What if Genesis were reconstructed?

[harvey1]

There are biblical translations where the translators update the Hebrew and Greek concepts to modernize them with current use of popular language. I was wondering, if a translation were to pop up that was consistent with this type of liberty, but made Genesis compatible with evolution, would this be acceptable or do you think it would be counter-productive? If you think it would be counter-productive, then in what way?

[QED]

To arrive from theism to Christianity has less to do with any merit of Christianity (although I do think there are tremendous merits), and more to do with the relationship that I think this God would have with the world...

...I can't imagine a God that would have the complexity of thought to be able to make a universe and not be able to supervise every minute detail of the world. That doesn't mean that God would intervene in terms of a violation of natural laws, but I can't visualize a God that at least wouldn't know our thoughts and actions.

Forgive me but I can't get past this notion as having been one derived for purely human motives. It suits man to say to other men that God is watching over their every thought and move. That there is an element of 'crowd control' embedded in the teachings of the Church is beyond dispute. I have to weigh this consideration with other questions like God's bandwidth (which I could never accept as being infinite) and of what interest it all might be to him. Add to this the fact that we are demonstrably just another animal by degree and that much of what we think and do is relative to our own, local, context which only has meaning in that context and I can only conclude that the concept of an "all seeing God" is a rather crude human invention.

...I've had to limit my "research" to mainly the Christian tradition since I only have so much time. (Although, I have examined Taoism a little more closer than other religions, and I find it very enticing at this point.)

Well I was wondering about your choice, after all, at its core Christianity is somewhat misogynistic and apart from taking certain dubious revelations at face value I couldn't see how any of your philosophical meanderings might admit this sort of thinking. I appreciate that there are more modern forms of the faith being practiced but the overall flavour still seems firmly entrenched in the dark ages.

I think I'm being consistent in my approach to the universe because I give ultiimate precedence to laws over state space. Whereas, I think your consistency breaks down because, in my view, you are forced to give priority to the state space over the laws. That doesn't make sense in my opinion. You see, the state space that you'd have to give priority (i.e., a multiverse) would be much more complex than the state space we observe (i.e., our universe), and hence it defeats the whole point of looking for scientific laws that demonstrate how our state space is possible. It also is terribly ironic since just at the point to where science has reduced our state space to the most simplest of causes (namely some unified gravio-strong-electroweak force), you take this huge jump by saying that this very concise state space (regulated by perhaps a handful of equations) is caused by an uncaused, unexplainable state space of infinite size and duration having no laws. That astounds me that you would take that move. I know we've been down this road before, but I just cannot get over the fact that you won't accept that laws always have priority in the universe. Hence, all state spaces are reducible to the result of laws operating in the world, and this thought process leads directly to a God or omniscient interpreter as I've mentioned before.

Whoa, back up a little way there and let's examine this a little closer: What are these laws you speak of? Physics reveals forces emerging from phase transitions taking place in the early expansion of the universe. These are what shape the energy of the universe into its content and behavior. So it is from our observations of all this that we deduce the physical laws. But in what state space did these laws evolve? You say that the state space supervenes on the laws but that looks to be the wrong way round to me.

[harvey1]

Forgive me but I can't get past this notion as having been one derived for purely human motives.... Add to this the fact that we are demonstrably just another animal by degree and that much of what we think and do is relative to our own, local, context which only has meaning in that context and I can only conclude that the concept of an "all seeing God" is a rather crude human invention.

Then I would say that your concept of God is a crude one. The reason that it is more reasonable to suggest that God is reflective on every instant in the universe is because the reason for saying there is a God is because of the integral need of interpretation as it relates to the world. That is, the fundamental failing of materialism is that it lacks causation (as I've tried to convey), and the only suitable replacement for materialism is a type of logicism where everything derives from some kind of logical relation which is what forms the basis of a temporal causal relation. Relations in this logical sense aren't like material relations. With material relations we say that P is taller than Q, but the relation itself doesn't actually exist. P just is some material entity, and Q is just some material entity, and the relation exists only because there is a P & Q which are being compared. In actuality, the relation reduces to a state of affairs that just so happens to be the case. For example, I get up in the morning at a certain time, and there is a relation between that time and when I get up, but the relation does not exist which makes me get up. The relation exists because I get up at that time.

