What a Christian is NOT

Some people today see Christians as old-fashioned uneducated people who believe in obscure ideas like “God” with no reason and who deny science. The purpose of this article is to show what Christians today are not like that at all. People believing in Chistianity as a philosophical system and in the existence of a God are not less educated than the persons who believe in the non-existence of God today.

Philosophy Knols of Spiros Kakos

Seal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
[Gr. Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο Κωνσταντινούπολης]

Introduction

The reason for me writting this article is the fact that some people today believe that Christians are not so educated and not so intelligent as people who believe only in science. Some people think that “exact science” is the only way to reach the truth and that Christians have chosen to follow the “wrong” path of just believing things that do not exist.
I have dealt with the philosophical problems of existence and purpose in some of the Knols I have written. One can visit Religional Science and The limits of science to see an analysis of these issues.
However this article is not focused on these big philosophical that trouble humankind, but it deals with the person we call “Christian” today. The goal is to describe that person in depth and give an insight to those who see Christianity as the “dark place where science is denied” so as to understand that a Christian can also be a scientist at the same time.

Religion has been used wrongly many times in the past. If there is one thing to which most people agree is that “dogmatism – in any form – is simply wrong”.

However I made the choice to write “What a Christian is NOT” and not “What a scientist is NOT” for some specific reasons: Today our society is intensly “materialistic”. That means that most of us take it for granted that only matter exists in the cosmos and nothing spiritual (and as I say in many of my other Knols, that is a pure dogma and not a proven case – see Limits of Science and Religion and Science Unification). That is why religion seems to be – wrongly – cornered nowadays and that is why I chose to write that knol.

“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity”
C.S. Lewis

Definition of a Christian

It is more difficult than one might think to give a definition for the word “Christian” [Gr. Χριστιανός]. I will however make an attempt to do so. Knowing the correct definition of the words we use is the most important thing to know if we want to discuss and analyze religious issues.

Christian: A person who believes in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person who believes in the Christian teachings for love, forgiveness and behaving good to each other.

Someone might say that this definition is vague. Others might argue that the abovementioned definition is simply not correct because it leaves out a great number of religious Christian dogmas. My opinion is that it may be true that Christian dogma entails many more than just the teachings of Christ, but the latter ones are the essence of what we call today “Christianity”.

Not every religion has to have St. Augustine’s attitude to sex.
Why even in our culture marriages are celebrated in a church,
everyone present knows what is going to happen that night,
but that doesn’t prevent it being a religious ceremony.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

The beginning of Christianity

Christianity begun with Jesus Christ and was spread throughout the world via the Greeks who first adopted it (Jews remained faithful to their Judaism and quickly separated their position from the teaching of Christianity). In every discussion about Christianity we should all remember that Christianic philosophy and teaching were freely accepted by logically thinking Greeks. Christianity was not imposed through brain-wash to any idiots but was accepted by free-thinking individuals based on their logic and not through violence.Words of Christ

Christian dogma theory vs. Reality

Many people wishing to maintain a imaginary “war” that is supposedly going on for years between science and religion tend to use more general definitions that contain also all the dogmas of church that have to do with the explanation of the physical world (e.g. the dogma that Earth was created in a certain number of days from God). This is not an innocent attempt to define Christianity but quite the opposite: these people try to attach ideas that are “secondary” when compared to the basis of Christianity, as “primary” beliefs that all Christians uphold, so as to base their criticism on them.

However that is not true. Although the Christian dogma has many sectors, when you ask a Christian to define the basis of his/her belief he will answer “God and Jesus Christ” and not “the creation of the Earth 4,352 years ago”, even though the second may be a dogma of a specific Christian religion.

And it is the true essence of a word that we seek when attempting to draw a definition. If we include everything that each church is claiming to be true in our definition of a “Christian” then we will end with having no “true” Christian at all! There is absolutely no way to find even one person that upholds every single aspect of Christianity up to the very last detail. Does that mean that no one is actually a “Christian”? No. It just means that we have to keep in mind reality when trying to approach the very difficult, complex and sensitive matter of religion and Christianity.

Christians today are modern people who most of them accept science as the tool to search and analyze physical phenomena. It is really hard to find a christian today who goes to church to ask what is the explanation for the planets’ movement or why electrons are attracted to protons…

Quod licet bovis non licet Jovis!

Christian Paradosis

Many things in the Christian dogma are part of the Christian 2000-years tradition (paradosis – Gr. παράδοση). That means that a modern Christian may believe in these things in a way not impying “blind faith” but “respect to the tradition”. One scientist may be Christian and say “I believe in the Christian dogma” but not in the way “I believe what Christian dogma says about the geological age of Earth” but in a way “I believe in the Christian tradition as an integral part of the Christian history”. There is a great difference between someone who blindly believes everything and someone who is a Christian upholding some past traditions. The Christian church has not changed its texts for too many years and indeed some things in its dogma may seem a bit out of place. But that does not mean that the Church is not also evolving. For example all priests know that people have sexual relationships before marriage and they nevertheless bless weddings between such couples, even though the old (traditional) dogma forbids these relationships. The cosmos changes and so does the church. The fact that some texts have not changed does not mean that you must believe what they say is true up to the last word in order to be considered a “Christian”. Most modern Christians believe in the teaching of Christ for being good to one another (see forgiveness, agape etc) but not in all the details of the hundrends of religious texts existing (which actually they may not even be aware of their existence). Most Christians love as Jesus taught them and “believe” in the ancient texts as respecting what they really are: part of a long tradition and not modern scientific papers. Respecting tradition is different than denying logic.

What does “believe” mean

Many people criticize modern Christians about “believing” some old-fashioned or even plain (scientifically) wrong things their religion supports. However the phenomenon of belief is not a simple phenomenon to analyze in such a way. Most Christians believe various things for various reasons. In that way Christians may believe a thesis of Christian dogma because they agree with it as a philosophical system, because they have analyzed it logically and found it correct, because they see it as part of church tradition and respect it. One should analyze the underlying reason behing each belief and critisize accordingly. In all cases we have “belief”. But the justification is different. We shouldn’t critisize lightly without proper scientific analysis.

What a Christian is Not

A Christian is many things, but he/she is NOT uneducated or irrational. A Christians does NOT deny science or logic. These issues will be addressed in more detail in the lines that follow.

