The Big Picture

A Review of Sean Carroll’s 2016 book

1

It is not without some trepidation that one contemplates criticizing a “rocket scientist.” After all, it is believed that they are so far beyond the rest of us that we cannot hope to follow much less comprehend what they say; even to question them is pretentious.

Sean Carroll is a rocket scientist. His thumbnail bio found on his website reads:

I’m a theoretical physicist, specializing in field theory, gravitation, cosmology, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and philosophy of physics, with occasional dabblings elsewhere. My latest book, released May 2016, is The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. (Dutton, NY 2016) My official title is Research Professor of Physics at Caltech.[1]

He is 49 and married.

I have just read Carroll’s long 440 page book The Big Picture. I would like to comment on it, but I wonder if I will be heard, not only by him, but by the general reader who may share the prejudices of our times that when rocket scientists speak on any matter whatsoever they are beyond challenge except by their own kind, and the rest of us had better shut up and listen.

Rocket scientists have the further unfortunate reputation of believing the popular hype about themselves. They are said to form a closed clique and restrict serious conversation to their own ilk who speak their jargon. Their preference for quantified data expressed in equations, over human language conveyed in grammatical sentences, adds to the impression that they live in a world other than ours. They are accused of believing that (1) only the things in their area of concern, using mathematical terms to express them, can be said to be really “true;” (2) matters of importance in other areas that are not quantifiable are also strictly speaking not verifiable and therefore cannot hope to achieve the designation of “truth” except in the practical sense of “working” within some limited area of applicability. But as far as “reality” is concerned, what is real is physics and chemistry.

People who attempt to apply scientific methodology and logical reasoning to non-quantifiable subject matter like biology, the social sciences and psychology, except for certain ancillary statistical procedures, are really dealing in “metaphor” not knowledge. What is considered “knowledge” in these areas works within the limitations of their applicability but no further. In the past that feature of “scientific” thinking whereby what is truly real can be reduced to the subject matter of physics and inorganic chemistry was called “reductionism.” Everything else was to one degree or another, illusion.   Carroll’s blog uses a quote from Democritus as a sub­title: “In truth, only atoms and the void.” It is part of a larger quote that is usually translated: “There are only atoms and empty space; the rest is opinion.”

Carroll’s latest book The Big Picture ventures out of the strict field of physics and into the murky regions where the rest of us live and try to make sense of our lives. One would hope that he has decided to do so as one of us in our struggle to discover meaning, and not as a superior being who condescends to enter the shadow-world of the mathematically challenged to liberate us from our religious illusions.

Such a sentiment on my part is not empty paranoia. It is well known that some years ago Carroll explicitly turned down an invitation to speak at a conference because “he did not want to appear to be supporting a reconciliation between science and religion.” Granted that he was suspicious of the sponsoring Foundation’s motivation, his own independently antagonistic position denying any possible compatibility between science and religion a priori, is well documented and supports my misgivings. [2]

Given this background, informed readers may be forgiven for expecting that Carroll’s book, which purports to elaborate a science-compatible worldview he calls “poetic naturalism,” will simply be a more reader-friendly version of the same ol’ axe-to-grind: matter is a mindless mechanism and human life is a kind of virtual reality — an illusion — whose social expressions, like religion and politics, are metaphors that we impose upon it. We may be humored in our use of these quaint narratives because it’s all we can handle. But the condition for this concession from the rocket scientists is that we keep to our side of the line and stay out of their way.

Carroll appears to avoid the strictly mechanistic position, what he calls strong reductionism. “Strong reductionism,” he says,

not only wants to relate macroscopic features of the world to some underlying fundamental description but wants to go further by denying that the elements of the emergent ontology even exist, … consciousness is merely an illusion.[3]

Carroll’s characterization, using the word “strong,” allows him to distance himself from it without rejecting the concept entirely.

