Getting down to rock bottom reality

I've never understood why science isn't worshiped by religious believers. After all, most religions believe that God or a higher power created the cosmos.

So seemingly the next best thing to knowing God would be knowing how our universe works, since it stands to reason that the consciousness of the creator would be reflected in the creation -- in the same way as the psyche of an artist shines through his or her paintings.

Normally my meditation nook's reading corner has several science books nestled comfortably next to spiritual and philosophical titles. I jump back and forth between them most mornings, finding each genre inspiring in its own fashion.

Recently I've been making my way through Frank Wilczek's "The Lightness of Being." He's got a Nobel Prize in Physics, a fact prominently displayed on the book's cover (can't blame him).

This was a book that sold itself via the front cover flap. I noticed it at a Salem bookstore and wondered if Wilczek had anything new to say about his subtitled subject: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces. Reading this on the flap made me get out my VISA card:

Matter is built from almost weightless units, and pure energy is the ultimate source of mass. Wilczek calls this discovery "The Lightness of Being." But he also shows us much more. Space is no mere container, empty and passive. It is a dynamic Grid -- a modern ether.

The Grid is more fundamental than any "fundamental" particle; its spontaneous activity creates and destroys particles. This new understanding of mass and "empty space" explains the puzzling feebleness of gravity and brings a gorgeous unification of all the forces of nature into sharp focus.

God! That's so beautiful. Such was my thought as I walked up to the cashier.

I was carrying a holy book. "Holy," because it was founded in reality, not dogma or superstition. Sure, science doesn't have all the answers to what the universe is made of. Wilczek makes this clear, repeatedly.

But in "The Lightness of Being" I've been learning about what is known, or at least strongly suspected, about the nature of rock bottom reality. Whether you believe that the universe came from God, the Tao, Brahma, Allah, the Big Bang, or some other source, here's the latest word on how the creative power fashioned our home.

To me, this is deeply significant.

Again, I don't see how any person of faith would want to ignore the findings of modern science, particularly physics and cosmology -- which are delving into the foundation of time, space, energy, and matter.

Namely, the basic stuff of creation. Which, as the quote above says, turns out to be energetic "nothing" that morphs into more materialistic "something," the subatomic particles that we and everything else are made of.

This isn't an easy book to read. The cover copy is the least complex writing in it. Smattered here and there, though, are observations that point to some aha's for anyone (like me) who resonates with the scientific side of Taoism and Buddhism.

For example:

Philosophical and scientific ideas about what the world is made of continue to change. Many loose ends remain in today's best world-models, and some big mysteries. Clearly the last word has not been spoken. But we know a lot too -- enough to draw some surprising conclusions that go beyond piecemeal facts.

They address, and offer some answers to, questions that have traditionally been regarded as belonging to philosophy or even theology.

For natural philosophy, the most important lesson we learn from QCD [quantum chromodynamics] is that what we perceive as empty space is in reality a powerful medium whose activity molds the world.

...So: What is the world made of? Subject, as ever, to addition and correction, here is the multifaceted answer that modern physics provides:

--The primary ingredient of physical reality, from which all else is formed, fills space and time.
--Every fragment, each space-time element, has the same basic properties as every other fragment.
--The primary ingredient of reality is alive with quantum activity. Quantum activity has special characteristics. It is spontaneous and unpredictable. And to observe quantum activity, you must disturb it.
--The primary ingredient of reality also contains enduring material components. These make the cosmos a multilayered, multicolored superconductor.
--The primary ingredient of reality contains a metric field that gives space-time rigidity and causes gravity.
--The primary ingredient of reality weighs, with a universal density.

OK, I admit it: not many people are going to find those words as inspiring as what leaves the mouth of their preacher, rabbi, guru, or other religious teacher.

But they are to me. In fact, they're even more inspirational. Because they're based on reality, not imagination.

Emptiness is fine with me as the "primary ingredient of reality." (Not that I have any choice in the matter, or non-matter.) There's no warm and fuzzy personal God in science's foundational view of the cosmos.

