Buffman

Jack

Jack > I think that if He does exist, He is more likely to be found at the sub-atomic level rather than the super-macroscopic

Super Quark!. The Glorious Gluon. The Fabulous Photon. The Great Tau of the Universe. The Master Meson.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quacon.html

How about the "Fantastic" Fatal Germ? (I hope my silliness will not detract from the sincerity with which I treat your thought. It is simply difficult for me to equate an individual, conscious, self-aware, super entity to either the sub-atomic or super-macroscopic natural universe. Once again I sense an effort to personify that which is currently unexplainable in Mathematics or Physics....and which defies the previously accepted Laws.

Jack > I don't think so, but how can one be sure of one's own innermost motivations?

It "ain't" easy, and as you knowledgeably suggest, may not be possible. ( And I will add..."without going mad.") I will admit that Psychiatry and Psychology are not easily classified under the pure science banners. However, they have contributed to the growing body of knowledge about human motivations. I will venture to suggest that Chemistry has actually provided more scientific data in that area than either of the others. With the latest technology allowing Instant Brain Imaging Scans coming on-line, there may be some very exciting and useful knowledge coming forth. I have been interested, as a lay person, in the integration of our genetic senses and their impact on our emotional drives via "meme" (for lack of a better word) formations. (i.e.: Understand the genetic drives and you get a partial handle on the motivations.) And to think I got started on this path by the Maslow Paradigm. (Not exactly the most scientific basis.)

Jack > The problem is not the answers, it lies in the nature of the questions we ask ourselves. The kind of questions that give rise to these answers are questions that assume that mankind is not capable of doing the things we have done. So they assign the creations of that "stupid meat puppet", man, to some other entity altogether.

Gen 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:"

Gen 11:6 "And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they all have one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

The all-knowing God of Genesis seems to get caught with his toga down rather often. However, as a soothsayer he "ain't" too shabby.

Jack > That (the alleged amazing extension of life) is a bit of a misconception. Most of the improvement in overall life span lies in reducing infant mortality. Count the life span from age 5 and the life expectancy of a citizen of the Roman Republic is not much different than today's.

Hmmmm? I am not qualified to discuss this issue with any degree of accurate insight. I am not surprised that statistics can be used in an effort to validate a great many claims. Averaging total births with death ages would seem to be fraught with considerable variables...like accurate data collection on a world wide scale at that time in history...thus the resort to the Roman Republic as the primary source of recorded data. However, if we could remove all the external factors (diseases/epidemics/sanitation/ wars/natural disasters/famines/etc.) that may have been the direct cause of shorter life spans, and could deal exclusively with the extensions directly related to medical and technical advances, it is quite possible that the actual structural life of a human being hasn't increased as much as the various governments and Drug Companies would like us to believe. Additionally, wouldn't we have to look at percentages versus individual numbers to be able to determine if there has been a significant improvement in human life cycles?--- The point I was attempting to make was that after the primary purpose and meaning of life has been met, we still must find ways to use the unique gift we have as humans...our ability to reason. That uniqueness simply doesn't stop after we procreate. Additionally, as we liberated ourselves from the daily quest for individual and family survival, we increased our time available to be more imaginative and creative...and deadly.

Jack > Real Uncertainty is all I deal in. However, I do think it possible that the evolutionary addition of intelligence to a predatory hominid was not a good long term solution by whoever/whatever is cranking.

Oh my! That is a wonderful and powerful insight. So why use the "Real" Universal Uncertainties (large "U") as an aid to justify the general human uncertainties (small "u")? Just because we currently don't understand all of the factors that comprise the physical universe, or life, doesn't mean that we must attribute those unknowns to an unknowable something or other, does it? (To me, that approach seems very much like the one advocated by the Intelligent Design Gang.)

(A health aside: I am pleased to hear that your witch doctors found an appropriate treatment. I know of several folks with a similar condition who gained at least ten additional years because of the proper medication regimes. My step-father was on three times-a-week kidney dialysis for over three years before the end came. He continued to live at home and function normally until the last couple of months. My very sincere and best wishes for a continued long and productive life...even without the bicycle rides.---Not that it matters much, but I get exhausted just walking to and from the mailbox at the end of the driveway. Of course if I stopped smoking three packs a day, it could prove to make a difference.)

Jack > I think I would classify that as Engineering rather than Science.