Against strong reductionism he proposes nothing less than an expanded definition of reality. Acknowledging that “we don’t as yet have a full theory of reality at its deepest level,” he sets up the parameters that will serve as the premise for poetic naturalism throughout the book:

Something is “real” if it plays an essential role in a particular story of reality that, as far as we can tell, provides an accurate description of the world within its domain of applicability: atoms are real, tables are real, consciousness is undoubtedly real. A similar view was put forward by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, under the label “model-dependent-realism.”[4]

Carroll’s efforts seem to be part of a recent tendency among philosophers of science to reopen the issue of the nature of matter. This trend questioning “strong” reductionism can be seen in Thomas Nagel’s 2012 book Mind and Cosmos, though Nagel seems to have identified no alternative but dualism. [5] Noam Chomsky in his 2015 book What Kind of Creatures Are We? [6] says the “nature of matter” is a question unresolved since the days of Descartes and Newton. The final chapter entitled “The Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?” gives a thorough historical scan of the perennial dissatisfaction with the Cartesian (reductionist) view of matter. He cites the modern “pan­psychism” of Galen Strawson as a model counterpoint to the classic unjustified and unquestioned reductionism.[7] Thus Carroll is not alone in his reassessment.

The Hawking-Mlodinov book The Grand Design, however, is of another order altogether. Instead of eschewing strong reductionism, it seems to be doubling down on it even to the point, in my estimation, of jeopardizing the legendary careful procedures and limited claims that are associated with professional scientists. From the very first page of text where the authors cavalierly declare that “Philosophy is dead”[8] to the end of the book where a conjectured hypothesis called “M-Theory” whose unobserved and untested projection of “multiple universes” is adduced to “explain” the otherwise inexplicable fine-tuning of our universe (the basis of the strong anthropic principle), the prestigious Hawking seems hell-bent on eliminating any thought of “explanations” other than that of physics. “The multiverse concept,” they say, “can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.”[9] It seems that Hawking, like Carroll, had a prior agenda: an antipathy toward religion that is willing to sacrifice science’s hard-earned reputation in its service. “But if it [M-theory] is true, …” begins the conditional sentence that lays out the thesis, then the multiverse conjecture would reduce the strong anthropic principle to a weak version, and a universe like ours loses its uniqueness in an ocean of universes whose physical laws vary widely and wildly. Sooner or later one such as ours is bound to emerge.  This is all hypothatcal.

Possibly the most “far out” claim made by Hawking for “M-theory” is that it “explains” how matter can emerge spontaneously out of nothing:

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing … . Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.”[10]

It’s not clear whether Carroll agrees with this or not. In a review of Hawking’s book published in the Wall Street Journal in 2010, Carrol said of M-theory and the multiverse:

This is a picture that has been put together by a number of theoretical physicists over the past couple of decades, although it remains speculative. Mr. Hawking’s own major contributions have involved the spontaneous creation of the universe “from nothing.” The basic idea comes straight from conventional quantum mechanics: A particle does not have some perfectly well-defined position but rather lives in a superposition of many possible positions. As for particles, the logic goes, so for the entire universe. It exists in a superposition of many possible states, and among those states is utter nothingness. The laws of quantum cosmology purport to show how nothingness can evolve into the universe we see today.[11]

The key word is “speculative.” While speculation has its place in science as in any other field of enquiry, the use of unproven guesswork as if it were an established premise in order to “prove” the definitive elimination of “God” as a reasonable cosmological possibility arouses in me the suspicion that the tail is wagging the dog. “M-theory” is given a scientific status that it does not possess in order to serve as bludgeon for the anti-religion agenda.   Carroll acknowledges: “Whether this ambitious conception is actually correct remains unclear,” and adds incisively in my opinion: “they [Hawking-Mlodinov] advocate ‘model-dependent realism,’ which asserts that the ‘reality’ of various elements of nature depends on the model through which one interprets them. This is an interesting approach to ontology …”[12] He may have changed his mind since he wrote that review in 2010 because his 2016 book embraces exactly such an “interesting approach to ontology.” If what is real can be defined by the categories of enquiry that we humans have devised, then philosophy is indeed “dead” and “being” is reduced to what the sciences can describe. Heidegger would be appalled.

