Sorry but the 2 just don’t fit together at all.  Everyones interpretation of the bible is different. So someone is always persecuted whether it be by race, or gender.  So be a politician if you want but leave the relegion at home!

Every three months, we went on cooperative jobs, many in New York (not me).  One student was really wacked on the head in a New York demonstration and he advised me not to go to Chicago in 68.

The seance comment was really just a metaphor.  Sitting around and smoking dope and listening to Dylan and the Beetles as if they were Gurus never made any sense.

The first day I arrive in Antioch, I went to a TV room and heard students cheering the fact that an American destroyer had been cut in half by a carrier in the Pacific.  I knew how they felt, but I also knew that I could have easily been one of those drowned sailors.  When I spoke up, they were surprised to learn that there was a veteran in their midst.  I wasn’t angry so much as disappointed.

Part of the problem was that I was there because of a desperate desire to enjoy intellectual life.  Most of them were there for more artistic or draft evading reasons.  I scored the highest on an intellectual aptitude test, which shows that I was more bookish and three years older.

Hetzer:

“The vast majority of college students at that time were politically aware (sort of), but much more interested in comsumerism, including drugs.  Basically I looked at most of them as spoiled ignorant people attending endless seances.”

LOL.  By the way, seances are “new age,” not drug-related.  LOL.

Still, I hear you.  From your perspective at that time, and particularly where you were at the time, I suppose it must have looked quite different.  I was in NYC, and mostly saw what was happening in urban areas.

Just goes to show you how little changes,even over decades: rural America and urban America were not really on the same page then, and they still aren’t 35-40 years later.

Peace.

After I left the Navy and stopped wasting the taxpayers money I went to Antioch College to avoid the regimentation of a state institution.  The vast majority of college students at that time were politically aware (sort of), but much more interested in comsumerism, including drugs.  Basically I looked at most of them as spoiled ignorant people attending endless seances.

Hetzer:

“I think this is true, since it came from a book.” How old are you?  And what kind of statement is that?

“A” book?  So how many books on the subject have you actually read?  And are you old enough to have been there?  My guess is, no.

I was.  I was part of that culture.  And I can tell you with absolute certainty that the OPPOSITE is true: i.e., if anything, those of us in the “drug culture” were MORE political than many who were not.

Indeed, even setting aside the ENTIRE youth culture’s disdain for the country’s politics at the time - Vietnam, Johnson, Nixon, etc. - we had an additional reason to be political: to work toward the decriminalization (if not legalization) of marijuana (if not other drugs).

To suggest that drugs somehow made us soporific or apathetic is COMPLETELY backward.  We were probably the most political youth culture in the history of the nation: we fought - actively, vocally and visibly - for civil rights, for the end of the Vietnam war, for an end to the arms race, for the environment (sprurred on by liberal Democrat Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, who created “Earth Day” in 1970), and for peace and justice, among other general issues.  We were the first youth culture weaned on King’s non-violent civil disobedience approach, and many of us were arrested numerous times in this regard.

You REALLY need to read more.

Peace.

Zachary uses several great - first impression - but well worn metaphors to point out that Mr. Mark Lilla’s essays argue for or against the separation of church and state from a limited perspective. He could have written succinctly by quoting Shakespeare,

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in and Heaven and Earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet Act I, scene 5, 159-167

The CIA and Timothy Leary created the drug culture knowing that the average American was a sucker for any quick fix consumer item.  Why did they do it?  Because American youth seemed to be getting political.  (I think this is true, since it came from a book, and it makes sense given the crooked nature of the bums who think they run this country.)

Blackolive:

I am guessing that some (maybe many) here will wonder what you are rambling on about.  However, even while I may not agree with ALL of what you said, I TOTALLY hear you, brother, and definitely understand the feelings and thoughts behind it.

First, while, sadly, there is no more honest-to-Owlsley 25-d-lysergic acid diethylamide around (anyone claiming so is lying; most of what is out there is horrible, even dangerous), I completely agree re the “interconnectedness” it provides - a critical element in understanding and FEELING the entire “psycho-spiritual” and physical world.

Second, I agree re 9/11: the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people - perhaps even the world.  And everything that has occurred since - in the so-called “post 9/11 world” - is based on a lie, a false flag operation in which Bush & Co. were almost certainly complicit in the murder of 3,000 of our own citizens.

Although some of this is off-topic, I wanted to make sure that someone here acknowledged your presence, and provided some support.

Peace.

I have had near death experiences and they were basically a form of psychosis.  It is just impossible for people to accept the existence of death as silence.  Why do people always invent some nonsense?  If you do invent some nonsense, be sure to sell it and get some money out of it.

Ted:

Sorry to see you go.  Just want to say that I agree with you re the attributes of God.  In this case, even human logic suffices.  If God exists, and created humankind (whether through the process of evolution or through “special creation"), then He would have to have EVERY attribute that a human being has (and perhaps others).  That is, God could not create a being that feels pain if God does not know what it is like to feel pain.  God could not create a being with a sense of humor if God did not have a sense of humor.  (And, as the adage goes, He would HAVE to have a sense of humor to have created humankind...)

So it does not strike me (personally) as odd that God could “suffer” (in the personhood of Jesus) or that He could laugh (and cry).

Best of luck on your research.

Doug:

Boy, are you speaking my language now!  LOL.  Your last two posts were exceptional; i.e., the one on religion/science, and the response to Hetzer on death.  Indeed, I was going to respond to Hetzer in much the same way.  Instead, I will simply say - ditto.

Peace.

so we leave a little wiggle room.

By hetzer, January 3: “...with death the instrument comes to an end.  It is not absolute in any honorific sense.... Still we can’t be absolutely sure of anything for which there is no reliable evidence.....

