[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Rosen and William Paley



I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I had a discussion recently with a gentleman who was interested in my father's work but had some concerns that the scientific ideas might interfere with his own personal religious beliefs (he told me he was very religious and had no interest in any science that tried to prove there is no God). I told him that, while my father was not a religious man and recoiled from orthadoxies of any kind, his work actually leaves plenty of room for the "existence of God". Specifically, it's the fact that "epistemology tells us nothing about ontology in complex systems"; one of the key differences my father pinpointed between simple systems and complex systems. In other words, knowing how the universe works does not tell us about creation of the universe. Knowing how living organisms do what they do does not answer the origin of life question. That doesn't mean there IS a God... but it doesn't mean there isn't. It simply doesn't address that aspect.
 
Tim's mention of what my father called "immanent causation", which was discussed only briefly in Essays on Life, Itself, and a few other places, begins to address the ontology question. But that was one of the areas my father began to feel it might be prudent not to write about in any detail.
 
Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn
To: ***
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosen and William Paley

Steve,
 
I agree. I think Rosennean complexity also completely deflates alot of similar arguments from "intelligent design". Many of those arguments rely on the limited explanatory powers of the artefactual Newtonian restrictions in order to suggest or 'prove' the existence of God.
 
Regards,
Tim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Steve Johnson
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 1:03 PM
To: ***
Subject: Rosen and William Paley

I was reading Life Itself the other day and thought that Rosen's arguments about closure to efficient cause answer nicely the William Paley famous Watchmaking conundrum.
 
The expectation that the efficent causes lie outside the system are so deeply ingrained in our common sense thinking that Paley's century-old natural theology is still debated despite the fact that it is a simple misunderstanding of the nature of efficient causation in organisms.
 
- steve


Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!