1. A Christian is not uneducated. Many prominent scientists today are publicly verifying their belief in Christ and God. Surveys that were conducted among scientists indicate that the percentage of scientists believing in God is about 40% and certainly cannot justify the characterization of Christians as uneducated. WWhen Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia in USA attempted in 1997 to repeat an older study conducted in 1916 concerning the percentage of scientists believing in God, he was surprised to find out that the percentage remained the same despite the great advances of science! A very stable 40% of the scientists surveyed answered that they believed in the existence of a God, despite all the astounding scientific breakthroughs in the years that have elapsed [1]. What is more, a 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation [2]. Certainly these surveys point to “a belief in a God” in general (i.e. theism) and not to “being a Christian” specifically, but the point here is that believing in supernatural entities is not as illogical as some want it to be: religious people (like Christians) are not the un-scientific beings some think they are.

Alfred Russel Wallace and Francis S. Collins are just two famous examples of first-class scientists (biologists to be exact) who believe in God, with the former being a renowned Christian.

Dr. Francis Collins discusses his faith

Wallace was the person who first published the theory of evolution (one year before Darwin) and was elected head of the anthropology section of the British Association in 1866, president of the Entomological Society of London in 1870 and head of the biology section of the British Association in 1876. On the other hand Francis S. Collins is a genetist that was the head of the Human Genome Project. Another famous example is the philosophy colossus Ludwig Wittgenstein who embrassed Christianity that he had previously opposed [3]. And certainly one cannot blaim Wittgenstein for not thinking or for being uneducated…

2. A Christian does not deny science and he/she does not use God as the explanation of physical phenomena. It is a common misconception among opponents of Christianism that God is the explanation religion proposes for physical phenomena that science cannot yet explain and that when science finds the explanation, religion “retreats” to the remaining area of unexplained phenomena. That view of religion is old-dated and the “God of the Gaps” (as this view is called) is not at all the way modern Christians see the world. Opponents of Christianity must understand that religion deals with the questions of purpose and meaning in life. It does not deal with physical phenomena. As the Interacademy Panel (IAP – Global network of Science Academies) stated on an announcement it made for the theory of evolution on 21 June 2006 (see the whole statement here): “Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope”. Not many Christians today believe that God is the explanation for the Higgs bozon or for why apples fall on Earth… God is the explanation of why our existence has meaning, not another physical law to research.

3. A Christian does not deny Logic. Another common misunderstaning of Christian thought is that believing in God automatically means that you don’t believe in Logic. In order to clear that misunderstand we must first define logic: There are two kinds of logic. First, the strict mathematical logic. That logic uses mathematics formulation and respects specific rules first posed by Aristotle and then refined by mathematicians. The second kind of logic is the everyday logic all humans apply to reach to conclusions about everything, a kind of “soft” logic not using mathematical furmulation but as valid as our mathematical knowledge. When you say “A is true, B results from A => B is true”, that is the strict mathematical logic. When you say “Yesterday it was cold and it snowed, today it is more cold => It will probably snow today as well”, that is the everyday “soft” logic. It is important to note that Christians use BOTH kinds of logic! First of all Godel has proved by using modern modal logic the existence of a perfect being that Christianity calls “God”. Secondly, when we say that “All parameters of the Universe are set in the exact values required to create life => Someone / something must have set them + That probably is not the result of chance”, that is “soft” logic. Both kinds of logics are valid. However many people have different kind of “soft” logic than others. It is natural. That is why people argue. But that does not mean that Christians do not use logic! Don’t forget that the word “theory” is derived from the word “theos”, which in Greek means “God” (greek: Θεός).

Let’s not forget that it was Aristotle who first postulated the “First Cause” argument. [4] And noone can blaim Aristotle for being blinded by Christianic dogmatism…

4. A Christian does not deny the need for physical evidence. It is completely wrong to say that being a Christian is “believing without seeing”. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite. When Jesus raised from the dead, he appeared in front of those not believing so as they were convinced. So He used and provided physical evidence, He did not just required for them to believe without seeing! It is very important to remember that those believing in Christ believe in Him because there were many eye-witnesses of His miracles, while the ones who deny the existence or the God-attribute of Christ simply deny it without any evidence at all! They just deny the historical data, without having other sources indicating that Christ did not do what the sources Christians use indicate! All people “know” that a past historical fact took place from the few eye-witnesses that lived then to see it happen. We “believe” in things that happen in the past simply because some other people told us. Not believing in the things written for Christ with no reason is not scientific at all! Christianity uses physical evidence, while atheists don’t – not the other way around!

5. A Christian is not dogmatic in a negative way. Many people cannot see the difference between dogmatism that has a negative sense and dogmatism that leads to having values. If you have a value, does that mean that you are “dogmatic”? If you teach your child not to steal or not to lie or not not kill other people, are you becoming “dogmatic”? No. Would you ever tell your child that “it is not good to kill, but this is just my opinion – I am not dogmatic about it. Maybe killing is good after all…”?!? Christianism has a wide range of values and defends and tries to spread those values. Doesn’t a parent do the same with his children? So yes, Christianism holds the value of “do not steal” and “do not kill” and does not change its teachings depending on the circumstances or the callings of the modern times. And that is not bad. If someone does not steal and does not kill, why would he have a problem with a religion which tries to spread these values?

You can find more extensive analysis for the abovementioned arguments in the knols Religion and Science unification – Towards Religional Science and The limits of science.

Christianity bad vs. Christianity good

The bad perception many people have about Christianity is based on the errors it has made. No religious person with good-working mind can deny the fact that the Holy Inquisition was wrong and bad, or that the killings of non-Christians in the name of God was also (at least) criminal. However it is usual for opponents of religion to see only these negative things and stay there. One must understand that Christianity is a vast sum of people and that the actions of a bad Christian do not reflect the nature of good Christians. If someone wants to be objective, then he must treat Christianity as a set of behaviours and see and analyze all of them, not only the ones he prefers. The official Christianity has many times been the source of good and if the mistakes are an argument against Christianism then this good should an argument in favour of the Christian church. As Christianity was lined to the “dark ages” of the West, it was also linked to the enlightened Greek Byzantine Empire of the East – the Empire which lasted for more than 1,000 years and which was the major beacon of the writting of Aristotle and Plato for the years to follow. As Christianity was oppresive in the Western Europe, it was liberating in the Eastern while playing a major role in the liberation of the Greek nation from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire in 1821 [5]. Christianity also played a major role in the liberation of Korea from Japanese oppresion [6]. In Korea, Christianity was seen as a “liberator” and not as an “oppressor” like in the French revolution. Different cases, different perspectives. These examples demonstrate what opponents of religion fail to see: that Christianity is not as simple a set of behaviours as they would like it to be. Good coexists sometimes with bad – but the important thing to note (at least for me) is that in that case the good prevails and that is what characterizes the modern church.