It is conceivable that evidence might emerge to call genetics and evolution into question ....a bronze age text edited by priests is extremely unlikely to be able to add anything to the discussion...”

You really don’t know enough about death to be able to reasonably believe that (there) is no reincarnation or life after death, hetzer. Try some near-death experience yourself and find out - it is guaranteed to change your life.

Try looking even at the faces of people in the street and ask whether genetics alone can account for the differences in spiritual and emotional advancement and so much more. The fact is that science has never bothered to find out, uhh.

But your pathetic triviality regarding science becomes obvious when even Robert “I have no regrets” Oppenheimer, the so-called father of the A-bomb quoted from the Hindu Bhagavad Gita - in full knowledge of its ramifications http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8w3Y-dskeg&feature =related

Death is absolute because with death the instrument comes to an end.  It is not absolute in any honorific sense.  We know enough about death to be able to reasonably believe that this is no reincarnation or life after death.  Still we can’t be absolutely sure of anything for which there is no reliable evidence.

Science believed in absolute laws because it was fashionable to hold beliefs as if they were absolute.  We now know that surprises are always possible so we leave a little wiggle room.  It is conceivable that evidence might emerge to call genetics and evolution into question.  Science is supposed to refine itself.  We can be almost absolutely certain that a bronze age text edited by priests is extremely unlikely to be able to add anything to the discussion.  Science is capable of correction.  Old time religion just keeps piling more and more stuff on.

Maani, Shenonymous et al
I am afraid I must now bail out since I have some important research to present—at the end of January—and I just don’t have the spare time. 
Let me just say that I feel uncomfortable when Maani and She.... cast aspersions on each other.
I have read many of the current Edge discussion contributions and I think one of the best is the one by Sam Harris. As for Davis I think he has overstated his case. All this talk about science and religion both involving faith is a bit of a stretch. Scott Atran has a very interesting piece on the significance of friendship.
Maani, She—I am not sure which (maybe both)-- have spoken about he importance/value of humour. And I must say that most days my wife and I have a throughly good laugh together about something or other.
Years ago I spent a lively an interesting evening at Selly Oak college with an ardent young Muslim talking about the attributes of God and he trotted out the usual list of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and magnificence etc. A very transcendent concept of a largely unreachable God.  The notion of God being able to suffer simply appalled him.  And I suspect—though we did not discuss it—that the notion of God having a sense of humour would have been equally ridiculous to him.  But, to an agnostic like myself, when I idly think about the attributes God would need to have (if he/she/it does exist) a sense of humour comes out right on top.  There is no way God could possibly survive without a wry sense of humour.
With that closing remark I wish you all a rewarding and meaningful New Year

You males in the TD audience ought to not only look at Paul Davies, but Richard Dawkins change of mind about Zahavi’s theory of the Handicap Principle, which is quite compelling in what amounts to, “Natural selection favours conspicuous and costly generosity,” but Dawkins ends with a wise caution.

Davies comment about used to being a committed Platonist has to do with Plato’s theory of ideal forms, not any ethical or aesthetic arguments, and one should make that distinction when prostituting other’s comments.  I completely agree with Davies and glad that a physicist of such renown has made such a comment which seems to support my thesis of the contingency of facts.

There are always arguments over the most commonly held facts.....

By Shenonymous, January 2: “...facts, even the most soundly based are humorously, in fact, not in the final analysis ascertainable..... and particularly as .... my “knowledge” isn’t worth very much because nothing is for certain.....

...even the bearing on a compass, or a ship assumes everything else is as it should be all other things being equal.  When assumptions are relied upon, there is the danger of error, no matter how slight...”

Edge, a web forum that puts an annual question to a broad cross-section of scientists and thinkers must be the most pretentious blog on the planet - or is it? This year Edge.org asked: What have you changed your mind about? Why?.

Paul Davies, Arizona State University, says he gave up his Platonism once he realised that his long-revered laws of physics were “an extraordinary and unjustified idealisation”.

So lets consider a physicist’s contemporary view of the +/-10% certainty of so-called science - http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/davies.html ....:-

How can we be sure that the laws are infinitely precise? How do we know they are immutable, and apply without the slightest change from the beginning to the end of time? Furthermore, the laws themselves remain unexplained. Where do they come from? Why do they have the form that they do? Indeed, why do they exist at all? And if there are many possible such laws, then, as Stephen Hawking has expressed it, what is it that “breathes fire” into a particular set of laws and makes a universe for them to govern?

.....simply saying that the laws “just are” seems no better than declaring “God made them that way.” http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_8.html#davies

In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence..... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davies07/davies07_inde x.html

Except hetzer, even the bearing on a compass, or a ship assumes everything else is as it should be all other things being equal.  When assumptions are relied upon, there is the danger of error, no matter how slight.  For instance, an error of a tten-housandth or even smaller degree on a trajectory to say, Mars, would have the vessel miss the target by forever.  A correction must be monitored constantly and space scanned for any unexpected phenomenon.  And when you say, “almost” you hedge your bet and the notion of absolute is completely nullified.  So, you then think that facts are in flux, and utilitarian for whatever “time” it is needed?  Then what becomes of the fact, would you please inform Ted who wants to know?  And what do we do with the term ‘dying?’

Glad that you have enjoyed our interaction.  When you say:

< I do claim, not merely seem to claim, that facts, even the most soundly based are humorously, in fact, not in the final analysis ascertainable.>

I am tempted to respond:  Is that a fact or a supposition?

Jokes aside, yoru sentence reminds me of a sentence I read in Stven Pinker’s latest book called “The Stuff of Thought”. It contains this magnificent sentence—from a sign of some kind:
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”. 