But there's beauty. Here's Wilczek in one of his more poetic moments:

Beneath the familiar, sober appearances of enduring matter in empty space, our minds envision the dance of intricate patterns within a pervasive, ever-present, effervescent medium...Our substance is the hum of a strange music, a mathematical music more precise and complex than a Bach fugue, the Music of the Grid.

Through patchy clouds, off in the distance, we seem to glimpse a mathematical Paradise, where the elements that build reality shed their dross. Correcting for the distortions of our everyday vision, we create in our minds a vision of what they might really be: pure and ideal, symmetric, equal, and perfect.

Or have our imaginations made too much of a wispy chimera? We point our telescope, and wait for the clouds to clear.

Comments

[Adam]

I wonder if we can at some point clarify the debate....I don' think the debate on this site of really about science vs. religion or as some religious folk think when they come here, atheism vs. belief in god.

I think the war you're fighting is more a war against blatant irrationality....unquestioned irrationality.

Otherwise religious folk and you shar esome desires. The sense of awe, of "OH crap!" when you read the cover of this physics book is the very same sense of awe I imaine some Christians have when they imagine Jesus saving them and taking them to heaven, or a satsangi imagined the master escorting him/her to sach khand.

The awe---separated by the content, is the shared, desired experience....but what is then needed is a little intelligence to filter the mental associations that revolve around the feeling. I could go on and on here, but am curious to know what you all think.

[adam]

oops, sorry for all the typos

[zenjen]

Before I entered this site today I was googling "beings of light" and voilà, here I find a post about""The Lightness of Being".

I love that sense of awe. What is it, that awe, that seems to send tingles through my entire being?

To read: "Every fragment, each space-time element, has the same basic properties as every other fragment"

and

"The primary ingredient of reality is alive with quantum activity. Quantum activity has special characteristics. It is spontaneous and unpredictable. And to observe quantum activity, you must disturb it".

And ... 'disturbing' the quantum field, I would like to envisage:

"Beneath the familiar, sober appearances of enduring matter in empty space, our minds envision the dance of intricate patterns within a pervasive, ever-present, effervescent medium...Our substance is the hum of a strange music, a mathematical music more precise and complex than a Bach fugue, the Music of the Grid".

Beautiful.

Damn, do I have to now 'filter the mental associations that revolve around the feeling'!

I'm hoping that this site is just about being who we are at this point in time (we're always changing anyway, impermanence and all that).

[adam]

Zenjen,
you write:

Damn, do I have to now 'filter the mental associations that revolve around the feeling'!

You seem to disagree with what I wrote. But what if you were a christian who believed, based on this feeling, that Jesus would take you to heaven? And perhaps that we must defend Israel at all costs to preserve it so that the end of days prophecy could come true? And that all the Jews have to move back to Israel for the second coming to happen?

What if these were your mental associations surrounding the feeling, and you went and joined the Christian zionist movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

My point is not to make you feel less excited, or ask you (or anyone else) to not be "who they are," but instead to understand that the sense of awe is what (atheist) scientists and religious people have in common, and that the thoughts that come with the awe can be radically different--and lead to radically different actions, some of which I would like to protest (such as christian zionism). Hope that clarifies my point.

[zenjen]

Hi Adam,

Just looked up the word 'awe' and according to my dictionary it is:

'a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder'.

I guess this feeling comes from quite a primaeval instinct, so then, if we start to defend aggressively whatever we feel in awe of, the problems start.

I hope I've got your point.

[Roger]

zenjen,

When I stand before Shiprock mountain in New Mexico, I have a sense of awe. I have a simple feeling of wonder and amazement, followed by a need to ask questions.

A word can have many definitions. Likewise, a definition can be associated with many different words.

So, what's the big deal with all these words and definitions? haha....just kidding.

[zenjen]

Hey Roger,

I'm just trying to be more left side brain logical. Don't think its working too well.

[Cyfer]

Hi Brian, glad to hear you had psychedelic-fueled youth. Me too.