How does Carroll’s “poetic naturalism” compare to all this? It is my opinion that the “naturalism” offered by Carroll’s book does not advance much beyond an arid “physicalism” that he clearly has not abandoned. I also believe he fails either to identify or to create an appropriate “poetry” that might accompany science with some degree of depth and validity — all the while assuring us that religion cannot be that poetry. In fact, it turns out that all he really means by “poetry” is any view of reality that is not “science:”

This brings us to the “poetic” part of poetic naturalism. While there is one world, there are many ways of talking about it. We refer to these ways as “models” or “theories” or “vocabularies” or “stories”; it doesn’t matter. Aristotle and his contemporaries weren’t just making things up; they told a reasonable story about the world they actually observed. Science has discovered another set of stories, harder to perceive but of greater precision and wider applicability.[13]

The “poetry” in “poetic naturalism” is sparse. But sparse can be forgiven if it is deep. What, then, has Carroll accomplished? I think it is at least fair to say that according to the attitudes he revealed in the writing of this book, he appears to elude the description offered by one of his blog respondents in 2009, who said that Carroll displays “the sneering condescension of self-con­gra­tu­la­tory superior-sounding people” … who “demand that we must all act as [they] do.” That characterization seems more applicable to Hawking than the Carroll of the Big Picture.  If that is true, it is in fact quite deep. Whether or not it can translate into words that can serve as “poetry” for the rest of us, such a change of attitude is no small achievement.

*

It appears that Carroll is aware of all these objections. His book cannot be accused of active hostility to religion. But neither does he acknowledge that religion has any compatibility with science; he simply ignores it. He proposes to eschew the strong reductionist view as the privileged expression of truth and to substitute for it a “big picture,” much larger than the old, in which all the various ways of speaking about reality are acknowledged as equally valid and given their rightful place in the panoply of human enquiry and knowledge. This is not quite the capitulation it might appear to be, however. The final result is that while “reductionism” loses its arrogant claims to primacy and exclusivity, it is protected from interference from other world­views and retains its physicalist integrity. It is my opinion that it is a maneuver to keep religion and other non-mechanistic explanations out of cosmology. From my perspective that’s unfortunate. For I am going to claim and try to show that matter, far from being inert and passively mechanical, is a living dynamism, and that a satisfying and mutually supportive philosophic-religious synthesis compatible with science can be constructed on that foundation. I am going to show that a religion exorcized of its demonic elements by a cosmo-ontologically grounded theology can be integrated into a new synthesis as science’s “poetry.” “Poetic naturalism,” something Carroll bit off but could not chew, may still be a worthy and achievable goal.

Fundamentally Carroll says that each “discipline” or area of intellectual pursuit has its own vocabulary based on its own premises, axioms, principles and procedures that are valid within the domain of its applicability but not outside of it. That includes physics. In Carroll’s “big picture” physics supposedly no longer holds pride of place. For example, biologists are under no obligation to speak about LIFE in a way that reduces it to the mechanisms, dynamics, and structural possibilities described by physics and chemistry. The biologists’ starting point is LIFE as a given, and the development of their science is an elaboration of that premise. Biology need not entertain the possibility that the perception of LIFE is simply an illusion. Nor is it legitimate for physics to presume to sit in judgment on the validity of biology’s fundamental assumptions.

It is “philosophy,” as Carroll understands it in The Big Picture, that sits above and sets the boun­daries of the various sciences. Of course, it is not entirely clear what the principles, premises and procedures of this “philosophy” of Carroll’s might be, aside from his endless ruminations which are predictably based on scientific methodology like Bayesian logic and Peirce’s “abduction.” The allusions to philosophers, classical and current, which pepper the book, hardly compensate for his appalling Wittgensteinian disregard for what has gone before him. But we must at least acknowledge that his attitude is far less arrogant than Hawking and Mlodinow who declared flatly at the very beginning of their book: “philosophy is dead.”[14] Carroll in his 2010 WSJ review rightly excoriated them for that. “Our best hope for constructing sensible answers,” he said, “lies with scientists and philosophers working together, not scoring points off one another.”[15]

This holds true for all the “soft” disciplines, according to Carroll. Sociology and Psychology cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. They each have their own area of applicability and, just as the use of the terminology and procedures of physics would be false and misleading if applied to these sciences, so too the terminology of Psychology and Sociology which acknow­ledge the indisputable role of “purpose” in human life, would be completely inappropriate if applied to the world of inert matter and its dynamics. Indeed, it seems to be “purpose” more than any other source of explanation that Carroll is most determined to keep out of the realm of the physical sciences, while at the same time justifying scientists’ use of those categories as explanations, “metaphorically”.