Have read Hofstader’s books and found them intriguing.

Have a good day.

< Part 3
Ted:  Sure.  Reality is ultimately inscrutable (that word again) but “poeticizing”—as you call it—does nothing for me to make it less inscrutable. What are we supposed to do.  Revel in the inscrutability or try or damnedest to make sense of things?  She’s reply:  It is obvious I am not asking you or anyone to ‘revel’ in anything, it is a silly comment.  And yes, you and all others should do their damndest to make sense of the world in which they find themselves.  That is the whole point of questioning.  If I may, remind you of the virtue of the Socratic imperative to Know Thyself.  That is the first thing one must do.>

Hoorah!  It seems we do agree on some things.

< You may not have the skill to ‘see’ into the emblematic or symbolic quality of poetizing ideas.  But it is not something that cannot be learned.  It requires enhancing the imagination.>

My wife outdistances me by a million miles when it comes to understanding and appreciating poetry. But I am not convinced that I have an imagination deficit.
When I do have poems explained to me they often seem pretentious or simply a round about way of saying something rather simple. You imply that Pirandello has real talent in presenting profound truths but, despite your attempts to help, I remain mostly in the dark. So, I imagine I should follow your suggestion and “not even try”.
You suggest that Pirandello’s art “is lost” on me which leaves me vaguely uneasy and wondering if I have missed something important. Sorry if I am a poor pupil.

. . Ted . .

Hiya Mike, nope, I’m in the mindless state of north Texass.  And any friend of yours is friend of mine.  Do check your TD emails, I’ll be there one of these ‘unbusy’ days.  I’m working on making a fantastic painting/drawing studio upstairs but it’s bitch for a smallish medium sized non-vampiric lady.  Talk to you soon. Be well.

Ted, you are correct as far as I know, but my “knowledge” isn’t worth very much because nothing is for certain.* I can’t say I really “know” anything, but somehow when I put my feet down off the bed in the morning, I have a funny hunch the floor is there.  I secretly take a wager based on previous experience.  But if it isn’t, boy am I in trouble.  Now epistemologically, I can’t say for sure it will be there tomorrow, or even worse, it will be there the very next moment I check.  That is a kind of faith, but not the kind for which the FC’s or the radical Islamists would most likely hang me, or cut off my head, since I can’t bring myself to believe their dogma, and particularly as female wouldn’t be caught dead talking or sitting in their places of solicitation of a mythical being.  And what a hunch is I cannot say either, as I have little or no knowledge.  And when someone asks me whaddo I know?  I have to always answer, hmmm, that’s a good question.  But I think I know this Ted, you are one smart hombre and I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your questions.  And you seem to answer them as you ask them.  Funny how that works.  It works for me. 
*This is Pirandello’s point.

To backtrack a bit.  And maybe offering to you my perspective of the existentialistic absurdity of finding myself and all others, including you, here, in this life and it can be thought of as a kind of despair, except I do not despair, I accept it as the Ho Tai of Buddhism does and laugh at it.  Which is why I so appreciate the playwrights Pirandello and Beckett.  And I make light of many grave matters.  I always feel I walk with Ho Tai.  It is not so bad a walk.  I do claim, not merely seem to claim, that facts, even the most soundly based are humorously, in fact, not in the final analysis ascertainable.  There are always arguments over the most commonly held facts.  Even that it is always true that having the main meal of the day in the evening is prone to cause [and will cause] disturbed sleep, Carl Sagan knew this, Richard Feynman knew this, Albert knew this, all most venerable scientists.  There is a wonderful book by Douglas Hofstadter, The Mind’s Eye, that offers a plethora of essays by many many scientists that offer similar views.  Also, one I find most insightful, Jorge Borges, outstanding Argentinean writer writes about these notions as well. 

I can only say I have had marvelous dialogue here with you and hope to some maybe strange degree you have too.  As a friend of mine would say, we are probably closer together in our thought than on first glance it might look.  And I am not really a vampire…or, maybe I am.  Only MM-C would know for sure.

There is nothing except our deaths that are not a matter of wonder and degree.  A fact is what settles the argument (for a time).  Something is true in so far as it is like a true bearing on a compass or a ship.  Nothing is absolute - almost nothing.

There doen’t seem to be much new in this Part 2.
You say:
< Social, economic, and political circumstance often offset scientific facts, regardless of how strongly they are defended, so ordinary people who must conduct their lives don’t really know what might be “close” to the truth, which is all the distance they will ever get anyway. >

The obvious response is:  More’s the pity! It is an absolute tragedy that science education in America is so badly handled that huge numbers of citizens don’t even know the bare rudiments of the scientific method.
Huge numbers of fundamentalist Christians (ditto for most Muslims) don’t know the difference between the factual occurrence of evolution and theories about evolution.
Copernicus and Galileo knew that the earth rotates (for night and day) and revolves around the sun (for the four seasons).
But this was before Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity. So, the evolution rejectors talk blandly about THE theory of evolution as if there is such a thing. Darwin uncovered a mountain of evidence establishing the occurrence of evolution and made tentative an incomplete attempts to explain it. And we still don’t have a fully rounded out theory of evolution but the absence of such a theory in no way casts doubt on its occurrence.

Hey Mike, whaddaya know? And if you know it, how do you know it?

Yes.  I am still here. And below is an extract from your Part! followed by a further comments.

< A dialogue in three parts – Part 1
She:  First nail:  Do you think there are irrefutable key elements or objective facts that can be correlated with judgment and behavior?  Ted:  Yes indeed I do.  I base my behaviour and judgments time and time again on indisputable facts.  I do this over an over again in my daily life in precisely this manner. (and I am not a robot!)

