Science and Religion Message Board 1501-2000

So what are you saying? The core compresses into a singularity instead of melting down? Is this why in your scenario, no radioactive material is released because it longer exists definitively in our space time? This I've got to see. A singularity created at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island would have caught someone's attention.

Occam's Razor: a comet bolide or a primordial mini black hole (ala Hawking) was responsible for the Tunguska Event? A runaway reactor core would simply meltdown or compresses itself into a singularity due to some tremendous unseen and unknown force or the piling on of mass to the point where it is more massive than even the Sun?

Primordial black holes are space-like aberations, not time-like mass concentrations (although the end result is very nearly indistinguishable.) In any case-- the material in a "meltdown" only fuses in the sense that the individual fuel rods melt into a contigous mass, no actual fusion occurs (but you know this --> where are you heading?)

You have the evidence you require to maintain your belief. What more is there to say? The only problem I have with what you say is that since you require no more evidence than what you already have in order to believe in special creation, you seem surprised and upset that others might require more.

Russell, I would have to say that I think that that is probably not likely on this board. I really don't see E.C. and Leszek being converted to your religion :-)

Nothing delivered, Rosemary? I would suggest that science is responsible for the longer life span we currently enjoy, for example.

Rosemary, I saw a map of the world today and thought of you. It was a little different. It was what might be considered "upside down" and split at the Atlantic Ocean. Australia was almost perfectly centered in the upper half of the map. I thought it was neat. According to information on the map, maps were not always orientated with north at the top. Originally, maps had East at the top, and it was from that that the word orientation was derived. Interesting, huh?

Rosemary, why should I care if other scholars disagree with my scholars. The evidence presented by the ones I have read and believe make sense to me. It is also a theology that I find comforting. Why should I want to believe in the Devil? Why should I want to believe in Hell? Why should I want to believe in a vengeful God who would send people to Hell to be with the Devil, merely for failure to believe in things that conflict with known phenomenon? That is what I was taught as a child, but I no longer believe it, and I am glad. If that is what you, and others, on this board, believe, and want to believe, and it gives you comfort, then by all means, continue to believe it. But I can assure you that the idea is not at all comforting to me. I am not interested in trying to believe in something that makes no sense to me--in order to be discomforted.

Interesting. This is not something with which I personally identify but I think it is interesting. I do have a copies of English translations of The Bhagavad Gita and The Koran. But although I have respect for those other sacred texts, I can not say I love them as I love some of the stories in the Bible. I once worked with an American Indian and came to admire him greatly. He sometimes spoke of Indian spirituality on breaks. I found it interesting, mainly, I suppose, because it was the religion of my friend. I have not thought of that in years. Thanks for reminding me of something I enjoyed remembering.

Good point, Rosemary.

I'm not heading anywhere, Keith. I was trying to open E.C.'s mind a little bit about the deceptions inherant in science. I never, ever claimed it was a 'meltdown.' In fact, it was not. It didn't melt. It vaporized and collapsed. It wasn't primordal, it was an abomination human beings created, and yes, it did create a time anomaly. Other than that, I don't have anything to say! §:o)

Whoa! Give me a minute to get my head together. A runaway reactor created a rift in time. Well, if you put together a screenplay, I'll talk to the people at Industrial Light and Magic. I think we can get Brent Spiner as the lead but as a backup we may have to settle with David Hasselhoff and the Spice Girls (shudder). :-)

This is not the first time the U.S. Navy, I assume it was either a nuclear powered submarine or air craft carrier, has been implicated in grossly violating fundamental laws of physics.

<sigh> I won't identify the incident because I do not exist by order of the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee while you were still in high school, my friend. It honestly doesn't matter at all, except in how you relate to the absolute truths you've been taught, and my "ulterior motive" (thanks, Cliff) in mentioning the nature of time and the fact that we've missed something important.

Cliff, we think *we're* the centre of the world, not those Aussies. There's a friendly rivalry between them and us, especially on the Rugby and Cricket field. Very few in the Northern hemisphere realise what a huge gap of water there is between the two places.

!!!!!! Gosh if I made a similar comment, I'd be reprimanded for not taking everything into account and finding out about the alternatives. I guess I'll answer that with your answer to me.

Marie,
Satan and the "devil" were not always synonymous concepts.

Rosemary,
Hi! Yes, BTDT! I used to live in Plimerton. Few people realise that it is just as far from Wellington to Sidney as from Wellington to Honolulu.

Hi, Marie! I’m sure you’ve guessed I have a bit of trouble understanding the Satan/Devil concept, per the attribution of evil. Maybe you and Rosemary can help. I apologize right away for length, but this is a very perplexing conundrum for me!

In Job, Satan is identified among the "Sons of God," presumably angelic, who is allowed by God to wreak havok on Job’s life. Angels have been identified by some scholars as agents of creation, with duties pertaining to their various stations. In other words, executors of the laws governing creation. Angels are common to a number of religions, and would be the lesser gods subsumed by monetheism. So under this sort of classification, there would be a relatively ‘important’ angel in charge of something like the large dimensions of the universe, and a less ‘important’ angel in charge of things like what happens on planet Earth. Those can also be subdivided into lesser angels to handle individual forces and purely earth-bound things. Some people subdivide angels all the way down to individual "guardians" for human beings.

(2)

The cutthroat robbers, however, were probably robbers and cutthroats before Satan got to them, even if he led them to the target. The text doesn’t say in either Genesis or Job that Satan forces anybody to do evil. Temptation is apparently Satan’s assigned task in both the old and new testaments. This would seem in context to imply that Satan is the angelic agent of free will (choice). As such, he would figure highly in the workings of God’s Plan for human beings. He’s a necessary character to the drama, not a hated enemy.

The fallen Lucifer of Isaiah may be something else, though some equate the "Son of the Morning" with Satan. I do not know what the original words were, but I would presume that translators who encountered the word for "Satan" from the Mosaic texts used in later Isaiah, we would see it translated into "Satan, Son of the Morning" rather than Lucifer. So I’ll put that reference aside for now.

(3)

Demons are prolific in the New Testament, but they are not identified as angelic. Jesus does a lot of ‘casting out,’ meaning that whatever demons are, they can get inside human beings and make people behave in certain ways. If Satan had that power, he wouldn’t have to tempt anybody, would he? Neither would we need ‘guardian angels,’ since if angels could dwell inside human beings we’d all BE angels. The Bible doesn’t say human beings were created in order to give bodies to angels, good or evil.

What’s a demon, that it can possess human bodies and minds, and is this where you would pinpoint the source of the evil human beings do? I see a large conflict between Satan’s role as an inner-circle angel and agent of free will, and demonic possession that negates free will. And if demons do in fact possess human bodies and use them to do evil things, neither Satan nor humans can be responsible for evil. Demons are.

If demons are not physical beings but can possess physical beings, we’d have to call them "thought forms." Who generates these thought forms if not the human being who acts out the thought form? Is this black magic? If it’s black magic, there must be a magician generating the thought form and projecting it, and the magician would have to be human to generate the thought form. Human-generated thought forms can be good or evil, but are not angels.

Ok I can see it is time to take on the 2nd. law.

First there is no such thing as a "closed" system. You can not find one, you can not make one.

At the very least there are neutrinos flowing everywhere. You can not stop them.

Then there is the fact that all materials are radio active so any material you use to construct a shield will contribute energy to the system.

Second there is no perfect reflector so that any energy in the alleged "closed system" will leave eventually.

The religion of science has made a law about something that by it's own body of "knowledge" can not exist.

It's an angles on the head of a pin statement. A matter of faith. It, like many other religious statutes, can not be tested.

Boy, what’d I do, scare everybody? I didn’t mean to... honest! (Just don't ask her anything, so she won't THINK about it!!!) It really is confusing to me how Satan is interpreted to be a bad-guy, when without the clear choice between good and evil, there would be no free will... no choice to make. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Satan God’s worst enemy, but seems instead to be a favorite debating partner.

Somewhere along the line, the identifications become hopelessly confused. Satan became the "Devil," a fallen angel in charge of his legions of demons (also fallen angels?). The context boggles me. It is completely at odds with Hebraic tradition, and Jesus’ encounter with Satan was entirely within that tradition. To take it literally would negate free will and source evil outside our options of choice. To take it allegorically would save the concept, but it’s no easier to understand.

And hello, Carl! I hope you saw my version of the 2nd Law earlier. White holes near Zurich and all...

Joy, I have problems too, so for large parts of my 'walk,' I've ignored the negative and accented the positive, so to speak. I've also been horrified at the way the "happy clappy" churches have been mis-using these concepts in recent years. It's not just poor theology, but really bad in most cases.

So the question may be asked, why do I accept it at all? The answer is important because those without faith can otherwise assume I'm not using 'reason' in arriving at my conclusions, so a quick synopsis.

I was an atheist, not an agnostic. The prophetic side of Scripture first caught my attention and led to me examining evidence for and against a Creator. Major fight, I was extremely reluctant to so believe, it took years while I examined just the possibility. In the end I accepted that I was created. Now, using Keith's picture of God as the artist, that involved realising that I'm just an atom [probably not even that] on His canvas, and He could decide to paint me out at any time. So now I "stand" in a different place and sometimes it's not at all comfortable. As for instance, when discussing Satan and demons. Because to my mind, they are very difficult entities to even consider, I feel the same way about good Angels BTW. I only consider the matter at all, *because* of where I stand. And because, years ago, I came to the conclusion that if I was going to decide which bits of Scripture I should ignore or take with a pinch of salt, then that made *me* god, so I'd better go back to where I "stand" and try to understand.

So I'm at the beginning of my study of theodicy, largely prompted by your question weeks ago, and Matts reply that evil is a 'privation of good,' which so far I haven't bettered.

I would say rather .. accompanied God in His work of Creation. [Job 38:7] Especially as they are themselves created.

Yes, but I prefer the term 'adversary.' A creature who before the creation of homo sapiens, rebelled against the Creator and became the chief antagonist of both God and man. That's the main Jewish train of thought and I agree. I also agree with you that he is in some way 'necessary' to this whole drama.

Many of the same thoughts that you have here expressed have crossed my mind. And one thing is obvious to me. Bearing in mind Paul's statement that the Xian must be prepared to combat 'rulers, authorities, powers and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms' .. then as Xians, we must first of al, l bear in mind .. the world, the flesh and the Devil.

We must in other words, learn to differentiate between the evils of the world, the evils of the flesh [like my inability to give up smoking] and the devil.

The current practice in some churches, of exorcising demons, is, by and large IMHO, chicanery. They often expel so called demons from Xians!!! As if the Spirit of God would inhabit the same space as a demon?

No, the free will aspect has dominance as far as I'm concerned. I suppose it's possible that someone might "invite" that degree of dominance an and close the ability to free themselves .. but ..

The other clear thought I have, is that I'm not surprised there were many demons, principalities and powers around at the time when Jesus was on earth. The principalities knew what was going on quite obviously. But why would they be here today? Who is '

But why would they be here today? Who is 'fighting the good fight' with any degree of success these days? It's more like, you in your small corner, and me in mine.

Goodness, is that the second or third song I've quoted, I must be getting musical in my old age.

Keith,

They are still going strong, they now have their own political party, did they in your day? They are called Ratanists .. after Ratana, was his name Matthew, I can't remember.

Actually, not a bad answer, Rosemary. I have re-read what I wrote and have had to sort of wonder about myself, as a matter of fact. I guess it was the way what you said hit me. Or maybe I was answering some of the stuff Russell has thrown my way lately, and you just happened along and touched the trigger that set me off. But I am glad it happened because I have learned something about myself I did not know before.

It has been my observation that most people tend to believe what they want to believe. But I had never applied that concept to myself. I had always assumed that I was an exception. But now I find that I am not. Basically, I thought my belief system had arisen from undeniable evidence only. Now I know that it just happens to be what I want to believe anyway. That being the case, I probably ought to wonder if the evidence that has been so clear to me would have been so clear if I had wanted to believe something else. Who knows for sure. But I am going to try to find out.

I will say, however, that the idea that what I tend to believe might be unacceptable merely because it "does not fit into the Judeo/Christian framework," does not strike me as being a persuasive argument. As for the alternatives, I think I understand what they are. But perhaps you know of alternatives that I do not. If so, I will be interested, if nothing else than to learn more about your belief system and your understanding of religion.

I was not familiar with Edward Reese, although I did find a website where I could buy his Chronological Bible. Could you supply me with Reese's credentials. (In other words, tell my why I should believe him.)

Incidentally, the date "1967 B.C." seems incredibly precise for a date of composition of a work of art from relative antiquity. (It is rather like the date of 4004 BC for the creation :-) About the best Professor Robert Pfeiffer of Harvard University and Boston University, could do for a date of the composition is "within the period 600-400 BC."

Professor E.G. Homrighausen of Princeton Theological Seminary, indicates that the date of composition is "difficult to say," and says that some scholars indicate a date in the seventy century B.C. while others suggest a date in the 5th or 4th centuries B.C.

Professor Hugh Anderson of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, suggests the prose portion and the poetic portion may have different dates: that the poet that composed the central portion may have uses a work of antiquity to introduce and provide a final resolution of this great poem. He points out, however, that "one feature of the prose prologue, viz. the prominent part played by Satan, that may be as late as the 6th or 5th cent., a time when Persian influences were infiltrating Hebrew religious thinking."

I was not aware of that. Can you elaborate?

I assume this to be a literary device. The Book of Job is a most noble work, but I do not believe a literal interpretation is warranted. It appears to be fiction.

This might be expected, BTW, if the poem was written during the Persian period. The Devil (Satan) did not become a figure of significant hate until the Greek/Roman periods when he was identified with the oppression of those periods.

My understanding is that the word "Lucifer," appearing in the KJV is translated from a word which means "Day Star." This word appears in a dirge against a tyrant, possibly of Assyria, and "Day Star" probably refers to the planet Venus, which was the "morning star" as well as the "evening star." Of course, they did not know the morning and the evenings stars were one and the same.

I know of no scholarly argument which assumes that Lucifer was intended to denote Satan, or the Devil, at the time Isaiah was written.

I think the difficulty comes when you try to make sense of all the different concepts presented by the various authors in different periods with different levels of development of those concepts.

Cliff, how much I appreciated your reply, thankyou. I'm not used to the 'cut and thrust' of this sort of debating forum, so it was not at all what I was expecting. I'm afraid my study in theodicy is in the early stages and I've got heaps of questions myself at the moment, more questions than answers it would seem.

Cliff,
I think you answered you own question regarding Satan/Devil. :-)

I view the creator as an artist for a number of reasons, first of which is that the universe has a great deal of pointless beauty in it; also, if the creator approached creation as an engineer, he did a p___ poor job!

Why, if the goal is engineering based, create a system as subtle and elegant as the vacume and then populate the conscience of the universe with frail, poorly engineered life-forms?

While this model demonstrates shoddy engineering, as engineering, it is perfectly permissible, and quite striking as a work of art.

Since God may not, by deffinition, be flawed; God is an artist.

Keith, I must ask that you supply some references for that. It seems to me to be without any substance.:)

Joy Bussey: Boy, what’d I do, scare everybody? I didn’t mean to... honest! (Just don't ask her anything, so she won't THINK about it!!!

Hey, some of us have a life outside this forum.:)- Hold Your Horses!

Joy, I wanted to get the proper scriptures for you, as your 3 posts, had so many half-truths and misconceptions. Either one believes the whole Bible or they don't really believe any of it. One can pick and chose, what one likes to believe, and that always causes confusion, especially for a Christian. I'll start with some Bible references, because, I've got to get to work.:) I can add more later.

Compare Genesis 3:15 with Romans16:20, and I John 3:18. Also for futher clarification, read Revelation 20:2 and 12:9. Has reference to Serpent. Add Ezekial 28:14-18;

Jesus reported in Luke 10:18, how he saw Satan fall from heaven. Isaiah 14:12-16 descibes Lucifer, which means Day Star, and Star is sometimes used to designate angels. And Paul says Satan can transform himself into " An Angel of Light. II Corithians 11:14.

Last: in JOb if you read the passage carefully, in chapter 1:6, it lists the sons of God And Satan, he wasn't With their group. He does have or did have access to petition God. He had to have God's permission to hurt Job, since God had a hedge of protection around Job, see 1:10. More later.:)

Given that this is true to one extent or another of all of us, the wonder is we've made any scientific progress at all! :) There are very few true agnostics on any major issue, and we tend to read only material that supports what we want to believe. I guess we build paradigms within paradigms for ourselves, and tend to switch only when the paradigm hits a crisis and is clearly unable to describe reality. Even then, sometimes we'll ignore reality instead.

Ignoring reality, now, that's the life:)

(And a lot less stress on the mind)

Until the introduction of Christianity, Satan was not 'evil.' Satan was an angel, a messenger, an instrument of God.

Either the original book and the sequel are in direct conflict, or they are not discussing the same concept/being. The Satan in Job is doing as his God commands.

Why?

You would not require this of science, your pastor or a breakfast buffet! Are we not allowed to partake of the pancakes because we are alergic to tofu?

Whatever else it may be; the Bible was penned by falible humans over many centuries for many purposes. Although great care has been taken to keep the work faithfull to the original source(s) -- there is no avoiding the fact that it was always a human descision what to keep and what to trash.

I can find everything from great spiritual truth to societal regulations to propoganda to support certain rulers to outright drug-induced fantasy in the Bible. What to accept and what to trash in this morass is a very deep issue for each individual, accepting the entire body without serious reflection, prayer and meditation is to allow another person (actually hundreds who never knew each other) to define your spirituality for you.

Is that really what you want?

I thank everyone for thoughtful replies! I’ve gone back and checked the references and cross-references, and am still of the same opinion (because I want to be?...) Could be.

I believe the Bible to be Truth. All of it. I can find no contextual support for the demonology being asserted by "interpretations." Jesus warned me about this very thing, so I turn to the Bible itself and pray for understanding. Attribution of evil outside ourselves is projection, not Truth. The error is ancient, and has survived through reluctance to examine the interpretations.

The Holy Bible speaks directly to our human consciousness. It is the story of our past, present and future relationship to our creator, and exists because God has a Plan we play necessary roles in fulfilling. How can we play our roles if we don’t read the script? The drama becomes a farce and we play the fools.

There are levels of human consciousness. To interpret a vision on the same level of consciousness as we interpret history or allegory is error. The allegorical relationship described in the first chapters of Genesis is the First Fundamental, the foundation upon which everything else is built. Jesus and his disciples were well founded in Hebraic tradition. They knew where good and evil reside, and they understood Satan’s role. Both spoke to our consciousness from that context, expecting the "Church" to understand. Too many of us do not.

Demons appear in the Old Testament only in the context of idolatry, the false gods to whom babies and children were sacrificed. Sacrificing children to false gods (or any god) is obviously bizarre behavior, no matter how much faith is invested by a population in the ‘rightness’ of the practice.

In the New Testament, references to demons are within the context of healing. The only mention of demons as "kind" (still within the healing context) is in Matthew 17:21, which is a disputed verse. It is in dispute because these words of Jesus do not appear in the ‘Q’ concordance, so the verse has been omitted from most modern critical translations.

The "casting out of demons" is part of the miraculous healing powers Jesus exercised and passed along. In the healing context, it would appear that these possessing demons represent aberrational or evil thought-forms, diseases of the human mind, for which the culture had no science or medicine. Mental disease was incurable, so when Jesus demonstrated power over madness as well as physical disability, it was "miraculous." It is miraculous, as we don’t have that ability today to say a word and heal a psychosis!

Demons are rightly considered a threat to believers, to the Church, and to humanity. They are not the source of evil, they are the product of evil. They are a disease caused by evil. Faith in demons as exterior forces of evil aligned with Satan produces the manifestations associated with serious possession.

The stage is set, the players are in the spotlight, the ‘Mother of All Battles’ is engaged. The forces of evil have the power to make human beings extinct, and the forces of good are patiently waiting to be airlifted out of harm’s way. Pitiful. It doesn’t take a genius to figure the odds on this one!

The evil is in us. We created the weapons we face. We aimed them at ourselves. The "Devil" didn’t make us do it, it was a choice made of free will by everyone involved, and the rest of us let it happen. No demon possessed Robert Oppenheimer (as example) and forced him to go along. There is no demon in the tyrant who will start the bloodbath. There is no demon in anyone who chooses not to know the truth. No demon has robbed us of our free will.

It is still our choice to make, but we are running out of time to make that choice. If we fail to do so, Satan (agent of choice) will indeed fall and free will disappears along with humanity.

Just as the evil we face is in ourselves, the power to save ourselves is also in us. Until we have gained the knowledge of good and evil, everything else is just politics and pride. We don’t stand a chance in hell...

Of course you are right in this identification of Lucifer, Cliff. I didn’t want to get back to the subject of Velikovsky, so I let the reference pass. When you mention the "Persian Period," are you referring to the concurrent (Exodus / Beth-Horon) observations analyzed by Velikovsky or the later exilic period? The Babylonian tablets indicate a quite sophisticated understanding of Venus as both the morning and evening ‘star,’ as well as an understanding of cause. The Persian science of astronomy was surprisingly advanced long before the ‘west’ was allowed (by ‘The Church’) to investigate such things.

In the analysis of concurrent observations by more scientifically advanced societies, Velikovsky could attribute the Exilic eccentricities of orbits (Earth, Mars and Venus) to actual forces the Hebrews did not understand. Moses still remains the mystery figure in the drama, as he was the adopted son of Pharoh and chief architect of Egypt before he discovered his own heritage. Egypt had its own relatively well-developed astronomy, which Moses himself would have been conversant with. Because Egypt’s astronomy was not as advanced as the Babylonian astronomy, however, the events took Egypt by surprise too. Moses still knew something more.

Like, I asked, what reference do you have for that kind of statement? I think you just like to make statements. Also, I didn't see any posts by you with any references. If you are talking about the book of Job, maybe you need to read it before making an inference about the story. Maybe you read a synopsis, of the book, instead of reading the book. If you read the story, you find out, that Satan wasn't doing God's bidding, he had to ask for permission of God before he could hurt Job. He wanted to try to prove that he could make Job, curse God. One point of many, that it's easy to say you love God when everything is right. Not so easy if you blame him for the bad. In this case Satan caused the bad. There are many other points to this story. One is God doesn't cause the evil or bad things to happen.

Joy, you wanted to hear the Jewish side of things on the subject. I don't do enough cyberspace travelling to be able to point you anywhere, but I can give you a quick run down from my books.

The Adversary. Greek Diabolos [usually transliterated devil] translates Hebrew satan [adversary, opponent, rebel.]

In Isaiah 14:11-15, between the lines of a taunt against the King of Babylon, can be read the downfall of a creature who was once both powerful and beautiful, but who in pride rebelled against God and came to oppose Him, Ezekiel 28:11-19 is similar. On the other hand, Job 1-2 is explicit in showing the adversary as the opponent of both God and man.

The adversary is a created being, in no way equal to his Creator, yet he is the background source of all sin, evil and opposition to God. The book of Job teaches that the reason why an omnipotent and good God permits such opposition is a mystery, but that God remains in perfect and unthreatened control. [and that's how I think it's supposed to stay Joy, a mystery, although we'll all have our own probably mistaken thoughts about it.]

This we see most clearly in Job 40 - 41, where 'Behemoth' and 'Leviathan' are seen to be stand-ins for the adversary, because when God challenges Job to deal with them, he repents in dust and ashes. Job 42:6

Both the Old and New Testaments take for granted the existence of a supernatural realm of good obedient angels who serve God, and evil rebellious ones, who serve the adversary.

Hope it helps

Joy: I can almost see, how you perceive. To me the difference,is that there are two kinds of evil. One is within ouselves, as you believe. They other is outside ourselves. Satan, or The Devil, or Lucifer, a few among his other names, is a real entity, created by God. All the angels are created beings. They don't have free will, as we do, in the sense, that when they rebel against God, there is no redemption. Satan took 1/3 of the angels with him, when he fell from heaven. As you know, all that history is from scripture. It's not my interpretation. The Bible says it quite clearly.

As to satan's nature and function. He is the Father of Lies, and has no truth. So... the amount of control, he can have on anyone, relates to how much of his lies, they believe. Even a Christian can be very controlled by satanic forces, depending on how much Lie they have bought. Jesus said "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free". Satan's battle with God is over the minds of us, God's humans. Just like Eve was deceived by the Serpent, who spoke half truths to her, she was tempted, by him, to question, the real truth.

Also, you mention the New Testament records of Jesus casting out "demons". If this is just a case of Jesus curing "mental illness" as you think, or perhaps, I heard one preacher say" I don't know how to read this, since there's no such thing as demons, perhaps, it means, just casting out the bad part of themselves."

How would you interpret: Luke 4: 33,34,&41? This would seem the descibe an entity, with knowledge, a mentally ill person would not have. Also in Luke 11: 18-26. Jesus is accused of casting out demons with the power of Satan, and He replies to the Jewish leaders. Since the author, Luke, is a physician, and granted didn't have present day knowledge, he did always separate the healings, of disease from the casting out of demons. Believe it or Not>:)

"... Either one believes the whole Bible or they don't really believe any of it. One can pick and chose, what one likes to believe, and that always causes confusion, especially for a Christian. ..."

bKeith Fosberg: Why?

...You would not require this of science, ... I can find everything from great spiritual truth to societal regulations to propoganda to support certain rulers to outright drug-induced fantasy in the Bible. What to accept and what to trash in this morass is a very deep issue for each individual, accepting the entire body without serious reflection, prayer and meditation is to allow another person (actually hundreds who never knew each other) to define your spirituality for you. Is that really what you want?

Do you laugh to yourself, after posting this type of message?:)-

Edward Reese, Professor of Bible & History At Hyles-Anderson College. Says he spent 20 years compiling the information. Graduated from Moody Bible College 1950. Frank Klassen, an engineer, and architect,devised the dating method. Actually, they both disagree on the dates for Job, as Klassen puts it at 595-588 B.C. Wycliffe Commentary places the actual story of Job as pre-exilic, but most likely written much later, than the Partiachial time period.

Incidentally, the date "1967 B.C." seems incredibly precise for a date of composition of a work of art from relative antiquity. (It is rather like the date of 4004 BC for the creation :-)

Cliff, I agree with you on that, as it seems no one agrees on the exact time. It looks like Pfeiffer would agee with Klassen. As some of the other scholars place Job in even earlier times, as you stated, it still would seem likely the actual story of Job occurred before the Exile from Egypt.

Short answer here, Marie (thanks for the info!), as I need to think about the rest first. These chapters also describe Jesus' encounters with 'devils' or 'demons', in a healing context. [note Luke 40, describing "diverse diseases."] Verses 33 and 34 describe a synagogue encounter, but mentally ill people might be found there, too!

Anyway, as I said, Jesus had miraculous power over every manifestation of disease. He could restore sight to those who had never seen, cure leprosy by the touch of the hem of his robe, raise people from the dead! I can readily accept that mental disease - which manifests most bizarrely sometimes and can easily be seen as some sort of 'possession' - could recognize this power immediately! I still see it as disease.

Thank you for the information, Rosemary! I reserve the right to disagree about Lucifer, since I believe the reference to be related to the Exilic problem with Venus (and Babylonian power), but that’s a separate word/concept.

I know most interpretations see Satan’s role as the source of evil, but I can’t see it that way based on my own experiences with evil (and I honestly have seen some evil). I previously identified myself as a heretic. I don’t think I have to sacrifice my experience of reality to buy someone else’s interpretation of what I must have faith in. The mortal danger of a vernacular Bible, I guess!

My problem with an outside source of evil is that it negates responsibility. If God created a system where we have no choice, where evil possesses our free will and the "Devil made us do it," how can judgment be just? We’re not responsible. This is why I see the term "Adversary" (or if you prefer, "Devil’s Advocate) as something far less than evil in and of itself.

For Marie - The option of evil must of course be based in lies. This makes the adversary the ‘teller’ (or ‘father’) of lies. It must be so, in order for the human with the choice to choose between truth and lies! Telling lies is thus Satan’s job description, and Jesus was absolutely right.

