"Universe 'too queer' to grasp "

[PsychoDad]

I thought this would make a good addition to the religion forum.

Universe 'too queer' to grasp
By Jo Twist
BBC News science and technology reporter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4676751.stm

Scientist Professor Richard Dawkins has opened a global conference of big thinkers warning that our Universe may be just "too queer" to understand.

Professor Dawkins, the renowned Selfish Gene author from Oxford University, said we were living in a "middle world" reality that we have created.
...

Professor Dawkins' opening talk, in a session called Meme Power, explored the ways in which humans invent their own realities to make sense of the infinitely complex worlds they are in; worlds made more complex by ideas such as quantum physics which is beyond most human understanding.

"Are there things about the Universe that will be forever beyond our grasp, in principle, ungraspable in any mind, however superior?" he asked.
...
"Middle world is the narrow range of reality that we judge to be normal as opposed to the queerness that we judge to be very small or very large."


Just a thought:
If we cannot start to really understand the universe we live in, how can we ever attempt to comprehend a God which may exist seperate and outside of it?

[sojourner]

1. let alone claim to be acting on His behalf?

[RethugAssKicker]

2. Great subject... Quantum Mechanics

I wish we had more PBS shows on this subject. I think its the religious right in this country that somehow stops them from enlightening the American people.

[Maple]

3. Comments like that annoy me

The astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said "not only is the universe stranger than we imagine , it is stranger than we CAN imagine."

People from the Middle Ages couldn't comprehend the world we live in today, but WE can.

Dawkins and Eddington may not be able to comprehend more of the universe than what they presently do, but that doesn't mean others can't.

[Zorbuddha]

16. The people of the middle-ages COULD'VE undertood the world

we live in today, given the same chance to understand it as we.

This isn't about individuals, it is about human potential.

[RobertSeattle]

4. Thanks - Interesting article

I bet in 200 years ideas like "particles" and "energy" will be completely replaced by something else and how we currently think about Physics will seem quaint to them.

[silverweb]

5. Great article.

:thumbsup:

[trotsky]

6. Funny, I don't get that impression from Dawkins' words.

He seems to be asking if things in the universe will be "forever beyond our grasp", not saying they will.

And it's certainly a valid question. Our brains are an evolutionary product, selected to process that information which was critical to the survival of a bipedal primate species on the planet Earth.

We've gotten very good at using our minds in ways evolution didn't expressly prepare us for, which essentially is also what Dawkins says.

But obviously this won't stop religionists from taking his comments out of context and saying, "See? Scientists admit they may never know everything, so there certainly can be a god!"

[PsychoDad]

7. Even if we learn everything..

Which we may one day, It still doesn't mean there isn't a god.

It's still a circular argument, unless one of the things we learn is an answer to the question of is there a god.

[trotsky]

8. "God of the gaps"

You'll always be able to find some little sliver in which to hide a god. Of course, as those gaps grow smaller, so does the god. Gods used to light up the night with thunderbolts, drive the sun across the sky in a chariot, and even create maggots on rotten meat.

But one of the most important things we've learned already is that the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it to behave if there were no god. I.e., there is no phenomenon yet discovered that requires a god to be explained.

[PsychoDad]

9. Still a circular argument.

"But one of the most important things we've learned already is that the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it to behave if there were no god."

My question would be, how would a universe with a God behave? To make the above argument, you have to have a demonstrable theory as to how a universe with a God would be different from a universe without one. At present we only have one observable universe, and no solid empirical evidence that there is or is not a God behind it.

For all we know, this universe and all the natural laws governing it may be exactly how a universe with a God would behave.

You see natural laws that don't require obvious divine intervention, I see natural laws set into motion by a design. You say God needs gaps to hide in, I say that God is hidden behind the design, it's design seen in nature.

[trotsky]

10. Ah, but first you have to define the god.

This thing you called "god" is an unknown concept. You tell me what characteristics your god theory has, and then I can test for it. Because up til now, observations of reality have not required an unseen, powerful, intelligent entity (a traditional definition of god) to explain them. "I don't know" is not an answer that means "goddidit."

And indeed, what constitutes "design"? Were our appendices designed to get infected, burst, and kill us? Were some flying insects designed to co-opt nerves in their abdomen for their wings? That's a pitiful design - the wings are attached to the thorax. A better design would take nerves from there and not have to use extra material.

Where you see "design" to justify belief in a god, others just see what is.

[Stevepol]

13. Better to avoid dualism altogether. If the universe is One universe,

doesn't that mean that God IS the universe and all things in it?

It's almost impossible as humans to understand something without resorting to dualism: something out there as opposed to something here where I'm thinking (as if my thinking and being could be separate from the whole of which I am part).

If a person sees or thinks about God as being separate from the universe He/She/It inhabits, that person builds that into his/her thinking and it becomes so -- for that person.

But I think God is the universe (and not just the material universe, but the thought and spirit universe as well, all things) and at the same time each of us that inhabits it is part of God, and the universe is ONE.

God for me is the highest expression of good that I can imagine. For somebody else, who can imagine a higher good, God is a higher God perhaps. But both my God and the other person's God are there, supported by the spirits that believe in that spirit, who become one with that spirit.

The truth about God I think is impossible for a human to comprehend. Not because God is irrational but because the laws are so infintely extended and inter-related that our minds are just too blunt and too slow as instruments of perception to handle it.

[Zorbuddha]

18. God is no more hidden

than ecstasy or grief.

[Taxloss]

11. Well, space, time, and light can get bent.

And the article is by "Jo Twist"

[patrice]

12. Universe "Weird allover and wild at heart."

or something like that anyway.

The etymology of the word "weird" is very interesting; and don't forget our (Germanic) language's Indo/European roots (and Brahmah, Siva, and Visnu), weird = a pre-Christian concept artifact.

[Zorbuddha]

17. Great way to put it.

Weird is an interesting word. Wild at heart is a great way to be.

[PsychoDad]

14. I want to thank everyone..

For some very thought provoking comments, particularly Trotsky :) I have to head out to Maryland in the morning and it will give me something to think about on the drive.

Thanks again :) and Peace to all of you.

[gate of the sun]

15. as a person who dapples in the ideas of

quantum physics his statements made sense to me.