Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from exister Friday, January 27, 2006 - 07:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't get all Ayn Rand on me dude. :-) There is no truth, only perceptions that lead to the illusion thereof, and that is a beautiful thing. The only reason I was able to survive in The Family was through my knowledge that every system is a microcosm with a bigger cosmos outside of it. It's like an endless, recursive succession of orange peels. Fortunately (or not) 16 years of thinking that way left me pretty well conditioned to it, and now I apply it to everything. Seems my mind has been ruined for applications such as conformity, stability and structured behavior patterns, which, when you think about it is 90% of the crap we interact with every day. (reply to this comment)

from JohnnieWalker Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Haven't read this in years. Man, I've come a long way. (reply to this comment)

From Korpesco Friday, January 27, 2006, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeh you are older, will die sooner. (reply to this comment)

from the antichrist Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:02 (Agree/Disagree?) The absolute truth would only be atainable by a being of absolute understanding, which you are not. The absolute truth is unattainable, inexplicable and lies beyond human vocabulary and comprehension. All truths we humans are capable of are forgeries, lies and pathetic attempts at linguistics. That is not to say that they don't exist somewhere out there and that some of us are not nearer or further from them. There is a reality which is not mental but it cannot be reached mentally, that is to say humanly. Our mental reality should mirror this true reality to the maximum. Of course we can never be sure. This is why we must remain critical and cautious of the truths and lies we create, especially the ones we recieve second hand. Becuase reality is out there and not in here and if we don't watch out we will inevitably run into disaster. (reply to this comment)

from :) Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 18:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi XXX I don't need 1500 characters to say that I luv youuuuuuu :) (reply to this comment)

from cm Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 10:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Part 1: This 1500 character limit blows JohnnyWalker, Your question attempts to get to the bottom of not just religion but of knowledge itself. The greatest discussions to this line of questioning that I have ever read comes from Wittgenstein and his books "On Certainty" and "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus." While Wittgenstein was a dedicated "Christian", his line of reasoning reinvigorated modern philosophical thought. I have summarized "On Certainty" for those of you who do not have the patience to labor through this mind boggling thesis. On Certainty "1. If you do know that here is one hand, we'll grant you all the rest. ..." This is a reference to G.E. Moore's claim that he could disprove skepticism by pointing out that he knew he had a hand. W disagrees. This isn't the kind of thing one can know in the usual sense of the word. "5. Whether a proposition can turn out false after all depends on what I make count as determinants for that proposition. ... 24. The idealist's question would be something like: 'What right have I not to doubt the existence of my hands?' ... But someone who asks such a question is overlooking the fact that a doubt about existence only works in a language-game. Hence, that we should first have to ask: what would such a doubt be like?, and don't understand this straight off." Our 'normal' language games don't seem to leave room for Cartesian-style doubt. But can't we still ask whether can know the 'external world' (reply to this comment)

From Craven Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 11:36 (Agree/Disagree?) You can get around the character limit by typing in notepad and pasting. Jules, I withdraw my complaint about the word limit.(reply to this comment)

From cm Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 11:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Part 2: On Certainty "31. The propositions which one comes back to again and again as if bewitched - these I should like to expunge from philosophical language." Why? "83. The truth of certain empirical propositions belongs to our frame of reference." Our frame of reference? "141. When we first begin to believe anything, what we believe is not a single proposition, it is a whole system of propositions. (Light dawns gradually over the whole.)" This view is sometimes called holism. If is right, what are the implications for Descartes' project? For Hume's? "160. The child learns by believing the adult. Doubt comes after belief." Doubt comes after belief? Do skeptical questions make sense at all? "232. 'We could doubt every single one of these facts, but we could not doubt them all.' Wouldn't it be more correct to say: 'we do not doubt them all.' Our not doubting them all is simply our manner of judging, and therefore of acting. ... 559. You must bear in mind that the language-game is so to say something unpredictable. I mean: it is not based on grounds. It is not reasonable (or unreasonable). It is there - like our life." "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (wovon man nicht redden kann, dauber muss man schweigen) (- Tractatus Preface)" (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 17:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey brother, nice to see you decided to put some of your shelf knowledge to use, at last. E-mail me a week before you come out here, if and when you do. Regards, Anthony(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) "Wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen." Point taken. I shall cease to pontificate on this matter. As it stands, I am in way over my head. If I do break through to the surface one day, you will hear from me. Until then, I hope that what I have posted will serve as thought provoking or perhaps even humorous reading material to others. One question, though: What judges the division between that which can be said at all and that whereof one must be silent?(reply to this comment)

