Jack

A related issue:

A recent story in the Orange County (CA) Register was headlined: "City councils ban Jesus from prayer - Officials react to a court ruling limiting invocations to the mention of God"

Go here to read it:

http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/oc...month=1&day=12

Then read my (Jack's) letter to the author of the piece:

Dear Ms. Johansson;

In your article in the Sunday, January 12, 2003 issue of the Register headlined: "City councils ban Jesus from prayer", you ignore one group that has a very strong interest in this issue. That group is those people who do not believe in God: atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists.

Recent polls have indicated that as many as 15% of the US population has no belief in God. Also, these polls tend to ignore Buddists who are, technically, atheists.

Non-Buddhist atheists tend to be under-represented in these polls since many are afraid to let their atheism be publicly known. That their fear is justified is confirmed by the reprehensible public attacks heaped personally on the head of Mark Nedrow (sp?) in the wake of his Ten Commandments lawsuit. He even got death threats from some good "Christians".

Of course, there are many who believe, as former President Bush (senior) once stated, that atheists cannot be proper citizens or patriots. I reject this idea completely. Many also seem to believe that American Indians, Jains, Hindus, Wiccans, Shintos, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God are in this same second class of citizenship.

Below you will find my comments on the opinions expressed in your article. I will number the pertinent portions of your text and place my following comments in brackets.

1) "This is indicative of how confused we are, spiritually speaking, about what God is," said Pastor Ron Sukut of Cornerstone Community Church in San Clemente. He declined to give his invocation at Wednesday's council meeting after he was told he couldn't mention Jesus.

"I think we have a constitutional right to choose which God we're praying to," Sukut said. "Taking that right away is what's unconstitutional."

[Pastor Sukut seems to say, by omission, that we don't have the right to choose NOT to believe in God. He also seems to be under the impression that either everyone believes in God or that those who don't should have no voice on the issue. How would he feel if a Satanist gave an invocation in Satan's name? Or a Wiccan gave one in the name of the Great Goddess?]

2) The Burbank council has not formally decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court yet, but Mayor David Laurell said it's only a matter of time.

"I think we need to take this ruling to the highest court of the land," Laurell said. "It has already had statewide impact and could have nationwide impact."

To Laurell, the issue isn't so much about separation of church and state but about freedom of expression. He cringes at the thought that city councils are forced to tell people what they can and cannot say during prayers.

"I'm all for invocations that are all-inclusive," Laurell said, "but I don't want me or anybody else to tell people that it has to be that way."

[How can Mayor Laurell's invocation be all-inclusive, since it cannot include Buddhists, other atheists, and agnostics?]

3) Lorraine Darienzo, a 54-year-old Catholic real-estate investor in Laguna Niguel, said she agreed with using only generic terms for public institutions such as city councils. She applauded Laguna Niguel's guidelines, which have always discouraged the use of specific religious figures in invocations.

Using specific names promotes a specific religion, Darienzo said, and a city council meeting is no place for that.

"Not everyone believes in Jesus," Darienzo said, "but saying 'God' is inclusive of every religion, and this nation was founded under God so it should be included in a general way at a meeting."

[Ms. Darienzo also seems to be unaware that some people don't believe in God. I also reject her contention that the USA was "founded under God". I can even prove this legalistically.]

4) In Huntington Beach, Councilwoman Debbie Cook, an attorney, did away with invocations last year when she was mayor. Having city-initiated invocations is unconstitutional, Cook said.

Although she agrees with the court's ruling, it leads to more complications, Cook said. Cities still choose who gets to give the invocations, and cities decide what they can say.

"This is a direct violation of the First Amendment," Cook said.

The "slippery slope" of the separation of church and state began when Congress in the early days of the country decided to have invocations, Cook said.

"A bright line between church and state should have been drawn long ago," Cook said, "but it wasn't, because we were a nation of believers.

"Now we're in this uncomfortable position."

[Ms. Cook is right.]

5) Debbie Borden, a Huntington Beach resident, has come up with what Cook calls "the perfect solution," because an individual initiates the invocation - not the city. Borden gives an invocation during the three minutes each member of the public has to address the council on any subject.

"It's very important that the leaders of our city can turn to a higher power," Borden said. "The separation of church and state is to protect religions from the government, not the other way around."