I'm a little curious. The way i understand it is the zero point energy field or false vaccume is an infinitly deep sea of virtual particles popping in and out of existence around zero energy. When the Higgs field was added the the universe as it cooled below billions of degrees, thats when reality set in. - The god particle. All particles that interact with the higgs field aquire the property of mass. The higgs field, like gravity premeates the entire universe. Light particles (photons) don't interact with the higgs and that's why they have no mass. This is why were searching for the higgs bozon particle right now at the new accelerate in Zern.

Louie

[Stuart Resnick]

> I've never understood why science isn't
> worshiped by religious believers.

These days, science is worshipped by just about everyone, whether they call themselves religious or not.

Say someone has a toothache. Only the tiniest fringe percentage of folks will go to a church to solve that problem. The huge concensus majority will take their toothache to a dentist. That's called worshipping science.

Even among say Catholics... you may find lots who SAY the Pope is infallible, but how many eschew birth control? Only a small minority. People may talk about religion, may use religious ideas to help them feel better... but as far as how they actually live their lives, science and rationality are a greater influence. By a long shot.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm

[Jim]

Hello,

I'm just beginning to get involved with this website and finding it quite interesting!

I would very much agree with the last post on this thread that science is indeed worshiped as a religion...the terminology has just been changed so that most people don't realize that science is their true religion. Science fulfills (or attempts to fulfill) all of the same facets as does a religion, providing answers to the Big Questions of life. However, the (false) doctrine of scientific objectivity has fooled us into believing that the answers provided by science are somehow more valid than those provided by religion. They are not, of course...just a different perspective.

I just the other day made my first post on this forum to the "Recommended spiritual reading lists" thread. One of the books I listed, "The Ascent of Humanity" by Charles Eisenstein, devotes a great deal of time to this topic. He says all of this much more eloquently than I have at http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter3-1.php.

As Eisenstein points out somewhere in there, the truly funny thing is how we human beings try to use science to justify or disprove religions. (One example might be the use of carbon dating techniques on ancient artifacts to determine whether or not the Bible is accurate in its time line of events in the ancient world.) How the God of Modern Science does reign supreme, becoming the arbitrator of truths in other religions! Eisenstein offers something to the effect that this is comparable to trying to determine the validity of Christianity by asking a tribal shaman to enter a dream state and give us the definitive word!

[Roger]

Jim,

You stated,

"I would very much agree with the last post on this thread that science is indeed worshiped as a religion...the terminology has just been changed so that most people don't realize that science is their true religion. Science fulfills (or attempts to fulfill) all of the same facets as does a religion, providing answers to the Big Questions of life. However, the (false) doctrine of scientific objectivity has fooled us into believing that the answers provided by science are somehow more valid than those provided by religion. They are not, of course...just a different perspective."

---Jim, what is the source of your view, that you take in the above statement? That is, how did you come to the conclusions, presented in the above statement?

---One thing I have learned, in some fashion, "Don't judge a person by their initial comment."

Thanks for a reply,
Roger

[Jim]

Roger,

You may feel free to judge me to be a cantankerous oddball based upon my initial (and successive) postings! I'm comfortable with that designation...I hear it frequently.

I base my opinion on many things, but it was shaped in no small way by the book that I mentioned--"The Ascent of Humanity," by Charles Eisenstein. The book says many things that I had already thought or read elsewhere, but Eisenstein weaves it all together in a way that I found quite compelling. I highly recommend giving it a read. The author felt strongly enough about the importance of his work that he placed the entire text online for free at www.ascentofhumanity.com. (Although I'm sure he still appreciates it when people purchase a copy so he can continue to pay his bills!)

It is worth noting that, however critical I may be of science, I recognize the fact that I/we benefit from it in countless ways each and every day. (However, it is equally true that I/we are assaulted each and every day by the harmful side-effects of science--the man-made toxins in our food, water and air, the chemical off-gassing from paints, carpets and furniture, the harmful electro-magnetic fields from power lines and electrical gadgets, etc.)

