From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:55:06 GMT


I'm going to break this in two parts, to make it easier to
(burp) digest:

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)    writes:

Discussing:
: > : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: > : by Sadaputa Dasa
: > : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: > : Used by permission.
: 
: > [intro, comments from O'Keefe, Pope Pius, and Hawking deleted]
: 
ARTICLE: > : Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for
: > Astrophysics. In a : lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical
: > creation, Gingerich also : interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of
: > creation. He went on to say : that we are created in the image of
: > God and that within us lies a : "divine creative spark, a touch of
: > the infinite consciousness, and : conscience."[5]
: > : 
: > : What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
: > : spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior
: > involving : conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of
: > a nonphysical : conscious entity that influences matter. Could
: > "divine spark" be just : another name for the brain, with its
: > behavioral programming wired in by : genetic and cultural
: > evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he : certainly chose
: > misleading words to express it.
: 
ACKER: >This is absolutely beautiful writing by Sadaputa.  First of
: > all, Gingerich, who basically said that science and religion should
: > not cross borders at the Washington Cathedral Conference on
: > Origins, does come quite close to the borders in his statement.
: > Sadaputa plays on the implication that "objectively observable
: > behavior involving conscience" is possible.
: 
KALKI: Well, I can observe that I have a conscience. Therefore that conscience
: is an "object" of my perception. It is objectively observable. I can
: also observe that other persons behave in a way that matches my own when
: I am having an "attack" of conscience. Therefore I conclude that others
: have consciences too. They even tell me that they do. Is this not
: scientific?

ACKER:	Mickey Rowe also made some valid comments on this topic, from
a different perspective.  To address your comment directly -- no, what
you describe here is not scientific at all, it's strictly observation.
You aren't formulating theories or testing them.  I'll help you out --
I grant that several questions could be addressed in a psychological
study of personal moral orientation, such as:  How does it develop?  What
is its initial manifestation in a child?  How early?  Are there cultural
patterns which define it?  Is it perturbed by legal impairment (clearly
important in law)?  Is it a function of right-hemisphere or left-hemisphere
activity (i.e. when confronted with a moral choice, does a brain
activity scan show more activity in the left- or right-hemispheres,
indicating the problem is more objective or more abstract)?   Don't
forget to include controls and double-blind tests.

ACKER: >  His (Sadaputa's)
: > statement implies that conscience is an inherent property of the
: > brain, that is, there is a section of the brain that controls
: > "conscience", just as there are areas devoted to the senses of
: > smell and hearing.  
:   
KALKI: Actually, Sadaputa is mentioning this explanation for conscience not
: because he himself embraces it but because it is one possible
: explanation for conscience that does not stem from nonphysical entities
: such as "the divine spark." This whole article is meant to point out
: that one can not extend the materialistic paradigm indefinitely, and if
: one pretends to do so he will eventually contradict himself. Sadaputa
: does not, of course, think that conscience (or consciousness) is caused
: by neurological activity.

ACKER: 	I don't think so.  I have granted Sadaputa's writing talent
before...  I think, by not defining conscience and yet implying that
it is amenable to investigation, he grants it status commensurate with
other brain functions which do _clearly_ produce objectively observable
phenomenon.
	Interesting that you say Sadaputa does not think that "conscience
(or consciousness)" is caused by neurological activity.  We
obviously do have competing theories -- I believe that consciousness is
caused by neurological activity.  The anti-statement -- lack of
consciousness is caused by lack of neurological activity -- is easily
demonstrated by placing a plastic bag over one's head, tying it
tightly at the neck, and continuing to inhale.  A post-mortem
examination will show no evidence of neurological activity or
consciousness.

ACKER: > Conscience, however, is a product of moral
: > training and is therefore a learned behavior, and not an inherent
: > "wired-in" property. Thus, the "divine spark" lies at a level more
: > fundamental than where science could find it, and being a
: > nonphysical entity, the "spark" does not influence matter.
: 
KALKI: But according to the materialistic paradigm, the propensity of humans to
: "morally train" their children must have a basis in biology, chemistry
: or physics, as must the propensity of children to exhibit "learned
: behavior." Therefore the argument that conscience is "acquired, not
: innate" just pushes the issue back a notch.
***One still must explain how a
: bunch of molecules and cells operating solely under the laws of physics
: and chemistry are feeling pangs of conscience, and knowing that they are
: feeling them!***

ACKER:	Point taken (denoted by ***).  I have a very distinct feeling
we will remain at loggerheads at what constitutes "consciousness", not a
field in which I feel particularly qualified to address.  You and t.o.
readers who are attempting to follow our debate (of which there are
regrettably few, I fear) might be interest to know that one or two
issues back of _Discover_ magazine had a cover story entitled "10 Great
Unanswered Questions of Science", and one of the 10 was "What is
Consciousness?"  (Another was the origin of life, which is how I learned
Jack Corliss is at Goddard.)
	My impression:  conscience is a product of memory -- you remember
something as bad or good, and after awhile it becomes a subconscious
response.  Goes back to the book title "All I Ever Needed to Know I
Learned in Kindergarten".  I occasionally get a "bad" feeling about peas
when I eat them because I once had stomach flu and vomited up a serving
of peas.  Am I having an attack of conscience about peas?  Not really --
but it's a remarkably similar feeling!  Practitioners of high theology
are unlikely to cite my feeling as evidence of God's existence, however.
	Since memory is tied in with the complexity of the brain's
neural network, it is not a question we can resolve.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

[remainder deleted for next posting]