She’s reply:  What exact indubitable (indisputable) scientific fact have you recently based your behavior and judgment on?  No, I do not think of you as a robot, jus as a disembodied Internet TD poster.  Actually, a robot might be a bit more real!  One can find different kinds of facts and the level of their veracity.  Scientific facts, claimed “religious” facts, experiential facts (I took a walk to the store today)… Please provide one. For me to say there are none, would mean that it is not possible for someone to judge any irrefutable (certain) element or objective (not subjective obviously) fact.  She: this is self-explanatory.>

I am still at a loss to understand what all the fuss is about.  Are you really trying to tell me that there is no correlation between facts we accept as true and out resultant judgments and behaviour?  You further seem to claim that it is not possible to ascertain whether the facts we happen to accept are soundly based? And further than this you refer to Kantriwitz and go on to say; “Where value resides no fact does”,
This strikes me as some kind of council of despair and it verges on the contention that there are no such things as facts. Yet you speak of “scientific facts”, claimed “religious facts” and “empirical facts”.
I know as an empirical fact that—when negotiating the streets of the city where I live --- certain routes involve less hassle and use up less time so I follow them.
It is a fairly well established fact that having the main meal of the day in the evening is prone to cause disturbed sleep, So—being retired and free agents in this regard—my wife and I have our main meal in the middle of the day.
And those with a religious persuasion—who accept as religious facts the myths of their religion—behave accordingly —church on Sunday, bible study during the week, daily prayer etc,
So, it is not just me but everyone that governs their actions—in varying degree—by the “facts” which they accept.
How can you possibly deny this?

What can I say Maani.  You are full of surprises. I simply tagged along with others who spoke of you as being female. Knowing that you are male doesn’t alter my feelings towards you one whit. And, when it comes to avoiding proselytizing we are on the same wave length since my days as a Quaker inoculated me against any tendencies in this direction.

Part 3
Ted:  Sure.  Reality is ultimately inscrutable (that word again) but “poeticizing”—as you call it—does nothing for me to make it less inscrutable. What are we supposed to do.  Revel in the inscrutability or try or damnedest to make sense of things?  She’s reply:  It is obvious I am not asking you or anyone to ‘revel’ in anything, it is a silly comment.  And yes, you and all others should do their damndest to make sense of the world in which they find themselves.  That is the whole point of questioning.  If I may, remind you of the virtue of the Socratic imperative to Know Thyself.  That is the first thing one must do.  You may not have the skill to ‘see’ into the emblematic or symbolic quality of poetizing ideas.  But it is not something that cannot be learned.  It requires enhancing the imagination.

She:  Those who are lost and think they hear clap trap may never be able to capture enigmatic thought and writing.  For you to be able to understand the power of Pirandello, you might have to do more research into his art.

Ted:  Maybe so. But your sample of the convoluted way in which he writes does not encourage me to make the effort.  She’s reply:  You may be of the class of minds that can only walk a straight path. Ted:  What would the benefit be?  She’s reply:  Perhaps none.  I suggest you don’t even try at this unsophisticated point.  I am afraid Pirandello’s art is lost on you.

I do apologize for the length of this response but it seemed necessary.  I will attempt to be more brief in the future.

No apology needed. Brevity is not always a virtue and I appreciate your going to the trouble to try and explain the P passsage to me.  She’s reply:  Unfortunately this was not as virtuous as I would have hoped.

Part 2
Second nail:  …the claim of “sheer nonsense.” To say that facts are empty casings and so forth (please read the quote) means that facts are manipulated by the speakers who use them.  For instance, your use of the term “sheer nonsense,: is certainly not a viable fact and it itself is a nonsensical criticism.  Facts or what are called facts are used in the moment for the express reason to support an argument.  A small matter (uh, like a speck of dust), can be made to seem like a war in Iraq is justified.  We heard a lot of “facts” over that one.

Ted:  What can I say. Facts and what people regard as facts are two different things. And to obscure the distinction is to talk nonsense.  She’s reply:  Social, economic, and political circumstance often offset scientific facts, regardless of how strongly they are defended, so ordinary people who must conduct their lives don’t really know what might be “close” to the truth, which is all the distance they will ever get anyway.  For instance, on the question of the relative benefits of a new diabetes drug, Vioxx, the diabetic public is now at risk of more heart attack because the scientific community said one thing first, then another and it maybe too late for some individuals who are now at jeopardy.

Third nail:  Inscrutable had to do with his fascism, which is an ideology unfathomable to me, and has nothing to do with his art being incomprehensible.  It’s all in the interpretation of the sentence. (Permissum is sto ut est)

Ted:  Okay. I’ll buy that. I didn’t realize that, in your mind, inscrutable was tied to the word fascism.

Fourth nail:  now really you can’t honestly say you don’t understand when he says reality is at the profoundest level, unknowable.  Perhaps you do perfectly understand reality.  Would you please share your insights?  Metaphor is often used to make larger a large issue.  Poeticizing is a way of creating metaphor.  This entire paragraph you “dismiss” is quite profound and I am quite sorry you miss it.

A dialogue in three parts – Part 1
She:  First nail:  Do you think there are irrefutable key elements or objective facts that can be correlated with judgment and behavior?  Ted:  Yes indeed I do.  I base my behaviour and judgments time and time again on indisputable facts.  I do this over an over again in my daily life in precisely this manner. (and I am not a robot!)

She’s reply:  What exact indubitable (indisputable) scientific fact have you recently based your behavior and judgment on?  No, I do not think of you as a robot, jus as a disembodied Internet TD poster.  Actually, a robot might be a bit more real!  One can find different kinds of facts and the level of their veracity.  Scientific facts, claimed “religious” facts, experiential facts (I took a walk to the store today)… Please provide one. For me to say there are none, would mean that it is not possible for someone to judge any irrefutable (certain) element or objective (not subjective obviously) fact.  She: this is self-explanatory.

