Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Dennis Muses on "Science, falsely so called."

1 Timothy 6:19-21

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
19 In this way they will treasure up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may lay hold of the real life.
20 Oh, Timothy! Keep safe what has been entrusted to you. Turn away from the ungodly babblings and the argumentative opposition of what is falsely called “knowledge.” 21 For many who promise this “knowledge” have missed the mark, as far as the faith is concerned. Grace be with you.

1 Timothy 6:19-21

King James Version (KJV)
19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

As usual, we are not told just exactly the problem was here in the Church.  We aren't told what constitutes vain babblings, fake knowing or science , falsely so called.  These scriptures can be used to resist any idea one does not agree with and are often used so. 

This quote on "science, falsely so called" is telling and typical of literalists who are frightened, intimidated and pis..., angered by the implications of science done well.  This quote goes beyond stupid and is full of lies that the author needs to believe to cope with science done well which threatens his world.

"I’ll go even further: science cannot speak with any authority about when the universe began, how it came into being, or how life originated on earth. Science by definition deals with what can be observed, tested, measured, and investigated by empirical means. Scientific data by definition are facts that can be demonstrated by controlled, repeatable experiments that always yield consistent results. The beginning of the universe by its very nature falls outside the realm of scientific investigation.

To state the case plainly: there is no scientific way to explain creationNo one but God actually observed creation. It did not happen by any uniform, predictable, observable, repeatable, fixed, or natural laws. It was not a natural event or a series of natural events. The initial creation of matter was an instantaneous, monumental, inexplicable miracle—the exact opposite of a “natural” phenomenon. And the formation of the universe was a brief series of supernatural events that simply cannot be studied or explained by science. There are no natural processes involved in creation; the act of creation cannot be repeated; it cannot be tested; and therefore naturalistic theories purporting to explain the origin and age of the universe are unverifiable.
In other words, creation is a theological issue, not a scientific one. Scripture is our only credible source of information about creation, because God Himself was the only eyewitness to the event. We can either believe what He says or reject it. But no Christian should ever imagine that what we believe about the origin of the universe is merely a secondary, nonessential, or incidental matter. It is, after all, the very starting point of God’s self-revelation."

"Science, falsely so called" is one of the great catch phrases and oft quoted ones used by those who simply cannot or will not consider anything other than "God did it" as the answer to how did this all come to be and how did we arrive here.  "God did it."  That's the answer to where did time and space come from.  It is the answer to how did the universe come to be , all the elements , the stars, the galaxies, the planets and life.   The above quote is probably one of the most ignorant and telling quotes I personally have ever read from a person who is trying ever so hard to bolster faith over facts and religion over science well done.  In my view, the bolded comments are simply lies and reveal a profound ignorance on the part of the one who simply cannot allow the concept of science well done to enter into the equation.  Equations are also scary to the ignorant fundamentalist thinker.

Most creationists argue against human origins emotionally and tend to revert  when not well studied or versed in the actual science done well to "God did it."   I think we are all familiar with the concept of "God said it. I believe it. That does it for me."   Well, that doesn't do it for me and while one can be accused by religionists as "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth...", I consider that a defensive statement spoken when one begins to fear that science done well or even theology , archaeology and history done well becomes very threatening to one's beliefs, which are not truths we should remember.  They are merely beliefs and for some, beliefs can change.  For others, they can not change because it is too threatening and frightening. The reason people argue endlessly over such topics is that one feels they had it all "figured out" and now here comes "science" or "theology" , falsely so called, to screw up my beliefs.  "What are you saying...I am wrong?"   Well, sometimes.  Aren't we all at times?
I grew up saying the Apostles Creed every week from the time I could talk. The Creed, of course, was not written or spoken by any of the original Apostles in the NT Church.  The concepts are too advanced and represent the evolution, may I use that word, of theological thought.  It is an article of faith not facts and theology, not science.  Not one sentence in the Creed can be proven to be true.  Every sentence in it is subject to questioning and is simply taken as a matter of faith.  That is ok.  It is religion after all.    I remember as a child asking  why, if we were Presbyterian, did we believe in the "the holy catholic church"?   That just meant "universal" evidently meaning the whole big church somewhere God only knows.  We didn't have to know where the church wasn't.  We just knew where it was and it was US.  I remained suspicious of the phrase all my life.  Everything the author of the above on his view of science, falsely so called , can be said of the religious and faith oriented Apostles Creed.   The emotional arguments related to science well done versus faith and theological issues are endless.  I don't tend to participate in them myself , even here on Banned, because they are so endless and fruitless.  No one says, or at least I ever read it here, "Amazing...I never thought of thought or knew that.  Thank you for the information. I will search it out more."  Well, I have heard it but it was in dripping sarcasm.


