Replies

I just got back and am catching up! Thank you so much for your post! Hugs for your kind thoughts!!!

I believe I am less of an agnostic than most. I think there are, in fact, some good reasons for postulating that a motive intelligence informs the universe. However, I am not confused by that into thinking that I shouldn't struggle to understand as much as I can about the universe that can be discerned in a critical manner, by mundane reasoning about tangible evidence.

Thank you so much for sharing your view on that most important issue! I also am constantly searching for understanding. Of course there are several different philosophies to the search.

For instance, Lurkers might be interested in some of the differences between the materialist and physicalist philosophy. Hawking (a materialist) is satisfied when a result can be predicted with regularity but Penrose (a physicalist) is not satisfied until the theory makes sense.

Likewise, when a question wanders to the boundary of what can be observed, the materialist shrugs it off as either an item for the anthropic principle or an anomaly which will be resolved by future generations. A physicalist prefers a material explanation but not being willing to quit, pushes the boundaries further out – looking for new kinds of science or theory.

As a believer who is much interested in the research, I relate to the physicalist philosophy but never get frustrated by the boundaries since I already am much aware of what lies on the other side.

American christians could have stopped the murder by herbicide of nearly a million viet nam peasants, and nearly a million genocide victims of the Pol Pot regime, and many more since then, had they taken their moral precepts, as given in the bible seriously, and taken a principled stand. There are too many of them for our government to ignore. It made me angry then, it makes me angry now. I apologize if my response to this is discomforting. According to people like exmarine, our country is utterly christian since it's founding, so I see scant excuse for this. Unless all those overseas-slanteyes have Mideanite blood, of course.

I agree with exmarine that our country has been Christian from its inception. Sadly, however, our leaders are human and thus prone to error.

This president, George W. Bush, is the first one known to me (and I’m in my 57th year on earth) who has both the moral clarity needed for administration and the courage of that conviction to act as commander-in-chief. I know many of us were praying for a leadership of this type. It is nevertheless overwhelming to see the prayers answered so powerfully. That does not mean that I expect Dubya to be error-free, but as long as he starts the day by kneeling before God – I will be comforted.

I agree with exmarine that our country has been Christian from its inception. Sadly, however, our leaders are human and thus prone to error.

It was not an error of omission or neglect that caused either of the genocides I cited. It was intentional US policy, paid for by US, largely christian, taxpayers to peel back jungle with massive, indiscriminate blankets of herbecide. It was US policy to provide recognition and massive support for the Pol Pot regime. It is not a question of standing idly by while two groups that hate each other duel it out, it was a question of committing, or aiding and abetting genocide to further US policy...Supposed US policy, I guess I should say.

Hoping not to re-ignite a previous debate, I don't take Penrose too seriously on this subject. Of all those who have made their extra-observational speculations accessible, I have found Rees the most entertaining. However, I think it remains, not a boundary condition, but an untethered speculation that the evidence for the anthropic principle really is there. It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that simple beginnnings, such as the singularity that apparently started up the whole shebang, do not manifest themselves in simple, symmetric natural laws and, in however complex a manner, balanced forces.

Likewise, when a question wanders to the boundary of what can be observed, the materialist shrugs it off as either an item for the anthropic principle or an anomaly which will be resolved by future generations. A physicalist prefers a material explanation but not being willing to quit, pushes the boundaries further out – looking for new kinds of science or theory.

Hmm. Well, I think I'm a standard-brand materialist, but I don't have a problem with the notion that there are explanations for things that are beyond both my grasp for all time. I, in fact, think it quite likely. Perhaps I'm ignorant of fine philosophical distinctions, but I have been under the impression for some time that a traditional materialist is simply addressing the sensible allocation of finite scientific resources, in eschewing metaphysical explanations--not making a claim one way or another about metaphysical explanations.