[The 1st Amendment is also intended to prevent the Government from using its great power to promote religion. I wonder what Ms. Cook and Ms. Borden would say if an atheist came to a Council meeting and, using this "address the council" privilege, gave an anti-religion invocation? Would it still be a perfect solution? The real "perfect solution" is not to have an invocation in the first place.]

I would really appreciate a chance to discuss this issue with you: in person, by phone, by e-mail, or by other electronic method (Private Chat, Instant Message, or Message Board).

Sincerely yours, etc.


I (Jack) have not yet received a reply, but it's early in the week.

I have some inclination to follow up on my idea about an "anti-religion", Atheist, or Agnostic invocation. Does anyone know if such a thing has ever been written and, if so, where I can get the text and permission to use it?

Would anyone care to take a stab at writing one? Since I am a Theistic Agnostic, I would prefer an Agnostic one, but I migh be willing to stand up and offer an Atheistic invocation.

It needs to be respectful, not confrontational.

Jack

LLaurieG

(Laurie) Great letter; you make excellent points. It's always so annoying, that knee-jerk reaction on Christians' and believers' parts of "you don't BELIEVE, so you're invisible; your preferences can be discounted." We're hanging by a slender, slender thread in this country with constitutional separation of church and state, a marvelous legal principle I'm sometimes amazed was instituted at all, and that has managed to survive. Do share on this thread if the guy responds.

By the way, thank you for mentioning: "...many are afraid to let their atheism be publicly known." I feel this can never be emphasized strongly enough.

And question. You're a "theistic agnostic?" Is that not a "deist?" If not, what distinguishes the two?

admice

Yea Jack! Thank you.

Jack

Laurie, I'm not 100% sure of this definition, but here goes.

I am an agnostic because I recognize the impossibility of knowing, one way or the other, the truth about God's existence. There is just not enough scientific evidence to make a choice.

To depend, alternately, on logic for this decision is a frail reed also, since logic is a man-made construct that, in some cases, bears only a remote relationship to reality.

For example, if you try to analyze the interactions of sub-atomic particles using logic you are doomed to failure, since these interactions are governed by the Uncertainty Principle and defy the Manicheanism of logical analysis.

However, my emotional and psychological makeup inclines me to belief in some kind of God, and emotions do not rest on logic. For me, there is enough uncertainty in Uncertainty to allow the wiggle room necessary for my theistic side to come forward.

Provide me with proof of God's non-existence, and I'll change my thinking in the face of the evidence. Since proving that negative is not likely, so I don't think I'll be changing my theistic slant soon.

I also consider myself a Behavioral Christian: justification by works alone, faith is irrelevant. Jesus existed, was a moral and political reformer, and got executed for subversion (which was certainly a valid accusation). But he was not the Son of God and never claimed to be, no matter what words later Pauline revisionists put in his mouth.

And, soon enough I'll be dead and I'll know. Or not, as the case may be.

Jack

Buffman

Hi Jack

Congratulations on a fine, well reasoned, response to the lady's letter. If she does contact you, you might wish to consider introducing "the tyranny/oppression of the majority's belief system" into your discussion. Nine of our original 13 colonies had state established/supported religions. In the Christian (Puritan) Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1659-61, four Christian Quakers were hung because of their religious advocacy beliefs. However, as early as 1635, Roger Williams had been banished from Massachusetts because he preached about the separation of religion(church) and government(state), among other things considered un-Christian and unacceptable by the majority Christian denomination in power/control at that location and moment in history. What is so disturbing and incongruous is that this group of Christians who had intentionally left the tyranny and oppression of another group of Christians would, themselves, establish an identical form of religious intolerance in this land.

I read your response to Laurie about why you are reluctant to call yourself a Deist. From what I read, I would have to agree with her evaluation of your current beliefs as being more like those of a Deist. Perhaps you might be an agnostic Deist. I hope you will not be offended if I play with several of your remarks.

I am an agnostic because I recognize the impossibility of knowing, one way or the other, the truth about God's existence. There is just not enough scientific evidence to make a choice.

I imagine that you have heard many religionists say, "The absence of evidence IS NOT the evidence of absence." I have come to a different view. "The absence of evidence IS the evidence of absence." We have had thousands of years filled with claims concerning the supernatural. We have had only a few hundred years with the means of accurately analyzing the evidence for those claims. As our scientific testing techniques become even more precise, the belief in a supernatural world becomes less and less credible from a critically reasoned view of the universe.