From Craven Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 12:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Warum macht, Sie glauben, dab Stille notwendig ist?(reply to this comment)

from Jules Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 13:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Johnnie, From what do you draw the conclusion that there is a plan? And what is logical about religion? I respect the right of people to believe whatever they choose, but the foundation of every religion is faith, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", which is the antithesis of logic. I realise though that it is impossible for the statement that nothing holds intrinsic truth to be actually be true, since the notion itself that everything is subjective would have to be a constant "truth". :-) (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 08:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Craven, what is your reference point for claiming that my logic is flawed? You say, “The assumption that there is a plan contradicts any facts available to us.“ What are the facts available to us? And if there are facts that are not available to us, might they prove the existance of such a plan? The existance of life is one such available fact. I would venture to say that life itself with its infinitely complex structures is proof enough that there is a plan. My reasoning follows: I know that Dr. Milikan’s statement about the watch and watchmaker has been overused by the Family, but he did have a point. He, of course, used a watch for his example which by modern standards is a basic piece of machinery. But if even something as complicated and a computer must have a creator, how much more does life (something which humans have so far NOT been able to create) need a creator. Is it obvious that I hold little of the “Big Bang” theory? Good. Besides, where did all the matter that collided to create the bang come from? If there was nothing previously, you can wait as long as you like, there will still be nothing, bang or no bang. To create a bang, heat, motion or life, there must be matter. (continued in part 2)(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 08:45 (Agree/Disagree?) PART 2 So either you believe (an illogical action) in a creator who created matter and life (who created the creator is an entirely different story. I laugh in the face of anyone who uses the “If you knew that you’d be God yourself” line. What a lame answer!) or you believe (again, an illogical action) that life was formed by a big bang and thus there is no plan. I, with my limited human mind, believe in a creator. For me, it is the more logic of the theories I have found so far. Whether that creator is God, an unfathomably advanced civilization in another dimension, or one-eyed monsters toying with a couple electrons, I don’t know. Jules, you ask from what I draw the conclusion that there is a plan. Given that the results of my deductions is that a creator (whom most people refer to as ‘God’) exists, I also believe that this creator had a plan—or when was the last time you saw a highly technical piece of equipment be invented/created for no reason. (continued in part 3)(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 08:46 (Agree/Disagree?) PART 3 As for religion and logic: You said that the foundation of every religion is faith. I agree with that. But faith must have a foundation as well. Faith is sort of like a tree which has its roots firmly in the ground. As long as the branches don‘t spread themselves out too far, the tree will be stable. The fact on which a certain faith is based allows it to make assumptions (and in turn have faith in those assumptions) to an extent. If the assumptions reach out too far, it makes itself and the fact it was based on shaky. Furthermore, a common mistake is to immediately confuse any quest for truth with religion. Religion as we know it today has lost its meaning. It was, I’m sure, once a pure word which was meant to describe the desire to bond with the absolute. Somewhere along the way that quest was polluted by traditions, superstitions, and small-mindedness. Religion as we know it, is not logical. The only thing that is logical is the ultimate truth that all interested mortals are searching for. My deductions are not the truth. They are merely “open end conclusions” (I know, that’s an oxymoron) to the logical steps I have taken so far. If I come across a more logical explaination I would readily except it. Jules, you wrote: “I realise though that it is impossible for the statement that nothing holds intrinsic truth to be actually be true, since the notion itself that everything is subjective would have to be a constant "truth"” (continued in part 4)(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) PART 4 If what you are trying to say, Jules, is that there are no absolutes, then I agree, that would appear to be a “glaring error“ as Craven pointed out. But I didn’t say that all truth is subjective -- only that the fragments of truth that we now have are. As such, the ‘notion that everything is subjective’ is a constant. I try to think of life as a puzzle. On this earth, this dimension, we only have, say, a dozen pieces to a