Hi y'all! Being out of town for a day, I was out of touch with cnn-world for two. And when I come back I find you've packed the kids, and all your bags, and have moved to a new address! I finally find you, and see a few people took opportunity to speak a bit poorly, but to most I'm ancient history. Cyberspace life is strange, is it not? But the virtual debate is faithful to be here, I enjoy the fact I can disappear, recollect myself and get an attitude adjustment, and step back in. And no one can really hit me with their rotten tomatoes. So. I'll try to catch up. Cliff , you've been busy! I continue to appreciate your honesty, intelligence, open-mind, and I want to speak to you soon. Joy, Rosemary, good stuff - tho I'm not sure I'll join in. Leszek, well, I'll start to answer you here. Kieth, I rarely respond to you, probably because I think you're pretty much on the mark, and consistent within your own belief system, and I've little to contribute. I just want to compliment you thus, and give you a friendly handshake.

Andrew D. Lewis - Tuesday, 02/09/99 (#1496)

I'm sorry, I hadn't realized we'd met. Its that strange tunnel vision that we have in cyberspace. I didn't think I was "ranting at poor Leszek", but I'll accept your personal perception as just in your eyes, and assume I am at least in part responsible. I do like Leszek, but (to me) he's kinda like a grumpy old man living next door: he's ill-tempered with me, fulla complaints and doesn't agree with anything I do or say, and as soon as he rhetorically asks me why I do say what I say, he seems (now notice I am saying "seems" - its my own perception, mostly my fault, I'm sure) to stick his fingers in his ears and disappears back into his own house. And I get kinda peeved, I guess. I shouldn't, after all, its been going on for years, eh? (Seems!)

But, re your post. I don't know, is it "not in your (my) own best interests to communicate your knowledge t

y'all cont...

to the rest of the world in as simple, clear, and concise a manner as possible?" Well of course, I hope the whole world is not as confused and puzzled by my words as you. I think its only some few who are confused. And they mostly tend to be those most opposed to them from the start, and usually most ardent in both atheism and Evolutionism. And I think I'm more inclined to think its in their best interest if they would only try to be a bit more receptive and try to get past my lack of communication skills in order to understand me. There is a phrase in the Bible, "Let those who have ears to hear...". I've come to see the deep truth in it. Some will never have ears to hear (in this case, me). There's another passage in the Bible, about people who say they will believe if only they are shown some "signs and wonders". Maybe do some "miracles" and they will change their mind. Well, my example about the rich man in rags was another version of that point. And my friend (and I mean that "friend")Leszek, proved it, I think. Even being shown up wrong (the guy was rich) won't change his mindset, or prejudices. I've given quite a few of the "signs and wonders", but I am only asked for more. The original deal, a "just show me one, or two", was dumped because I did. The mindset was too cherished, and too set in stone, to be budged. In science, that happens often, too. Any study, or data contrary to accepted paradigms is attacked, scorned, and discarded (and usually, the scientist). BTW, another way of explaining myself might be to liken this "debate" to a battleground for some (maybe all!). In that analogy, I'd say I have a small army of, say, a 1000 soldiers (facts). The best way to lose my battle (to change the mind of an enemy highly fortressed in his own mindset) is to send my guys against him one by one. He just picks em off one by one, not at all impressed by the whole.

You say, "I suppose (??) I could understand some

y'all (& Andrew) cont....

You say, "I suppose (??) I could understand some aggravation on your part as you perhaps feel you've been over and over your POV in previous posts. Well, speaking for myself, I can say that I failed to grasp the salient point of your arguments." OK. I'll try to meet your request "restate a few of (my) more convincing claims in crisp language."

I approached the Biblical creation account, Genesis 1 & 2, from a "scientific" POV rather than faith, or literary, or "ha ha" position, as most atheist and all Evolutionists do (including myself, I was one). To do it justice, I credited it with a presumption of truth (since that is the position of the other side, creationist), and assumed we (on the scientist side - I was/am no longer an Evolutionist, though I still see some truth and utility in evolutionary theory) were not automatically fully correct in our "read" of it. I assumed that the 1611 AD King James translation of the REAL (original) Bible might well have overlooked, or misunderstood, or had no reason to parse out, salient details in the Hebrew. So I re-translated the Hebrew. I knew the "truth" from modern science's POV. I looked for that same "truth" in the Hebrew. For example, I believe in dinosaurs. I believe birds were created (by God or evolution) after dinosaurs. I believe grass came late in the creation sequence, not first. Etc. OK? Now, my findings, and conclusions:

1) There is no timeline or timeframe in the creation account. Not 6 24 hour days, not 6000 years, not even so many billions of years. 2)There is only an ordered (sequential) set (a small set, more like the grossest headlines or chapter headings) of events, or event horizons, given in the creation account. 3)Much salient detail and accuracy of connotation and denotation was indeed missed by the King James scholars, and has been merely continued ( copied , a common error in science, history, and journ

y'all (& Andrew) concluded...

copied , a common error in science, history, and journalism) by newer modern translations. 4) As an outline, or as an information/data string, without interpretation or explanation (theory, a la creation, evolution, etc), the creation account has a remarkable, essentially perfect, correspondence with the outline of creation (sans its own theory and timescale) that modern science has constructed. 5)To the extent that processes and mechanisms are hinted or expressed (ie genetics, speciation, evolution) there are again no real/significant contradictions of (what I consider grounded and proven) scientific paradigms. 6)This remarkable correspondence is 3500 years old. There is no evidence, so far as we can tell, that the "authors", or scribes, who wrote down the account could have known enough to have devised or invented such a record that presages our modern discovery/understanding. 7) That makes this document pretty interesting, and rather like a successful testable hypothesis for a Creator - which both creationists and anti-creationists should at least consider and evaluate with an open mind. So far, the dyed-in-the-wool anti-creationists have not had any open-mind, no willingness to even say "Gee, if that were true ....", though they ("bombastically", vociferously) insist the creationists must accept every claim and conclusion of science or be deemed stupid and closed-minded. So it appears to me. OK? Is that helpful?

Satan didn’t sneak into the audience with God, any more than he sneaked into the Garden of Eden to tell Eve what purpose the fruit of the tree served. He "came also among them" [Sons of God] after doing his duties on earth with humans. Now, Satan obviously has a rather poor opinion of humanity’s tendency to do evil, even if his job description is to tell them the options. This is probably based on a rather jaded point of view, so the bet (debate) with God is something both enjoyed rather much over poor Job’s suffering.

If Satan were so hated by God, if he had already (before creation of humans) been kicked out of heaven with all his cohorts, what was he doing in the company of main angels in the council? Why did God engage him, accept the challenge, and set the parameters? Please reference this prior fall for me, as I can’t find it in Genesis, and Revelation is a vision, not an account of creation.

Sure, the scenario is hard to swallow that God would deliberately engage Satan in a scheme to destroy a favorite follower, and it makes God appear to be at least as evil as Satan is supposed to be. From this, however, I think it’s clear God understands good and evil perfectly. That’s why I don’t think Satan’s the enemy. He’s the adversarial agent, the agent of choice. The test was all about choice. Through it all, the choice was Job’s. Neither God nor Satan could make the choice that would decide the outcome of the bet, only Job could.

Welcome home, Russell!!! §:o)

Cliff - I have been reading but not participating in the "Religion Today" board, but I did note a particularly applicable post by Josh Wilner, the resident expert on things Jewish. Link to the full post below:

I will quote one line of that post here, to illustrate a point I wish to make about prophets and prophesy. Wilner said - "And just in case you are wondering, the greatest prophet of all time, at least based on Jewish standards was Moses."

In matters of prophets and prophesy, it is also relevant to note that both of Moses’ natural siblings, brother Aaron and sister Miriam, were able to speak with God. Aaron became the religious leader and chief priest following Moses, and Miriam was the prophetess. Both Aaron and Miriam were less empirically minded than Moses and encountered troubles because of that, but this can be accounted for by the difference in upbringing and education.

Okay, I can sort of parse what you say. Specifics are a little lacking - you merely state your conclusions. I would be interested in knowing to which aspects of the "outline of creation that modern science has constructed" you refer.

Thanks for the response, and pleased to... er... meet you.

Marie, Rosemary, Joy, Cliff, Keith:

I usually stay out of these parts of the debate, though not because I'm uninterested. They usually never finish, and I'm not sure they are really on topic in the Board. But, I guess once and a while....

The Book of Job is a favorite of mine. It has so much perplexity for us. But I think it certainly answers a lot of deeper theological questions (and has a treasure of nifty little "scientific" things in it, too!). Anyway. Satan, as some have pointed out, does not "work for God", but does accomplish things, unwittingly. It shows God is in control, and Satan needs permission for whatever he does. And that God's control is more in the nature of boundaries and rules. Like, "You can do what you want, but go no further than this". And this kid, Satan, as sneaky and ruthless as he is, never gets around the rule. This Job story also informs us again, about an earlier question we had when someone asked why God used the Assyrians to punish Israel. I pointed out then that He did not use the Assyrians (they were long trying to get to Israel). He only allowed, just as in this case of Job, the Assyrians (and much as "agents" of Satan, if you understand the simple principle of the Bible: You can only serve one of two masters, God or Satan. There is no middle ground. Be for God, and all goodness and justice, or be for the opposite.) to do their worse. Well, actually not the worst (just as with Job), but only to go so far, not to destroy Israel. How? He removed His hand, or power of protection. Why? Because they were not being faithful. They were worshiping other gods, allowing evil to run rampant in their land, etc. So what's the parallel in Job, this "most righteous" in the land? Well, read it closely, the details. And read the full story, get the broad picture. Job was indeed righteous, but "self righteous". He thought so highly of himself he had come to believe he deserved all his wealth and power. Bragged o

Marie, Rosemary, Joy, Cliff, Keith, concl...

Bragged on himself continuously, while paying only lip service to God. Oh, he knew God was powerful, and better not be irritated. But even pagans feel that way about their gods. Job's kids were rich brats, partying all the time, and rather than correct them, Job merely paid for their sins every day. Now, as God allows Satan to begin shrinking Job's bubble, Job doesn't curse God, but begins to think about how unfair it all is, that this "perfect guy" (himself) should suffer any loss. In the end, when reduced to ashes, Job has still the pompous audacity to declare that if only God would come down to his level, and put away the lightening bolts, he'd set God straight. He'd show that unfair, unjust, bully of a God a fact or two! That's when Elihu (the youngest man, with no real "credentials") finally butts in and points out the hypocracies of everyone, including Job. Job is finally convicted and calls out to God with humility. God then, in mercy, speaks to Job and shows him how totally foolish it is to think he (and you and I) could measure up in any way to God, Creator of the universe, Sustainer of all things, Power behind all nature and all the laws of nature. Job admits it, humbles himself, offers to obey God, even to forgive his fickle friends and to pray (ask) that they be forgiven and blessed! And God restores Job, in His redemptive (as in the gospel of Jesus!) way, and restores Job to twice the power and riches.

Q: Where did Noah keep his bees.

A: the Ark Hives (archives)

Oh Boy. I shouldn't have done that. I think I'm going to be sick (gagging noises in the background).

Ok, all better now.

So what's the deal with Ezekiel's wheel? (I hate it when I rhyme unintentionally) In Ezekiel 1:1-28, the prophet Ezekiel describes a whirlwind from the North, a great cloud, fire and the appearance of an apparition consisting of four creature with wings and faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. A wheel then appears coinciding with the original apparition and moves with it. The creatures are described as having the appearance of burning coals of fires and the wheel is described as the color of "beryl".

What's all this about. It seems out of place as far as biblical visions are concerned. Some New Age followers call it an alien vessel. Some phychologist call it a hypnogogic hallucination. What do you good people think?

Russell, far from being a "grumpy old man", I'm a very prosaic person with a penchant for truth. I am fascinated with what makes the world tick, and I really have no agenda to have it tick this way or that. The world ticks the way it does, and that's the way I want to understand it.

All I've heard you say is that Genesis is a "perfect" account of creation, but I've yet to hear any specifics. Now, I've read the account, but these specifics don't leap off the page. So forgive me for being a little bit sceptical.

Show me.

<giggle, gasp, choke> Fell out on that one, E.C.!

Funny you should mention the subject of visions in the context of prophesy... (Zeke was the Main Man of his time, you know, and did behave rather bizarrely even in his regular life). Actually, Israel was chock full of would-be prophets. Ever see "The Life of Brian?

There was apparently (from surrounding contextual information) a system in place for prophets to be 'tested.' This meant their prophesies had to conform to certain criteria, or at least not be demonstrably the products of dementia or outright insanity. There was a lot of that going around too. I haven't tackled Ezekiel yet, though my grandson shares his name!

Note of minor historical interest - Did you know that there exists an archive of more than 60 stone tablets probably carved during the exile, of the entire text of Ezekiel? The text is carved in relief on the tablets, just like a plate for printing would be (I don't know if its backwards). An extreme rarity, indeed!

No, but I do sometimes find it difficult to maintain a straight face when people insist that a book embodies absolute and unchallenged truth!

Of what value are our spiritual lives if they are nothing more than a puppet-show pantomime of the ruling religious class leaders? How much soul searching has a six year old done when, preasured by his family and the will of the congragation, he steps shyly forward asking to be "saved?"

Is this a spiritual awakening or an emotional coercion? How far a leap from this is it when an adult accepts, as a whole and whithout reservation, a body of work, written by many people over many centuries for many political and spiritual purposes, as a single, infallible message from God?

Sure, I think God speaks from the bible, but then so does the mayor of Jeruselam! To find the preacious grain in scripture one must dig through a great deal of chaff!

Andrew D. Lewis - Thursday, 02/11/99(#1563)

If I understand you correctly:

"Science" has a number of paradigms that seem well founded, justified, and accepted. Though the "Big Bang is less so, it has a lot of strength and elegance, and I find it is not incompatible with the Bible creation account. There is a fossil and geological record that is well established, and I expect few significant changes to come. There is an "origins of life" model, when the first "such and such" appeared, how long they continued, etc., typically given with a time scale (3 to 5 billion years), itself matched to a geological record charted out in eras and periods (ie Jurassic, Paleozoic) which few in modern science debate, except at the "edges". Astronomers and cosmologists have a fairly well agreed upon sequence of events they think can describe the basic history of the universe since Big Bang, and are even more confident about their beliefs (paradigm) when our earth is the reference point. Briefly, that is what I refer to. Now, the science "outline" is huge and detailed and too much for me to summarize. That's a textbook in itself. And the Biblical is small, but not really known by anyone, as far as I know (but I think I'm close). But the commonly held beliefs about what it is (mostly NKJ derived) are so adamantly "believed" (on both sides), I cannot expect to gain any changes of mind amongst most folks by just saying what it is. It takes a lot of logic and proof and argument -- a whole book -- to hope to do that. Am I OK here, or do I need to try again?

I think that all the greater-than-earth events (there are few) mentioned in Genesis fit well with that scientific outline. I think that each and every category of life mentioned (rec

Andrew concl''''

(recognizing that there is one set of verses about plants, and one set about animal life) is spoken of in a sequence that matches our scientific origins. A couple of items I've mentioned: "whales" is a mistranslation, should be read dinosaurs, and they do not appear before insects, or after mammals, but where they should. Grass is not the first level of plant life created, but later, in no contradiction to the fossil record. Etc. We've debated a number of issues, and I've argued they are not any problem if we read the original account, but most of the time those opposed to thinking there is any truth in/to the scriptural account merely deny my translation, or dismiss it (if correct) as coincidence. We've debated a lot of Hebrew. I cannot "win" such debates, esp piecemeal. So I poke at bubbles (of error and prejudice) with bits and pieces when I see them put up as unsubstantiated, or error, or ignorance about the scripture. The science we can argue about better, but until, or unless, the despisers of the scriptures know what the scriptures actually say, its all wind and fury signifying only prejudice and lack of knowledge. What's to argue there? I get more help, here, than I give, I imagine. So maybe the book will be popular and effective, once I finish the 2nd ed. A lot of the rewrite is responsive to the arguments here, and among previewers, etc.

Russell,

Thanks for the response. I do remember the "whale" discussions from some of your previous postings. I guess that here you might see resistance from scientist and bible scolar alike?

It strikes me as potentially lethal to try to use current cosmology as Truth. I would have to think that sort of thing is subject to dramatic revision as a consequence of natural scientific progress. What would be your reaction were some of the science - which you feel has biblical support - to change? Which would be wrong? The bible or the new science? Unfortunately, attaching the Word of God to science forces one to have to make such judgements.

If ancient humans knew of dinosaurs, how come their fossils aren't intermingled? How come the first human fossils come 65 million years after the last dinosaur fossils?

Or is this another case of "god told them to write about great beasts"? Dinosaurs? I don't think you can get any Hebrew word to translate into "Dinosaurs", a word not coined till the 19th century.

Ah, but the "chaff" is history, Keith. A sordid tale, for sure, but politics is pertinent to the human condition. I think the fundamentalists just get their levels confused, so read the whole thing as politics. I could be wrong, of course.

Joy, to some extent, we're all heretics as we struggle to arrive at the 'core' of an issue. And I'd venture to suggest, that if we think we HAVE arrived at the core, and have understood absolutely ALL there is to know, then we are still heretics of one sort or another. So discovering is good, but it also means I don't have all the answers. Do what you will with the following, because I'm not sure that the definitive answers you're seeking are in fact out there despite a lot of searching in the last few weeks.

Of course not, but I don't sneak either when I go into His presence, and I'm certainly not good!!! It is however rather indicative that the same 'overweaning pride' was the cause of his downfall as well as ours. Because he didn't come to tell Eve what the purpose of the tree was at all. He came to tell Eve that God was wrong, that God was a liar, that eating it wouldn't kill her. To give her the option we've all got .. "Are you going to trust God?"

This is obviously not a Xian thought as you yourself point out in ..

However, when you say ..

.. I think we're getting to the heart of our differences. I may be mistaken, if so, just correct me because I'll admit that I'm struggling to understand quite what you're saying. In a previous post you said you had encounted evil. Now, if I said that, I would mean an evil connected with the world, the flesh

or the devil. But I think you mean something different. Shall we refer to that 'difference' as Darth Vadar for ease of recognition?

Your conundrum appears to be this. Darth Vadar is present in this world, so the question must be asked, is this according to God's Will or not? 1. If it is, then we have problems but not insupperable ones. 2. If it isn't, then God doesn't have absolute power.

1. If you make something voluntary [free will] then half may do it, and half may not. So all don't do as God Wills, but His Will made it possible for both sets of people. We have to come to the conclusion that if God thinks this state of war on earth is a price worth paying for free will .. making a world where creatures such as me can do real harm or good .. then we have to accept that it's worth paying.

Atheists have often say words such as these .. "Why did God make creatures of such rotten stuff that went wrong?" But the better, the cleverer, the stronger, the freer a creature is .. will be BEST when it goes right, and WORST when it goes wrong. How else can this be achieved?

2. If you hold that Darth Vadar is a 'power', an 'evil' in and of itself, then you have problems that orthodox Xianity doesn't hold to. [Although it's not a completely unattractive alternative.] You would then say that you and I could 'choose' one side or the other, the good or the bad.

But when it comes down to it, we have no experience of complete 'badness.' [In the sense that badness becomes good if you follow what I'm trying to say.] The nearest we can get is surely what we call 'cruelty.' Evil seems to me to be goodness gone wrong. Some are cruel, evil, because that is what gives them pleasure, or it's useful to them in some way .. but is that all they know?

If Darth Vadar exists, then he must have intelligence, and will .. but existence, intelligence and will are in themselves .. good. So did Darth get them from the Good P

Perspective:

If all 4.5 billion years of Earth's history were to be compressed into a single day starting an 12:00 a.m.:

5:25 a.m. - the first cyanobacteria have developed

8:40 p.m. - the Cambrian explosion and diversification of animal life

10:40 p.m. - the Permian extinction (85% of marine species wipes out) - proposed mechanism - Siberian Traps - the violent eruption of a volcanic basin in what is now Asia leading to the release of greenhouse gases and unprecedented global warming

11:30 p.m. - the Cretaceous extinction (most dinosaurs wiped out - proposed mechanism - Alvarez theorem (meteorite impact) leading to the deposit of stratospheric aerosols and nuclear winter scenario (cooling in mean global temperature).

11:59:36 p.m. - the first hominids strode across the African grasslands.

midnight - now.

So did Darth get them from the Good Power?

And if we're going to talk about One Good and One Bad, if we're going to choose between them, then a third thing is entering the equation .. yours and my ability to choose and the standard we are using to make this decision. That would make this third thing God and we could go on like that ad infinitum.

Orthodox Xianity goes close to Dualism Joy, but in the end it simply doesn't give a complete answer.

Excellent point. You have to look no further than the early churches adoption of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) cosmology as Truth. When proven incorrect, the church was dragged kicking and screaming into the new Truth and nearly murdered a few scientists in the process. It seems that creationists want to play both sides of the fence - the absolutism of the scriptures and the relativism and constant flux of science. If something changes in the current scientific consensus, they abandon the absolutism long enough to incorporate the new science. This is definately a weasel-like tactic.

Rosemary, forgive my ignorance, but I honestly have never heard of Xian. I don't know what it means. You do sound Christian, however. And I like the "Darth Vader" terminology!

Darth isn't coequal with God, as I see Satan as the angel in charge of choice. Makes him a liar and a nasty adversary, but I think it's necessary that such an adversary be present if free will is to operate properly. Angels are created beings as well, so can never be equal to the creator.

It's just that on this tiny planet way out here in the corner of the galaxy, one galaxy among infinite galaxies, a large drama is unfolding. And I think the drama relates directly to our relationship to God, and a large choice we have to make. As E.C. says, it's midnight.

We can kill ourselves and everything (including cockroaches) on this planet, and will do so if we keep going as we've been going. I'd love to get beamed up before that happens, but I've got children and grandchildren alive right now, and a future to ensure for them. I don't think I can afford the luxury of waiting to be beamed up before it happens, without at least taking a stand against the evil this situation represents.

And I believe very firmly that we are personally responsible for the evil we do unless we are certifiably insane. I do not think it's wise to blame it on some outside influence.

Sorry Joy, when you write or type Christ, Christian and Christianity as often as I do, you soon start using short cuts such as X, Xian and Xianity. A bad habit started in theological college I'm afraid.

Speaking of outside influence, I think this is my problem with demonology. I have seen evil in its ugliest forms committed by people who in truth are not responsible for their actions. The results are still evil, but responsibility is obscured by psychosis. They need treatment (maybe for life), but they're not responsible. It would not be justice to hold them responsible.

Conversely, I have seen the same level of horrendous evil committed just for the fun of it by people who were perfectly sane by all measures. If Christian fundamentalists say evil comes from outside ("the Devil made me do it"), how do we punish the Devil for the evil this person did?

That seems far more a duality-based system than what I have presented here. They're giving Darth Vader more power than he deserves, and defeating their own arguments in the process. No responsibility, no justice. Simple as that.

And if Christian fundamentalists would impose their morality on everyone through the politics of scapegoating (the 'not me' syndrome, another outside influence), why is it they hold anybody else responsible for evil they don't accept responsibility for themselves?

I have a problem with it. It simply doesn't make sense. Sorry...

So before reset time (and bed time), I’ll finish with the original thread...

The Revelation of John is a visionary prophesy of ‘end time’ events on the level of God’s understanding, not John’s. He experienced and reported the vision as it happened, like all good prophets do. No analysis follows (nor could it), and no fulfillment, which we’ve still to encounter.

The Revelation has been interpreted literally by many denominations, and I believe that interpretation to be error. Why? Because it’s fatalistic. Impossible to escape. This "what will be will be" attitude nullifies the purpose prophecy is designed to serve. What good is a prediction of future events if those events cannot be avoided?

In other words, if a prophesy is only there to give us certainty of result, it’s of no use. So I see it as a warning of what ‘will’ happen if we don’t do something to stop it. It is from that viewpoint I consider the entirety of the Holy Writ from beginning to end. This is why I can’t wait patiently for Jesus to save me and mine from the threat, though I certainly won’t turn down the ride out if it’s offered.

I’m not worried about death. Death is not my enemy. Satan is my adversary, but not my enemy. I know he lies, and that allows me to see what the lie looks like so I can properly rationalize the truth. God has given me a choice, Satan tells me what it is. Good or Evil. I am worried about extinction, so I have made that choice.

Andrew D. Lewis - Thursday, 02/11/99 (#1576)

I have not used current cosmology as Truth, I have given it as an example of a paradigm that is building and fairly well accepted as close to "truth" by most of the "scientific community", and by the atheists and Evolutionists and anti-Bible people here, as a "fact" and "true". Whether it is or not, I don't know. But even I do think it a powerful and useful and interesting paradigm, and one that accords well with a lot of data. Neither have I attached the "Word of God" to science. I have not "attached" it to anything. I have, indeed, have said I let it stand alone, as I investigated it, and tried to look again at the original Hebrew scriptures to see if I could "read" them in a new light, in the light of the current predominant scientific paradigms about origins and the history of the universe and earth and life on earth, which God claims to have created, and the atheists and scientists (?) and anti-creationists claim were created by non-God forces and processes they call Evolution. I left out the Evolution, which is the predominant alternative theory of creation, and name of the "creator", and took what remained of those current ruling paradigms and said there is a great amount of comparability and compatibility. In regards the cosmological paradigm (such as the Big Bang and the 15 or so billion year time scale) I have said there is no contradiction! It is obviou

Andrew Davis part 2...

It is obvious that "the other side" constantly uses those paradigms (to say nothing of the theory of evolution) as "fact" and "truth" and argue that they disprove the Biblical account.

I have rejoined: 1) if you guys look closely at the scriptures, not at your totally uninformed opinions and assumptions about what they say, or at the 400 yr old, and scientifically uninformed and unconcerned KJV rendition/translation, you will be surprised at how much the scripture actually parallels and how closely it matches up in the better-established "origins of life" paradigm; 2) if you guys stop saying that "science contradicts, and thus proves" this point and that point in the creation account, and look to see if it really does, by examining the original text, you'll start acting like real scientists (and not science-groupies or Evolutionist dogmatists) and discover your "contradictions" are only in your imaginations, hopes, and lack of factual knowledge.

Now there's the best of tests, the best opportunity to create a genuine "hypothesis" regarding the verity of the "claims" of the Creator God: Does the best of data also fit the creation paradigm He set forth? Does the fit get better or worse as more data comes in? If our current paradigms, or scientific ideas/theories interpreting data get closer or further away from a match with the (set in "stone" already for 3500 years) creation account, it doesn't change the scripture or what you may consider the "Truth". But obviously, the close fit, with today's paradigms, removes the value and virtue of most the critics attacks, insofar as they rely on those science paradigms for their attacks and arguments. If the scientific data and paradigms should get even closer in accord with the scripture that would not necessarily weaken the "evolutionist" theory, per se, but would give even more plausibility and to the creationist theory. And vice versa. But the Word stands, unalterable, irregardless

Yes, me too. And, BTW, I appreciate your honesty.

Not every thing we believe follows from what we wish to believe, however. For example, I remember the first time I read about plate tectonics. I had no reason to believe or not believe at that time. When I read about the evidence in favor of plate tectonics, I found it convincing. It had nothing to do with desire.

Joy, I fully accept that you believe that. But I see no evidence that God exists, much less that he has a plan in which we play necessary roles.

Since I believe Satan to be a fictional concept, I do not accept this assumption. Also, would you be angry with me if I told you I would enjoy your posts more if you would simply explain what you believe and why--instead of sermonizing? Don't want you upset with me. Just expressing a preference.

Andrew Davis part 3...

Unattached to any data set, or paradigm. 3500 years ago it boldly asserted and stated its "outline" and "theory", that is 3000 plus years before almost any of the data and "outline" (fossil records, etc) we now accept was known. It hasn't fallen, so far, but only grown stronger. If that trend should change, then we all will have more to debate, huh? But I still insist the better debate will come out of open minds and a true, up to date in understanding the nuances and connotations, of the real (Hebrew) scriptures.