You contend that scientific evidence is required for you to make a reasoned decision about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. We can't see, hear or touch gravity, but few will contend that it does not exist. "Hah," you say! "We have scientific evidence that it does exist." And there's the rub. We can devise the means of scientifically verifying the "Natural" world phenomena. We can even devise the scientific means of testing the claims of supernatural phenomena...and have done so over, and over, and over again without finding any scientifically verifiable evidence that there is any "Supernatural" world beyond that which is created in the human mind.

So, I would ask if you are holding on to your uncertain belief in a supernatural entity because you know that science can never prove or disprove all the fantasies created by the human mind to explain the purpose, meaning and direction of the universe, and the life that evolved within it, to the degree that it can, and has, explained gravity. (Explanations which are under constant review, modification and refinement...unlike a belief in a supernatural world which exists only on human faith.)

At one time, I argued that if "energy" was consciously self-aware, then Energy was God because energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Today, even though I hate labels, I simply call myself a Non Supernaturalist.

For me, there is enough uncertainty in Uncertainty to allow the wiggle room necessary for my theistic side to come forward.

Does this not make the assumption that the theistic side has always existed in every human? Care to place that premise under the microscope? Perhaps a definition of "theistic side" would be a worthwhile place to start. (I ask these questions because I believe that you have made some wonderfully insightful observations in each of your posts.)

Jack

Buffman wrote >> Congratulations on a fine, well reasoned, response to the lady's letter. If she does contact you, you might wish to consider introducing "the tyranny/oppression of the majority's belief system" into your discussion. Nine of our original 13 colonies had state established/supported religions. In the Christian (Puritan) Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1659-61, four Christian Quakers were hung because of their religious advocacy beliefs. However, as early as 1635, Roger Williams had been banished from Massachusetts because he preached about the separation of religion(church) and government(state), among other things considered un-Christian and unacceptable by the majority Christian denomination in power/control at that location and moment in history. What is so disturbing and incongruous is that this group of Christians who had intentionally left the tyranny and oppression of another group of Christians would, themselves, establish an identical form of religious intolerance in this land.

Jack > Thank you. I am well aware of all the points you raise here, including the fact that, ironically, it was a Baptist group who inspired Jefferson's "wall of separation" comments and Madison's firmness on the 1st Amendment.

Buffman >> I read your response to Laurie about why you are reluctant to call yourself a Deist. From what I read, I would have to agree with her evaluation of your current beliefs as being more like those of a Deist. Perhaps you might be an agnostic Deist. I hope you will not be offended if I play with several of your remarks.

Jack > For me, the term Deist has always implied a somewhat more rigorous belief system than my rather amorphous, existentialist, and science-based collage of beliefs. I have no problem with cognitive dissonance, and I am perfectly capable of holding two incompatible beliefs (such as the existence of God versus the non-existence of God) at the same time. I can argue the point either way, but I LEAN moderately in the direction of His existence. It's not logical, but, as I said, my beliefs are based more on my emotional makeup than on logic. So I reserve the right to call myself a theistic agnostic.

Jack, original statement >>> I am an agnostic because I recognize the impossibility of knowing, one way or the other, the truth about God's existence. There is just not enough scientific evidence to make a choice.

Buffman >> I imagine that you have heard many religionists say, "The absence of evidence IS NOT the evidence of absence." I have come to a different view. "The absence of evidence IS the evidence of absence."

Jack > Sorry. From my science-based point of view, I cannot agree with this statement. See below.

Buffman >> We have had thousands of years filled with claims concerning the supernatural. We have had only a few hundred years with the means of accurately analyzing the evidence for those claims. As our scientific testing techniques become even more precise, the belief in a supernatural world becomes less and less credible from a critically reasoned view of the universe.

Jack > 100 years or so ago we had the same "few hundred years" (minus 100 years) of accurately analyzed evidence for a simple, rather mechanistic view of the universe that was held with almost religious fervor by most scientists, not to mention the public. And it only took 2 experimental observations (Michelson-Morley & the non-continual nature of energy) plus some inspired thinking to completely overturn that view in favor of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And, "as our scientific testing techniques become even more precise" the latter appears to move even further from what one would consider to be logical. To quote Feynman: "If you think you understand Quantum Theory, that proves that you don't understand Quantum Theory." In light of this, I still hold that absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.

