At the risk of being tiresome, I am going to briefly summarize the physics topics covered each week so that we will remain on the same page. Or you can skip to the conclusions that we reached during the discussion by skimming down to the appropriately named heading - conclusions.
Topics
Last Thursday our DVD series covered the problems surrounding the calculation of the speed of light. (Not the speed it travels, but it’s relative speed.) Physicists at the close of the century struggled to determine what the speed of light could be measured against. Anyone who has taken an introduction to physics course knows that objects can only be said to be in motion relative to another object. The earth is in motion relative to the sun and other planets, a car is motion relative to the earth, a tennis ball is in motion realtive to the tennis court and the player, etc. But what is the motion of light relative to?
Aether(ether), theorized the physicists. Something must exist everywhere, on the earth as well as in the great vastness of space, that is static. Something that light is moving relative to. Otherwise light does not adhere to Newton's laws of motion. Therefore, physicists said, a substance - which they called ether - must exists. An invisible, unmoving substance surrounding all that is.
This theory held until Einstein sent physicists scurrying back to chalkboards around the world. That's next.
Conclusions
About half the group did not show up as Doug was away at a conference and, unfortunate as it may be, there is no discussion without Doug. At least not yet. Those of us who did show up fumbled with some of the ideas, but the discussion quickly came to an end, as George Costanza would say, "... of it's own volition." And so, as we await the return of author, speaker, pastor, blogger, physics discussion leader Doug Pagitt, I will address the comments of a certain Jon P., prognosticator extraordinaire.
Jon questions the scope of our knowledge compared to the knowledge of God. He also questions if more knowledge equals more love. (I hope I am representing his position correctly.) I agree with Jon that our knowledge is nothing more than a whisp of quickly evaporating smoke in comparison to the knowledge of God. God, claiming to be the basis of all knowledge, dissiminates such knowledge at his discretion and pleasure.
Jon and I are in agreement that more knowledge does not equal more love. I may pursue countless PhD's without ever gaining the knowledge, or love, of a child (or a mentally retarded person).
But our physics discussion does not aspire to acquire more knowledge, rather we hope to see hidden things anew by attempting to shift our starting-point.
We all have a starting-point. This starting-point - the intellectual, spiritual and emotional pad from which we launch - influences our praxis, that unreflective, habitual way of behaving. We engage the world, others and God based on this starting-point. Our behaviors spring from it. The very actions we put into practice in the act of loving God are based on it. If our starting point, for example, is justification by faith alone, we engage the world accordingly. If our starting point is tradition and iconoclasm, we act upon the world differently as well.
What is your starting-point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Brett the Desert Father?
I hope to write about my starting point in the coming days. I suppose I'll have to consider the Wesleyan blood in that.
I thought all your paintings sold at that auction at your son's school.
I'd be honored...you have my address.
"Einstein sent physicists scurrying back to chalkboards around the world"? ...I'm cringing.
On further reflection, maybe what Doug is really meaning to talk about is the Philosophy of Physics, or maybe Metaphysics, not the science of physiscs itself.
With each paradigm shift in scientific thinking, the science preceeded, and the philsophical "underpinnings" of the new paradigm followed after. Science is science, and method holds true, regardless of whether it is a ball rolling down an incline or a light particle trajectory being altered by the presence of a giant mass.
Of course, after the basic paradigm shifts, the talking heads of every age put forth thier philosophical postulates with such pervasiveness that the science no longer informs the philosophy, but rather subsequently the philosophy starts to inform the science. I guess that's what some people believe in the case of naturalistic materialism.
So, it may be barking up the wrong tree if the discussion doesn't distinguish between what emerging paradigms revealed versus what people, after the fact, started saying they revealed.
More nit-picky comments, all in all.
To add a layer of complication the the discussion, how do we define our current starting point? Isn't there some element of renewal and regeneration in the (partially) surrendered life? What part of that comes through self-realization of your current perspective, and what part of that comes through a working that is ouside of me? "Well, it looks like jon p is X% informed by his old nature starting point, and Y% informed by the renewal/regeneration that is occuring inside him"?
My soul is not quite like a refrigerator, where you have a conscious moment of putting something into it, you have a overall general idea of what all is currently in it, and every once in a while, you rediscover that something had been put in there a too long of a time ago, that you should have remembered was there way before now. It seems to be a little more complex than that, through no efforts of my own, but every once in a while, I do recognize one truth: maybe its better to classify my inner workings, rather than pretend that I can organize them.
Can I leave the rest up to mystery?
Good thoughts, Jon. I'll mull on them a bit and see what my refrigerator comes up with.
Physics discussion is tonight.
"Science is science." That's a huge starting-point.
PS. What, you don't like my "City Pages" style of commentary? (..."Einstein sent physicists scurrying back to chalkboards around the world"?...)Allow me a little room to wax not so eloquently..
Post a Comment