He thus sets up lines of separation between areas of human pursuit that are reminiscent of the “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) schema presented by Stephen Jay Gould in the 1990’s as a way of ending the dispute between science and religion. In Gould’s view, neither science nor religion should encroach on the other’s “turf.” He imagined each of them to be an independent “magisterium” functioning with its own premises, principles and procedures completely free of interference from the other; they are conceptually incompatible, therefore they are thoroughly incommunicable and mutually meaningless.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values — subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.[16]

This “cease-fire” between science and religion, however, is purchased at a high price. It means that an ultimate unification of human understanding not only has not occurred, but now cannot occur because it has been precluded in principle. Specifically, it ignores the fact that reductionist science has no explanation for the existence of the universe itself, at best trying to justify the assertion that “it just is there and always has been” or that it was a “quantum fluctuation” that just appeared out of nothing. It also dodges the criticism that after more than a century of trying, science has yet to explain either life or “mind” in reductionist terms, endlessly declaring that the allegedly soon-to-be-found explanations will prove to be strictly mechanistic and the macro appearances, illusions as predicted.

Hence, having suppressed enquiry into the possible valid relationship between science and religion, NOMA condemns the enquirer to live forever on two parallel tracks, having recourse to one or the other as the circumstances may require. The end result of this institutionalized parallelism is the sealing off of the various paths of human endeavor from one another and the eternal consignment of the human being to a divided understanding of the universe. We live schizoid lives because of it. The universe, I submit, is just one thing. And the human intellect is part of it — its genetic spawn. And unless you are a dualist spiritualist ready to claim that the human intellect, even though born of this universe, cannot comprehend itself and its material matrix in the same metaphysical terms, you have to aspire to some ultimate unified understanding. Carroll seems to have surrendered physics’ candidacy for that role. Unfortunately, despite the absence of any formal academic consensus on the matter, NOMA has in practice become the accepted wisdom of our times enshrining an ungrounded tacit dualism. Philosophical synthesis has been despaired of in principle. Religionists are complicit in this intellectual irresponsibility, because NOMA, by implying that there is a separate source of understanding for the human mind — namely an imagined immaterial “soul” — gives them full permission to wallow in their discredited belief in the existence of a world other than this one, and to ply their trade of selling access to it.

It is Carroll’s acknowledgement that there is a legitimate and even necessary place for “philosophy,” however informally conceived, whose task it is to assign the limits and boundaries of the disciplines, that provides a potential tool that someday might conceivably override Gould’s NOMA strategy. But Carroll’s limited application of his “philosophy,” and the absence of any adequate explanation of what that “philosophy” might be based on that makes The Big Picture little more than Carroll using his prestige to impose his own personal preferences on the situation, and his preferences hardly go beyond a slightly tamed reductionism and a wider application of the NOMA principle to other fields beside religion. But the difficulty as always is that physicists do not have principles or procedures that are not derived from physics, therefore in Carroll’s hands the enterprise never achieves a philosophical solidity. It is simply a softer version of a “rocket scientist” telling the rest of us what’s real and what’s “poetic,” and it ends up supporting the prejudice that religion is incompatible with science. No surprise here, after all that has been Carroll’s thesis all along.

 

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carrol note: Carroll’s blog has a foto of the gravestone of Ludwig Boltzman which has engraved on it his entropy equation, S = k.log W.

[2] Carroll, Sean, “Science and Religion Can’t Be Reconciled: Why I won’t take money from the Templeton Foundation.” Slate. May 9, 2013. Cf the same article on Carroll’s blogpost: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/05/08/on-templeton/

[3] TBP, p.110

[4] Ibid., p. 111 The Book in which that view is presented is called The Grand Design, Bantam books, NY, 2010

[5] Oxford University Press, NY, 2012, for an extensive review see: Tony Equale, “A Dalliance with Dualism?” Nov 2012 tonyequale.wordpress.com/a-dalliance-with-dualism-2

[6] Columbia University Press, NY, 2015

[7] ibid., p. 115

[8] Hawking, op.cit., 2010, p. 5

[9] Ibid., p. 165

[10] Ibid., p. 180

[11] Sean Carroll, “The Why Questions: Chapter and Multiverse” The Wall Street Journal, Sept 24, 2010

[12] Ibid.