In the case of a logical relation that forms the basis of a causal chain, there exists an explanation for P & Q, and this explanation is why P & Q exist. The explanation satisfies a mental condition on the world. And, it is a condition that can only be satisfied if a thought exists which cannot be in error; this thought confirms the relation is satisfied. This is the act of an omniscient interpeter (or God).

It wouldn't make sense to say that, "causal relations exist, but not all causal relations are satisfied in this way." It's an all or nothing situation. Either all causal relations in the world are satisfied, and therefore providing a causal structure to the world, or no causal relations are satisfied--in which case they do not exist.

Now, you complain that this isn't scientific because it is experimentally unverifiable. However causal relations such as proposed by quantum loop geometries are experimentally verifiable (at least conceptually), so the only concept that is not verifiable is the satisfaction relation being proposed. Yet, what other possibilities are there if there is no satisfaction relation? I see none. Therefore, reason dictates that we should believe what seems necessary to believe.

Whoa, back up a little way there and let's examine this a little closer: What are these laws you speak of?

I'm not speaking of any specific laws, I'm speaking much more general than that. I'm saying that you show me a state space studied by science, and I'll show you laws that are used to explain that state space.

Physics reveals forces emerging from phase transitions taking place in the early expansion of the universe. These are what shape the energy of the universe into its content and behavior. So it is from our observations of all this that we deduce the physical laws. But in what state space did these laws evolve?

This is the wrong question. The reason it is wrong is because you are now referring to a lower level of state space that is more simple than the one that the laws that science revealed have just neatly explained with a handful of equations (sometimes an equation as simple as e=mc^2). By looking to find what state space the laws evolved within, we are moving to a simpler state space (or a state space where more general laws explain a whole slew of previously thought-to-be unrelated state spaces).

Of course, we don't absolutely know which is first, the chicken or the egg. Nonetheless, by advocating the chicken (state space) you are violating the basic premise of all scientific investigation, namely, the egg came first. Well, maybe we are wrong that the egg came first, but why is the chicken in this case (i.e., the multiverse) so much more of a sophisticated structure than the chicken that we know have already determined is the most primitive chicken (i.e., the state space of the big bang)? When you propose a multiverse, that's okay as long as you stay consistent in this approach by showing that this multiverse is itself a more general phenomena than our universe which itself emerges as a result of law. This, in fact, is the approach taken with quantum gravity theories, and we should have every right to treat laws as precedent. Otherwise, we are giving up on the whole approach of a rational inquiry into the fundamental nature of the universe.

You say that the state space supervenes on the laws but that looks to be the wrong way round to me.

Without going back to the very beginning of the universe, give me a state space that doesn't supervene on some particular laws. Any a state space would be suitable to discuss...

[QED]

The reason that it is more reasonable to suggest that God is reflective on every instant in the universe is because the reason for saying there is a God is because of the integral need of interpretation as it relates to the world.

That's an awful lot of interpretation that's needed then. Unfailing, mechanical interpretation if we are to account for the order we see in the world. It doesn't sound like the sort of work worthy of a God to me.

That is, the fundamental failing of materialism is that it lacks causation (as I've tried to convey), and the only suitable replacement for materialism is a type of logicism where everything derives from some kind of logical relation which is what forms the basis of a temporal causal relation.

And


Relations in this logical sense aren't like material relations. With material relations we say that P is taller than Q, but the relation itself doesn't actually exist. P just is some material entity, and Q is just some material entity, and the relation exists only because there is a P & Q which are being compared. In actuality, the relation reduces to a state of affairs that just so happens to be the case. For example, I get up in the morning at a certain time, and there is a relation between that time and when I get up, but the relation does not exist which makes me get up. The relation exists because I get up at that time.