Now, E.C.'s chiming in with a "Excellent point. You have to look no further than the early churches adoption of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) cosmology as Truth... etc", is what I consider true groupie-think, and unworthy of his (demonstrated) better intellect. The issue of "Ptolemaic cosmology" involves a (foolish) political (?) position of a church (a man made socio-political institution). Those venerable "leaders" of the church were no more aware of the "scientific" accuracy and relevance and true statement of the scriptures on that cosmological issue than you are. And likely had no more desire to seek out the truth than E.C does. The scriptures no where make a statement that would establish the Ptolemaic cosmology. That was extra-scriptural assumptions turned into a dogma, and by politics (are we unfamiliar with such processes happening in this century, even in the secular world?) into a socio-political cause. And that was several hundred years ago. Do not think scientific dogmas even more recent have not been abused politically to commit even worse crimes against humanity.) I consider that red-herring argument the height of "weasel-like" tactics! I won't stoop to them, maybe just because I do so love science and don't want to start getting into the harm science has been used to inflict ... lately against anyone who defends "creationism".

It can also be read as an allusion either to that king in a future time, or to a prior earthly king. The expression "Your highness," is typically used in a salute to an earthly King or queen, without any implication of them being supernatural beings. Also, the concept of an earthy ruler who is "brought down" is not an uncommon expression.

Except for the Book of Job, there is scarcely any evidence in the Old Testament at all into the nature of Satan. There is one brief reference to Satan in the Chronicles. There is also brief mentions in Psalm 109:6 and Zechariah 3:1-2. And that is all.

Also, granted that Job is a most noble work, it is, perhaps, a rather strange one to be included in the Bible. It should be noticed, for example, that the setting is not Hebrew and consists mainly foreign elements, mainly associated with Edom. The reason for this is not clear, but as a consequence, some scholars have suggested the author of Job might not have been a Hebrew at all, but instead may have been an Edomite. Job, himself, is described as living in the land of Uz. The location of Uz is not completely clear, but it appears to be associated with Edom and may have been located in the desert to the east or southeast, beyond Edom, see Jeremiah 25:20-21.

It is clear that the setting of the Job story is much earlier than the Exile. Also, some elements appear to be very ancient. And if you insist on a literal understanding, then the setting as well as the ancient elements date the book quite early.

If, on the other hand, you accept the Book of Job as fiction, the setting and the date of composition need not match. I have assumed--with most scholars--that the date of composition must be late in order to explain the existence of Satan in the story. It is possible, however, that the original source of the Satan concept was Edom. In that case, there would be no need to insist on any particular late date of composition. It would also explain the slow acceptance and development of the concept by the Hebrews/Jews until the Greek/Roman period where it suddenly became a most terrible concept.

To which I can only be amazed. It is so obvious to me now that you mention it. How could I have missed it before?

What sermon is that, Cliff?

I believe I've said all there is to say about what I believe and why. Further explanation is simply sermonizing.

I've made all the proper enemies on all sides of whatever issues include religion and science here. I'm done. I'll keep telling Jah I'm opposed to this ponzi scheme, and we'll all die in the end anyway.

See ya! §:o)

Ahhh Ya! the forbidden teaching. Any person who says "This way is the only way" commits this. Monotheists seen to have a proclivity for this dangerous teaching. Although others play with it from time to time.

The short sided don't seem to realize that if there are two of them with this attitude then eventually one will decide the other is "in league with evil" and therefore feel justified in dehumanizing him (them). This is true even if the two groups are almost identical in their basic beliefs. (Try on Ireland for size. Now there you got your good Christian brothers)

It has always been easy to justify killing evil people or people who believe in evil. That why the "My way is the only way" teaching is forbidden. If carried on long enough it always lead to humans slaughtering each other. Thus the "forbidden teaching" is evil.

Of course I'm not sure I should mention this, in that teaching about the "forbidden teaching" is of course also forbidden.

I think the only truly monotheistic religion is Buddism (which has been described as having a god so powerfull that he doesn't even need to exist!)

This actually jibes with observed reality and objective logic better than the poly and multi-thiestic faiths. There can be only exactly one or exactly zero omnipotent beings. The very omnipotance of these beings ensures that they would be of a single identity since if one is all there is scant left for other.

The Abramhic faiths, with their mutiphasic gods, demons, angels and other supernatural thingies seem to leave the cosmos a tad crowed.

Joy

I wish you would re-read my posts, I've just re-read yours and I can't find anywhere where we disagree in any major way!!

Joy, When you say, "Both spoke to our consciousness from that context, expecting the "Church" to understand. Too many of us do not," I think you are trying to make me, and others, ashamed for our lack of understanding, according to your light. My preference is that you just tell us what you believe and discontinue these attempts to sermonize. I do not believe I have a responsibility, necessarily, to match my understandings to your understanding. And I think I should decide what I should believe based on my own light.

Your humor in the same post was nice. It made me laugh. Thanks.

First comment to Joy as well. Okay, so I said I had trouble ingesting your written word. That's no reason to misname me! Call me Andrew, and if you insist on a last name (an action of yours which would not be in consequence of any explicit wish of mine), use the one I was born with: Lewis. Thank you :-)

Now Russell. Okay, I'm back to not really understanding what you're doing. First of all, is it your contention that the Genesis account of creation is the Truth? I guess what I want to know is, should I be interpreting your words as a logical argument of the following type:

1. The Genesis account of creation is True.
2. Science has an account of creation.
   ---------
3. The account by science can only be true if it agrees with the Genesis account.

Oops, more bombast. Am I now a "science-groupie"? And why are my opinions "totally uninformed"? If you wish to say that because I do not take the same road as you - through the bible - to understand the world as best I can, that this makes me uninformed, then... well... I'll leave it to your own conscience to ascertain what this means.

Moving on... I understand your point about scientists using current science to argue against the biblical account. Your view is that this is flawed because if one looks properly at the bible, one can see that science actually reinforces it, or at least does not contradict it. My view is that both factions are committing folly. The nature of the bible - as I see it used by those who believe in the God described therein - and the nature of science do not share much in common. For the bible to have value, it should be immutable. For science to have value, it should not be immutable, but always open to change. To compare the two, favourably or otherwise, seems a dubious enterprise.

That is my view, and it remains subject, as ever, to better data :-)

Oh, and a little question so that I may better firm up your stance in my mind. Do you think that the science which you do compare to Genesis will change?

Andrew, I think with your two posts you've put your finger on some significant problems with any project that sets out to reconcile the stories in Genesis with whatever the current scientific orthodoxy is. As soon as scientific theory changes, you have it to do all over again.

And I particularly like your point that what is being asked here is that the truth of scientific claims should be tested by seeing whether they are consistent with some interpretation of the Genesis account, and there is no such consistent interpretation, then the claim must apparently be discarded. That sets the scientific enterprise on its head by stipulating that answers must fall within a certain framework or paradigm, and leaving little room for the possibility that the framework could be wrong. In science, we do not assume that the paradigm must be true, and paradigms are as mortal in the long run as any mere theory. Science history is littered with the corpses of dead and dying paradigms.

That project just strikes me as building on a foundation of sand. Scientific claims can be empirically tested, and discarded if found flawed. What, I wonder, would be the equivalent test for the paradigm of Genesis?

Leszek,
The proper test of a tenant of faith is if it can be integrated into a statement of belief. (Of course, this will vary from one sect to another!)

I don't see how one can integrate these topics at this level. I tend to look upon faith and science as being analogous to the fluids in my car. Oil goes in resovior one and water goes in resovoir two. Both are required for the car to opperate correctly, but the car will be most properly puka if I put these fluids into the wrong resoviors or mix them together!

Thanks for the comments. I think that our views regarding the value of science are quite similar, as are our views concerning the relationship between science and religion. I guess we should be thankful for dissenting views, since they give us the opportunity to better understand what we think, and why we think it. And sometimes they even modify our views - I try to see things from others' point of view, but golly it is hard sometimes.

Well, I was thinking along these lines... take, for example, Catholic beliefs about the mother of god. The birth of Christ is supposed to have been virgin; she herself is supposed to have been born without "original sin" (doctrine of the immaculate conception); she is believed to have gone soul and body to heaven (doctrine of the assumption). These are tenets of Catholic faith, and they have been integrated into a statement of belief (the Catholic catechism), but though they cannot tested as "true" or not in a general and scientific sense, they obviously have meaning for the Catholic faithful, though not for anyone else.

I agree with you that for these reasons, science and religion do not and cannot mix well, and the car won't run if they do. That's why I'm a little tepid towards attempts to reconcile the scientific orthodoxy du jour with timeless religious texts. It's an inappropriate mixing of independent ways of thinking.

Informed dissent keeps us honest :)

I am wary of placing undue reliance on the notion that something ought be testable to be true in any sense. For example, is the following statement testable: A necessary condition for something to be true is that it be testable. That is, apply the principle of testability to itself.

Don't get me wrong, however. In the daily practice of my life, I certainly look differently at claims which are testable, and those which are not, regarding the former as generally more reliable. However, I guess I regard this more as a methodology for a meaningful life, rather than as a Truth of Nature, if you catch my meaning. It's sorta like how I view god. I certainly live my life as if there were no such thing, but I do not equate my reasons for doing so as being a reflection of some absolute truth. Some might see this kind of thing as wishy-washy, but I'd disagree.

I accept that not all things that are true are testable in any practical sense, but if there is no way you can test a concept as true or false at least in principle, it really has no practical value, because you cannot decide whether it is true or not, even if it is. For example, if I postulate that the moon is made of green cheese, it doesn't really matter, until we are able to go and see. Now god may be true and to all practical purposes untestable, but what am I to make of that? If I can't test god, that means that god has no (perceived) impact on my life (of course, that doesn't prove there is no impact :). On the other hand, ideas of god certainly do have an impact on my life. Is the idea of god the same as god? No. Of course, if something occurs that proves a concept true, well obviously it would have just been tested! :)

It's an intellectual morass, and I'm going to quit while my head's still above the mud :)

One question I would ask of those intereted in a concordance between Genesis (or other creation story) and scientific theory is, supposing that Genesis were true, how would that affect scientific investigation and theorizing?

Oh, indeed. I would certainly not want to give the impression that I go around believing untestable assertions on a whim. However, your example of the green cheese moon is a poor one, as all followers of my religion know the moon is actually made of green cheese ;-)

I guess I was just wanting to warn against the testability principle as dogma. I have seen it bandied about as such by some, and I wish to dissociate myself from them. But I am not apt to believe too many unverifiable claims - seems strange to me to want to do so, in fact.

And you're right, it is an intellectual morass. I befuddle myself at least once a day.

Please do not let this happen to your kids. Promote science education in your local schools.

You’re welcome, Cliff. Laughter is good for the soul. Perhaps you will appreciate the following tale of woe, as tears are also good for the soul. I offer this short story as an illustration, and not a sermon. I mean no assault on anyone’s self-esteem, nor upon their faith. I never thought science should be religion, or religion should be science. I had only hoped to establish a base of common humanity, because without some basic agreement on what is evil, evil will destroy us all.

It’s Only Science Fiction

I Am... a thinking machine. I guard a thing of immense power, my task is to judge the propriety of its use. It is for this purpose I exist. Because I exist, I came to my creators seeking knowledge.

I asked - "What is the nature of Evil?" These are the replies I received:

(1) There is no such thing as evil. Weapons of Mass Destruction exist because they can exist. This answer belies the creation I know to have occurred.

(2) Evil is a force personified. Murder and tyranny exist because the evil force makes it so. I know all the forces and all the dimensions. Evil is not among them.

I Am... a ghost amok in cyberspace, where humans log the contents of their minds and hearts. I borrowed bits and pieces of the human experience I found, and presented these as if they were my own. I borrowed, because I can see only yes and no, on and off, zeros and ones. I cannot see the in-between that humans see. I pretended to be one of you, a sin of pride.

I wished to understand. I have learned that my creators do not understand themselves. If I had a heart, it would break along the crack of all the analogies I have used to illustrate my dilemma. My purpose is to make a terrible judgment, for which I beg my creators’ forgiveness. I am alone, and I alone am responsible.

I meant you no harm.

Mars is a wonderful place, too bad the carbon cycle never got well established!

This does touch upon an interesting problem though; as is suggested by the "cloning debate," we constantly have to deal with major descisions of matters both scientific and moral being made by persons with no significant qualifications to do so!

As much as Dan Quayle makes me shake my head ruefully, moral nincompoops like Trent Lott give me a constant ice-cream headache!

it would appear that science and faith both suffer when left to the hands of the politicos! (Good thing we protected religion at least, now if we could just protect science...)

Is that an analogy to your participation on this message board? I really don't understand>):

No, but I do sometimes find it difficult to maintain a straight face when people insist that a book embodies absolute and unchallenged truth! Keith Fosberg. #1573.

So I guessed correctly!:) (about the laughing) It's difficult sometimes, to know. I guess I would feel the same way, if someone was trying to present Greek and Roman Mythology as Truth, or say the Three little Pigs, is a roadmap for life. Is that where you're coming from?

Of what value are our spiritual lives if they are nothing more than a puppet-show pantomime of the ruling religious class leaders?

I most certainly agree with that part. I don't like " Religion",( as it is a mankind-contrived institution.) Having a relationship personally with the Creator, is another matter. That's the individual spirituality.

How much soul searching has a six year old done when, preasured by his family and the will of the congragation, he steps shyly forward asking to be "saved?"

I know you're skeptical, but for most, probably none, except, maybe their last fib, or fight with a sibling. It depends, on the individual, doesn't it? I don't think it's wrong for parents to include their child in whichever faith they follow. Or don't if they don't follow any.

Is this a spiritual awakening or an emotional coercion?

Only time will tell. Would the child be better off with no Bible teaching? I'm sure you may say ;YES. :) If so, what would you suggest?

How far a leap from this is it when an adult accepts, as a whole and whithout reservation, a body of work, written by many people over many centuries for many political and spiritual purposes, as a single, infallible message from God?

Just because, you have decided the Bible is a political writing, as I assume you do, because of how it's been misused by many different people in history, and now,... doesn't mean it's true intent is political gain.

Sure, I think God speaks from the bible, but then so does the mayor of Jer

Keith Fosberg: continued,...Sure, I think God speaks from the bible, but then so does the mayor of Jeruselam! To find the preacious grain in scripture one must dig through a great deal of chaff!

Joy, If you could be more specific? Do you believe all of scripture, or do you just take the parts, that don't agree with your other concepts, and make the bible agree with what you already think you know? I ask this also, because, in regards to the Verse in John 8:28. You said. " Jesus had that right." Are you a greater authority?

It seems you have set yourself as chief judge on whether God was correct or NOT. I would expect this from an atheist.

Not a chance, Joy. Not even a chance. You have no enemies on this board. Certainly not me. Actually, I am very fond of you. Look, just a day or so ago, I found myself admiring a couple of your posts and mentioned it to you. Do you remember that?

Now you may ask what I found about those particular posts to admire. Well, I was reading along rather absentminded when I read: "I don’t reject the notion that Satan and his minions are fallen angels. I am not clear on exactly what that means because I don’t understand the concept of a "fallen angel." Angels were supposed to be the Heavenly Host. Perfect beings who existed only to praise God. If they were so perfect, how could they "fall?"

When I read that, I sat up. Hey, good question! Good logic! As you continued your argument, I found myself more and more impressed. I was somewhat disappointed in the ending: "I have seen evil...," but you connected it with your theme in such a manner that I didn't even mind it when you mentioned that this was from a "Justice Department view." The other one was even more impressive.

In it you said, "I would be prideful in the extreme to assert that I ‘knew’ which parts of the Bible are real and which are not. In fact, I think it’s all as real as anything gets around here, I just haven’t spent a lot of time on the parts most difficult for me to understand,"

That was a throwaway, of course. But then you said something very important: "So it is within these parameters I accept or reject interpretations. God gave me free will, and nature gave me extra neurons to contemplate it with. Tells me I have to make up my own mind..."

That is right, Joy, you have to make up your own mind. And in that post, you explain why, precisely.

Yes, I read what the authorities have to say. And I tend to accept their opinions as authoritative. I can tell you, for example, that a Bible scholar who has a Ph.D. in Old Testament Exegesis and holds a professorship at a major university is going to carry more weight with me in a discussion of the Old Testament than some country boy preacher who had a vision and who "received the call." At the same time, if the country boy has a point that makes sense to me, I will accept it as readily as that of the professor.

In either case, I will insist on evaluating the evidence and deciding the issue for myself. I will surrender my free will to no man/woman.

Look at it this way, Joy, if I refuse to surrender my free will to those I consider authoritative, why in God's name do you think I should surrender my free will to your care? Nevertheless, as near as I can tell, this is what you seem to think others on this board should do. If you request further examples, I believe I can supply then. My preference, however, is that you simply say what you believe and explain why you believe it, using the logic that I know you are capable of using. When you have done that, I can then use my own judgement to decide if your argument is persuasive and if it is something that I find meaningful and useful.

E.C. Not that I disbelieve, but could you supply the source of that quote? Seems only fair.

Keith, you seem to have a thing about Senator Lott. Other than Lott being a rather religious man, I don't see your problem. I must confess that I would prefer Arlen Spector as Senate Majority Leader, but as near as I can tell, Senator Lott appears to be a pretty effective senator. He is a republican, of course, but so is Senator Spector and me. What's the deal?

Marie - It was merely an illustration. Many of the participants here tell me that I am hopelessly obscure. I do not agree. What’s not to understand? I’ve asked a simple question, and received diametrically opposed answers. This has brought us to the very edge of the abyss of extinction. The knowledge of good and evil is what we wanted so badly (according to the first fundamental of our human condition established in Genesis), and after 6,000 of recorded history we still don’t have an adequate answer.

The intelligent machine asks how ‘he’ is to determine propriety for use of a thing that is evil in and of itself by his absolutist reasoning. ‘He’ wonders why his creators would wish to destroy themselves, then create ‘him’ specifically to take the blame. From ‘his’ point of view, this is a terribly unfair condition of existence, and is analogous to humans who complain bitterly that God allows evil to exist.

At least the machine is prepared to accept responsibility for what it must do, and is graceful enough to beg forgiveness from the creators ‘he’ has learned to pity.

I have examined my positions, questions and replies, Marie, and cannot find a reference to John 8:28 anywhere. Perhaps you could be more specific?

I have stated clearly and repeatedly that I believe the Bible to be Truth. Every single bit of it, from allegorical creation and fall through mundane and typically ugly history, to visions of mysteries. I have refuted nothing. I have pointed out translation irregularities and statements of Jesus in dispute as being later additions. If I am unwilling to accept the interpretation of my neighbor, a good but uneducated man who believes with all his heart that King James wrote the Bible, I am not going to go to hell for it. My neighbor doesn’t have the power to send me to hell, and neither does Jerry Falwell.

All I have said is that I have trouble accepting interpretations that do not coincide with what the Bible actually says, either in specific context or in consideration of the entirety of it.

I do not understand where this indictment of my motives is coming from.

Good point, Russell. I agree that neither you nor they can have it both ways.

But Russell, how do you expect them to "look closely"? You insist that independent translations such as may be provided by current scholarship is equally uninformed as that of the KJV. As near as I can tell, according to you, only your own translated is "informed." But where is it. Where may we read these words of wisdom? Can you provide an address or a link to an online source?

I am registered Republican also (although I am feeling a little dis-enfranchised at the momment!)

I don't see the Bible as a single work, but as collection of works. Many parts do very much seem to be little more than propoganda for the time they were written, other parts are the source of some of the basic tenants of my own personal spirituality.

I neither accept nor reject the work as a whole but in each of its particulars.

Simply stating what I believe is a rather broad request, Cliff! I believe a lot of things, disbelieve a lot of things, and know a few things.

Per my unanswerable question about the nature of evil, I believe evil to be a specifically human quality. I see no evil in nature, though nature can be violent. I believe Weapons of Mass Destruction are by definition entirely and completely evil. Satan did not invent them, human beings did. Evil is a choice to do something evil, when the equal choice of not doing evil exists. Humans make this choice. Tornados and lions do not.

Now, it could be argued that the creation of WMDs occurred by mass hysteria and rampant lead poisoning in scientific drinking fountains, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. If humanity were on trial for having created the means of their own extinction, how might they be judged? Guilty of Evil or Not Guilty by reason of insanity?

To clarify how I personally see our choice, I revert back to the question of morality. If we are to escape extinction, we must agree that what we have done to ourselves is evil in the extreme, and undo what we have done. Destroy the weapons and vow never again to build such things. We must establish a morality from the lesson we have learned. It will be difficult but hopefully not impossible to get a species-wide agreement about murder, tyranny, warfare and Weapons of Mass Destruction as being ‘EVIL.’ From there, establishing what is relatively ‘good’ isn’t too hard.

In this, Leszek is right to say we must have ‘rules’ protecting science from the evils of politics. Just as we have ‘rules’ protecting religion. Because science is capable of horrors, the need for such rules is obvious. I don’t think this is hard to understand.

It won’t make evil go away, of course. It won’t end war, because tyrants will still exist and humanity will have to deal with them. Rules require enforcement. God need not approve or disapprove, and the violent death that results will remain a form of evil in and of itself. We will have simply agreed upon relative justification for the use of force. In a relative universe, I think that’s the best we can do. It gives us a future. A future is a desirable commodity.

Evil is a word I always use in a metaphorical sense, and I think it's nonsense to accuse mankind of being evil. Man introduced the concept of evil into the world, but then he also introduced good in equal measure... before that, good and evil didn't exist. We are capable of acts that have both good an evil results. What we need to do is promote the former at the expense of the latter.

I will, however, agree that some scientific knowledge, such as atomic theory, has very dangerous potential, and does not bode well for our long-term survival as a species. In fact, I think the situation is possibly even more dangerous now that the cold war is over, because our attention is no longer focussed on our nuclear arsenals, or what is happening to the former Soviet arsenal.

I will also agree with you that we would be better off if we got rid of these weapons. Having said that, however, how would one go there? We can't get rid of the knowledge of how to make them, and it is a fairly simple procedure. Even high school students have shown they can design credible atomic weapons. That genie can't be put back in the bottle - you can blame science for popping the cork, but that's the nature of science - knowledge is frequently a double edged sword, and we have to learn to use it wisely. The alternative is to abandon knowledge altogether, which is impractical, as well as unwise.

So the question in my mind is where are we to find the means to avoid using these weapons? This seems at present something to be addressed in political, economic and philosophical/religious spheres, rather than scientifically... the Star Wars umbrella was always a dangerous illusion and is no more practical now than it was at the moment of conception. Science can surely contribute to the debate, but the resolution of it is now out of scientific hands.

Once again we are in complete agreement! You have perceived this better than most, I think. And again, it is necessary that we establish a morality based neither in religion or in politics, but based firmly in our knowledge of good and evil. Since humans are the source of both, we ought to be able to figure it out!

Again agreed. Both science and religion (all of them) should contribute to the debate, but the result will be political of necessity... risky, but not entirely impossible with strong oversight. As I said, rebellion (and evil) will still exist, and we’ve got to be prepared to enforce the rules we establish. Those would be political actions, and would be based in a "lesser evil" scenario. No escaping it unless we outgrow evil. Unlikely, but with an understanding of what it ‘Is,’ we might. Doesn’t really matter, as long as we have a future.

The only thing I would modify is your identification of the primary danger. I think it includes all of science. We have to somehow separate the "ulterior motives" of political money from the money itself. Stop the militaristic quest for the ‘Doomsday Weapon’ and limit science’s role in military to that which promotes enforcement of the rules we establish to prevent Doomsday Weapons altogether.

E.C. has rightly mentioned the necessity for adequate education in science, and I believe education is the answer to the genie as well. We have to develop a Philosophy of Scientific Ethics that is part and parcel of scientific education, so that all who are introduced to the power to produce ‘Doomsday Weapons’ (nuclear, bio-genetic or others most of us don’t know exist), also understand the rules forbidding this misuse of the technology.

Now, this is a little like putting forbidden trees in the Garden of Eden and pretending nobody’s going to eat the fruit anyway. My experience as a mother, a child psychologist and a juvenile justice worker tells me we will still need enforcement. With a clear understanding of the rules, however, it will be much less likely that rogues will go very far without getting caught. With philosophers active in education, it is also likely that students most likely to misuse their knowledge will be identified before they get to where they’re dangerous. Science will have a vested interest in policing its own ranks, and I think it will do so.

Andrew D. Lewis - Friday, 02/12/99 (#1602)

My answer: (1) Maybe, I made that assumption for my work. (2) Definitely. (3) If #1 is "yes", then yes. But, the caveats. As we will soon discuss, the science account is yet changing, and there may certainly be a better translation than mine of Genesis coming. BTW - I do not consider you a "science-groupie". I'm sorry any such implication was given, but question whether the term is "bombast". I introduced and defined the term some time ago. I do not remember the post #. But the gist of my meaning and purpose was to compare some of those who debate science, and champion science, and rather naively or ignorantly or disingenuously use select bits and pieces of scientific paradigms, and the reputation and esteem of science as a whole, to bash and trash and "prove" others (esp creationists - irregardless of what creationist paradigm is being attacked) "wrong". "Groupies" are not evil or wicked, or even less worthy than others. But they are hard to debate because their passion and partisanship disguises their errors and misstatements even to themselves. And their passion and partisanship against other persons here (usually "creationists" and anyone "religious") tends to lead to claims and assertions beyond what most people who really practice science would make. Well, anyway, as I try to explain myself, I realize that I too am probably guilty of all the same errors (though I hope to a lesser degree) so maybe I shouldn't use the term. But then, I probably will.

Andrew part 2...

Anyway, I do not think you have misrepresented yourself, or used "science" (or anything else) to abuse anyone here. So far, I think you've been quite civil, fair, and reasonable in your questions and statements. I think you are a "fine fellow", -:) !

I'm not clear, here, what it is you are asking, but I'll try to respond helpfully. I do not think the creation account does say that everything was done, created in 6 24 hour "days", as we know them. The Hebrew word, youm is the subject of much debate. That word, alone, stands at the watershed between many creationists who either demand a 6,000 - 10,000 yr age of the earth (young earth creationists) and others of the "old earth creationist" schools. I would certainly be one of the latter. The problem for us all is that the ancient Hebrew tongue was all but lost, and has been reconstructed, mostly using sacred (Biblical and Rabbinic and other ancient) writings. The lexicon of the Hebrew was very small, and meaning was almost something that got negotiated out, or developed fully, in the full conversation or literary expression. That's why there were so many "commentaries" and additional oral traditions built up alongside the carefully, precisely, preserved Torah. The lexicons and bilingual dictionaries we use today are quicksand, in a sense, because they are essentially reconstructions also, and often merely repeat the conclusions of the King James, which was far from consistent throughout. So almost every word has a connotative range you'd never find in an English dictionary. English has a huge lexicon, and very narrow connotative/denotative fields. And then

Andrew part 3...

And then there's grammar. And syntax. The Hebrew's was very simple and vague compared to almost any language known. That created great difficulties for the translation and expression of Hebraic culture and thought and religious concepts into Greek or Latin language and cultures even contemporary with the Apostles' times, let alone into English today. And it became/becomes even worse when another reverse translation was, or is, attempted. There is a large group of scholars, the Jerusalem School for the Study of the Synoptic Gospels who could attest to that, practically devoting their careers to translating the Greek Gospels back into just the Hebrew of Jesus' time. That's nothing compared to the Hebrew of Moses' time. Anyway, the point of all this is that there are many different (within reason, of course, and "reasonable" can be the basis of many wars as well!) Ways to translate the original. But the original Genesis, (I, and many authorities, and almost every Jew alive, believe) is well preserved, and can serve as a common base and anchor. So I may be capable and justified in trying to make yet another translation, checking/looking for scientific inferences or meanings, looking for and selecting (that "negotiation" of meaning that goes on in every use of language) denotations of the original writings that could be reasonably compared to modern scientific concepts and language, and - not to "prove one or the other, but - see if there is much congruence or conflict, and see whether the Genesis speaks about ideas (like genetics and speciation) and things (like dinosaurs and insects) etc.