Even though I feel that science is its own religion and I am often quite critical of it, I feel perfectly comfortable in selectively benefiting from the religion of science. I think that all of the world's religions ought to be borrowed from...I take something of a pick-and-choose approach. To use a beautiful metaphor, I have heard it said that a seeker of truth ought to be like a bee, visiting many diverse types of flowers in search of nectar.

Buzz, buzz, buzz!
Jim

[Roger]

Jim,

Thanks for your reply.

You stated,

"You may feel free to judge me to be a cantankerous oddball based upon my initial (and successive) postings! I'm comfortable with that designation...I hear it frequently."

---Thanks for your addition to my limited vocabulary. The "cantankerous oddball" is graceously accepted. Are there examples of staunch hardcore oddballs? Haha...just kidding.

You ended your comment with,

"To use a beautiful metaphor, I have heard it said that a seeker of truth ought to be like a bee, visiting many diverse types of flowers in search of nectar."

---Could you sight an example of a scientist that has met the description of such methaphor? Likewise, please reference a person of Religion, in like manner.

Thanks again for your time and reply,
Best wishes,
Roger

[Dov Henis]

When Is God-Science Discussable Scientifically

Re "God and Evolution Can Co-Exist, Scientist Insists"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/304.page#1124

- Is there/what is, in the quoted article, a definition of the article's "god" ?

- Specifically, is the article's "god" defined as a human artifact, or not ?

If "god" is defined/understood to be a human artifact - regardless of reasons, purposes, implications, consequences - the subject "god-science" is scientifically discussable.

If "god" is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and "god-science" is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality.

"Evolutionary Biology Of Culture And Religion"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/20/122.page#492

Dov Henis

(A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

Life's Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578

[Roger]

Dov Henis,

Leaving God out of the discussion, could you write a comment that contrasts the Scientific and Religious(?) Method?

I liked what Giberson had to say in the referenced article.

Thanks for a reply,
Roger

[Brian]

Well, I couldn't understand at all what Giberson was getting at in the article:
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/304.page#1124

So he likes the idea of God because he grew up with it. Wow. What a trivial justification for religious belief. I grew up with the idea of Santa Claus, for a few years. Does this mean I have to, or should, keep on believing in Santa Claus?

I do agree with Giberson that consciousness is a big mystery, to science as well as to religion, mysticism, and everybody else. But mystery doesn't equal "God" -- unless God is taken to be everything we don't understand about the universe.

[Roger]

Last 2 lines in the Giberson article,

Shermer said, so "you're stepping off the page of science."

"Absolutely," Giberson said, but added that he thinks science will soon nail down a definition of consciousness that will make God's intentions more clear.

---What is meant by "Absolutely stepping off the page of science?"

---A question, "Why couldn't God, step up to the plate and communicate what God is?"
God should take charge and directly/ absolutely communicate to everyone, what God is. Let science work on all other needed projects.

[Dov Henis]

Roger,

at your request:

On Science and Religion

Psychiatrist draws a straight verticle line on a sheet of paper, shows it to the patient and asks: "what do you see?"
Patient, somewhat excited: "A standing naked woman..."
The psychiatrist draws a horizontal line, shows it and asks: "What do you see now?"
Patient, more excitedly: "A lying naked woman..."
The psychiatrist now draws a 90-deg angle and asks: "And what do you see now?"
Patient, overcome with excitement: "A naked woman lying with her legs up..."
"Man", says the psychiatrist, "You're sex crazy!"
"Doc", says the patient, "It's you who draws these sexy drawings, not I!"

Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings...

Dov Henis

(A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

[Roger]

Dov Henis,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered if you were going to reappear.

You stated,

"Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings..."

---What motivates a scientist to generate a need to "see" the lines. While seeing or observing the lines, does the scientist use a method or procedure?

---What motivates the religious person to generate a need to see the drawings? While seeing the drawings, does the religious person use a method or procedure?

Nothing against either, just interested in more contrasting insights.

Thanks again for your replies,
Best wishes,
Roger