Ted:  I am not sure what you mean by “judge” a fact and I am also unclear as to what you mean by irrefutable elements—what is this word “elements” standing for?  She’s reply:  As a scientist, you feign ignorance here and shape shift a little bit but you might want to check out Arthur Kantrowitz and his effort at establishing a science court to try to establish verifiable scientific “facts,” and whether facts can, in fact, be separated from values.  She says:  Where value resides, no fact does. I also direct you to the books:  Scientific Method: A Historical and philosophical Introduction, Gower; and/or Science Rules….Achinstein, and then especially Scientific Method in Practice, Gauch, Jr. who encourages scientists to examine basic beliefs.  To the degree that behavior is involved, the way anyone would act with respect to any “irrefutable….fact” does not provide any certitude for that “fact”.  Of course our behavior, with reference to an indisputable fact, does nothing—in and of itself—to corroborate the fact. But so what? It remains both sensible and perfectly possible to behave in that manner.

If it seems like gobbledygook to you, then it does.  Ted:  I don’t know about gobbledygook but I am sure finding it difficult to follow what you are driving at.  She’s reply:  You may need anti-gobbledygood glasses.  The only place I know of where to get them is at the Metaphorical Philosophy Store at your local University.

Ted:

Thank you for your kindness.  And you are quite welcome for my frankness; I am one of those rare people (LOL) who actually believe the old saw that “honesty is the best policy” - 101% of the time.

In that regard, I want to “come clean” about something.  Take a deep breath...:

I am not female.

I hope that does not change how you feel about me (platonically, of course...LOL). I only refrained from saying something earlier because I was quite intrigued that everyone assumed I was female, and decided to hold off a little bit from correcting everyone.  I do wonder about this: it cannot simply be that my name ends in “i,” since there are plenty of men’s names (particularly foreign-sounding ones) that do.  So what was it that led people to make an assumption about my gender?

That said, I completely understand and respect that you “moved in the opposite direction” - from faith to non-faith.  As a minister whose secondary ministry is counseling (both “in faith” and general), I speak with many people who have “fallen away” or are having “crises in faith.” However, the primary “job” of in-faith counseling is NOT trying to “persuade” someone back to faith, but rather to understand the person’s circumstances and help them to find personal peace with WHATEVER decision they make - whether or not that leads them back to faith (though, obviously, we hope it does).

In this regard, I want to express my appreciation for YOUR forthrightness.  I can tell that your frankness is also genuine, and that I would enjoy having a discussion with you.  (You’d be surprised how many atheist friends a minister can have...LOL.)

Again, I sincerely appreciate your kindness, and hope that the...revelation of my gender will not affect our otherwise cordial and interesting discussions.

Peace.

The gods and and the rich first make blind (or mad), those they wish to destroy.

Using blindness as an analogy, is useful for many sides of an argument just as in Plato’s Cave.

Let me reply very quickly.  You have answered my query totally and, dare I say it, you stand out from the crowd in this regard and probably in many other ways as well.  People do move in both directions when it comes to faith and it is clearly more important to live a worthy life than to be agreed on matters of faith.
I had no way of guessing your background and appreciate the way in which you have been so frank. I suspect I would enjoy having a discussion with you.  Since I moved in the opposite direction to what you have done it may not surprise you that I also have the feeling that I was blind and now I see. Some would say that I could never have had faith if I turned my back on it but that is probably far too glib.
At least if I do now drop out of this discussion I will be able to recall the fact that at least one of the participants was and is indeed a worthy person.

Ted:

You said, “Perhaps if you could give me a really interesting and persuasive answer as to why I should accept your particular faith it might make sense for me to continue our discussion.”

I am not here to convince you to accept my particular faith.  I am not here to convince ANYONE to accept my particular faith.  I am here to engage in stimulating conversation and debate with stimulating and conversational people (including even Shenonymous, on occasion...LOL).  In this regard, I am hoping that you will remain to engage in stimulating conversation and debate whether or not I provide an “interesting and persuasive answer as to why” you should accept my particular faith.

You also said, “You know, as well as I do, that the vast majority of those who do have religious attachments adhere to the religion they happen to have been brought up in. That alone should give you pause for thought.”

That is true - though not true of me.  Would it surprise you to know that I was raised in an atheist Jewish family?  My father was a political animal for whom religion was “the opium of the masses,” and my mother is a scientist for whom religion is “just so much hooey.” (My two brothers also remained atheists.) Thus, I am not simply the only Christian in my family, I am the only believer.

And no, my faith was not a “response” or “rebellion” against that.  I was raised in an atmopshere of empiricism and the scientific method, and I have never rejected that.  I believe that the universe is ~13 billion years old, that the earth is ~5 billion years old, and that human beings evolved via random mutation and natural selection (though, like Darwin, I believe in “first cause").  I also believe in the sanctity of the separation of church and state; that abortion is wrong, but that morality must not be legislated (i.e., it must be a woman’s choice); and that stem cell research may be an important tool for finding cures for a variety of diseases.

Those are some of my “bona fides” as a rational, reasoned person.  LOL.  There are others.

Though I fully expect you to find the following absurd (and for Shenonymous to dismiss it out of hand...LOL), my faith was actually a logical outgrowth of my empirical, scientific, rational upbringing.  Yet with all the years of study of comparative religion, and the years of discussion and debate with rabbis, priests, ministers, imams, swamis and other clerics, I would never have “found” my faith if “faith” had not found me.  But it is impossible for someone of faith to explain the nature of faith to someone who does not have it.

