Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No to fine-tuning? No to a multiverse? How about cosmic pantheism?


From Mary-Jane Rubenstein at Nautilus:

What if God is the creatively emergent order of nature itself? In this case, the difference between pantheism and atheism might be emotional. Einstein, a professed pantheist, wrote that he experienced a “cosmic religious feeling,” a persistent awe at the “sublimity and marvelous order” of the universe. He was not alone. For the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher, religion was a feeling of the whole universe at work in each part of it. Or perhaps the difference between pantheism and atheism is ethical. As neo-pagans, ecofeminists, radical environmentalists, new animists, and even some biologists have suggested, the Western opposition between God and world seems to have endorsed our exploitation of nature. So if God is the world, might we be more inclined to care for it? Or maybe the difference is conceptual: What would it mean to recode divinity as embodied, evolving, multiple, and multiversal? What kinds of new mythologies and spiritual practices might emerge from the unlikely terrain of modern physics?More.

Almost anything, actually. Rubenstein makes clear that she doesn’t think science is really about evidence in this universe.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?


The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

It has the big advantage that it is not Judeo-Christian and therefore acceptable to the powers that be. Andrew Chapman
doubter@9, Indeed. The "something appearing out of nothing" seems to violate causality, the basis of all science. This is a bit of a problem unless one hypothesizes a extra-dimensional cosmic turtle laying "universe eggs" . . . or a mother of multiverses (mom). ;-) -Q Querius
"What if God is the creatively emergent order of nature itself? In this case, the difference between pantheism and atheism might be emotional." Proposing that God is actually the universe of course begs the enormous question of where this marvelous intricate set of natural laws and mathematical principles originally came from. Why is there such a Something rather than absolutely nothing? It seems more rational to propose an illimitable Intelligence outside our reality, than an origin out of nothing for no reason, or no origin at all (always existing). doubter
What if Mary-Jane Rubenstein is the creatively emergent order of nature itself? What if Mary-Jane Rubenstein is nothing but non-rational fermions and bosons? In both cases, the difference between nonsense and BS might be emotional. Origenes
What if "god" was a property of every atomic and subatomic particle? What if my every decision to make an observation parsimoniously created another vast, complete universe? What if the past and the future created an infinite causality loop, and time is the result of the entropoic expansion of the loop? What if before cells emerged, there was a sticky, prebiotic protoplasm that served as a locus of random chemical recombination that eventually produced stable chemical cycles? And what if when the right protoplasmic blobs stuck together, their chemical cycles rarely, but inevitably combined together, forming the organelles of what would later become the first cells? Thus, the scientific method has evolved into a new series of steps: 1. Confrontation 2. Observation 3. Imagination 4. Assertion 5. Publication 6. Subjugation Thus, rational scientific knowledge advances relentlessly against the forces of ignorance, superstition, and religious mythology! Don't ya just love New Science? LOL -Q Querius
The good lady's Christian name(s) in Spanish, 'Maria Juana' - also, apparently, slang for the eponymimous 'stupefiant' - doesn't inspire confidence. Though His Dudeship and Walter might disagree. Axel
Multiverse was resurrected by materialists to deal with finetuning...What is she talking about? J-Mac
Yes, TWSYF. It's become faith-based, but an amorphous kind of faith in anything but a religion, such as Christianity, that makes demands. In other words, childish tripe. They are essentially hangers-on, aren't they ? Parasites. They would never have considered the possibility of quantum physics, but to earn their daily bread, they can now swallow whole any paradox, however, mind-boggling it might be - as long as they can call it 'counter-intuitive' and not, 'seemingly, counter-rational'. Since their cognitive gifts(!) are apparently nothing less than divinely infinite. Though nobody has ever seen the, evidently, top-secret calculations for nothing producing everything. Nothing presumably existing - or not, as the case may be (as some form of matter) Axel
Einstein waas not a pantheist (I believe he even expressly denied it, as he did atheism*), but a panentheist, since he believed in an 'illimitable superior spirit' (implicitly, designer, creator and maintainer of the universe, evidently, in all its dynamism) - a great spirit who was quite distinct from his creation. *He expressed great annoyance that atheists had tried to co-opt him, as they still try to co-opt Planck. The other day - it might have been here - I saw some atheist was even trying to co-opt Kurt Godel. Axel
Much of modern science, or at least journalism about modern science, has strayed from the empirical evidence requirement. It is indistinguishable from philosophy, wishful thinking, and faith. Truth Will Set You Free

Leave a Reply