Right on John... if freedom is being free from coercion then even "light" people know each person's biggest tyrant is between ones own ears and in ones own heart... now put down the pie, John and stop being a slave to it!!! ;-)
In the middle of the 1,000 page biography on Dostoevsky by Joseph Frank (which is phenomenal so far), but wouldn't have made as clear of a distinction like this between between inside and outside freedom. This post really helped clarify a key theme in his work that I hadn't been able to articulate well. Appreciate it!
In this day and age of continuous war, poverty, migration, cruelty and greed Janis Joplin commented in Me and Bobby McGee “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” I’m convinced she was speaking of the same thing - an external freedom without an internal equivalent.
Funny you should bring that up... I can almost not - or it is an effort to avoid - hear the word "freedom" without that damnable phrase "...just another word..." tagging along. No different this read above, either. I have thought it is a lie for years years years and a half. It makes a catchy song that clings to the brain because it was foisted upon the unsuspecting and championed by the rebellious.
I married at 19, back in 1985 when all my friends were liberating their vaginas, and I never felt freer to be myself than within my marriage (still holding). The confines of marriage made it possible to free my soul, my mind and my body. To lose my husband and be back "on the market" as marriageable again would have been anything but "freedom".
John, a very important point here that maybe you missed: the second law of thermodynamics is antithetical to evolution. Thermodynamics say that order breaks down to noise irreversibly, and evolution says that extremely refined order comes out of noise spontaneously. The two are mutually exclusive in a very hard way. The fact that the modern mind needs to believe both, is very profound: to be modern, even rationalist, you have to accept two mutually exclusive things as concurrently true. To pass the initiation rite, you need to sacrifice your independent, "wherever the facts lead" logic. The deeply illogical nature of the particular kind of modern "rationalism" we have today is a core feature...
BTW, Zach, in his response to my original comment, makes an excellent point on how to be sophisticated and not overplay this antithesis between evolution and thermodynamics. But, while respecting all that, we must point out that infinitely complicated things spontaneously springing out of mundane and simple things is NOT what we empirically observe in nature (while thermodynamics is). In fact, the whole debate about AI and consciousness is the same debate at the next level: if life is the spontaneous result of mere inorganic chemistry, then consciousness can equally well be the spontaneous/natural result of arithmetic and boolean operations...
My friend, I do not know about Mr. Heers, but having been raised in a Young Earth Creationist Evangelical Protestant household, I am very familiar with the argument against evolution from the second law of thermodynamics, having used it myself in my younger years. So, I viscerally understand where you're coming from. However, as my formal education is in physics, I feel compelled to offer a gentle correction.
This particular response is addressing nothing at all about the factual accuracy of either the theories of thermodynamics or Darwinian evolution or their underlying principles, nor is it addressing their helpfulness, whatever their correctness or incorrectness. It is addressing merely what these disciplines say about their views. This is important because defending or criticizing a straw-man is useless.
Thermodynamics does not say that order breaks down to noise irreversibly. It says that in a system that is in thermal disequilibrium, energy flows from a region of high energy to a region of low energy because the system is trying to achieve thermal equilibrium. IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, i.e. one with no net flow of energy into or out of the system, then the system will reach thermal equilibrium, moving from an ordered to a disordered system, or that its entropy will reach its maximum. The theory conceives of the universe AS A WHOLE as a closed system, and so says that universal entropy is always increasing. However, this says nothing about the LOCAL entropy of LOCAL systems, which may or may not be closed. In an open system with a net positive flow of energy into the system, thermodynamics actually states that entropy will decrease and so the system will become more ordered.
This distinction between open and closed systems is literally a sun-sized hole in arguments against evolution from thermodynamics. The biosphere is not a closed system but is rather an open one; there is a constant flow of energy into the system from the sun. This means that, as far as thermodynamics is concerned, there can be an increase of order on earth even as there is a decrease in the total order of the universe. Evolution then, from the perspective of thermodynamics, is indeed possible for the simple reason that the sun provides a steady input of enough energy into the system of the biosphere.