puzzle of an unknown amount of pieces. That the puzzle (the plan) exists is evident by the fact that life exists. To say there is no plan is to say that there are no absolutes. I believe there are absolutes. There are absolutes in science, in mathematics, in nature; why not in morals and truth. (Note that I didn’t mention beliefs and religion). From our perspective of life and existance, we have no way of knowing how big the puzzle is. The only hints we have are our consciences and instincts. The individual pieces of the puzzle are in themselves absolutes. Part of the truth, but not the complete truth. Just as you cannot tell from a couple puzzle pieces what the final puzzle is going to look like (what it will depict, how many dimensions it has, etc.) you cannot say what the ultimate truth (or plan) is from a fragment of it. (continued in part 5)(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 08:49 (Agree/Disagree?) PART 5 What are the absolutes in the real world? Life is an absolute. The fact that nothing can be created from nothing is an absolute. The fact that the human mind is incapable of comprehending anything outside of its 4 dimensions is an absolute. The fact that life, in whatever form, is not limited to human existance on this planet or this dimension is an absolute. I’m sure there are many more. Naturally, we oh-so-important humans with our little brains think we know everything and tend to forget these absolutes. The pieces of the puzzle can be arranged in a myriad of formations. Some religions claim that they have found the correct combination to all the pieces (which is ludicrous) others claim to have found certain pieces that fit, but admit that they cannot place the others. Yet others choose to ignore the pieces and say that there is no puzzle, and the pieces may be arranged arbitrarily. Some combinations may be closer to being right than others, but none are accurate. As with my last post the above is just a collection of thoughts. Some people may call them scattered, some may actually see what I’m trying to get at. That I attempt to think logically is far from claiming that I have succedded. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right or that I have “found the answer”. I am myself, still searching for the highest form of truth. These are my opinons. I am glad to explore those of others. (continued in part 6)(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 08:51 (Agree/Disagree?) PART 6 In conlusion, Craven, I wish I had your talent for expression and vocabulary. It would have made the above a lot easier and clearer. (Correction: In may last post I stated: “...if a mathematical statement is placed inside parentheses it has the higher precidence”. I goofed up. The last word is supposed to be ‘priority’.) (WHEW! 6 parts! Jules, can the character limit be pushed up to 3000?)(reply to this comment)

From Craven Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 11:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm going to post this in a segmented fashion with your words in quotation marks. "Craven, what is your reference point for claiming that my logic is flawed?" You assume there is a plan. There is no sound evidence to support that conclusion. "And if there are facts that are not available to us, might they prove the existance of such a plan?" The utter absence of fact does not prove the existence of any fact. "The existance of life is one such available fact. I would venture to say that life itself with its infinitely complex structures is proof enough that there is a plan." That is a fact and yes there might be a plan. But it would be mathematical and not designed by any sentient being. Not the kind of plan you are referring to. Our "god" might end up being an algorithm. "I know that Dr. Milikan’s statement about the watch and watchmaker has been overused by the Family, but he did have a point." No he didn't. "But if even something as complicated and a computer must have a creator, how much more does life (something which humans have so far NOT been able to create) need a creator." The error in said ratiocination is simply that you can't equate the rules that govern our creations to things we had no hand in bringing about. It would be the same as denouncing infinity just because we are not capable of comprehending it. It would be like assuming that since you have male genitalia women have the same. In any case it's not safe to base assumptions on assumptions. The watch analogy has proven to be endearing to some, but it's nevertheless a reckless assumption. It's appropriate only because it epitomizes the essential creationist/intelligent design argument. Just because something exists does not mean a sentient being created it. Comparing evolution to risible aleatory analogies like the washing machine or the monkey and the type writer in an attempt to discredit evolution is as ridiculous as saying that just because evolution (defined as transitional change) exists, which is fact, we were wrought by its mechanisms. "Is it obvious that I hold little of the “Big Bang” theory? Good. Besides, where did all the matter that collided to create the bang come from? If there was nothing previously, you can wait as long as you like, there will still be nothing, bang or no bang. To create a bang, heat, motion or life, there must be matter." When did time start to exist? Where does the universe end? What does our ignorance in this respect prove? Only our ignorance in that regard. "So either you believe (an illogical action) in a creator who created matter and life (who created the creator is an entirely different story. I laugh in the face of anyone who uses the “If you knew that you’d be God yourself” line. What a lame answer!) or you believe (again, an illogical action) that life was formed