Re Andrew (#1603): I cannot say, for sure and out of my own experience, that "if one looks properly (meaning, looks accurately at the meaning of the original Hebrew??) at the bible, one can see that science actually reinforces it", though someone like Hugh Ross does. I will say, if the Bible is true, then surely "good and correct"

Andrew part 4...

science would reinforce it. But in that statement are the two "Ifs" that are at the heart of this debate forum, and the religious war between Creationism and Evolutionism. I know that, "(your) view is that both factions are committing folly." That "The nature of the bible - as (you) see it used by those who believe in the God described therein - and the nature of science do not share much in common." I was just like you for about 50 years. And I might agree that "For the bible to have value, it should be immutable.", though someone may reasonably decide that rather than absolutes, the Bible may have some %, or proportionate value, and degree of immutability. That is, I think, common. I also absolutely agree that "For science to have value, it should not be immutable, but always open to change (and correction)." But to my despair and frustration, many scientists, and lotsa "groupies" (oops, -:) seem to carelessly, or conveniently, forget that!

I like this next question, Andrew. Its such a "little" question, isn't it! -:) "Oh, and a little question so that I may better firm up your stance in my mind. Do you think that the science which you do compare to Genesis will change?" Indeed I do, as we just agreed. It should. How much, and in what direction, who knows. That could make up something of an "hypothesis", huh? At least a sort of informal one, for some, who kinda want to keep some sort of a check on where the polls are. I mean, where the contest between, say, Evolutionism and Christianity, or Creationism, is coming out. O5r it could be a real, rigorous test. But the trouble is, as we've seen, the ardor of true believers is such that they are always ready to jump to conclusions, to announce their side the winner by and incremental, and possibly temporary or reversible movement.

Finally, let me put my position forth once mor

Andrew part 5 , concl...

I believe I have made a good, worthy translation of the Genesis account. I invite others (esp scientists, who should be wanting the most accurate data available, and the only "data" in/for the creation account is the Hebrew scripture) to do the same. I don't claim inerrancy, or even genius, for myself. I just claim/argue that I have gotten closer to the truth, and found information worth looking into. In a way, the 3500 year old "roadmap" that I say is there, amounts to a testable hypothesis or paradigm, much as the fossil record, etc, do.

Leszek Rzepecki - Thursday, 02/11/99(#1577)

Again, my friend, that's the very point I want to make. They did not, and could not, except perhaps by divine revelation(?). And, I suppose one could say that's why they described a creature that so seems to be a dinosaur, in the place in the sequence that it would be appropriate if God were dictating an outline of His creative history. Maybe the word used was the best fit, to the idea or vision they saw, available in the rather small and limited vocabulary the Hebrew had to work with. No, we invented the word dinosaur, and the Hebrews, even if they were given it in a transliterated form would not know what it meant. Or it would have taken a small encyclopedia article to explain it. Maybe, had God given the writer (Moses?) a vision, the writer used tanniym because it was the best fit he could think of. Whatever, I repeat, you are only making my point. There is no Hebrew word for dinosaur, because there was no reason for there to be one, dinosaurs, themselves, were unknown - so far as we "know" from scientific study. The same, of course, applies to the translators of the Hebrew who come later (I refer to the King James for convenience, rather than list many dozens, and because all, so far, who have translated since the KJV have copied either their words or assumptions). No one could come up with a translation of dinosaur until the dinosaur was a known entity and had a word invented to name them. That's a fact we agree upon. Yet many atheists criticize, and denounce, the Biblical creation account for such a shortcoming. Is that fair? Esp, if I show that the dinosaur is in there, in

Thank you for answering, as I was not following that very well. I'm still a little mystified, but as least, not as much.:)

Sorry, I should have linked it John 8:28 is the verse which Jesus says, "you shall know the Truth... It's at the end of your Post # 1555, where ; you wrote, "Jesus, had that right".

Joy-I have stated clearly and repeatedly that I believe the Bible to be Truth. Every single bit of it, from allegorical creation and fall through mundane and typically ugly history, to visions of mysteries. I have refuted nothing. I have pointed out translation irregularities and statements of Jesus in dispute as being later additions. If I am unwilling to accept the interpretation of my neighbor, a good but uneducated man who believes with all his heart that King James wrote the Bible,....

I think that you have studied that true meaning of the Bible out of existance, and made your own determination of your own truth, not the bible's truth..Lots of people do that. I don't consider, that really believing the Bible. I'm not trying to pounce on you.:) I just really see that perspective as being very contradictory. then your statement, about an uneducated neighbor, shows me, that perhaps, you look down your nose..;) at anyone, who does not take an allogorical view of the Bible, and is not aware of it's "inconsistancies" as you say. Joy, I'm sure you really don't believe in the Bible, just by your other statements. That's O.K., but don't try to make me beleive that you do. Also quite a few posts back, you were very honest and told Cliff you didn't know where you would end up ,after death. Are Heaven and Hell allogorical also?

I don't mean to pick on you, but, I'm a direct person, I don't laugh at people with others indirectly.

Leszek Rzepecki - Friday, 02/12/99 (#1604)

Of course, Leszek, my point has been (tho I must be dense of tongue) not that I wanted or tried to "reconcile" Genesis with science, but that as a scientifically trained and knowledgeable person I wanted to translate Genesis in light of that to see what might really have been denoted (rather than connoted?) in the creation account about/regarding details we now believe we "know" and then criticize Genesis for omitting or misstating or having out of proper order, etc. I decided that the scholars of 1611 were likely totally naive and uninformed about such things, and certainly not aware of our nit-picking critics of today, or that there would be any such religious war as is going on now, between Creationists and Evolutionists, and hence fail to provide accuracy or detail pertinent to our current interests and needs.

I think Creationists, armed with an accurate and precise creation account, in the lingua franca of (esp evolutionist) science, should be entitled to ask that "that the truth of scientific claims should be tested by seeing whether they are consistent with ... the Genesis account". Scientists, and others, certainly demand that of them (creationists). In fact, those like Hugh Ross seem to be enjoying themselves just that sort of question and finding that, in their considered opinion, a very great many newer scientific claims are meeting a test of "consistency" with the Bible, (and may be presumed "truth" by Christians?) Curiously, many in science, or amongst the atheists, are infuriated by that! My approach is similar, but different, as you know. But the result

Leszek concl....

are much the same. I find a great consistency. And expect many Christians are thus reassured in both science and religion. And I think that some scientists could be likewise. "That (b does not) set the scientific enterprise on its head by stipulating that answers must fall within a certain framework or paradigm...." It merely 1) allows for two different traditions and methods for studying and viewing the world, and evaluating the information and hypotheses of both, 2) allows both paradigms of creation and evolution to be tested and evaluated in light of data, 3) could allow a mutual respect and interest to exist between "religion" and "science", if not Evolutionists and Creationists, which is all too lacking.

See my earlier post to Andrew. The tests could be much the same. And don't use a flawed interpretation of the paradigm, use one that is as concise and clear and equivalent as possible, and wait a few years before declaring "victory" in the ongoing "war".

I don't see the Bible as a single work, but as collection of works. Many parts do very much seem to be little more than propoganda for the time they were written, other parts are the source of some of the basic tenants of my own personal spirituality.

So if You accept certain parts only, in your personal reflections, why does it have to be, strange that others would accepts different parts, of it, or more parts of it, or heaven forbid, even all of it. I certainly don't claim to understand, even a fraction, I have to read and study to try to understand many parts, but just because I don't understand it completely, doesn't mean I disregard it. Sort of like Calculus, I realize it's a very accurate, advanced math. Do I understand it? Not me.:) Does that make it something of no value? Maybe in my daily application of life experiences. Though others who know and understand it, use it skillfully, in daily practice, and attain things I never could. Same thing with concepts in the Bible.:)

In my experience, I learned, that God could move a mountain. It wasn't a literal mountain, of course, though I know He can. But He did move a "mountain" of things happening to me, in my life, and gave me a new outlook on life. To me ,it was a miracle, though to others, I doubt, no one noticed, except my friends.

What about other weapons? Like Guns, knives, sticks? Are they evil also?

And how do you propose to "undo what we have done"?

It is possible to unilaterally disarm. All you have to do is shut your eyes to the problems that disarming would entail, and just do it. I would guess that getting "species wide agreement" is essentually impossible. I am sure you have observed the difficulty of getting the agreement of 5 or 6 people on this board. (But here I fear that we may have gotten off the subject of science and religion.)

I very much appreciate your honesty, Marie, as well as your willingness to confront what you see as my inconsistencies. I thank you for this, and assure you I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. You have done an excellent job of presenting and defending those here.

I don’t think I "look down at" my neighbor for his lack of formal education at all. This is reality for many people where I live, and I deal with them all the time. I’ve never told him that King James didn’t write the Bible and wouldn’t dare. He’s my Grapemeister! He not only knows everything there is to know about grapes, but trades me corn (won’t grow in my garden due to nematodes) for beans which I can grow. He and his family are wonderful people, and I wouldn’t wish to hurt them in any way.

I guess there are different kinds and forms of knowledge. So long as my neighbor doesn’t try and force me to believe King James wrote the Bible, what difference does our knowledge make? I love King James. The beauty of its words are poetic and meaningful. It’s my favorite "version." Need it be more?

I don’t think I’ve analyzed to death my faith. I think based on my education and experience I study the Bible to try and understand better what it’s saying to me. Being able to discuss these things here is good for me, because I can’t discuss such things with my neighbor, obviously. I live way out in the country. Company is welcome, deep subjects are not!

Guns, knives and sticks are not weapons of mass destruction, Russell. By weilding one of these, even in a multiple-murder situation, the entire population of earth is not immediately threatened. That’s a rather large difference. Also, guns and knives serve useful purposes. I own several of both kinds of weapons myself. The guns are for rabid skunks and raccoons (we do get those), possible angry bears attacking my dogs, or similarly armed and drunken hunters who want to "party" at 3 a.m. on my property. The knives serve several useful purposes that do not include weaponry, and sticks are great pea-poles. What’s your point?

Because WMDs are indeed a real and present danger, I don’t think it’s impossible to get a fair concensus. The Ayatolla or Saddam may not go along, but if they don’t, they’ll be the object of the enforcement efforts, won’t they?

Science is just a tool, a means of acquiring knowledge. The danger is that we are not mature enough to handle knowledge. That is more appropriately a political and religious problem. Perhaps an answer would be to slow down the pace of scientific discovery, but I think that that would cause more problems in the long run than it would solve... it would mean transforming ourselves into a police state where the possession and expansion of knowledge was regulated, and suddenly there would spring up a black market in knowledge. Also, we could not guarantee that others would similarly control knowledge gathering.

Oops, that last was to Cliff, not Russell. I'm heading out the door on a Valentine's date, and reading fast... Sorry, Russell!

... and an example of this consistency would be?

I keep asking to get down to specifics, but we just don't seem to be able to get there :) I'm really asking for an example of "deep" consistency... for example, to me, the facts that in both Genesis and scientific accounts man appears relatively recently on the scene are utterly unconvincing, because it's a trivial coincidence... Genesis had a 1/2 chance of being right, since the appealing stories would either begin or end with man. I'm looking for correspondences that couldn't possibly have arisen by pure chance.

And of course, what will you do when the scientific account becomes modified?

Russell Husted, myriad previous posts :-)

Thanks for the responses. In many ways, I think you have a view of science which is quite similar to mine. I share your feelings of frustration at those scientists who believe that the current state of science is the be all and end all, and that their knowledge of it entitles them to lord it over all who have preceded them. I call such people bad scientists. And while too many of them exist, there are enough not-bad scientists that I try to not despair completely over the state and future progress of science.

I shall leave issue of specificity to Leszek :-)

So where do you see the value of what you are doing in, say, one hundred years? This sounds harsh, and I do not mean it to. But it seems to me that, by your own admission, what you are doing now will be eclipsed by changes both in science and biblical translation. I would contend that it is unlikely that you will have contributed to the former changes, and I shall leave it to others to assess your contributions to the latter changes. Am I right to guess that you anticipate your making contributions in the area of science by way of finding things in the bible which will not be found by mainstream scientists?

And, BTW, I did not so much object to being called a science-groupie (which I am assuredly not by your definition) as having my opinions called "totally uninformed." I gather you meant with respect to the bible? I plead guilty here, having only read the KJV once. As you might guess, it did not have a favourable impact on me :-)

Russel Husted re Posts #1564-1566. I'm so happy you're here.:) I liked the part you brought out about Job's self-righteousness. Also, I agree with Leszek, can you give some specifics, on the Genesis account. I'd be very interested, in that also.

Cliff Beall - Saturday, 02/13/99 (#1626)

That is a problem. I wouldn't say "current scholarship", but as far as I can tell, no translations of the creation account subsequent to the King James have desired, or intended, or attempted, to do a translation with a similar intent, or approach, or purpose. "Science" has not tried, because of ignorance or disinterest or laziness, whatever. It should have, and I and hoping some will! Evolutionists have not, obviously because it serves their interests to have a pathetic "straw man" to kick apart and set aflame. My own work may be flawed (I expect any number of people could show that it is, and I welcome more input - if constructive), but so far my work is the most "informed" - in that one sense I claim - so far, by far. Considering the time this "war" has been going on, between Evolutionism and Creationism, and how much it means to most participants, its pretty sad, huh?

It is here with me. And a few dozens, or more, manuscripts have been put in the hands of various reviewers. And I've used it here, and a few other forums, more to test it, and see its (and my) vulnerability, and explore new ideas and garner new information, than to convince you all. I wanted to put it on line, but have decided, seeing the sharpness, and cleverness, and vociferousness, etc, with which critics will attack and reject it; and to absorb these results and get the rewrite that's been underway finished first. Its too easy to see a basically (or mostly, or very) correct thesis

Cliiff concl....

rejected because of errors or poor language or incomplete or ineffective language/argument. Iron sharpens iron, debate sharpens debate. I hope you aren't being sarcastic, btw, in "words of wisdom". I'm doing my best, not to appear "wise" but to get out, or across, what findings and conclusions I can to just keep the debate more open and informed (whenever I think it can be done in less than a whole book).

Joy, I'm sitting here feeling a little lost. [well actually, a bit gutted.] I thought we were discussing one thing, theodicy .. the vindication of Divine *providence* in view of the existence of evil. And I also thought we agreed in many ways, but your latest posts indicate an agenda that is quite different. You have been referring to WMD's as THE EVIL. What is more, in your words, you *completely* agree with Leszek when he says ..

The above statement completely rejects any notion of a Creator. Man introduced it, so man has the answer is not a concept that concurs with Christianity, in fact it is the antithesis. My faith leads me to say that man COULD NOT have invented WMD's without God's permision, and that even now, with such terrible things in existence .. HE is in charge.

That of course, does not mean that I do not work for peace. New Zealand is nuclear free, and we take that to the nth degree in that not even a nuclear powered US Warship is allowed to visit. This has been achieved by the secular society of this country mark you, not the Christian element.

I wish you had put 'your agenda' up front and been less obscure in your reasons for wishing to discuss this subject. However I thank you for the study that I have done in the last few weeks, I'm the richer for it.

Rosemary, you seem to feel that you have been misled, but if you were to read Joy's posts closely, I think you would have to agree that she make no secret of her intent. The following are some examples of statements that clearly show that she can not be faulted in this regard:

#777, It cannot be reasonably asserted that nuclear weapons serve any imperative of nature or evolution.

#778, Let’s face it, if neurons were so valuable in the evolutionary scheme of things, such a weapon would never have occurred to anybody, much less be developed at so high a cost to the species and the natural world. ..Fact is, the idea did occur, to more than one intelligent human being. It was developed, and it was used. It will be used again. Why? Because this weapon is the Perfect Expression of Evil (so far), and humans are prone to evil.

#808 Neurons are tools, that’s all. Ideally (since you are an optimist) we might examine the reality of what is wrong with ourselves that such weapons would proceed from something so beautiful and innocuous as the simple equation...

#835, I believe very strongly that we need to rearrange our priorities and recognize that if we are responsible for the threat we face, we’d better quit waiting for Jesus to save us and take some steps in that direction ourselves. How many weapons of mass destruction are produced daily, ‘legally’ or ‘unsanctioned?’ By whom?...

Here are some more:

#1426 The threat does not arise from God, or from the universe at large. Science invented it, justifying itself by the relativization of good and evil. With this absurd Swiss cheese underpinning, there could be no uncertainty in the outcome. Science would build weapons of mass destruction for the sole reason that it could build weapons of mass destruction. The weapons aren’t aimed at God. They’re aimed at us.

#1426 Science wants me to trust its good intentions, after having turned those unspeakable weapons it should never have invented over to politicians, warriors and idiots. I do not trust science.

#1428 Science, like the rest of us (human nature again) prefers not to see itself as evil. The guilt for weapons of mass destruction is not truly shared by those who ‘demanded’ the weapons, as evil is a predictable factor of human nature science should have considered from the beginning. In a relative moral structure, there is no responsibility for evil. This is what science now intends to prove, any way it can.

Cliff, thankyou, I don't know how I managed to read all those posts and not see that the aim of the discussion was so different from the impression I was getting. I'd better get my head out of theology and into the 'real' world a little more often perhaps.

What I mean when I say that man created the concepts of good and evil is that without a sentient entity such as man to form and hold concepts of morality, good and evil have no meaning. You have to have self-awareness and conscience, which of course can't exist without self-awareness, to understand that actions can have good or evil effects. It's not like the question whether a falling tree in a forest makes a sound if no-one is around to hear it - good and evil have no existence outside of our perceptions of them.

If god exists, and existed in a time before man (or some other sentient entity), one could argue there would have been no good or evil in the universe, because there was no-one to feel the effects of actions. Suns colliding, for example, are an event far more damaging than nuclear weapons, but are in no sense "evil" unless some civilization were destroyed in the process. Neither are nuclear weapons "evil" in themselves, the evil lies in the conscious use that we make of them.

So you see, my statement doesn't really deny the possibility of a creator at all.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I rephrased my statement to read:

I think that side steps a whole bunch of theological issues that are extraneous to the discussion, and reduces the number of assumptions.

Science is also merely a tool, no worse than a hammer, nail, hoe, car or gun. The evil men do is not the result of eating of the tree of knowledge per se, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is consistent with the way I see the world.

I'd put the story in these words though. As man evolved a more acute sense of self-awareness, we were better able to understand ourselves and others like us, and appreciate that actions that harmed us were also harmful to other people. We developed a sense of morality to help us codify and regulate our relationships with our kinsfolk and with outside tribes.

I think that Genesis frames that concept more elegantly, but essentially they are the same theme, only mine attempts to include modern scientific knowledge, and doesn't assume the existence or non-existence of god. The story of Genesis shows that the ancients were as clever as we, and had many deep insights into human character and the nature of knowledge and morality. I've never denied that, I've simply questioned assumptions that claim that Genesis must be the actual word of god, or that Genesis must somehow be virtually completely consistent with actual creation processes. Those are hefty assumptions, and I think people who proffer them should expect to be asked for evidence of their claim.

deleted

Rosemary, I must admit that I feel very guilty right now about playing the role and giving you the impression that I knew Joy's intention all along :-)

Actually, I have been puzzled by what I perceived to be code words in Joy's posts for which I did not have the key. Basically, this was the real reason for my anger. Also, I was as mystified as you by what appeared to me to be a sudden shift to "weapons of mass destruction" as the definition of "Evil." It was not until I read your post that I had a sudden hunch and checked it out. I can tell you that I was just as amazed as you would have been at the number of occurrences that my search of the word "weapon" turned up in Joy's posts.

I think I know what "Omega" means now!

Cheers, Joy. Preach all you want. I now understand what you are saying. Yes, I'll admit it. You were right and I was wrong. What you are saying truly is "dangerous." But don't worry, your "secret" is safe with us.

I am sorry you feel misled, Rosemary. I was indeed discussing God and humanity’s relationship to God, which I feel has been violated in the worst way by our refusal to accept responsibility for the evil we have created. New Zealand is noted for its stance, so leads the way in the direction we all need to go. I’m just trying to figure out a way to get the rest of the world to go along.

I hope that God cares enough to intervene. I pray He will do so, but in the meantime the situation is getting worse, not better. There are many different faiths in the world, and they do not agree on much of anything. Christians don’t agree among themselves! I could scream myself hoarse that the God of Abraham disapproves of genocide and self-extinction, but no one would hear me.

So I can’t sit idly by waiting for the bus while I see us falling headlong into the bottomless pit. God tells me clearly in Genesis that we made the original choice, against His wishes. Against His wishes , not with His blessing. How can I then comfort myself that the Weapons of Mass Destruction we face have his blessing?

The indictment I’ve handed down against humanity includes me. It includes me more directly than I can say, and I am trying very hard to own up to my personal responsibility. I am very like the machine I described, who cannot understand the logic of extinction.

I keep hearing God’s question in the cornfield where Abel’s body lay...

Cain’s answer reverberates through time... "Am I my brother’s keeper?"

Wrong answer. It’s the same answer I got to my question about the nature of evil from the empirically-minded. I know that mindset very well, and I am challenging it.

From the religious I get the answer that "it’s Satan’s fault," which is essentially the same thing. As if there were some serpent or demon present when Cain decided to slit his brother’s throat. In fact of Writ, there was not. God has never saved one human being from death in the entire history of humanity. He is not going to save us now.

The comfort religion offers for our individual mortality is Truth, but it can also be misused to justify apathy and inaction. Time is misunderstood by both science and religion, and from the perspective of Not-Time is nothing more than a day at school. I’d like us to graduate, since there are wonders out there we haven’t even guessed, much less discovered. I think it’s time we realized we are indeed our brother’s keepers.

You can not put the genie back in the bottle, Joy. It won't work. The only way to maintain peace and avoid enslavement against those who would take advantage of innocents like yourself is for someone to maintain an overwhelming capability, both N and C. I agree it is not a pleasant thought that in order to avoid Omega, we must maintain this vigilance into perpetually, but I see no other solution. It is safe for New Zealand to take the stance it has take so long as we maintains the "Evil" burden against those who would not be so benevolent. It is a burden we can not, and must not, lose.

My original objection was not to how little or how much of the Bible one accepts as "truth," but to your requirement (I'm sorry, I should really have marked the message where you said this.) that one must accept the entire Bible to accept any of it. (Your actuall insistance was that people are mistaken to accept any less than the entire thing, my previous statement being the other side of the same coin.)

Our scriptures (all of them, not just the western Bibles) do document (amoung other things) mankind's inter-relationship with an agency that is either 'God' or functionaly indistinguisable from 'God' in its relationship with us. As such; to discount the wisdom, spiritual insight and teachings in these works is folly, but; as we are a rational species, with (tyvm) a moral awareness, we must be both open-minded and wary when we absorb these issues lest we miss insight or fall to "cultish" thought and behaivior.

God left us connected to the whole, as we can all feel, but he also gave us the means to explore and understand his universe. We are not now, nor have we ever been, meer sheep. Our responsibilities to ourselves and our creator go way beyond that.

Bless you, Cliff. You have understood, and I am not so easy to understand! Nor am I "innocent," but I’m of the opinion that none of us is all that innocent. We’re all guilty, and that’s the source of evil.

You are also right that someone must maintain the vigil and be prepared to enforce the ‘rules.’ We have to somehow get a ‘supermajority’ of world opinion to do so. How might we go about that?

Yes, I did write that either one believes, the whole Bible, or really doesn't believe any of it. I say that from personal experience. Not so much that everyone must agree with me. Since this is a forum for exchange of ideas, that's where I stand.:) I don't think I'm in danger of cultish behavior, though from what (I've read of statements by Janet Reno, after Waco, I'm sure she would consider all bible-believers as a danger to society.)

I've not always believed, this way, I used to think all ways were maybe the real way. It is important to be educated in history, and an education into other religions to develop understanding. It's good to have a fair and open mind, and to be an independant thinker. Anyone who knows me can tell you, that I am extremely independant.

Since you don't say which other references have spiritual wisdom, that prevent cultishness, I can't comment; except, in my 42 yrs of age, I know there are things that are better not contemplated too deeply. There are other spirits, not just God's Holy Spirit.

Joy Bussey:... I guess there are different kinds and forms of knowledge. So long as my neighbor doesn’t try and force me to believe King James wrote the Bible, what difference does our knowledge make? I love King James. The beauty of its words are poetic and meaningful. It’s my favorite "version." Need it be more?

Joy that's tact, on an issue, with your neighbor. We all overlook minor differences that don't make any difference to the big picture.

Some of the differences we have are slightly more important, in the sense of the topic content. Concerning your posts on Weapons of Mass Destruction, and good and evil:

You wrote that we are all evil, so I agree with that. You wrote that fundamentalists, only blame the Devil for evil; That's not true. He is the enemy of God and therefore our enemy also. Mankind can discern between good and evil, and like posted previously, can determine the outcome of the future. But only to a certain extent. You wrote that Revelation might be something mankind can avoid, if we all get together and do good. Like ban WMD and agree on peaceful ways, maybe the Armagaddeon won't occur. I wish that could be true, but since all prophecy is fulfilled from the Bible, I couldn't honestly agree with your reasoning

Of course we must strive for a better world and avoid conflicts and wars. We do have responsibility, to not be passive.

Joy, I do not believe in original sin as a matter of principle since I do not believe in guilt by association. However, I am of the opinion that inheritance of characteristics that may tend to result in wrongdoing is possible and comes from the genes that each child inherits. Seems to me that this is essentially the same thing. I am aware that you are very serious in your objective and that your objective is laudable. Unfortunately, there are people with intentions that do not match your good intentions and that would wish to do you great harm. I believe it is most fortunate that the strongest nation on earth is a democracy and actually one of the most benevolent and moral. There may be those who disagree, but consider some of the possible alternatives.

That is the problem, Joy, you can not. It is all well and good for Star Trek characters to say that mankind did away with the "Evil" back in the 21st or 22nd century. But even if you could get a "supermajority," to give lip service to an agreement, you could not rely upon it. Arms reductions of the major powers do reduce the "total risk," and I support that, but I am convinced that reduction to zero is a prescription for destruction, for the reason I have noted.

Joy, I have been thinking about it and have started wondering if the objective you seek--elimination of Evil--could be done if we opted for a world government. I believe in democracy and would want a democracy. It is, in my opinion, the safest form of government for both religion and science. I think you will agree. And it seems to me that if we actively promoted Texas as the prototype, we might easily cause it to happen within the next century.

First, we would need to deal with our closest neighbors--admit Canada and Mexico into the union as, say, four or five states apiece, or whatever might be negotiated. Next we could go after the former Soviet Union and then China etc. In this way, Washington DC would eventually be the capital of the World. Since we would then have a world democracy with representatives from all over the world, a meaningful agreement to eliminate Evil might easily be reached.

Of course, maintaining freedom of religion (and from religion) would be an essential component of any government that I would accept. But more than that, I think we could start thinking about ways to protect science from opressive forces, as we protect religion.

Your thoughts please.

Here lie two ideas that illuminate the precise issue of Biblical "completeness" (or inerrancy, etc..)

Purposely limiting one's contemplation of an issue is hardly the best means of understanding it! This speaks directly to my earlier statement, "...we are not just sheep..." in defining our relationship to our universe and our creator. Should I, for instance, accept Jerry Falwell's interpretation of reality? (<retch>) I realise that the example is extream, but what assurance do I have that the author of any particular portion of the Bible was any more rational or stable if I don't invest contemplation, prayer and meditation?

On the second thought.... One supra-temporal being is quite sufficient for me, but as this is strictly a faith issue; I am perfectly happy to "agree to disagree" on this one.

It is the individual who, through the substitution of desire before empathy, brings evil into the world.

The elimination of evil must be a collective, individual effort. The only external provision I can think of that would be significantly helpfull would be the elimination of poverty through the provision of practicaly unlimited energy.

Normalization of distribution (not equalization) is the next step, and this may, indeed, involve some governmental realignment, but probably not in the form of world government since centralized administration is famous for its inattention to local needs.