Buffman >> You contend that scientific evidence is required for you to make a reasoned decision about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

Jack > No, not the supernatural in general, just God. If He exists, He is not supernatural, it's only His possible non-existence that get Him defined as supernatural.

Buffman >> We can't see, hear or touch gravity, but few will contend that it does not exist.

Jack > But we can feel gravity's effects, which is just as good, in my opinion, as seeing it. Actually, there is no "force of gravity", there is only the warpage of space/time in the presence of a mass. This has been proved experimentally many times.

Buffman >> "Hah," you say! "We have scientific evidence that it does exist." And there's the rub. We can devise the means of scientifically verifying the "Natural" world phenomena. We can even devise the scientific means of testing the claims of supernatural phenomena...and have done so over, and over, and over again without finding any scientifically verifiable evidence that there is any "Supernatural" world beyond that which is created in the human mind.

Jack > See above. I don't believe in supernatural things. If God exists, he is natural, not supernatural. If it were not for Uncertainty (note the capital) I MIGHT be able to agree with you. But when pure pragmatists like Heisenberg and Schroedinger can come up with a Quantum Mechanics founded on outright Uncertainty, I have to think that even purely natural phenomena (such as a possible God) may not always be susceptible to scientific proof. Hawking has been quoted, in response to Einstein's statement, as saying something like: "God not only plays dice with the universe, but the dice are loaded."

Buffman >> So, I would ask if you are holding on to your uncertain belief in a supernatural entity because you know that science can never prove or disprove all the fantasies created by the human mind to explain the purpose, meaning and direction of the universe, and the life that evolved within it, to the degree that it can, and has, explained gravity. (Explanations which are under constant review, modification and refinement...unlike a belief in a supernatural world which exists only on human faith.)

Jack > As I said, I do not believe in supernatural things, so most of this paragraph is of little import to me.

Buffman >> At one time, I argued that if "energy" was consciously self-aware, then Energy was God because energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Today, even though I hate labels, I simply call myself a Non Supernaturalist.

Jack > I'm not fond of labels either. That is one reason I don't adopt the traditional label of Deist.

Jack, original statement >>> For me, there is enough uncertainty in Uncertainty to allow the wiggle room necessary for my theistic side to come forward.

Buffman >> Does this not make the assumption that the theistic side has always existed in every human? Care to place that premise under the microscope? Perhaps a definition of "theistic side" would be a worthwhile place to start. (I ask these questions because I believe that you have made some wonderfully insightful observations in each of your posts.)

Jack > When I say "Uncertainty" (note Caps) I'm not referring to the uncertain element in human nature and thought, I'm referring to the Uncertainty Principle, the foundation of Quantum Mechanics. And may I remind you that QM is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived. Every time you turn on your computer, every time a transistor on an Integrated Circuit switches, it is tested again.

Respectfully,
Jack

Buffman

Jack

Thank you for a dandy and stimulating response.

I found little with which I can not agree...in principle. However, I am having a problem with "supernatural" as you have chosen to define it.

Jack > No, not the supernatural in general, just God. If He exists, He is not supernatural, it's only His possible non-existence that get Him defined as supernatural.

If God exists, he is natural, not supernatural.

First, why do you elect to capitalize "God/He/Him?" Aren't you displaying a conditioned predisposition to worship something male that is not in evidence?

Second, do you not strip your "God" of any omnipotence, omniscience, or any other reason to be worshipped as the originator and ruler of the universe, by alleging that if "It" exists it is separate from the supernatural? Am I correct to assume that you view this alleged entity, if it exists, to be endowed with supernatural powers...in general?

Third, does your definition of supernatural include the ability to manipulate the natural world in ways which are impossible to ever comprehend, quantify or explain within the verifiable natural and physical theories of the universe and human understanding? (i.e.:Miracles)

Lastly, but certainly not final, how do you deal with the origins of such an entity that you are willing to envision.

Obviously I do not define "supernatural" in the same manner that you appear to have used it. My science background leads me in a different direction from yours. ("Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." ...the National Academy of Sciences)

Hawking has been quoted, in response to Einstein's statement, as saying something like: "God not only plays dice with the universe, but the dice are loaded."

Hmmmmm? And this is evidence of Uncertainty? And Uncertainty is evidence of the possibility of some "natural" Master Architect of the Universe. A Divine Providence beyond our measure or comprehension? A Creator God? A Supreme Judge of our world and everything that exists? And you would label this entity "natural?"