Again, I'm not here arguing that evolution or even thermodynamics are "correct" theories. I'm simply trying to show that thermodynamics does not say what you believe it does, and that it then doesn't follow that it presents an argument against evolution. If you wish to argue against the correctness of evolution, as is your prerogative, it must be based on arguments other than those based on thermodynamics, especially misstatements of thermodynamics.
I wish you well, and Merry Christmas! Christ is born!
Hi Zach, many thanks for your thoughtful and knowledgeable response. I think I understand what you are saying. Indeed it is possible to kind of justify both evolution and thermodynamics, or at least leave the door open. However, besides evolution, the only known local increase in order in out of equilibrium systems is the development of vortices, shock waves or attractors in chaotic systems. There is no continuum of increasingly complex stuff that could conceivably go up to something like a single cell developing spontaneously even in an out of equilibrium system. So, precisely because I am also trained and working in physics, my personal take on this is that the nominal compatibility of evolution and thermodynamics is a contortion, a stretch, a coping mechanism, and not a sincere treatment of phenomena or a serious development of theory. It is bad science, that in any other case would have been called out. Of course we can always refine the definition of "equilibrium" and "closed" to come up with statements that apply only to very narrow situations -- but the philosophical impact of thermodynamics that the article discusses is precisely that, if it is "true enough" physics, it should eventually apply to the world as we perceive it. Otherwise it is kind of irrelevant to people (the way some particle physics theories are largely irrelevant, because they don't mean anything tangible for the things people perceive). Moreover, good physics has a natural flow to it, you don't need to jump through hoops to explain why newton's first law is not incompatible with the third law... (again this doesn't guarantee that newtonian mechanics is all the way "true", but it does indicate a consistency of the theory with observed facts and with itself).
My friend, I can see that we could go back and forth forever with no resolution, so this will be all I'll say.
As I said, I'm not, in responding to you, arguing for the actual truth or falsehood of either evolution or thermodynamics. I'm simply trying to point out that you have attributed to these scientific fields things they do not attribute to themselves, and so you're engaging in an action toward straw men. The current research of how thermodynamics relates to evolution is open and available to anyone able and willing to take the time to study and learn it. You accept or reject what is being said as you see fit, just please be careful to address what is and is not being claimed.
On one hand, you're right. Evolution can be technically thought to be compatible with a very sanitized, very literal and narrowly applied version of thermodynamics.
But I find this besides the point. In the day to day of science (which I do for a living) we speak a bit more freely and tend to extrapolate a bit when discussing theories. BTW, that's how all scientific theories are created in the first place, by imaginative extrapolation.
Also, I think you may be misunderstanding me: I'm not defending creation or anything like that. I'm defending science, in its basic no nonsense sense of systematic study. If you train yourself to justify acrobatical claims as "technically not completely impossible", next thing you know you don't know what a woman is. Oh wait.
As a working scientist, I am only aware of two claims of a spontaneous emergence of a hugely increasing cascade (virtually infinite) of self organizing complexity out of a simple mechanistic (non alive, non intelligent) background: in evolution, and in the "computational theory of mind" (which is, essentially, evolution but for intelligence, not for life). Not in fluid mechanics, not in chemistry, not in any branch if mathematics, not in quantum mechanics, not in relativity and so on. In all those fields moderately complicated things can and emerge out of very simple settings, but they peak pretty soon, and never reach anything that could claim to stretch to the complexity of a single cell (nevermind an eye or a whole organism). BTW you can quantify complexity for this exercise eg with information theory methods. While it doesn't have the "gotcha" value of "disproving" evolution in one move, it does show that evolution is NOT "just a normal scientific theory, however unlikely some people may find it, like quantum mechanics".
I mean, if it was, I would have zero problem to admit it. But scientifically speaking, it is an aberration and it does require in particular a very uncomfortable explanation of why it really doesn't conflict with thermodynamics. Just like the Pope explained last week that his blessing of gay couples doesn't really conflict with the longstanding position of the catholic church...
I guess if you are smart enough, you can convince yourself of anything...