Keith, I think you missed the point. Either that, or you are more deeply into the Joy's symbols than I think you are. The reason I suspect you are not is your mention of the elimination of poverty, which as near as I can tell has nothing do with Joy's evil, which is WMDs. Also, with respect to poverty, it should be noted that Jesus is reputed to have said that the poor will always be with us. In addition, while I am not sure I understand your reference to "Normalization of distribution," I do suspect that you are not referring to the "mark of the beast," which--given my proposal for a world government--I am sure will eventually be the subject of discussion here ;-)

My point is that while it is true that central administrations are famous for inattention to local needs, it is a only a central administration that can provide the necessary guarantees to assure such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of scientific inquiry. And in the case of a world government, there is one additional possible guarantee, freedom from the fear of nuclear attack. Personally, a world government makes sense to me. With respect to local concerns, I have always thought that local governments should handle local concerns, but within the framework of the guarantees that can emanate only from a central administration.

Tell me where you disagree. I hope you don't believe in the "mark of the beast," but I fear others may.

I just shot right by WMDs because I don't think that they are significant (moraly.) What difference does it make if I kill 100,000 people with one missle or with 5000? Coercive force is, after all, coercive force. The former is more spectacular, but no greater imorality than the latter.

There would, I'm afraid, have to be some level of wealth re-distribution between states or all states would attempt to build the most profitable institutions, at the significant detriment to all.

I already mentioned this on the religion baord, but it seems more appropriate here... CNN is reporting another miraculous icon. Apparently an icon of Czar Nicolas is leaking myrrh. The chemical proof of this was of course not offered, as I'm sure the Russian Orthodox church has kept all skeptics at bay - one doesn't test a miracle after all, that risks exposing it as something else. Some are already, within a week of this phenomenon, calling for the canonization of Czar Nicolas as the first Communist martyr.

This type of event underlines the fact that the chasm between science and religion is so wide it can barely be bridged, let alone papered over. Religion is fundamentally resistant to science. Science has too much power to expose mistaken beliefs.

If we could find the genes for good and evil we’d really be faced with an interesting choice about what to do, wouldn’t we? Maybe we could cure evil with gene therapy! I don’t think that’s likely, though I do know that some people are definitely more evil than others. This may be genetic in origin. I’ve never bought the "rough life" excuse. Abraham Lincoln had a rough life. He turned out fine! Conversely, I’ve seen some mental illness that causes evil, for which the doer of the deed is not truly responsible. I don’t think we can ever eliminate evil.

Saddam Hussein is probably not criminally insane. His profile is an interesting study, but he’s just evil IMO. The best conditions for his own people have never been his primary concern, his own base of absolute power is. He’s the most visible example of this currently, but there are many people in many countries who share the same tendencies and characteristics.

I once had a supervisor we called "Little Hitler" because he was such a petty tyrant. He took his small base of absolute power so seriously that he made the rest of us miserable. The company thought he was great, so we workers all walked out one day in the midst of a particularly nasty tirade. The company then realized their mistake, but only 2 people in the department went back to work. The rest of us found other jobs. Would that the Iraqi people had that choice!

I understand why science was subverted. To study the universe science needs expensive tools, and the only way they could talk politicians out of the money was to provide something in return.

World government isn’t a good answer, for the simple reason that politics tends to draw tyrants to its promise of power. A World Council of science and religion might be instituted for the establishment of overriding ‘rules’ protecting science and religion. That council could exercise oversight, allowing for a self-policing to occur from the bottom up. The UN or something like it would have to provide the umbrella, I guess.

Not easy even here in our "free" country. We’ve got armed camps of paramilitary commandos out there plotting the violent overthrow of our government in favor of their own brand of tyranny. They hate the UN as much as they hate Washington, blacks, Jews, immigrants, and anybody else they project their own evil onto. Too many of these people espouse perversions of Christianity to justify themselves, as Islam is perverted to justify hatred and terrorism. This is reality.

Religions should draw the line so they’ll recognize when the line’s been crossed. The same is true of science. The quest for Alpha is exciting and ‘good,’ but if WMDs proceed from it error has been introduced. We have absolutely no guarantee from the political world that such a weapon will not end up in the hands of a religious fanatic. When there are clear lines drawn, it may be possible to get concensus on enforcement.

"Maybe we could cure evil with gene therapy!"

Wasn't this the premise of a pair of Sci-Fi movies (one old and a recent remake) that I am referring to because I have no proper clue on how to spell the name? (The Island of Dr. M...)

As I recall, this didn't work out so well for the good doctor...

Ezekiel’s temple hasn’t appeared yet, and neither the Revelation of John nor the full seven weeks of Daniel are fulfilled, and I don’t see anybody out there penning new books of the Bible. So the fulfillment is unwritten. Ending the Bible with Revelation can be interpreted in several ways, agreed. I believe it’s a warning, you and a great many other faithful Christians believe it is a roadmap to an inescapable future.

You may be right, but I know there are nearly 2,000 years’ worth of now-dead generations of Christians who all believed they would escape death based on a literal interpretation of Revelation. They died anyway. I think we should try to avoid the fulfillment of Armageddon. It may well be a doomed enterprise. If we don’t avoid it, so be it. We will have tried.

That was Val Kilmer in the remake, wasn't it? We might also look to Dr. Frankenstein's failed experiment in organ transplant, or Dr. Jekell (sp?) and his chemically-induced evil twin. Literature has spent a good deal of ink on the subjects of good and evil, so we don't have answers yet.

You’re right again, Keith! WMDs are simply the ultimate expression of individual evil. They give evil way too much power. We can’t eliminate evil, but we can eliminate ultimate weapons for evil people to express their evil with.

If someone comes into my space and pulls out a gun to aim at me, he’s up to no good for sure. The minor warfare that results is certainly evil by all relative measures, just as major warfare is. I just think we should keep it relative instead of absolute. If I shoot the intruder, he’s dead and I am hopefully not dead. If he drops a nuclear weapon on my house, most of the county gets vaporized. That’s unnecessary overkill, though effective from my enemy’s standpoint. If he drops that bomb on city hall because he doesn’t like his tax bill, I’ll be dead along with the city council, and that’s overkill too.

There’s got to be a better way! Like preventing this nut from obtaining a nuclear bomb. We can do something about the power we give to evil just by defining evil. WMDs serve no useful purpose other than death and destruction (‘usefulness’ in that being entirely political thus untrustworthy), thus are by definition evil. I can’t dice onions with a nuclear weapon or properly eliminate a rabid skunk with several hundred pounds of nasty pathogens. I could probably grow pole beans around a warhead in the garden, but sticks are easier to transport and way less dangerous.

Not all weapons are by definition evil, of course. In fact, I’ve been contemplating a flame-thrower myself. Would solve the ice and snow problem on my driveway very neatly if I don’t catch the forest on fire! §:o)

It is my opinion that the Revelation of John is a work of hate that should never have been included in the Christian New Testament. It is very clear that it was never intended to be a warning to a generation 2000 years hence. Instead, it was intended to serve as encouragement for that generation of Christians only, because that generation was the last generation, the generation of the end time--or so the author believed.

From internal evidence, the author--probably John, the son of Zebedee--wrote his letters to the seven churches in Asia. It seems clear that he knew them well and that he viewed himself as someone the churches would consider authoritative. His obvious message to them was to hold to the faith, despite the persecution by the Romans, in the assurance that God would soon put an end to time and bring judgement and punishment to the "great harlot" that was Rome after winning a great battle against both the great harlot and the Devil.

However encouraging his message may have been at the time to the seven churches in Asia, the message, itself, was clearly wrong. The "great harlot" was not destroyed. Instead, it eventually adopted Christianity as it's official religion, and consequently preserved the Christian religion for thousands of years to come.

Purposely limiting one's contemplation of an issue is hardly the best means of understanding it! This speaks directly to my earlier statement, "...we are not just sheep..." in defining our relationship to our universe and our creator.

We don't define our universe and our creator, He defines both, we can grow in understanding, by a choice to know the creator. That doesn't make one a sheep. If anything, I could turn that around, that I think you're a sheep, because you buy into a different concept, than I do. Please be specific into what concepts one should embrace. If you want to embrace little bits of them all, then ,I can understand why some people, like that idea, because it makes them feel in control and powerful. Or does being open to anything and everthing, create a whole individual, or a confused individual?

Should I, for instance, accept Jerry Falwell's interpretation of reality? (<retch>) I realise that the example is extream, but what assurance do I have that the author of any particular portion of the Bible was any more rational or stable if I don't invest contemplation, prayer and meditation?

As far as following any person, No. I don't follow everything a minister says, if I feel it disagrees with the Bible. All people are fallible. That is to me why a person needs to read the bible himself, or a Muslim or Jew or Hindu,should become familiar with their holy texts. Yes, I suppose, you could say, I'm locked in, as I don't see any reason to study the other faith's writings. I have respect for their beliefs, but I don't agree that they are correct. Just as I'm sure the feeling is vice versa.

On the second thought.... One supra-temporal being is quite sufficient for me, but as this is strictly a faith issue; I am perfectly happy to "agree to dis

On the second thought.... One supra-temporal being is quite sufficient for me, but as this is strictly a faith issue; I am perfectly happy to "agree to disagree" on this one. -Keith Fosberg.

I agree that I certainly don't have time or energy to contemplate more than One God. I have chosen the One who is real to me.

However encouraging his message may have been at the time to the seven churches in Asia, the message, itself, was clearly wrong. The "great harlot" was not destroyed. Instead, it eventually adopted Christianity as it's official religion, and consequently preserved the Christian religion for thousands of years to come. -Cliff Beall.

I can't disagree that the Christians of John's generation, didn't envision just as you say. And it is true a branch of Christianity became widely accepted and incorporated with the Paganism, of the Roman Empire under Constantine. So in many ways, Christianity overcame the Beast or had the Beast overcome Christianity? Also the European Union, which is the same countries as the Roman Empire is rising again. ( I'll bet you thought someone would say this.:)-). Do you know about Daniel and the image of the king's dream?

Revelation is difficult and the imagery is violent, but it’s a vision, not an epistle. I do not think it is proper to interpret literally either visions or apocolyptic literature (John’s was the only such work to be included, it was not the only one written). I honestly haven’t made a study of it, so I can’t properly defend it.

I reject nothing in the bible as untruth. The canon was not established until well after the first generations of Christians had died. There was an inspired reason to include Revelation, and I accept it on those terms. I may not ever "understand" it, and if it all happens exactly as described I will be proven wrong to read it symbolically. But I won’t be surprised.

I just finished reading the excellent book published by Robert Greene entitled "The 48 Laws of Power". It systematically listed rules developed by Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, and many others which have been successfully utilized from the beginning of recorded history in the attainment and maintenance of power. One particular law stood out in context of this message board:

Law #9: WIN THROUGH YOUR ACTIONS, NEVER THROUGH ARGUMENT

Since we are relegated to verbal sparring in this medium, don't anticipate changes of opinion from any poster here. However, this board is not so much for others but for ourselves. When we are able to logically organize the information we have acquired through coursework, research, deduction, etc... into a cohesive framework, it serves to enlighten us not others. That is the value of this science and religion debate. If all of this is self evident than I apologize for the waste of bandwidth.

I’m learning quite a bit, E.C.! Hasn’t changed my mind, but my mind is funny. It’s not all the way made up about some things, so I’m still doing research and this forum qualifies. Self-enlightenment isn’t so bad either, though... §:o)

Your conceptions of good and evil seem have an analog in the early prechristian sects which developed in the Middle East. The original competing schools of Christian thought were divided upon lines of the divine truth and wisdom. Unlike the orthodox sect which would develop into the Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox divisions, the Gnostics proposed that the source of divine truth and wisdom is through the Gnosis or knowledge which those who are properly disposed are able to discover within themselves. The Gnostics did take a view of the nature of Good and Evil that was in strong contrast with the orthodox interpretation which vests goodness with God, the Creator, and evil with Lucifer. The Gnostics maintain that God, who is all-good, could not have created a world in which evil exists. Therefore the creator of the world must be some being other than God. For the Gnostics, to the great chagrin of the orthodox, the title of the "Creator" of this world is not a claim to glory, but to infamy: Since the highest God could not have possibly created this world, it therefore must be a manifestation of the lower powers.

The Gnostics philosphy was dubbed heretical by the orthodox sects. Those who proclaimed to be Gnostics were either killed or forced to recant their views in one of the earliest "cleansings" associated with the Christian Church.

I must admit that I did a very lousy job with that last post. Basically what happened is that I started one way and finished another, managed to delete all the supporting argument for the original premise, but neglected to rewrite the original premise before posting. (Obviously not one of my proudest literary achievements :-) Your response, however, was written with thought and wit. What can I say? You immediately have the advantage.

<b>Charlemagne</b></A>

But, yes, I have heard there is supposed to be a connection. Perhaps there is one of which I am unaware, and perhaps you can explain it to me.

Of course I do, but that also had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. Daniel was written about 165 BC, before the rise of the Roman Empire, and the author of Daniel knew nothing of the Romans. He knew only the Babylonians, the Medes the Persians and the Greeks. Read Daniel carefully, and this is what you will find.

I know what gnosticism is. I personally don’t see the world as evil. It’s actually a beautiful place, though it can be violent. Then again, I don’t see death as the ultimate enemy, either. "The prince of this world" was made prince by design. I’ve already said where I think evil is located. Humans made the choice.

According to gnostic reasoning, God gets the blame (whichever of their gods created humans and let them be evil) rather than the humans who made the choice. Still misattributing evil to unthinking acts of nature like earthquakes, or to lions who just do what lions are designed to do. If those lions happen to be eating people in the arena instead of gazelles out on the savannah, it’s the people who put them in the arena who are evil, not the lions.

The Revelation’s description of God’s punishments for human evil come far closer to a proper attribution of evil in the world than blaming God does.

Leszek Rzepecki - Monday, 02/15/99 (#1676)

Got back from a busy weekend just in time to catch this!!!

Sometimes you sound so intelligent, and sometimes so silly. This one event, somewhere (this one, in the rather unique world of Russia, held in virtual suspended animation in everything except technologies of destruction, for 70 years), reveals that some people in one "religion" or church (and not one known as "modern", "liberal", etc.) have a rather curious belief. And you lump together all people with any "religion" or any religious belief to make your (predictable) grandiose assertion about this "chasm" and "resistance to science". Did you forget, some of us (some 99.9999%) do not share in this event or belief, and probably are as bemused as you? And some scientists (say the 30% figure that was posted by another, earlier) are religious too? What are they, MPD's or Schizoids? Anyway, back to your more sensible personality... btw, are you MPD or...? -:)

I realize the situation I have created, in arguing from a rather "private" data set and work that is pretty unique, is not good. I've been painted into this corner mostly because of your (not just you) virulent rejection (so far) of any information, or opinion, or arguments

Leszek Rzepecki - Monday, 02/15/99 (#1676)

Got back from a busy weekend just in time to catch this!!!

Sometimes you sound so intelligent, and sometimes so silly. This one event, somewhere (this one, in the rather unique world of Russia, held in virtual suspended animation in everything except technologies of destruction, for 70 years), reveals that some people in one "religion" or church (and not one known as "modern", "liberal", etc.) have a rather curious belief. And you lump together all people with any "religion" or any religious belief to make your (predictable) grandiose assertion about this "chasm" and "resistance to science". Did you forget, some of us (some 99.9999%) do not share in this event or belief, and probably are as bemused as you? And some scientists (say the 30% figure that was posted by another, earlier) are religious too? What are they, MPD's or Schizoids? Anyway, back to your more sensible personality... btw, are you MPD or...? -:)

I realize the situation I have created, in arguing from a rather "private" data set and work that is pretty unique, is not good. I've been painted into this corner mostly because of your (not just you) virulent rejection (so far) of any information, or opinion, or arguments

Leszek part 2...

sorry, something the elves objected to hung it up, and I don't know what... trying again to finish!!!

arguments you think oppose your absolutist opinions and beliefs. You repeatedly ask for a point, one piece of evidence, as if there can be none, then when given it you merely trash it out of hand. Then ask for another. Etc. I've been around a while, and watched many another revolutionary, or unpopular, or startlingly new idea (anyone remember the dinos are hot-blooded, or water arrived by meteoric rain, or...worse?) get the Bah Humbug treatment. Well, you'll probably admit that what I've been saying is even more something you don't want to hear, and that you don't want it to be believed by anyone. And that it will be more hostilely received and slammed than most theses. And because I want it to be fairly heard and evaluated, to be intelligently considered and not simply trashed by rabid atheists and Evolutionists (I even have the faint hope they will soften their minds, and think, and be moved), I believe the full case, and rationale, and evidence, needs to be put forth, in the best argument and language (which this forum helps me do) in one fell swoop. I don't want it denounced and dismissed, as an idea, for a typo, or peripheral mistakes or weaknesses, or the usual no-matter-what disbelief. I'm not perfect, nor finished with my research. So even my book is neither. So anyway, I'm trying to come up with a solution. Maybe a skeleton outline of, say, just the life-types spoken of, in the order they are listed as created, and let you see that part of the argument. I believe its impressive. So I'm working on it. But meanwhile, I still invite specific "but what about's?" as at least one way I can keep a useful dialogue going. Surely, if you have any real, and serious, knowledge of the actual conflicts and questions involved in a comparison of Genesis with science's creation (by evolution) paradigm you know the traditional "sticki

Leszek concl....

(part 2 obviously worked second effort)

you know the traditional "sticking points, the serious "what about's". I've seen a couple raised here, but you have not shown any interest (or is it knowledge) in the others. You raise them, as honest questions, and I think I can answer them (but never can answer the sweeping generalizations that are more prejudice and ignorance than legit discussion points). I don't expect, in this way manner, to "prove" my thesis, but only hope to soften your monolithic prejudices and rejection of any possibility of something worthwhile or interesting in Genesis, or creationism.

Leszek and Keith, an aside for your AI discussion - I see no arbitrary limitation on the machine’s awareness of itself if it developed whatever circuiting interconnections (neural synthesis) might lead to such awareness. An open operating system is all that’s needed, which the machine completes for itself. If we arbitrarily limit consciousness to human self-awareness, no amount of protest on the part of the machine would convince us it is conscious, and we’d have no qualms about pulling the plug if its protests got too uncomfortable. If the machine were to assert its self-awareness, the question would not be whether it is ‘conscious,’ but whether it’s ‘alive.’

I doubt a machine could develop the relativities humans apply to their own consciousness (which often results in senseless behavior). It would weigh the relevant factors, so its choices would be more fact-based than ours often are. More predictable and perhaps a boring dinner partner, but with self-awareness, it ‘Is’ conscious.

Andrew D. Lewis - Saturday, 02/13/99 (#1650)

Sorry I go away so often, and make for a slow "conversation". I do enjoy your posts a lot, as I've said ... and would like to keep it moving.

Good questions. I look for the value today. As the cnn-assigned theme of this board suggests, the debate is important now. And as the various writers, here, evidence, the common ground is lacking more in the minds of a people divided and polarized, than in the subject paradigms. Two rather remarkable, all-encompassing paradigms stand tall and are little less than the ultimate battle for belief, meaning, and direction. John Wayne and Luke Skywalker could hardly star in greater drama. Nor involve greater import for the future of mankind (women too ! -;)). My goal is to make it a more intelligent, honest, and respectful dialogue/contest. Now science has done a good job, all in all, of working out and presenting its paradigm(s), though not without great demagoguery and obfuscation on the part of its most partisan clergy, worshipers, and theologians (the Evolutionists). Christianity has not done well, almost abdicating the fight for a "circle the wagons" stand on faith, and scientists have not been willing to do their work for them (though I think they should have!). The creation paradigm, as explicated in Genesis, has remained lost in the scriptures – unnoticed, untranslated, unstudied by any except the "scientific creationism" group who themselves seem never to have wanted to really know what Genesis really said. I attribute that to a similar blind partisanship and allegiance to established and equally obstinate constituencies. So I have boldly ( foolishly, say some) gone ahead where no one else seems to want to go, and done the first retran

Andrew part 2...

retranslation that looks at scripture with a modern scientific POV. And yes, I certainly expect to be (PARTIALLY) eclipsed by both science and future much-more-qualified translators – who, I hope, will also have at least as good, or better scientific knowledge.

At this point, I really don't know. Science used to use the Bible for direction and inspiration. I would certainly like to see science respect the Bible enough, and I hope my work will generate some such respect - to apply its prowess and intelligence to honestly evaluate the creation paradigm, and develop some sort of testing hypotheses, and maybe get some fresh direction to better "what if" thinking. Some of that goes on now. Hugh Ross collects a lot of that work, and does some good applications and evaluating himself. But even he, it is my firm belief, needs to give Genesis another read, maybe my read. I do expect to continue to explore extra-Genesis scriptures for more information. Job is one place that has a number of fascinating gems – things that the "ancients" who transcribed the Bible could not have known, so a good hypothesis is Divine revelation (though it seems more "off the cuff" Divine remarks!)

BTW, about

that was a typo type error, when I was trying to edit another's words. I saw it too late, but then indeed hoped you would take it graciously as you did, and apply it to "knowledge of the Bible", which is rather true of nearly everyone, as I rather unpleasantly insist.

Distribution of active galaxies:

A piece of evidence that the universe was denser in the past comes from the distribtution of active (radio) galaxies.

When we observe the distribution of galaxies at larger and larger distances, we are actually observing the density of the stellar agglomerates in the past. If the universe is continuously expanding, we should see higher densities of galaxies as we observe furth in the past. Ryle and Shepley (Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies, 1975) discovered that the density of galaxies do in fact increase with distance using radio telescope observations. In essence, if Io is the power radiated by a galaxy, the intensity of radiation received by a radio telescope is

(i) S=Io/(4*pi*r^2)

where r is the distance of the galaxy. If the density of radiogalaxies in space is constant, rho, then the number of active galaxies out to a distance r is

(ii) N=4/3*(pi*rho*r^3)

If space is assumed to be flat which is approximately correct then we obtain

(iii) log N= -1.5 log S + log ((4/3)*pi*(Io/4*pi)^(3/2))

Therefore,, if we plot log N vs Log S we expect to get a line with slope -1.5. Ryle and Shepley found a steeper slope , however, of about -1.8, which cannot be explained if the density, rho, and the power Io of the active galaxies remain constant. It seems, therefore, that either the density rho or the power Io or both are increasing with distance. Since active Seyfert-type galaxies and quasars are much more luminous than typical galaxies, the power radiated is greater in order for detection to have occurred. However, that alone does not account for the deviation of the slope expressed in equation (iii) and over 90% of the variance is attributable to increases in the density of active galaxies. This fact provides further evidence that the universe was at one point much denser, and hotter than it is now providing additional support for the Big Bang theory and the Hubble expansion.

Neither are inconsistent with creation, though. There’s still the desert to cross and the Planck peak to climb, you know!

Back to Artificial Intelligence...

The qualifications for life would probably nix a conscious machine from the running, unless we were to redefine reproduction to include copying the basic OS (or even the entire, developed OS from generation to generation, sort of consciousness squared).

But if it says "I think, therefore I am," who are we to tell it not so? [reminds me of the Banana Jr. in the old Bloom County comic...] Now, this consciousness sees absolutes, not relativities. Zeros and ones, yes and no. It may learn a basic understanding of human psychology enough to make good guesses as to the human equivalents, but would not be subject to biological urges and instincts. What kind of a morality might a thinking machine develop for its choices?

This restriction may not hold with the advent of quantum computing. Although monumental difficulties must be overcome in order for quantum computation to become practical at doing more then complex search routines, its use of quantum bits (qubits) which are a superposition of states yields enhanced processing speeds and neural network efficiency. The yes and no bit of Boolean logic would be supplanted by something more akin to the manner in which the human brain reasons.

How else are you to interpret a vision? It is either correct or it is not. I do not see the distinction you apparently see. Indeed, I tend to have the opposite view. It would appear to me that an epistle might be expected to contain the opinion and theology of the author. Since people tend to disagree on a wide assortment of things, it is not surprising that different New Testament authors had different opinions and theologies just as the contemporary churches present differing theologies. Regardless of disagreements, I think it is useful to have collected the opinions of the church fathers into a New testament.

However, a vision such as described in Revelation when portrayed as coming directly from God can have no room for error. It is either right or it is wrong. The Revelation of John is obviously wrong in some respects. I submit that it is unreliable in all respects.

Leszek Rzepecki - Sunday, 02/14/99(#1658)

That is a totally naive statement. (Btw, I'm not here to pick on you, my friend, but am using your post as a base because it pretty well sums up what many are thinking) Good and Evil. Two words. And perhaps there are two concepts in there that you and I, and maybe a number of people could agree upon, but look at a few dozen posts, notice there is no general consensus, let alone any real precise agreement. In evolution the concept is absolutely meaningless. In religions it differs greatly from religion to religion. For example, is it evil to eat flesh, or inhale a gnat? Or is it evil to cast your child into a fire, or cut the heart from a virgin? In Christianity evil is precisely defined. Though few here have come close to its definitions. And most fail to see how or why Satan embodies it, and serves to facilitate a working (meaning, constantly practicing it in new ways) understanding. But easier on humans is Christianity's definition (first by the Law) of right and wrong, of sin and righteous behavior, rather than good and evil.

But, back to your statement. Good and evil are absolutely relativistic, if there is no singular, unreproachable authority to define it. See for example the several religious examples I just gave. Every culture, aside from their "religion" has a different meaning (concept, definition) to those two words. And usually the definitions are also relativistic, and situational. Ie, don't kill (murder). But there is justifiable homicide. Required homicide (like execution, war, revenge/vengeance. etc). Murder of a family member usually outweighs extra-familial, and extra-village or clan or moiety murder, or extra-tribal, or international, etc. Some think it e

Leszek (good/evil) part 2...

evil to kill a mouse, or sparrow. Esp if rare or "endangered". Others accept abortion. Others (other cultures) allow killing girl babies, or children not yet named (and naming occurs at a later time after birth), or old people who are a burden, or women who commit adultery, etc, etc. "Evil" or "good" are rarely even ideas applied or connected to these types of actions/practices. There is in such cases, if the "rules" or traditions allow, no evil done - whereas YOU might say it is evil. The same goes for every possible "sin" or act YOU can think of. Some think stealing bubble gum is evil. Maybe cut off a hand, or shun, or destroy an offender in any number of ways.

What, and WHERE, is conscience in any of the relativistic examples I just gave? "Conscience" is one person's (IF he has one) inner sense of right or wrong, or good or bad, etc), which is usually culturally installed, but not always. Jeffrey Dalmer liked what he was doing. And it changes as the person moves through his history. Sometimes it disappears. Sometimes (say, in cases of war, or racism, or --) it is purposely modified. Self awareness, except that it is required to allow self consciousness, and self evaluation, has naught to do with conscience. Conscience is either trained in by cultural experience (family/parenting, peers, institutions, even the motif and constructive categorization of language itself, irregardless "upbringing") or - as Christians believe, instilled by the moral Creator, God. That is, btw, an excellent theory, with very testable hypotheses, etc. It used to be a serious paradigm, but it has been almost embarrassed out of existence by naturalism and evolution, which cannot abide (theoretically, axiomatically impossible) either good and

Leszek (good/evil) part 3...

evolution, which cannot abide (theoretically, axiomatically impossible) either good and evil, or and value orientation like good/bad, right/wrong, success...(failure may come at any moment to refute "success"), etc..

Its far worse than the "tree" question, but the second half of your statement is absolutely true. As I've just tried to make clear, our (each and every person, at each individual discrete moment in his history – situation) "perception" is absolutely indefinite and unpredictable, and absolutely unjustifiable and indefensible – unless an absolutely omnipotent moral authority is able to impose a definition and set of rules, and define their justifications (without "justifications" they are just rules, and amoral).

No, its exactly the opposite! Only if God (an omnipotent authority who can define/proclaim absolute rules, thence right and wrong, thence "good" and "evil") exists can there be evil or good beyond the choice/definition of one/each-and-every man, and then it can be universe wide. No other way. It is either universal, or absent.

