> For me, the answer is yes. I'm both--and have been for a long
> time. As a Christian, I view God as Creator, and his work as
> Intelligent Design. As a scientist, creationism and
> intelligent design don't adequately explain nature.
> It depends which set of eyes I see with. My spiritual eyes
> come from knowing God through experience--especially through
> music. Since early childhood, when I sing, I am transformed,
> and God speaks to me and through me. At the broadest level, I
> share a sense of wonder with all spiritual people--and Don's
> Sacred Geometry certainly explores that sense through history
> and prehistory.
> Having grown up in a Swedish Protestant church, I was enabled
> (even required) to develop my own personal epistemology. In
> this epistemology, my belief is unique, and might well
> contradict the beliefs of fellow church members, Protestants,
> and other Christians--not to mention other faiths, agnostics,
> and atheists. At the same time, my core belief is shared
> broadly with those who share my sense of spirituality. The
> most recent artistic work that captures my own personal
> epistemology explorations, is the book and movie, The Life
> of Pi.
> I became interested in science late in high school, and
> attended college with interests in music composition and
> physics, but my professional focus shifted toward an interest
> in visual perception, and I received my doctorate in
> experimental psychology, with special interests in cognitive
> processes and information systems. Unlike my spiritual
> persona, which sensed the perfection of God, my scientific
> persona sensed the imperfections and inconsistencies in
> empirical studies. I began to play a stronger and stronger
> role in statistics and research design with collaborators in
> and out of the academic world--especially those interested in
> cognitive and information systems.
> Perhaps the strongest influence on my scientific thinking was
> Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This approach
> viewed all empirical scientific theories as flawed paradigms,
> more or less ready to be overthrown as corrective contradictory
> evidence mounted.
> I have seen many considering the very concept of sacred
> geometry and spirituality with scientific skepticism better
> suited to empirical science. I never mix my science with my
So, do you also adhere to Kuhn's Eurocentrism and ignore the non-Hellenistic influence of other cultures on the history of science? I'll remind you that the reason the cradles of science--specifically the Middle East--fell behind is because of one thing: religion.
Truth is, IMO, a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.
I do not view God as a Creator of any kind. The logical failures of such a position are just too much. For me, God is a force that flows within all of nature, but didn't create it. It's awe-inspiring, to be sure, which is why so many people can't accept that it could have come about on its own. Call it the laws of physics, midichlorians, or whatever, but IMO no Creator is necessary.