I seem to remember that S. Hawking devoted Chap. 4, of "A Brief History of Time," to the Uncertainty Principle. I also seem to recall that Prigogine and Stengers in "Order Out of Chaos" devoted a portion of Chap, VII to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation. In 1988, John Wiley and Sons published an interesting book by Bruce Gregory titled "Inventing Reality:Physics as Language." Chap. 15 ('The Last Word') provides some intriguing thoughts about the role of language in our perceptions of the natural world. So I find it a challenging task to sort through language to find the verifiable facts concerning what is real and what isn't using as much of scientific methodology as my human limitations will allow.

And may I remind you that QM is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived.

Would you care to offer some scientifically verifiable evidence and the methodology used to make that claim/belief?

Jack

Buffman wrote>> Thank you for a dandy and stimulating response. I found little with which I can not agree...in principle. However, I am having a problem with "supernatural" as you have chosen to define it.

Jack > Thanks again. Here goes.

Jack, previously >>> No, not the supernatural in general, just God. If He exists, He is not supernatural, it's only His possible non-existence that get Him defined as supernatural. If God exists, he is natural, not supernatural.

Buffman >> First, why do you elect to capitalize "God/He/Him?" Aren't you displaying a conditioned predisposition to worship something male that is not in evidence?

Jack > I am simply following standard English grammar and linguistic convention, which I find to be better than PC neologisms. Standard English usage when linguistic gender is unavoidable is that male linguistic gender includes female linguistic gender. In my opinion, English does not have a neutral-gender word that adequately expresses the concept of divinity. Strangely enough, Latin does, and the Great Seal of the USA makes use of that in the inscription "Annuit Coeptis" which literally means "It (Providence) has seen and approved our undertaking." As a sidebar, in my opinion, people cannot have gender, only language has gender (people have a sex).

Buffman >> Second, do you not strip your "God" of any omnipotence, omniscience, or any other reason to be worshipped as the originator and ruler of the universe, by alleging that if "It" exists it is separate from the supernatural? Am I correct to assume that you view this alleged entity, if it exists, to be endowed with supernatural powers...in general?

Jack > No, I do not strip OR assign Him any supernatural powers at all. If He exists and has any powers (an open question, I admit) then both He and His powers are entirely natural.

Buffman > Third, does your definition of supernatural include the ability to manipulate the natural world in ways which are impossible to ever comprehend, quantify or explain within the verifiable natural and physical theories of the universe and human understanding? (i.e.:Miracles)

Jack > If God and His putative powers are both natural (see above) then, should He choose to use His powers (another unknown) then this "usage of powers" is also natural, not a miracle, human lack of comprehension notwithstanding. Then again, how the hell would I know the difference? (Reference: chaotic existentialism)

Buffman >> Lastly, but certainly not final, how do you deal with the origins of such an entity that you are willing to envision.

Jack > "Willing to envision" only after receiving adequate proof. My current theistic tilt falls far short of "envisioning" God. And (again assuming His existence) how would I know about His origins or lack thereof except through the same evidence proving His existence?

Buffman >> Obviously I do not define "supernatural" in the same manner that you appear to have used it. My science background leads me in a different direction from yours. ("Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." ...the National Academy of Sciences)

Jack > That doesn't sound like a different direction to me. I think the difference is that I can live with uncertainty to a greater degree. I am perfectly able to contemplate God's existence and non-existence simultaneously. (I had better be able to live with uncertainty: my health precludes certainty about my own continued existence.)

Jack, previously >>> Hawking has been quoted, in response to Einstein's statement, as saying something like: "God not only plays dice with the universe, but the dice are loaded."

Buffman >> Hmmmmm? And this is evidence of Uncertainty?

Jack > Hawking is just rebutting Einstein's classic rejection of Uncertainty and Quantum Theory in the same terms that Einstein used.

Buffman >> And Uncertainty is evidence of the possibility of some "natural" Master Architect of the Universe.

Jack > I don't know about the term "Master Architect of the
Universe", and the Uncertainty Principle is not evidence, just philosophical wiggle room, but other than those significant caveats, yes.

Buffman > A Divine Providence beyond our measure or comprehension?

Jack > Perhaps, perhaps not. If we ever get some convincing evidence it would have to be within our comprehension, wouldn't it?

Buffman > A Creator God?