Conclusion

That being said, it should be clear that the image some people have drawn for Christians today is just wrong and prejudiced. Modern Cristians are people who hold certain values and they are not dogmatic in the negative way some atheists want to present. Modern Christians are people who firmly believe in the philosophical system of Christianity as their logic dictates them and not because they are fooled by a priest to believe something they don’t want. Promoting that message is something that all Christians should do when given the chance. Science if fully compatible with the philosophy of Christianism and that is the reason why most religious people have a phD in an exact science and why many scientists feel comfortable in admitting that they believe in God. There is no “war” between Christianity and science, except in the minds of people like Dawkins who try to earn money by selling books on the alleged “issue”…

Resources

1. Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

2. Church of Greece

Pensée Civilisée

Ο σύγχρονος δυτικός πολιτισμός έχει πολλά να μάθει από τους “άγριους” και “απολίτιστους” της ζούγκλας. Εδώ και πολλά χρόνια έχουμε δυστυχώς εμποτιστεί πολύ έντονα από τη μηχανιστική αντίληψη της Δύσης για τη ζωή και έχουμε μετατραπεί από ανθρώπους σε αντικείμενα. Είναι καιρός να δούμε τα πράγματα από μια άλλη πιο παλιά (άρα και πιο νέα) οπτική γωνία…

Ι. Πόλεμος με τους Άγριους

Το να λες για έναν άλλο πολιτισμό ότι “είναι βάρβαρος”, είναι βάρβαρο. Όταν αποκαλείς κάποια άλλη φυλή “άγριους”, δεν κάνεις τίποτα περισσότερο από το να δείχνεις πόσο άγριος είσαι εσύ ο ίδιος. Όσο και αν ο δυτικός πολιτισμός μας έχει συνεισφέρει περισσότερα από κάθε άλλον σε ορισμένους τομείς (όπως π.χ. στις τεχνικές ανακαλύψεις), άλλοι πολιτισμοί κατέχουν τα πρωτεία σε άλλους – εξίσου ή και περισσότερο – σημαντικούς τομείς. Η δυτική ιατρική αξιοποίησε γνώσεις βοτανολογίας των “άγριων” Ινδιάνων της Αμερικής, η κοινωνιολογία μας εντυπωσιάστηκε από τις γνώσεις των Αυστραλών αβορίγινων σχετικά με τις δομές της οικογένειας, η σύγχρονη ευρωπαϊκή τέχνη ξαναβρήκε το ρεαλισμό που ακολουθούσαν οι “πρωτόγονες” ζωγραφιές στους βράχους, οι λευκοί εντυπωσιάστηκαν από το πως οι Εσκιμώοι ή οι Βεδουΐνοι καθυπόταξαν τα πιο άγρια και αφιλόξενα περιβάλλοντα, οι “ανεπτυγμένοι” δυτικός πολιτισμός αναταράχτηκε το 18ο αιώνα από τον ελεύθερο και μεγαλόψυχο τρόπο ζωής στην Πολυνησία, ο “σύγχρονος” οικολόγος που θεωρεί ότι μετά από χρόνια σκέψης έχει επιτέλους βρει το σωστό τρόπο να ζει αρμονικά με τη φύση έχει πολλά να διδαχθεί από τους “άγριους πρωτόγονους” της ζούγκλας του Αμαζονίου, ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος του στρες και της κατάθλιψης έχει πολλά να μάθει από τους “απολίτιστους” που δεν γνώριζαν τι θα πει εκμετάλλευση.

“Τους νικήσαμε όμως στον πόλεμο” μπορεί να πει κανείς.
“Τους κατακτήσαμε με μια χούφτα στρατιώτες” μπορεί να πει άλλος.

Ποιος όμως κρίνει τα πάντα σε σχέση με τον πόλεμο αν όχι ο βάρβαρος; Ο στόχος του πολιτισμού μας είναι να φτάσουμε σε ένα υψηλό πνευματικό επίπεδο όπου ο πόλεμος δεν θα υπάρχει – όλοι θα ζουν αρμονικά. Έστω ότι μετά από χιλιετίες φτάνουμε σε αυτό το ανώτερο επίπεδο και μετά από πολλά χρόνια έχουμε ουσιαστικά ξεχάσει το πως είναι να πολεμάς. Έστω ότι τότε εμφανίζεται μια φυλή “πρωτόγονων” από τη ζούγκλα και μας σφάζει όλους. Ποιος είναι ο “ανώτερος” πολιτισμός σε αυτό το παράδειγμα; Αν οι Μινωΐτες, που είχαν έναν υπερανεπτυγμένο αλλά πλήρως φιλειρηνικό πολιτισμό από το 3.000 π.Χ., αφανιζόντουσαν όχι από φυσικά αίτια αλλά από κάποια “πρωτόγονη” πολεμοχαρή φυλή, τι συμπέρασμα θα βγάζαμε;

Φυσικά και πάλι υπάρχει αντίλογος στον αντίλογο: αν δεν επιβιώσεις τότε πως μπορείς να έχεις τον οποιονδήποτε πολιτισμό; Αυτό είναι σωστό. Για αυτό και το καλύτερο θα ήταν να κρατήσουμε τα καλύτερα στοιχεία από τον κάθε πολιτισμό και την κάθε άποψη, χωρίς όμως να διαλύουμε και να καταστρέφουμε τις απόψεις και τους πολιτισμούς που δεν μας αρέσουν.
Σίγουρα χαίρομαι που ανήκω στο δυτικό πολιτισμό και όχι σε έναν αφανισμένο πολιτισμό, αλλιώς δεν θα ήμουν εδώ για να γράφω… Όμως λίγη αρμονία με τη φύση και τα συναισθήματα μας, σε συνδυασμό πάντα με τη φιλοσοφία μας, τα μαθηματικά μας και την αστρονομία μας δεν θα έβλαπτε…

