Breaking the Galilean spell

Posted by Shajan Mathew on 5 June 2010 | 1 Comments

I am reading ‘Reinventing the Sacred’ by Stuart Kauffman. Prof Kauffman writes about 'breaking the Galilean spell' - a radical break from reductionism. Everything that happens in nature cannot be described by natural laws. For example, no natural law could explain the evolution of biosphere. Natural laws are not violated, but science alone cannot predict the outcome of evolutionary processes. A second explanatory principle is essential to make sense of evolution. This is the Creativity inherent in nature. Kauffman goes onto explain how this natural Creativity could be viewed as God sans the historical baggage.

This is exhilarating read, but throws up some difficult questions:

What is the relationship between Natural Law and Creativity? There seems to be no connection except creative becoming does not go against laws of nature. I find it hard to believe that nature can be understood only with two unconnected explanatory mechanisms.

Why isn’t it simpler?

Perhaps the observer is the missing link here.

Perhaps we need only one explanatory principle- Creativity inherent in nature. Universe is a dance of Creativity. We are observers looking at this creative unfolding, trying to deduce patterns and regularity. Natural laws are our limited (objective) interpretations of this creative becoming. The observing, rationalizing mind itself is a fragment of cosmic creativity.

We see patterns in nature because we are reflections of the same Creativity animating the universe. Such a Creativity would truly be 'God', and the historical baggage associated with it could be understood in terms of our efforts to objectify the un-objectifiable.

http://science-and-religion.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/04/understanding-religions-christian-faith-as-a-reflection.htm


Post your comment

Comments

  • I have not yet had the opportunity to read Kaufmann, but it is not quite obvious what Kaufman means by the "Galilean spell". If he means reductionism, then the Galilean spell is what others have taken from Galileo, not what Galileo himself believed. Galileo was always a believing Catholic, & when the chips were down, Galileo accepted Papal authority- see Koestler's account in "The Sleepwalkers" Koestler was always philosophically a Marxist, but he was also a very fine scholar. Though he was suprised by Galileo's loyalty Koestler could not & would not deny the historical evidence for it. "The Sleepwalkers" records that the Papacy of the day believed that two different scientific theories might explain the same phenomenon. Galileo got into trouble because he said the Bible was wrong when it said the sun went round the earth. But it is scientically true, at present, that the sun does go round the earth. Of course, it is also scientifically true that the earth rotates on its axis. According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity no experimental evidence exists that distinguishes the two descriptions. The second is astronomically more convenient, but that is another matter. Inconvenient for quantum mechanics though it is, no evidence for absolute velocity or acceleration has yet been found. Meanwhile satnavs would have an error of some five km if they did not use relativity corrections. Tomtoms have a practical error of a few metres, which at greater expense could be reduced to a millimetre!!

    What "historical baggage about God" are we talking about? In the SM network we are openminded enough to consider the possible truth of Shamanism. Are we openminded enough to consider the possible truth of Christianity? Scientific evidence for it can be found, for example, in "The Crucifixion of Jesus- A forensic enquiry" by Frederick Zubige, to be found seconhand on the abebook website.

    Posted by Cliff, 18/08/2010 9:52am (1 year ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments