mitchellmckain

Chapter eight: EvilFirst JP makes the observation that physicists seem to be more likely to embrace some kind of religious thinking than are those in the biological sciences even if it is the kind of cosmic spirituality of Einstein, as if the perceived order of the universe brings to mind the language of God. By contrast, biologists are embroiled in a controversy with the religious over evolution, and biology affords many examples that make the idea of design in living things a little absurd. Living things a filled with examples of both the most awe inspiring efficient complexity and the most tragic mistakes. But in addition to this, JP suggests that the biological scientists seems to be stuck in the same kind of over inflated confidence in the ability of a mechanistic worldview to explain everything that physicists had before the advent of quantum physics. Because of this JP thinks that biological sciences will eventually confront similar worldview transforming discoveries, where the science forces them recognize the role of emergent causal principles in the biological organism.However in this chapter it is the awareness of tragedy that JP is most interested in because it underlines the greatest philosophical obstacle to religion, known as the problem of evil. This is the apparent contradiction between the power and character attributed to God and the existence of evil and suffering. In addition to the natural evils of which biologists are particularly aware there is also moral evil which is a consequence of human choices. I very much agree with JP when he points out that this is an existential problem as much as a logical one, for actual experience of evil and suffering can be a far weightier matter than any mere logical or philosophical consideration. And yet I will add the observation that JP does not that such experiences seem to be as much of a faith maker as a faith breaker, probably because it is often only faith that gives people the power to endure such experiences. Doctors are quite aware of the critical importance that a will to live has in the ability of the patient to survive, and perhaps this is one of the reasons that of all those in the biological sciences doctors are most religious. The point is that belief matters, for surviving the most difficult things requires a belief that it is worth it and it is this that seems to have a fundamental tie with a belief in a good and loving God more than anything else.JP discusses what he sees as the three most significant answers that theologians make to this. First the oldest is according the literal understanding of Genesis and Romans 5:12, that death and suffering are the result of the disobedience of mankind's first ancestors. JP says that science has made this answer untenable and I certainly agree that this interpretation is the least compatible with the scientific worldview. JP suggest however that Genesis can be understood as a symbolic turning away from God in dawning hominid consciousness and an emerging awareness of death, but I find this to be a rather insipid approach that all but makes God Himself completely symbolic of some development in the hominid mind. Furthermore I find the attempt to interpret Romans 5:12 as meaning that only an awareness of death is the result of sin to be too great a distortion of scripture.First there is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires making the story of Adam and Eve completely symbolic. There is a much much more natural approach, and that is to see Adam and Eve as the first hominids with an awareness of God, because He in fact communicated with them directly. The Bible has a tradition of calling those to whom God has chosen to communicate, the children of God or "sons of God", and this lends itself to a rather straightforward interpretation of Genesis 6 as an answer to the age old question of whom did the sons of Adam and Eve marry: the "sons of God" married the "daughters of men" and their children were men of renown. But if this is the case, then what of evil and suffering and what of Romans 5:12? Well Biblical support for it is not enormous but there are suggestions that there is another kind of death than physical death.Probably the biggest hint, which punches a rather large hole in literal minded interpretations of Genesis, is the fact that God told Adam that on the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Since Adam did not die on that day, we must either say that God lied or that there is another kind of death. Then there are Jesus' words "Let the dead bury their own dead", which would be impossible unless there are two meanings of dead here. Matthew 8:22 is also quite suggestive for it is too obvious that gaining the whole world is pointless if you die in the process, which is why many translations replace the word "life" with "soul" even though this is not supported by the original Greek. But if there is more than one kind of death (and thus more than one kind of life) then this makes perfect sense. Then there is Matthew 10:28, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both the body and soul in hell." In other words, all these passages suggests that in addition to physical death which is a natural part of life there is also a spiritual death - a death of the soul, which is such a more terrible thing than physical death, that God's warning in the Garden really does refer to the truth.In the next post I will continue the examination of this rather important chapter with the second answer to the problem of evil which JP discusses.

The largest consensus of Christians about what it means to be Christian refer back to the Nicean creed from the Eccumenical councils of the 4rth century. One may notice that I have left out the RC addition of the words "and the Son" since these are not the result of any eccumenical agreement. This creed is upheld by Protestant and Catholic alike (the filoque addition not being very significant since most Protestants have adopted it as well) and so both are Christian. One thing in particular that I want to point out is the word "Catholic" which appears in this creed, because it means that we must say that ALL Chrisitans are indeed Catholic (in the sense of the word as it is used here). But what is this sense of the word? We can notice for one thing that there is no mention of any pope or Rome anywhere in this creed, so whatever athority that the pope or the church in Rome might imagine that it has over Christendom has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "Catholic" in this creed. What it means is that there is only one church and Christ is the head of that church. It means that even if you go plant a "church" somewhere and share the gospel to gather a flock, what you have gather is not yours and the church you have planted is not any kind of "one true chruch" and the same goes for any other organization and administration of human beings. "Catholic" means universal and it means that all Christians are members of the body of Christ which is the church led by Christ himself, and while Catholic and Evangelical may childishly bicker just as the apostles did over who gets to sit on the right hand of Jesus, Jesus will simply say that he is greatest who is like a child and servant -- FOR THIS IS OUR GOD, who humbled himself to become a helpless infant, and who lived and died and lives to serve all of us, that we might know that the Creator of the universe does love us and will bring us out of darkness, if we let Him. So let us be humble in love and service, leaving judgement to God as the Apostle Paul commanded in Romans 10:6-7 and do not tempt God to judge us as we judge others Matt 7:1-5. Here is the true nature of heresy, not the lack of good practice and doctrine, for we all live with logs in our eyes, but to blasphemously take upon ourselves the mantle of God's judgement as if it were we ourselves who raised Christ up from the dead. And so I would say that "Christians" who deny that Catholics are Christian are just as heretical as the Mormons (who say all other churches are apostate) and the Jehova Witnesses (who say all other churches are inspired by the devil).

Chapter 7 The Spirit and the FaithsNowhere is the similarity between the views of JP and myself greater than in what is expressed in this chapter. Here JP addresses the what he calls "the problem of diversity". For JP this is a problem because after defending the spiritual authenticity of Christianity, he now confronts the reality that the spiritual authenticity of other religions cannot be rationally dismissed without it rebounding on Christianity as well. So JP acknowledges the evident stability, integrity and sincerity to be found in competely different relgious traditions. They all point to a instinct for the divine in human nature but do so from contradictory conceptions of reality.JP points out how this diversity of religion must be particularly disturbing to the religious person trained in the sciences because of the obvious contrast with the universality of understanding to be found in science. JP does not explore this as much as he should, at least not in this particular book (he does allude to a more in depth look at this question that he has made in other books). But I think we must be forced by this contrast to one of two conclusions. Either there is no reality out there shaping the conclusions of religion like there is in science, or the nature of what relgion concerns itself with is of a vastly different character than that which science studies. In previous chapters, JP has already raise some tentative reasons for rejecting the first of these alternatives and that the kind of bottom up reasoning that led to the the rather unexpected doctrine of the trinity. Indeed this doctrine of the trinity challenges our rationality much in the same way that wave-particle duality (for one example) does in physics.In any case, JP is quite firm in his assertion both of a rejection of the idea that religion is just culturally shaped opinions and of the seriousness of the challenge represented by diverse claims made about the nature of reality in religion. One of JP's more interesting suggestions is that science can be a bridge between religions, if they engage in sharing their insights into how they understand modern science to relate to their theology. This, of course, presumes that religions accept the validity and effectiveness of scientific inquiry. This they can do without accepting proposition that what science describes is the sum total of reality. However science obviously cannot be such a bridge if its neutrality and integrity is compromised by forcing a theological bias upon its investigations as is being attempted in the promotion of Intellegent Design as science. Therefore the key to any reconciliation of science and religion must be a clear understanding of the boundaries of science and religion. Religions pretty much define themselves but the definition of science is found in a particular methodology which necessarily restricts its subject matter to that which is measurable or observable in an objective manner.JP is very careful to explain that objective of dialog between religion for which science can be a bridge, is not one of compromise and a reduction of religion to some kind of "lowest common denominator". For it seems rather clear that the many of the clashing specifics of religion are also what give each of them much of their living power. In Christianity, for example, the divinity of Jesus lies right at the heart of its understanding of the power that is being offered for the transformation of human life. This includes a conviction that Jesus is the only way, because it is our efforts which destroy us. But clearly this is also the source of a cognitive clash with other faiths.JP mentions Rahner's concept of the "anonymous Christian" which points out that the saving power of Christianity cannot depend on such superficial things as the names that are used, for this would be like saying that the Bible is only true in only one language and that only those who speak that language can be reconciled to God. JP suggests that this idea that some people might really be Christians without knowing it, seems a little patronizing. But I think this is only because it is expressed in Christian terms, and especially because of the mistaken presumption of equivalence between salvation and being Christian.JP suggest that the answer is found in the activity of the Holy Spirit, by which, for example, medieval theologians explained how non-Christian thinkers like Plato could have contributed so much to the philosophical foundations of Christian thought. Implicit in this idea that in the Holy Spirit God works with all people of all cultures for His providential purpose of salvation for all. Thus JP raises the example of the Petacost as a reversal of Babel, whereby the Holy Spirit acts as a bridge between languages and cultures. However I think we can go far beyond this by contemplating the Protestant formula for salvation, which affirms that it is by the power of God alone that we can be reconciled to Him. I believe that when this concept is applied unilaterally and without limit all the dissonance between faiths vanishes, for it says that what saves is not Chrisitan beliefs, but the work of God alone. But then it is only God who can say what is His work and the clash between religion may only be between the limited ways in which we can see His work. Even saying that Jesus is the only way, can be seen in the light of the divinity of Jesus as just another statement that it is by His work alone that we are reconciled to God. In fact, I believe that the evidence indicates that rather than being a problem, diversity is an answer -- diversity is how God works both in the natural world and in man. Thus this diversity of human thought (and religious faith) is actually a beautiful creation of God that is essential for the savation of mankind.

Nothing I said contradicts the idea that their was a two way exchange of ideas. In fact, did I not also say, "To the tell the truth, Christianity can be considered one of these new syncretistic religions for you can see many shared elements between these other syncretistic religions and Christianity. What I said was nothing like your paraphrase, for these two statements are utterly different: "Gnosticism drew their ideas from many sources combining ideas from Greek philosophy, Roman paganism, Judaism, Christianity." "Gnosticism drew their ideas from Christianity." Therefore your "other way around" comment is based on your straw man and doesn't even make any sense in regards to my actual statement. IN FACT since I DO suggest that Christianity was also one of these syncretistic religions, I have basically also said: "Christianity drew their ideas from many sources combining ideas from Greek philosophy, Roman paganism, Judaism, Gnosticism." This is as close to a "other way around" as you can get, but in this case, there is no reason to think that it must be one way or the other. I will however say that it is pretty absurd to suggest that Christianity took its historical elements (events involving specific persons) from Gnosticism. I think it is going to pretty clear when Gnostic groups adopted from Christianity if it includes such historical elements. For example, if the gospel of Thomas is truly a "Gnostic gospel" then it is pretty obvious that this is from a Gnostic group that has adopted much Christianity. I think it is also pretty clear that the Gnostic groups have stronger ties to the eastern and Greek philosophies than does orthodox Christianity, and we know the source of these ideas and it was NOT the historical persons of Christianity.

I think one thing that helps is to realize that this lack of religious tolerance is not a product of religion itself, however much some people want to make this out to be the same thing. The dreams of athiests of a world without religion bore fruit in the Communist holocost that was far far more terrible than anything done in the name of any religion. I have been led therefore to a rather useful distinction between atheism and anti-theism, the first simply being non-belief and the second being an assertion that the beliefs of others are a symptom of illness or evil of somekind - the most commonly used word is delusional. These are actually two poles of response to alien belief to which we can add the agnosticism which refers to either ambivalence (it doesn't matter) or a conviction that these things are unknowable. As a response to alien religious belief this is also a part of religion because religious belief is diverse, which means that even among the religious there is the question of how they respond to the relgious beliefs of others that are different from their own. The atheist response of disbelief is rather natural but when it goes past this to anti-theistic response of condemnation, this can be a motivation for doing violence to ones fellow man. Therefore, I challenge the prevalent rhetoric that seeks to blame the evils of the world upon religion or the lack of religion (atheism or secular humanism), for I would claim that it is the anti-theistic sentiments found among both the religious and the atheists that is the real source of evil, both when these anti-theistic sentiments are a part of religion, like in the Crusades, and when these anti-theistic sentiments are a part of an atheistic philosophy like communism. I believe it is quite possible to be an atheist without believing that all the religious are delusional, just as it is possible to be a theist or relgious without believing that all atheists (or religious whose faith differs from your own) are delusional. I believe that those who manage this have a higher sanity than those who do not. To put it in terms of this "anti-theistic" distinction I have made above, we can separate the anti-thieistic impulse and rhetoric from both religion and atheism and identify it as the real evil to be avoided. This is of course the path of tolerance, and where that path leads is a world rich in human diversity recognized as something beautiful just as natural diversity is recognized as beautiful, and where we can learn from one another and be a source for the cross-fertilization of ideas.

This is an interesting question even if you are a Christian who only believes in one God, because regardless of this there are quite a few different concepts/pictures of God that many Christians believe in.There is the jealous God obsessed with His right to our worship, who created all the heavens and everything on earth in order to glorify Himself. Apparently our purpose is to make Him look good and so not only is worshiping other things is a big no no, but we are really supposed to love and think of Him first and before anything else, all day long everyday.There is the purist God who cannot associate with evil of any kind and human beings are so completely corrupt that everything we do is evil and worthless in His eyes, and thus every thing that seems beautiful, joyful, or creative to us is completely sinful and prideful, and so in order to be acceptable to God we must crush every thought, laugh, or smile of our own to be humble before the Lord.There is the hard hearted God who finds it very difficult to forgive us because any offense against Him even the smallest bad thought is an infinite offense deserving eternal torment in a place like our worst nightmares called hell, and so we can only be forgiven if a perfect and divine being lays down his life in a blood sacrifice for our sake.There is the controling God who demands our obedience to every idiotic law that He cares to make and who condemned the first human ancestors for daring to seek the knowledge required to distinguish right from wrong. This must be the God in the Old Testament who commanded people to commit genocide or to sacrifice the one child that they loved because He didn't think we ought to think for ourselves about what is right and wrong. There is the wrathful God to whom we are nothing but clay pots to do with as he pleases. It is not for us to complain if He takes is anger out on us and sends us to Hell. Apparently we deserve whatever we get and so I guess it is His right to destroy and torment whomever He chooses. Perhaps this is to make the rest of us that much more grateful that it wasn't us. There is the manipulative God who sets before you this "choice": 1) To believe what the Christians tell you to believe and do what the Christians tell you to do and you will be resurrected to live in eternal happiness. OR 2) To be tortured with unimaginable pain for an eternity. Apparently for those who believe in this God, abject fear of Him is the same as righteousness.There is the sadistic God that will resurrect the suicide from the dead and to add insult to injury will proceed to torture this poor person for an eternity on top of that. He will do the same to anyone with a bad thought but somehow the above seems particularly cruel and unnecessary to me. Why can't He just leave them alone?Then there is the humble God, who is gentle and lowly in heart, who not caring anything about being God, set aside all His power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant, and after growing up perfectly blameless to show how we should live, He was mocked and whipped before being excecuted on a cross. This He did this in order for us to get past all the lies and misunderstandings to show how much He loves us and thus to heal our relationship with the infinite God in whom we can find eternal life.So we can ask the Christian which of these does he believe in?Me? Well I am a Christian and maybe it is pretty obvious that it is only the last of these that I believe in. But then... I am a theistic evolutionist who believes in an historical Adam and Eve whose separation from God was not about disobedience but about refusing responsibility for their actions, and that God only did what was best for them. I am a pluralist, who believes that the Bible is the word of God, but that human diversity is also a beautiful creation of God that is part of His work of salvation too. I am an open theist who believes in the immortality of the soul and a God who created us not by design like robots but by encouragement and with the motivations of a parent. I am a born again evangelical who believes that God offers salvation to all but requires us to choose, but not in order to manipulate and control (just to tell us what to believe and do), because He is really all about liberating us from habits which destroy our free will and about helping us to realize our own highest ideals and potentiality in creative talents, so that we will live our lives to the fullest in a relationship with Him.

Suppose the afterlife is just a last dream or delusion just before oblivion, but that it seems to last an eternity. Furthermore, suppose that the nature of the experience reflects what you value by virtue of the how you have chosen to live your life.

If there isn't, then it doesn't really matter what you believe, does it? If there is, then it does matter what you believe, doesn't it? It is human nature to plan for the future. In so far as we are able it is only rational that we prepare for what will happen. So the question is whether we can know what will happen and if we can know that there is, then the question is whether we can do anything now to prepare. If not then you are right. But if the answer is yes then that is another matter indeed. I not only have serious doubts about your math, but I have doubts about whether playing the odds in this case will help one at all. Modern Christianity will tell you that your chances are 0% of being OK, regardless of what kind of life you live, so playing the odds doesn't help at all. Our universe has at least 3 spatial dimensions and at least 4 space-time dimensions, but perhaps it has more - the best guess of current string theory is 11 space-time dimensions, but 7 are very small and only experienced in the variety of forms that energy can have in it. I believe that heaven and hell are what people make of themselves. But ultimately the difference is found in the infinite nature of God compared to our own finitude. In a relationship with God we can find endless choices and inspiration, neverending challenges and excitement, and eternal growth and becoming as we seek to become more like Him. But without God an eternal existence must end in banality and despair.

The apes did evolve just as we did. Therefore saying that we evolved from apes is exactly like saying that the apes evolved from humans. Both are of course wrong. We and the apes share a common ancestor that ancestor is probably a primate, and because it was a primate you could say that it was human-like for the same reason you could say that it was ape-like because both humans and apes are primates.

LOL This is ludicrous for numerous reasons. 1) First of all, it is not the theory of evolution that we are descended from the apes. We are primates and we and the apes have common ancestors that are a little more recent than the common ancestors that we have with other species. 2) The evidence is already over so overwhelming, that the only evidence that I can see that will make impact on the relgious is a loud God-like sounding voice coming from the sky saying, "the theory of evolution is correct because I God say so." On second thought, people will probably think that is just a man-made stunt so maybe something a little more spectacular would be needed, like God rearranging all the stars into letters to write this across the sky for all to see. 3)It is the nature of science that its discoveries always uncover new questions so for everything they explain there will always be new things that the Creationists can point to and say that evolution isn't proven. The arguments of docduke are a perfect example of this. 4)There are plenty of Christians like me who believe that evolution and abiogenesis are accurate objective descriptions of what happened. Many think that this does not contradict in the slightest the fact that God did create the universe, life, every species and every human being. There are even a few Christians like myself and John Polkinghorne who actually think that the evolution of the species is a description that is even more compatable with the Christian understanding of God and His realtionship to man than the Genesis story of a special creation or a creation of living things by design. So in conclusion I would say that the only thing that would cease to exist as the result of this unimaginable proof you talk about, is the large group of people found in certain countries that use their religion as an excuse to make ignorance into some kind of virtue and to make the spread of ignorance into some kind of holy cause. We cannot yet convince many people who would rather believe in fairy tales, but I would hardly consider that to be a very good measure of how persuasive the evidence is. As for muck, it is only the ignorant forms of life that go around saying "muck" like they are obsessed with the stuff (Ben Stein comes to mind), that I would theorize have risen from anything like that. But regardless of where the ignorant life forms actually come from it is unlikely that they will be able to comprehend any complex scientific theories that explain how life began on this planet. The examples you gave of very different forms of life is rather suggestive that the idea that life came from an extra-terrestrial source is unviable, but this does absolutely nothing to make the theories of evolution or abiogenesis any less likely at all. Since Christians believe that God changes their lives and cures illnesses and does all sorts of things in everyday life in answer to their prayers without revealing a single piece of corraborating scientific evidence or even one single example of a suspension of the laws of physics, I am at a complete loss to understand why these Chrisitans would think that God creating life on this planet would in any way conflict with the scientific theories of evolution and abiogenesis. Total nonsense. We are 98.3% genetically identical with chimpanzees. "Closely related" just doesn't sum this up at all. When we study the benobos we are hard pressed to find significant differences. All this goes to show that the difference between man and the animals is not to be found in the biology of the human body at all. Our differences are all in the mind - no I don't mean that we imagine them - I mean that the differences are in the content of our conscious mind. I don't think that science has quite uncovered yet what it is that make us human. But religion continues to claim to have an answer to this question, and I think it is the correct answer.

There is a new film out decrying the injustice that proponents of ID are not being taken seriously as scientists. Or wait a minute... Is this really just propaganda to help the fundie Christians invade and reclaim science for the work of God? If it is the latter as I suspect then if they succeed, before long the science your kids study at school may soon be indistinguishable from theology.I cannot say that I had a very good impression of Dawkins for most of my life, though my opinion based on "The Selfish Gene", improved when I read "Ancestor's Tale" and "Climbing Mount Improbable". Since I am an avid opponent of the idea of design for both scientific and theological reasons, Dawkins coining of the word, "designoid", was shear delight to me. Then I saw Dawkins lied to and misquoted in a clip of that sickening piece of propaganda, "Expelled". My fury at this film and the obvious tactics of the film maker only served to underline Richard Dawkins' obvious intellegence and sincerity. It inspired me to read his book, "The God Delusion", the very title of which I had always found insulting. This brought me to the following question: who has the lower estimate of the intellegence of Christians? Dawkins or those who made the film "Expelled". From my reading of the book "The God Delusion", which Dawkins hopes to convert a theist reading it into an athiest, I must say that, despite the fact that Dawkins will not suceed in my case (for he is a little blind on the topic of religion as many atheists are), he is nevertheless the one with the higher estimate of Christian intellegence. The sad thing is, that Christians seem to be proving Dawkins estimate wrong as they seem to be eating up this film and thinking it is great.I can only make my own appeal to Christians everywhere: not to be fooled by this film. It is not about the free flow of ideas in science, that is just nonsense. The fact is that just as 1+1=3 aint math, Intellegent Design aint science. The reason is quite simple, ID contradicts the most basic purpose of science to look for an explanation of things other than "God did it". Science was not created by atheists, but by people who wanted to look for a different kind of explanation of things. Therefore, science presumes that another kind of explanation exists, and that is why ID's declaration that there is no such explanation cannot be called science. People are free do do whatever theology (including ID) they want, but why should they be any more free to call their ideas science than the Flat Earthers? I love theology as much as science and want the freedom to do BOTH. I can only suggest that a new field of "scientific theology" or "biological theology" be opened up as something in which to categorize ID. But the scientists (the vast majority, Christian and non-Christian alike) all know that ID does not belong in the category of modern science.

Chapter 6: The Nature of TimeJP lays out the problem by referencing two positions of ancient Greek philosophy, Parmenides and Heraclitus. In Parmenides view our experience of time is an illusion for there time is only a dimension in a four dimensional reality with past, present and future all in existence. This JP refers to as the block universe and which I would characterize as treating the universe as a four dimensional object. Heraclitus saw the universe as a continuously unfolding process of becoming, in which the future does not exist to be known. Into this picture, special relativity offers insight but not resolution. The Pamenidean view may argue that the relativity of simultaneity indicates that time differences and the order of events are insubstantial and thus past, present and future must be thought of as equally real. But the Heraclitian view can point out that the relativity of simultaneity is invariably an issue of ordering past events in retrospect. I would add to this that all that SR really changes is the Euclidean independent of time and space, so that instead of a NOW which is the everywhere at one time, we must talk only about a HERE-NOW and a localization of this time unfolding process.JP next considers the objection which has been made that science has not incorporated any representation of the now. But in addition to the defenses which JP makes I must add my own dispute of the veracity of this claim. JP observes that there is a preferred inertial frame in the one that is at rest respect to the cosmic background microwave radiation. But his main argument is that this failure of science to capture this basic human experience only points to the limitations of science. These defenses are fine but I think the claim is not even correct. In SR there is a very clear representation of the now as part of an absolute separation between the future and the past is made. Furthermore there are the clear recognitions of irreversibilities and the collapse of the wave function in quantum measurements which makes the same absolute division between past and future.At this point JP declares that there is one common confusion that must be avoided and that between the issues of temporality and determinism. One is an issue of causality and the other how we view time. I think this is slightly naive however, for between these two views of time that JP has presented I would present another view in which past present and future are all laid out but that the future is not entirely one of actual event but which includes a superposition of possible events. In this view the issues of time and causality are tied together to some degree because these superpostions of possibility are a direct consequence of the lack of determinism in the unfolding of these events because of those situations where quantum wave collapse does affect the course of future events. Therefore I would suggest that while this view of atemporality incorporates the lack of determinism the view of atemporality where such possibilities do not exist may indeed be considered to contradict the lack of determinism.Next JP considers the theological implications of these two views of time, which is found in the Creator's relationship to creation. That God apprehends the world atemporally has been the understanding of classical theology. But the view suggested by scripture is one of a temporal unfolding in one of God's changing relationship to the people of Israel and then further changes in relationship to Christians in their time. At the very least this suggests that embracing both of these, we must accept that there are both atemporal and temporal poles within God. But I would point out that atemporal view necessarily restricts God to the role of observer only, whereas the temporal view has God involved as a participant in the unfolding of events. In any case, JP claims that this goes hand in had with the view of "current omniscience" (knowing all that is knowable now) as opposed to absolute omniscience (knowing all that will ever be knowable). There is no contradiction with divine perfection, if God in the decision to create a temporal world where He would be a participant in events made a kenotic self-limitation by his own choice, not to know a future that does not actually exist in a state with all its details resolved.JP now addresses the effect that this view of time has upon how God is revealed and how scripture is to be understood. The atemporal pole of God may be accessible in timeless moments of illumination or union with God as the mystics of the Eastern orthodox suggest is possible. But scripture reveals the temporal pole of God by means of narrative and an unfolding story and this points to an error in the treatment of scripture as a collection of absolute truths. What we have instead is a God who changes his relationship to us in order to be the instigator of our continuing development. This suggests a principle of continuing revelation by the Spirit of God in the Christian community as it continues to explore the meaning of the scriptures, and it is by this process that the doctrine of the Trinity came into being in the fourth century and which eighteen centuries later led to a complete rejection of the practice of slavery.JP points out that one of the great advantages of this temporal view of God is that this is reaffirmed rather than contradicted by the modern developments of science in understanding the evolution of the universe and terrestrial life. So the question arises as to why there continues to be resistance to this idea, where there is a distrust of time and desire for ultimate atemporal stability. I cannot help but believe that it is derived from an addiction to a delusion of certainty and an immature demand for absolute and final answers, which confuses faith with willfulness. JP's reason for rejecting this tendency is only that it is opposed to our fundamentally temporal nature. Yet JP also cautions against evolutionary optimism, which must be seen an illusion because physics makes it quite clear that the inevitable destiny of the universe is one of dissolution. For this reason, JP says that we can only find optimism in the promise of God in an eschatological future. JP vision of that future includes an embodiment (resurrection) in a different kind of matter in a temporal life which we are engaged in a never-ending exploration of the inexhaustible life and energies of God. This of course differs from my view based on the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul that finds hope not in an eschatological future but in an otherworldly (but at least personally temporal) existence for which this world is only a preparation.

I am also a Protestant and so, of course, I share many of your concerns. I use my own rhetoric to express my own objections to the Catholic claim of the authority to tell all Christians what they must believe. I have called this argument from authority a "check your brains at the door" approach, and compared it to the approach which the Mormons use rather exclusively. As both a Christian and a scientist I have great contempt for this authoritarian approach which I think makes Christianity trite and meaningless. I have quoted 1 Samuel 8:5-10 to show how God feels about such a substitution of human authority for the direct rulership of God Himself in our lives. And I have reminded Catholics of the fact that Scripture states quite clearly that Christ is the only mediator between man and God. Neverthess, although Catholic history is certainly a clear testimony to the truth of God's warning in 1 Samuel 8:5-10 about how human leadership will inevitably fall into corruption and error, I must also say that Catholic history is also a rather clear testimony to the pure and faithful love of God in the example of many many many Catholics who have given their lives in worship, devotion, service and submission to God. We must not imagine that God is limited by the limitations of Catholic leadership or doctrine. Sure we have cause to criticize, but of course, these are human beings. We will not accept their claims to authority, but surely the love of Christ can transcend our differences of mere opinion. As for ideas of working our way into heaven, is this not an error to which Christians of every denomination are prone? Do we all not fall into dry periods of minimal Christian life? These should be seen as cause to give thanks to the mercy of God and not cause for presuming to judge others. The Catholic sees their way as a way of Grace because of their emphasis on the Eucharist as receiving redemption as a gift, which is also firmly rooted in repentance by the practice of first making confession of ones sins. The pattern of salvation is there and to make too much of differences of theology must ultimately be seen as thinking to save oneself by ones own superior understanding. Where is the fear of God in that? Let the Protestant reject the Catholic's claim of authority so that we are free to seek and worship God in the liberty of Christ and the guidance of the Spirit, without claiming any authority on our own part by condemning others for the relationship with God which they have found, no matter how inadequate it might seem to us. Let Christ remain the sole leader of His church and the only one with the right to pass such judgements.

Chapter 5 Divine Reality: The TrinityJP notes that Quantum Physics made us realize that the universe is stranger than we ever imagined, to the point where classical logic required the revisions which are the foundations of quantum logic. JP notes that physics itself has had to accept some unresolved issues of consistency. First there is the two great theories of modern physics, General Relativity and Quantum physics, which could not be reconciled to each other. The second example that JP gives is the measurement problem in quantum physics itself. This has produced a situation in which the physicist can no longer expect in his work to apply a judgement of whether a proposition is reasonable. The universe has defied our expectations. The scientist has to be content with what the evidence suggests. JP raises the example of the conclusion that light behaves both like a wave and a particle even though it is not reasonable that both should be true. JP claims that quantum field theory resolved this difficulty to bring to light a new kind of rationality. Well quantum field theory does indeed resolves the contradiction mathematically, but to say that this completely resolves the difficulty is a rather premature when the measurement problem remains right at the heart of it.JP calls the thinking which proceeds from the evidence (observation of particulars) to the formulation of theory, "bottom-up thinking" as opposed to "top-down thinking" which proceeds from general rational principles to deduce the nature of particulars. JP proposes that this idea of "bottom-up thinking" has application in theology, particularly in those aspects of Christian thought like the Trinity which defy common sense. JP suggests that the example of science indicates that when theology investigates the nature of the divine reality, it must be careful not to fall into the trap of restricting oneself to reasonable expectations. Instead JP suggests that theology must aim for the same kind of delicate balance that is found in science between the look for a coherent explanation and not neglecting the possibility that new forms of rationality may only come to light by the revelation of actual experience. JP points out that we must not neglect the fact that theology rests upon its own kind of "objective" evidence, written revelation, which supports the idea that the truth in these matters, like that in physics will defy our rational expectations. So JP suggest that if the quantum world requires its own form of logic, so might also a description of the divine reality. JP then explains how the resurrection whose historicity he defended in the last chapter gives rise to the belief in the divinity of Christ, which is clearly the strongest motivation for the doctrine of the Trinity.. The "bottom up thinking" which justifies the doctrine of the Trinity is found accounts of events of profound relationship between the different persons of God and in the continuing experience of Christians. JP gives the example of, Jurgen Moltmann's view of how the cross transforms our view of God from that of only spectator looking down on us. Taking upon Himself the human condition to suffer as we have suffered is only a part of it, for it is only made complete by events in the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. The grief of the Father for the death of His Son is seen in the darkening sky. The anguish of the Son in being forsaken by the Father is seen in His cry of, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" JP points out that this view leaves no room for modalism, for such significant events of relationship require God to be different persons at the same time.The apparently marginal role played by the Holy Spirit in that event gives us cause to consider other events. There is the Father resurrecting the Son and the pouring out of the Spitit. There is the baptism of Jesus which gives a definite simultaneous role for all three. And these two events have played a role in setting the pattern of thought for Christian practice. Worship and prayer is filled with and empowered the Spirit, addressing to and giving thanks to the Father, while in the name of and in union with our Lord Jesus. The most difficult task in understanding the Trinity is in the idea that this does not contradict the unity of God, which is three persons but one God. But like quantum physics we find that it actually brings a new and better rationality to exceed our expectations and limited experience. It forces us to question why we should think that an infinite God would be limited to a single person? And in exceeding the limits of singular personhood, this reality of God pulls us out of our own excessive self-involvement. It transforms many traditional concepts like the sovereignty and glory of God from the realm of the tyrannical because it no longer implies self-absorbtion but rather a shared love, and ideals which are not just abstractions but perfectly practiced. We can say that the truth which God instructs us in, is not mere known by God, but actually proved in the unity of God. A God which transcends the individuality of different persons in perfect unity shows us how we can also transcend our seperateness to become more than ourselves alone.JP discusses the theological concept of "appropriation" whereby what one person of the Trinity does, must nevertheless be thought of as an act of God as a whole. For example, the death of Christ on the cross is seen as a great act of God reconciling the world to Himself. We can see this in Jesus' rather firm assertion that when we see Him we see the Father, and thus it is through His character and actions that the Father is revealed to us. JP explains by this principle, that even if we primarily see the Father as creating, the Son as redeeming and Spirit as sanctifying, this is never exclusive, so we also see all three involved in creation, redemption and santification. JP suggests that these internal relationships in the Trinity play a role in allowing God to create freely but not arbitrarily, meaning that it is not demanded by an unfulfilled need but a product of pure generosity and a selfless desire to give from an abundance of love.

Chapter 4 The Historical JesusThis chapter is all about the significance of Jesus as a historical figure. The general theme of the whole chapter is that it is miraculous that we would even have heard of this man from 2000 years ago, who wrote no book and was abandoned by his followers when he was executed like a common criminal. This chapter is thus an investigation into the possibilities as to why this might be so. JP's comparison to John the Bapist, whom he says is only known because of his association with Jesus, is JP's first mistake. There is a religion of Gnostic origins called Mandaeanism (with 60,000-70,000 members worldwide), who considers John the Baptist to be God's best messenger, but considers Jesus to be a false prophet. Furthermore the whole idea that there is something here that requires explanation is questionable. As someone who wrote nothing but is remembered, Jesus is comparable to Socrates, who is known because Plato wrote about him. Is not the fact that he is written about in a popular book sufficient explanation of this (regardless of whether what is written about him even true)?Perhaps this is why a case is made in both cases that either or both of Socrates and Jesus may actually be an invention of the writers, but never actually existed. I personally don't think this is very credible in the case of Jesus however, the narratives about Jesus are too much like eye witness accounts of a poorly understood person to credit an idea of him being a fictional character. JP evaluates a list of corroborating evidence, but of course it is the gospel accounts that are the most significant. JP admits that these gospel accounts have the character of interpreted history, without the details requisite for a proper historical account. JP evaluates the differences between the gospel of John and the other three, noting descrepancies where John may have altered the facts, but also points out parts of the narrative that have a ring of truth because they are difficult to see what the authors could be.JP discusses the inescapable circularity that comes from the fact that theory (beliefs) are involved in the interpretation of the evidence. He uses his familiarity with this problem in science to bring to bear the means by which such a circularity is judged to be either "viscious" or benign. Science makes this judgement based on long term fruitfulness, meaning that those theories which have no utility in the further investigation of natural phenomena will eventually be discarded. For theology, JP explains the use of a criterion called "double disimilarity", which means no similarity to Judaism or the early Christian church. In other words, if it does not come from Judaism (and the Old Testament) and it is not something the early church would have been motivated to say, then having no other motivation, that is something that most likely reported because Jesus was heard to say it and for no other reason. I don't think JP point here is that we should not trust anything that does not satisfy these criterion but simply that the presence of portions do testify to an historical Jesus. JP points out that the view that Jesus was opposed by the Jews because He taught love and forgiveness and opposed the legalism of the Pharisees, is an untenable one because the Pharisaical traditions not only taught these same things but also tolerated considerable diversity. The most likely cause of opposition was not the content of his teaching but his methodolgy - namely the way he relied upon his own understanding and authority. Jesus was not against the law, but He did make it clear that following Him was more important. That Jesus scandalized people by eating with unsavory characters also has the ring of truth to it. JP points out that that the most common activity of Jesus reported in the gospels is the healing of the sick, and that the most common topic of his words was the "kingdom of God". This "kingdom" seemed to refer both to something now and in a future associated with the "Son of Man". JP spends some time evaluating the meaning of this term, "Son of Man". The significance of this term is tied to one of the more obvious differences between the gospel of John and the other three. John makes a rather clear declaration of the deity of Jesus while the other three Gospels are far less clear on this, especially because in these three gospels, Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man", the very difficulty of this term points to authenticity. JP however points out that in Aramaic this term is a rather natural one and quite often a reference to the speaker himself. But JP suggest that this is a title that Jesus has for Himself to refer to His role in God's plans and that this very claim to have such a role is also a likely cause for the opposition of the Jews. But more than anything it was the cleansing of the temple, which JP calls an "enacted parable of judgement", that the Jews would have seen as a criminal disruption of the established order.JP ends by returning to the main theme of this chapter of why it is that Jesus is even remembered at all, but considering the claims and accounts of Jesus' resurrection. He thinks the alteration in the behavior of the disciples points to the fact that something significant must have happened. An evaluation of the accounts reveal something that contradicts the possibility that these orignate in fabrication. For if they were fabricated by a single person then they would be consistent but if they were fabricated by many then there is one strange similarity in all the accounts that makes this hard to credit. This is the fact that in most of these accounts Jesus is initally difficult to recognize. JP also considers the prominant role of women in the first encounters to be significant evidence of authenticity as well.JP suggests that if we believe this claim of resurrection then this, at least, would point to a significance of Jesus which would explain why He has such a status in our attention. It further it explains why He would be so quickly elevated to the status of a deity among his followers. This introduces the topic of JP's next chapter, the Trinity, for this JP claims is a direct consequence of the belief in the divinity of Jesus.

What makes God, God?In the question, "what makes God, God?" the word "God" is both subject and predicate and so to answer this question you must first explain what this predicate means and only then give the requirement that the question asks for. For example, a rather common simple minded approach is to say that the predicate means that the being who is called God must be obeyed. And a typical statement of requirement is that God created us. However, I do not believe that this typical simple minded approach is valid. I repudiate both predicate and requirement. I repudiate the predicate because I do not think our relationship with God is all about obedience. I repudiate the requirement because I do not think that being one's creator entitles one to obedience or to being called God. Mary Shelly's novel, "Frankenstein" is a rather eloquent illustration of this. Oh and the film "Blade Runner" addresses this question too. It is easy to think of many example of a similar nature. In my view the meaning of the predicate God, which best captures the universal religious meaning of what it means to call something God, is that the being called God is worthy of worship. And in my view the most fundamental requirement of such a predicate must be that God is the ultimate good, such that no righteous cause can properly stand against Him. In other words, any cause against God must be based on lies or misunderstandings that are no fault of His. It seems to me that only such a being could possible be worthy of worship. I think this is as about as close to a definition of God as you can get. This serves the most important task of a definition to identify what one means by the word. The only thing to add to this would be a theology, which is a description of those attributes which I think are applicable to the God I believe in. Accordingly, God is a self-existing (uncaused) infinitely (with no limitations) perfect intellegent personal being who is therefore omnipotent and omniscient within the limits of logic (both the obvious ones of which we are aware and others which we may not be aware). But of course no description of a person would be complete without a description of what they choose to do, for the content of a person's will and what they have chosen to devote themselves to, is much more truly what they are in essence than anything else. In the case of God, the answer to this is found in His act of creation and His motivation for it.God being complete in Himself without any need of any kind is naturally and purely motivated by the desire to give of His infinite abundance to another and therefore He set out create other beings apart from Himself with which He could have a relationship and to which He could give without limit. However I do not think this is as trivial a thing as we might imagine, for the question is how could God create something which He would not control so completely that it would be no more than an extension of Himself. Well first He created the angels who would act according to rules independent of His will, but these being designed by Him were limited by the very nature of their creation, and so God went a step further to create beings whose very existence was based upon rules operating independent of His will and this is the nature of the physical world. This is what made it possible for God to create beings not by design but by relationship with living entities that participate in the process of their own creation. In this way, God created finite beings with infinite potentiality, which means that they would be suitable for an eternal relationship with Him in which He could give of Himself without limit. Thus God nurtured life in this world and raised up a creature who had the capacity for communication and He adopted two of these, Adam and Eve, to be a parent to them and to teach them that they were persons, and in this way bringing to life the human mind, just as human parents have done with their children ever since. But because Adam and Eve refused to be responsible for their actions when they disobeyed God but instead sought to blame God, He removed Himself from their lives for their own good. The Bible tells this story and the continuing efforts of God in the role of teacher and parent, to help His children, human beings, realize the infinite potential within them. Finally He came to earth in human form, known by the name of Jesus, to reveal Himself most fully in a way that had the capacity, for those who are willing, to pierce the lies and delusions which inundate our lives, in order that we may have the kind of personal relationship which Adam and Eve originally had with Him, so that in this relationship God could more fully continue His parental role in helping us to grow in spirit and to receive (as we become ready to recieve them) the neverending gifts that He has been waiting to give us. Thus God is the creator of the universe and all the living things within it. As I said before this by itself does not make Him God, and it does not reveal his essence either unless you consider His motivation for doing so. But this motivation has been very much obscured by the things that have happened, for mankind with his self-deceptions and delusions has quite often made this world a hellish place for man. Thus it has become necessary for God to pierce this obscurity with a revelation of Himself, and by what He has revealed, the answer to what God has chosen to devote Himself to is LOVE. This is why we can say that, "God is love." This is His essence and this defines Him more truly than anything else because this is what God has chosen to devote Himself to. One of the most peculiar things about this infinite God whose nature is so incomprehensible to us, is that since God has made it quite clear what it is that He cares about, we can know Him - and in fact know Him better than we know most people, because people are made complex by internal conflicts - conflicting motivations and feelings. But there is no such complexity in God. For however basically incomprehensible His infinite nature may be to us, He is NOT conflicted. His love is absolute and pure. And it is by this love that I know Him. It is for this love that I worship Him. And it is by Christ on the cross that I know this love most clearly. But this gospel having revealed this love to me, has transformed my perception of the entire universe and I see His love everywhere within it.