 

ΙΙ. Πρόοδος και Πολιτισμός

Ο πολιτισμός δεν προοδεύει σε ευθεία – αν προοδεύει καν. Οι εφευρέσεις που στηρίζουν το σύγχρονο “ανεπτυγμένο” πολιτισμό μας, είναι ακόμα οι πλέον “πρωτόγονες”: η γεωργία, η κτηνοτροφία, η φωτιά, η κεραμική ύλη. Εξετάζοντας το παρελθόν βγάζουμε το συμπέρασμα ότι η νεολιθική επανάσταση ήρθε σε όλον τον πλανήτη – από την Ευρώπη μέχρι την Αυστραλία, την Αμερική και την Αφρική – την ίδια περίπου περίοδο με μικρές διαφορές μερικών εκατοντάδων χρόνων ανάλογα με την περιοχή. [1] Ποια περιοχή είχε τα “πρωτεία” λίγη σημασία έχει. Γιατί λοιπόν προσπαθούμε με τόση μανία να υπερασπιστούμε – εμείς η Ευρώπη – τα πρωτεία μας στη σύγχρονη βιομηχανική επανάσταση; Τι μας λέει ότι ο ιστορικός του μέλλοντος δεν θα βλέπει την εποχή μας σαν την εποχή της βιομηχανικής επανάστασης η οποία συντελέστηκε σε όλον τον πλανήτη ταυτόχρονα με μια μικρή διαφορά κάποιων ετών ανάλογα με την περιοχή (ειδικά αν δει ότι οι συνθήκες για μια τέτοια επανάσταση ήταν ώριμες παντού στον πλανήτη);

Μήπως τώρα που η μηχανιστική μας αντίληψη για τον κόσμο συναντάει ένα ανυπέρβλητο εμπόδιο – την ερμηνεία του ίδιου του ανθρώπου και της ψυχής του – δεν αισθανόμαστε την ανάγκη να αρχίσουμε να μελετάμε τα “πρωτόγονα” συστήματα φιλοσοφίας των Κινέζων και των Ινδών που μέχρι τώρα είχαν απλά τον τίτλο του “παραδοσιακού αλλή μη-επιστημονικού”;

Οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες ονόμαζαν βάρβαρο κάθε τι μη-ελληνικό. Πίσω από αυτή τη λογική υπήρχε η υποβόσκουσα πεποίθηση ότι το “ελληνικό” ήταν και “ανώτερο”. Τώρα αυτά τα ελάχιστα ψήγματα ταπεινοφροσύνης έχουν εκλέιψει και από το “ό,τι μη ελληνικό είναι βάρβαρο” έχουμε πάει στο “ό,τι μη ανεπτυγμένο είναι βάρβαρο”, καθώς εξ’ ορισμού “ανεπτυγμένο = δυτικός πολιτισμός”. Όποιο τραίνο δεν πηγαίνει προς την ίδια πορεία με εμάς θεωρείται εκ προοιμίου εκτροχιασμένο. Αν δούμε καλύτερα όμως και καταλάβουμε ότι το φως που αχνοφαίνεται μπροστά μας δεν είναι φως ελπίδας αλλά πύρινες γλώσσες καταστροφής, ίσως προλάβουμε να αλλάξουμε τροχιά – έστω και την τελευταία στιγμή.

Και πρέπει να καταλάβουμε ότι ΟΛΟΙ μας είμαστε στο ίδιο μεγάλο τραίνο: αυτό του παγκόσμιου πολιτισμού που καθορίζεται όχι από τα “πρωτεία” κάποιας φυλής σε κάποιον συγκεκριμένο τομέα αλλά από τις αλληλεπιδράσεις μεταξύ όλων. Ο αφρικανός βιομήχανος διασκεδάζει αφάνταστα διαβάζοντας τα περί “δυτικής” βιομηχανικής επανάστασης. Ο λευκός δυτικός άστεγος και άνεργος κλαίει διαβάζοντας τα. Αντί να τσακωνόμαστε για το ποιος είναι στο τιμόνι της μηχανής, ας καταλάβουμε ότι το τραίνο πάει μόνο του και εμείς απλά στρώνουμε τις ράγες για να το κατευθύνουμε…

Και σίγουρα η ανεπτυγμένη δυτική φιλοσοφία θα αισθανόταν ντροπή για τα όσα κάναμε στους “άγριους” εμείς οι “πολιτισμένοι”. Δεν λέω πως το ένα ή το άλλο είναι καλύτερα. Είμαι μέρος του δυτικού πολιτισμού και αισθάνομαι υπερήφανος για αυτό: έχουμε δώσει πολλά στον παγκόσμιο πολιτισμό. Αλλά έχουμε πάρει και πολλά. Ας κρατήσουμε τα καλύτερα από το δικό μας και τους άλλους πολιτισμούς.

Η φιλοσοφική στάση των Ινδιάνων που απαιτεί σεβασμό προς τα φυτά και τα ζώα, θεωρεί ότι ο κυνηγός που υπερβάλει ή θανατώνει θυληκά ή νεαρά ζώα τιμωρείται από τους θεούς, πιστεύει στην ιδέα ότι άνθρωποι, ζώα και φυτά διαθέτουν ένα κοινό απόθεμα ζωής και οποιαδήποτε κατάχρηση σε βάρος του μεταφράζεται σε μείωση του προσδόκιμου ζωής των ίδιων των ανθρώπων, αποτελεί ουμανισμό πολύ ανώτερο από αυτόν που διαμορφώθηκε στην “ανεπτυγμένη” Ευρώπη. Οι φίλοι της ταινίας “The Avatar” θα στεναχωριόντουσαν ακόμα περισσότερο λοιπόν αν μάθαιναν πως ένας τέτοιος κόσμος υπήρχε και τον καταστρέψαμε εμείς με την “πρόοδο” μας. Και τώρα, ξεχνώντας πως πρέπει να σεβόμαστε τον συνάνθρωπο μας κυρίως για αυτό που είναι – ένα ζωντανό πλάσμα – έχουμε δημιουργήσει ψευδο-διαχωρισμούς ανάμεσα σε αυτούς που είναι “ενώτεροι” και σε αυτούς που είναι “κατώτεροι”, έχουμε φέρει το ρατσισμό και την προκατάληψη.

Η λογική πρόδωσε τον εαυτό της και μετατράπηκε σε εργαλείο καταπίεσης του ανθρώπου και κακοποίησης της φύσης, όπως χαρακτηριστικά λέει ο Adorno. Ο άνθρωπος υπέταξε τη φύση με την κακή έννοια. Με το Διαφωτισμό ο άνθρωπος ήθελε να γίνει κυρίαρχος των πραγμάτων και έγινε τελικά ένα υποτελές αντικείμενο ο ίδιος: όλα έχουν υποβιβαστεί στο επίπεδο του υπολογισμού και η σύγχρονη καπιταλιστική κοινωνία χρησιμοποιεί τον ορθολογισμό μόνο για να αυξήσει την παραγωγή και τη κερδοφορία. Όπως οι μύθοι των “πρωτόγονων” αποτελούν “διαφωτισμό” – με την έννοια ότι προσπαθούν να δώσουν μια εξήγηση στο ανεξήγητο – έτσι και ο υποτιθέμενος “Διαφωτισμός” στη Δύση αποτελεί έναν μύθο: το μύθο της απόλυτης κυριαρχίας ενός τρόπου σκέψης απέναντι σε όλους τους άλλους.

Ίσως η “αλήθεια” να μπορεί να εξαχθεί ερμηνευτικά από τη γλωσσική ανάλυση των μύθων – αυτό που ο Γκαντάμερ αποκάλεσε “εμπειρία αλήθειας η οποία υπερβαίνει το χώρο ελέγχου της επιστημονικής μεθοδολογίας” και του οποίου ο Wittgenstein έθεσε τις βάσεις στις “Φιλοσοφικές Έρευνες”. [2] Στο προγραμματικό του δοκίμιο “Για την Ελευθερία” ο Stewart Mil τάχθηκε υπέρ του δικαιώματος των ανθρώπων να επιλέγουν τον προσωπικό τρόπο ζωής τους. Γιατί κάποιος λοιπόν να μην επιλέξει κάτι άλλο από τον δυτικό “ορθολογισμό”; Όπως επισημαίνει ο Feyerabend, η επιστήμη της Δύσης αποτελεί ένα από τα πολλά γλωσσικά παιχνίδια που καταγράφει ο Wittgenstein και δεν μπορεί να απαιτήσει περισσότερα πράγματα από τα άλλα γλωσσικά παιχνίδια – όπως η τέχνη, η θρησκεία κλπ.

Μπορεί αυτή η μανία της δυτικής λογικής για την πίστη στην ύπαρξη αντικειμενικών ιδεών στον κόσμο του Πλάτωνα να είναι τελείως λάθος – γιατί άλλωστε “γνωρίζουμε” είμαστε σωστοί; Η “λογική” μας κατήντησε να είναι κύριος του κυρίου της, όπως ο Ζακ στο “Ο μοιρολάτρης Ζακ και ο κύριος του”…
Η ανθρωπότητα έχει περάσει από το στάδιο της “δύστυχης συνείδησης” στο στάδιο του “παρατηρών λόγου”, αλλά δεν έχει ακόμα φτάσει στο στάδιο του “πνεύματος” (Hegel) – η “λογική” μας έχει προς το παρόν παραστρατήσει και έχει εμποδίσει μέχρις στιγμής τον άνθρωπο να κατανοήσει ότι είναι κάτι άλλο εκτός από αντικείμενο. Πρέπει να ξυπνήσουμε και να φύγουμε μακριά από το “mauvaise foi” του Σάρτρ. Η συνείδηση μας πρέπει να πάψει να είναι αυτό που είναι και πρέπει να γίνει αυτό που δεν είναι – είναι στο χέρι μας να τη διαμορφώσουμε σωστά και πρέπει να το κάνουμε. Πρέπει να καταστρώσουμε ένα υπαρξιακό σχέδιο μακριά από την πλάνη της “λογικής των αντικειμένων”. Πρέπει να κάνουμε τα αντι-κείμενα [3] πάλι πράγματα και να έρθουμε σε αρμονία μαζί τους, όπως οι Ινδιάνοι με τη φύση.

Ο Levi Strauss προσπαθεί να ερμηνεύσει το ποίημα Les Colchiques του Appolinaire και καταλήγει στο να δει αυτό που πολλοί δεν βλέπουν. “Meres filles de leur filles” (μητέρες θυγατέρες των θυγατέρων τους) λέει ο ποιητής. Τι μπορεί να σημαίνει αυτή η – αντιφατική εκ πρώτης όψεως – φράση; Εξετάζοντας τη βιολογία των κολχικών ο Levi καταλήγει στο ότι ο ερμαφρόδιτος χαρακτήρας αυτών των φυτών έπαιξε βασικό ρόλο σε αυτή τη φράση. Όπως και στα κολχικά, έτσι και στη θεώρηση του κόσμου που έχουμε σήμερα, το σημαίνον μπορεί εύκολα να εναλλαχθεί με το σημαινόμενο. [4] Όπως στη βιολογία ο γιος γίνεται γονιός μετά από μόλις μία γενιά, έτσι και η “λογική” από εργαλείο ανάλυσης έχει σήμερα γίνει μέθοδος ορισμού των υπό ανάλυση πραγμάτων. Τα αποτελέσματα αυτού του φαινομένου μπορεί να είναι εκπληκτικά.
Μόνο η ανάγνωση των μύθων και η επιστροφή στη αγνή αδογμάτιστη σκέψη θα μπορούσε να μας απομακρύνει από τις σύγχρονες αντιφάσεις του τύπου “κάθομαι στον ήλιο και φοράω αντι-ηλιακό” ή “πίνω γάλα χωρίς λιπαρά” ή “πίνω καφέ decafeinne” [Valia Valiacus]. Τέτοιες εκφράσεις μπορεί να μας φαίνονται κοινότοπες, αλλά δείχνουν κάτι πολύ ουσιαστικό: Ότι “κάτι” μας καθορίζει τι “θέλουμε” να κάνουμε. Ότι “κάτι” μας καθορίζει αυτό που δεν “πρέπει” να κάνουμε. Έχουμε πάψει να είμαστε αυθεντικοί…