I believe in God, the Father almighty,

      creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit

      and born of the virgin Mary.

      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

In my older years now, and one only gets older if you are lucky it seems, I can only speak for myself and my own  Creed of Science Done Well.  I appreciate science well done. Highly educated human beings today are not in the business of trying to make fools out of themselves or be considered as such.  While there is always "fringe science" much like the reality of "fringe religion", it is not the goal of scientists in any field to muck up or come to wrong conclusions. I assume it is also not the goal of literalist theologians either.   If they do, the research goes into the pool of knowing and the search continues.   I have grown up in a time where we have learned more in the last 50 years about the how and why of origins than in the previous 100,000 years.  My parents were taught the galaxy WAS the Universe.  Now we know better through the hard work of science done well.  

For decades I soaked in religion. As a child, I soaked in Sunday School and Church and knew most of the Bible, the stories and the characters very well, Old Testament and New,  before ever going into the Worldwide Church of God.  As a child I had shelves of astronomy and dinosaur books.  I spent countless hours as a child and teen at the local library looking sideways at books that may catch my interest. I libraried in the mornings and played hockey all afternoon anywhere I could find a good game.   I don't think I have changed much at all since being a kid and the ministry of the Worldwide Church did not change much of my perspectives on such things along the way.  The stories of creation and Adam and Eve had meaning to the Hebrews who wrote them which I have written about elsewhere, but they were not meant to be scientific in meaning.  The "science, falsely so called, " was not the science of today.  Whatever the writer of Timothy (it was probably not the Apostle Paul) was getting at, and they always never seemed to actually tell us what the problem actually was or the topic of that problem,  it was something that still after 2000 years was not something about science well done.  The problem could have been astrology or the ideas of well read pagan philosophers of the day, but it is not stated.  

I can only think off hand of three problems actually defined in the New Testament as troublesome to the church.  Some were teaching the resurrection was already past, go figure.  Some were teaching that Jesus had not really come in the flesh which seems odd at such an early date and some were mockers concerning the delayed coming of Jesus.  There were other problems of course, but these three stand out as odd problems for the young church.  I always thought thinking Jesus had not really come in the flesh was like denying Elvis or John Kennedy of just a few years ago and that those who got antsy about the promises of Jesus coming again were correct after all.  I have no idea why one would teach the resurrection was a thing of the past in such an early stage of the church but then again I have never figured out just how "nature itself teaches us it is a shame for a man to have long hair."  Go tell Mr. Lion.

At any rate, here is MY Creed.  It does not have to be YOURS.  We are all where we are on whatever the path is.  There is NO chance in this life that any group of people on this earth, religious or otherwise can "all speak the same thing."  There is almost no other more ignorant verse in the New Testament as to how people actually are.  To "all speak the same thing," one would have to be brain dead and hold no personal views.  To "all speak the same thing," one would have to lie to themselves and be one way to the group and hide personal beliefs and doubts about the group way of being behind a mask of compliance.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IF NOT DEPRESSING TO THINK THAT ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO ALL SPEAK AND BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS.  To me, that has always been spoken by those who put themselves in charge and want compliance to THEIR thinking.  In the real world, this is just not a healthy way to be as an individual.  It is an impossible goal and suspect at best when the bully pulpit tell the congregation how they must think.   A Dave Pack comes to mind along with far too many others.  

I speak my truth.  You can speak yours.

The Science Done Well Creed

I believe that something Banged and it was Big

I believe that whatever banged has banged many times before creating other universes, both parallel and multi.

I believe there is much more to be learned about this in the thousands of years to come

I believe that what banged produced the hydrogen needed for stars to form , live and die.

I believe that stars that died produced all the elements seen today in our world sufficient to produce billions of galaxies each with billions of planets. 

I believe that life must be everywhere in the Universe, in many forms

I believe this is not the only Universe

I believe life evolves and our Universe took 13.7 billion years to do it. 

I believe that in our genes and in our bodies lie the remnants of countless lifeforms before us.   