[13] Hawking, 2010 op.cit., p. 94

[14] ibid., p.5

[15] Carroll, op.cit., WSJ 9/24/2010

[16] Gould, Stephen Jay, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Random House, NY, 1999. Cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Advertisements

3 comments on “The Big Picture

  1. Noel F McMaster says:

    A satisfying read, Tony, from my perspective, as below.

    Blessings,

    Noel.

    Keeping The Nazarene’s Way open:

    a Christian anthropology in sync with science

    The Nazarene’s Way here refers to the kingdom praxis of Jesus of Nazareth in its two basic dimensions: 1) its challenge to authorities of the day whose religious status consolidated their own controlling role in society, and 2) the transcendent value of liberating this society’s losers, or ‘sinners’: those disabled, marginalised, or excluded.

    Iconic in the Christian story is the dawn of Easter Day with women at the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Thereafter both Peter and Saul/Paul, as leaders, began to evangelise by preaching the power of the resurrection-as-an-event. For Peter this experience of resurrection was the realisation of a salvation long promised to Israel; for Paul the same experience was the kernel of a cosmic pleroma that included a new anthropological insight.

    These first expressions of faith in the resurrection soon found symbolic self-validations,[1] e.g., with Peter, baptising neophytes into the new Way of Christ, while Paul who journeyed far among both diaspora Jews and “the gentiles” proclaimed a new cosmic order with Christ the second Adam.

    An underlying, not to be extinguished, feature of Jesus’ life was the absolute, and therefore transcendent, value tied to his kingdom praxis. This, as expressed in faith with works in favour of ‘the poor’, was the way of life Jesus pursued until his death which recapitulated the absolutes he had chosen in life. In dying Jesus gave up his space-time mission which then passed to those privileged disciples whose kingdom faith not only survived, but was reinforced in its self-validation through resurrection-as-an-event.

    Anthropological faith

    In life the kingdom values that Jesus chose and maintained to the end represented what was worthwhile for him. By dying with these values intact, (or in the surrendering of his ‘spirit’ – see Mt 27:46, 50), Jesus witnessed to an anthropological phenomenon: we all wager, unto life’s end, on what we judge to be worthwhile. Taken now as a human ‘given’ called anthropological faith, every such wager involves transcendent data which are values that will be definitively verified, or not, only when the experience of this life is ended.

    Such an anthropological faith guided the women at the tomb and also Peter and Paul in their respective missions; it was also notably present in the continuing kingdom values of early Christians, e.g., Acts 2:44-47 which notes that goods were shared in common, and in the Letter of James at 1:27 which tells of a community’s ‘religious’ care of its widows and orphans.

    Faith and mission

    The kingdom praxis of Jesus critically engaged the socio-religious scene of his time as this was founded on the Law, various temple practices and an enduring messianic expectation. The same praxis also stirred an official opposition that threatened Jesus’ life; it prompted Jesus’ commission to his disciples, that they keep his spirit alive with future humanising works which would have their own transcendent, or absolute, value. While drawing on the past the faith of disciples would be open to an ongoing graced creativity.

    Looking to that past we see an anthropological affinity between the story of the Jesus who died and particular Old Testament narratives. These narratives, constructed around mortal witnesses, especially the prophets, mirrored to believers that as a people they had been given a vocation by I will be who I will be. They became aware of this calling within a ‘divine pedagogy’ which developed the practical truth of being human, in the world, before God. Jesus on mission later became the pedagogue par excellence.

    In modern times many who live by a ‘liberation theology’, as in Latin America, are examples of disciples who in context creatively commit to the mission of Jesus and his kingdom praxis. In Jesus’ spirit they opt for the same values of the ‘heart’ earlier ascribed to I will be who I will be. With anthropological faith they claim Jesus as their ‘pedagogue par-excellence’ and in so doing learn to enliven their communities with mercy, kindness and justice, virtues whose fruit is in good works believed to be of absolute value. Jesus Risen becomes the first symbolic self-validation of their faith.[2]

    Faith and history

    The anthropological theme being outlined here has had a mixed history. For example, after Irenaeus (2nd century) and his symbolic insight (the glory of God is people fully alive), would come Constantine of Rome with his imperial transformations. The Middle Ages were to follow with feudalism featuring, inter alia, popes at court and princely cardinals. While saving the present influence of a Pope Francis, there are even yet signs of an institutionalised forgetfulness of Irenaeus’ words and of that early theological category, charism, which in the context today of a self-validating faith can suggest graces as symbols of active friendship with the Spirit in an evolving world.