 

ΙΙΙ. Συμπέρασμα

Πρέπει να θυμηθούμε ποιοι είμαστε και να μην ξεχάσουμε ότι οι αντιφάσεις του κόσμου έχουν μπει και στη λογική μας. Όπως στους μύθους των Ινδιάνων Chinook, η διασπασμένη εμπειρία που έχουμε μέσα από τον κόσμο οδηγεί σε διασπάσεις μέσα μας. Το μόνο που μένει είναι να τις αποδεχθούμε αντί να καταστρέφουμε όποιον πολιτισμό εκφράζει κάτι που δεν μας αρέσει ή δεν καταλαβαίνουμε. Η λήθη κατά τον Levi Strauss είναι η αποτυχία επικοινωνίας με τον εαυτό μας, αδερφή της παρεξήγησης που είναι η αποτυχία επικοινωνίας με τους άλλους. Εμείς έχουμε αποτύχει και στα δύο.
Πρέπει να μείνουμε υποκείμενα και να μην αισθανόμαστε ότι από την κλειδαρότρυπα μας βλέπει, μας παρατηρεί και μας “ελέγχει” μονίμως η “λογική”, να καταλάβουμε πως είμαστε τα υποκείμενα που ελεύθερα καθορίζουν το ρόλο τους και όχι τα αντικείμενα που υπακούουν σε εξώτερους κανόνες αμφίβολης προέλευσης. Η ανεπτυγμένη φιλοσοφία και οι ανεπτυγμένες επιστήμες της Δύσης πρέπει να συνδιαλλαγούν με τα συστήματα σκέψης των άλλων πολιτισμών επί ίσοις όροις και όχι με όρους δυνατού-αδύνατου. Έτσι θα διδαχθούμε πολλά και θα βγούμε όλοι κερδισμένοι…

Conspiracies for Fun [The greatest conspiracies of all times – Unedited]

This Knol lists conspiracies for fun reading. Everything here is derived mainly from roumors and hearsay rather than bibliography or hard evidence. You can consider everything here as wrong and false. This is meant just for fun reading and good bed-time stories. Anything that looks serious or indeed true, is probably purely coincidental and can be treated as such… Is it? 🙂 Happy reading!!!

VISITORS: Anyone can contribute a good conspiracy!

Feel free to post your own conspiracy in a comment below!!!
> No bibliography or sources required! <

I. Scope

This Knol (article) lists conspiracies for fun, with some little details about each one. Everything written here is derived  basically from rumors and hearsay rather than bibliography or hard evidence (although even if it did I wouldn’t tell you if such bibliography or hard evidence could exist, even though many times it does exist as you can see below). You can consider everything here as wrong and false. Anything that looks serious or indeed true, is probably purely coincidental and can be treated as such. (or not? could this *really* be a conspiracy to show true things as false? Hehehe)…

The author (that is me and the readers who contribute) does not claim anything about anything written here, except the wish to help you have fun and a good discussion with friends while enjoying a good meal.

II. Conspiracies

Many conspiracy theories exist. Many conspiracy theories existed in the past. And even more conspiracy theories will exist in the future. Conspiracy theories is what makes the world go around. Conspiracy theories give people something to write about and other people something to read or talk about. But most of all conspiracy theories make us have fun and exercise our fantasy and creativity skills. And unfortunately, sometimes conspiracy theories, no matter how absurd, actually form policies or drive political decisions…

Alfred Russel Wallace

1. Conspiracy of the vaccines

There is no such thing as the “effectiveness of a vaccine”. [1] Pharmaceuticals have invented that term in order to get rich. Any search in Google about the “ineffectiveness” or the “problems” of vaccines will convince you. [2] [3] There are numerous problems with vaccines that have low rate of proved success, but are still produced and used by patients. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The infamous founder of the Theory of Evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, was against the use of vaccines himself. He had founded (with in-depth research of the statistical data in Britain) that the extermination of specific diseases during his century was the result of the better hygiene rules followed and not of the vaccines [1]. Today many vaccines have a success percentage that is not only far off the 100% but even close to less than 50%. If you have a vaccine that has a success rate of 50%, is that a good vaccine or not? If someone gets sick even though he/she was vaccinated, can you really say that the vaccine worked? Can you really be sure that the fact that a percentage of the people vaccinated did not get sick is due to the vaccine? The pharmaceutical companies seem to rule the ground of medical research and the H1N1 fiasco showed that they can even rule the world… [9]

2.Conspiracy of the B2 bomber with anti-gravity devices

The US military bombers B2 use anti-gravity devices which utilize electromagnetic fields in order to nullify the effect of the power Newton first described. The US government has somehow acquired know-how for creating these devices – the most possible way seems to be the contact the government had with aliens. This seems to be the same technology UFOs use. [10] Some even claim that the technology was first developed by the Nazis in WWII and then stolen by the Americans after they won the war.

Sources

3. Conspiracy of the Earth growing!

The Earth is growing at a steady pace. There is no such thing as continent drifting. What we see as continents changing is the mere effect of the fact that our planet accumulates dust from its journey through space and is thus growing and becoming larger every minute we speak.

Sources

4. No Free Energy conspiracy against Tesla et al

Free energy is the holy grail of science. Or is it not? Does company-controlled mainstream science REALLY wish for the people to have free energy? Check out cases like the one of James L. Griggs [1] (use of shock waves and fluids for the production of energy) or Prof. Alexander Chernetski [2] (use physical-vacuum energy or zero-point energy to produce electricity) and you will know that there is no such thing as “free thinking” in our modern capitalistic society.