Best phrase here for me, by far: "Scientifically speaking, it [evolution] is an aberration and it does require in particular a very uncomfortable explanation..." For me, a non-scientist extraordinaire, evolution makes me feel like i'm wearing a hairsuit of old. Like... it just doesn't fit. Is it supposed to not fit? Maybe like an ascetic outfit, it is supposed to bring us back to our senses?
John, I really enjoyed how you were able to simply render the notions of positive and negative freedom; that we moderns tend to favor the latter and have almost no concept of the former and that leads to many issues. On this we are in full agreement!
As far as evolution and entropy go, I'm also right there with you in that I do believe they were (and too often are) unhelpful notions. However, being unhelpful, as I've commented previously, I don't think that means that they are wrong in the sense of elucidating material mechanisms or in building a forensic reconstruction of material events that occured in the spacetime universe. In short, I do see them as scientifically accurate (as far as they go and every scientist does, or ought, to see them as scientifically incomplete) but not particularly helpful for most people in coming to Christ or to other truths higher than scientific ones.
The problem with evolution and entropy is not with evolution and entropy per se. The problem is that they arrived in an intellectual time that had already rejected telos, especially one connected with the nature of a thing, one that had rejected a sacramental cosmos, and one that had already embraced a deterministic, materialistic fatalism. In a different context, they might've proven very helpful, as they have in my own for example. (As a matter of fact, I can say that a deep appreciation of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular led me to discover and join historic, sacramental Christianity and has led to a deep appreciation of Orthodox thought and practice.)
For us Christians, we know God is bigger than the "laws" of nature. We have a sacramental understanding that, among much else, means that the elucidation of mechanism is not in conflict with divine providence and agency. If Christ is risen from the dead, then entropy or no entropy, evolution or no evolution, we have hope, knowing that we will be raised in Him, the cosmos will be transfigured, all will be as it always ought to have been. If Christ has ascended, bringing our nature into the Godhead, then nothing, not even entropy or any baggage from an imperfect evolutionary past, will have dominion over us. We Christians do not have to bury our heads in the sand. We can face whatever entropy or evolution has to say, good or bad, with the knowledge that it, like our sin and fallen condition, is only one small detail in a much grander story. That's my view at any rate.
That said, I'm not going to ask you to change anything you write on these subjects, as I'm aware that my experience is in the minority and that for most people in most of history since the scientific revolution, these reductionistic, mechanistic, material scientific concepts have been an obstacle to Christian faith rather than a boon. So keep banging away on the science-has-historically-been-unhelpful drum as much as you like!
I am definitely banging away! I think the real target is the narrative found in education, the one that is imbibed by young people. Because that narrative is very different from the one you are describing. There is no wonder in it in our education system, it is taught more as the answer to the question. And the question for all young people is, why do I exist. Of course, young people don’t ask it that way, but life is imbibed this way. We are Y creatures. And for so many years now the science narrative is the answer to the question. And I just want to destroy that narrative because it is bad. Like… It is bad. It’s a bad answer. So forgive me because of course, inquiry is beautiful. wonder born out of beautiful questions about the universe, that’s just amazing. But this other thing going on, and that has been going on, and that has been given to us by very smart people with very very bad ontology, that’s got to go!
I find nothing here with which to disagree, which is why, despite some semantic qualms, I ended my comment as I did. I do believe that it is absolutely vital that people learn to ask bigger questions than the scientific ones - for them to realize the importance of the narrative - and to realize that neither science, nor the contemporary metaphysics that try to claim a monopoly on, or dress themselves up as, science provides the necessary narrative framework. I really think you're doing good work here!
Brother, re-eadingn a bit, I really like this point you made:The problem with evolution and entropy is not with evolution and entropy per se. The problem is that they arrived in an intellectual time that had already rejected telos, especially one connected with the nature of a thing, one that had rejected a sacramental cosmos, and one that had already embraced a deterministic, materialistic fatalism.
Also... science is never "a problem". I talk like that all the time, and in some ways it is not fair. But in much the same way our education about science generalizes and elevates a simply process into a god, I am trying to tear down that false god of science, and do it using popular teaching about science as a starting point. Science, like Christianity, gets lumped up and jargonized and misunderstood. I get all that. The problem is it is not by chance. It is the problem of sin at play, the problem of ego and pride, and for me those types of problems are best exposed with some humor and a solid dose of subversiveness. A true scientist knows that his experiment is but a flea on a beasts back in the end. His work won't change reality. It simply reveals it (if it is good science). God is reality.