I believe in my inner fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal,  ape, Homo  habilis, Erectus, Neanderthalis and Sapien

I believe the trigeminal nerve is so convoluted and long because the fossil record shows our inner ear bones originated in the jawbones of reptiles long past. 

I believe it when told Europeans have 2-4% Neanderthal Genes in their spit

I believe humans uniquely have come to be conscious and aware that we are aware

I believe our conscious awareness that we have a limited shelf life and will die has produced most of our religious needs and thinking.  

I believe religious anger and wars are the results of the threatening nature of the beliefs of others and how it upsets our worldview

I believe science done well threatens theology done badly

I believe in the mystery of human consciousness and the wonder of it all

I believe I am stardust and in science done well

I believe beliefs can change as knowledge increases

I believe that knowledge that increases is a sign of the end for ignorance about just what and who we are in the Universe

I believe in the vast differences between Religion and Spirituality

I believe what I learned in Sunday School about the Bible being earthly stories with heavenly meanings.

I believe what i have since learned about not all earthly stories portray literal events

I believe in the vast differences between Literalism and Reality

I believe reality is always our friend

I believe I like that...

What's Your Creed?
(You know...the one deep inside you and not dictated by others...)


Allen C. Dexter said...

As usual, very well thought out and written. You really need to write a book, Dennis, putting the things you have come up with in a coherent, organized series.

DennisCDiehl said...

Myra rags on my motives again in a personal email. I give up going round and round with her. Nothing I endeavor to explain is good enough. Myra can't seem to distinguish between expressing a view and accusing me of this or that. On top of this, I have multiple evil motives for it all. Help me out here.

"Dennis says-"Seriously though, in my experience, most people get far more defensive over what they already are sure they know than excited or fascinated by what they may yet come to know if they only stepped outside those boxes"

Uuhh -huh! And you don't do that huh Dennis? It takes faith to believe that every evolutionary theory is true-right? So you have that faith in your own mindset because you blame God for not rescuing you from the Armstrongs, you also have bitterness for a being that you claim does not exist, but when anyone questions you about the roots of your belief system you want to get back at them and avoid answering any questions that might suggest that you need to research your own current belief system-right?

Yes, we can criticize the evils of the COGs but they were started by merchandzing men who want to rob their followers in order to get back into that same posh lifestyle they had before Hebert sank his own ship with more idiots like him.

But FYI I've read the books written by famous philosophers, like Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Walter Benjamin, etc., etc. They put their own ideas down in ink. HWA studied philosophy during his early studies on communism(another faith of men who deceived others with their ideas on egalitarinism which was nothng more than power seeking). Herbert also put his own ideas down in ink and announced them to anyone willing to listen, and not ask questions.

I do pray for you Dennis because if anyone needs to think outside their own little narrow mindset, it is you.

Anonymous said...

LOL, when a Christian disagrees with me and then says they'll "pray for me" , I generally stop communicating with them and take it as a compliment- even though it's usually meant otherwise.

DennisCDiehl said...

Actually to me, and maybe I am missing something, it takes no faith to believe in evolution. Faith is not a factor in putting the findings of science together and follow the trail. I don't believe it because of faith in it. I believe it because it is believable and the current findings of many very well done experiements and observations.

The stories of the Bible cannot be tested. That is not the nature of the Bible. What may be a hearsay story to one can be accepted as being so by another.

I don't recall blaming any God for not resuing me from "the Armstrongs" I made my choices and when younger, the WCG seemed to be more true to me than what I grew up with. Being a weird kid interested in theology as well, I followed my heart sincerely until I outgrew it, in my view. I am intitled to my view and story just as everyone is.

The self inflicted gunshots to the body of the WCG at the hands of those in charge did help me move along. I admit to wishing I had never heard of WCG but that was not the story. It had to play out for me until it reached a natural yet painful conclusion. Nothing wrong with painful. It's a great teacher.

Saying one reads books and then calling them just ideas, as if they weren't good ones is something I can't relate to. When I was debating Art Mokarrow in Tyler I mentioned "Evolution:What the Fossils Tell us and Why It Matters" Ron Mosely, sidekick of Art blurted out that "I have that book." I asked if he had read it not just had it. Many think if they read something that proves they have considered the content well. It does not.

I have read well in both theology and all things Bible and science. I find more practical information in the science than in what I now consider the somewhat less than literal stories and content of the Bible. Lots of people do that. Billions do that.