One wonders how a topic entitled "Christian theism" ended up discussing the topic of homosexuality for the most part. So true to the title of this thread, lets return to the topic of Christian theism with a few thoughts about the Christian idea of God. Well one important thing to understand about the Christian idea of God is that He is the source of eternal life, and so to understand this God you need to understand this concept of eternal life. I break it down to first consider, what is life and then what is eternal? Life is certainly a big question for it is a lot of things, but in this context I think we must include an observation that life includes: growth, excitement, love, passion, creativity, challenges, wonder, learning, and service. Eternal means unlimited, infinite and neverending. Thus eternal life among other things must mean unlimited growth, infinite excitement, neverending creativity, unlimited love, infinite wonder, neverending challenges, unlimited passion, neverending learning and unlimited service! But consider any of the things in life that we give our attention to and ask ourselves if any of these things are really something that can engage us for an eternity. Those who might come closest to saying yes are those who are involved in some creative process like art, writing novels or making movies for theirs is a work of creating new worlds for people to explore. In this capacity to create new world of beauty and excitement is where we can most clearly see the infinite potential that is within us. And so we have little difficulty imagining that eternal life might be found in the realization of this infinite potentiality that we suspect is within us. But even the artist, novelist and movie maker with a little thought will realize that all their creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum. All the creativity of these various artists must find inspiration from the world they live in. So by ourselves we must realize that such creative inspiration must ultimately have an end. But if we have each other to bounce our ideas off of, our creativity can certainly feed off each other in creative synergy. But it takes no great imagination to realize that since we are all finite beings even this must have an end, and that a vast portion of our inspiration comes not even from each other but from the world around us which is not of our own creation. All the ideas and inspiration must ultimately be traced back to the source of this wondrous world that we live in, and so any hope for an eternal life must ultimately appeal to a creator that we believe to be infinite in His capacity for creativity and understanding. This is the God that Christians believe in: an infinite being who has the nature such that coming to know Him is a process that will never end. Furthermore we understand Him to be a being who created us for a relationship of love and that it is His greatest desire to give us gifts that we cannot even imagine. God is the one who can truly see the infinite potential that is within us. And the gifts that He has in store for us include unlimited growth, infinite excitement , neverending creativity, unlimited love, infinite wonder, neverending challenges, unlimited passion, neverending learning and a service that will never be unworthy of all that we can give in the infinite potential and creativity that He can bring to life in us. One of the wondrous things about worshiping and infinite God is that there is no end to the ways that we can relate to Him and give our love to Him, for our worship of Him does not stop in praise nor end in song but can fill our lives in all the excitement, creativity and wonder that we can imagine only with His help.

One of the biggest difficulties with the denial of the immortality of the soul and making eternal life dependent upon God resurrecting us, as JP does, has to do with the Christian belief in hell as a possible consequence of the choices we make. This would suggest that God resurrects those who reject Him or the suicide who has no desire for life against their will in order to add insult to injury by torturing them in a place like hell. One wonders why a God of love cannot just leave well enough alone. Now it is not difficult to dismiss the whole idea of hell, especially as an eternal punishment, as a ridiculous form of intellectual blackmail used by the evangelist to coerce belief. Thus it is not all that difficult to understand why JP has apparently taken a somewhat universalist direction in his ideas. However, one of the fundamental motivations in believing anything spiritual is the conviction that our actions and choices must have consequences which cannot be avoided and therefore univeralism tends to contradict this. Furthermore, my observation of human existence tends to suport the idea that not only do people make choices that have consequences that cannot be undone, but also that people often display a perversity of character that they will torment themselves to no purpose as addictive behavior which they are unwilling to let go of. The lessons of life even suggest that running away from your problems as the suicide does is something that cannot succeed. Therefore although I reject the idea of hell as an eternal punishment I judge that it is all too likely that our choices can have eternal consequences for which hell is an apt description.A second fundamental motivation in believing in anything spiritual is a feeling that there must be a reality beyond the physical where what we are is more than just a coincidental conjuction of particles following mathematical laws. And this is a motivation which is directly contradicted by and unfulfilled by JP's metaphysics of the soul being nothing more than the form of the body. Therefore I feel that JP's metaphysics is an unreasonable concession to materialism and an excessive simplification of the reality of human existence and thus I think that a more complex metaphysics recognizing the reality of a spiritual aspect of existence apart from the physical provides for a much richer understanding of the religious traditions of Christianity.JP's criticism of orthodox Darwinist thinking that tries to understand humanity "solely in physical biological terms and only in terms of differential reproductive success" as a "theory of everything" or as a comprehensive epistemology, is well said. JP's criticism should, however, not be construed as suggesting that the theory of evolution is not a valid scientific theory, for I don't think he intends it as such at all. JP's point here is simply the criticism that must be made of any ideological attempt to force fit all of life and reality into one explanation.JP's substantial contribution to this topic is best found in his ideas about our mental capabilities and language expanding our environment from the natural physical one to include the mental landscape of mathematics, science and the arts. He suggests that this greater environment introduces another force in human development which he calls "satisfaction" to compete with that of mere survival. Thus it is his idea that human development is not ruled by the principle of natural selection alone but also a uniquely human principle which we could call "self fulfillment". Furthermore, to aid in the transmission of this new sort of development to later generations, JP points out that language, both spoken and written improves upon genetics with the Lamarkian ability to pass on acquired mental achievements.However, from here JP goes on to suggest that this mental landscape being there for us to explore including the fact that understanding nature is accessible to our scientific inquiry, points to the "unifying will of a creator". He suggest that the very fact that human life engages us in scientific inquiry, in moral discourse and in the appreciation beauty, all point to the character of a Creator with a mind, a will for goodness, a joy in creation. I would point out that this is fine as long as its innate subjectivity is recognized. But I think JP fails to do this when he makes the claim that theology can properly be considered a "theory of everything". I would argue that it is highly questionable to consider an explanation which answers small questions or mysteries with an even bigger question and mystery, to a proper explanation at all. For this reason I don't find a belief in God to be properly motivated by any need for an explanation of anything. I just don't see that God explains anything and in fact must frankly judge that the idea of God raises some rather difficult questions in its own right.What JP suggests is explained by the existence of God is several things. One is a rather prevalent human experience of a need for the divine or an encounter with the divine. The second is as an explanation of the human predicament caused by refusing to acknowledge our "creaturely dependence". Both of these, however, must be considered highly subjective, both in the idea that an explanation is needed and in the idea that the existence of God succeeds in explaining anything. JP mentions criticism by feminist theologians and Nietche that there is in this idea a justification for the submission to dominance. I would certainly share this criticism as well, delaring as Albert Camus does in "The Myth of Sisyphus" that we can be quite satisfied in defying such a demand for submission no matter what the consequences may be. Therefore I find that I can only believe in a God who rather than demanding our obedience instead inspires our love by His own perfectly self-less love. I think that JP's conclusion is not so far from this when he explains that this is all part of a balance between the Christian ideas of grace and free will, and how service to a God of love can actually be the key to perfect freedom.Since that finishes up the Chapter on Human Nature, next time I will be moving on to chapter 4 entitled "The Historical Jesus".

(Oops, post was accidentally made to the wrong thread)

I would NEVER dream of telling other parents what is appropriate in the discipline of their own children. Parenting is one of the truly most difficult problems in life that we all have to figure it out as best we can. I am not even sure that their is any "right" answer. Not only could there be many right answers but children are so incredibly different that I am pretty sure that any one method just will not work on all children. However, it is abundantly apparent that whatever method you use will be quickly immitated by your children, and so the use of hitting and yelling, although very effective at getting quick result, forces you to deal with the problem of them using the same means of modifying the behavior of others (Something which I have learned the hard way by first hand experience). Thus I have sought whenever possible to use punishments or consequences that are logically connected to their offense, and most often this has meant witholding some priviledge or activity which they have from me, or from which ever parent is offended. As I have told my children, their boss in life will always be someone who has something that they want.

Chapter 3: Human Nature In this chapter, JP immediately reveals the seriousness with which he takes the theory of evolution as a valid and important scientific discovery, and even suggests that this should be the basis for a transformation of thinking in theology as well from creation ex nihilo to a creation continua. "Unfolding evolution simply expresses the divine intention for the way in which creation is to realize its God given potentialities." However, I do not think JP brings to full realization the the potentiality in evolution to envision God's work of creation in a way that is more compatible with the modern Christian conception of God's work with man as a continuing relationship. Otherwise he might see that evolution rather than being an automatic process which God has "decreed" or instigated, is actually simply a objective description of God's creation of living things through relationship. However, JP is spot on when he says, "the contingencies present in the process represent the Creator's gift to creatures of the freedom to make themselves." I think this idea of self-creation is necessarily opposed to the whole idea of design, but JP does not make this clear at all. All that is required to complete the integration of evolution with the Christian worldview (with design excluded) is to realize that this is only half of the process, for living things do not develop autonomously in a vacuum but are radically open to influence from their environment and thus ammenable to the work of the farmer, shepherd and teacher in their interactive creative efforts by means of pruning, culling and education. This is the role of God as a creator of living things rather than as a designer of dead objects. One critical question that need answering in order to find the place of JP more firmly in the spectrum of Christian thought on this issue, is whether he believes in an historical Adam and Eve. On one part of his website http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/, there is the comment, "It seems pretty clear from the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first truly morally conscious hominids but that there were other males and females around (eg Gen 4:14) from whom Cain's wife and the wives of the descendants of Adam would have come. This suggest that JP has an historical view of Adam and Eve, but this is not actually a statement made by JP himself. Furthermore no explanation is made how, as only two members of a biological species, the actions of Adam and Eve can have such a serious impact on the rest of mankind. JP's own words on this site include, "Adam and Eve represent symbolically, in my view, our hominid ancestors in which these remarkable capabilities first dawned." This suggests a less than historical view of these two Biblical characters. Some of the problems with JP's lack of a belief in a spiritual aspect to reality apart from form is found in the following statement on his website, "That was the Fall, and its continuting consequence, generation after generation, conveyed culturally and perhaps partly genetically, is what we rightly call original sin. Its consequences are clear enough - something is slanted in human nature, both individually and socially, which corrupts good intentions and frustrates hopes. Christ came to restore our relationship to God and so to redeem us from original sin." I think this association of man's sinful nature with genetics is really tragic, lending itself to racist interpretations of the scriptures and looking for the causes and nature of sin and evil in all the wrong places - i.e. material causes. Shall we follow the ideas of Scientology in seeking to purge corruption from our bodies by physical means? In answer to the most important question of reconcilation of evolutionary science and Christianity, in regards to the nature of man, JP can only point out the various ways in which human beings are unique: self conscious in a radically new way, posession of language, great range of rational skills, great creative powers, religious beings, and flawed moral beings. Thus JP leaves us with the basic Darwinist conclusion that we are simply the most clever and powerful of the animals, for ultimately our identity is to be found in our fully biological bodies. According to JP, the human soul is nothing more than the information bearing pattern of the body. It is not that our mental reality is denied but JP makes it clear that the mind is to be found in a "psychosomatic unity". By contrast my own view claims that there is not only a separate spiritual dimension to reality but that the identity of human beings is to be primarily found in the mind as an individual living (physical yet not biological) organism apart from the body, which is nevertheless dependent upon its environment (the body) as are all living things. This gives mankind a fundamental separation of from the animals and can truly see Adam and Eve as historical first ancestors with both a physical heritage via their biological species and a mental heritage derived directly from a parentage of God. But perhaps what is most important, we can see that the origin and transmission of sin is one that has nothing to do with the body or genetics but to do with the ideas of the mind and the character of the human spirit (as a product of the choices we make). However, one of the interesting things is that with our different approaches JP and I still come to some of the same conclusions. First is that the spirit/soul is not something unique to human beings but is something which we have in common with all living things, although the human spirit/soul can be distinguished by its "many layered complexity." The second conclusion that we share is that the spirit/soul of man is not a static thing obtained at birth but is rather a dynamic entity which grows and develops in the process of life. JP is actually more willing than I am to consider that the human spirit/soul might have a unchanging component given by God, for I consider the human spirit/soul to be entirely a product of the living process and of our own individual choices made in life. Where JP and I completely part company however is in his conclusion that the human spirit/soul is a mortal one and that our hope for immortality depends entirely upon God's intentions to restore us to existence post mortem in the resurrection of our bodies. JP and I thus represent two extreme ends of the spectrum in Christianity with regards to the (natural) immortality of the soul. There are a number of theological difficulties with JP's postion which I will discuss before I complete my commentary on this chapter of JP's book in my next installment.

But that is kind of the whole point. God does guide us according to what He sees therefore what He sees is not what we WILL do but only what we might do if He does not guide us to do otherwise or if we continue stubbornly to refuse to be guided. Yes God created life for this very reason because it is the nature of life to defy prediction and thus by comparison predictable dead things are boring. Living things, especially children, fascinate and delight us because they are NOT under our control or predictable but do the darndest things. God created us for this reason so it does not make any sense that would know what we do before we do it anymore than we would want to read the end of a book or see the end of a movie before the beginning.

JP next addresses the puzzle of irreversibility or the "arrow of time". The puzzle here is that the fundamental laws of physics are reversible or symmetric with respect to time. The is not an apparent symmetry but a fundamental one connected to the law of conservatition of energy. So the puzzle is why perceive that time has a direction, sharply distinguishing the past from the future. Well, JP begins to unravel this puzzle, at once with his very description of this irreversibility as, "the emergence in the behavior of complex systems of a definite direction for the arrow of time". As in any discussion of this puzzle, JP is led immediately to the one law of physics that does distinguish a direction of time and that is the second law of thermodynamics, that the entropy of an isolated system will tend to increase over time and will NEVER decrease. To the non-scientist, the only explanation of entropy is some kind of measure of disorder, and JP gives the example of a broken glass, but this second law of thermodynamics is about probabilities and the perceved distinction we make between equally probable states. Taking the glass for example, we distinguish one of the possible arrangement of all pieces of the glass as special - the unbroken glass, while the vast majority of ways the pieces can be arranged all seem pretty much the same - a jumble of broken glass. To take another example, consider twenty pennies on the table and noticing which are heads up and which tails, some results seems special like all heads HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH and all tails TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT (which we tend to call ordered), while results like THHTTHTHTHTHHTHTHHHH and THTTHTTHTHHTHHTHTTHT all seem pretty much the same (and which we tend to call disordered or random). If we toss the 20 coins randomly all four of these results are equally likely but those two we call ordered are just two possiblilities while these other two are just two among about 2,432,902,008,000,000,000 others which we would also call random. This means that the probabilities are astronomical against getting either of those two special "ordered" results as opposed to one of these far more numerous results that we call disordered. As JP explains, "disorder (broken glass) wins out over order (a perfect goblet) because there are overwhelmingly more ways of being disorderly than of being orderly." JP says that many believe there is a connection with the quantum problem of measurement, and I am one of them. JP describes this aptly as the idea that the irreversibility of macroscopic systems elicits specific results in a quantum measurement. However when JP suggest that this provides a striking example of the flow of causal influence from the large to the small, I think he is glossing over another important aspect of this, and that is how the quantum wave collapse also plays a role in macroscopic irreversibility. JP rightly points out that, "ChaosTheory" is something of a misnomer, because one of things it reveals is how simple dissipative systems can be the source of complex order, that may be best described as a "creative emergence of novelty", particularly in a special class of systems far from equillibrium due to the continuing interchange of enegy and entropy with a surrounding environment, because in such systems you can have a decrease of entropy at the expense of a much greater increase of entropy in the environment. This JP points out is all distinctively characteristic of living organisms. It is JP's expectation that a general theory to cover the behavior of complex systems like this, will be force to recognize the inadequacy of the reductionist account, while seeing information as a fundamental quantity like energy. He supports his expectation with the example of the non-local behavior of the EPR effect where the quantum states of two particles can remain entangled even when separated by great distances. But what JP fails to mention is that this does not count as a counterexample to local causality because of the intrinsically random nature of the quantum measurement. As a result this is much like the relativity of simultaneity in that this really only effects our reflection upon events that are already past. His expectation that information will become a fundamental quantity like energy might be a reflection of recent developments such as Hawking's recent resolution of the information paradox regarding the Hawking radiation of black holes. I cannot say that I share JP's expectation in this regard. JP acknowledges that the Copenhagen interpretation, that probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena is intrinsic, allows the metaphysician to see causes for macroscopic physical beyond the reductionist physical theory to mathematical laws that govern the particles of which we are composed. In this JP and I certainly agree, but it is upon the nature of these causes that we disagree. JP apparently looks to a non-local but what most people would consider a purely physical source for these causes, whereas I look to a completely non-physical source. This difference is connected to very different metaphysical conceptions of reality. We can both call our views a form of dual-aspect monism seeing the apparent dualities of such things as the mental and the material as deriving from different aspects of a single "world-stuff". But it is rather apparent that while JP sees only a single dualism between energy and information accounting for all the apparent dualities such as that between mind and body, I see three independent dualities, between substance and form, between mind and body, and between physical and spiritual. This will become more clear when we see how this plays a role in JP's rejection of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, for it seems that JP does not see a spiritual aspect to the human reality apart from the physical. I find JP's metaphysics overly simplistic and therefore much less able to account for the complexities of physical and spiritual truths, and far less capable of resolving the difficulties between science and religion. Next time I shall move on to the third chapter called "Human Nature" which are basically JP's views on the theory of evolution and how this is integrated into his Christian world view. Where again we will see both great similarities in our viewpoints as well as enormous differences.

