The limitations of reductionism

I've written on this before, but this quote from Martin Rees reinforces what I was trying to say:

Everything may be the outcome of processes at the subatomic level, but even if we know the relevant equations governing the micro-world, we can't, in practice, solve them for anything more complex than a single molecule. Moreover, even if we could, the resultant 'reductionist' explanation would not be enlightening. to bring meaning to complex phenomena, we introduce new 'emergent' concepts. (For example, the turbulence and wetness of liquids, and the textures of solids, arise from the collective behaviour of atoms, and can be 'reduced' to atomic physics, but these are important concepts in their own right; so, even more, are 'symbiosis', 'natural selection', and other biological processes.)

From Just Six Numbers

Augustine and the Fall

The Augustinian view of the fall involved the belief that a change occurred in humans' physical characteristics, for example the development of being able to suffer physical pain. From that moment the condition was passed down genetically to all Adam and Eve's offspring.

The following extract from The Cambridge Companion to Augustine illustrates his views:

Adam and Eve’s fall ushered into the world original sin, which is not an event
but rather a condition (De pecc. merit. et remis. 1.9.9–1.12.15). It is the condition
imposed by God as punishment on Adam and Eve for disobedience.
According to Augustine the condition includes dispossession from a naturally
perfect environment, the loss of natural immortality and the acquisition of susceptibility
to physical pain, fatigue, disease, aging, and rebellious bodily disorders,
especially sexual lust (De Gen. ad litt. 11.32.42; De civ. Dei 14.16–19). The
condition is not only pathological, it is inherited, infecting every descendant of
Adam and Eve. The condition is innate, not acquired; as Augustine puts it, it is
transmitted by propagation, not imitation (De pecc. merit. et remis.
1.9.9–1.12.15). Augustine’s view, then, is that our first ancestors squandered their
patrimony and our inheritance and – as if that were not bad enough – thereby
contracted a suite of infirmities that is passed on to all their progeny.

It is quite an understandable position for the time, and it does follow on from a naively literal reading of Genesis 2 & 3, but it loads onto the text a great deal more than what the words actually say. This tends to come out in the interpretations of Young Earth Creationists today (e.g. vegetarian lions).

Take the example of the curse on Eve's pain in childbearing. The pain involved in this is a direct result of the anatomy of the female pelvis and the size of a baby's head. For there to be no pain in childbirth one of the two would have to have been dramatically different previously. So an Augustinian view of the fall involves a whole re-design of human biology for a start. This seems to be a great deal more than the passages are actually saying, and recent science (particularly the findings of anatomically modern humans that pre-date Adam and Eve) confirms that it isn't actually true.

So in other words, the fall needs to be seen in a much more figurative way than Augustine thought all those years ago.

Augustine time

These words seem to be ahead of their time - though I don't have the original context to hand to check:

Then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneous with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time - after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made.

St Augustine quoted in Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees

Augustine had some interesting things to say about faith and science, though his views on 'The Fall' have led theology down a wrong turn.

Theodicy and evolution

The notion of theodicy has been one of the most debated and discussed topics in Christianity for centuries. Here's the Wiki-definition:

Theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") is a theological or philosophical study which attempts to justify God’s intrinsic nature of omni-benevolence (all loving), omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotence (all powerful), despite the existence of evil which would otherwise stand to refute God's existence.

One of the simplest ways of reconciling this problem is to recognise that God has given us freedom. We have a choice in how we act and the choices we make have consequences. We can bring joy or sorrow, so you could say that suffering is the cost of freedom.

This is quite a straightforward concept when we are thinking about human action, but what about nature?

Nature has its own freedom. The laws are set and from then on the consequences are what they are. Tectonic plates move according to the laws of physics. In doing so they release minerals into the biosphere and help produce fertile ground. They are also the source of earthquakes, volcanoes and subsequent devastation.

Evolution helps us understand this natural freedom as applied to biology. Life parades a spectrum that befits its freedom of expression, from the beautiful forms on the wings of a butterfly, to the venomous poisons of the bite of a snake.

The philosophical question is why is this freedom so important?