User blogs
How Self-Relational Consciousness Produces and Interacts with Reality
In essence, Steven E. Kaufman’s work shows how self-relational Consciousness produces and interacts with reality. But to appreciate the important work done by Kaufman, one needs to read the whole 325 pages of this Focus Issue of JCER covering his work. Our goals with this Focus Issue are: (1) bring broader awareness of Kaufman’s work by scholars and all genuine truth seekers; and (2) promote scholarly discussions of the same through commentaries and responses to commentaries in the future issues of JCER. In so doing, we hope that all of us may benefit in our endeavor to reach higher Consciousness within ourselves and build a genuine Science of Consciousness.
Krauss Misunderstands Energy in General Relativity to Argue against GOD (by Philip E. Gibbs): Abstract: Stephen Hawking has a new book “Grand Design” out that claims God did not create the universe & Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss writing in the Wall Street Journal says that Hawking does not go far enough, but his argument is based on a misunderstanding of energy in general relativity. I'll explain why. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/57
GOD & Hawking (by Matti Pitkanen): Abstract: For reasons stated below, I do not find the classical physics view about God selecting initial conditions very interesting. Hawking should find himself more demanding challenges than killing for all practical purposes already dead God of classical mechanics. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/58
Song to Immanence & Transcendence (by Huping Hu): Abstract: This poem/lyrics is an expansion and adaptation of Rumi’s poem Universality. It represents the author’s hope for his fellow creatures’ transformation to arrive, in various degrees, at various aspects of the Immanence and Transcendence of Scientific GOD.
In a Nutshell (by Vaughn Balding): Abstract: It is my assertion that when we are accessing the past, when we remember an event from the past, our brain uses the quantum field to visit the actual event and likewise when we experience thoughts and ideas, conscience and inspiration, intuition and synchronicity, we are accessing actual events in our pasts and futures. Our brain is a wonderful transmitter and receiver of information, an interface with the quantum field. It is not a closed repository of stored information. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/60
How This Place Works (by Clifford White): Abstract: Our mind occupies a mixture of phase space. So, What's on your mind depends on which level of phase space your consciousness is oriented towards. This mind is not your consciousness since Consciousness goes to sleep but mind is always one phase space or another. What our consciousness does or has the ability to do is to choose which phase space the mind will be oriented towards. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/48
The Templix of GNOS (by Yale S. Landsberg): Abstract: In this essay I describe the generalities and many specifics of something I refer to as “The Templix” (Template Matrix), along with something else very basic to it that I call the “T-Ching”. The T-Ching brings together Eastern and Western notations and notions of iterative Change, whereas, The Templix simultaneously differentiates and integrates them. Both emerge via seeing the concept of Change as a matter of energetically and recursively, logically going deeper and deeper into basic concepts in order to cognitively come to higher and higher world views of them. The results of this very old, and occasionally disorienting process of thought, one which does not guarantee progress, is that asking dumb questions can be seen to occasionally produce provocative answers to basic questions related to cognitive science, quantum mechanics and computer science, and other sciences – as well as clearly explain enigmatic statements and claims within a wide spectrum of religious and philosophical literature. By the end of my essay, a way of revealing the nature of “God and Nature's Operating System” has emerged for consideration. As well as a proposed “circumstantial morality” that may be guarding and guiding all of reality: a universal ethos that is not satisfactory to anyone, but a schema for categorizing musts and must nots, shoulds and should nots that is a lot better than nothing – in the paradigm-changing way that a semi-conductor material was, and is and ever will be a poor medium for resistors, capacitors and inductors, and yet is always and in all ways an excellent “God Send” compromise for all of them. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/49
GOD, Scientists & the Void (by Himangsu S. Pal): Abstract: This is a collection of my short essays dealing with the issues of existence of GOD, circular reasoning, the void & myth about creation from nothing. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/50
RICHARD SMALLEY – NOBEL LAUREATE IN CHEMISTRY
Nobel Prize: Richard Smalley (1943-2005) won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes – the third elemental form of carbon (along with graphite and diamond). Upon his passing, the US Senate passed a resolution to honor Smalley, crediting him as the “Father of Nanotechnology.”
Nationality: American
Education: Ph.D. in chemistry, Princeton University (USA), 1973
Occupation: Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Physics at Rice University in Houston, Texas (1981-2005)
1. “Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ.
Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.” (Smalley 2005).
2. The books ‘Origins of Life’ and ‘Who Was Adam?’ are authored by Dr. Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (biochemist). Richard Smalley had this to say about these books:
“Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading ‘Origins of Life’, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, ‘Who Was Adam?’, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.” (Smalley 2005a).