In the case of a logical relation that forms the basis of a causal chain, there exists an explanation for P & Q, and this explanation is why P & Q exist. The explanation satisfies a mental condition on the world. And, it is a condition that can only be satisfied if a thought exists which cannot be in error; this thought confirms the relation is satisfied. This is the act of an omniscient interpeter (or God).

It wouldn't make sense to say that, "causal relations exist, but not all causal relations are satisfied in this way." It's an all or nothing situation. Either all causal relations in the world are satisfied, and therefore providing a causal structure to the world, or no causal relations are satisfied--in which case they do not exist.

Now, you complain that this isn't scientific because it is experimentally unverifiable. However causal relations such as proposed by quantum loop geometries are experimentally verifiable (at least conceptually), so the only concept that is not verifiable is the satisfaction relation being proposed. Yet, what other possibilities are there if there is no satisfaction relation? I see none. Therefore, reason dictates that we should believe what seems necessary to believe.

Whoa, back up a little way there and let's examine this a little closer: What are these laws you speak of?

I'm not speaking of any specific laws, I'm speaking much more general than that. I'm saying that you show me a state space studied by science, and I'll show you laws that are used to explain that state space.

Physics reveals forces emerging from phase transitions taking place in the early expansion of the universe. These are what shape the energy of the universe into its content and behavior. So it is from our observations of all this that we deduce the physical laws. But in what state space did these laws evolve?

This is the wrong question. The reason it is wrong is because you are now referring to a lower level of state space that is more simple than the one that the laws that science revealed have just neatly explained with a handful of equations (sometimes an equation as simple as e=mc^2). By looking to find what state space the laws evolved within, we are moving to a simpler state space (or a state space where more general laws explain a whole slew of previously thought-to-be unrelated state spaces).

Of course, we don't absolutely know which is first, the chicken or the egg. Nonetheless, by advocating the chicken (state space) you are violating the basic premise of all scientific investigation, namely, the egg came first. Well, maybe we are wrong that the egg came first, but why is the chicken in this case (i.e., the multiverse) so much more of a sophisticated structure than the chicken that we know have already determined is the most primitive chicken (i.e., the state space of the big bang)? When you propose a multiverse, that's okay as long as you stay consistent in this approach by showing that this multiverse is itself a more general phenomena than our universe which itself emerges as a result of law. This, in fact, is the approach taken with quantum gravity theories, and we should have every right to treat laws as precedent. Otherwise, we are giving up on the whole approach of a rational inquiry into the fundamental nature of the universe.

You say that the state space supervenes on the laws but that looks to be the wrong way round to me.

Without going back to the very beginning of the universe, give me a state space that doesn't supervene on some particular laws. Any a state space would be suitable to discuss...[/quote]

[QED]

Then I would say that your concept of God is a crude one. The reason that it is more reasonable to suggest that God is reflective on every instant in the universe is because the reason for saying there is a God is because of the integral need of interpretation as it relates to the world. That is, the fundamental failing of materialism is that it lacks causation (as I've tried to convey), and the only suitable replacement for materialism is a type of logicism where everything derives from some kind of logical relation which is what forms the basis of a temporal causal relation. Relations in this logical sense aren't like material relations. With material relations we say that P is taller than Q, but the relation itself doesn't actually exist. P just is some material entity, and Q is just some material entity, and the relation exists only because there is a P & Q which are being compared. In actuality, the relation reduces to a state of affairs that just so happens to be the case. For example, I get up in the morning at a certain time, and there is a relation between that time and when I get up, but the relation does not exist which makes me get up. The relation exists because I get up at that time.

In the case of a logical relation that forms the basis of a causal chain, there exists an explanation for P & Q, and this explanation is why P & Q exist. The explanation satisfies a mental condition on the world. And, it is a condition that can only be satisfied if a thought exists which cannot be in error; this thought confirms the relation is satisfied. This is the act of an omniscient interpeter (or God).

It wouldn't make sense to say that, "causal relations exist, but not all causal relations are satisfied in this way." It's an all or nothing situation. Either all causal relations in the world are satisfied, and therefore providing a causal structure to the world, or no causal relations are satisfied--in which case they do not exist.

