basically some things are so complex (such as the "eye") as to not be reducible to bits of matter coming together randomly a la evolution.

Susskind takes issue with Intelligent Design. Call it his "argument from intellectual curiosity." He doesn't deny the existence of God. But, basically, he won't stop looking to reduce things, because he is naturally curious, and perhaps because there is a risk to science in doing so.

I can completely respect his point of view. He strikes me as intellectually honest. However, listen carefully as he describes the Darwinists' refutation of intelligent design of the eye. It sounds not so much as a description, but as enormous guesswork. See # 16, Q2. There is something odd about accepting that much guesswork as "satisfactory."

All in all, however, this is a fantastic presentation, and a demonstration of the cultural potential of the Web. Congratulations to ForaTv for capturing it.

A Follow Up Thought on Mr. Jobs' Speech

One additional thought on my last item, the video from Steve Jobs at Stanford. Clearly, he believes that there is an underlying purpose for his life. He is also willing to consider that some choices are not accidents, but part of a plan. Such as, for example, his choice of a typography course after he had "dropped in" on the college he dropped out of.

Because he enjoys remarkable goodwill with the students as an icon of creativity and inventiveness, it seems unlikely that he will draw the ire of any skeptics who doubt the existence of providence and wonder why he is turning these impressionable young minds into believers in the unseen forces of reality. These skeptics have bigger, and easier fundamentalist fish to fry. In other words, they might also be cowards.

The skeptic Michael Shermer said we are "pattern seeking beings" in the video I posted below. Seeking a pattern, he argues, must be restricted to the observable world of science.

While I have become much more suspicious of superstitious thinking about seeing "signs" in your life, I find it unsurprising how deep the hunger is to see such signs. The concern here is not with Darwinian survival, since purpose suggests finality. The concern is with meaning.

Try to deliberately not look for patterns in your life, as I have now, for a while. It's a remarkably difficult thing to do. Maybe you're in a casual habit of doing it yourself. Stop yourself for a while and see what happens.

As a young person, I looked for signs in everything, concerning my career, my romantic relationships, and more. I have stopped looking for signs in these areas because 1) I was often disappointed, and 2) (perhaps because of 1) I have stopped putting so much stock in these things to complete me as a person.

But sometimes, I also wonder if I'm not just clearing away the superstitious noise about every little thing so a bigger sign can make its appearance. LOL

Steve Jobs on Lessons Learned

This is a very nice, concise speech from Steve Jobs based on stories from his life. His remarks to the graduating class at Stanford on the need to have faith in something that connects the dots of your life, and on the importance of death for making something of your life, are particularly interesting and inspiring. Thank you, Mr. Jobs.

Today's Arrogant Atheists

Excellent piece by Sam Schulman in the Wall Street Journal online about the arrogance of today's high-profile atheists.

Schulman notes that Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis could extend some sympathy to atheist arguments because they had been there themselves. They could also take philosophical arguments about science and belief seriously. Yet, today's crusading atheists do not reciprocate and are remarkably "incurious" about anything beyond their own materialism.

Highly recommended.