Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion

by Stuart A. Kauffman

Book Overview

Consider the woven integrated complexity of a living cell after 3.8 billion years of evolution. Is it more awe-inspiring to suppose that a transcendent God fashioned the cell, or to consider that the... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0465003001
• ISBN13: 9780465003006
• Release Date: May 2008
• Publisher: Basic Books (AZ)
• Length: 320 Pages
• Weight: 1.15 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 6.5" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

A Beautiful Book, But Missing Just One Thing

This book was a pleasure to read, very well-written and effectively integrating many important concepts from physics, biology, philosophy, cosmology, neurology, law, current events, economics, and other topics into a perspective that finds awe in the unfolding creativity of the biosphere and our role in it. The author convincingly argues that the reductionstic perspective of much modern science is incomplete, and that there are emergent qualities in biologic systems that cannot be fully explained by the physical determinism of cells and physics. Because of this, we should view the inherent creativity of the biosphere as sacred, and reverence it as "God." If we can cultivate this perspective, it will create a shared understanding among diverse people and develop global interconnectedness and harmony which is increasingly crucial in our modern world situation, overcoming the cultural and religious differences that lead to conflict among us. Part of this book's thesis is that biological systems are fundamentally self-organizing, sustaining, and adapting, thus being "acausal" and needing no "first cause" (which removes one of the classic conceptions of God.) In my view, however, "acausal" is not synonymous with "spontaneous" or "random," and Kauffman is merely ascribing to quantum uncertainty the role of "unmoved mover." In making the case for how we have no need for a transcendent Creator God, however, one important question is never asked, or even mentioned: "What happens to 'me' when I die?" Each of us is fundamentally concerned with this question. Whether we will learn the answer, however, depends on what is the reality of our consciousness. If consciousness ends with the cessation of one's biologic existence, then the only prospect we can look forward to is an instant dissolution of self, a horrifying prospect precisely for all the same reasons Kauffman identifies life as sacred. Death is the ultimate sacrilege to such sacredness, and Kauffman's "God" has no relevance or answer for the individual in this fundamental conflict. While feelings of spirituality, sacredness, and reverence are all attributes of people's orientation toward a God figure, the primary role of a "God" is mediating one's orientation toward post-mortem existence, and all of a lifetime ultimately becomes a reconcilation with the unavoidable prospect of approaching death. Kauffman's notion of "God," while esthetically beautiful, amounts to essentially ignoring this concern and putting a smile on your face as you approach your final hour. But for many of us, our very existence recoils from the prospect of individual annihilation, the "life" within us desires continuation before all other desires. The first purpose of life is to continue living. Therefore Kauffman's "God" is the food which does not satisfy. In seeking God, we desire an agency that transcends death and can sustain us for eternity. This is why the notion of a transcendent "God" remains in our deep

Can an Immanent God be Sacred?

I read Stuart Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred with some anticipation because Stu had been a classmate of mine in medical school. I knew then that he was on to something interesting and that he would go on to do something creative that we all could be proud of. Interestingly, another classmate, Joe Goldyne, went on to become a famous artist, so I have an extra reason to be proud to be an alumnus of the class of '68 at UC San Francisco. Anyway, Stu's book did not disappoint me, and I would like to take this opportunity to make some comments on the points which I find the most interesting. Dr Kauffman does a good job of criticizing reductionism, which is Laplace's view that the universe is one huge machine and that all future events have been predetermined, including human actions. This mechanistic view of the world, which allowed the West to develop the scientific method and make great strides in understanding and controlling nature, does not leave much room for such concepts as ethics, esthetics, and, especially, free will. A universe that consists of an extremely complex series of events resulting from a gazillion particles of matter in motion interacting in a cause and effect manner cannot explain all the fun things about life and leads such a brilliant scientist as Stephen Weinberg to conclude: "explanatory arrows always point downward" and "the more we comprehend the universe, the more pointless it seems" (page 10). Reductionism involves supervenience, which is a term philosopers use to describe how higher level or more complex actions correlate exactly with and are determined completely by lower level actions. One example is that the properties of water are correlated with and determined by the molecular actions of hydrogen and oxygen. Another example is that the complex patterns of firing by cerebral neurons can lead to thoughts and ideas. In both cases the higher level activity is explained by the lower level, which is to say it is "reduced" to the lower level. Reductionism helps scientists to understand how natural processes work, but does it really explain everything? Dr Kauffman explains the concept of "emergence": "The behavior of large and complex aggregates of elementary particles, it turns out, is not to be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles. Instead, at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires reseach which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other" (page 21). Any chemist knows that he/she cannot completely understand the actions of chemical compounds simply by knowing the behavior of elementary particles. While it is obvious that the principles of chemistry emerge from the more basic principles of physics, it is not so obvious that thoughts or ideas can emerge from neuronal firing no matter how complex (refer to Douglas Hofstadter's I Am a Strange Loop). Water, hydrogen, and oxygen have d

A Fourth Law of Thermodynamics?

Stuart Kauffman gave two lectures to our medical school class (U. of Pennsylvania) twenty or so years ago and I have been following his journey every since. I was struck, at the time, at his willingness to wonder at the complexity of ontogeny and admit how much was not understood. An excellent book by all standards, but as one reviewer said, to be fully critical one would need to be an expert in physics, biology, computers and philosophy. One question, however. Practicing medicine, it seems that hypotheses must be falsifiable. On page 147, chapter Breaking the Galilean Spell, Kauffman says, "It is an amusing fact that scientists who eschew philosophy invariably espouse a philosophy of science that is long outdated. Most scientists today will somberly argue that hypotheses must be falsifiable. But science and real life are more complex." He goes on to describe the philosophy of W. V. O. Quine "the holism in science thesis." "I am not a Popperian," says Kauffman. OK, but didn't Popper support coming up with a hypothesis, and then trying to prove it wrong?(the scientific method?) Any clarification on this point would be helpful. Also, this would be a great book for a science book club. Not only do we confront how much we don't know, as in the medical school lectures, but how much we ultimately can we know. "We must live our lives forward, into that which is only partially knowable." (P. 282)

Perfect for both spirituality and college-level science holdings

REINVENTING THE SACRED: A NEW VIEW OF SCIENCE, REASON AND RELIGION comes from a pioneer in the field of complexity theory, and here offers a radical new world view: that of the natural universe as a ceaseless creativity which is unpredictable - and which should be considered divine in itself. This concept of 'sacred' can be recreated, Kauffman writes - and his title shows how to refine a view of God into a different kind of system entirely. Perfect for both spirituality and college-level science holdings, it offers a challenging new way of perceiving spirituality and deity.

Awe-Inspiring

I have been waiting for days to see some real reviews of this book come up. Tired of waiting--let me say this is a fabulous book. For the lay reader, it is quite a challenge (I am an artist). Nevertheless, it is well worth the effort. Stuart Kauffman's ideas are powerful and sensible, above all else, inspiring. I do not have the technical background to critique his ideas and I look forward to reviews written by those who do. However, as an artist, Kauffman's essential premise--that which is sacred is the immeasuarable, unfathomable creativity of the universe--resonates at a deep level. This is what I emotionally and intellectually react to each and every day I open my eyes and step out into the world. The space of all possibilities, this is what Kauffman celebrates. I love his enthusiasm. He is a markedly creative individual, driven, no doubt, by passion. His sensibilities about the world around him are positive and heartening. This is a joy to encounter in a science-orientated, big-picture book. Kudos.