Friday, March 23, 2007
Fireworks
I'm down in Orlando at the moment for a biotech conference. I'm staying at the Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin Resort over by Epcot. I have a balcony room that faces a man-made lake. As I was getting back from a conference reception, there were fireworks outside my window (see video in 3GP format, taken on my Treo). It was a nice little treat since I'm a fan of fireworks and don't get to see them that often - especially up close. A little piece of Disney magic.
Sky
I'm not really a "stop and smell the roses" kind of a guy. But on my way home from work the other day, I looked up at the sky and stopped to admire its beauty. Might seem like a "so what" occurance for others but it was unique for me.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Language of God
I just finished reading an excellent book called The Language of God (also see this interview in the SF Chronicle). The author was the head of the Human Genome Project and attempts in his book to reconcile science and religion. In particular, he focuses mainly on the debate around Darwin's theories of evolution. Collins supports a position called theistic evolution (or what he calls BioLogos). Specifically, a typical version of this worldview rests upon the following premises:
If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.
This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.
In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.
It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.
- The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
- Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
- While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
- Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
- Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
- But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.
This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.
In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.
It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.
Conversations with God
Over Christmas and New Years, I stumbled onto a book on my brother-in-law's book shelf called Conversations with God. An ex-girlfriend had given it to him so his wife didn't mind me taking it. =) Anyway, it was a pretty interesting read. The basic premise of the book is that the author was an unemployed homeless man who was looking for answers. One day, he was essentially writing in a journal when God took over his hand/pen and began writing responses to his questions. Thus began an unexpected "conversation" that turned into a best-selling book.
It's interesting to see the range of reactions to this book on Amazon.com. Some people really love the book. Others write off the author as a delusional heretic. I think a lot of your reaction to the book hinges on whether you believe Walsch had a genuine conversation with God or not. On that count, I can't quite decide. I certainly think that such a dialogue is possible. Religions like the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in modern-day prophets - and I personally find it unlikely that God would speak through Jesus, Muhammad, etc. and then suddenly stop to send other messagers to spread his message. So I don't reject the possibility that Walsch genuinely communicated with God and that his message is inspired in that way. But I also wouldn't go so far as to say that I then automatically accept everything he says in his book as literally the word of God.
At least from the reviews I read, it seems that most people who disliked the book took most issue with the moral relativism that is espouses - there is no absolute right or wrong, no should or should nots, etc. The book also makes the proacative statement that there is no hell and that Hitler is therefore in heaven. If you take a lot of the book at surface-value, it would be easy to take away the message that what we do in this world doesn't matter and therefore we shouldn't go out of our way to do the right things in our lives. But I really don't think that's the message that the author (or God if you believe the responses are genuine) are trying to make. There was a much more subtle message there - but you have to really work to parse through all the philosophical double-talk. What I believe the message was is that all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong along with a desire to do the right thing (what C.S. Lewis would refer to as the Moral Law). So, if people simply listened to their innate sense of right and wrong, there wouldn't be any needs for laws, etc. Unfortunately, many people abdicate their responsibility in this regard and, therefore, civil and moral laws are required.
There are a lot of other things the book discusses but I won't get into them here for lack of time. Interesting book, though. Makes you think - whether you accept the author's ideas or not.
It's interesting to see the range of reactions to this book on Amazon.com. Some people really love the book. Others write off the author as a delusional heretic. I think a lot of your reaction to the book hinges on whether you believe Walsch had a genuine conversation with God or not. On that count, I can't quite decide. I certainly think that such a dialogue is possible. Religions like the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in modern-day prophets - and I personally find it unlikely that God would speak through Jesus, Muhammad, etc. and then suddenly stop to send other messagers to spread his message. So I don't reject the possibility that Walsch genuinely communicated with God and that his message is inspired in that way. But I also wouldn't go so far as to say that I then automatically accept everything he says in his book as literally the word of God.
At least from the reviews I read, it seems that most people who disliked the book took most issue with the moral relativism that is espouses - there is no absolute right or wrong, no should or should nots, etc. The book also makes the proacative statement that there is no hell and that Hitler is therefore in heaven. If you take a lot of the book at surface-value, it would be easy to take away the message that what we do in this world doesn't matter and therefore we shouldn't go out of our way to do the right things in our lives. But I really don't think that's the message that the author (or God if you believe the responses are genuine) are trying to make. There was a much more subtle message there - but you have to really work to parse through all the philosophical double-talk. What I believe the message was is that all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong along with a desire to do the right thing (what C.S. Lewis would refer to as the Moral Law). So, if people simply listened to their innate sense of right and wrong, there wouldn't be any needs for laws, etc. Unfortunately, many people abdicate their responsibility in this regard and, therefore, civil and moral laws are required.
There are a lot of other things the book discusses but I won't get into them here for lack of time. Interesting book, though. Makes you think - whether you accept the author's ideas or not.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Snap circuits
My son JD just celebrated his fifth birthday. One of his friends (who wasn't able to attend his birthday party last weekend) gave him a present after the fact. It was a Snap Circuits SC-300 set. So cool! It's designed for 8+ year olds to teach them about electricity and circuit design but from JD's reaction (and some of the reviews on Amazon), it seems accessible to younger kids as well. We've made about 6 ot 7 things so far including a working AM radio (displayed on the cover of the box).
As an aside, I remember having a Radio Shack kit like this when I was a kid. This one is so much nicer - especially the snap design. It's so much easier and faster to construct the circuits.
I wouldn't have bought this set for JD. Makes me wonder what else JD (and AJ) would be interested in. All in good time. No rush. I'll leave it to others to buy stuff like this for the time-being. =)
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Religion's Generation Gap
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend regarding "Religion's Generation Gap". It was interesting to see that some teens are now "rebelling" by becoming strongly devout (rather than drinking, taking drugs, etc). Apparently it's causing problems in some families - especially if the kids are much more committed to a religion than their parents are. I worry about that a little with my kids (since I'm not active in a religion) but hopefully they can keep an open mind even if they decide to get deeply involved with their religion.
Keeping up with the Joneses
I found out about this image from the Business Explained blog. It does a great job of illustrating the challenge of keeping up with the Joneses. Especially here in Silicon Valley, it's hard not to get caught up in this phenomenon. I think my wife and I are doing a pretty good job of it but I do worry a little about the kids - especially if all their friends have over-the-top toys, houses, cars, etc.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Kind of
We all have our "filler words" - little phrases or words that we fall back on when we're not quite sure what to say but we want to avoid silence. "Umm", "like", "so". My latest is "kind of" although I also use "so" a lot and used to be a heavy user of "like". It's amazing how easily these words enter my speech without me noticing. Periodically, someone like my wife or a co-worker will point it out to me. They're worried about whether others will perceive me as "junior" given these speech patterns. As long as I don't rush (and I pay attention), I'm fine. But if I get a bit flustered, all bets are off. I guess it just takes practice. One more thing to be cognizant of (and worry about).
Adam Smith turns green
I just read an essay in VentureBeat that accurately describes my rationale for moving into the cleantech world. Thought I'd quickly share it in case others are interested.
The Proof of God
I came across a 1955 article from Time magazine the other day entitled "The Proof of God". It said:
No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...
Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.
A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.
In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.
No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...
Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.
A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.
In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)