I consider my small box and narrow mindset to be quite big and large compared to most I grew up with and worked around in a literalist church setting.

Byker Bob said...

I'm glad that I never picked up a "Myra" over the years. I just don't have the time for endless debates, being more of a "let's just agree to disagree" person. I have had people in the past, though, and several ladies come to mind, that just glommed on to me on forums, and attempted to correct me and "fix" my life using either Armstrongism, or atheism. In my case, (and theirs) I didn't sense any genuine concern for my soul, but rather just a desire on their part to win an argument for their side. Arguing, imo, makes for very poor exercise.

There are people who will adopt a needs-based philosophy which offers a lot of rules, and these are the ones who generally need well-defined structure which they know and use to order all aspects of their lives. There are others who are natural, or perpetual "seekers" who are in a constant state of considering, analyzing, and applying data from various sources to their lives. I don't know whether this is a left hemisphere vs right hemisphere dominance issue, but I do know that in ancient times, some of the highly structured religious folk even went to the extreme of considering left-handed people to be demon-possessed.

The seemingly infinite contrasting permutations of dna, environmental and educational factors, and the various mental filters we all have virtually guarantee that one size does not, and cannot fit all. It's why prepackaged, organized, corporate "religion" does not, and cannot work. What does work is the way God melds with our minds as individuals, producing the ultimate good which is promised by someone or other in the New Testament. Sometimes the high structure people, or I-O thinkers experience difficulty in wrapping their minds around that.


Anonymous said...

I believe in an infinitely higher consciousness, power, knowledge, and Person much greater then we could ever be.

I believe that interventions, healings, miracles, and stories and experiences beyond our reality are true and are proof of the spirit world.

I believe that evolution does not account for the puzzle pieces of how evolution made exactly the right materials, foods,materials, and life suitable for habitation - the right sizes, tastes textures, and infinitely more examples.

I believe in Jesus Christ with all of my heart. Call me bronze age, call me one who believes in the "Sky Fairy", I don't care. I know in my personal experience He is real, and so is His Father, and His Spirit, and that's all that is important to me.

I believe God loves all of us more then we could ever know.

I believe the Bible was written in a manner that was comprehensible to Stone Age peoples, and carries the basics of information way too advanced for them, or us, to comprehend.

I believe in goodness, faithfulness, kindness, meekness, self control, temperance, joy, love, peace, and mercy.

I believe that when you look to the physical, all you will see is the physical. I believe there is more to us then just stardust and ashes.

I believe God.

And I believe Jesus' instructions are good and we are to love God and love Man with all our hearts.

This is MY core beliefs, and though they may be the minority of this blog, and may be mocked - it's what I hold dear. Since you asked, I thought I'd share.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 10:51 AM,

I believe you've given me impetus to "http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EXpbwuOl6mg/UEJWKvTNGwI/AAAAAAAAFy8/5DuJ7lCG6EU/s1600/punkin.jpg<a href=">barf</a>.

Anonymous said...

Ahh. So our science-hating troll, who formerly went by "SH" (Stephen Hawking, not science hater, although the latter is more apt) is now going by "Myra"?

Basically what you propose is that it's MORE LIKELY that "satan" forged the earth's geological/fossil record, than that some guys forged a bogus "holy book" during the summer of their discontent (even though there are plenty of other similar writings everyone acknowledges are bogus). It is a willful misstatement and misattribution of what is rational, sensible, or probable.

The scientific method in the courtroom goes by the name "forensics evidence." The universe and the earth is full of this "evidence" that just needs a forensics expert to come along and decode it's story, the things which it witnessed and recorded in stratified layers.

What you're doing is equivalent to hearing a forensics expert tell the victim's tale by reading the evidence the killer left behind, and then hearing contradictory testimony by an untrustworthy witness, and deciding to reject the forensics in favor of the witness. Even a christian would say that amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

But when it comes to religion, you offer a special pleading for Yahweh, as though what you're doing and are asking us to do, doesn't amount to a miscarriage of sense and rationality. The witness provided by the forensics evidence is WAAAAYYYY more credible than anything you've got. If Yahweh were to show up in court and testify on his own behalf, then fine, but second-hand blah-blah-blah from a third party (bible) or a fourth party (you) is called "hearsay" and isn't admissible as testimony, and for very good reason.