Freedom from what? To do what? Freedom to do the lords work is good. Freedom to do whatever you want isn’t going to turn out well. It seems like it is a bad idea to talk about these things in a theoretical disembodied way.
The Idiot is indeed about a beautiful soul. Years ago, my clinical neuropsychologist told me that neuropsychologists are fascinated by Dostoevsky. He tried to tell me why.
"We think that much of the - ( he was stuck for the moment, then the word came to him ) - weirdness in his novels is there because of his temporal lobe epilepsy." And lovers of The Idiot know that Prince Myshkin is being carried away to invalidism sooner than later because of his own temporal lobe epilepsy.
I'm not a temporal lobe epileptic, but ten years ago, another doctor's error provoked an apparently extraordinary thing in me, a double temporal lobe seizure which may have lasted as long as eighteen hours. It was a wild, extremely rare elongation of an ordinary temporal lobe seizure. I can confirm that Dostoevsky got it exactly as it is, first, the elation, then the seizure, then the post seizure, occasional visitations of dread, which for me took a full year to cease.
Myshkin hasn't got the ability to be anything but an idiot as society would judge people; he's not stupid, but he is guileless, without hate, and wishes only good for those he meets. That is indeed a guaranteed formula to create one of the world's nonstarters.
It's always fascinated me that Myshkin falls in love with the courtesan for reasons he doesn't understand. He just loves her. And so a little Calvinistic election makes its way slyly into this great Russian Orthodox writer's novel.
Your experience is incredible and it offers so much insight for you, that I can’t imagine how Dostoyevsky‘s books must be different when you read them, as opposed to when I read them. Gosh, I’d love to discuss this more as per how you saw the world after the seizure so interesting. So much more to be sad. Thank you for your comment. It’s incredible.
Right on John... if freedom is being free from coercion then even "light" people know each person's biggest tyrant is between ones own ears and in ones own heart... now put down the pie, John and stop being a slave to it!!! ;-)
In the middle of the 1,000 page biography on Dostoevsky by Joseph Frank (which is phenomenal so far), but wouldn't have made as clear of a distinction like this between between inside and outside freedom. This post really helped clarify a key theme in his work that I hadn't been able to articulate well. Appreciate it!
Oh, and to you John and all your readers: A merry Christmas season, for Christ is born!
In this day and age of continuous war, poverty, migration, cruelty and greed Janis Joplin commented in Me and Bobby McGee “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” I’m convinced she was speaking of the same thing - an external freedom without an internal equivalent.
Funny you should bring that up... I can almost not - or it is an effort to avoid - hear the word "freedom" without that damnable phrase "...just another word..." tagging along. No different this read above, either. I have thought it is a lie for years years years and a half. It makes a catchy song that clings to the brain because it was foisted upon the unsuspecting and championed by the rebellious.
I married at 19, back in 1985 when all my friends were liberating their vaginas, and I never felt freer to be myself than within my marriage (still holding). The confines of marriage made it possible to free my soul, my mind and my body. To lose my husband and be back "on the market" as marriageable again would have been anything but "freedom".
John, a very important point here that maybe you missed: the second law of thermodynamics is antithetical to evolution. Thermodynamics say that order breaks down to noise irreversibly, and evolution says that extremely refined order comes out of noise spontaneously. The two are mutually exclusive in a very hard way. The fact that the modern mind needs to believe both, is very profound: to be modern, even rationalist, you have to accept two mutually exclusive things as concurrently true. To pass the initiation rite, you need to sacrifice your independent, "wherever the facts lead" logic. The deeply illogical nature of the particular kind of modern "rationalism" we have today is a core feature...
This is extremely helpful. And if I could write this again, right now, I see 1 million ways to incorporate this most excellent comment.
