My good friend Laurence Rozier is holding forth in Meshverse these days on the deep intertwingling among science, religion, belief and simulation. In the first two published parts of what is projected to become a five-part series entitled "Mesh Belief," Rozier discusses the connection between Scientism and other theologies.

A long-time advocate of the interconnectedness and fundamental unity of all things, Laurence weaves a wonderful tale of the connections between two seemingly opposed world views and concludes that they really aren't so different as they appear.

In my comment to his second essay today, I take issue with one of his points but overall this is deeply thought out and well articulated analysis of an important topic to those of us who care about the deeper issues affecting the world and our view of it.

Highly recommended reading.

Salon.com has a well-thought-out piece today on cosmology and the existence of humanity that I found quite fascinating. Steve Paulson interviews British cosmologist Paul Davies, now of Arizona State University, about Davies' new book, The Cosmic Jackpot.

If you put all the physicists who think and talk about the issue of why this particular universe has carbon-based life forms. There are, he points out, anywhere from six to 12 fundamental design parameters in the universe that have to be present with specific values within very narrow tolerances, any one of which being out of range would result in life not being viable. (By "life," of course, he means life as we know and understand it.)

There's a lot of depth to the interview. If I were to comment on it, my post would be longer than the interview, so for now I'll just point you at it as a great source of a summary of the current range of views of cosmologists on a crucial question.

Scientific American magazine is one of my favorite publications. On their Web site, they are currently carrying a fascinating debate between Richard Dawkins (religious skeptic and author of The God Delusion) and Lawrence M. Krauss (a nearly equally skeptical colleague who believes that engaging those of faith in dialog is more useful than antagonizing them).

Brief, cogent and insightful, this makes a splendid read if you are, like me, interested in the intersections of science and spirituality.

Unfortunately, both of the debaters are focused principally on dealing with the religious Right and its anti-scientific positions on such things as evolution and the age of the earth. I find those conversations -- to the extent that they even resemble dialog -- to be marginally interesting and of little moment.

My interest in this subject begins when the question of the nature and role of consciousness and the observer in scientific experimentation and exploration is raised. I think there are very promising and fertile crossover points when the subject shifts to the higher plain where neither science nor spirituality can yet legitimately claim to have an answer but where both have a vital stake in the outcome.

My good friend Steve Maynard shared this Google video with me. It takes a radical but at least seemingly rational and creative approach to explaining the universe as an electrical rather than a gravitational pheenomenon.

WARNING. The movie is just over an hour long, so don't go there unless you're really interested.