(My eldest son is an Electrical Engineer. I'll ask him what he thinks about that. He doesn't build bridges.) If you classify my contention as Engineering, I guess I would have to classify the verifiable evidence examples that you used to make the claim about QM being the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived as merely Engineering data rather than science. How much would you have "scientifically" learned about QM without electricity...or engineering? Basic research and theory are just that until someone validates them through a practical, or even impractical, means. Is Mathematics science or merely engineering with numbers. Is Physics science or merely the validation of Mathematics? (Have you just tossed a starving man a rotten apple that he is blindly consuming in his hunger while you laugh your ass off?)

I rather like this individual's approach to the definition of "science" even if not all encompassing. (Regardless of his contention to the contrary, it sounds pretty much like the Scientific Method to me.)

Science is the collection of experimental results which are reported with complete detail and honesty so that others may perform the experiment at a different time and place and achieve the same results.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kmuldrew/science.html

Having been what I would define as a basic research natural scientist in my undergraduate years, I learned that Science was not easily defined, or generally understood, as much as some vested interests might wish that it were. Sadly, too often, economics tends to drive the engine of scientific research and enlightenment.

NFLP

It is heartening to view the gracious and reasoned exchanges between Jack and Buffman. How do we transfer those insights and wisdom into getting Christians to shed themselves of the demagoguery and pharisees of Corporate Christianity?

Rather than attempting to disabuse them of their cherished theological notions, perhaps it would be more advantageous to have theists such as Sabine Grant and HelenM and Radorth, et al, focus on bringing fiduciary reform and sociological/philisophical/political tolerance of freethinkers to their brethren.

Most American Christians, I suspect, would be sheepishly embarrassed by the profligate machinations of their ministry-building, ego-driven, celebrity preacher wannabes, if shown in the light of relentless scrutiny.

There is an unseemly silent competition for one another's flocks; most new congregants come from another church.

Asceticism should be incumbent upon the pleading mendicants. We should anathemitize mansion-like parsonages and preachers in $1200 suits. I think we need to have those who would claim to be divinely-anointed to lead, compete to PROVE to us whom among them is most-worthy to request money in the name of Jesus.

Wouldn't you just love to see John Hagee's fat ass schlepping a hot towel for some Untouchable at Mother Theresa's hospital?

Buffman

NFLP

How do we transfer those insights and wisdom into getting Christians to shed themselves of the demagoguery and pharisees of Corporate Christianity?

(First, thank you for the positive comment. My discussion with Jack has been a delight. I can only hope that some of my silly and frivolous comments do not detract from some of his wonderful and insightful observations and opinions...but I do so like to laugh, even if it is only at/with/by myself.)

Now, reference your comment. "We" don't! An individual's learning how to critically process every manner of input, especially including religious faith beliefs, is what does it.

Christianity is merely one more religious faith belief system. One of many, albeit one of the oldest and largest.---Religious faith belief systems claim that they have all the accurate answers. To a creature that is little more than just a constant, question producing, factory that can be a very exciting lure and addicting trap....especially if one is ensnared before any rigorous thought processing program has been installed on their biological main frame hard drive...or if a time-delay virus (religious Trojan Horse) has been surreptitiously installed on it. Obviously I suspect that it is that latter possibility that could be at the root of Jack's "theistic tilt." However, both of us readily admit and agree that it is extremely difficult to accurately know and understand what "motivates" many of our beliefs.

It is difficult to believe that any citizen of the USA has not been exposed to the mythical and mesmerizing songs of the religious "Sirens." However, just as those classic ancient sailors who answered the Siren's song were never heard from again to tell us of what they encountered, neither are those who answer the religious choral(e) ever heard from again to tell us of what they encountered after departing our little speck of dust in the universal sea.

So I believe it is important to understand what it is that Christianity, or any of the other religious faith belief, supplies to the individual that would not, or could not, be supplied by comparable or better means were organized faith beliefs to fade into the distant memories of the past. That is a very demanding challenge (issue) for every non-believer/freethinker/skeptic.

NFLP

Buffman,

It may be an intellectually superior stance, but pragmatically imprudent, to argue against theism, en masse.

I suspect we must allow religionists to retain the emotional safety-net which the notion of Imaginary Friend imparts before we take them out on any philosophical tree limb.

We must get them to admit that there is no "One Way" which has a copyright on character & morality in this pluralistic republic. We must also admit to ourselves that embracing a faith in Christ can be a noble endeavor.

It will take some wisdom to get them to see the "sense of Coming Home" which can be imparted by a selfless embrace of faith, has been hijacked by those who will always come along to sell us what we can have for free.

