The Key

[MrNobody]

My response to this thread:



Goodbye. I'm outta here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbSz8degl6U

 

[Anonycat]

My response to this thread:



Goodbye. I'm outta here!

The only reason I viewed this thread, is because I saw your post on the posting stream on the main page. I guess I'm glad I missed the previous pages.

 

[SpecialFrog]

If I catch myself defending omnipotence, I know I'm being stupid.

I do sometimes try to clarify what seem to me to be bad arguments. I believe there are some good reasons for atheism; it's not a foolish conclusion, or a wicked one. But it's as much a shame to go through life as an atheist, just because one has fallen for a silly argument, as it is to go through life as a theist, for the same bad reason. That is perhaps where I'm a bit fanatical. I have only respect for anyone who faces all the issues squarely and calls it as they see it, however they call it; but I have a sort of button, to use the local vernacular, on unwarranted confidence in any conclusion.

I'm curious what bad arguments for atheism you have encountered. I think the typical atheist position is not certainty that no gods of any type exist but a claim that no good reasons to believe in gods have yet been presented.

 

[degraded being]

If I catch myself defending omnipotence, I know I'm being stupid.

I do sometimes try to clarify what seem to me to be bad arguments. I believe there are some good reasons for atheism; it's not a foolish conclusion, or a wicked one. But it's as much a shame to go through life as an atheist, just because one has fallen for a silly argument, as it is to go through life as a theist, for the same bad reason. That is perhaps where I'm a bit fanatical. I have only respect for anyone who faces all the issues squarely and calls it as they see it, however they call it; but I have a sort of button, to use the local vernacular, on unwarranted confidence in any conclusion.

This fascinates me, but I don't understand why. I think you're saying that you value critical thinking or reasoning very highly, and it disturbs you when you see that people have not used critical thinking to a sufficient degree when making decisions about atheism.

However you seem to be implying that anyone who is an atheist has failed to apply sufficient reasoning/critical thinking. Is that a conclusion you have come to in your own critical thinking?

You also say, "But it's as much a shame to go through life as an atheist, just because one has fallen for a silly argument, as it is to go through life as a theist, for the same bad reason." Its a 'shame'.....as in, sad? If you have a high value on critical thinking I can see how it could be disappointing to see a lack of critical thinking somewhere. Is it such a shame in all the other places where critical thinking is insufficiently applied? That lack is everywhere, so if it is equally sad when humans decide upon other issues you are going to have a very disappointing time in your own life (as I often do in mine)

There are other things about the 'shame'. Is it that people might miss out on the satisfaction and fulfillment of critical thinking, or that they might miss out on the fulfillment of having some sort of god in their lives? To me it looks like your critical thinking line is really to defend an emotional attachment. I could be wrong there, but if I am right and it is about emotional attachment then your possible-God, who is attended by angels of reason, is not enough to satisfy you, so you need others to listen to the angels of reason so that the possible-god will be a tiny bit more possible. I would ditch a God like that who was such a tease.

 

[Queenmab321]

Once again, my favorite Brecht quote:




Originally Posted by Berthold Brecht
The question of whether there is a God


"A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.”


And no, I don't need a god. People can believe whatever they want, but I'd prefer it if they kept it to themselves.

I suspect Brecht has in mind the sort of deity who is thought to reward and punish us according to our deeds. He seems to suggest that a life well lived may be considered all the more good for being untainted by a circumspect concern for one's possible fate in a world to come. I think that's right. I'm reminded of this quote from J.S. Mill:


"I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go."


John Stuart Mill, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 103.

 

[Queenmab321]

This fascinates me, but I don't understand why. I think you're saying that you value critical thinking or reasoning very highly, and it disturbs you when you see that people have not used critical thinking to a sufficient degree when making decisions about atheism.

However you seem to be implying that anyone who is an atheist has failed to apply sufficient reasoning/critical thinking. Is that a conclusion you have come to in your own critical thinking?

You also say, "But it's as much a shame to go through life as an atheist, just because one has fallen for a silly argument, as it is to go through life as a theist, for the same bad reason." Its a 'shame'.....as in, sad? If you have a high value on critical thinking I can see how it could be disappointing to see a lack of critical thinking somewhere. Is it such a shame in all the other places where critical thinking is insufficiently applied? That lack is everywhere, so if it is equally sad when humans decide upon other issues you are going to have a very disappointing time in your own life (as I often do in mine)

There are other things about the 'shame'. Is it that people might miss out on the satisfaction and fulfillment of critical thinking, or that they might miss out on the fulfillment of having some sort of god in their lives? To me it looks like your critical thinking line is really to defend an emotional attachment. I could be wrong there, but if I am right and it is about emotional attachment then your possible-God, who is attended by angels of reason, is not enough to satisfy you, so you need others to listen to the angels of reason so that the possible-god will be a tiny bit more possible. I would ditch a God like that who was such a tease.

"A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy."

John Milton

 

[Student of Trinity]

This fascinates me, but I don't understand why. I think you're saying that you value critical thinking or reasoning very highly, and it disturbs you when you see that people have not used critical thinking to a sufficient degree when making decisions about atheism.

However you seem to be implying that anyone who is an atheist has failed to apply sufficient reasoning/critical thinking. Is that a conclusion you have come to in your own critical thinking?

No, not at all. Why do think I implied that? I thought I said the opposite quite clearly, when I said that there are good reasons for atheism, and that it's not a foolish or wicked conclusion. That's about as good as any opinion gets, in my opinion. We humans are jumped-up monkeys trying to think with blobs of meat. We have very little legitimate entitlement to certainty about anything.

Some atheists seem shockingly uncritical to me. So do some theists. It's a bit more common among the shockingly uncritical atheists to claim to be critical, rational, and scientific, than it is among the shockingly uncritical theists. A lot of the uncritical theists at least admit that they are appealing to faith, but a fair number of uncritical atheists seem just to be too uncritical to realize how uncritical they are. Of course there are also other atheists who really are critical and rational.

There are other things about the 'shame'. Is it that people might miss out on the satisfaction and fulfillment of critical thinking, or that they might miss out on the fulfillment of having some sort of god in their lives? To me it looks like your critical thinking line is really to defend an emotional attachment. I could be wrong there, but if I am right and it is about emotional attachment then your possible-God, who is attended by angels of reason, is not enough to satisfy you, so you need others to listen to the angels of reason so that the possible-god will be a tiny bit more possible. I would ditch a God like that who was such a tease.

No doubt I'm emotionally attached to many of my beliefs. I've encountered atheists who likewise seem very emotionally attached to their position; it seemed to be part of their identity, and it seemed as though it made them feel good to think themselves smarter and tougher than other people. Humans are like that. That's why we should do our best to take that into account, and bend over backwards to see other points of view. In my experience, critical thinking brings humility.

 

[Student of Trinity]

I'm curious what bad arguments for atheism you have encountered. I think the typical atheist position is not certainty that no gods of any type exist but a claim that no good reasons to believe in gods have yet been presented.

Just claiming that no good enough reasons to believe in God have been presented seems more like agnosticism to me. Atheism, as I understand the term, means accepting a definite conclusion: not just not believing that there is a God, but believing, with high probability if not outright certainty, that there is no God. Some people who are pretty sure that there is no God seem to leap to this conclusion merely from the fact that God's existence hasn't been outright proven — as if we all knew for sure that everything true must also be evident. That's an example of what I'd call a bad argument, because it's based on a very strong assumption that seems to go unacknowledged.

 

[JBWriter]

Just claiming that no good enough reasons to believe in God have been presented seems more like agnosticism to me. Atheism, as I understand the term, means accepting a definite conclusion: not just not believing that there is a God, but believing, with high probability if not outright certainty, that there is no God. Some people who are pretty sure that there is no God seem to leap to this conclusion merely from the fact that God's existence hasn't been outright proven — as if we all knew for sure that everything true must also be evident. That's an example of what I'd call a bad argument, because it's based on a very strong assumption that seems to go unacknowledged.

I followed along until the portion I've bolded above. Have you an example handy to help me understand, please?

Thanks,

JB

 

[SpecialFrog]

Just claiming that no good enough reasons to believe in God have been presented seems more like agnosticism to me. Atheism, as I understand the term, means accepting a definite conclusion: not just not believing that there is a God, but believing, with high probability if not outright certainty, that there is no God. Some people who are pretty sure that there is no God seem to leap to this conclusion merely from the fact that God's existence hasn't been outright proven — as if we all knew for sure that everything true must also be evident. That's an example of what I'd call a bad argument, because it's based on a very strong assumption that seems to go unacknowledged.

There are obviously differences of opinion here but I think there is a reasonable consensus among atheists that atheism relates to belief and agnosticism relates to knowledge. If you don't believe in any gods but if you aren't 100% sure (and even Dawkins describes himself as 6 on a scale of 1 to 7) you may qualify as agnostic and atheist.

My own degree of certainty depends somewhat on how you define "god". I would express a high degree of certainty that no god described by a human religion exists. Human religions bear all the marks of being created by humans of the era in which they were created. So while I'm not completely certain I don't think I would describe myself as agnostic in this regard any more than I would about the existence of Russell's Teapot.

I'm less certain about Paine's God, though I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a god who created the universe but doesn't interfere with it in any way and a non-existent god.

 

[aegerprimo]

I keep getting pulled into this thread, I guess especially because I don’t believe in God (in the biblical sense), and am finding the conversation... interesting. I do believe in a power greater than myself, that there are many powers greater than myself (such as this discussion forum, for example.)

There are many inexplicable things in the world. All we can do is ask questions, and use good critical thinking to pursue answers. Answers to questions may satisfy some people but not satisfy others.

Scientology appealed to me because it is thought that we ALL were once gods, and moving up the bridge brought you back to being godlike (or omnipotent). When I did not see it happening in me, or others either, I began to ask questions. I asked MYSELF first, and found it impossible to lie to myself. My own personal integrity does not allow me to lie to myself, or to just blindly “believe” or have “faith”, or whatever you want to label it – not anymore. But I can wonder, “how did life, the universe, and everything, come to be?”

People who force their beliefs on you ,or force you to listen, are NOT compassionate or loving. They do not possess good personal integrity. I steer clear, do not even try to debate with them.

I suppose because I am a doubter, and am still searching, I can be called an agnostic. Honestly, I am not totally clear on what the word “agnostic” really means. Its meaning changes for me on any given day. I am reminded of the chapter in the Alcoholics Anonymous book (aka The Big Book), chapter titled “We Agnostics”. The chapter is a worth a read (even if you are not recovering from alcoholism/addiction.) Here are some excerpts...

…We looked up on this world of warring individuals, warring theological systems, and inexplicable calamity, with deep skepticism. We look askance at many individuals who claimed to be godly. How could a Supreme Being have anything to do with it all? And who could comprehend a Supreme Being anyhow? Yet, in other moments, we found ourselves thinking, when enchanted by a starlit- night, “Who, then, made all this?” There was a feeling of awe and wonder, but it was fleeting and soon lost…

…As soon as we admitted the possible existence of a Creative Intelligence, a Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things, we began to be possessed of a new sense of power and direction…

…We needed to ask ourseles but one short question. “Do I now believe, or am I even willing to believe, that there is a Power greater than myself?”

 

[Space_Cowboy]

Let me preface this by saying that I I am not trying to force you to believe as I do. I respect you for whatever you choose to believe, as I am a Constitutionalist, and believe ultimately in freedom of worship for all. But I believe that freedom should also extend to me, and I should not be silenced from sharing my thoughts and feelings on the issue any more that I would silence or ridicule anyone else, or abridge their freedom of speech, simply because I do not personally like the content of their message. I enjoy a good debate, and it doesn't make me angry or offended at all.

The three major philosophical arguments for the existence of God are the Cosmological, the Teleological, and the Ontological arguments:

The Cosmological argument posits that every finite and contingent being must have a first cause, because it began at some point in the past. Because the Universe began in the past, as evidenced by Universal expansion, it too had a First Cause, and that First Cause was God.

The Teleological argument is argument from design. For example, if I'm walking along and find a gentleman's pocket watch on the ground created with clockwork perfection, I may not know the watchmaker, but the existence of the watch itself bears witness to the existence of a watchmaker SOMEwhere out there. It didn't come into being by accident. Similarly, the atypically high degree of symmetry in the Universe (i.e. that it works according to the perfection of Newton's Calculus and Einsteins Relativity), and the perfect confluence of factors that gave rise to life in our little cradle of civilization here, when there is such a high probability for so many things in the Universe to have prevented life from occurring, leads inexorably to the postulate that the Universe, too, has a "Watchmaker", and that Watchmaker is God.

Finally, the Ontological argument comes from the idea that God is defined as "That beyond which no greater thing can be concieved". i.e., Infinity compared to finite human thought processes. Because such a thing can be defined and conceived at all, means that it must exist.

I find these arguments all to be very philosophical and, in many ways, cold and academic. In my experience, the only way to truly experience God is through personal relationship. I.e., talking with Him in your private time, just as you might talk to a best friend. (I don't speak 'King James' to Him, that's for sure). God says that the person who makes grand prayers in public for all to see has already received their reward, but the person who opens up to Him with honesty and contrition in private, shall be rewarded openly by Him in public. Not my words, but His.

As a practicing professional scientist, I find that the scriptures always back up science and vice-versa. Newton and Einstein both believed that a person cannot truly understand Physics without being shocked by it, and knowing there is a God.

For example, the speed limit for the Universe is Light Speed (C = 186,000 miles per second). No object that ever existed below C can ever equal or exceed C, and no object that ever existed above C (i.e., the 'tachyons') can ever decelerate to C or lower than C. Therefore the speed of light is the speed limit for all the Universe, and that speed does not vary when measured from ANY reference frame.

For example, if you are on the ground and I stand in the bed of a pickup truck going 50 mph, and I pitch a baseball 50 mph, the baseball goes at a speed of 100 mph relative to ground. But if I'm in a truck doing 0.5C, and I turn on a flashlight, the beam does NOT go at 1.5C relative to ground. It goes at C! Same if the truck drives away from you at any speed, the speed of light is always measured as C. The same hold true for any other variant of motion or rest. This is a huge mystery of Physics (proven via the Michaelson-Morley Experiment).

As a result, some pretty strange things happen as your speed increases to speeds near the speed of light. As you increase speed to 0.9999999C, you can never reach C exactly, but as you approach C:

1. Your mass approaches Infinity.

2. Your energy approaches Infinity.

3. Your length foreshortens with speed, until at C, you would have ZERO spatial projection in the direction of motion, i.e., you wink out of existence in Space. (Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. Google it.)

and,

4. Time slows in the moving frame, until at C, time ceases to exist. (The Time Dilation. Google it.)

So at a speed of C, one would have infinite mass, infinite energy, yet have no natural projection in Spacetime. Yet certainly one would continue to exist, because of the Infinite mass and energy. Sounds a lot like God to me, yes?

So let's think about how existence might be handled in the reference frame (call it 'Eternity', for lack of a better word). There is no time, so there is no past, and there is no future. There is only an Eternal 'Now'. Therefore causality does not apply here like it does in the morass of Spacetime within which we exist, because cause and effect requires TIME (cause precedes effect. I push the ball, the ball rolls down the hill).

In this new frame, your immediate state of focused intent determines your objective reality. So, in below-c Spacetime, the arrow of time as determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (progression from order to disorder) leads humanity to believe that cause preceds effect, the arrow of time is one way, and "I have to see the cause in order to believe the effect", whereas from the Eternal perspective, I have to first BELIEVE it in order to then SEE it, because effect can precede cause. Everything works in reverse, and the power of focused intent becomes the most important factor in determining objective reality. As one thinks (or believes), so IS one. From this reference frame, if one were to be asked one's nature, one might reflexively respond with "I AM". Because "was", and "will be" are created things that are below your frame of reference that are temporal and subject to change (i.e., not Eternal). The concept and practice of atemporal thinking is a model of faith that represents the next great evolution in human thought and mastery of the objective Universe around us. You are more than matter, you are a spirit (you HAVE a body and a mind, but you ARE a spirit). And that Eternal, spiritual part of you is the part that is capable of understanding and implementing this kind of application.

I find these concepts in Physics very interesting in light of the fact that the first act of creation by God was ... "Let there be Light". And there was. And that is now what we observe to be the speed limit of the Universe, where everything goes Iinfinite. I also find it curious that God always refers to Himself as "The Great I Am". And the idea of the reference frame at the speed c is one that allows for infinite energy but zero spatial and temporal projection, just as one might expect with omnipotent deity. "I am the Light of the World", "You are the Light of the World"... coincidence? I personally don't think so.

Finally, I leave you with an example from the New Testament in John Chapter 8. Jesus was being criticized by the Sanhedrin (Jewish Church of the day), and Jesus said:

[56.] Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

[57.] “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

[58.] “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

[59.] At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

In this passage, Jesus revealed to the astute reader His true Eternal nature. Although the Apostle John and the Sanhedrin certainly knew nothing of a timeless eternity that would be proven by calculus and experiment to exist by Relativistic Physics in the 20th Century, He knew you and I would be around to read His words in the modern day after such discoveries were made. And in this passage, instead of saying "Even before Abraham was, I was", as would be customary and logical for any human finding its origin in Spacetime, He revealed His true nature by saying "Even before Abraham was, I AM". Because "was" only exists in time. And God transcends time. And Jesus was the Son of God, crucified from the foundations of the Universe for the remission of the sins of the World, so we could enjoy freedom in the Power of His Spirit!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Please leave Einstein out of this.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
...
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

Otherwise, I think you are using science as a metaphor while slightly pretending that it isn't just a metaphor.

Also, since there is no experimental evidence that tachyons exist it seems a bit presumptive to declare what they can and cannot do.

 

[Lone Star]

...............Finally, I leave you with an example from the New Testament in John Chapter 8. Jesus was being criticized by the Sanhedrin (Jewish Church of the day), and Jesus said:

[56.] Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

[57.] “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

[58.] “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

[59.] At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

In this passage, Jesus revealed to the astute reader His true Eternal nature. Although the Apostle John and the Sanhedrin certainly knew nothing of a timeless eternity that would be proven by calculus and experiment to exist by Relativistic Physics in the 20th Century, He knew you and I would be around to read His words in the modern day after such discoveries were made. And in this passage, instead of saying "Even before Abraham was, I was", as would be customary and logical for any human finding its origin in Spacetime, He revealed His true nature by saying "Even before Abraham was, I AM". Because "was" only exists in time. And God transcends time. And Jesus was the Son of God, crucified from the foundations of the Universe for the remission of the sins of the World, so we could enjoy freedom in the Power of His Spirit!

Do you know why they were offended by Jesus saying, "I AM" ? It wasn't necessarily because they thought he was saying, "I am timeless", or that "I transcend time". It was because he was in their view committing blasphemy. "I AM" is essentially "Yahweh", the Name of God. In their ears he was saying, "I knew Abraham because I Am". That's a big offense against the Torah, the Law. Worthy of the death penalty by stoning. The authors of the Torah claim that God told Moses "I Am that I Am".

The same "offense" is what got him crucified ultimately because again before the Sanhedrin he answered, "Ye say that I Am" after being asked if he were the Son of God. The english translations don't really do justice to what he really said and why it was such an offense to the Pharisees. He also used the word "Power" in that question session. I've read that the KJ translators substituted the word "Power" for "Yahweh", the Name in other words, which was only supposed to be said by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Again, death penalty violation.

Okay, just to mince more words. It's not accurate to say that the Sanhedrin was the "Jewish Church of that day". It was the governing body set up by the Romans to order the affairs of the Jews....running the Temple, Holy Festivals, daily matters of enforcing ritual laws, etc.... The word "church" is again a bad translation in english translations. It's root form is from "Circle", "Circus" and notably "Circe" which is a pagan goddess. The greek word is "Ecclessia", which means "Called out ones". The Pharisees would've probably took exception to the word "church" being applied to them.

I get what you're meaning overall. I'm just what some would call a "word fag".

 

[aegerprimo]

Please leave Einstein out of this.



Otherwise, I think you are using science as a metaphor while slightly pretending that it isn't just a metaphor.

Also, since there is no experimental evidence that tachyons exist it seems a bit presumptive to declare what they can and cannot do.

Which is a good segue to... "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[Purple Rain]

“Whether God is dead or not hardly matters, for we would use him no differently anyway.”

God Knows (1984)
―Joseph Heller

 

[The_Fixer]

As a practicing professional scientist, I find that the scriptures always back up science and vice-versa. Newton and Einstein both believed that a person cannot truly understand Physics without being shocked by it, and knowing there is a God.

Interesting.

Are you familiar with this guy's work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Peacocke

Excerpt:

He taught at the University of Birmingham from 1948 until 1959 when he was appointed University Lecturer in Biochemistry in the University of Oxford and Fellow and Tutor of St Peter's College. In 1960 he was licensed as a Lay Reader for the Diocese of Oxford and he held this position until 1971, when he was ordained deacon and priest, unusually, both in the same year.

From 1973 until 1984 he was Dean, Fellow, and Tutor and Director of Studies in Theology of Clare College, Cambridge, becoming a Doctor of Science (ScD) by incorporation of the University of Cambridge.

In 1984 he spent one year as Professor of Judeo-Christian Studies at Tulane University. He returned to Oxford the following year, becoming Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre, 1988 and again from 1995 until 1999. He was appointed Honorary Chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford in 1988 and Honorary Canon in 1994. Apart from one year during which he was Royden B. Davis Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Georgetown University (1994), he spent the rest of his life in Oxford, living in St John Street, just across the road from another eminent theologian, Henry Chadwick.

He had been Select Preacher before the University of Oxford in 1973 and 1975 and was Bampton Lecturer in 1978. He was Hulsean Preacher at Cambridge in 1976 and Gifford Lecturer at St Andrew's in 1993.

Among Peacocke's numerous subsidiary appointments he was the President of the Science and Religion Forum from 1995 until his death, having previous been Chairman (1972–78) and Vice President (1978–92). He was an Academic Fellow of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science in 1986. He was Warden of the Society of Ordained Scientists 1987-92 and Warden Emeritus from 1992 until his death. He was also a sometime Vice President of the Modern Church People's Union and member of the council of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (Esssat).

Peacocke was awarded the Lecomte du Noüy Prize in 1983. He received honorary doctorates from DePauw University (DSc 1983) and Georgetown University (DLittHum 1991). He was appointed Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire by HM The Queen in 1993. In 2001 he was awarded the Templeton Prize.

He was my wife's uncle and used to visit us when he was over this way. Interesting man, he reminded me of the stereotypical absent minded professor.

When he was a uni student, he scored I think, 97% in an exam. (Probably his lowest score) He was accused of cheating and made to re-sit it in a room with 4 people sat around him watching for any signs of improper activity. He scored an even higher result!

Another time, someone scored higher than he did. He was pretty upset about that for a while his sister (my mother in law) tells us.

He, as a scientist turned priest had some pretty interesting theories about god and theology. He was genuinely surprised when he visited Australia to lecture of the popularity of his subject. People packed the lecture halls to hear him, an experience he found quite humbling.

 

[Purple Rain]

Unlike me, poor muddled Moses felt the full brunt of God’s furious ill humor within moments of hearing from the voice in the burning bush of the astounding mission for which he had just been tapped.

“W-w-w-why me?” was the sensible question posed by this simple and unprepossessing man in the Midian desert to the voice in the bush declaring itself to be the God of his father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. “I st-st-st-stammer.”

The anger of God was kindled against Moses right then and there by the implication that He perhaps had erred and gotten the wrong party and that the force that could lay the foundations of the earth and draw out leviathan with a hook might be deterred by something so trivial as a minor speech impediment. He would give Moses a brother named Aaron into whose mouth words could be put. Moses was stunned by the swiftness and intransigence of these tyrannical prescriptions. There was not much room for compromise. Now the man Moses was very meek, and he could raise only pitiful objections to the summary treatment he was encountering.

“Whoever said I was supposed to be nice?” challenged God. “Where is it written that I have to be kind?”

“Aren’t You a good God?”

“Where does it say that I have to be good? Isn’t it enough that I’m God? Don’t waste your time daydreaming, Moses. I ordered Abraham to be circumcised when he was already a grown man. Was that the act of someone who’s kind?”

“I’m not c-c-c-circumcised,” Moses suddenly recalled, shaking.

“Just wait,” said the Lord, laughing.

In practically no time at all, Zipporah, his Midianite wife, was upon him with a sharp stone, haranguing him fiercely for the life of their child. He let her do it. I would never have allowed any one of my wives to draw that near to my privates with a knife, not even Abigail, and especially not Michal. Zipporah cut off his foreskin and cast it at his feet. It’s doubtful he could have comprehended much in the tirade of condemnation with which she followed up this action.

“Surely a bloody husband art thou to me,” she let our Moses know. “A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.”

“It h-h-hurts,”whimpered Moses.

“Whoever said that there wouldn’t be pain?” asked the Lord. “Where is it written that there shouldn’t be pain?”

“It’s a hard life You gave us.”

“Why should it be soft?” spake the Lord.

“And a very tough world.”

“Why should it be easy?”

“Why should we love and worship You?”

“I’m God. I AM THAT I AM.”

“Will it make things better for us if we do?”

“Will it make things worse? Go into Egypt now and say to the children of Israel that the God of their fathers wants you to gather them around you and lead them all out.”

Moses, ever unassuming, was pessimistic about his chances. “Why should they believe me? Why should they follow me? What should I say to them when they ask me Your name?”

“I AM THAT I AM.”

“I AM THAT I AM?”

“I AM THAT I AM.”

“You want me to tell them You’re I AM THAT I AM?”

“I AM THAT I AM,”repeated God. “And from the Pharaoh,” He went on, “I charge you to get permission to journey into the wilderness for three days to make sacrifices to Me. Tell him to let your people go.”

“Let my people go?”

“Let my people go,”spake the Lord.

“Will he let my people go?”

“I will harden his heart.”

“So he won’t let my people go?”

“Now you’ve got it. I want to show what I can do. I want to trot out my stuff for the children of Israel.”

“It won’t work,”insisted Moses in a voice laden with gloom. “They’ll never believe me.”

“They’ll believe you, they’ll believe you,” promised the Lord. “Why shouldn’t they believe you?”

The children of Israel believed, and boy—were they sorry. To some, the petition for three days in the wilderness might have seemed a legitimate request. To the Pharaoh, it was proof that the Jews had spare time and were entertaining foolish ideas.

“Ye are idle, ye are idle,” the Pharaoh reproved them. “That’s why you have time for sacrifice. Let more work be laid upon the men.”

“We are worse off than before,” groaned those children of Israel beneath the increased work load and the beatings. There was menace in the sullen eyes with which they regarded Moses. “Why did you ever start in with us?”

Moses, in bafflement, returned to the Lord to complain. “Why are You being so evil to the people? Is this why You sent me to them? You haven’t made things any easier, and neither have they been delivered from the Pharaoh.”

“I am hardening his heart.”

“Again You’re hardening his heart? Why must his heart be so hard?”

“To allow Me to demonstrate powers that are greater than those of all his magicians and of all other gods. And to impress upon the world forever that you are the people I have chosen as favorites.”

“Will that make much difference?”

“No difference at all.”

“Then where is the sense?”

“Whoever said I was going to make sense?” answered God. “Show Me where it says I have to make sense. I never promised sense. Sense, he wants yet. I’ll give milk, I’ll give honey. Not sense. Oh, Moses, Moses, why talk of sense? Your name is Greek and there hasn’t even been a Greece yet. And you want sense. If you want to have sense, you can’t have a religion.”

“We don’t have a religion.”

“I’ll give you a religion,” said God. “I’ve got laws to give you that have never been heard before. I will bring you out of slavery in Egypt into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey, a land in which you will eat bread without scarcity.”

God Knows
Joseph Heller
Simon and Schuster, Nov 12, 1997 - Fiction - 368 pages


"Joseph Heller's powerful, wonderfully funny, deeply moving novel is the story of David -- yes, King David -- but as you've never seen him before. You already know David as the legendary warrior king of Israel, husband of Bathsheba, and father of Solomon; now meet David as he really was: the cocky Jewish kid, the plagiarized poet, and the Jewish father. Listen as David tells his own story, a story both relentlessly ancient and surprisingly modern, about growing up and growing old, about men and women, and about man and God. It is quintessential Heller."

 

[degraded being]

Which is a good segue to... "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

and to.......

If a religious troll, cult-victim-ambulance-chaser, was trolling and no one was responding, does it troll anyone?

 

[degraded being]

.
.
The god thing is a troll session on living.