So, thanks SH, for witnessing to us in the form of the science-haters credo. You have to understand what an untrustworthy witness you are, however, and how there's nothing you can say that's gonna trump the forensics. Not now, not ever.

Byker Bob said...

Excellent testimony, 10:51, and you get a hearty Amen from BB.

The problem becomes the filters. Non-believers who claim to evaluate and process only using objectivism and ruling out the subjective (this is actually theoretic, and not possible or even practical in real life) will invalidate the majority of your statements automatically. Their box is color coded only for the recycling of the objective.


Corky said...

"In the beginning GOD..." and then believing, for me, just naturally goes downhill from there. It's like somebody left off something before then, like "what is God?", for example, and where did it come from?

While it is true that as long as there has been human civilizations, there have been gods, many, many gods, the question of what a god is hasn't been answered. All descriptions found of "GOD" sound very human and physical to me.

Therefore, what I don't believe covers more pages in my imaginary book than what I do believe.

When two universes expanding at an accelerated rate finally collide at the outer edges - bang, a new universe is born. Ah, but where did the two original universes come from, you ask.

I don't know would have to be my answer, it's only one of many theories anyway, and that's why I personally start with what I do know and not what I pretend to know or wish to be so.

Evolution is a proven fact of biology, that's known. Creation by a supernatural something or other is not a proven fact of biology and can't even be tested even if there was evidence for it and there is none, none whatsoever. One can only "believe" in creationism "on faith" that what some Jewish priests wrote on goat skin wasn't just bullshit history - which we know from archeology that that's exactly what it was.

How does one know if he's wrong about something he believes? If one has no facts or evidence to back up what he believes then he's probably wrong - and, if there are facts and evidence that shows one is wrong, then he obviously and definitely is wrong.

Of course, it's not always that black and white and being right or wrong depends on the probabilities and not on what we want or prefer to believe. Faith: "pretending to know things we don't know" is how we deceive our own selves.

Therefore, I believe in facts and evidence and I don't believe in talking snakes nor the fantasy of a man surviving a worldwide flood and living 950 years nor anything else contained in that same book.

I believe in personal relationships with other humans but I don't believe in personal relationships with invisible, make believe friends.

I don't believe an uncaring evolution will lead to Utopia and I don't believe that belief in a god will lead to Utopia either. In fact, the evidence of history and science show the opposite for both. So, I believe that true knowledge coupled with humanism is the closest we, as a species, will ever come to Utopia.

I don't believe that Jesus, if he really existed, is/was God. The whole idea that God pronounced death on man so that he would have to become a man through being born of a virgin to sacrifice himself to himself to pay the penalty he himself pronounced on man is simply too absurd. It would be more believable that God (whatever that is) chose a man named Jesus to become his son after a time of perfect obedience and then adopted him as his son at the end of that time.

I believe that if something is too good to be true it probably is too good to be true. I believe that if anybody thinks they are one of the chosen few and special above other people, I believe they are nuttier than a fruitcake.

I believe I could go on all day about what I believe but I don't believe I will.

Joe Moeller said...

Ok Dennis---

Fair enough and I appreciate your honesty, even though I disagree for many valid scientific reasons, including against the hypothesis of "prior" big bangs, of which there is ZERO evidence.

Nonetheless, I am curious of your opinion. What do you imagine is the purpose or the "why" of all of this randomness, and chaos ordering itself?

In my experience, ROCKS are very lazy dudes!. Why do the elements go to such work, will and effort in order to become "alive". Why is there a will for all living things to live?

Do you have any theory or philosophy on "what does it all mean" other than "fluke of the universe".

Also, if there are infinite multiverses, how did all that start, what does that mean, and why does it exist.

My search in life always begins with these questions. We may disagree on our answers, however Nihilism does not satisfy me in the least.

Your Friend,
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

RSK said...

Reading the "Old Testament Law" made my position quite clear to me, and wishing it away is not a suitable course of action for me:

Any god who states that keeping female POWs as sex slaves, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, slaveholding (and beating the slaves), forcing suspected unfaithful wives to drink a "bitter water" to rot their bodies, selling one's own daughter as a slave to another man, murdering homosexuals, massacring an entire town because one person is not a believer, etc is "MORAL BEHAVIOR", whether it was in the Bronze Age or next year, is a disgusting excuse for a god and needs to be consigned to the manure pile of history.

And these gems and more are all to be found in "God's Word"!