As an aside, are you familiar with Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and The Blade"? It suggests a cultural paradigm which offers interesting hope for meaningful change. Ashley Montague called it the most important book since "Origin of Species",

Buffman

NFLP

No! I have not read "The Chalice and The Blade." I doubt that I ever will. Not because I wouldn't like to do so, but simply because I am already so far behind in my reading list desires I sincerely doubt that I have enough years and motivation left to me to ever get to it.

Your thoughts about not pulling the theist's crutch out from under them, before they have found a new way to walk without it, makes mighty good sense to me. It is something that has always caused me great concern.

Though I do not believe that humans need any manner of supernatural crutch in order to be taught (learn) what is or is not ethical/moral individual and social values, I have no difficulty appreciating that most sacred writings are filled with such examples from which we can take good examples. However, like you, I do not view them as the only possible, or even the original source, examples. Therefore the task would seem to be helping people to comprehend exactly what an ethical/moral value really is and why it is in the individual's and society's vested best interest to adhere to it(them).

admice

Buffman
Very good point and thant you for making it, though I think no the only step necessary to combat irrationality or get faith believers to change.

NFLP
I like your post, but take issue with this statement. I don't need to admit such a thing, because I strongly disagree. While certain definitions of "faith", I think, can be worthwhile, faith in the myth of Christ, I think, at minimum, detracts from people realizing their responsibilites here and now.

Jack

Jack, previously >>> I think that if He does exist, He is more likely to be found at the sub-atomic level rather than the super-macroscopic

Buffman >> Super Quark!. The Glorious Gluon. The Fabulous Photon. The Great Tau of the Universe. The Master Meson.

Jack > Roman - The Numinous Neutrino; Greek - The Hubristic Hadron; Modern - The Quizzical Quanta.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quacon.html>

Buffman >> How about the "Fantastic" Fatal Germ? (I hope my silliness will not detract from the sincerity with which I treat your thought. It is simply difficult for me to equate an individual, conscious, self-aware, super entity to either the sub-atomic or super-macroscopic natural universe.

Jack > I said nothing about consciousness or self-awareness. Or, for that matter, about benevolence. To quote (inexactly, I fear) Voltaire, "Does the Sultan of the Turks concern himself with the welfare of the rats on his ships?" I've read enough science fiction to have absorbed the idea that any putative deity may likely have characteristics completely at odds with human anthropomorphizing tendencies.

Buffman >> Once again I sense an effort to personify that which is currently unexplainable in Mathematics or Physics....and which defies the previously accepted Laws.

Jack > Nah. I try not to fall into the logical trap of "personification".

Jack > I don't think so, but how can one be sure of one's own innermost motivations?

Buffman >> (Re: psychology) I will venture to suggest that Chemistry has actually provided more scientific data in that area than either of the others. With the latest technology allowing Instant Brain Imaging Scans coming on-line, there may be some very exciting and useful knowledge coming forth. I have been interested, as a lay person, in the integration of our genetic senses and their impact on our emotional drives via "meme" (for lack of a better word) formations. (i.e.: Understand the genetic drives and you get a partial handle on the motivations.)

Jack > And yet, so much of practical medicine (such as many treatments for my condition, Multiple Myeloma) is discovered through pure serendipity. The use of Thalidomide for MM was spurred by the questions of an interested layman. Biaxin (Clarithromycin) is an MM standard treatment in combination with several other driugs and was discovered fortuitously. I was, so far as I know, the first person to be treated for Hepatitis B and a severe MM relapse with Epivir HBV and Dexamethasone. It worked so well that the combination of Epivir (an antiviral targeting the Hep B viral DNA) and Dex (a corticosteroid) may become a standard treatment. We still have so much to learn about the body's chemistry.

Jack, previously >>> The problem is not the answers, it lies in the nature of the questions we ask ourselves. The kind of questions that give rise to these answers are questions that assume that mankind is not capable of doing the things we have done. So they assign the creations of that "stupid meat puppet", man, to some other entity altogether.

Buffman >> Gen 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:"

Gen 11:6 "And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they all have one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

The all-knowing God of Genesis seems to get caught with his toga down rather often. However, as a soothsayer he "ain't" too shabby.

Jack > Well, many of those who were the composers/recorders of the oral traditions that became the Bible were intelligent and thoughtful men. In musing about the human condition and man's relationship to the assumed divinities inherent in their belief system, they were bound to come up with some profundities, even if inadvertantly.