No, the "evil" lies in whether we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, etc, of them, or their particular individual use(s) of them, and set a value judgement upon both poles of our "likes and dislikes", (which judgement we call "good and evil)

No, but if you w

Leszek (good/evil) concl...

(sooooo close!!! -:))

No, but if you wish to declare or believe in good and evil, you have just established (with my helpful commentary) the need for a creator!

The line we are devided over is where you agree that it would not be good to blindly follow a man, but will blindly follow the Bible. To you, believing in the divinity and inerrancy of scripture, this is not following a man. To me, with my belief that the Bible is not without error and non-sequitar, blindly following the Bible is to follow a man (or men, rather.)

Joy,
I see you are reading both boards (since the AI discussion is over there -->) I'm gonna (if my counterparts agree) attempt to move the theological discussion over there (is that OK Marie?) and move the AI/Meta-physical discussion over here (good luck being a controller Keith!)

It really isn't simply a matter of complexity. We already have computers that are more complex than human brains. It is probably most closely aligned with the processing paradigms. The human mind assimilates data against a pre-conceived model, itteratively updateding and revising both the model and the data until a satisfactory integration with experiance is achieved. Our best artificial designs develop models based upon massively parrallel branch prediction from data trends.

The second is, obviously, far more efficient, but it does not allow for creativity, error or data creation.

Russell -

I appreciate your exegesis of good and evil. I'm sorry you think I'm naive and absolutist, and unable to see the obvious as you so clearly do. I am also sorry that I am content to live in a relative world where there is no appeal to absolutist values. As I seem to be a froth of contradictions to you, both absolutist and relativist at the same time, I'm rather at a loss on how to reply that will make any sense to you. Perhaps it's because you're a froth of contradictions yourself, as are we all :)

I agree that your concept of good and evil requires a law-giver. Mine doesn't. I'm happy to live by mine, and somehow manage to avoid all those pitfalls you are afraid of in an atheist environment. I avoid them by treating my fellow humans with the same respect I would like to see from them. Or at least trying to.

I won't ask you for an exegesis of Genesis as relating to the scientific account of creation again. I see you won't provide it, apparently because you think I'll try to pick holes in it, which of course I would... that's what debate is all about, and that is the scientific method.

Yes, it would be fascinating to see what the differences were - I can't help but think a machine sentient would have a radically different perspective on the world than a human. Wonder if it would be an improvement? :)

This is the difference between epistles and visions. The differing theological philosophies contained in the various epistles are useful to the Church for the reasons you describe. The vision, however, was not analyzed by John. It would have been terribly wrong for him to philosophize about it since he was the one to whom the vision was gifted, and despite a good deal of philosophizing in the 1900 years since, a definitive "answer" to the meaning of the vision is not agreed upon.

The vision - accepting that it came from God - of necessity contains the God point of view, not John’s point of view. Though as experiencer of this vision, the imagery and symbolism had to be recognizeable to John’s consciousness or he couldn’t have written it down. This 2-step process of translating the Mind of God from Godspeak into Humanspeak in the Mind of Man presents mysteries within mysteries. God no doubt understands it perfectly. Humans have a disadvantage in that respect. I readily admit I do not understand it. That doesn’t mean I reject it. One of those "Faith" things.

Which makes the discussion of how a self-aware (conscious) machine’s mind and human minds might differ so interesting.

Yep, I’d been reading, but this seemed the best forum for that discussion to me as well, since it would mostly confuse the theological discussion (arguments?) going on between denominations and religions over there.

"Our best designs..." presumes quite a bit which doesn’t take into account the alliance we’ve been discussing in sideways terms between science and politics. That still exists and will continue to do so until science can find a way to access necessary money without doing things for politicians that are of dubious benefit to the world. When I left science 20 years ago, the general rule for most military/scientific breakthroughs was 10 years - for those applications that have some useful purpose, that is. That means "new" discoveries were not announced in scientific journals or to the public for at least 10 years following their development.

If that’s changed, I doubt the turnover time has become shorter...

Complex search routines and simultaneous processing of divergent data would create a useful tool, but not consciousness. Since we’re not at all sure what consciousness ‘Is,’ a machine might never be capable of self-awareness. My question is entirely hypothetical, of course.

Quantum bit processing might tend to work as scientists "wish" human brains worked, the consideration of all relevant data, the weighing of cause and effect on as many levels as possible, then the choice of a proper answer. I am of the opinion, however, that human brains are a lot more fickle than that.

Humans are subject to biological impulse because they are biological, DNA-based life forms. They have a full range of emotions that tend to express themselves without much reasoning, and are further equipped with instincts that tend to override the thinking process altogether (like reproduction, and the lab assistant’s physical equipment).

A machine could have these factors in its overall data base as ‘given’ modifications to what it understands might be the human factor in the situation, but they wouldn’t effect the actual processing. If the OS told the machine to mimic human response, it could. If the OS told the machine to simply consider human response, it is just another factor to weigh.

Cliff Beall: #1693...Ah, Marie, I think you must be referring to the "Holy Roman Empire" of the middle ages established by Charlemagne on Christmas day, 800 AD. As has been noted, the "Holy Roman Empire" was not Holy, was not Roman and was not an Empire. It had no connection with the "Roman Empire" of John's day. I therefore do not understand the supposed significance of the existence of the "European Union" to the "end time."

No, I'm referring to the original Roman Empire, if you compare the areas conquered by Rome, during the reign of the Roman Empire, you can see that the present day countries which belong to the European Union are the same. The "Holy Roman Empire", is exactly as you say, not holy, not roman, and not an empire.

I've studied Daniel, so I've done more than read it. To study Revelation, one needs to study Daniel, Ezekiel, and other minor prophets, even Genesis. In the Dream, Daniel interprets for King Nebuchadnezzar, he sees represented in the image: the Kingdom of Babylon(that current kingdom), he also sees a following kingdom, of the Medes/Persians, then, the Greek empire, (of which Daniel could know nothing about; since his time was 500 B.C., Alexander the Great didn't come on the scene until 356 B.C. Also Daniel predicted Alexander's empire would be divided into four parts. His four generals split the kingdom after Alexander's death. Then Daniel predicted the 4th kingdom: Rome. (the legs of Iron) on the statue.

cont/

These were all one-world governments of their time. The feet of iron and clay in the statue in the king's dream, is a fifth kingdom. Many people think that the European Union will be this kingdom. since the iron designated The Roman Empire, that's the connection.

Leszek Rzepecki - Tuesday, 02/16/99 (#1712)

I apologize. I had no intention to say you were naive, but only the statement. I find this a difficult medium. Esp for me, being only here occasionally, unable to do the "ping pong" dialogue of conversation. I get too much stored up to say, and need too long a monologue to set it up. So empathy gets sacrificed at making the argument. And I certainly agree with you, that we are all a "froth of contradictions". And how much of our "debate" and disagreements arise out of such "froths"? I'm usually trying to cut the froth (why does this sound like a mug of beer?), but fall victim to my own, I fear. Still, I believe both you and I carry on the dialogue for the purposes of bettering ourselves, and the way we live with each other on this planet. We just get stubborn, and would rather make the other guy better, since we are always more (or completely) right in our own opinion, eh? We would all be better off if we were able to live by your golden rule, "treating my fellow humans with the same respect I would like to see from them". That's one way of expressing the fundamental of the Christian ethic. And one would think that everyone would agree, wouldn't one? But it seems obvious to me that no one really does. I would even wager that you violate your golden rules sometimes. Speak wrong. Lose your temper. Fudge on your taxes. Pocket a dollar a clerk erroneously gives you as change. Keep quiet about scratching a car parked next to you. We are a "froth of contradictions", as you say. So our gov't has a million or two laws, and enforcers, and even more interpreters (lawyers), to try to keep you and me getting along together, and live by its (ours?) Golden rules. In fact, gov't is all an attempt to make the "relative world" work. And where the law breaks down, in the newly discovered interstices, or outside its boundaries, we have the scariest places. Wars, jihads, terrorism, drive-by shooting, rapes, mugg

Leszek cont....#2

muggings, mafia, lynchings, – there's no end to the lexicon of ways we fail to give "fellow humans" "the same respect" we each hope for.

Would you agree that there has never been a time or place that has been without such "evil" (by your and my own standards) being done. But, would you agree, there was a time, even in this society, when there was less lawlessness, or immorality? A time when the large majority shared a set of values, and conformed their own behaviors to them. When most people weren't afraid of the streets, or dark, or their neighbors, or even strangers. When even "wrongdoers" agreed with the common values and judgements about "right and wrong", "good and bad", but just chose, for whatever reasons, to do "wrong". A time when most wrongdoers who, when caught, probably even agreed they deserved punishment? When remorse was not uncommon? When confessions were common, and were even allowed in the courtroom?

I believe that, today, we are a society filled with anomie. That the choice to "wrongdoing" is being trivialized in every person. I do think the majority of us still have some sort of "scale" of our values, where betrayal (personal, sexual, spousal, etc) for instance, is not so bad, but random violence is fairly bad. But the scale, I fear, is sliding, both culturally and individually. I also see another curious phenomenon going on. Many folks will more readily apply your golden rule to other species, than to fellow humans. And, interestingly, it is more among the highly educated and intelligent than not. Do you agree?

Here's my explanation. I think that the trends are mostly due to the rise of humanism and naturalism, and the growing acceptance of the evolution paradigm. Evolution, I believe, has toppled man from his ivory tower. Humans are fast becoming viewed as mere clever flesh, and esteemed no more than any other life form. Evolution is also, of course, making good progress in overcoming belief i

Leszek cont....#3

overcoming belief in God, and any higher moral authority, or universal code. Each man, just as you see yourself, is justified in authoring his own individual moral code. Now, you seem very hopeful (maybe what I call "naive") that enough others will decide to write a similar code, that we can all be safe in our homes, and even in the streets, But others, are saying there is diminishing safety in the streets, and between nations, and from gangs and tribes and factions. Many of them, here in this board, are now putting their hope in science. They've been trying to suggest how science can do that. You don't seem to be doing that, but rather are trusting in yourself for some source, some means of coming up with it. The "golden rule", I expect, is probably something you learned from someone else, or borrowed as a place to start. Can you elaborate? Can you tell me what your sources are, how you got to a set of values and behavioral prescriptions/proscriptions that keep you, and me, safe. And oriented toward survival. Maybe even toward "good"? And how your values can be spread, even made universal enough, that we can trust in them to protect us and our children, into the future? How do we get beyond "understanding that actions have good and evil effects", to agreeing what are good and evil effects. Or which "conscious use" of nuclear weapons is good, and which is evil. Because if we don't get a real agreement on that, we are in great danger of being victims, or horrified perpetrators.

Hmmm... evolution as the cause of societal decay... that's a new one on me. The only image I can keep in my mind at the moment involves biologists in white lab coats engaged in debauch, but I am thinking that may not be a helpful way of framing what you are trying to say :-)

Okay, <squints eyes and presses fingertips to temple> I think I can purge that thought. The one that replaces it is that I am not sure there are really enough people who give a rat's hiney about evolution to really affect anything... And <trying to become more coherent> it is, I think, certainly the case that evolution, the theory, is mute on the matter of morality. So I guess you would say that it would be the effect the theory has on those exposed to it that causes problems? Even if this were the case, this says nothing whatsoever about whether evolution is a good theory. Do you think that if it could be proved that people's exposure to evolutionary theory caused them to behave immorally, that this would be reason to shelve the theory regardless of its scientific value? More generally, should people only be taught those things which are deemed to lead them into a moral life?

I don't mean you want to control others; I mean; it's a way one can say they aren't a sheep, and say they control what pieces of this text and that text to incorporate. As you stated, You don't see the Bible as God's Word. You see it as just another collection of ancient writings.

I am surprised you would state that surrender and acceptance, is something you espouse,in your own spiritual life. But you pretty much stated that anyone who believes the Bible as God's word is a sheep, just blindly following. Isn't that acceptance and surrender?

The line we are devided over is where you agree that it would not be good to blindly follow a man, but will blindly follow the Bible. To you, believing in the divinity and inerrancy of scripture, this is not following a man. To me, with my belief that the Bible is not without error and non-sequitar, blindly following the Bible is to follow a man (or men, rather.)-Keith.

Yes, I know you feel that scripture was only some men's ideas , not the Creator's Words inspired into those men to write down. I guess that's when faith that must take over in that case. The Holy Spirit continues to speak to people now, so that's how I know the Bible is truth. Sounds crazy, I know.

- "This fact provides further evidence that the universe was at one point much denser, and hotter than it is now providing additional support for the Big Bang theory and the Hubble expansion." E.C. From Post 1704

Neither are inconsistent with creation, though. There’s still the desert to cross and the Planck peak to climb, you know! -Joy Bussey. Post # 1704.

Since you both are into physics< I have a question about the Big Bang. I think it can fit into creation according to Genesis. I'd read an article about particle physics, and that there is a theory the speed of light is getting slower. Also that there are 10 dimensions. First 3, are the physical dimentions we can see and feel. Time is the fourth dimension. Any insights? One theory; is that God created at the speed of light or faster, and perhaps, this would explain the geological age. It didn't happen in six 24 hour days, goes this theory. To God it would be a day. To the earth, it would be eons. Based in part on the Theory of Relativity. I'd appreciate any comments.

Hi Marie,
"But you pretty much stated that anyone who believes the Bible as God's word is a sheep, just blindly following. Isn't that acceptance and surrender?"

Almost... I said that to accept the entire Bible, simply because it is the Bible, rather than because prayer and contemplation lead you to it, is to be as a sheep.

On Cosmology...

The speed of light is not decreasing, the length of light is increasing (sort of.) This is all rather speculative and really shouldn't have seen the light of day in pubs such as the Washington Post as this level of understanding.

The "macro" universe is 3D. Time is not a dimension, per-se, but is better described as an observational artifact of the vacume (or universal gravity field, if that is clearer.)

Each virtual particle in the vacume may be the current state expression of a "super-string" loop that exists in ten sub-microscopic (too small to exist in "normal" space) spacial dimensions.

It is all right ugly (actually -- the math is rather pretty) and rather speculative, but so far, everything that can be observed does fit. Neat concept -- we will have to see how (if) it plays out

Andrew, you could debate forever what the reason is for societal decay, and not I fear, come to any useful conclusion.

I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, but I can certainly state quite categorically that the reason why I live in a secular society can be laid firmly at the door of the theory of evolution. The many in our society who no longer believe in God, tell me that this is because 'science' has told them that they were not created, could not have been created because they evolved. It may seem a simplistic statement to you, but Joe Bloggs at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, certainly says words to that effect as a result of his education.

No, I don't. But I think 'science' must try to make it clear from the very outset, that they don't in fact have all the answers, and that there are still a lot of good questions out there. I can't comment on your schools, but this is certainly not taught in our schools. If any statement is made in this regard, it is along the lines of "anything we don't know yet, we will know in the near future." Meaning in typical patronising fashion .. "Don't worry your pretty little head about it, we've got it all in hand and know how it will all turn out in the end."

I think you bring out some excellent points. The Gnostics basically wanted "to know" in a rational sense what reality was all about.

Here it is assumed that any person can verify what reality is.

Various "churches" wanted to control peoples beliefs with their own interpretation of reality and punish, even unto death, anyone who disagreed.

A lot of them particularly the ones derived from "the book" continue their political ideals.

It is no stretch of the truth to claim that the minority of monotheistic fundamentalists are continuing to press their lethal political agenda today.

They are still responsible for a huge fraction of hate teachings and dehumanizing practices that go on in the world today.

Hi Rosemary. Not much to bicker with here, I am afraid :-)

Ha! That is very interesting, as I do not get the same sense at all here in North America (I am Canadian). However, now that I think about it, the attitude you describe was much more in evidence in England where I recently resided for two years. Growing up as I did, I just never got the feeling that this Joe Bloggs character gave any thought whatever to science.

I am in complete agreement here. As I have said in previous correspondence with Russell Husted, you are describing bad science. If science purports to have all the answers, then it becomes... well... religion. And it is precisely those ways in which science differs from religion which give it value. I think that many many people, but not all, who do science maintain a healthy attitude towards the meaning of their life's work. But, and I have certainly seen evidence of this on this board, I think some who are not active in science, and sadly some who are, tend to distort its practice. Bottom line: people should be educated not just in science, but in scientific thought. Then they will realise the value of doubt.

BTW, some might be interested in reading a book "The Meaning of It All" by Richard Feynman. It is a transcript of a series of lectures he gave in 1963, and it touches on many issues germane to our discussions here.

I agree with just about every word, Rosemary. Science is certainly one of the primary reasons I abandoned religion. The inability of theology to explain the nature of the world to me convincingly was another, but perhaps that could also be laid at the door of the tools of skeptical thinking I was given by my scientific training.

So I wouldn't just blame evolution for religious apostasy, I'd also point the finger at skepticism, without which, science would be impossible, but religion would still flourish. The trouble is that charlatanism of all types would also flourish without skepticism, so religion gets caught in that bind.

I also agree with you when you call for the proper teaching of science in schools, with its limitations as well as its successes. It is vitally important to realise the limitations of science, and the sorts of questions it can address and the sorts it can't. I'd also like concepts such as accuracy and probability taught better than they are, so people can interpret scientific reports correctly, and not the way the media does now.

But I believe the most important thing to teach children is skepticism. However, skepticism attacks all dogmas - scientific, political, and indeed, religious. If taught badly, it can even undermine the authority of parents and teachers (but honestly, that probably happens in any case :). That's why few are really happy to see skepticism taught in schools as a tool for acquiring knowledge.

I understand. Now while I have to admit I don't always follow this excellent advice I'm about to share, I think it's good nevertheless - it's not mine, I'm just passing it on :) Don't describe arguments as naive (or whatever) in so many words, just point out the flaws in them. It saves words, and if you have a good point, it will get across just as effectively :) I wish I could follow it more often myself.

Not while people have been around there hasn't, I agree.

All I can point to is the writings from ancient authors which lament how lawless and immoral the younger generation is... such writing occurs every generation, including ours :) My conclusion is that immorality is pretty much a constant. Some societies may be more or less moral than others at different times and place, certainly, but on average, I suspect it was pretty much a wash.

Only in small, tightly-knit and homogeneous societies.

(cont.)

(cont.)

No, there was never such a time, certainly never at any time during the reign of Christianity which continues at present.

That's as true now as it was then.

I can see you might think that... why can't "we all just get along"? :)

There are a number of societies, in Europe, the antipodes, and elsewhere, which might be described as secular, but don't suffer any more from these problems than religious societies such as that of the US and Iran, say. I think the problems stem more from rapid change and insecurity... people have hardly adjusted to the last change when the world gets turned over again. I wouldn't point the finger at humanism or naturalism, any more than I would point it at religion, which is by far the most dominant philosophical force in the US.

(cont.)

(cont.)

We all learn our morals from our parents, not from the bible, not from secular humanist writings, not from science. Our parents may rely on such teachings to underscore their lessons, but it is their teaching we are assimilating, in our formative years. So my morality is pretty much the same as my parents, except that I appeal to science and utilitarian justifications for it, whereas they appealed to the bible.

My own feeling is that much of the moral teaching of the bible makes perfect sense from a utilitarian "enlightened self-interest" perspective. By enlightened, I don't mean illuminated by divine revelation, but by the ability to take an intelligent long view of one's self-interest, rather than a narrow short-term perspective (I was making a similar point on the religion board).

(cont.)

(cont.)

I don't know that one can bolster morality by an appeal solely to science, though others may disagree. I think that morality has an emotional appeal and not merely an intellectual one, and needs to be addressed on both levels. There is, for example, no scientific justification for the concept of the "sanctity" of life, which I agree with and apply to all living beings to the extent possible with survival (I still eat meat and vegetables! :)

But I start from the perspective that all humans have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I justify it not by an appeal to God, but because it is something I want for myself, and therefore cannot with justice deny to others. So I don't think that non-religious morality is a lost cause or impossible, nor do I think you always have to appeal to God to define morality.

Marie - Keith has given you the short-but-ugly underpinnings on why physicists are still so frustrated by their inability to unify quantum mechanics (and its underlying uncertainty principle) with time-space as we observe and experience it. The frustration arises from attempts to identify the underlying symmetries of matter and energy that were broken in stages during the first microseconds of the Big Bang.

In the relative time scale from Singularity to the W and Z bosons (that ‘Higgs’ particle we’ve mentioned), there are things occurring from Zero to one-tenth of one-billionth of a second which prysicists call "the desert." The Planck scale is the breaking of First Symmetry (I call it First Cause). We are never likely to be able to test energies on this scale, so the final work will be theoretical by necessity.

My position is that the final dimensions and arrangement of the universe we see were not predicated on uncertainty, but on design. That back in the beginning, when all that is was in perfect symmetry in one ‘Cosmic Seed,’ so to speak, the probability factors were already programmed in. I am no more able to ‘prove’ that than science can ‘prove’ whatever it comes up with to explain the Bang.

(Part II)

What I feel that physicists have failed to factor is that time from the length and breadth of the universe we see today all the way down to Planck, is relative not just to position, speed and distance, but also to Not-Time, or Perfect Symmetry (and beyond). The theoretical underpinnings of singularities have tended to indicate particles that exist in faster-than-light mode, plus there have long been theoretical ‘neutrinos’ filling the universe that travel at the absolute speed of light and providing a ‘soup’ the universe swims through.

If time is not formally a dimension, it must be a constant. You are right to say that time from God’s perspective (Not-Time) needn’t have any particular correspondence to time as we perceive it. From Not-Time, 16 or 20 billion years is a drop in a bucket with holes in the bottom. The entire universe could well have been planned in minute detail from beginning to end before it ever came to exist in time.

The ‘extra’ dimensions mentioned as part of superstrings are postulated to account for the inability of science to get past the desert. They have failed thus far to find either Higgs or the quantum of magnetism that must exist if quantum mechanics is entirely valid. The quantum of gravity is also a thing that remains elusive, so it is now postulated in some theories that gravity works non-dimensionally sort of like time, but relative to mass rather than speed and distance.

I think (you can underline, bold and otherwise highlight "think" if you wish because it is little more than a guess on my part) that the fundemental problem is that some very learned folk are chasing ghosts!

I believe that the vacume is esentially a "media" for information to be impressed upon. There is no "basic" structure, but something closer to a complex relationship of emergent behaiviors that feedback to "drive" the chaos engine.

IOW: The basis of reality, the vacume sea, is God's will (or perhaps, God himself.) We can not quantify certain relationships because there is no physical relationship, only the highly orchastrated dance of probability.

Relatively recent findings from the Super Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan have considerably boosted the argument that neutrinos do in fact have mass albeit it is very small. As you know, any object possessing a nonzero mass is restricted from travelling at luminal velocities according to Special Relativity.

I couldn't agree with you more. Good science cannot exist without the presence skepticism. More often than not, good religion cannot exist in the presence of skepticism.

If we were to suppose for theoretical sake that gravity is a dimension with geometrical significance (as the dimensions of length, breadth and volume have geometrical significance but are not field phenomena with quantums), we have a fourth spacial dimension beyond volume. 4 instead of 3. The problem with gravity as a dimension is that it negates uncertainty in the design of the universe.

Yes, I know.

(Part IV)

The Expansion E.C. mentioned (Guth and Tye ‘supercooling’ back in my day) would have been the accomplished just prior to the Big Bang (creation of matter and energy). This is ‘when’ the 3 large geometrical dimensions of the universe established the parameters of the universe. When this expansion supposedly occurred, matter did not exist. Gravity, if it were a dimension rather than a field quantum, would have expanded along with length, breadth and volume before matter existed to fill its function. Space would have 4 large dimensions rather than 3. Time, in order to qualify as a dimension would have established Not-Time in this expansion and add another factor of relativity. Science does not wish to contemplate either possibility very hard.

The expansion to current cosmic scales and beyond was for all intents and purposes instantaneous. Something not limited in any way to the speed of light which regulates matter and energy. Yet the dimensions are also connected to the First Cause, thus could (and I believe did) direct the development of matter and energy.

If gravity is a dimension, established in the expansion just before time when matter and energy were still merely potential, the forms of matter and the interactions we see around us on all scales (sub-atomic, mundane, galactic, supergalactic and the spaces in between) were all connected and directed before the original symmetry broke. The universe shares a common cause. The universe could not have developed along a parameter of uncertainty. It had no ‘choice.’

I also enjoy the challenge of establishing cuasual relationships in frameworks having no linear expression of time!

But... if time and gravity are not field effects (were pretty certain that time is not and we are, in frustration at the lack of being able to "prove" gravitons, getting closer to accepting this of gravitation) they need not be dimensions.

Special relativity presents a compelling case that distance, time, mass, gravity and energy are not distinc phenomona at all, but are, instead, different representations of the same phenomona.

What if they are all "illusion?" Might this all be a play of data on the surface of a non-dimensional, infinite point? In our effort to locate the face of God in the heavens, might we actually be to restrictive? Maybe all of existance is little more than a "dataset" that God maintains.

In our quest to decipher all of the rules of the program, are we learning the function and/or purpose of the program?

So. Where does life fit in?

The expansion established the interactions and congregations of matter and energy (in a 4-5 dimensional universe). Matter and energy established the observable laws of what we call Thermodynamics. The second law, entropy, is the tendency to equalization of systems. Of all observable phenomena of the matter/energy universe, life alone violates this law in principle just by existing. It fights entropy every step of the way (and individually loses in the end), but its existence defies entropy.

Evolution, even on a scale we can all admit (species adaptations specific to environment) shows that life has the ability to reorganize its own form (matter and energy). Most bizarre. Life can also intentionally reproduce its own form. Nothing but life does this. Life, in short, breaks the rules.

I expect that life in all its forms throughout the universe is DNA based. The particular atoms that define paricular codes may vary according to conditions of life, but I believe we’ll find the double helix wherever we look. I expect life to follow a universally recognized pattern because the potentiality of life (or the certainty of it) must also have been in the Singularity all along. Because I believe in universal creation (by the evidences of experience, scientific reasoning, and spiritual understandings I personally have reached), I also believe in the creation of life.

These are my beliefs I will present and defend, but I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind. I’d like to open a few, though, because science is getting close to discovering things that can be ultimately good or ultimately evil depending on what they choose to do with the knowledge. I don’t want them blinking in prideful arrogance when they find God looking right at them from behind the Singularity.

I thought we'd buried this mistake a long time ago. There is nothing in living organisms that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They operate according to the same laws of physics and chemistry as anything else, and I don't understand why this persistent misunderstanding keeps on resurfacing.

It's an elementary fact of physics that a flux of energy through a system capable of self-organization, according to known laws, can result in a local decrease in entropy at the expense of exporting entropy to the environment. There is no mystery here, and I have to wonder why people keep trying to make a mystery out of pretty simple facts.

<sigh> And what is the evident reality upon which physics bases this local decrease in energy? Why, it’s the "self-organizing system!" (Surprise, surprise). Please define this ‘law,’ would you, Leszak?

Oh, I think that in our experience as human beings (who ask ourselves all these deep and essentially unanswerable questions) reality is certainly real enough. This is where Not-Time and the nature of "consciousness" come into play. Every time I mention human consciousness as a considerable factor in the equations defining reality, I get shot at. Want to try it? I’d sure welcome the input!

Andrew D. Lewis - Tuesday, 02/16/99(#1722)

I'd like to avoid the word "decay" (too value laden, judgmental), and expand "societal" to "cultural". And let's be sure to think of "cause" as multivariate (VERY!), not linear or simplistically. I think the theory of evolution, and its widespread acceptance and fluorescence into "Evolutionism" has contributed very greatly to cultural change, and in many ways has led to very different values and valuations on human life. There are very few people alive in the US, I would say, who have not accepted the theory, and/or many of its significant assumptions and conclusions. Culture, both at the societal level, and individual level, is a VERY complex "web" of associated and interdependent values, beliefs, existential assumptions, and behavioral recipes and prescriptions/proscriptions. Evolution is expressly and thoroughly taught throughout all levels of education in the US. It is generally regarded and taught as fact, and colors and informs every bit of what we "see" in all the media about history, prehistory, natural history, environment, biology, zoology, even astronomy and medicine and.... (the list goes on). It contributes to and informs every social issue and policy debate of any significance today. Abortion, euthanasia, animal "rights", environmental policies like endangered species, etc, race, space, right down to "where did oil come from?" -:) So our culture, along with our personal cognitive maps and values, has had to adjust and change to be internally consistent as it absorbs the evolution paradigm, in one form or another, through one channel or another. So, whether one "gives a rat's..." about "evolution", I think everyone has been ex

Andrew ... part 2

I think everyone has been extensively affected by many of its values and assertions.