by a big bang and thus there is no plan." A: How did you narrow it down to just two options? B: You are right, that is a lame answer if only because it uses its own paradigms to dictate a conclusion. But with lateral thinking you will have paradoxes. Let's assume I know that there is no god. How that can make me a god is beyond the realm of logical consequence. "I, with my limited human mind, believe in a creator. For me, it is the more logic of the theories I have found so far. Whether that creator is God, an unfathomably advanced civilization in another dimension, or one-eyed monsters toying with a couple electrons, I don’t know." Out of curiosity, not a challenge, what are the factors that influenced your logic? "Given that the results of my deductions is that a creator (whom most people refer to as ‘God’) exists, I also believe that this creator had a plan—or when was the last time you saw a highly technical piece of equipment be invented/created for no reason." Still not a logical assumption. If a higher power exists you automatically assume that it is both sentient and that it has a plan. Many powerful forces exist that do not have a plan, and many sentient individuals exist devoid of any plan whatsoever. My own plans for tonight are kinda hazy at the moment. The notion of a plan is, in my opinion, the result of our need for meaning in life. We are cursed by our intelligence. Our level of consciousness makes some seek meaning. A comforting but as of yet unsubstantiated whim. "Furthermore, a common mistake is to immediately confuse any quest for truth with religion." They are not the same thing, but might derive from the same sentiment. "My deductions are not the truth. They are merely “open end conclusions” (I know, that’s an oxymoron) to the logical steps I have taken so far. If I come across a more logical explaination I would readily except it." I was in the exact same ideological state a few years ago, keeping your mind open is the key. Part of any flawed ideology is the need to not question. The fact that you won't do that already puts you closer to the answer than anyone who has chosen a definitive conclusion. "Jules, you wrote: “I realize though that it is impossible for the statement that nothing holds intrinsic truth to be actually be true, since the notion itself that everything is subjective would have to be a constant "truth"” Jules hit the nail on the head, she's just pointing out the paradox. "I try to think of life as a puzzle. On this earth, this dimension, we only have, say, a dozen pieces to a puzzle of an unknown amount of pieces. That the puzzle (the plan) exists is evident by the fact that life exists. To say there is no plan is to say that there are no absolutes. I believe there are absolutes. There are absolutes in science, in mathematics, in nature; why not in morals and truth. (Note that I didn’t mention beliefs and religion)." The existence of life does not translate into the existence of a plan, that's a huge leap. Nor does the opposite indicate the lack of absolutes. "From our perspective of life and existence, we have no way of knowing how big the puzzle is. The only hints we have are our consciences and instincts." No, the only thing we have is fact. Instinct might even be an impediment. "The individual pieces of the puzzle are in themselves absolutes. Part of the truth, but not the complete truth. Just as you cannot tell from a couple puzzle pieces what the final puzzle is going to look like (what it will depict, how many dimensions it has, etc.) you cannot say what the ultimate truth (or plan) is from a fragment of it." I concur without reservation. "What are the absolutes in the real world? Life is an absolute. The fact that nothing can be created from nothing is an absolute. The fact that the human mind is incapable of comprehending anything outside of its 4 dimensions is an absolute. The fact that life, in whatever form, is not limited to human existence on this planet or this dimension is an absolute. I’m sure there are many more." Life is not limited to this planet? "The pieces of the puzzle can be arranged in a myriad of formations. Some religions claim that they have found the correct combination to all the pieces (which is ludicrous) others claim to have found certain pieces that fit, but admit that they cannot place the others. Yet others choose to ignore the pieces and say that there is no puzzle, and the pieces may be arranged arbitrarily. Some combinations may be closer to being right than others, but none are accurate." Why do pieces have to be part of a puzzle? "As with my last post the above is just a collection of thoughts. Some people may call them scattered, some may actually see what I’m trying to get at. That I attempt to think logically is far from claiming that I have succedded. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right or that I have “found the answer”. I am myself, still searching for the highest form of truth." I'm searching as well. I won't delude myself into the notion that Ihave the answer. "In conlusion, Craven, I wish I had your talent for expression and vocabulary. It would have made the above a lot easier and clearer." The haughty drivel it's couched in means nothing, only facts count. Basically, I'm arrogant but there's no way I can sweet talk facts away. "(WHEW! 6 parts! Jules, can the character limit be pushed up to 3000?) " Pretty please Jules! Did I ever tell you how lovely you are? And that your wisdom knows no bounds? Your bigness is known far and wide. I mean grandeur not girth. Cor blimey, I hope you don't take it the wrong way. But if you can find it in you to increase the word limit(message exceeded word limit and has been mercilessly truncated depriving jules of even more lofty praise) (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 