The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Monism or Dualism? Part 2.

Ok, our survey response isn't very large, but then
who knows, perhaps neither is our readership.
But clearly many of you who did respond (half)
would like more discussion on science and religion.

Great. Me too... although I didn't say so on the survey.
(I bullet voted "more pictures," because I like seeing
things Newland thinks are cool to look at.)

Ok, so anyway, here goes. First, let's follow up on
a discussion Troy Jones and I fell into on a prior
thread... the monad vs dualism.

I think he and I agreed that what we generally think
of as being "nature" is in fact only a tiny slice of what
nature really is.

Here's a link if you didn't catch it the first go-round.

Part of the reason for this, I think, is that the majority
of us have yet to fully complete the paradigm shift
from the classical Newtonian/Cartesian understanding
of reality to the modern "Standard Model" which includes
relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

The net result is that many, if not most of us still think
of the universe as a kind of clockwork of solid physical
parts playing around in a vacuum (void...empty space)
AND we think of that space as being separate from time.

Well, as it turns out, if that's what you still think,
you'd be wrong, according to today's best science.

And there is ample, irrefutable proof.

Now, are we all on the same page about this?

Or do we need discussion before we continue?

I pause now, because if we need to get some
of the old notions out of our heads, now's the time.
Much of what we have to discuss, presumes the truth
of what I just asserted.

[Newland here: Woh! This is indeed ambitious territory for a blog that averages 1 comment per topic posting. I, for one, need a little more basis in your assumptions before I assume the same things.]


Bill Fleming said...

Which assumptions do you need clarification on, Bob?

Troy Jones said...


We learn that of the supernatural (using my definition which has distinction between natural and supernatural) as God reveals. And that which He reveals then becomes part of the "natural." :)

Bill Fleming said...

Are you talking about consciousness and cognition, Troy? Thought, awareness, and reflection?

Troy Jones said...

The human mind has many sources of discerning revelation of the Divine (sight, smell, touch, reason, and via the conscience). Does this answer your question?

Bill Fleming said...

Yes, but it sounds a little humanocentric to me. (is that a word?) Ok... anthropomorphic, maybe.

Are you saying that nature is dependent on or driven by divine revelation via human cognition?

I don't know if I can go there with you, Troy.

But maybe.

Let's keep exploring it. Your turn.