Jack, previouly >>> That (the alleged amazing extension of life) is a bit of a misconception. Most of the improvement in overall life span lies in reducing infant mortality. Count the life span from age 5 and the life expectancy of a citizen of the Roman Republic is not much different than today's.

Buffman >> Hmmmm? I am not qualified to discuss this issue with any degree of accurate insight. I am not surprised that statistics can be used in an effort to validate a great many claims. Averaging total births with death ages would seem to be fraught with considerable variables...like accurate data collection on a world wide scale at that time in history...thus the resort to the Roman Republic as the primary source of recorded data.

Jack > Ancient anecdotal evidence is pretty clear. If you survived the illnesses and injuries of infancy and early childhood, you were pretty hard to kill. Alexander the Great is a good example. He should never have made it to 33 considering the wounds and illnesses he suffered. An eyewitness account of his death and preparation for burial says that the front of his body was covered by all the scars the weapons of the time could inflict, but his back was as smooth as a boy's. In Sogdiana he took an arrow in the shin which split his tibia and in India another shaft penetrated his lung and was cut out by one of his generals. The description of air bubbling out through the blood leaves little doubt as to the nature of the wound. Three days later he mounted a horse and rode to his tent to reassure his troops. The latter wound probably contributed to his death a few years later, however.

Jack, previously >>> Real Uncertainty is all I deal in. However, I do think it possible that the evolutionary addition of intelligence to a predatory hominid was not a good long term solution by whoever/whatever is cranking.

Buffman >> Oh my! That is a wonderful and powerful insight. So why use the "Real" Universal Uncertainties (large "U") as an aid to justify the general human uncertainties (small "u")? Just because we currently don't understand all of the factors that comprise the physical universe, or life, doesn't mean that we must attribute those unknowns to an unknowable something or other, does it? (To me, that approach seems very much like the one advocated by the Intelligent Design Gang.)

Jack > I don't "assign the unknown" to a God. I note the Uncertainty inherent in the Universe and USE it as a loophole through which my basic emotional tendencies can sneak. And my emotional makeup usually leans in the direction of theism. Not all the time, not dogmatically, not without a lot of doubt, and not without many caveats, as you have seen.

Jack, previously >>> I think I would classify that as Engineering rather than Science.

Buffman >> (My eldest son is an Electrical Engineer. I'll ask him what he thinks about that. He doesn't build bridges.) If you classify my contention as Engineering, I guess I would have to classify the verifiable evidence examples that you used to make the claim about QM being the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived as merely Engineering data rather than science. How much would you have "scientifically" learned about QM without electricity...or engineering? Basic research and theory are just that until someone validates them through a practical, or even impractical, means. Is Mathematics science or merely engineering with numbers. Is Physics science or merely the validation of Mathematics? (Have you just tossed a starving man a rotten apple that he is blindly consuming in his hunger while you laugh your ass off?)

Jack > Not all of mathematics has a relationship to reality, thus, to me, it is more properly an art form. Physics is the application of math to the understanding the real world, and is a science. Engineering is the practical application of Physics (and the other sciences) to changing the real world.

Buffman >> Having been what I would define as a basic research natural scientist in my undergraduate years, I learned that Science was not easily defined, or generally understood, as much as some vested interests might wish that it were. Sadly, too often, economics tends to drive the engine of scientific research and enlightenment.

Jack > Too true, but understandable, in my opinion.

Buffman

In an effort to maintain some control over the length of our posts, I will attempt to restrain my eagerness to discuss each and every one of your stimulating and informative comments.

Jack > Roman - The Numinous Neutrino; Greek - The Hubristic Hadron; Modern - The Quizzical Quanta.

Superb!

Jack > I said nothing about consciousness or self-awareness. Or, for that matter, about benevolence.

True! However, that is the launching point of my curiosity concerning your views about agnosticism vice deism.

To quote (inexactly, I fear) Voltaire, "Does the Sultan of the Turks concern himself with the welfare of the rats on his ships?" I've read enough science fiction to have absorbed the idea that any putative deity may likely have characteristics completely at odds with human anthropomorphizing tendencies.

I agee! However, didn't any one ever warn you about the degenerate thinking that can be created from reading Sci-Fi? In college, I had a very eminent theologian personally tell me that no scientist or science major ever read science fiction. It took considerable self-control to keep me from laughing out loud at this highly esteemed, invited quest, Annual Convocation, speaker.