BTW, Zach, in his response to my original comment, makes an excellent point on how to be sophisticated and not overplay this antithesis between evolution and thermodynamics. But, while respecting all that, we must point out that infinitely complicated things spontaneously springing out of mundane and simple things is NOT what we empirically observe in nature (while thermodynamics is). In fact, the whole debate about AI and consciousness is the same debate at the next level: if life is the spontaneous result of mere inorganic chemistry, then consciousness can equally well be the spontaneous/natural result of arithmetic and boolean operations...
My friend, I do not know about Mr. Heers, but having been raised in a Young Earth Creationist Evangelical Protestant household, I am very familiar with the argument against evolution from the second law of thermodynamics, having used it myself in my younger years. So, I viscerally understand where you're coming from. However, as my formal education is in physics, I feel compelled to offer a gentle correction.
This particular response is addressing nothing at all about the factual accuracy of either the theories of thermodynamics or Darwinian evolution or their underlying principles, nor is it addressing their helpfulness, whatever their correctness or incorrectness. It is addressing merely what these disciplines say about their views. This is important because defending or criticizing a straw-man is useless.
Thermodynamics does not say that order breaks down to noise irreversibly. It says that in a system that is in thermal disequilibrium, energy flows from a region of high energy to a region of low energy because the system is trying to achieve thermal equilibrium. IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, i.e. one with no net flow of energy into or out of the system, then the system will reach thermal equilibrium, moving from an ordered to a disordered system, or that its entropy will reach its maximum. The theory conceives of the universe AS A WHOLE as a closed system, and so says that universal entropy is always increasing. However, this says nothing about the LOCAL entropy of LOCAL systems, which may or may not be closed. In an open system with a net positive flow of energy into the system, thermodynamics actually states that entropy will decrease and so the system will become more ordered.
This distinction between open and closed systems is literally a sun-sized hole in arguments against evolution from thermodynamics. The biosphere is not a closed system but is rather an open one; there is a constant flow of energy into the system from the sun. This means that, as far as thermodynamics is concerned, there can be an increase of order on earth even as there is a decrease in the total order of the universe. Evolution then, from the perspective of thermodynamics, is indeed possible for the simple reason that the sun provides a steady input of enough energy into the system of the biosphere.
Again, I'm not here arguing that evolution or even thermodynamics are "correct" theories. I'm simply trying to show that thermodynamics does not say what you believe it does, and that it then doesn't follow that it presents an argument against evolution. If you wish to argue against the correctness of evolution, as is your prerogative, it must be based on arguments other than those based on thermodynamics, especially misstatements of thermodynamics.
I wish you well, and Merry Christmas! Christ is born!
Hi Zach, many thanks for your thoughtful and knowledgeable response. I think I understand what you are saying. Indeed it is possible to kind of justify both evolution and thermodynamics, or at least leave the door open. However, besides evolution, the only known local increase in order in out of equilibrium systems is the development of vortices, shock waves or attractors in chaotic systems. There is no continuum of increasingly complex stuff that could conceivably go up to something like a single cell developing spontaneously even in an out of equilibrium system. So, precisely because I am also trained and working in physics, my personal take on this is that the nominal compatibility of evolution and thermodynamics is a contortion, a stretch, a coping mechanism, and not a sincere treatment of phenomena or a serious development of theory. It is bad science, that in any other case would have been called out. Of course we can always refine the definition of "equilibrium" and "closed" to come up with statements that apply only to very narrow situations -- but the philosophical impact of thermodynamics that the article discusses is precisely that, if it is "true enough" physics, it should eventually apply to the world as we perceive it. Otherwise it is kind of irrelevant to people (the way some particle physics theories are largely irrelevant, because they don't mean anything tangible for the things people perceive). Moreover, good physics has a natural flow to it, you don't need to jump through hoops to explain why newton's first law is not incompatible with the third law... (again this doesn't guarantee that newtonian mechanics is all the way "true", but it does indicate a consistency of the theory with observed facts and with itself).
My friend, I can see that we could go back and forth forever with no resolution, so this will be all I'll say.
As I said, I'm not, in responding to you, arguing for the actual truth or falsehood of either evolution or thermodynamics. I'm simply trying to point out that you have attributed to these scientific fields things they do not attribute to themselves, and so you're engaging in an action toward straw men. The current research of how thermodynamics relates to evolution is open and available to anyone able and willing to take the time to study and learn it. You accept or reject what is being said as you see fit, just please be careful to address what is and is not being claimed.