JP now explains that Laplacian determinism (that a demon of unlimited computing power and knowledge of the present could predict the whole future), was already significantly challenged in classical mechanics by Poincare because of the existence of unstable situations sensitive to the most minute detail. Even a simple a system of three bodies under mutual Newtonian gravitation displays such characteristics. This later blossomed into a whole new science of chaos when computer simulations of the weather displayed the same kind of sensitivity. JP now considers the possibility of "fusing quantum and classical characteristics, a process by which the consequences of the widely supposed indeterminacy of quantum phenomena might be amplified through chaotic dependence upon small detail to produce a widespread causal openness also in macroscopic phenomena." He goes on to list difficulties in this idea, but the problem is that it is rather unclear what it is that he sees difficulties in. First of all, it is unclear what he means by "fusing quantum and classical charactersistics". Certainly I think it is foolish to hope that that classical chaos can explain quantum indeterminacy. As for the connection between the two this is already apparent in the (neo-)Copenhagen interpretation in which irreversibility of macroscopic systems is seen as forcing a collapse of the wave function. But the failure of Bell's inequality demostrates that this does not extend to actually determining the result of the collapse and the logical conclusion is therefore that some causality must flow in the opposite direction whereby the actual result of the wave collapse plays a causal role in the determination of macroscopic events. Secondly, it is unclear what JP means by "widespread causal openness also in macroscopic phenomena". Certainly there is no reason to think that macroscopic phenomena are not deterministic for the most part, for it is only in special process where instabilities can result in the kind of amplification that will make the failure of causal closure in the measurement problem significant to macroscopic phenomena. But I think his hint or implication that the inherent amplification in such processes never makes the result of a quantum wave collapse significant to macroscopic events is plainly unreasonable, because this is exactly what happens in every measurement of a quantum superposition - amplifying the result of a quantum wave collapse to something large enough for the scientist to observe. In fact, I think it is only reasonable to see this amplification as part of the same irreversible process that induces the wave collapse in the first place.The reasons that JP gives for his rather ambiguous thesis are three. First there is an incompatability between a theory with intrinsic scale like quantum mechanics and one that does not like chaotic dynamics. Second is that there is the mismatch between how the time dependence plays a role in the two theories. Third is the differing properties of the geometric structures generated by the two theories in phase space. These are all mathematical difficulties and as such they all point to an inability to reduce quantum indeterminacy to a feature of macroscopic instabilities. In other words, these all sound like reasons why another attempt to explain away quantum indeterminacy and restore physical determinism has failed. This is in fact, what a merging of the two theories into a "quantum chaology" sounds like to me and therefore I quite agree with the impossiblity of such a merging.JP then raises the example of Hyperion, a moon of saturn tumbling chaotically in its orbit, to show how an effect of quanum physics is actually suppressed by macroscopic chaos. But it is frankly difficult to understand what JP thinks this proves. A quantum calculation suggests that the chaotic behavior of Hyperion should only last 37 years, but the chaotic tumbling continues because of continuing environmental disturbances in an effect which he calls decoherence. It is abundandly obvious, not only that the vast majority of quantum indeterminacy has no effect on macroscopic events but that nonlinear processes must dampen out the vast majority of perturbations. The sensitivity of nonlinear processes in chaotic dynamics can ONLY occur because they are HIGHLY SELECTIVE - in other words they can only be highly sensitive to some details and perturbations by being very insensitive to the vast majority of details and perturbations. To put it another way (crudely), the butterfly effect, whereby the motion of a single butterfly causes a storm on the other side of the planet can ONLY occur if all the other butterflies are ignored - because otherwise the motion of all these butterflies would cancel each other out.In conclusion, it is certain that the macroscopic reality which we inhabit does not behave according the rules of quantum mechanics so it is expected that decoherence suppresses quantum effects. And yet the quantum measurement as an interaction between quantum states and macroscopic events is an obvious counterexample and so we know that such counterexamples definitely exist. It is unreasonable to think that such interactions only occur in the physics laboratory. In the next installment, I will look a JP's consideration of irreversibility in macroscopic processes and may very well be able to conclude my examination of this difficult chapter of his book.

In order to understand the measurement problem in Quantum physics, you must first understand superposition and so JP explains this first. The objects in quantum physics, particles like electrons and photons, besides the unchanging attributes like mass and spin, also have changeable measurable qualities like position, velocity and the axis of their spin which are collectively called their "state". But unlike classical physics these state quantities do not always have definite values but can have probabilistic distribution of values - even what JP calls immiscible or contradictory values like being in two different places at the same time. This is what we call a superposition - being in a state that combines different values by assigning each different value a probability. Furthermore there are very clear experiements that demonstrate that a particle in such a superposition really must be thought of having all the values in the superposition at the same time.However, a measurement of that superpostion quantity of the particle gives only one value, but by looking at many measurements of particles in this same state we find that the whole collection of different measurements match the calculated probilities to very great accuracy. The problem is that we can only calcuate the probabilites but never the actual result in the measurement of a particular particle. This is the measurement problem and how to explain this is one of the great controversies of quantum physics. JP gives this list of six possible explanations:1. The majority interpretation and the one I believe is particularly helpful, called the Neo-Copenhagen idea, is that the irreversible behavior of large complex systems of many particles is what causes a measurement to select a particular value. This makes a great deal of sense because any measurement of such a superposition quantity must necessarily involve an interaction with an enormous number particles in order to produce something that we can see.2. The intervention of human consciousness through the involvement of a conscious observer causes this to happen. This possibility however produces absurdities like Schrodinger's cat which is both alive and dead at the same time, therefore very few physicist take this possibility seriously. Most believe that you just cannot have superpositions involving large groups of particles, whether anyone is looking or not.3. We can only calculate the probabilities because there are hidden variables which we have no knowledge of. However based on this idea, John Stewart Bell calculated an inequality that must hold between the correlations of different measurements if this is true. Experiments demonstrated that the inequality does not hold and so hidden variables cannot explain this problem within the accepted premises of the physics worldview. The key premise involved is local causality which restricts the propagation of causal effects to less than the speed of light, which is far too basic to modern physics for the majority of physicists to take suggestion of abandoning it seriously. However, some like David Bohm stubbornly continue to pursue (unsuccessfully) a "non-local" hidden variable theory which I believe must be considered to be outside the established physics worldview. 4. Quantum physics is really only describing statistical ensembles of large numbers of particles. The problem with this is that this just avoids the question of what determines the results of measurements and the usual case for statitistical physics is that there are unknown variables, which just brings us back to number 3.5. Some undiscovered physics is responsible for this. Physicists are always hopeful of finding new physics that will shed new light on this but of course this idea of new physics is really no explanation at all, particularly if it is not in the nature of hidden variables then we cannot imagine what it might be.6. Everett's many world interpretation (which I beleive is the second most popular view): The superposition really does grow to encompass any number of particles including a superpostion of observers each measuring something different, so that all the possible measurements actually happen but we experience only one of them. This interpretation has the advantage of completely preserving mathematical continuity and determinism. The problem is that it throws the physical worldview out the window with a proliferating multiverse where an uncountable new universes come into existence every instant. However I think this interpretation has great merit and the absurdity can be eliminated with a metaphysical consideration of the meaning of possibility. I believe that the answer to the measurement problem lies within a combination of the first and the last. The first supplies a nuts and bolts explanation of how and why the superposition collapses, while I think the mathematics of Everett's interpretation simply implies that a determinist view of world can only be maintained if it embraces a superposition of possible futures, and that this is equivalent to concluding that the world is not one of deterministic processes but one in which very real possibilities branch from every present moment.JP's conclusion, however is simply that, "an important joint in the causal nexist of the physical world remains problematic and controversial". In other words, JP simply sees the situation as support for his claim that science gives no seamless web of basic causality - i.e. that there are gaping holes in the effort of science to explain the causes of things.When I continue this review we shall look a JP's examination of the emergence of the new science of "chaos" and how this inter-relates with quantum physics.