3. In his address at the Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation (October 3, 2004) Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible’s ‘Genesis’; then he pointed out:
“The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that ‘Genesis’ was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.” (Smalley 2004).
ERNST CHAIN – NOBEL LAUREATE IN MEDICINE AND PHYSIOLOGY
Nobel Prize: Sir Ernst Chain (1906-1979) received the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases.”
Nationality: German
Education: Ernst Chain graduated in chemistry and physiology from Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin with a Ph.D. degree in 1930.
Occupation: Researcher at the Institute of Pathology in Berlin (1930-33), Cambridge University (1933-35), Oxford University (1936-48) and Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome (1948-1961); Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College, University of London (1961-1973); Chain was a chairman of the World Health Organization.
1. Concerning the Materialistic theory of evolution Ernst Chain (who is a theistic evolutionist) states:
“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.
I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” (Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147-148).
2. In his speech, which he made at the World Jewish Conference of Intellectuals in 1965, Chain said:
“While we have witnessed astonishing technological progress over the last 4,000 years, human relations have remained essentially unchanged since the time the Torah was written, and have to be regulated by very much the same laws.
For this reason the fundamental teaching of Judaism, as expressed in the Old Testament, and developed by the great sages of the Middle Ages, one unitarian Almighty, benevolent, all-pervading, eternal Divine force, of which the spirit of man was created an image, is for me still the most rational way of accepting man’s position and fate in this world and the Universe.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 154).
3. In a speech made when he accepted a Doctorate of Philosophy Honoris Causa from Bar-Llan University (Israel), Chain said:
“It must be remembered that, quite apart from the ephemeral nature of scientific theories, pure science is ethically neutral. No value of good or bad is attached to any natural constant, or, for that matter, any scientific observation in any field. However, in our relations to our fellow-men – and this includes, in particular, the applications of scientific research – we must be guided by an ethical code of behaviour, and pure science cannot provide it.
In the search for an ethical code of behaviour we have to look for more lasting values than scientific discoveries or theories. We, the Jewish people, have had the extraordinary privilege to have been given a lasting code of ethical values in the divinely inspired laws and traditions of Judaism which have become the basic pillars of the Western world.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 146).
4. “I consider the power to believe to be one of the great divine gifts to man through which he is allowed in some inexplicable manner to come near to the mysteries of the Universe without understanding them. The capability to believe is as characteristic and as essential a property of the human mind as is its power of logical reasoning, and far from being incompatible with the scientific approach, it complements it and helps the human mind to integrate the world into an ethical and meaningful whole.
There are many ways in which people are made aware of their power to believe in the supremacy of Divine guidance and power: through music or visual art, some event or experience decisively influencing their life, looking through a microscope or telescope, or just by looking at the miraculous manifestations or purposefulness of Nature.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 143).
5. In his public lecture “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society” (University of London, February 1970) Sir Ernst Chain declared:
“As far as my own actions are concerned, I am trying to be guided by the laws, ethics and traditions of Judaism as formulated in the Old Testament, which are, of course, also the basis of Christianity. I am convinced, and have been for many years, that it is impossible to construct a sort of absolute and generally applicable code of ethical behaviour on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, if only for the reason that our knowledge about the basic problems of life is far too fragmentary and limited, and will always remain so.
… We all know that scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and likely to be shaken in their foundations, and may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact which does not fit into the existing system. For this reason I do not believe that it is possible to construct an absolute code of ethical conduct and of moral values on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, as this must always remain fragmentary and built on flimsy premises and, therefore, can easily lead to misleading conclusions which may have to be corrected in the light of new evidence.” (E. Chain, “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring 1971, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 366). (p> 6. Chain described “the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man” thus:
“Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories from animal ethological studies, and in particular ethological studies on primates, must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve.
It may be amusing for those engaged in the task to describe their fellow man as naked apes, and a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach – which, by the way, is neither new nor original – does not really lead us very far.
We do not need to be expert zoologists, anatomists or physiologists to recognise that there exist some similarities between apes and man, but surely we are much more interested in the differences than the similarities. Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.” (Chain 1971, 368).
7. “Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 147).
8. Concerning the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution Chain wrote:
“It is, of course, nothing but a truism, and not a scientific theory, to say that living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.
To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the 19th century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.
This hypothesis wilfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Chain 1971, 367).
CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882), founder of the Theory of Evolution
1. Charles Darwin ended his most fundamental scientific work The Origin of Species (1872, 6th edition) with the words:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Darwin 1928, 463).
2. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).
3. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” (Darwin 1928, 462; The Origin of Species).
4. “With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically.
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.” (Darwin 1993, 224).
5. In 1879, three years before the end of his life, Darwin wrote that he had “never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).
6. In 1873 Darwin stated: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).