Byker Bob said...

On this "books" thing-----there are actually numerous approaches to digesting and assimilating books, and we who have shared the Armstrong experience certainly have some past patterns to correct, and rise above

One approach to a book is that one reads, then rejects everything in the book, because it disagrees with all that we "know". You might want to do that with a book extolling the virtues of Satanism, but most books at least have some redeeming value for the time spent reading them. There is generally a nugget or two that can be investigated, and perhaps borrowed and applied in one's life.

Another approach is to totally imbibe of the Kool Aid served up by the particular author, for any number of reasons. Sometimes, people want change in their lives, and adopt the philosophy of another to orchestrate that change. In some cases, a book is consistent with what we "want" to believe, or validates something we already feel deeply within. These factors can make it tempting to buy the whole package, and people from Armstrongism have already exhibited a strong predisposition towards that.

To me, the best approach is to examine books with an open mind, but also somewhat critically. Understand them, yes. But find the nuggets, and discard the garbage. All books contain a certain amount of both. It is the very rare book that one might read, wear, and accept in toto, and the rare one that would be unmitigated garbage. Most fall somewhere in between.

Every once in a while, you run into someone who has allowed another to totally co-opt their own personality. About three years ago, I was sitting amongst a group of people being questioned in the final stages of selection to sit on a jury. It was boring, and I had been reading some Herman Hesse. Suddenly, one prospective stood and explained to the judge Fthat she was a devotee of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and that the type of trial in which she would be asked to render a decision would be counter to the principles which Maharishi taught. Suddenly, I found myself putting on my mirror shades, as I heard in the inner caverns of my mind, a cymbal crash, Roger Daltry screaming, Pete Townshend's shredding Telecaster, and the ebullient words "We won't get fooled again!"


DennisCDiehl said...

anon said:

his is MY core beliefs, and though they may be the minority of this blog, and may be mocked - it's what I hold dear. Since you asked, I thought I'd share."

That's why I asked. I did not ask to set anyone up for mocking or ridicule. I am a FIRM believer in live and let live along with everyone being where they are with their own unique story and perspectives.

I only write to stimulate thinking and not just to bitch and moan about tis or that unchangeable past experience.

DennisCDiehl said...

Joe asked:

"Nonetheless, I am curious of your opinion. What do you imagine is the purpose or the "why" of all of this randomness, and chaos ordering itself? "

Good questions. I am not sure there needs to be a purpose for an unfolding process. I like purpose better than just process but just making them up doesn't help much either.

I do believe the God of the OT is too small and cultic for the universe we know today. A god that is jealous of others gods and needs all the adoration and obedience seems strange to me in our more enlightened times. We do live in them you know.

Proof of this or that is sketchy as well we know. The math suggest this or that. Theories do and then don't hold up so the hunt goes on. I enjoy the hunt more than the surety of religious thought, though religious thought also intrigues me. The why of it more than the conclusions drawn. Religion is what humans do.

There is speculation and math that points to parallel universes. Quantum physics points to it, but only points. It may or may not be so. I personally doubt our "Big Bang" was the one and only one ever. The answer to what was before it could be better asked, what was before OUR Big Bang. I do suspect the universe has been banging for a very long time.

Brane theory is very interesting as is string theory. Theory does not mean wild speculation that cannot be proved. In science a theory is not to a scientist what the word is to a creationist. Gravity is at theory that works very nicely. So is evolution of the elements and life.

Here are a couple of great lectures.



DennisCDiehl said...

"There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first kind is excellent, the second good, and the third kind useless."


I have suggest "Myra" simply post her views here or even write up her own beliefs, which would be fine with me. I don't get her rancour and accusatory knower of my inner motives and insecurities but there are lots of kinds of folk on the planet. But I do thank all you kissups and fans here for letting me hide behind you . Those aren't the terms I'd use for you personally I'd rather say more "friends" and "those who have had this experience who dont mind sharing it,"

"Well I'm not afraid of your fans Dennis. And posting my email just shows that you feel insecure without your kissups. If they want to belittle me, it's happened before. In fact it just shows that to you're using the Machiavellian philosophy, the end justifies the means.

As far as liking science, I've taken lots of science courses over the years, and I would not think that philosophers are the way to figure out what the science of the universe is all about.

