Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Ashley Dawkins's picture

The Value of Stories and Story Sharing

I found myself agreeing on many aspects of this paper.  Not only was I able to find links in Physics.  On the other hand there were some areas in which I did not agree and would like some clarification for.  Over all I thought message was positive one – value people and what they have to offer.

On page four you quote yourself from pervious papers saying, “This ‘story’ is one’s conscious experience, one’s description of oneself and one’s relations to the world, including one’s sense of objectives and of alternatives that might be pursued to achieve them”.  I think this can also be linked to Quantum Mechanics’ wave – particle paradox. Gerald Schroeder in his book, The Science of God, states, “Bohr pointed out that this paradox of duality has a strong implication relative to our knowledge of the subatomic world.  If we measure an entity in a way that assumes it is a wave we find a wave.  If we measure the same entity and assume it is a particle we find a particle.  We see the world as we assume it exists”.  The duality paradox theoretically is applicable on a macro scale as well.  If we can only see the world as we perceive it, than our “stories” can only be created through our own experiences.  And I do agree with by acknowledging these “stories” people will be shaped because other “stories” and important, not just your own.

What I don’t agree with is that we area product of evolution.  I cannot not fully explain as to why this is not true in a short critique; but I know there is scientific proof that this is not possible, or at least statistically true due to the age of the Earth.  There have also been evidence that has made scientists rethink their previous ideas, such as Charles Walcott’s discoveries about the Cambrian life forms. 

I also believe the idea that as humans we have free will is confused with your ideas that we do not need a leader in our lives and that there is no human nature.  I am mostly in agreement with, “What we are aware of is a more or less coherent self, who is (or supposed to be) ‘in charge’ of what we do and expects it to be in line with its own ‘objectives’.  This is a deep statement, but without going too much into detail, I think this is a good example of the free will God has granted us.  We are free to make our own decisions, but must be aware of that we will also have consequences. Also, I do believe that we are changeable people and we have this free will to make decisions; but this does not mean we are lacking human nature.  I need a better explanation on what is meant by human nature before I can comment any further. 

 

 

Side note: you paper references figure 2c, but this figure doesn’t exist

 

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
7 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.