    Hindsight allows that the Renaissance with its humanism sits well with what here is being called anthropological faith. It led to a quickening of scientific value through the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. Following the Enlightenment the twin biological themes of chance and natural selection were proposed by Darwin. Into the 20th century the scientific world view we now know was consolidated; it brought to Newtonian absolutes Einstein’s relativity theories and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle at the heart of quantum theory. This picture is further filled out by other developed human, i.e., social, sciences, e.g., social anthropology (already drawn on here), psychology and sociology. A gradual turn to a secular ethos (political and economic) and now latter-day ecology plus a ‘new’ cosmology have also greatly expanded the reach of an all pervading anthropological faith.

    Faith and science

    It is significant that even in the world of science with its range of interests there is no escape from transcendent data. Faith understood as an axiological phenomenon undergirds everything we humans prosecute as worthwhile. With the sciences, physical and human, faith’s wager is on the value of knowing “the other” in three steps that characterise the scientific world view: particular observation, theorising, and experimental verification.

    In keeping with this world view all of us, scientists included, are to be recognised as “phenomena already out there” objectively in space and time. At the same time epistemologically relevant here is human subjectivity. This involves a reflective calculus of values that leads to a human ‘faith-in-action’ (with material creation offering the means of its expression and realisation); such faith-in-action invites science to probe it as an objective phenomenon.

    Any specifically Christian anthropological faith-in-action amounts to differential activities tied to an ongoing values-calculus in kingdom praxis. In punctuating their lives in this way Christians are presenting themselves to science’s observation and theorising. Though the values of such faith will be uniquely verified definitively, or not, only “in the end”, science in its human breadth cannot reasonably ignore the ‘deep faith’ of Christian subjects as they take their place among all those objects “already out there”.

    But many scientists espouse a principle of ‘objectivity’ that makes their world of physical science exclusive; within their world view they reckon that a Christian’s wager on the worthwhile or, indeed, any religious subject’s canvassing of the “within of things” (Teilhard de Chardin), is not the proper interest of true science. Overlooked in this attitude is that a principle of ‘objectivity’ ought to lead science to what is observable in anything, and anyone, in the latter case to what is anthropologically ‘already out there’.

    Christian faith, then, need not be alienated at all from science. It is both reasonable and observable when a Christian commits to human values in the spirit of that partnership-in-friendship testified to by Jesus as he proclaimed the coming kingdom of the one he called Father. Such a critical anthropological faith keeps Christians aware of ‘losers’: the disabled, the marginalised, the outcast; the way of Jesus the Nazarene is thus kept open.

    Recapitulation.

    In his public mission of kingdom praxis and in his personal devotions, the faith of Jesus in “I will be who I will be” was unique; in his time and place it manifested what might be described as a Father-freedom, a Son-meaning and a Spirit-wisdom.

    Virtues such as mercy, kindness and justice which guided Jesus’ kingdom praxis are readily identified with those values of ‘the heart’ which in much Old Testament narrative and prophecy were anthropomorphically ascribed to “I will be who I will be”, the God of the Israelites. The spirit of Jesus in any age summons these virtues.

    Cultivating the spirit of Jesus in modern times can suggest to us a Freedom-unfathomed giving gratuitously, a Meaning-profound projecting stochastically, and a Widsom pervasive integrating widely in a creation now judged to be evolving towards its “Omega” point through the particular dialectic of entropy and negentropy. To be human in creation is to share in manifesting the freedom of I will be who I will be

  2. tonyequale says:

    Noel,

    Thank you for sharing this thoughtful and sweeping piece. There is too much here to comment on in a quick reply. I hope my readers will take advantage of your essay to broaden their own perspective, I know I have. Your provocative translation of “Yahweh” with a future dimension dovetails with my own conviction that what is ultimately being forged in Jesus’ message is a new “doctrine of ‘God.'” There are many ways to approach this. I am enriched by yours.

    Tony

  3. Noel F McMaster says:

    Hello Tony. You might like to follow the link in this personal reflection of mine, published (and ‘translated’) by Brian Coyne on Catholica.

    Blessings,

    Noel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s