Quoting Jack out of context: "And my emotional makeup usually leans in the direction of theism."

That is what I find curious. "Theism" = The belief in the existence of a god or gods; especially, belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Compare deism , pantheism) [Taken from American Heritage Dictionary] Perhaps your emotional makeup usually leans more toward "Mysticism" than theism. [From AHD] "2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible by intuition."

Voltaire also wrote these: (I truly admire his clarity of thought.)

1. "If reason had any part in religion, what then would become of faith?"
2. "Passions are the winds which fill the sails of the vessel; sometimes they sink it; but without them it would be impossible to make way."
3. "Any one that has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."

(Snip)

Jack > And yet, so much of practical medicine (such as many treatments for my condition, Multiple Myeloma) is discovered through pure serendipity. The use of Thalidomide for MM was spurred by the questions of an interested layman. Biaxin (Clarithromycin) is an MM standard treatment in combination with several other driugs and was discovered fortuitously. I was, so far as I know, the first person to be treated for Hepatitis B and a severe MM relapse with Epivir HBV and Dexamethasone. It worked so well that the combination of Epivir (an antiviral targeting the Hep B viral DNA) and Dex (a corticosteroid) may become a standard treatment. We still have so much to learn about the body's chemistry.

Serendipity = The faculty of making fortunate and unexpected discoveries by accident. [AHD] Obviously the average beneficiary of the fortunate accident really doesn't give much of a damn about the how's and why's. Yet unless someone is appropriately educated/trained, how would they have the "faculty" to recognize that a fortunate accident has actually occurred? The names Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen...and Ivan Pawlowich Puluj...(X-Rays) and Edouard Benedictus (Safety Glass) pop into my head when someone mentions fortuitous accidents. However, each of these men were highly trained observers in a scientific specialty, otherwise they would not have been able to recognize the significance of the accident. I guess I'm asking, "What is serendipity without the benefit (faculty) of a trained observer?"

(Health aside: WOW! Let's hear it for uncredentialed, though apparently self-taught, observer laymen. What grand timing for a fortuitous bio-chemistry question. Given the occasion of your severe relapse and your apparent willingness to try experimental therapies that have resulted in such positive benefits for you, and potentially for untold others, I can easily see why "you" would label them serendipitous rather than miraculous...yet retain a considerable amount of personal emotion attached to the results. Thank you for sharing such a powerful experience/ story.--- Until humans face the realities of life and death decisions up close and personal, they really don't have a solid appreciation for the unique and wondrous evolutionary gifts of life and reason. Some of my airborne emergencies lend solid credentials to that belief.)

(Snip)

Jack > Well, many of those who were the composers/recorders of the oral traditions that became the Bible were intelligent and thoughtful men. In musing about the human condition and man's relationship to the assumed divinities inherent in their belief system, they were bound to come up with some profundities, even if inadvertently.

Yup!

(Snip...Life extension)

Jack > Ancient anecdotal evidence is pretty clear. If you survived the illnesses and injuries of infancy and early childhood, you were pretty hard to kill. Alexander the Great is a good example. He should never have made it to 33 considering the wounds and illnesses he suffered. An eyewitness account of his death and preparation for burial says that the front of his body was covered by all the scars the weapons of the time could inflict, but his back was as smooth as a boy's. In Sogdiana he took an arrow in the shin which split his tibia and in India another shaft penetrated his lung and was cut out by one of his generals. The description of air bubbling out through the blood leaves little doubt as to the nature of the wound. Three days later he mounted a horse and rode to his tent to reassure his troops. The latter wound probably contributed to his death a few years later, however.

(General Extract)
On June tenth, 323, a little more than a month from his thirty-third birthday, Alexander the Great died. The actual cause of his death remains unknown, but it seems unlikely that a thirty-two year old man of his health would die of natural causes, even for his time in history. One more colorful account tells how Alexander drank a cup of wine, which was poisoned, and he started gasping and choking, and died soon after. Most likely, he died from complications of the flu, or was struck by malaria while in Babylon. At that time, though during his downfall, many soldiers still loved their leader, and they all sat around outside his tent as his condition deteriorated. The day before he died, his soldiers marched past his death bed, honoring their great leader.
(End General Extract)

http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/bug.html

(Extracts)
Alexander the Great, who ruled much of the ancient world until his death in 323 B.C., was conquered at age 32 not by an enemy, but possibly by a tiny intestinal bug. In an analysis based on available historical records, physicians at the University of Maryland Medical Center believe that Alexander was the victim of typhoid fever.