17:59 (Agree/Disagree?) (Craven's comments and questions in quotes) "You assume there is a plan. There is no sound evidence to support that conclusion." You're right. I assume there is a plan based on way that I have arranged the fragments of logic. If you say that my logic contains glaring errors, does that make your logic right? "The utter absence of fact does not prove the existence of any fact." Is there an utter absence of facts? If, as you agreed, the existence of life is a fact, then don't we have at least SOME facts? "Our "god" might end up being an algorithm." I like that. That's an interesting concept. But every programmer knows that an algorithm must be planned and created. So how would that fit in? (In reference to Dr. Millikan having a point) "No he didn't." Yes, he DID!! (Just kidding!). I see your point. It's a good one. I'll keep that in mind. "It would be like assuming that since you have male genitalia women have the same" And boy, am I glad they don't! :)) "Just because something exists does not mean a sentient being created it." What DOES it mean? That it was created by an insentient being? "When did time start to exist? Where does the universe end? What does our ignorance in this respect prove? Only our ignorance in that regard." Can we accept ignorance in these matters as an excuse for disinterest in them? "How did you narrow it down to just two options?" I would have liked to add a third option, but I haven't heard of any other theories than that of a creator and the "big bang", or evolution. Do you know of, or have a theory on a third possibility? "Out of curiosity, not a challenge, what are the factors that influenced your logic?" I would like to think that they were not influenced, but I would only be lying to myself. In answer to your question: I have no idea. The influence may be subliminal. It may also have been influenced by currently held beliefs, no matter how hard I tried to suppress them when writing this. In that aspect, I am still learning. "If a higher power exists you automatically assume that it is both sentient and that it has a plan." I think it would be logical to assume (another contradiction of terms) that a creator can only create something of less or equal intelligence, knowledge, or capability than the creator herself. If we as sentient beings have supposedly been created in the creator's likeness and we have the ability to plan and destroy, love and hate, however limitedly, then is it logical to assume that the creator is capable of much more? "The notion of a plan is, in my opinion, the result of our need for meaning in life. We are cursed by our intelligence. Our level of consciousness makes some seek meaning. A comforting but as of yet unsubstantiated whim." If there are no absolutes, then there is no right and no wrong. No rules in life means no meaning to life. I would prefer to believe in a "plan" that helped me live a better life and after my death discover that I was wrong, than to believe that there is no plan, and find out in the after life that everything depended on it. "Jules hit the nail on the head, she's just pointing out the paradox." I think I know where the misunderstanding is. The title of my post is "The Truth is Subjective". I had originally put quotes around it denoting that I was quoting something. The quotes were edited out and thus it mistakenly became the title of my post. I understand the paradox that Jules presented. I agree that this statement contradicts itself. I did not, however, base my reasoning on this. "The existence of life does not translate into the existence of a plan, that's a huge leap. Nor does the opposite indicate the lack of absolutes." If we can agree that there are absolutes, then we can agree that there is ultimately a plan however vague. Incidentally, I use the term plan in the relative sense; a general direction in which something is headed; sort of a kick in the right direction. I do not mean it in the sense that we are predestined. "No, the only thing we have is fact. Instinct might even be an impediment." You're right. Instinct tends to make us shy away from the unknown. I hadn't thought of that. But I think our conscience is akin to the built-in functions (or methods) of a programming language. If not used correctly, they will return an error. That's not to say that we're programmed, though. "Life is not limited to this planet?" I could at this time, point you in the direction of "top secret" military files and records of encounters with and discoveries of alien life forms, but that would do us no good as I myself have doubts about even the most credible of them. What I had originally written was that life is not limited to human existence on this planet, meaning that we are not the only life forms on this planet. If there is a form of hierarchy to all living creatures on earth, what makes us humans believe we are at the top? "Why do pieces have to be part of a puzzle?" Because I used the overly simplistic example of a puzzle. The fragments we have are obviously fragments. They are of no good to us as individual pieces. But for the sake of argument, you may call them pieces to anything you like. "The haughty drivel it's couched in means nothing, only facts count. Basically, I'm arrogant but there's no way I can sweet talk facts away." Regardless, I meant what I said as a compliment. It's a lot easier to explain something when one has a better grasp of the language. What you can express with one word, whether fact or fiction, would take me a full sentence to convey. Some people have that kind of a gift, others don't. I fall into the second category.(reply to this comment)