The most renown case of course is the case of Nikola Tesla. It is known that Tesla had invented a way to transfer electrical energy through Earth (via the soil) in a way that could render the use of electric cable useless. Moreover, the way Tesla invented foe electricity distribution did not include power losses so electricity could in that way be available to all the inhabitants of the planet at minimum costs! The electrical conglomerates have been hiding that truth ever since, in order to keep gaining great profits from their selling of energy at high prices. Tesla also mentioned a strange motor that could move a plane and that would look nothing like any other motor [3]. And you can bet that even though he had a contract to build such an engine, such an engine was never built…

5. Conspiracy of the oil ending

The oil companies want you to believe that the oil is ending and, thus, increase the prices of oil. But the oil has been “ending” for more than 50 years now. [11] For more than 50 years we hear over and over again “valid” scientific theories of the oil ending – but we see no oil ending after all!! Recently some scientists posted papers which claim that oil is constantly and continuously produced in the sub-surface of the planet and that the “oil ending” argument is just a myth. [12] [13] [14]

Who should we believe? Maybe wait until 2500 to see if oil actually ends?

Julian Huxley

6. Conspiracy of Eugenics on lower classes

Many philosophers and proponents of the theory of Evolution were in favor of Eugenics in the beginning of the 20th century. Julian Huxley, who later became the first president of UNESCO, said that…

“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation” [15]

This plan was almost spoiled by Hitler who gave a very “bad name” to eugenics. But that was dealt with by just changing the name: from “eugenics” to “genetics”. So now there is a great coordinated effort to apply eugenics to the lower classes populations via gene control, genetics etc. [16] Everyday we are bombarded with news on how “that gene is responsible for that” or “that gene is the cause of that behavior” so that we get used to the idea of eugenics and genetic control. A good and deep conspiracy…

Eugenics was and is still used by “civilized” countries (see here). And there are many who believe that vaccines in the Third World are a tool for controlling growing population… (see here, here, here and here)

Michelson–Morley experiment apparatus

7. The Michelson–Morley experiment

The famous experiment of the two researches which contrubuted so much in the Special Relativity Theory is false. Ether actually exists [17] and science cannot hide it anymore…

Many doubt this experiment’s results. (see here and here) The experiment of Morley DID measure a difference in light’s velocity, which was considered to be an “experimental error” (source). Morley himself was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Miller worked on increasingly large experiments. (see here and here) Miller consistently measured a small positive effect that varied with each rotation of the device, the sidereal day and on a yearly basis. His measurements amounted to only 10 km/s instead of the 30 km/s expected from the Earth’s orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation. [18] Michelson experiment – even if we accept it – showed that the detection of a common ether was impossible, NOT that the speed of light is independent than the movement of the source! There are theories which predict ether dragging and they postulate that since the Earth is dragging ether as it moves in space, we cannot detect aether (since we are moving with it). The Many-Minds Relativity theory solves this “problem” by just accepting the logical postulate that each mind has an immaterial aether of its own. In any case there are now many examples of light speed anisotropies (see here for example) and many theories which predict/ accept/ explain such anisotropies (see “Modern searches for Lorentz violation” and “Lorenz violating models“), like theories for quantum gravity for example.

What is more, there are many phenomena which are observed and were speeds greater than that of light are observed – e.g. the EPR paradox, Scharnhorst effect, superluminal motion seen in certain astronomical objects or the galaxies which in some models of the expanding universe are drifting away from each other in much greater speeds than that of light [19].

Why would they want you to believe in the theory of relativity? Maybe because they do not want you to know that signals can travel with a speed greater than that of light, something that would immediatelly imply that we can travel back in time (Godel has proved it after all)…

(could ether be the “dark matter” we have just now “discovered”?)

8. The SETI coverup

The infamous search for extraterrestrial life is nothing more than a hoax. The US government knows there is life outside our planet. The SETI program was continuously looking for analog alien signals (which would require vast amounts of energy just to reach Earth) while they did not conduct any search for digital 0-1 signals (that we even now use). The only goal was to take millions of dollars for “research” while at the same time people were told that “well, we found not aliens – we are alone guys!”… Scientists have already found pulsars, which are deliberately characterized as “unknown radiowaves sources” while their signals are repeated like the ones SETI was supposed to be searching for. That is why the Catholic Church made a weird statement that “all beings even from outside Earth are all creatures of the same God”, in a time when the pulsar research was at its high peak…

9. Nuclear tests, Cancer & Ozone layer cover-up

Governments try to convince us that it is WE, who destroyed the ozone layer by using our refrigerators and our air conditioning. However this is just to cover-up a very simple but horrifying truth: that the hundreds of surface and atmospheric nuclear tests performed by USA, USSR and China are the ones responsible for the ozone layer disaster! More than 600 nuclear blasts in the atmosphere of Earth, surpass the effects of any possible nuclear war that could happen on the planet! Such vast nuclear energy unleashed without ANY control into the air destroyed our planet (and us). “After 1955 the level of radiocarbon (C-14) in the atmosphere, and thus in living organisms, almost doubled in about 10 years”, Pier Andrea Mandò, head of the Florence division of the INFN, explained in a statement. (see here) It is not a coincidence that the “Ozone layer disaster” was “suddenly discovered” after the surface nuclear tests were banned… And after that cancer was “suddenly” starting taking its toll on human lives…

10. The UFO conspiracy

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell said it loud and clear: Aliens have contacted humans several times but governments have hidden the truth for 60 years, the sixth man to walk on the moon has claimed. Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of many UFO visits to Earth during his career with NASA but each one was covered up. He also said that people knowledgeable about an alleged crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, N.M., shared the information with him [1, 2, 3, 4].

11. The era of Satan

The times we live in after the Enlightenment are dark times. The era of Satan.

19th century was the era of revolutions against the establishment, part of which was the church. The era of optimism. The era of communism. The era of logic. Nietzsche [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche] wrote that God is dead and everyone cheered. Few people understood that the great thinker wrote that phrase as a sad conclusion [4] and not as a triumphant cry for science, which he hated as much as he hated rationalism (he was the founder of irrationalism after all). For sure the church made mistakes. But the mistakes were due to NOT following the teachings of Jesus and not because it did! Unfortunately, few noticed that and the hordes of barbarians found saw a great opportunity to express their hatred and the “My arm aches, let’s cut the head” mentality prevailed. The City [Κωνσταντινούπολη] has fallen. The barbarians won. Now they were just solidifying their power. [from “Against Enlightenment: The Enlightenment was not light. The Enlightenment is darkness.” article]

The poems of Marx to Satan and the image of Lucifer on the cover of the first Encyclopedia of Diderot, fake occult human sacrifices ceremonies at CERN near an unneeded status of Shiva [1, 2], the way Hollywood promotes satanism and pedophilia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] or the easiness with which mainstream media promote satanists (see here for example) clearly show the character of a heavily anti-Christian era. People is the new power. And the new power wants anything old destroyed. Not because it is wrong. But simply because it is old. God and Christ, along with society, are dead. Now the individual (or nature) is the new god…

12. Theory of Relativity is inherently flawed

Yes, I know what you think: There are many lunatics who claim that they have found errors in the Relativity theory of Einstein. But no, this is not the case. There is a basic flaw in the theory of relativity which – despite what most people like to think – is not solved. It is called the ‘Clock Paradox’ (a version of which is the ‘Twins Paradox’) and in summary it goes like this: If Person A is moving at a great speed in relation to Person B, then time moves slower for the person moving (Person A). However and since motion is relevant, Person A will also see Person B as the one moving so – according to his perspective – time for Person B will move slower! Hence, the paradox.