Their analysis, titled, “A Mysterious Death,” is published in the June 11 [1998] issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The most popular theories among historians previously have been that Alexander was poisoned or had died of malaria.
(End extracts)

This additional statement from that same article lends strong confirmation of your earlier statement about Life Extension misinformation:

(Extract)
Accounts of the death were not consistent with poisoning, although Dr. Borza says that has been a popular belief. “It was an ancient conspiracy theory. People have often suspected a conspiracy when a famous young person dies unexpectedly.” Dr. Borza says ancient Greeks who didn’t succumb to disease as a child or a battlefield wound often lived into their 70’s, because of a healthy diet and constant physical activity.
(End extract)

(Snip)

Jack > I don't "assign the unknown" to a God. I note the Uncertainty inherent in the Universe and USE it as a loophole through which my basic emotional tendencies can sneak. And my emotional makeup usually leans in the direction of theism. Not all the time, not dogmatically, not without a lot of doubt, and not without many caveats, as you have seen.

I do appreciate, and not little admire, your thoughts on this even though I attempt to push your opinions to the edge of the rational, philosophical, envelope in order to challenge my own views and increase my understanding.

(Snip)

Jack > Not all of mathematics has a relationship to reality, thus, to me, it is more properly an art form. Physics is the application of math to the understanding the real world, and is a science. Engineering is the practical application of Physics (and the other sciences) to changing the real world.

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/events/summ...1/qschool.html

(Extract)
While walking back to Einstein's home after a seminar presented by Heisenberg in Berlin in the spring of 1926, Heisenberg told Einstein[3]:
"We cannot observe electron orbits inside the atom, but the radiation which an atom emits during discharges enables us to deduce the frequencies and corresponding amplitudes of its electrons. Now, since a good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more fitting to restrict myself to these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits. "

Heisenberg was completely taken aback by Einstein's reply:
"But you don't seriously believe that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

Heisenberg answered:
"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity? After all, you did stress the fact that it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed; that only clock readings are relevant to the determination of time. "

Einstein said:
"You are moving on very thin ice. For you are suddenly speaking about what we know about nature and no longer about what nature really does. In science we ought to be concerned solely with what nature does. It might very well be that you and I know quite different things about nature. But who would be interested in that?"
(End extract)

(Snip...Economic Engine)

Jack > Too true, but understandable, in my opinion.

Just because we may understand it, doesn't mean we have to like and remain silent about it. I believe I have a rather good handle on understanding individual and group religious faith beliefs. I don't like them nor do I remain silent about them when they are being used to oppress or suppress the expressions of my individual conscience.

Jack

Buffman >> I had a very eminent theologian personally tell me that no scientist or science major ever read science fiction.

Jack > When I die (and if there is an afterlife) I'll be sure to tell that to Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan. I am sure they would appreciate a good howler. Someone should tell it to Hawking. He has a sense of humor too.

Jack > Here are the definitions as I found them in Merriam-Webster Online, followed by my comments:

Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Jack > No. That bit about "natural religion, emphasizing morality" is not for me. It lets loose the demons inherent in a sectarian definition of "morality".

Pantheism: 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

Jack > Number 1 is close, but it's too specific and rather cold. God could be a cosmic version of the Joker with no connection to the "forces and laws of the universe". An uber-Loki. Or an iron, dealing out irony. Number 2 is just history.

Mysticism: 1 : the experience of union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power Bottom of Form 0


Jack > Number 3a is close but it almost negates itself with the "vagueness of its unsound basis". The others are, IMO, pseudoreligious claptrap.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Jack > I'm not very specific, so dump that last phrase and you've got: "belief in the existence of a god or gods". That's all folks! My kind of Theism. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Einstein to Heisenberg:
(Extract)
"You are moving on very thin ice. For you are suddenly speaking about what we know about nature and no longer about what nature really does. In science we ought to be concerned solely with what nature does. It might very well be that you and I know quite different things about nature. But who would be interested in that?"
(End extract)

Jack > Which shows that Einstein was a syncretist who tried to develop theories that explained it all. Heisenberg was the ultimate pragmatist who never went beyond his experimental results. It is interesting that Einstein's Modus Operandi was ideal for the developing the Theory of Relativity, while Heisenberg's was ideal for putting Quantum Theory together. This raises an interesting question: which came first, the theory or the MO? Was Einstein led to syncretism because of the nature of Relativity, or did innate syncretism lead him to see Relativity more clearly? Was Heisenberg's absolute pragmatism the result or the cause of his success with QT? I fear we'll never know.