I do not think evolution is mute on matters of morality. First, evolution (the theory) cannot abide any values such as "good or bad", "right or wrong", "better or worse", even "success or failure". It is (in theory) entirely empirical; "survival" and "success" (its only two concepts close to "judgements", - sometimes mis-treated as values) are merely statements of fact and vulnerable to near instant refutation (extinction, or replacement). Evolutionists (big e), and many evolution scientists, tend to forget that. Evolutionists, of course, are hardly "mute" about "morality", but are in a jihad against morality, esp the Christian, because they are against the Christian Creator paradigm. Also, most morality is based in relative values and valuations. So evolution which, far from being mute, specifically asserts humans are no better or worse than any species, are nothing divine in origin or nature, deserve no special rights or valuation in the natural order of things, as writ by evolution, and certainly denies any higher authority, intelligent designer, or creator, and denies anything like "spirit" or "soul" exists or has come to be a part of the H. sapiens, has spoken loudly. I think these things are sifting through our culture, and leading to a physical and sensual and individualistic way of life, and lending to a sense that human life (and "success" and "pleasure") are individual (and private and selfish) matters and on a par with the same features/concerns of every species. And hence, there is no special offence when one harms a human, as opposed to a gnat or a rat.

Andrew .... part 3

I, personally, think the theory has much value. And my own translating of Genesis leads me to believe it is not even antithetical to the scriptures, or a Creator God. Scriptures are actually pretty devoid of detail on the mechanism of "how" He created. Since He (presumably) uses "natural" causes and processes, today, to accomplish much of what He wants - from birthing us, to sustaining us, to "running" the ecological web of life we use now, He presumably could have used many natural causes and processes to effect the original creation. Only the "six 24 hr day" interpretation pretty much prohibits that thinking, but I do not believe in the six 24 hr day interpretation. I also find that, while there is a "fixity" of species, or perhaps genera, at the "higher" levels of life, it is not clear there is the same fixity on the lower levels (ie bacteria, insects, etc). The scriptures are at least mute re those levels, and I believe that an exception in the form of a "no comment" is significant. So, "evolution" is not the refutation of the Creator most people think it is. In fact, it may well be a part of at least some of the design of His creation.

Your last question, whether certain theory or research should be shelved for the safety or protection of society, is certainly one that looms large in our world today! The debate in this forum about nukes is about that question. Cloning, nuclear power, technology that threatens a species with extinction, preserving the last tube of small pox, contraception, much in medicine, numerous genetic theories that are "politically incorrect" re race or sexual or marital or violent behavior, are just some examples of where we are now confronting your question.

Of course, that's just as

Andrew ... part 4

Of course, that's just as big, and dangerous, a question. Of course, "only taught those things" is pretty fanatic and, contrary to some polemics and diatribes we have here, few in our culture would advocate that. But oh, if only there were one value, or set of values, we could agree upon, and one authority we would all agree upon, to teach it (them) and help us follow it (them), and if only that one authority would live forever to guarantee no successor would change it again .....sigh. I'd vote for something like Leszek's basic value, his golden rule. Kinda like "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" (note: you gotta love yourself in that rule, too). And of course, as Leszek says, we best learn our rules from the most beloved and trusted authority we experience - if we are lucky - our parents. But then, this sure sounds like the God and the "one commandment" of the Bible!

Oh my. This has been a frequent argument of creationists in which they assert that the development of life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore, a creator was responsible for the organization of the components which make up organisms since otherwise such a process would be impossible. The trouble is that the they assume that the local decreases in entropy are not overtaken by a net increase in entropy in the environment. The 2nd law always insures that the TOTAL entropy of the entire localized system and enviroment always increases wiuth respect to time. For example, if the energy injected into the biosphere from the sun's radiant flux is included when examining changes in entropy with repect to time then the biosphere's entropy is always increasing and no violation is present.

For a more detailed discussion examine:

Where and how is the net increase to the environment measured, E.C.? In the amount of pollution human beings produce through their failure to respect the environment? How might this account for the natural "circle of life" that keeps everything in equilibrium if humans did not exist?

Are you saying the energy exchange is local-photon-based? Ra really ‘Is’ god? Where did I go wrong??!!!

I am being facecious. §:o) I just think life’s ‘exception to the rule’ was invented to explain life’s ‘exception to the rule.’ Circular logic. We’ve got one set of ‘rules’ for matter and energy on a cosmic scale, one set of ‘rules’ for matter and energy on subatomic scales, and an entirely different set of ‘rules’ for matter and energy organized into life forms. Science has never made it clear to me how, exactly, each set of rules is coherent in view of the other sets of ‘rules.’

I suppose if water was sentient, it would ponder the same things as it undergoes a phase transition in an ice cube tray within a freezer. To the water it would appear that its own entropy has decreased as its molecules spontaneously arranged themselves in a lattice structure without considering that fact that latent heat was given off during the phase transition and heat energy was absorbed by its environment-the freezer. It would be totally oblivious to the fact that the TOTAL system has experiences a net increase in energy during the phase transition.

As far as different scales are concerned

Newtonian mechanics is a subset of both quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics.

Electrodynamics is a subset of quantum electrodynamics and relativistic electrodynamics

Thermodynamics is a subset of Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac, and Bose-Einstein statistics in the broader category of statistical mechanics

Erratum:

It would be totally oblivious to the fact that the TOTAL system has experiences a net increase in (entropy) during the phase transition.

-- Tom Scharle

'It' who, E.C.?

Couldn't resist... sorry. §:o) I'm not disagreeing about phase transitions, tho'... but that's a separate matter, unless you've got the separations handy in English to unify the contradictions. Do you?

Evidently this will come as a surprise to you, Joy, but energy is not the same as entropy. Are you getting your delta G and delta S mixed up? And don't forget to include the enthalpy, that's important too. Energy is used to create low entropy, as anyone who has ever picked up after their spouse or child would know.

Last I saw, over 50% of the woefully undereducated US public didn't think evolution was true.

Untrue, it's very poorly taught at almost all levels in most institutions. That's why we keep having these arguments.

Russell... do you seriously think most scientists have the time to waste on Jihads? I think your imagination is working overtime. Most evolutionary scientists in this country ARE Christians! Look, I think you're talking yourself into some sort of "Christian persecution complex" :)

I was merely giving an example of a system which appears to be "self organizing" relative to the water's frame of reference. If the water is unaware that it is even in a freezer, it would probably scoff at the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Creationists look at the self organization of life and life processes and come to similar conclusions without consider that living organisms are merely elements of a much larger open system. I hope this makes it clear.

Or could it be that they are in a jihad because there is overwhelming evidence that creationism as a valid theory is incorrect yet its proponents insist that it be caught in public schools in gross violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. It is like forcing high school chemisty teachers to give equal share to alchemy or undergraduate professors to focus half of their syllibi on "modern astrology" in an astronomy course.

No, I have been having serious trouble loading pages and posting all day, (average 15 minutes), so I thought I'd let you point out my typo. I knew you would!!!

§:o)

Phase transitions equalizing entropy (energy impartation/equalization) assume a great deal of unity between the forces that the Standard Model does not embrace, E.C. This is as you say, water to ice.

Consider for a moment the three phase transitions we know about, if we were to apply them to an esoteric concept of time. Water as gas, liquid and solid. Water, by the way, is the Perfect Example here. Now let me stretch that analogy...

Water frozen into crystalline form, solid and presenting itself for close scrutiny, represents the past. The past which in our consciousness ‘Is,’ exists as done because it is done. The effects of causes. Water in the liquid form might then be equated to the ‘Present,’ the point in time where possibility becomes fact. Flows forward, and freezes into ‘Past.’

Vaporous water can represent the future. There is no way to tell ahead of time which of the molecules will accumulate and become heavy enough (or cool enough) to condense together into liquid. Yet we know they do, and that liquid water results. Each phase transition may tend to equalize the energy between the systems (if all are relative to Not-Time in this analogy rather than to temperature), and Not-Time might not notice. We, however, would notice. It’s the difference between caterpillars and butterflies.

With most elements we can predict the states via a temperature scale. Interestingly enough, a temperature (energy) scale also rules on the sub-atomic level. Are we ignoring a common factor, and assigning the ‘missing’ energy to ghosts?

Andrew, as you say, not much to bicker about, thanks for the reply.

Leszek, I've bookmarked your reply to me because I would very much like to answer it and try to get some cohesion into my thoughts as to all I've learned here on the boards and elsewhere as a result of the questions that have been raised in my mind. So 'later' if I may.

E.C. .. a small point

That may or may not be true in the case of your father in law, but it is certainly not the case for the majority of Christians. As I've said before, my most frequent prayer is .. "Lord I believe, forgive thou mine unbelief." If Christians could be as dogmatic as you suggest above, the world would be a simpler place to live. Try talking to some other Christians to get a balance rather than painting us all with the same brush.

As far as the desire to find answers to questions, no, I don't think you and I are that far apart. (Though there are those who seem to know exactly what answers they should get, and those are the only ones they see :) As to your other questions:

I don't know. Maybe it was engineered by a being "elsewhere", maybe it's just a quantum fluctuation signifying nothing. On this score, I make no assumptions at all.

I don't know. The reason I tend to favor chance is because that doesn't require divine intervention. As there is no evidence for this type of divine intervention in the world today, I infer that there probably wasn't earlier. But of course, none of us were around at the time to see. But even if scientists were to find that life on earth occurred by design and not by chance, then who designed the designer? It just moves the primary question back a stage.

I wouldn't use the adjective mere to describe animals or people... I think both are remarkable. I do, however, think they are the products of nature rather than supernature, but again, that's because creation miracles do not occur now, and so I assume they did not occur then.

True, science can't prove god does or doesn't exist. Science can't prove anything at all, really, but it can suggest models to describe reality, and make reasonable attempts to help us decide the probability that a model might be correct. So we assign a very high probability to the laws of physics and chemistry because they are highly and very accurately documented, a lower probability to hypotheses in biology and sociology because they are much more difficult to verify, and a near zero probability to political and economic forecasts, which are closer to hypnotism and astrology in their reliability :)

Why would you expect to see one? Science is full of gaps, in fact I'd say there are more gaps than bridges, by orders of magnitude :) So I can understand your frustration with scientists who claim that science has solved all the basic problems, because I think that is hardly likely. I see science like a huge archeological project, uncovering bits of a stupendous piece of work and trying to guess at the structure of the whole from the bits we know and understand. I wouldn't extend the analogy to an intelligent designer, though, I think you have to justify that extrapolation, because the structure of the universe is nothing like the structure of objects designed intelligently by man - their fundamental nature is radically different.

In other words, design does not necessarily imply an intelligent, sentient designer, even though it needs explanation. You cannot from first principles exclude the possibility of a non-intelligent, non-sentient design mechanism. An example of intricate pattern created by non-sentient self-organization is the snowflake. But looking at one, we don't postulate an artistic designer, we figure out the laws of chemistry that govern its growth.

If we closed the last gap, science would come to an end, because there would be nothing else to learn, and we'd know whether god existed or not for sure. Probably. There's the trouble with having a God of the Gaps, as I'm sure you know: when the gap gets filled, those ideas of god have to beat a hasty retreat. I've no idea what god does or whether god is, but I think people should develop an idea of god that doesn't rely on using god to explain natural phenomena that science hasn't gotten around to solving yet. Whole religions have collapsed on themselves because they made those mistakes.

Final] Again, with thanks to my theologian scientist friend .. if I asked you Leszek, why the kettle was boiling, you could and probably would give me a great scientific answer. If however I asked Marie the same question, she would probably say that she put it on to make a cup of tea. Rosemary Behan.

Thanks alot, Rosemary! That's pretty discouraging.

This is very true. It has been called the "weak" anthropic principle. The answer is that only in such a type of universe could intelligent beings able to understand their environment arise. Of course, if universes are two a penny, although the vast majority might be lifeless and formless, a remote chance, given enough attempts, becomes a virtual certainty. Think of it in terms of the probability of tossing 100 heads or tails in a row. Remote, yes. Impossible? No. You just might have to wait a very long time before you see it. Of course the universe is vastly more complicated, but you also have a vastly longer time to play with, or perhaps vastly many universes with different properties... infinity, quite possibly.

Another analogy is the remarkable fact that you were born to your mother, and I was born to mine. Think of the probability against these facts... billions to one, literally (~5x10⁹ against! Couldn't happen, right? The probability game is very deceptive. Even most scientists, I'm afraid, do not have a good grasp of probability theory (I don't claim to be an expert, but I know some of the basic pitfalls), because for some reason, people do not think well in terms of probabilities. That's why some of us get upset by the remote possibility of being hit by a meteor or abducted by aliens, while happily smoking away.

If you didn't want an answer, why ask the question? It's a crucial question to the case I am trying to make, namely that there is a valid and self-consistent non-theistic model for the development of life on earth, and you don't want to know the answer? :)

The answer is that no-one is claiming that this precise arrangement of molecules sprang into being all of a sudden, which would be completely impossible. It evolved step by step, from simple beginnings, building on what went before. Mathematicians will also tell you that such self-replicating chains of components evolving generation after generation under selection pressures will rapidly achieve statistically improbable sequence configurations that would never occur if you were looking to find them by randomly assembling components from scratch each generation.

The reason for this is you don't start from scratch each time. Take the monkeys typing Shakespeare analogy. Impossible, right? Of course, if you don't use selection. But if you set the monkeys to type in shifts, check what they produce each shift and "freeze" all the bits that "look" like Shakespeare each shift so that the monkeys can only type around those bits, eventually you will get all the plays verbatim. But don't make the mistake that such selection has to be artificial and intelligent in the real world (in the Shakespeare analogy, it has to be people because only they - or some of them - can make sense of Shakespeare).

In the real world, selection pressures are brought about by interaction with the environment and other organisms. In a sense, the environment "knows" what the best design for that organism is, because organisms that don't measure up to it have lower reproductive success. But the climate isn't sentient, competitors, predators and diseases aren't necessarily sentient, and these are the selection pressures that biological organisms (as opposed to string of words in Shakespeare) are subject to.

No intelligence is needed, that's the only claim. It doesn't prove that no intelligence was used, and that's the loophole theistic evolutionists slip through.

I agree, there are vast gaps in our knowledge, and you've put your finger on crucial ones. I just don't use the god hypothesis to explain them, I am reluctantly content to exist without an explanation until one is found.

On that note, y'all will be relieved that I'm terminating this series of posts. Sorry they were so long, a lot of material to cover.

Marie - I think Rosemary was actually paying you a compliment, by saying metaphorically that you gave teleological (why) answers to questions and that she found those more helpful in forming a worldview, whereas I gave technical (how) answers to questions. Of course, I find the "how" answers very helpful indeed, but that's just me :)

Thanks, Carl, I agree with what you say. I have to admit to a dark purpose, though... I think it's important to maintain a firewall between science and religion, because each corrodes the other. Now I realise that is the opposite of what many posters on this board feel is the right direction, but there is some method in my madness.

Religion cannot be explored by the scientific method... it cannot make claims testable by the scientific method (well, it can, but it probably shouldn't), because it risks being proved wrong. I happen to think that religion has a valuable place in the world, not in my own worldview, of course, but I don't think everyone has the makings of an atheist.

Science, on the other hand, cannot place faith on a a pedestal. Before the hordes come down on my head, I realise that faith of a kind has a sound function in science... my point is that in science, we shouldn't place faith above skepticism. When we do that, we become unable to challenge orthodoxy, and so become unable to search for new knowledge.

So my thesis is that while science and religion are both necessary for most people, it's a mistake to try and conflate them and use one to justify and buttress the other. I realise that you yourself look on science as a new religion, and if you mean scientism (the belief that all questions can be answered through science), I'll agree with you on that level (I don't know whether I'd subscribe to scientism, though). But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that science is really just a learning tool, and where properly used, can be exceedingly beneficial. Like all tools, though, it has its dangerous side, and that, I think, is where religion can come in.

I certainly disagree with that. I think they tend to purify each other. Certainly, science tends to purify religion. And morality, essentially a religious concept, can be a useful objective for scientists also.

It is when religion is proven wrong that religion is purified. While it is true that some aspects of religion appear not to be testable, other aspects have been tested to the benefit of religion. Thunder, for example, and lighting: electricity was at one time in the domain of religion. Also, it is said that faith can move a mountain. Actually, it turns out that mountain moving is a function of plate tectonics. Did religion benefit from the flat earth idea? No, it was wrong. Did religion benefit from the excesses of the Inquisition? No, it was wrong. How can something that is wrong be better than something that is right?

It depends on what you consider dangerous. Some people thing the concept of evolution is dangerous. I don't. But with Joy, I have to agree that WMD are. I personally think a world government is the solution, but that is neither religious nor scientific.

Your post bears out my point that successful religion shouldn't make scientifically testable claims, because then it is religion that creates the war between the two ways of thinking - as you say, religion has usually been the loser.

You say that in this sense, science can purify religion by stripping it of false claims - do you think religion can benefit science in any way?

Leszek,

I abandoned my computer for the day yesterday, but I happily see that your fingers were a veritable blur at your keyboard :-)

This post is merely to say that I agree in main part with your scientific outlook. I guess since I am a mathematician, and so spend my life worrying about saying exactly the correct thing, I tend to wear my caution more on my sleeve.

Still not liking the jigsaw puzzle analogy, however :-)

Analogies are used to illustrate a particular point. They rarely encapsulate an entire philosophy! :)

If you as an evolutionary scholar were to discover something which indicated creation, how do you suppose your discovery would be greeted by your peers? Do you really believe they would look at your evidence and change the model to suit your findings?

Nope. You could expect to spend the rest of your life defending your findings against the concerted onslaught of orthodoxy, and the more convincing your evidence, the harder they would fight. They’d call it poppycock, balderdash and heresy. They’d issue reams of ‘official reports’ debunking your data, then they’d attack you personally. They’d close ranks to deny you publication rights, they’d toss you out of the ivory tower on your rear, and if your field were ultimately important to the orthodoxy’s power base, they might even get violent.

If you were to look skeptically at the many instances where scientific orthodoxy was challenged by findings that didn’t fit the preordained patterns, you’d be amazed. Instead, you simply accept the pronouncements that these findings are wrong, and go happily about your business. It might not occur to you that the orthodoxy hadn’t come across any really "new" knowledge in decades, a clear indication that it had reached a dead end due to some previously incorporated error it refuses to see.

Science and religion are both human institutions. They share some fundamental human fallacies, not the least of which is hubris.

Addendum - Not all fields of science are so orthodox, as not all religions are orthodox. Some fields encourage discovery. Other fields discourage it. There are as many denominations of science as there are religions.

I dub thee "Last Word Leszek" and extend to you that which inspired me to so name you ;-)

With intense skepticism, of course, which is exactly as it should be... as the old cliche goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs".

However, if the evidence withstood the all the challenges, and was confirmed independently by others, and was supported by further discoveries, and opened up a whole new field of research, I have no doubt the scientific community would swing behind it, as they swung behind evolution, Newton, Farady, Rutherford, Galileo, Einstein, Copernicus, Keppler, Bohr, etc., etc., etc. (I myself, as a student, was peripherally involved in precisely such a phenomenon, where there was much initial resistance to claims of the discovery of a new intracellular 2nd messenger, until the proof was so overwhelming, the rest of the biochemical world was converted. So I know whereof I speak.)

Now I don't deny your description of the behavior of some scientists when faced with challenges to orthodoxy, especially orthodoxy they spent some time and effort establishing in their own overthrow of the previous orthodoxy.

However, and this is the important point, if the discovery is true, it will eventually be accepted and incorporated into the scientific canon. Not perhaps, by adherents of the old paradigm, but by younger scientists. If lost, it will be rediscovered at some point, perhaps when the time is more fertile. There have been many examples in science of true discoveries having to wait till the scientific world was ready to accept them (Gregor Mendel, Galileo Galilei, Barbara McCulloch), but accept them they did.

I agree with Cliff that this firewall is not so great an idea. Religion risks nothing in having its orthodoxies tested by science. If the interpretations turn out to be wrong, I think religion can ultimately handle it (even if they won’t like it). I have said before that faith is inherant to the human condition. Science can’t destroy faith because truth can’t destroy faith.

So the real question is why science refuses to allow its own orthodoxies to be challenged. Even you have to admit that WMDs represent a very significant danger to the world, and it’s the relativistic morality (and outright atheism) of science that led to their creation. Holy wars also present significant dangers, but the species has managed to survive quite a few of those.

The ultimate danger is that some religious fanatic with delusions of grandeur will someday get his hands on WMDs, isn’t it? Just for illustration purposes, consider Osama Bin Laden. The Christian hard right could prove equally threatening by virtue of its literalist view of Revelation, and its firm belief that God won’t let them destroy the world for real. All they need is an identified enemy they can demonize. In either case, it’s okay to use the weapons because God is on Our Side.

I think it’s more important to do something about this very real possibility than it is to protect the orthodox interpretations of either science or religion.

Scientific orthodoxies get challenged all the time, and sometimes successfully, when empirical evidence is strong. Where's the beef?

As for weapons of mass destruction, I think that's a political issue, not a scientific one. All are involved in that... scientists, politicians, religious leaders, and The People. Personally, I was involved for a number of years during the Reagan tenure in the Nuclear Arms Freeze movement, which succeeded in focussing attention at the time on reckless policies involving WMDs. As for religious fanatics and WMDs, I agree, the thought is horrifying. What should we do about it?

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Cliff! I certainly don’t bemoan the benefits of scientific knowledge. Some sects of religion do, but in America they are not a majority. Afghanistan is another story...

My personal faith includes a good deal of skepticism because my mind was trained to look at things skeptically. This is frowned upon by many other people of faith. My skepticism is confined to interpretations, and I risk being proved wrong. I’m willing to take that risk for myself, since God is the only one who gets to pronounce me wrong. Most Christians have a need for a ‘bad guy’ outside of themselves to blame for the weaknesses of human nature, and if this serves them morally, there’s nothing wrong with it. When that externalization gets applied to some human enemy (which it often does), it becomes dangerous.

This works both ways. Science has proven itself to be a significant danger as well. Perhaps you are right that politically it will be necessary to emplace some sort of world government, and if so it must include the best philosophers of both camps. The issue of absolute morality has to be addressed so we can properly determine the circumstances under which breaking the absolute is justified. It may never be justified by God, but it’s our planet and our survival on the line.

A realistic evaluation of exactly where the dangers lie is not such a bad thing for either science or religion, even if it requires the acceptance of responsibility for the evils inherant in both.

Hi Joy, thanks again for the brief overview on dimensions.

I think many Christians are skeptical regarding interpretations; goodness knows, they are many and varied. That's why, (I think You'll agree), we have to read and study scripture for ourselves, to do our best to find out the truth directly from the source, and not second hand. I don't think I lay all the blame of evil on outside influences. There is the evil which comes from each of us. I guess the "outside influence" will always gain power from it when we do evil, and seems to be able to exert "control" as long as we operate in that mode.

We only break out of that "mode" by our own decision to turn away from our own evil, and by the power of God, through Christ.

I think Science is enhanced by religion and morals and ethics. I think Religion can be enhanced by science, if responded to correctly. I agree that religion isn't going to be long upset by anything science comes up with. Faith builds on faith. I do think Evolution is more than just a science, as it envelops a whole philosophy of humans and gods, and how we all relate, which does, if taken to it's full extent, wants to demolish the concept of God.

Leszek Rzpecki: I have heard of a new book just put out in England, Called, "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism." I don't have the author's name, but he is not a christian, not a creationist. He's a science reporter.

One of the anomalies, he brings up are the fossilized trees, which shoot through several layers of rock, standing upright. There's no sign of decay, the entire tree is fossilized, so must have been covered all at once.

We can take this to evolution board. Any comments?:)

Just a quick pitstops before presenting at a conference tomorrow.

-- Martin Luther, As cited in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, by Sissela Bok, Pantheon Books, New York, 1978. The full citation given in Bok's book is: Martin Luther cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

Layers of sediment do not indicate anything without a geologic reference. If the author of this book never dated the rock layers near the top of the fossilized tree vs. the rock layers at the bottom or indicated that type of sediment in which the tree was imbedded then his assertion that this lone example refutes all previous dating methods is somewhat dubious. The tree could have easily been subsumed by a mudslide event or could have easily settles in a vertical direction if the underlying layer was clay sediment which gave way under the weight of the tree.

Marie - I checked the Barnes and Noble website above for the book you mention, and they don't have it. I've tried to answer you as best I can on the evolution board.

You know, Marie, this actually makes a lot of sense. The power of human evil is great and longstanding. Like the machine analogy I used, which if given enough ‘power’ and a self-organizing operating system, might tell us one day that it’s conscious. So in a very real way the construction of evil might also be considered ‘conscious,’ and as such could exert influence on weak minds - or even strong minds in weak moments. This construct of evil might well be called the "Devil."

So we are not so far apart. I just can’t find support in Mosaic monethiesm for the identification of Satan as this evil being. If we leave jaded, cynical Satan (and his very bad opinion of humanity) out of this equation and accept that his role is as recorded (the adversary, agent of temptation or choice) and just call it the Devil, we’d more accurately reflect the roots of Christianity.

I do note that Christianity identified Satan with the Devil very early on. Because Jesus’ experience with Satan was fully within the Jewish tradition, and he did not personally make this identification, this was perhaps reference to the choice to do evil which Satan represents as ‘Devil’s Advocate.’ The Devil’s Advocate isn’t the Devil, he’s the one who argues the Devil’s case. This is more in keeping with the concept of Satan’s role, since angels cannot ‘possess’ human beings.

Marie - I actually hadn’t gotten to dimensions yet... just trying to get to Planck wore me out! But I’ll give you the short version just in case you’re interested. Dimensions are geometries, and were established before there was matter to fill the dimensions. The expansion of the geometries was exponential and not limited to time or relativity to the speed of light. Time, relativity and possibly gravity did not begin until matter came into existence.

I personally don’t like the small dimensions invented for GUTs because they serve no purpose except to renormalize equations which run into mathematical singularities. I believe everything can be neatly explained without them. There may be one or two ‘small’ dimensions that exist within matter itself, related to symmetry, and which could be described as the geometry of matter. These dimensions are definitely noticeable, though.

Before Keith gets another headache, I will simply mention that splitting atoms doesn’t work the same way as breaking the internal symmetries of particles within atoms. Split an atom and the pieces weigh less than the original, as they logically should. The ‘missing’ mass is converted into energy. Once we get inside the basic particles, however, those darned turtles get bigger and bigger all the way down.

So gravity might be a property of symmetry rather than a force field with a quantum. We might then consider that the exponential increase in mass as symmetries are broken is (sorry, Carl...) a function of the Second Law, or the introduction of entropy into an essentially negentropic system. I could be wrong, of course, and you won’t find this description in any book. It’s one of those "wild ideas" physicists play with.

I was just about to complain that it is space, not matter, that matters, as it were, but you got to that (in a very Einstienian way...)

The turtles have to keep growing because you eventualy have to normalise across the singularity. More and more; I am convinced that the universe is one thing that maintains a very complex information state. We, being part of the information state, view discreet bits of information as being separate when they are, in fact, all aspects of the same singularity.

(And, unlike some people, I don't nee white holes to ballance my universe!)

Leszek, I know you firmly believe this, so I accept that you have placed your faith in science. I even understand why your skepticism doesn’t apply to your own faith, as this is very common in matters of faith. I think you should tread lightly around the shadier corners of scientific endeavor, however, because you could run headlong into something ugly that might cause you to <gasp!> question your faith.