Consider a thought experiment.  A person is blind from birth.  How would you describe “color” to them?  What words could you possibly use that would make them understand - truly understand - what you are talking about?

So it is with explaining faith to those who do not have it.  It does not make me “better” than other people, and I hope that is not how I come across. But it is like having an extra “sense” that non-believers do not have.

That’s the best I can do on short notice.  I am sorry if it does not answer your query well enough.

Peace.

Thank you Ted, I am going to table this until tomorrow because I had a physically taxing day painting, sawing wood, etc., and I am beat.  Can’t think very much right now, but I am thinking about your response.  I’m glad you are back, or haven’t really left.  A voice of reason is always refreshing.  Tamarra is another day.

Part 2

<First nail:  Do you think there are irrefutable key elements or objective facts that can be correlated with judgment and behavior?>

Yes indeed I do.  I base my behaviour and judgments time and time again on indisputable facts.  I do this over an over again in my daily life in precisely this manner. (and I am not a robot!)

< Please provide one. For me to say there are none, would mean that it is not possible for someone to judge any irrefutable (certain) element or objective (not subjective obviously) fact.>

I am not sure what you mean by “judge” a fact and I am also unclear as to what you mean by irrefutable elements—what is this word “elements” standing for?

< To the degree that behavior is involved, the way anyone would act with respect to any “irrefutable….fact” does not provide any certitude for that “fact”.>

Of course our behaviour, with reference to an indisputable fact, does nothing—in and of itself—to corroborate the fact. But so what? It remains both sensible and perfectly possible to behave in that manner. 

< If it seems like gobbledygook to you, then it does.>

I don’t know about gobbledygook but I am sure finding it difficult to follow what you are driving at. 

< Second nail:  gawd, this is getting long and I do apologize.  But I shall carry on, sigh, with the claim of “sheer nonsense.” To say that facts are empty casings and so forth (please read the quote) means that facts are manipulated by the speakers who use them.  For instance, your use of the term “sheer nonsense,: is certainly not a viable fact and it itself is a nonsensical criticism.  Facts or what are called facts are used in the moment for the express reason to support an argument.  A small matter (uh, like a speck of dust), can be made to seem like a war in Iraq is justified.  We heard a lot of “facts” over that one.>

What can I say. Facts and what people regard as facts are two different things. And to obscure the distinction is to talk nonsense.

< Third nail:  Inscrutable had to do with his fascism, which is an ideology unfathomable to me, and has nothing to do with his art being incomprehensible.  It’s all in the interpretation of the sentence.>

Okay. I’ll buy that. I didn’t realize that, in your mind, inscrutable was tied to the word fascism.

<Fourth nail:  now really you can’t honestly say you don’t understand when he says reality is at the profoundest level, unknowable.  Perhaps you do perfectly understand reality.  Would you please share your insights?  Metaphor is often used to make larger a large issue.  Poeticizing is a way of creating metaphor.  This entire paragraph you “dismiss” is quite profound and I am quite sorry you miss it.>

Sure.  Reality is ultimately inscrutable (that word again) but “poeticizing”—as you call it—does nothing for me to make it less inscrutable. What are we supposed to do.  Revel in the inscrutability or try or damnedest to make sense of things? 

< Those who are lost and think they hear clap trap may never be able to capture enigmatic thought and writing.  For you to be able to understand the power of Pirandello, you might have to do more research into his art.>
<

Maybe so. But your sample of the convoluted way in which he writes does not encourage me to make the effort. What would the benefit be? 

<I do apologize for the length of this response but it seemed necessary.  I will attempt to be more brief in the future.>

No apology needed. Brevity is not always a virtue and I appreciate your going to the trouble to try and explain the P passsge to me.

You are not alone Ted, glad to see your return.

My opinion on economics.

The social sciences are misnamed.  They are actually social studies, because they are not as predictable as gravity, etc.  Judgement can be studied and described statistically, but it is really descriptive and not experimental.

Thanks for filling in on the background surrounding P.  I have to confess my knowledge of him was, until now, rudimentary. Having been immersed for muc of my life in engineering, science and mathematics my coverage of literature is not as extensive as it might otherwise have been.
I will now move to your Part 2 and try and digest it.

First nail:  Do you think there are irrefutable key elements or objective facts that can be correlated with judgment and behavior?  Please provide one. For me to say there are none, would mean that it is not possible for someone to judge any irrefutable (certain) element or objective (not subjective obviously) fact.  To the degree that behavior is involved, the way anyone would act with respect to any “irrefutable….fact” does not provide any certitude for that “fact.” If it seems like gobbledygook to you, then it does. 

Second nail:  gawd, this is getting long and I do apologize.  But I shall carry on, sigh, with the claim of “sheer nonsense.” To say that facts are empty casings and so forth (please read the quote) means that facts are manipulated by the speakers who use them.  For instance, your use of the term “sheer nonsense,: is certainly not a viable fact and it itself is a nonsensical criticism.  Facts or what are called facts are used in the moment for the express reason to support an argument.  A small matter (uh, like a speck of dust), can be made to seem like a war in Iraq is justified.  We heard a lot of “facts” over that one.

Third nail:  Inscrutable had to do with his fascism, which is an ideology unfathomable to me, and has nothing to do with his art being incomprehensible.  It’s all in the interpretation of the sentence. 

Fourth nail:  now really you can’t honestly say you don’t understand when he says reality is at the profoundest level, unknowable.  Perhaps you do perfectly understand reality.  Would you please share your insights?  Metaphor is often used to make larger a large issue.  Poeticizing is a way of creating metaphor.  This entire paragraph you “dismiss” is quite profound and I am quite sorry you miss it.