Buffman >> I believe I have a rather good handle on understanding individual and group religious faith beliefs. I don't like them nor do I remain silent about them when they are being used to oppress or suppress the expressions of my individual conscience.

Jack > That was one big resaon for the success of the Roman Republic, Principate, and Empire. Namely its lack of religious absolutism. To a degree unmatched in the ancient world it did not impose its native religious beliefs on its allies and provinces. The Romans were more likely to import other people's gods than to export their own. The worship of Magnus Mater, the Great Mother goddess, was imported from Pessinus in Asia Minor as early as the 2nd Punic War (the one with Hannibal). Peoples, like the Jews, with a special religious mindset were accorded special considerations. Oh yes, occasionally you got a loon like Caligula who insisted on being everywhere worshipped personally during his own lifetme, but this offended right-thinking Romans as much as it did Jews. The Romans were just more practical about correcting things. The Jews revolted against Rome. The Romans bided their time and killed Caligula at the first opportune moment. To the Romans, political revolt was the ultimate sacrilege, and they punished it the way the later Popes punished heresy.

And this is the reason why religion flourishes in the USA: The US Constitution is far more based on Polybius' analysis of the government of the Roman Republic than on any other document. Many historians credit various philosophers of the Enlightenment with this, but, under careful scrutiny, Montiesque (sp?) seems to be simply paraphrasing Polybius. Polybius' history could also be found in the libraries of many of the Founding Fathers of the USA.

The Separation of Church and State (SOCAS) is probably more important for religious than it is for non-religious people. But try to get the religious right to see that. In every land of the Western tradition, religion is to some extent, established; sometimes De Jure (Britain), sometimes De Facto (France). And in those countries, the nominally majority religion is fading away. In the USA, with SOCAS, religion flourishes.

In my opinion, the ONLY answer to the religious strife that grips so much of the world is a strict adherence to the principle of SOCAS. Just as economic freedom from government coercion spurs economic growth, religious freedom from government influence spurs spiritual growth, both humanistic and theistic.

Jack

Buffman

Jack > When I die (and if there is an afterlife) I'll be sure to tell that to Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan. I am sure they would appreciate a good howler. Someone should tell it to Hawking. He has a sense of humor too.

I thought that you might appreciate that one. However, "if there is an afterlife" I rather imagine you will find them gathered together roasting the likes of Jerry Falwell over an (extremely hot) open fire. (I'm sure you know which TV show was one of Hawking's favorites.)

Jack > Here are the definitions as I found them in Merriam-Webster Online, followed by my comments:

Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Jack > No. That bit about "natural religion, emphasizing morality" is not for me. It lets loose the demons inherent in a sectarian definition of "morality".

Here is the American Heritage definition:

"Deism: The belief, claiming foundation solely upon the evidence of reason, in the existence of God as the creator of the universe who after setting it in motion abandoned it, assumed no control over life, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation."

I must admit that the M-W definition does seem to better describe the Deism of the "Enlightenment" era than does the AHD one. However, when I stated that I felt that your philosophy was more in line with Deism, I was using the latter definition not the former.

Pantheism: 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

Jack > Number 1 is close, but it's too specific and rather cold. God could be a cosmic version of the Joker with no connection to the "forces and laws of the universe". An uber-Loki. Or an iron, dealing out irony. Number 2 is just history.

AHD definition:

"Pantheism: 1. The doctrine identifying the Deity with the various forces and workings of nature. 2. Belief in and worship of all gods."

Hardly what I would label definitive, and very likely offensive to the practicing Pantheist.

Mysticism: 1 : the experience of union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power Bottom of Form 0

Jack > Number 3a is close but it almost negates itself with the "vagueness of its unsound basis". The others are, IMO, pseudoreligious claptrap.

AHD definition:

"Mysticism: 1.a. A spiritual discipline aiming at union with the divine through deep meditation or trancelike contemplation. b. The experience of such communion, as described by mystics. 2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible by intuition. 3. Confused and groundless speculation; superstitious self-delusion."

I view 1.a. as merely the technique recommended to get in touch with one's own thoughts. I find b. to be useless. However, I am partial to 2., if by intuition we would be actually describing the serendipity of which you spoke, and upon which I attempted to elaborate (further define). But if push comes to shove, I choose #3.