On one hand, you're right. Evolution can be technically thought to be compatible with a very sanitized, very literal and narrowly applied version of thermodynamics.
But I find this besides the point. In the day to day of science (which I do for a living) we speak a bit more freely and tend to extrapolate a bit when discussing theories. BTW, that's how all scientific theories are created in the first place, by imaginative extrapolation.
Also, I think you may be misunderstanding me: I'm not defending creation or anything like that. I'm defending science, in its basic no nonsense sense of systematic study. If you train yourself to justify acrobatical claims as "technically not completely impossible", next thing you know you don't know what a woman is. Oh wait.
As a working scientist, I am only aware of two claims of a spontaneous emergence of a hugely increasing cascade (virtually infinite) of self organizing complexity out of a simple mechanistic (non alive, non intelligent) background: in evolution, and in the "computational theory of mind" (which is, essentially, evolution but for intelligence, not for life). Not in fluid mechanics, not in chemistry, not in any branch if mathematics, not in quantum mechanics, not in relativity and so on. In all those fields moderately complicated things can and emerge out of very simple settings, but they peak pretty soon, and never reach anything that could claim to stretch to the complexity of a single cell (nevermind an eye or a whole organism). BTW you can quantify complexity for this exercise eg with information theory methods. While it doesn't have the "gotcha" value of "disproving" evolution in one move, it does show that evolution is NOT "just a normal scientific theory, however unlikely some people may find it, like quantum mechanics".
I mean, if it was, I would have zero problem to admit it. But scientifically speaking, it is an aberration and it does require in particular a very uncomfortable explanation of why it really doesn't conflict with thermodynamics. Just like the Pope explained last week that his blessing of gay couples doesn't really conflict with the longstanding position of the catholic church...
I guess if you are smart enough, you can convince yourself of anything...
Best phrase here for me, by far: "Scientifically speaking, it [evolution] is an aberration and it does require in particular a very uncomfortable explanation..." For me, a non-scientist extraordinaire, evolution makes me feel like i'm wearing a hairsuit of old. Like... it just doesn't fit. Is it supposed to not fit? Maybe like an ascetic outfit, it is supposed to bring us back to our senses?
John, I really enjoyed how you were able to simply render the notions of positive and negative freedom; that we moderns tend to favor the latter and have almost no concept of the former and that leads to many issues. On this we are in full agreement!
As far as evolution and entropy go, I'm also right there with you in that I do believe they were (and too often are) unhelpful notions. However, being unhelpful, as I've commented previously, I don't think that means that they are wrong in the sense of elucidating material mechanisms or in building a forensic reconstruction of material events that occured in the spacetime universe. In short, I do see them as scientifically accurate (as far as they go and every scientist does, or ought, to see them as scientifically incomplete) but not particularly helpful for most people in coming to Christ or to other truths higher than scientific ones.
The problem with evolution and entropy is not with evolution and entropy per se. The problem is that they arrived in an intellectual time that had already rejected telos, especially one connected with the nature of a thing, one that had rejected a sacramental cosmos, and one that had already embraced a deterministic, materialistic fatalism. In a different context, they might've proven very helpful, as they have in my own for example. (As a matter of fact, I can say that a deep appreciation of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular led me to discover and join historic, sacramental Christianity and has led to a deep appreciation of Orthodox thought and practice.)
For us Christians, we know God is bigger than the "laws" of nature. We have a sacramental understanding that, among much else, means that the elucidation of mechanism is not in conflict with divine providence and agency. If Christ is risen from the dead, then entropy or no entropy, evolution or no evolution, we have hope, knowing that we will be raised in Him, the cosmos will be transfigured, all will be as it always ought to have been. If Christ has ascended, bringing our nature into the Godhead, then nothing, not even entropy or any baggage from an imperfect evolutionary past, will have dominion over us. We Christians do not have to bury our heads in the sand. We can face whatever entropy or evolution has to say, good or bad, with the knowledge that it, like our sin and fallen condition, is only one small detail in a much grander story. That's my view at any rate.