Jack > Maybe, maybe not. If a presumed God just flicked a neutrino with His left little finger and thus started the Big Bang, does that count as "The Creation"? This is just a concept, not a conviction.

Buffman >> A Supreme Judge of our world and everything that exists?

Jack > I doubt it. "Supreme Judge" seems way too anthropomorphic, but then again, how would I know? Soon enough I WILL know. I'm perfectly willing to wait.

Buffman > And you would label this entity "natural?"

Jack > Would not any entity that truly exists have to be natural?

Buffman > I seem to remember that S. Hawking devoted Chap. 4, of "A Brief History of Time," to the Uncertainty Principle. I also seem to recall that Prigogine and Stengers in "Order Out of Chaos" devoted a portion of Chap, VII to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation. In 1988, John Wiley and Sons published an interesting book by Bruce Gregory titled "Inventing Reality:Physics as Language." Chap. 15 ('The Last Word') provides some intriguing thoughts about the role of language in our perceptions of the natural world. So I find it a challenging task to sort through language to find the verifiable facts concerning what is real and what isn't using as much of scientific methodology as my human limitations will allow.

Jack > Sounds good to me.

Jack, previously >>> And may I remind you that QM is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived.

Buffman >> Would you care to offer some scientifically verifiable evidence and the methodology used to make that claim/belief?

Jack > The transistor, which electronic devices have on their ICs by the zillion, was invented by following up on some predictions inherent in Quantum Theory and Mechanics. This invention is the most obvious validation of QT of which I know. So every time a transistor switches, QT is proved once again. If you don't like that somewhat indirect example, try this: Lasers are almost purely Quantum Mechanical devices. Every time a CD or DVD is played or recorded, QT is once again directly verified. Considering the number of PCs in the world (not to mention CD and DVD players) there's a whole lot of validation going on. By the way, the Relativistic view of gravity, space, and time is the second most thoroughly verified scientific principle ever. GPS devices would not work accurately if the GP Satellites were not programmed with Relativistic calculations.

Jack

Buffman

Jack,

I hope you can appreciate what a pleasure this dialogue is for me after having attempted, in vain, to have a rational one with a certain other member, who need not remain nameless becaise just about everyone in C-SS and elsewhere else knows who it is?

Jack > No, I do not strip OR assign Him any supernatural powers at all. If He exists and has any powers (an open question, I admit) then both He and His powers are entirely natural.

"IF" is a mighty big word, isn't it? However, "if" He is real, then obviously He is not supernatural...even "if" endowed with supernatural powers. (I can live with that...though I can not accept it as being very scientific.) However, if your imaginary (just had to say that) God exists 'without' supernatural powers, what makes Him worthy of "Godship?"

Then again, how the hell would I know the difference? (Reference: chaotic existentialism)

Hear! Hear, brother! Amen! We earthlings would make Gods out of ETs. (Maybe we did!)

Jack > "Willing to envision" only after receiving adequate proof. My current theistic tilt falls far short of "envisioning" God. And (again assuming His existence) how would I know about His origins or lack thereof except through the same evidence proving His existence?

Hmmmmm? Interesting! Difficult to offer a worthwhile response.---Well, I guess that if He were "natural," you could ask Him from whence He came...and why? Of course He could always reply, "I am what I am. Now bow down and worship me or die a thousand horrible deaths." I guess I have been a non-believer far too long to be able to even mentally create some sort of real "super" Sky Daddy. As I mentioned earlier, when there is some verifiable evidence that such an Entity "could" exist, will be the point at which my mind might begin to "flesh-out" the appropriate characteristics of this Entity. And that, in my opinion, is what humankind has been doing since it became self-aware. Personifying the unknown in an attempt to bring order, and commensurate understanding, out of "seeming" chaos (a random, scary as hell, universe). Isn't it as we have gained increasingly accurate knowledge about that universe that Super Daddy has receded further and further to the edges of it? Isn't it as the Hubble telescope reveals more and more of that spectacular, and as yet unexplained universe, that Super Daddy is making a come-back?

I think the difference is that I can live with uncertainty to a greater degree.