The human brain is the ultimate information sponge whether the individual recorder (human) is consciously aware of the input or not. The mind never sleeps. It is constantly seeking and transporting the input, whether from external or internal sources, to the appropriate requesting sites...normally based on continuous external sensory references. However, there is far more data available in the brain than is required for normal functioning. How often have we heard the claim that someone went to sleep with a problem and awoke with the solution? (No sexual inference intended.) What happened when they placed their sensory input systems on Standby for a number of hours? Did their mind, suddenly deprived of normal external reference input, start an internal search through the brain's storage files for comparable data to satisfy its own requests? Could this help to explain why some dreams are so bizarre and some so satisfying? (i.e.: The combining of seemingly disparate data bits to form new mental images(dreams)/solutions?) Could intuition be no more than the waking mind's unexplained ability to sort through previously gathered unconscious data input, combining it in a manner unexpected by the individual, and then transporting it to their conscious mind? --- Obviously this is mere speculation without much, if any, scientific validity...yet.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Jack > I'm not very specific, so dump that last phrase and you've got: "belief in the existence of a god or gods". That's all folks! My kind of Theism. Anything beyond that is speculation.

AHD definition:

"Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods; especially, belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

And the belief in a god or gods "is not" speculation? Back to the definitions of god/God. (Theistic leakage and wiggle room duly noted.)

(Snip)

Jack > Which shows that Einstein was a syncretist who tried to develop theories that explained it all. Heisenberg was the ultimate pragmatist who never went beyond his experimental results. It is interesting that Einstein's Modus Operandi was ideal for the developing the Theory of Relativity, while Heisenberg's was ideal for putting Quantum Theory together. This raises an interesting question: which came first, the theory or the MO? Was Einstein led to syncretism because of the nature of Relativity, or did innate syncretism lead him to see Relativity more clearly? Was Heisenberg's absolute pragmatism the result or the cause of his success with QT? I fear we'll never know.

One thing for sure. I never will! However, I view the "Chicken-Egg" argument as a valuable stimulus to basic scientific research.

(Snip)

Jack > That was one big reason for the success of the Roman Republic, Principate, and Empire. Namely its lack of religious absolutism. To a degree unmatched in the ancient world it did not impose its native religious beliefs on its allies and provinces. (Snip)

Why do humans seem to insist on constantly re-inventing the wheel?

And this is the reason why religion flourishes in the USA: The US Constitution is far more based on Polybius' analysis of the government of the Roman Republic than on any other document. Many historians credit various philosophers of the Enlightenment with this, but, under careful scrutiny, Montiesque (sp?) seems to be simply paraphrasing Polybius. Polybius' history could also be found in the libraries of many of the Founding Fathers of the USA.

http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/polybius.htm

(I hope you don't mind me including these URLs. I do so not for you, but more so for those who may wish to explore your outstanding observations/opinions in greater detail. We PC vegetables just hate to shower, get dressed and sally forth to the local libraries to find a meaningful reference source.)

The Separation of Church and State (SOCAS) is probably more important for religious than it is for non-religious people. But try to get the religious right to see that. In every land of the Western tradition, religion is to some extent, established; sometimes De Jure (Britain), sometimes De Facto (France). And in those countries, the nominally majority religion is fading away. In the USA, with SOCAS, religion flourishes.

I have been banging that drum with all the vigor I can muster. I have lost count of the number of times I have cited Madison's "A Memorial and Remonstrance" as a key insight into the wisdom of Church(religion/God) and State(government/Caesar) separation...not for the non-believers, but for the believers. Unfortunately, a certain specific group of "True Believers" and opportunistic politicians have united to orchestrate a cacophonous chorus of propagandistic bleating that not only disregards the historical evidence of the Church-State separation wisdom, but seems to have resulted in conditioning far too many minds so they can no longer apply common sense and critical reasoning to the issue.

In my opinion, the ONLY answer to the religious strife that grips so much of the world is a strict adherence to the principle of SOCAS. Just as economic freedom from government coercion spurs economic growth, religious freedom from government influence spurs spiritual growth, both humanistic and theistic.

I have to wonder if a presidential candidate could win office with a public statement like that one. It is almost Libertarian in nature given the current paths upon which the Democrats and Republicans seem hell-bent to follow. Yet I suspect that that person would have my vote in an instant if they demonstrated that level of common sense in the rest of their platform. ---Unfortunately, I am not as sure about how it could be applied in successful and practical terms to the rest of the world still enslaved by ethnocentric, cultural/religious, historical animosities.