> drrayeye wrote:
> > For me, the answer is yes. I'm both--and have been for a
> > 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,
> > 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
> > 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
> > spirituality.
> 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.
RAY: the part that I embrace is paradigm shifts through empirical falsification--the data driven part.
> Truth is, IMO, a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.
RAY: Caltech's motto is "The truth shall make you free."
Do you honestly think that they are making a philosophical statement?
> I do not view God as a Creator of any kind. The logical
> failures of such a position are just too much.
RAY; As a scientist, I agree. As a Christian, I strongly disagree.
For me, God is a
> force that flows within all of nature, but didn't create it.
RAY: that's essentially "intelligent design." I don't like that as much, but I can accept it to some extent.
> 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.
RAY; The concept of Creator and Intelligent Design are things that I sense spiritually--not things that I could even begin to test with data.
So, I sort of both agree and disagree--I am a Gemini, you know. . .