Initially that seems like an excellent point. However, on closer examination, aren't you intentionally creating unnecessary uncertainty because of your need to explain the unknown? Why do some folks believe that we are the product of ET technology...or in point of fact, the off-spring of space/time travelers? --- One of the wonderful, though often untamed, attributes of the human mind is its ability to create an answer for any question....whether that answer is valid or not. That is why the use of scientific methodology has been such a positive (though certainly not always in our best long term human interests) development in our desire to accurately answer some of the questions we ask of ourselves . What often tends to distress me is our ability to discount accurate answers simply because we don't like them. (i.e.: The purpose and meaning of life is to reproduce and die. Everything else stems from the long gestation and growth to puberty time period of the offspring...AND...our creative reasoning abilities while we face and overcome the various environmental challenges during that period...AND the period of life we have managed to extend for ourselves beyond it.) --- Have we not successfully managed to extend the average human life well beyond its normal period of fertility? (From the 40's to the 70's?) Have we not managed to improve our basic survival requirements by reducing the urgency of the daily search for food and water? Have we not managed to bring many of the environmental threats to our survival under increasing control? Have we not advanced our creative and technical abilities to the point that they may be approaching a point that could bite us in the ass before the problems they have created can be accurately identified and resolved...without any pleadings to some artificial Sky Daddy to save our vested interest asses? ---Thus, isn't creating artificial Uncertainty not in our best interests because there is already enough "real" Uncertainty without us adding to it?

I am perfectly able to contemplate God's existence and non-existence simultaneously. (I had better be able to live with uncertainty: my health precludes certainty about my own continued existence.)

(Aside: I am sincerely distressed to learn of any health problems you may have. However, my dad suddenly dropped dead at 40 and I have managed to survive for 28 years longer than he did. I am now in what the AARP would call the "Golden Years." I call them the "Rust Years." I love technology. My new blood pressure checking device automatically inflates and I don't approach having a cardiac attempting to squeeze that damn rubber ball any longer.)

Jack, it isn't that I can't live with Uncertainty. After a career in combat jet flying, believe me when I say that I have lived with a goodly amount of Uncertainty in my life. All I am trying to say is why unnecessarily create more?

I don't know about the term "Master Architect of the Universe", and the Uncertainty Principle is not evidence, just philosophical wiggle room, but other than those significant caveats, yes.

I apologize for that whole series of descriptive adjectives of the Deistic sort. I was using many of those found in our Declaration of Independence as a vehicle to amplify my personal thoughts about Uncertainty and the human quest for accurate answers.

Jack > Would not any entity that truly exists have to be natural?

Yup!

Jack, previously >>> And may I remind you that QM is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived.

Buffman >> Would you care to offer some scientifically verifiable evidence and the methodology used to make that claim/belief?

You supplied a superb response. Thank you. Now, what if I were to contend that "electrical energy converted to work" is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived?

Jack

Buffman wrote >> I hope you can appreciate what a pleasure this dialogue is for me after having attempted, in vain, to have a rational one with a certain other member, who need not remain nameless becaise just about everyone in C-SS and elsewhere else knows who it is?

Jack > Well I haven't been posting here for a while so I don't know and don't want to.

Jack, previously >>>> No, I do not strip OR assign Him any supernatural powers at all. If He exists and has any powers (an open question, I admit) then both He and His powers are entirely natural.

Buffman >> "IF" is a mighty big word, isn't it? However, "if" He is real, then obviously He is not supernatural...even "if" endowed with supernatural powers. (I can live with that...though I can not accept it as being very scientific.) However, if your imaginary (just had to say that) God exists 'without' supernatural powers, what makes Him worthy of "Godship?"

Jack > The proof of his existence would have to include a rationale for "Godship", I guess.

Jack, previously >>>> Then again, how the hell would I know the difference? (Reference: chaotic existentialism)

Buffman >> Hear! Hear, brother! Amen! We earthlings would make Gods out of ETs. (Maybe we did!)

Jack > We are more likely to make Gods of our political ideologies.

Jack, previously >>>> "Willing to envision" only after receiving adequate proof. My current theistic tilt falls far short of "envisioning" God. And (again assuming His existence) how would I know about His origins or lack thereof except through the same evidence proving His existence?

Buffman >> Hmmmmm? Interesting! Difficult to offer a worthwhile response.---Well, I guess that if He were "natural," you could ask Him from whence He came...and why?

Jack > Assuming, of course, that He is an entity of whom one could ask questions.