Now, you complain that this isn't scientific because it is experimentally unverifiable. However causal relations such as proposed by quantum loop geometries are experimentally verifiable (at least conceptually), so the only concept that is not verifiable is the satisfaction relation being proposed. Yet, what other possibilities are there if there is no satisfaction relation? I see none. Therefore, reason dictates that we should believe what seems necessary to believe.

What you mean is that there is still a gap! You started this topic by creating an alternative version of Genesis which gives a blow-by-blow account of God doing this and that. I still don't really get your vision though, because in other discussions (like God hurling rocks) you shy away from such overt intervention and talk instead of a general will for things to happen in certain ways. To me this all seems very much like a superficial tweak - like putting a different label on a product. The product is exactly the same but instead of plain old soap powder it suddenly becomes 'miracle clean'. The point being that there is no substantive change.

The Catholic Church went through hoops following the 1755 Lisbon earthquake which killed over 100,000 people on All Saints Day, with many people lost in church congregations gathered at that time. Formerly all earthly events were considered to be the action of God but this one simply couldn't be (although at the height of the inquisitions you might care to disagree) so for the first time people like Kant started to work out a way for natural forces to produce natural disasters. But you are resurrecting the idea that everything 'pans out' in the end as a consequence of divine will. While it may well turn out to be a highly defensible position, I think it is ultimately trivial. It has no predictive power within a definite time-frame and is indistinguishable form a naturalistic interpretation.

[harvey1]

What you mean is that there is still a gap!

There's always going to be a gap in knowledge. This is why scientific knowledge is always limited to being fallibilistic.

You started this topic by creating an alternative version of Genesis which gives a blow-by-blow account of God doing this and that. I still don't really get your vision though, because in other discussions (like God hurling rocks) you shy away from such overt intervention and talk instead of a general will for things to happen in certain ways. To me this all seems very much like a superficial tweak

I think I'm being very consistent with science. Afterall, what is the path integral? It is all the possible paths that nature can explore from a to b while only the most minimum path being the one that isn't cancelled out. How have I said anything different? A is alpha, and B is omega (God's ultimate will). At the highest level of coarse graining, there is just Alpha being God as a state of being and Omega as being "God all in all." If we fine-grain on this so that our universe comes into focus, we get Alpha as the big bang, and Omega as the end of time. Fine graining further to earth's role in all of this, we get Alpha as the beginning of life, and Omega as life reaching God's will on earth. At each point the will of God determines what the minimum paths must reach in order to accomplish God's will--the logical necessitated will of the universe.

The laws of physics are determined by this. The evolution of life is determined by this. The evolution of society is determined by this. I am not being inconsistent at all. The Genesis account does a good job in illustrating how God's will is "out there" and how evolution must conform to that will as a natural byproduct of the earth fulfilling its commandments.

Since I believe Christianity is an equation like (F=ma), I think the world very naturally moves in the path that conforms to God's "F=ma" will. Why F=ma and not some other equation, well, it "fits" with God's mind. However, it is an approximation. The deeper truths are quantum or relativity based, but F=ma is a very good approximation based on it's purpose. There's other ways to state "F=ma" without mentioning forces, so we naturally see other ways to approximate the same phenomena. Hence, evolution produces many different paths, but the world evolves toward B.

Since the evolutionary paths toward B are followed minimally, with least energy, the world we see follows a natural course. To the atheist, it looks as if there is no God because how could the world look so natural and so inefficient and there be a God? However, to the theist, it is obvious that there is a God because the journey from A to B would not be feasible by a pure random beginning. A little trip to Las Vegas and someone would readily see that luck of that type just doesn't exist. (You really ought to go to Vegas, perhaps that would end your atheism. You probably think that everyone who puts in a dollar in the slots comes back a winner. I assure you that's not the case. I always see atheists lose a ton of money and come back bewildered on why nature didn't tremendously favor them like it did the universe. It shakes their faith in atheism a great deal.)