From Craven Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 21:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Your posts will be in quotation marks as per usual. "If you say that my logic contains glaring errors, does that make your logic right?" No. But I'll get to the burden of proof later. "Is there an utter absence of facts? If, as you agreed, the existence of life is a fact, then don't we have at least SOME facts?" Yes, we have some facts, I haven't yet disputed the facts and have thus far only dealt with conclusions. "But every programmer knows that an algorithm must be planned and created. So how would that fit in?" Not exactly true. All algorithms have always existed. Programmers simply implement them. There are many algorithms that already exist and have not been discovered. We don't know if the Riemann hypothesis exists or not for example. If someone validates it then he/she won't have created it, he/she would have solved it. "What DOES it mean? That it was created by an insentient being?" Why a being? Why not inanimate factors? Why not something as great as universal randomness? "Can we accept ignorance in these matters as an excuse for disinterest in them?" I don't advocate disinterest, but I don't think conclusions should be based on lack of verifiable fact. I would have liked to add a third option, but I haven't heard of any other theories than that of a creator and the "big bang", or evolution. Do you know of, or have a theory on a third possibility? Sure, I can come up with a million theories if you give me enough time. That is the essence of what I am saying. In the absence of irrefutable fact lateral thinking can be employed to come up with "airtight" theories. Let me be abstract for a moment. I don't exist. I am a character of your creation. You communicate with me because you are crazy. I am not real. You can't prove me wrong as long as I am given latitude in the game. But once again we need to consider burden of proof. "I would like to think that they were not influenced, but I would only be lying to myself. In answer to your question: I have no idea. The influence may be subliminal. It may also have been influenced by currently held beliefs, no matter how hard I tried to suppress them when writing this. In that aspect, I am still learning." By influence I didn't mean corruption of logic, just the factors involved. It seems logical to you that there is a plan. Simply put, why? "I think it would be logical to assume (another contradiction of terms) that a creator can only create something of less or equal intelligence, knowledge, or capability than the creator herself. If we as sentient beings have supposedly been created in the creator's likeness and we have the ability to plan and destroy, love and hate, however limitedly, then is it logical to assume that the creator is capable of much more?" Not true, man has creations that supercede his ability in specific areas. And once again, where does the conclusion that there is a creator come from? I'm even willing to concede that a creator would act in the manner that you imagine but am not willing to arbitrarily concede that said creator exists. "If there are no absolutes, then there is no right and no wrong. No rules in life means no meaning to life. I would prefer to believe in a "plan" that helped me live a better life and after my death discover that I was wrong, than to believe that there is no plan, and find out in the after life that everything depended on it." Right and wrong are not absolutes. It depends on the criteria. I used to believe in bog "just in case". Just in case it was true, I'd wanted to have the clouds, harps, not the grapes but certainly the virgins. But I don't use the "just in case" factor anymore. "If we can agree that there are absolutes, then we can agree that there is ultimately a plan however vague. Incidentally, I use the term plan in the relative sense; a general direction in which something is headed; sort of a kick in the right direction. I do not mean it in the sense that we are predestined." There are few absolutes but I don't draw any conclusions from their existence. "I could at this time, point you in the direction of "top secret" military files and records of encounters with and discoveries of alien life forms, but that would do us no good as I myself have doubts about even the most credible of them. What I had originally written was that life is not limited to human existence on this planet, meaning that we are not the only life forms on this planet. If there is a form of hierarchy to all living creatures on earth, what makes us humans believe we are at the top?" I will go out on a limb and say that humans will never contact intelligent life that resembles our notions of life. "Because I used the overly simplistic example of a puzzle. The fragments we have are obviously fragments. They are of no good to us as individual pieces. But for the sake of argument, you may call them pieces to anything you like." I might not even concede that they are pieces. A piece would still be part of a whole and the fragments you speak of might not have a "parent". Now to the burden of proof. Anyone can create a riddle with no answer. If you state that something exists the burden of proof is on you. Unless these rules are followed scientific method will be compromised. We are deep in the Realm of "circle thoughts" now. ;-)(reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, July 04, 2002, 00:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you Craven regarding the "just in case" belief in God. I held on to my religious faith too for awhile for the same reasons. Even now, I have had conversations with friends who have been out for sometime and are not believers, but there is still deep down the fear of "what if?". What I tell them is that according to the Family's christianity, we are "saved" and guaranteed a place in heaven. We have already served our time in "God's