Minimalism

Add a Comment

2 Comments

Comment by Nicola on October 12, 2008 at 10:02am

Hi Bob, and thanks for your thoughts on the Introduction.

I see what you mean about 'artificial distinctions' in Hatcher's thesis, but I think it is hard to formulate the kind of cross-cutting theory he is proposing without resorting to fairly wide generalizations. As I recall, he does mention art somewhere further along in the book, in the same light as you touched on - as a vehicle for understanding/expressing 'truth' in both Revelation and Creation.

As for verification in religion - I agree strongly, it is an important part for many believers, in particular in the form of prophecy, but overall I think it safe to say that it is the mysterious aspect, the 'recognition' of our Lord and Maker, which is paramount in any religion.

A big plus for me is that Hatcher - unlike other authors on heavy topics such as these - while being as clear as he can on his opinions, seems open to discussion and improvement.

I think one thing the world needs to understand is the huge difference between revelation and religion. Most of us have it so mixed up. In a similar way non-scientists tend to mix up fact and theory (and some scientists mix up good theories and bad theories :)

A point from outside the book - I just read, and will perhaps re-read, Umberto Eco's conversations with Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini of Milan. Eco and Martini talk about topics like the Apocalypse, "When does Human Life Begin?", The Role(s) of Men and Women in the Church, and Ethics. Most interesting for me was learning that in Milan there is/was? an annual lecture series Martini called "Lecture Series for Non-Believers" where "religious participants and non-believers" are invited to "exchange views on a topic of pressing interest to both". In the foreword to this publication, Harvey Cox asks:

"...is American religiosity like the famous lake that is a thousand miles wide and one inch deep? Would urban Americans in large numbers forgo an evening at the theater (or in front of a flickering blue screen) to listen to religious and secular practitioners, scholars and creative writers, exchanging views on a theme of common topical import? Is there an audience, or even a potential audience, for such a conversation in America?"

I think one can say the same for Hatcher's Minimalism - is it a theory that will remain on the bookshelves and in the heads of a few Baha'is like us, or can it be used as a real 'bridge' to support discussions between people of differing Faiths/no Faith?

Peace,
Niki

Comment by Robert Sarracino on October 12, 2008 at 9:05am

INTRODUCTION

Hatcher's thesis is very intriguing, and I'm looking forward to this discussion. I have a few preliminary comments:

1. In agreement with most physicists, I would say that modern science begins with Galileo.

2. Quantum mechanics is complete -- it just doesn't fit with classical notions of 'completeness'. In the quantum world there is no 'uncertainty' -- the wave function itself obeys a deterministic law. When we try to translate from 'quantum' into 'classical', however, uncertainty comes in. We can, for instance, specify with precision the wave function of, say, an electron in an atom. And in the quantum world, the wave function is all that is needed to describe it. If, however, we ask a classical question, such as, "Where is the electron?" "What is its momentum?" -- then, there is uncertainty in translating from the quantum concept of wave function to the classical notions of 'position' and 'momentum', and we cannot with arbitrary precision determine or fix both simultaneously. It is as if Nature itself, on different levels, speaks different languages. This in itself, it seems to me, does not show that materialism is not self-contained -- it would still be conceivable that quantum reality, which is material, even if far removed from what we perceive as material, is all there is to reality.


Godel's theorem, however -- that does show that there's an inherent incompleteness in axiomatic systems. And as Hatcher puts it, Penrose provides 'the icing on the cake' by arguing that what is called 'strong AI (Artificial Intelligence)' can never be realized. That is, the full range of human thought processes will never be able to be reproduced by computers (of the kind we currently manufacture).



3. As I read the Baha'i writings, God has ordained revelation and the creation as the two sources of reality. As for Revelation, we have statements from the Baha'u'llah such as, "He [God] ... hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self." As for the creation, we have statements such as "I ... have ordained for thy training every atom in existence, and the essence of all created things", and "Nature in its essence is the embodiment of My Name, the Maker, the Creator. . . Nature is God's Will and is its expression in and through the contingent world."



These two sources of reality are intricately connected. On the one hand, for instance, revelation makes pronouncements about the reality contained in the creation; as an example, one could say, arguably, that classical science is inherent in the Revelation of Muhammad. On the other hand, our spiritual nature is part of the creation. The Manifestation of God Himself is part of the creation. The science of psychology, for instance, will inevitably have to study spiritual as well as material reality -- or it will remain severely limited in its effectiveness.



Religion and science are 'truth systems' which human beings construct from these two sources of reality. It is tempting to say that religion is what we construct from Revelation and science what we construct from the truths contained in Nature -- but it's not that simple. Religious codes of behavior, for instance, inevitably draw from observations of human nature as well as from revelation. Science itself arises not from our material reality but from our spiritual reality, which is awakened and refined by revelation, and revelation plays a crucial role in forming the lens through which science observes the world of creation.



William Hatcher characterizes science as 'linear' and 'minimalist', and revelation as 'nonlinear' and 'maximalist'. I would tend to agree that science is 'minimalist' -- however, art, which, like science and religion, is also a human attempt to understand both revelation and the creation, is also nonlinear and maximalist.



Hatcher also draws the distinction that science proceeds through 'verification' and religion through 'explication'. Again, I find the distinction artificial. To many physicists, there is a strong aspect of explication of the reality contained in nature in what they do. And from what I can see, verification also plays a role in religion -- if we think of religion as the human endeavor to make sense of revelation.







On pages 14-15 Hatcher presents the two philosophical extremes of subjectivism and reductionism, and proposes minimalism, as an alternative which would incorporate the strengths of each extreme without its obvious faults. He proposes minimalism as "a proactive philosophy of truth-seeking which sees philosophy as a co-operative dialogue with reality". He then gives some of the fundamental premises of minimalism. I find this very intriguing, and am looking forward to the rest of his book.



In the post-war period scientists, especially in the United States, have largely disdained philosophy. The biologist Stephen Jay Gould, in his monumental tome on Evolution, has, however, pointed out the contributions that can be made to science by philosophy, citing how exposure to and collaboration with philosophers have contributed to issues he has been wrestling with as a scientist.