Buffman >> Of course He could always reply, "I am what I am. Now bow down and worship me or die a thousand horrible deaths." I guess I have been a non-believer far too long to be able to even mentally create some sort of real "super" Sky Daddy. As I mentioned earlier, when there is some verifiable evidence that such an Entity "could" exist, will be the point at which my mind might begin to "flesh-out" the appropriate characteristics of this Entity. And that, in my opinion, is what humankind has been doing since it became self-aware. Personifying the unknown in an attempt to bring order, and commensurate understanding, out of "seeming" chaos (a random, scary as hell, universe). Isn't it as we have gained increasingly accurate knowledge about that universe that Super Daddy has receded further and further to the edges of it? Isn't it as the Hubble telescope reveals more and more of that spectacular, and as yet unexplained universe, that Super Daddy is making a come-back?

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.

Jack, previously >>>> I think the difference is that I can live with uncertainty to a greater degree.

Buffman >> Initially that seems like an excellent point. However, on closer examination, aren't you intentionally creating unnecessary uncertainty because of your need to explain the unknown?

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

Buffman >> Why do some folks believe that we are the product of ET technology...or in point of fact, the off-spring of space/time travelers? --- One of the wonderful, though often untamed, attributes of the human mind is its ability to create an answer for any question....whether that answer is valid or not.

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.

Buffman >> That is why the use of scientific methodology has been such a positive (though certainly not always in our best long term human interests) development in our desire to accurately answer some of the questions we ask of ourselves . What often tends to distress me is our ability to discount accurate answers simply because we don't like them. (i.e.: The purpose and meaning of life is to reproduce and die. Everything else stems from the long gestation and growth to puberty time period of the offspring...AND...our creative reasoning abilities while we face and overcome the various environmental challenges during that period...AND the period of life we have managed to extend for ourselves beyond it.) --- Have we not successfully managed to extend the average human life well beyond its normal period of fertility? (From the 40's to the 70's?)

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.

Buffman > Have we not managed to improve our basic survival requirements by reducing the urgency of the daily search for food and water? Have we not managed to bring many of the environmental threats to our survival under increasing control? Have we not advanced our creative and technical abilities to the point that they may be approaching a point that could bite us in the ass before the problems they have created can be accurately identified and resolved...without any pleadings to some artificial Sky Daddy to save our vested interest asses? ---Thus, isn't creating artificial Uncertainty not in our best interests because there is already enough "real" Uncertainty without us adding to it?

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.

Jack, previously >>>> I am perfectly able to contemplate God's existence and non-existence simultaneously. (I had better be able to live with uncertainty: my health precludes certainty about my own continued existence.)

Buffman >> (Aside: I am sincerely distressed to learn of any health problems you may have. However, my dad suddenly dropped dead at 40 and I have managed to survive for 28 years longer than he did. I am now in what the AARP would call the "Golden Years." I call them the "Rust Years." I love technology. My new blood pressure checking device automatically inflates and I don't approach having a cardiac attempting to squeeze that damn rubber ball any longer.)

Jack > I am 62. My blood pressure and chloresterol tend to be too low. I can get light-headed by standing up too quickly. I joke that I sometiimes need a side of salty fries to get up to operating levels. So, ironically, I was diagnosed (October 2001) with Multiple Myeloma (MM). MM is a cancer of the blood plasma cells that lives in the bone marrow and, among other effects, erodes the bones from the inside. I have 5 inches worth of spinal collapse. Other effects include a weakened immune system and, in some, kidney failure. MM is incurable and invariably fatal, but highly treatable. I am reacting rather well to a new treatment that my Docs pioneered on me quite serendipitously. My life term prognosis is anywhere from several months to more than a decade. It is impossible to nail it down any better. Less than 10 years ago I was riding a bicicyle more than 100 miles a week. Now I get exhausted if I walk 1/2 mile.

Buffman >> Jack, it isn't that I can't live with Uncertainty. After a career in combat jet flying, believe me when I say that I have lived with a goodly amount of Uncertainty in my life. All I am trying to say is why unnecessarily create more?

Jack > Flying military jets. That's pretty uncertain. At least you were in some control. I'm not creating more Uncertainty. I am just reacting to the amount already present in the universe.

Jack, previously >>>> And may I remind you that QM is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived.

Buffman, previously >>> Would you care to offer some scientifically verifiable evidence and the methodology used to make that claim/belief?

Buffman >> You supplied a superb response. Thank you. Now, what if I were to contend that "electrical energy converted to work" is the most thoroughly tested scientific idea ever conceived?

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