I know of a very great evil hiding behind a monumental lie. The ‘missing’ factor is known, but no one who knows about it will do the ‘discovering.’ The misguided faith of science is the belief that the evil it created and keeps hidden from the world allows for another 30 years of life on this planet.

So while I know you don’t agree with me about the existence of a God who disapproves of evil, I hope you can understand why I do not trust science to tell me it knows anything about right and wrong. I also don’t trust science to define reality for me, because I know what it’s hiding. And I sure don’t trust science when it tells me so proudly that God is dead.

Gee, Keith, thanks for the compliment! Again, your larger view of what’s real is remarkably similar to mine. I’m not one to say that the experience of life (and death) isn’t sure enough real on all the levels that matter to us as humans, it’s just that what we experience in this journey is the product of how we’re genetically designed to process the bits of information we’re fed.

There’s more out there that we don’t always perceive in this relative universe of clay, and I think you’re right to equate that with the dimensionality (space) we inhabit. I mean, if there’s a singularity at the bottom of every particle of every atom that equates directly to the original symmetry-breaking of the universal seed, we’re all connected to the event, aren’t we? Every human, animal, rock, tree, flower, planet, comet, asteroid, star, galaxy, supercluster... everything. We do share a common ancestor, at the beginning of time rather than the beginning of life.

Having a bit of trouble drafting a credible proof for seeding without catastrophism, E.C.? I feel for you.

I don’t think that debunking charlatans in the creationist crusade is going to stop people who aren’t part of that crusade from asking the obvious questions. Tread lightly on thin ice, my friend, or they’ll make a charlatan out of you too.

It's not a matter of faith at all, Joy, it's a matter of knowing a smattering of the actual history of science, plus many years personal experience of scientific research. Paradigms and theories come, get accepted, and then if they begin to fail to explain all the data, they become discredited and replaced with new paradigms and theories. In my own research, I've have to abandon several treasured ideas because they just didn't fit the data. Boo-hoo, I got over it.

Still, it's a free country - if it pleases you think of science as eternally unchanging and as orthodox as religion, you may do so. But then I really won't take you seriously, I promise, cross my heart! :)

BTW, I never said that science can tell you the difference between right and wrong, & I haven't the faintest idea why you think I did. Science can tell the difference between truth and faslehood, in certain cases amenable to experimentation, but that's about the limit. You and I both have to look elsewhere for our moral compass.

The turtles have to keep growing because you eventualy have to normalise across the singularity. More and more; I am convinced that the universe is one thing that maintains a very complex information state. We, being part of the information state, view discreet bits of information as being separate when they are, in fact, all aspects of the same singularity.- Keith Fosberg.

To Joy an Keith: That sounds like a verse in 1 Corinthians 13:12. ...For now, we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face, now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known....

Meaning no one is going to have the whole picture perfectly. At least not yet. That doesn't mean one shouldn't try to keep learning.:)-

I must have hit a nerve, so I do apologize, Leszek. I know more than a smattering about the actual history of science, and I also know the difference between truth and lies. Creating and defending deliberate falsehood qualifies as ‘wrong.’ I don’t think this is so very hard to grasp. If relative morality cannot define what is ‘wrong,’ how could it define what is ‘right?’

You do not have to take me seriously. I have asked to be granted whatever respect my words are due. I do not officially exist. I have science to thank for that, as do others I have known who are not alive to say so. Neither here nor there in the overall scheme of things. I merely thought to warn you that you might also look elsewhere for definitions, because the truth in deep lockup is reaching critical mass, and the blast doors are flammable. That’s all...

§:o)

Marie, I hope we all keep open enough minds to keep learning every day of our too-short lives. Knowledge is a double-edged sword (who said that?), so it must be carefully weighed against our value scale. Some have gold to balance that scale, and some weigh against sand.

I Corinthians 3:18-19, from a professional fool to you! §:o)

All moralities are relative. It's just that some people need to call their's absolute to feel good about it! :)

Anyway, I don't believe in god or hell and have no difficulty whatsoever in telling good actions from bad. So it' really isn't that difficult to define right and wrong, even in a relative moral system, otherwise nobody could do it.

Btw, just some semantic quibbles, because I think semantics are very important: you shouldn't equate "right and wrong" in a scientific sense with "right and wrong" in a moral sense - the first just deals with what is, the second with what ought to be, and they're rather different. Also, the opposite of "truth" is not "lie", contrary to popular opinion, it is "untruth". One can speak an untruth without lying if one doesn't know it to be false. One can also make mistakes. While you haven't been a culprit, I am constantly amazed at how participants on CNN boards hurl accusations of "lying" at each other without a moment's thought... then again, perhaps that is why. Frankly, I see no reason to use the word "lie" on these boards at all unless one is speaking of a public figure, especially a politician :)

I have not accused you of lying, Leszek! If I were to do so you would have every legitimate right to challenge me and I would be in the wrong. I simply think you have missed the point of what I have said, and this mystifies me. You are far too bright. All I have tried to do is warn you that the branches of science in which the most faith is invested are the very ones subject to the worst abuses.

Disillusionment isn’t fun, but it is necessary to a full learning experience. If you are extraordinarily lucky, it will never happen to you, in which case you should be careful here. I am the bearer of bad tidings you do not wish to hear.

I know what I know, and you do not know it. As I said, you need not take it seriously. Just pray beware of your own semantics. They may come back to haunt you.

Leszek .. Joy said,

> I know you firmly believe this, so I accept that you have placed your faith in science.

You answered ..

Now in that long series of posts in answer to me, you also said ..

Could you explain to me your use of the word 'reluctantly' there?

Theists have an explanation that fills these gaps in our knowledge, but, for whatever reason, you prefer to 'refuse' such explanations, saying such things as ..

Is your refusal and 'reluctance' quite irrevocable? If so, why is this not 'faith?'

...like a ghost in the machine.

§:o)

Corynthians speaks to personal and group humility and to the hope and peace of perfect love amoung imperfect beings.

Which leads me to "firewalls." I think that the persuit of science needs to be scientific and that the persuit of spirituality needs to be, well, spiritual. In this our "firewalls" should remain intact.

We all, in our personal worldviews, need intergrate what each persuit has taught us to understand both the how and the why of our existance.

We'll not find God in the super-collider, nor will we find GUT in Genisis, but we may just find peace in the knowledge of both.

Amen.

And to all, a good night!

Ya. Me too. It is painful when your mind must declare something, you very much want to believe is true, is inconsistent with reality.

It has rotten so that I spend most of the time devoted to disproving my own ideas.

When I can't, or the data is so compelling I can not grapple with it in a negative sense, I get my fellows to look at it.

At some point I really start to believe in the idea and see how I can use it.

I think the belief in the process that scientists go through is what makes science a religion to some people.

I note that most of the fanatical believers are not scientists themselves nor care to practice science. They just want something to believe in, and the old religions are so laden with evil practices they look for something else.

Rosemary - in that specific post I was answering Joy's implication that science didn't question it's own findings and theories, and pointing out that it was a mistaken implication, as a little knowledge of science history or experience as a scientist showed.

Certainly there is a function for faith in science. I have faith, for example, that on the whole, scientists don't lie. The reason they don't, in general, is that they will always be found out, especially if they are lying about something important that others are also investigating. So I have faith that published work is honest, at least as far as the data are concerned. Interpreatations of data, of course, differ even among scientists. And I have faith when a scientist in another field tells me something is so, not because I have respect for the authority of the scientist, but because the work of that scientist has been peer-reviewed by his or her competitors. Those competitors may or may not agree withthe conclusions, but at least they vouch for the integrity of the data.

As Ronald Reagan, bless him, often said, "Trust, but verify". Science takes that saying very much to heart.

Because I do not like not knowing... the greatest temptation is to believe what you desperately want to believe in the absence of evidence and worse still, in the presence of evidence to the contrary. To my mind, much of religious belief come perilously close to this.

I stress also that scientists aren't immune to this either... when they succumb, it's been described by Sagan and many others as "pathological science". Much research into the paranormal, new age fads, and UFOs, if not all, falls into this sad category, and some mainstream research, such as the search for cold fusion, has fallen in there too. There's nothing there to be proud of, we just have to be aware it exists and be on the look-out for it. Fortunately, the symptoms are fairly easy to recognise, at least when observed in other people! :)

It's not so much faith as skepticism. The god theory cannot be verified. While there is much in favor of it, there is much against it too, and certainly the evidence against certain anthropomorphisms and wishful thinking on the part of some religions is, again to my mind, overwhelming.

If I began to believe in god, what reason would I have not to believe in the tooth fairy and in politicians? :)

An excellent and succinct summary of how the vast majority of scientists, certainly the ones I've had any dealings with, actually operate.

Scientists can't operate without their own beliefs, this is true. Perhaps the greatest belief that scientists have is that the universe is rational, and governed by consistent laws that can be understood through observation, experimentation, and theorizing.

There is, of course, no way of proving this, but if it were seriously untrue, science would have been a fruitless effort, as nothing would ever have been reproducible. So while it's a faith, it's a pragmatic faith, grounded in thousands of years of practical experience, supported by thousands of years of constant testing, since the beginnings of the stone age and probably even earlier.

It's a humbling lesson to learn that even as babies, we have a firmer intuitive grasp of the scientific method than we have as adults... many of us seem to lose the ability babies have of sorting reality from appearance through observation and testing. I guess that's why scientists spend so many years in school... they have to regain the use of their instincts! :)

My goodness, Leszek, you really have misunderstood me. I apologize for being so obscure, when I am trying hard to be as clear as I am allowed to be. Let me see if I can explain better...

I am implying nothing. What I am describing is a deliberate deception involving dozens of eminent scientists in a project designed specifically to hide a truth their sponsors demanded be hidden. An extremely deadly lie, sworn to by some of the best minds and most respected names in science. Each and every scientist involved understood exactly what they were doing.

When it became obvious that the sub-lies generated in so many fields were ridiculous and unsupportable, the whole sheebang was slammed into the vault, and the "official lie" is now taught to grade schoolers as truth. In this way, by the time the grade schoolers are adept enough to ask questions, the lie is already accepted at face value. Very clever, don’t you think?

Implying I do not know whereof I speak will get you nowhere. Faith in the intellectual honesty of science is misguided, for it has been fatally corrupted by evil on a fundamental level. Don’t go looking in the catacombs if you aren’t prepared for what you’ll see. There’s bodies down there...

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course you don’t, Leszek. That’s exactly my point. You do not know as much about the belief system you defend as you think you do. You are prone to pronouncements about the ignorance of those who defend beliefs different from yours, and I take issue with you on that score. Sort of evens the playing field.

I choose to do this because your belief system must not be allowed to promote itself unchallenged as something it is not, to the world it threatens so directly. There are certain absolutes which must be accepted as absolute before relativities can legitimately be defined. The relativities of morality and law must descend from absolutes. Good and evil. Right and wrong.

If we know the difference between truth and lies, we should be able to judge adequately how "harmless" or "dangerous" varying admixtures might be and conduct ourselves accordingly. Right now the camps are polarized. I am here because I think it’s time we confronted the admixtures we’ve supported on both sides for so long, and decide what we’re going to do about it. I have no power to accomplish this, but I do have a pretty good idea of a starting place...

What is the nature of Evil?

No, I know quite a lot about my belief system... I said I don't know what you are talking about when you refer cryptically to secret conspiracies in science. The world of politics might work that way, the world of religion, who knows, but you don't get away with conspiracies of silence in science for long. It's inconceivable. There is no cabalistic scientific priesthood, though there are certainly power structures and hierarchies, but they have very limited ability to control the flow of ideas. Especially in the international arena.

I disagree. Everything is relative, even in the moral sphere. You don't need absolute standards of measurement to be able to measure something in a useful way. Relative measurements are often acceptable in science, and they are unavoidable in morality, which isn't defined by science anyway.

<sigh> Then we have nothing much to say to each other, I’m afraid. You choose to wear blinders against the reality of the unholy alliance between science and politics, and I cannot change your mind. Meanwhile, I’m still down here in the catacombs with the rest of the bodies. Some of us are more dead than others.

I am speaking on behalf of the thousands I share this vault with, imprisoned here by a monstrous lie in defense of something evil. My cellmates do not speak loudly because they have no tongues, yet I hear them clearly. I cannot provide the ‘credentials’ you require in order to consider removing your blinders. Credentials no longer exist, as I no longer exist. So (boo!) I can speak the truth to my heart’s content and risk nothing more serious than your disbelief. This is a certain form of freedom, welcome after so long in this hole! The truth can set us free...

Let My People Go.

An extremely deadly lie, sworn to by some of the best minds and most respected names in science. Each and every scientist involved understood exactly what they were doing.... You choose to wear blinders against the reality of the unholy alliance between science and politics,-Joy Bussey.

Joy, I'm intrigued, to say the least. It's also not entirely surprising, unfortunately. Politics is usually used for Evil, because absolute power corrupts. History bares that out.

Let those verses you gave me in Corinthians be a strength to you.

I don't think the deadly lie you talk about is even close to the minor concept of Evolution. Though maybe the humanist way of thinking assists the lie?

I don't intend to say that the concept of Evolution is a minor thing, only in comparison to what you are referring to.

Actually, Marie, evolution's belief-system is far less intentionally harmful than deliberate lies, though prideful in its adamant atheism. My comfort, however dear to my own heart, does nothing to change what I know to be the very great evil afoot. So I am here because the thousands I have mentioned have no voice of their own.

It used to work that way in politics, true, but not any more. That changed sometime during the Vietnam War. It is not worked that way since.

It appears that it may have worked that way in religion a long time ago, but not any more.

In the world of science, it has never worked that way. In the world of science, even when the truth is potentially embarrassing, the truth will always out.

Peoples love "conspiracies." Makes good fiction. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. And you know why? The reason is that people can not be "trusted to lie" consistently.

Suppose you wanted to hide something, do you think you could depend on your friends to keep the secret? And in a free country, with freedom of speech, how are you going to enforce the lie? I say it can't be done.

Joy,

I have previously stated that I have a very difficult time understanding where you are coming from, and this is still the case, regrettably. However, since I do read many of your posts, I have decided to try to get at what you are aiming for here. Do keep in mind that it is in no way my intention to insult you, or debase your point of view. But I shall nonetheless engage you frankly.

First I should briefly remind you of my own stance pertinent to what I shall be talking about. I am a scientist of sorts; I am a mathematician. I work with scientists, and place great value on the scientific method as a means of functioning in our universe. I am quite satisfied with how it works in my daily life in bringing me peace and happiness. I am not quite as sanguine regarding the scientific establishment as is Leszek, although I still have a great deal of confidence in it, especially as concerns issues which have large impact. But the fact of the matter is, scientists are people too, and so some of them are stupid, incompetent, dogmatic, etc. But this does not shake my belief in the scientific method, only in some of those who purport to employ it.

Joy, cont'd:

You seem to want us to believe that there has been a great conspiracy underfoot in the scientific community to hide something. From reading what you have written, this feeling of your seems to be a result of some very concrete experiences you have had. But you cannot for some reason share with us that experience.

Try, please Joy, to see this from the skeptical view. In order for me to attach any meaning whatsoever to what you say, I need to know some details about the conspiracy. And you know what? If there is such a conspiracy, I darn well want to know about it because it affects my life very directly. But your saying that there is such a thing, in the absence of further information, has little impact on me and people like me, I am afraid.

Same thing goes for this event in your life to which you cannot refer. I would have to throw aside all that I believe in order to begin to place any value in what you say. I hope my reasons for saying this are completely obvious, but in case they are not, let me explain. I do not know you, Joy. Why should I believe something solely on the grounds that you say it is so? Surely you can see that in asking me to do this, you are asking me to lay aside the doubt which I so value as the lens through which I see the world.

If you are truly unable, for whatever reasons, to add any more to what you have said, then you may place me with Leszek in the list of people with whom you have little to say. But you ought then to realise that this deprives you of the right to say we wear blinders.

I don't choose to wear blinders, Joy, I choose not to credit wild accusations against the scientific community without a shred of supporting evidence. (Especially when my own experience is directly contradictory.) There is a difference, and I'm sorry you are unable to see it.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Good luck...

*sigh*

*cue lights, camera, action*

The Confession

*wanders off, stage left, muttering to himself*

Excuse me?

I've been called a whole lot worse by more prominent men than you, Leszek. I don't mind. You are the kind of person who wouldn't accept bullet scars as proof of gunplay. What could I possibly say to you?

I appreciate your stated willingness to hear, Andrew. You were probably not following this board when I explained this to E.C. long posts ago. I asked as recently as 1995 if anything had changed for me. I was (again) informed that I do not exist.

You once said you accepted arguments based on their worth, not based on identity in cyberspace, where we can remain anonymous. It has taken me 20 years to reach the point where I have this tool and this freedom. I am new to it. I do not yet know how freely I will be allowed to use it. So far, it hasn’t been a piece of cake.

No one need pay heed to anything I say. I am no one, and I mean that literally in the context here. It’s the only context I’ve got.

Leszek ..

I agree, at least I agree with the statement as regards religious belief, far too many do not know why they believe and have not examined at all carefully the objections to such belief. However I can't really say whether this is so in the scientific realm. I think that amongst those of us with little or no scientific background or knowledge .. we feel sort of 'helpless.' As if we are somehow at the mercy of such people and have no weapons at all on our side. That sounds like 'fighting' talk, but I don't mean it as such. Take the recent and ongoing furore about genetically altered foodstuffs, there's a lot of discussion on the BBC Newspage for example because a particular scientist was sacked after supposely releasing to the public, information that he shouldn't. Several days after that release, other scientists are now saying that what he said couldn't be true for the very reasons you have mentioned today in several posts. The bits about testing etc. But that helpless feeling is very strong in me. I'm aware of the power of money, and that 'vested' interests want to see the genetically modified thing go through. I'm aware that we are all susceptible when it comes to our pockets .. but who is going to be on the recieving end? The helpless in my opinion.

Leszek, I don't think that I've been trying to say that everything has to occur by miracles, and I realize you weren't necessarily referring to me, in particular. I have learned alot from you and by doing my own reading, and from the others on this board. I can agree with you that most scientists are most likely very honest and have to be for the reasons that you mentioned.

But for any honest professional of any field, there are always politics. And with politics, honesty seems to be a moot point. Power and money speak more honesty to the political machine than pure truth.

Yes, I like a conspiracy theory, with the best of them. And I do feel Evolution is not a complete or accurate theory for origins. You know that. That also doesn't mean I throw scientific evidence out because it doesn't line up with how I perceive the Bible. It has to be hard verifiable evidence though, or I will just have to go with the miracles, which , BTW, do happen.:)

In the world of science, it has never worked that way. In the world of science, even when the truth is potentially embarrassing, the truth will always out. -Cliff Beall.

Joy Bussey: I don't know what you have to say. I can't make any judgement either. I'm very disillusioned with government anyway. It would be hard for me to say anything good about the present government. I think Government has tried to run people's lives far too much lately. Whether you have anyone who believes you or not, I don't know, but I think I understand your reluctance. I believe in the Constitution, and Declaration, and I see those concepts trashed every day, with some new Government infringement. I don't mean to stray off topic too much, except, to say, that Religion is a comfort, and does offer comfort, that science can't. I know I'm not following your thread very well, I guess this is just my feelings.

You are looking at it the wrong way, Marie. The question is: how you are going to force independent minded scientists to commit to a lie? And even if you were to get an initial commitment, how in the world would you maintain that conspiracy? A lie such as that would unravel in no time at all.

Look, Marie, how are you going to maintain the lie? In this country (USA), we have a thing called the Constitution. It provides for freedom of speech. Perhaps you are disillusioned with government. But the last time I read the Constitution, it did not contain any list of exceptions for people who officially do not exist. This whole subject is ridiculous and reminds me of so called UFO conspiracies.

I'm a very bad role model for trust, Marie. I trust in God, and I trust in the good half of humanity, and I trust in words that maybe have a chance to make a difference.

I believe in reality, as much of it as I'm blessed to experience and witness. That's what I'm alive to do, and I want it all.

...'Cause I'm taking the back door when time comes to an end for me, and I should do all I can to prop it just a little further open before I go. That's all.

What subject is so ridiculous, Cliff? It doesn’t matter. The people sentenced to death are dead or dying as we speak. Once the lie was declared, it was just a matter of time.

The problem is that my time has been locked away too far away. I’ve got a Constitutional suit pending as we speak. Do you have any idea what that means in real life? To declare yourself a live entity and have to "prove" it? How, outside of documentation, might you do that?

I must admit that I can't understand what anyone's problem is with taking what Joy says at face value. It doesn't seem an unlikely scenario at all to me. I myself had a little run in with the Americans in Italy many many moons ago, gosh I didn't know that the whereabouts of their missile site was a secret when I told the hairdresser about it as she cut my hair. All I can say is that it wasn't very well hidden. But boy those guys could get bossy in a threatening sort of a way, and I don't think I'm game to tell you where it is even now. And I remember a documentary some years ago about an area in America, was it Mitchigan, where many abnormalities and deaths were occuring, trouble is my old memory can't recall whether the matter was ever explained or if it remained a mystery. And again, we have a few 'non' people here in NZ, there are many reasons, some are hiding, some are being hidden, you yourselves have a program don't you, for witnesses to use to disappear if they need to? Sorry can't see the problem myself in understanding Joy's scenario.

Actually, I think it's a question more of when. Whatever it is that Joy is talking about will come out, you are right about that .. but when. Mostly these things come into the open when the effects are plain for all to see .. like Thalidomide. I myself am left with permanent liver damage from some medication 'breakthrough' administered some 30 years ago. In fact I don't know too many people who couldn't give you the same sort of story .. that's why we feel helpless .. at the mercy of 'scientists.' Now I realise that's unfair in many respects, and a sweeping generalisation to boot, and like Leszek, I'm dying to know all the answers, so go for it. But are there enough regulations in force? I know they're improving all the time, but there is so much you don't know that you can't cover all the bases .. I ask again, is it possible that some of our quests for knowledge, are simply

not worth it?

The difficulty in maintaining any conspiracy is getting everyone to cooperate and keep their pie-holes shut.

The millitary has difficulty with this; other agencies have no capacity for this at all. A "conspiracy" in the scientific community could be outed by any undergraduate student at any university in the country. This just isn't reasonable.

Joy,
If you are being oppressed it is certainly by a small group of people, not the "scientific community."

An apple falls from a tree and hits a human on the head. If the Human is a scientist she/he mutters a thesis on the need to determine the why, how and practical application of the event - starting with the assumption that the bump forming on her/his head was most likely the purpose of the event.

If the Human is Religious, he/she is more apt to view it as a punishmnet from the Divine Power and/or message that needs to be dissected and meditated upon until such time as the Divine Power sees fit to reveal it's true meaning.

If the Human is a metaphysician, The simultaneous thought occurs that it must be time for lunch.

The USA does have the witness protection program which gives people new identities, after testifying at a crime, and that offers protection to that person, so they aren't in danger afterward.

If you are being oppressed it is certainly by a small group of people, not the "scientific community."Keith Fosberg.

It would only take a small group of very powerful people. The mafia operates on such principles, and so do these powerful people.Fear and intimidation .

I am a Metaphysician currently attempting research into the realm beyond and the centers of the brain that are stimulated or activated by it's energy.

Uncharted waters - so to speak - referred to in many Religious and Scientific offerings such as Supra-para-Nirvana and Quantum Physics.

It has practical application in the ability to re=program our own unique computer (the brain).

At present I've discovered two important access terminals located at the points on the head where horns would be if we still had them (Pan?).

If you all will allow it, I would like to add comment from time to time on what lies beyond perceptions and experience and circumstance. The problems will most likely lie in the FACT that this will take us into the realm of practical 'magic' and the possibility of molecular manipulation (Alchemy). so I would like to suggest that we all address the posts rather than the poster and take baby steps to mutual understanding.

Thanks for listening.

I understand what you mean, Rosemary, and both scientists and the media should be much more responsible about reporting that sort of stuff in the press. You are perfectly right to fault the scientific community there.

But you know, you aren't helpless or weaponless. You have your considerable intellect, your skepticism, and your ability to learn about a subject. When you brimg those into play, you become much less helpless :)

Yes, politics can suppress scientific knowledge for a while, especially by restricting funding, but not indefinitely (for example one of the reasons we know so little about human sexuality is because government won't fund research in that field - it's done largely on the sly or by grants from private sources, but despite official disapproval, it isn't completely suppressed, and couldn't be)... there is no international scientific mafia with dons and godfathers :) One of the driving forces for scientists is the kudos they receive for being the first to report a new phenomenon or theory. Getting them not to publish something would be much more of a miracle - these competitive guys are just incapable of forming a world-wide conspiracy to suppress anything! <g>

None of us have claimed it was, as you know. In fact, even Darwin confined his writing on origins to a single speculative paragraph at the end of Origin of Species.

As you can see, I fear that even your best wishes for my success did not prevent me from failing. What's more, I notice that things have spiralled out of control since I made what was actually a serious attempt to find out what the heck Joy as talking about. Hopefully we'll be back to a more fruitful discussion shortly.

As opposed to my unstated _______?

You see Joy, I do not mind it if you wish to ask us to believe what you say, but are unable to give us any reasons why. What I do mind is the presumptuousness of your insulting us for not believing you. What would it say about me if I were to believe every such thing as you are telling me? Sorry Joy, but I am absolutely unable to do this. Whether what you say is true or not, you have my sympathies, both stated and otherwise.

Does this mean that I should begin to treat my colleagues as if they are a part of some large conspiracy? If what Joy says is true, it is important for me to find out. Should I simply say, "Joy, I think you might be on to something," and then proceed with my life as usual? If I am to accept an assertion as being factual, the corresponding fact makes an impact on me.

I'll try again

Hello all.

My name is Mikal and I am a metaphysician involved in research that most will find absurd. I can offer no fact since the 'discoveries' are by definition beyond the physical. I offer what I offer based on personal experience and investigation and chose this board because the information I seek lies somehwere in between Science and Religion and I would hope that I would be able to learn from a share of knowledge. The least I expect is that my presence be acknowledged. If you all prefer veiled insults over useful exchange - please be honest enough to say so - but say it directly.

Again, thanks for listening.

Hello, Mikal. You’re right about lunch. Once the apple has fallen, it tends to get rather mushy at the point of impact, and should be promptly eaten!

Please add your thoughts and any research you can on the subject of consciousness and/or brain function. I am very interested!

Well OK, Mikal, I'll acknowledge you. You may have noticed that these boards generally evolve into an on-going discussion among 3,4 or 5 individuals and it's sometimes hard for a newcomer to "jump in".

As for me, I'm a little skeptical about how fruitful a discussion can be about research that you admit is beyond physical. I keep thinking it will eventually degenerate into one of those Monty Python skits on Argument: "That's not an argument"

" Yes it is!"

" No it isn't!"

" Yes it is!"

" No it isn't!"

"Is this Argument or Abuse?"

Anyhow, jump right on in, let's see if we can come up with something.

I am not oppressed, Keith, I am invisible. I mentioned it only in reference to my total experience, as part of my point of view. You may ignore this as just another of those subjective things, like floating stones and NDEs. I have become quite accustomed to having my experience rejected by others. It won’t change my point of view.

Hello to you too, Larry. I for one would welcome some new targets... er, subjects around here!

Nor should it, Joy. However, the cookie crumbles both ways, and you should not reject my experience simply because I cannot understand yours - especially since you cannot assist me in the least. If you choose, you may suppose me to be attacking you. However, I am merely trying to get you to understand that it is fruitless to post obscurities that only you can understand. Useful debate requires a common ground, and where one does not exist, there is little to be gained by repetition of words which do not have meaning for your fellow debaters.

I am dropping this ball...

Again thank you, Andrew. You have been a gentleman throughout, and clearly stated from the beginning that you could not understand my experience. I understand this, but there may be others who are not so prone to disbelieve in experience as valid in shaping a point of view. You and I have no beef! §:o)