Try a course in chemistry, microbiology. biology, etc. You will learn a lot more and be able to give and take without hiding behind your fans.
love ya-myra"

I don't think Myra loves me at all
Machiavelli Diehl

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:51 God bless you! :-) Tbh you just made my day! Btw I believe too! :-)

Byker Bob said...

I would suggest to "Myra", whoever that might be, that you exercise your freedom of expression, guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights, by entering the discussions right here at "Banned".

While Dennis vents here, as do we all, this is not a WCG thing where this would be Dennis's congregation, and at which we, some sort of choir, or Hallelujah Chorus would be required to agree with his every word. The fact is we frequently disagree with what he posts, realizing that his posts are his own beliefs and conclusions, not stuff that we are required to pattern our lives after. Of course, at the same time, if someone launches an unfair ad hominem attack on him (or any of the other "named" regulars, for that matter), in the interest of fairness, someone would probably jump to his defense.

The beauty of open discussion, is that anyone can say or discuss anything. Usually, the commentary will almost always expose fallacy. In honest and open discussion, the truth ends up becoming self-obvious. This is not a venue where your "conversion" is judged by how completely and unquestioningly you accept the words of the ministry.

I'd say jump in. The water is fine here.


Anonymous said...

You mean to say you take evolution to be true on the authority of experts.
Your not confirming it by experimentation, nor are you an expert in any science.

RSK said...

One of the straw men often set up by ardent believers in "creationism", if you'll pardon my using the term, is that those who don't necessarily jump for the literalist Bible explanation are therefore ardent believers in evolution.

Somehow I doubt many fall into that group. It seems likely to me that there must be a large percentage who accept that the fossil record and the findings of biology, geology, etc pose significant questions to the Biblical account that cannot be simply rationed away by wishful thinking. That does not a "believer" in evolution make.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
You mean to say you take evolution to be true on the authority of experts.
Your not confirming it by experimentation, nor are you an expert in any science.

Of course, I do the homework based on the study they do. I draw my own conclusions from that study and homework. I have chosen them as my teachers rather than theologians. I have chosen the results of modern inquiry over ancient texts.

Of course they are my conclusions for now with more to alway learn and consider in the future. It's what happens when any student goes to school and has teachers on topics of interest

RSK said...

And BTW, its been a while, but I don't recall Machiavelli using the phrase "the ends justify the means". I do recall a section approximating that from "The Prince", but was under the impression it was a sarcastic smack against the Medicis?

DennisCDiehl said...

RSK said...
And BTW, its been a while, but I don't recall Machiavelli using the phrase "the ends justify the means". I do recall a section approximating that from "The Prince", but was under the impression it was a sarcastic smack against the Medicis?

Yes RSK, that was one comment I did not understand myself or my connection with my ends justifying my means whatever that means.

Anonymous said...

If you think the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago you are at odds with the scientist who computed that it would take 100 billion years for the first galaxy to form. So don't be too sure of what you hear.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
If you think the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago you are at odds with the scientist who computed that it would take 100 billion years for the first galaxy to form. So don't be too sure of what you hear

It may have been "million" not "billion" but go ahead find the source. Your "scientist" is at odds with just about everything known about the formation of our Universe. Maybe he's the Bob Thiel of Science?

DennisCDiehl said...

Try this anon:

The first galaxies may have formed much earlier than thought, a new study suggests — just 200 million years or so after the universe's birth.

Using several different telescopes, astronomers have discovered a distant galaxy whose stars appear to have formed 200 million years after the Big Bang, the explosive event that brought the universe into being."


Your source is way off and not in line with recent studies and findings. I suspect you are mistaking millions for billions

Anonymous said...

"If you think the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago you are at odds with the scientist who computed that it would take 100 billion years for the first galaxy to form. So don't be too sure of what you hear."

First, I don't think think the universe was "created." Second, I'd rather be at odds with "the scientist" than with "the scientific community." What are his "calculations" based upon, if anything? What should inspire us to have any confidence in such anomalous "calculations"? Third, don't be too sure of anything you hear either, such as reported calculations by a lone wolf that suggest our galaxy won't exist for the next 86.18 billion years.

Byker Bob said...

Anonymous 3:50, your larger figure is based on statistical analysis of the probabilities involved. I've seen that before in my own studies and investigations. It is not intended to be a literal figure indicating the age of the universe. What that line of study does is to suggest that somehow the probabilities were enhanced, so that nearly best case scenario was involved in each evolutionary step.