Those who are lost and think they hear clap trap may never be able to capture enigmatic thought and writing.  For you to be able to understand the power of Pirandello, you might have to do more research into his art.

I do apologize for the length of this response but it seemed necessary.  I will attempt to be more brief in the future.

Part 1
But I would know the truth if it bit me on the ass!  The real person is back from painting, whoever She is.  Anyway, Ted, I see you had me mixed up with some of Maani’s words.  But I can see that you are giving an honest attempt at sorting out what I said.  Yes, I can dismiss much of what Maani says who is wasting her pity on someone who is perfectly happy in her life and since I don’t believe in souls I just won’t worry about that part.  People that know me, do know I am a happy, self-satisfied atheist.  You could confer with MM-C about that.  I admit to almost all she says so it is redundant ranting about this e-person Shenonymous.  I don’t read everyone’s posts so sorry I didn’t catch your earlier remarks.  I will go back and take a look and promise I won’t dismiss them unless they are empty and without merit.

Let me do try to respond to what I think am responsible for.  There is no easy way to condense a point of view that is broad and profound.  But I will do my best.  First of all theater of the absurd is not easily understood.  So with that in mind, yeah, he did win the Nobel Prize and I’m sorry you don’t have much respect for that.  I suppose if someone in your family won that Prize, it might be different.  At any rate:  Pirandello’s work: Brief as I can make it, some background sets the stage for his “strange” writings, that have latent meaning.  Perhaps I overestimated the acumen of some of those who post here??  Luigi was probably one of the most brilliant autodidacts of the 19th century.  How he became involved in fascism is probably how many young lawyers of Italy at that time did and might be worth a read to someone but not worth going into here.  He is said to have been an “extremely sensible moralist,” for whatever that might mean, I think it has something to do with morals.  His involvement might be akin to those who became involved in communism in this country who were persecuted by Joe McCarthy.  To try to truncate a really long story, his wife suffered a debilitating emotional trauma and became physically violent and he loved and remained responsible for her throughout her life in an asylum.  This experience as well as the insanity of politics that was going on in Italy led to his intuition of the absurdities of life plus he realized that the fascist were “hostile to culture.” His art, novels and plays emerged from profound disappointment in his country as well as his personal life.  His works were a cauldron of desperation to get rid of false beliefs, certainties, false convictions.  Whereas Descartes tried to work out similar problems of uncertainty in his meditations, Pirandello did so in his theatrical writings.  For him, reality is seen as devoid of order and as being inherently contradictory.  Perhaps no one in this discussion has ever felt that way.  Their worlds are perfectly ordered and peaceful, never having had a feeling of suffocation from the vicissitudes of life.  I don’t know about them, but I have to admit witnessing craziness among those in my experience.  How about this country at the present time?  Sorry, I digress.  So let’s take a closer look at what I said and the P (P shall be short for Pirandello) quote I offered, for which you took me to task and tickled the hell out of Maani: Oh, and yes, I do know exactly the distinction between facts and factoids.  BTW thank you for nailing me, I really do love it.  Someone is awake!

Maani:

Some further quotes:

<(a) (To Leefeller). If I read you correctly, you are right that, for science, science itself is “God.”>

NO,NO! As a scientist/mathematician who came to my agnosticism via Anglicanism/Quakerism I find this to be rubbish.  Science is in no way my “God”.  Science is simply an attitude to discovery.

< And if you look at polemicists like Harris, Dawkins, Dennett et al, they are no less fanatical fundamentalist zealots in the cause of “science is God” than those they accuse of being fanatical fundamentalist zealots in the cause of “God is God.” That is, they are so certain of the “rightness” of “scientific truth” that they allow their emotions and concerns about certain aspects of religion ... to supersede the vaunted reason and rationality of the “scientific method.” >

WOW!  That’s a sweeping indictment. Having corresponded with all three of them and read their books I can assure you that science is, in their minds, in no way, shape or form a stand in for God.  I don’t agree with all they say nor would they want me to and they don’t even agree with each other.  Harris is even averse to the use of the term “atheist”.

< (b) To Shenonymous.  You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that science will, or even can, “prove” the “existence” of God in any quantitative, empirical way. Science’s “realm” is the natural world, and it is important that believers understand this; that they accept the scientific method, empiricism, etc. in arriving at explanations of the natural world. In this regard, science cannot - and should not - attempt to ALSO provide “explanations” for the “non-natural” (or ... supernatural) world: i.e., faith.>

This reached the heart of why we part company.  There is no difference setween the “natural” and the “non-natural/supernatural” worlds.  There is just the world as it is.

< Yes, some postulate that a combination of psychology and evolution might explain where belief comes from. Yet this theory is still in its infancy and, personally, I believe it will be shown to be a dead end; i.e., they will NOT find . . supporting evidence for it, as is found for, say, evolution.>

Why do religious beliefs have to “come from” somewhere?  Pre-scientific religious beliefs were a not exactly successful attempt to explain the nature of the world and our place in it.  The tragedy is that mutually irreconcilable religious dogmas prevail to this day—in the absence of any real evidence that they provide testable information. Let me repeat.  The world outside of ourselves and the world inside ourselves are the same world.  And one of the blessings of breaking loose from doctrinal style religious beliefs is that it allows us to be at one with ourselves.  No longer do we have to wrestle with such nonsense as: “As in Adam all die and so in Christ shall all be made alive”.
The truth does indeed set us free but that does not mean that us agnostics become “know it alls”.  You are clearly a very well read intelligent person and it is passing strange that you do not see the illogicality of claiming that your particular brand of monotheism happens to be the one true brand. You know, as well as I do, that the vast majority of those who do have religious attachments adhere to the religion they happen to have been brought up in. That alone should give you pause for thought.  The famous physicist Abdus Salaam (who was an Ahmadi Muslim) used to refer to science as the universal language.  There is no such thing as Muslim science as opposed to Christian or Hindu science which is in striking contrast to the religious feuding that goes on all over the globe.
Of course science isn’t the only universal medium of communication.  I truly love the musician who brought Palestinian and Israeli youths together via music. 
Perhaps if you could give me a really interesting and persuasive answer as to why I should accept your particular faith it might make sense for me to continue our discussion.