That said, I'm not going to ask you to change anything you write on these subjects, as I'm aware that my experience is in the minority and that for most people in most of history since the scientific revolution, these reductionistic, mechanistic, material scientific concepts have been an obstacle to Christian faith rather than a boon. So keep banging away on the science-has-historically-been-unhelpful drum as much as you like!
I am definitely banging away! I think the real target is the narrative found in education, the one that is imbibed by young people. Because that narrative is very different from the one you are describing. There is no wonder in it in our education system, it is taught more as the answer to the question. And the question for all young people is, why do I exist. Of course, young people don’t ask it that way, but life is imbibed this way. We are Y creatures. And for so many years now the science narrative is the answer to the question. And I just want to destroy that narrative because it is bad. Like… It is bad. It’s a bad answer. So forgive me because of course, inquiry is beautiful. wonder born out of beautiful questions about the universe, that’s just amazing. But this other thing going on, and that has been going on, and that has been given to us by very smart people with very very bad ontology, that’s got to go!
I find nothing here with which to disagree, which is why, despite some semantic qualms, I ended my comment as I did. I do believe that it is absolutely vital that people learn to ask bigger questions than the scientific ones - for them to realize the importance of the narrative - and to realize that neither science, nor the contemporary metaphysics that try to claim a monopoly on, or dress themselves up as, science provides the necessary narrative framework. I really think you're doing good work here!
Brother, re-eadingn a bit, I really like this point you made:The problem with evolution and entropy is not with evolution and entropy per se. The problem is that they arrived in an intellectual time that had already rejected telos, especially one connected with the nature of a thing, one that had rejected a sacramental cosmos, and one that had already embraced a deterministic, materialistic fatalism.
Also... science is never "a problem". I talk like that all the time, and in some ways it is not fair. But in much the same way our education about science generalizes and elevates a simply process into a god, I am trying to tear down that false god of science, and do it using popular teaching about science as a starting point. Science, like Christianity, gets lumped up and jargonized and misunderstood. I get all that. The problem is it is not by chance. It is the problem of sin at play, the problem of ego and pride, and for me those types of problems are best exposed with some humor and a solid dose of subversiveness. A true scientist knows that his experiment is but a flea on a beasts back in the end. His work won't change reality. It simply reveals it (if it is good science). God is reality.
Freedom from what? To do what? Freedom to do the lords work is good. Freedom to do whatever you want isn’t going to turn out well. It seems like it is a bad idea to talk about these things in a theoretical disembodied way.
The Idiot is indeed about a beautiful soul. Years ago, my clinical neuropsychologist told me that neuropsychologists are fascinated by Dostoevsky. He tried to tell me why.
"We think that much of the - ( he was stuck for the moment, then the word came to him ) - weirdness in his novels is there because of his temporal lobe epilepsy." And lovers of The Idiot know that Prince Myshkin is being carried away to invalidism sooner than later because of his own temporal lobe epilepsy.
I'm not a temporal lobe epileptic, but ten years ago, another doctor's error provoked an apparently extraordinary thing in me, a double temporal lobe seizure which may have lasted as long as eighteen hours. It was a wild, extremely rare elongation of an ordinary temporal lobe seizure. I can confirm that Dostoevsky got it exactly as it is, first, the elation, then the seizure, then the post seizure, occasional visitations of dread, which for me took a full year to cease.
Myshkin hasn't got the ability to be anything but an idiot as society would judge people; he's not stupid, but he is guileless, without hate, and wishes only good for those he meets. That is indeed a guaranteed formula to create one of the world's nonstarters.
It's always fascinated me that Myshkin falls in love with the courtesan for reasons he doesn't understand. He just loves her. And so a little Calvinistic election makes its way slyly into this great Russian Orthodox writer's novel.
Your experience is incredible and it offers so much insight for you, that I can’t imagine how Dostoyevsky‘s books must be different when you read them, as opposed to when I read them. Gosh, I’d love to discuss this more as per how you saw the world after the seizure so interesting. So much more to be sad. Thank you for your comment. It’s incredible.