Service", so that's our "heavenly mansion" covered (personally I think I'll survive if I don't get to be near Berg's corner), and God is a big boy, and can certainly handle it if we want to explore other philosophies and leave blind faith aside for a bit. Johnnie, I can totally relate to this: "If there are no absolutes, then there is no right and no wrong. No rules in life means no meaning to life. I would prefer to believe in a "plan" that helped me live a better life and after my death discover that I was wrong, than to believe that there is no plan, and find out in the after life that everything depended on it." This was for me the really big leap into the unknown. Letting go of my notion of being guided personally by a caring divinity was almost as drastic as the realization that the Family I had trusted and obeyed my whole life was rotten to the core. My personal conclusion was that not only had I been following the wrong plan for most of my life, but there was no alternative, no substitute, no book I could look up with the "right plan". Disorientation doesn't begin to cover it. Then I met the Hare Krishna's... (Just kidding :-P) Actually I am still idealistic and still have a strong sense of morality, but it's now rooted in secular humanism. The quote in Ricky's section by Einstein really sums it up for me. I think that much of religious morality is really an immature world view in which people obey rules out of hope of reward or avoidance of punishment in this life and the next. The secular humanist ethic is based in open-minded inquiry, critical reasoning and scientific fact. Rather than accept a code of values that is dictated to us by a higher power, I believe (now I'm doing it) that we have both the ability and responsibility to make moral choices based on factual premises (with the understanding that our facts are simply our best deductions from the information we currently have about the natural universe). What is important to me now is the pursuit of individuality, personal freedom and responsibility, honesty and integrity. I think my favourite subject in school now is Philosophy. The sheer pleasure of being free to pursue any question with an open mind, without having to be afraid of what the answer might be, is what I absolutely treasure the most about being free of the Family. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 23:41 (Agree/Disagree?) There would be no (great) motivation to follow "the way" 100% without the promise of some type of reward (afterlife/heaven), this is why the philosophers (theologians) who invented god also had to invent heaven and hell. God did not create woman/man in his own image, it was the other way around. Regards, Anthony (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll be answering as soon as I get a chance.(reply to this comment)

From Craven Tuesday, July 02, 2002, 17:54 (Agree/Disagree?) John, Jules already caught the glaring error in your logic, as comforting as the notion might be, the assumption that there is a plan contradicts any facts available to us. Truth is never subjective unless overtly abstract lateral thinking is your bent. Yes we are not capable of even beginning to understand the complex algorithms that life marches to. But I disagree with the notion that Jules proposedin that religion is devoid of ;logic. As it has evolved it may not appeal to individual logic but it can easily be explained through "collective logic". Religion grants us these wonders: We are usually granted the greatest wish of all mankind. Immortality. There is no proof whatsoever that wehave a spirit. We just like to interpret the complexity of our personalities that way, religion translates that into everlasting life. What is true in quotidian life is true in the "after life". If something looks too good to be true it usually is. Through said immortality we are granted the conveniently comfortable luxury of revisiting lost acquaintances. Once again the "master plan" plays into our transient and banal wishes. We have to be good to get good stuff. We are still immortal but we can't steal the neighbors chickens or we are toast. Simplistic but effective when dealing with simpletons. The brazenly self-serving logic is not lost on me. I could go on but I'm lazy and Jules has instituted a blimey character limit! (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Wednesday, July 03, 2002, 00:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Mark Frost: “ The List of Seven” Now the Christians have had a good run no question about it. One dead Jew with some neat tricks up his sleeve, promoted like hair tonic by a few fanatical followers, and one converted emperor later they’ve got themselves a holy empire to shame any in history; going on 2000 years. How did they manage it? The secret of their success was simple: concentrate your power, wrap it in mystery. Hide it inside the biggest building in town. Lay down a few commandments to keep the peasants in line. Get a regulatory grip on birth, death and marriage. Throw in the fear of damnation, some smoke, a little music- there’s your first commandment- put on a good show and customers will come crawling on their knees for the stale crumbs of the feast of saints. Now THAT was a business. Here was the plain genius of the Christian solution. Convince your constituents of one big lie: we hold the key to the gates of heaven. “ You want to make the trip brother? You’ll have to do it through our auspices.” Sure advertising how horrible the other place is helped close the deal: fear puts those poor ignorant sods on their knees lighting candles like there is no tomorrow. Throw in the Devil to spice up the soup and you’ve got yourself a flawless formula for religious hegemony. Worked like a Swiss watch. Nothing came close. (reply to this comment)