Maani,
You say:
< Ted:
Don’t go so soon! While there certainly is a lot of mental masturbation and cerebral diarrhea occurring, the conversation is still within meaningful bounds - shall we call them “path"-ways? LOL - of the original discussion. And although it does somewhat defeat the purpose of a topical thread for people to break off into essentially one-on-one or other “private” discussions, I would be happy to do so with you, as MMC (who I can tell I like) and Shenonymous (who I am still unsure of) seem to be doing.
Please reconsider leaving the thread. Thanks.>

Okay.  I am – for the moment—re-considering. 
In response to Doug C you said

< In response to John’s comment that “The main difference between astrophysics and theology is that astrophysics deals in hypotheses which lead to further investigation....,” you said, “And that IS how they discovered God! Will they ever realize it, though???”
Wow! And I was just about to give up on you! LOL. Seriously, I have been making that exact point for years, if not decades. And I thought I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Thank you for the unintended support.
Yes, with each step it takes, science comes closer and closer to “revealing” God - yet, as lifelong, career skeptics, they simply cannot see beyond the myopia of their discipline. Einstein knew this, though I am not suggesting, despite his many comments about God, that he himself was a believer in a “personal” God. But his “belief” is summed up in the following statement: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
“Superior spirit.” A wonderful euphemism, even if Einstein did not intend it that way. >

Why do you call it a euphemism?  Being an agnostic pantheist myself I’d say it is very far from a euphemism.  There is much mystery associated with human life and the recognition of a divine facet to our existence – without swallowing formal dogmas – sounds just about right to me.

Profane religion consists of Idolatry and Magic.  Sacred religion comes from oceanic feelings.  The seat of the oceanic feelings has been found in a location on the brain.

Idolatry and magic is used by predators to keep people in line and ready for the harvest.  Almost all formal “religions” are like this, except for Quakers, Unitarians, and so forth.  Quakers probably had a lot to do with the progressiveness of Iowa for instance.

The religious conflict is not a question between liberal and conservative, but rather a difference between classes.  Profane religion never stops accumulating more and more crap.  Sacred religions tries to throw most of the crap away.  Science is a little like sacred religion in that it likes to throw old ideas and facts out, though kit does not depend upon the same part of the brain.

Ted:

Welcome back.  And in fairness to Shenonymous, the two final comments you respond to - re “religion” and “faith,” and re “kind of hell” - were mine, the latter simply being tongue in cheek, as the “LOL” following it suggests.  (BTW, does everyone know that “LOL” stands for “laughing out loud,” and is not meant as laughing AT someone, but laughing at oneself, or noting irony or attempted humor?).

Also, bravo on your response to Shenonymous.  Having now seen her response to my most recent post, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she, in all her unapologetically self-centered eruditeness, simply likes to hear herself speak, and that she is, as you suggest, pretentious - to a degree that I have rarely encountered in another human being.

Shenonymous:

Now I know of a certainty that you would not know “truth” if it bit you on the ear.  The only “truths” you know are the preconceived notions and beliefs that you have inculcated and barricaded, and that now feed upon and engorge themselves in a vicious cycle, creating an ego-driven wall through which nothing can or will penetrate.  I would say that I pity you - since, among other things, your state of being does not suggest a happy soul - but I know that you would reject pity as “condescending” and tell me that you are actually quite happy.

As for my thoughts on Lille/Karabell, apparently your high IQ does not equate with paying attention: I addressed numerous aspects of this in detail in my initial posts to this thread.  Perhaps you simply dismissed them all as “empty and without merit.” Or perhaps you just weren’t interested.

Peace.

For Shenonymous (Part 2)

< Sorry Ted, since we are supposedly here talking about some “meaningful” reality, it seemed the Pirandello quote, who was one of the great playwrights about the absurdities of life, was appropriate, and I don’t see it at all as rambling. I agree that it does take some extra stretch of thought that is for sure, but several of the poster’s here want a stretch of the imagination to accept that a supernatural being did all kinds of really unimaginable things to “create” this world. It is more difficult to accept that kind of belief as one would an ice cream cone full of soft creamy sweet creature comforts so that one’s mind needn’t consider the actual realities of existence. When we have incredible death and destruction in the world that mankind inflicts upon himself, it takes more than a ticket to a movie or a youtube video to fix it.>

I have tried to put in an “extra stretch of thought” —as you put it – and have come up empty handed.  I know about the “incredible death an destruction” in the world but I don’t think it can be alleviated by tortuous attempts at word games.  In yet another post you say:

< It should also be kept in mind that “Religion is about laws, rules and behaviour; faith is about a relationship with God” (and, for Christians, with Christ). In this regard, there is far too much “religion” going on - and bad religion at that - and not enough quiet, peaceable, humble faith.>

Odd for an atheist like you to plug the notion of faith as opposed to religion.

< Ted:
You live in THIS world and “don’t feel as if I am in any kind of hell?” LOL.>

If you are implying that the current state of humans is somewhat like “hell on earth” then indeed I agree with you.  But I was merely interacting with Maani and her claim that hell is not a place but a lack of a proper relationship with God.  And s