>Brian,
>
>Thanks for the feedback. I had no idea that the topic was 'controversial'.
>I knew that it was terribly important. I think that it represents part of
>God's 'signature' in Creation, and impacts more and more systems as our
>analytical abilities improve. This is high intellectual and spiritual
>ground deserving concentrated work on the part of the Church to understand
>and respond to it. My 24 year-old daughter gave me _The Tao of Chaos_ by
>Katya Walter and asked me to tell her what I think about fractals as
>mandalas and how the I-Ching mimics our RNA code.
This is the first I've heard of this book. You've tweaked my curiosity
so I'm going to try to get a hold of a copy to see what its all about.
>I know of a senior
>research fellow at one of IBM's think tanks named Cliff Pickover who has
>been following the fractal trail at a very high level for some time now, who
>is about to publish a serious book linking complexity to the Caballa and
>thence to knowledge of God.
Again you've tweaked my curiosity. You are right, Pickover is one of
the "big names" in the field. I'm definitely going to be on the look
out for this book.
>Shouldn't WE be doing something credible in
>answer? Can anyone help me answer my daughter, or mount a response to
>Pickover? If we as intelligent, critical-minded Christians don't come to
>grips with the spiritual consequences in real life, of this issue, then we
>are abdicating our responsibility as stewards of God's kingdom in an
>important area.
> Please show me that I have had my head in the sand too long by leading
>me to others who recognized this long ago, and who have the issues worked
>out so that I may understand too.
My interest in complexity is primarily academic. Its a really
fascinating field with so many interesting surprises. But your
mentioning of your daughters question is like having a glass of
cold water thrown in my face. It wakes me up and brings me back to
the real world. My daughters are too young to ask such questions
but I know they will some day and the thought is sobering.
How to answer? Well, I'm sure your liable to get a variety of opinions
from folks here :). I think your starting out in the right direction.
Try to find out if any other Christians have grappled with this
problem. See if they have any suggestions and how well they fit.
Here are a few references that I've found where Christians discuss
the implications of this "new paradigm" of complexity and
self-organization. I was sure I had more examples of this but
can't seem to find them at present. Hopefully, others can add
to the list:
Ferguson, Kitty (1994). <The Fire in the Equations: Science Religion
and the Search for God> William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.
{some discussion of theological implications of chaos/complexity
in section entitled _Chaos Meets Control_, p.205}
Templeton, J.M. and R.L. Herrmann (1994). <Is God the Only Reality?:
Science Points to a Deeper Meaning of the Universe>. Continuum.
{deals extensively with self-organization and complexity}
Templeton, J.M. and R.L. Herrmann (1989). <The God Who Would be
Known:Revelations of the Divine in Contemporary Science>,
Harper & Row.
{Some discussion of self-organization and complexity in
chapter 6: _Deep and Powerful Ordering Forces in the
Universe_}
============
Whenever a well known scientist or mathematician or whatever such
as Pickover writes a book for the general public it seems more or
less guaranteed that they are going to, somewhere along the way,
spill their guts about their own religious or metaphysical
interpretations of their field of expertise. I, for one, am
delighted when I see a Christian scientist do this, so I don't
feel its particularly consistent on my part to complain when
a New Ager spills their guts.
I think one of the most important points, a point often missed
by laymen reading this stuff, is that a person's expertise in
a particular field doesn't automatically make them an expert
in the philosophical or religious interpretation of that field.
Also, just because a person is a famous scientist doesn't mean
that they speak on metaphysical themes with the authority of
science or that they represent the views of other scientists.
[Rick, since you're new here, let me warn you up front, there
is no Royal High Priesthood of science for which people like
Pickover are spokespersons, no matter who tells you otherwise,
don't believe it, such a group doesn't exist :)]. I think its
crucial to get these ideas across to your daughter. One needs
to be able to differentiate between the results of science
(or math) and the opinions of scientists or mathematicians.
My other suggestion is to understand the arguments of your
adversary as best you can. Treat them fairly and respectfully
but then be prepared to give an alternative view.
You know, you've raised a really interesting question here.
I for one have been very encouraged by what I've seen coming
out the new sciences of complexity and self-organization.
What one sees a lot of is an almost in your face type of
opposition to the extreme reductionist views of the likes of
Dawkins, Dennett, Monod etc. One also sees a lot of talk
about a view of purpose and meaning in the workings of nature.
Here's an example of this from Paul Davies:
Most scientists who work on fundamental problems are deeply
awed by the subtlety and beauty of nature. But not all of
them arrive at the same interpretation of nature. While some
are inspired to believe that there must be a meaning behind
existence, others regard the universe as utterly pointless.
Science itself cannot reveal whether there is a meaning to
life and the universe, but scientific paradigms can exercise
a strong influence on prevailing thought. In this book I have
sketched the story of a new, emerging paradigm that promises
to radically transform the way we think about the universe and
our own place within it. I am convinced that the new paradigm
paints a much more optimistic picture for those who seek a
meaning to existence. Doubtless there will still be pessimists
who will find nothing in the new developments to alter their
belief in the pointlessness of the universe, but they must at
least acknowledge that the new way of thinking about the world
is more cheerful.
-- Paul Davies, _The Cosmic Blueprint_, Simon and Schuster,
1988, p. 197.
And some similar comments from one of the pioneers in self-
organization, Ilya Prigogine:
Since Clausius, physics has dealt with two concepts
of time: time as repetition and time as degradation.
But it is obvious that we must overcome this duality.
Neither repetition (the negation of time), nor decay
(time seen as degradation), can do justice to the
complexity of the physical world. We must therefore
reach a third concept of time, which also contains
positive, constructive aspects.
-- Prigogine, Ilya (1988). "Origins of Complexity," in
<Origins: The Darwin College Lectures>, A.C. Fabian,
Ed., Cambridge University Press, pp. 69-88.
But just to show that different scientists can look at the
same thing and come to drastically different conclusions,
here are the final two paragraphs of a short survey of
complexity and chaos written by that arch reductionist
and member in good standing of the Royal High Priesthood,
P. W. Atkins:
We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of
change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and
the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all
that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we
have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately
into the heart of the Universe.
Yet, when we look around and see beauty, when we look
within and experience consciousness, and when we
participate in the delights of life, we know in our
hearts that the heart of the Universe is richer by
far. But that is sentiment, and is not what we should
know in our minds. Science and the steam engine have
a greater nobility. Together they reveal the awesome
grandeur of the simplicity of complexity.
-- P.W. Atkins (1994). <The 2nd Law: Energy, Chaos, and Form>,
Scientific American Books, p. 200.
P.W. P.W., what were you thinking? Leave it to a reductionist
to write about complexity and conclude that complexity is really
just simplicity ;-).
Sorry to keep giving inside jokes Rick, but I'll wager it
won't be too long until this Atkins quote finds its way
into the repertoire of that most immanent of experts on
the subtle art of argument by quotation. I'll leave him
un-named since everyone (except Rick :) knows who I'm
talking about. Further wager, the quotes by Davies and
Prigogine will mysteriously be absent :).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University