Many people believe that the paradox is solved either by invoking the role of acceleration or by invoking the relativity of simultaneity.

But before we go there, it is very important to understand that all the solutions of the paradox do not actually refer to the ‘pure’ Clocks Paradox but to another convenient version of the paradox called ‘Twins Paradox’. In the Twins Paradox (which is a version of the more ‘pure’ Clocks Paradox mentioned above) we have two identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly.

  • The acceleration ‘solution’: The solution appears to be the acceleration experienced by the twin who travels in space when he turns back his spaceship to return back to Earth. This acceleration differentiates his journey from the journey of the other twin, who cannot mistakenly believe that he was travelling (since he did not experience such an acceleration). [source]
  • The relativity of simultaneity ‘solution’: This scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin’s trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins. [source]

However neither solution is correct and neither solution (most importantly) solves the initial pure version of the paradox.

Regarding the acceleration solution, this solution does indeed justifies a difference between the two twins due to acceleration, but this difference is on top the time dilation caused due to the constant speed of every twin. So it kind of solves part of the problem, but not the whole problem. [source] That is why the original paradox where two people simply move in relation to one another without any acceleration is basically untouched by this ‘solution’ which offers nothing more than a cover-up of the main issue here. What is more this solution is also useless in another version of the Twins Paradox which has the two twins using two spaceships travelling at opposite directions! In this case both twins will experience the same acceleration at the turning point of their travel in order to return to Earth, so there will be absolutely no way of differentiating one from another and, thus, decide which one aged less. [source]

As far as the relativity of simultaneity is concerned, this solution claims to solve the problem by claiming that the path of the travelling twin will be different than the path followed by the staying-at-Earth twin. These two different paths can then explain the difference in time lapse, but there are some major problems here as well. First of all, how do you know which path belongs to which twin?! Both twins could argue that they are the stationary ones and the other twin is moving! [source] What is more, the solution again does not answer the pure Clocks Paradox which involves no ‘turning around’ but just two people moving in relation to one another.

To the above one could add many other objections to the interpretation of Relativity Theory: If the notion of ‘time’ in the theory is the notion of time showing on a clock [source], if perhaps the Many Worlds interpretation could be used, if adding Earth as a reference point to the paradox is valid [source] and so on and so forth [another example of relative discussions can be found here]

However what is important is that the Clocks’ Paradox is not solved at all. The Theory of Relativity claims that time is relative and yet, based on this paradox, we are forced to revisit what we think we learnt for time based on that theory…

13. Geo-engineering

USA’s secret agencies have undertaken a great project to geo-engineer the planet in order to fight global warming. (and perhaps assist their own goals of global control by altering the ionosphere in ways that support their plans) Watch CIA Director John Brennan discussing Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), a.k.a. “Chemtrails” at the CFR here.

Other Small Conspiracies

1. The dark side: NASA’s Grail gravity twin satellites slammed deliberately into the dark side of the Moon after their fuel was depleted. [source] This is not the first time NASA sends a spacecraft to crash on the dark side of the moon. The Lunar Orbiter 2, which took the infamous photo of the century, also had the same fate… [source] Why crash in the dark side where no one will be able to see it? What kind of weird science is that?!?

2. The Majorana fermion: One of the biggest discoveries of 2012 was the discovery of the mysterious Majorana fermion, which was detected in a nanowire according to Dutch nanoscientist Leo Kouwenhoven. These fermions are in the verge of matter and anti-matter: they are the anti-particles of them selves. They are as mysterious as the physicist who predicted their existence: Majorana disappeared during a boat trip leaving no trace at 1938… Was the fact that he discovered the essence of One [source] that got him?

3. Ice lakes: Two attempts to drill down to under-the-ice lakes in Antarctica (lake Vostok and lake Ellsworth) have been cancelled due to weird accidents. [source] The mysterious lakes, which have been isolated for millions of years, have secrets which they do not want to be revealed…

4. The meat conspiracy: Scientists have been making some funny claims that humans could be engineered to be allergic to meat, so that we need less food and resources in general as a planet in the future. [source] After a while, scientists started “discovering” some bugs causing humans an allergy to… meat! [source] Do you believe in coincidences? [Bonus: Check out here for another related “conspiracy” – The insect eating]

III. Conclusion

There is no conclusion! Conspiracies are true… errrr, I meant fun! 🙂
Hope you enjoyed them and hope you contribute some more on your own!!!
The truth is “out there”, hmmm… I meant “in here”~!!!!

References

  1. VACCINATION A DELUSION, Alfred Russel Wallace LL.D. DUBL., D.C.L. OXON., F.R.S., London, 1898
  2. Google search for vaccines effectiveness exaggerated [example]
  3. Google search for vaccines effectiveness exaggerated [example 2]
  4. http://www.whale.to/m/incao.html
  5. http://www.whale.to/m/incao.html
  6. Is HPV Vaccine Benefit Exaggerated?, MedicineNet.com
  7. Review: pneumococcal vaccination does not prevent pneumonia, bacteraemia, bronchitis, or mortality, Evid Based Nurs 2009;12:74 doi:10.1136/ebn.12.3.74.
  8. http://www.naturalnews.com/022611.html
  9. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Vaccination-Conspiracy&id=2471228 (old reference, not working)
  10. Boeing Grasp Google search results
  11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901672.html
  12. http://www.info-quest.org/documents/newoil.html
  13. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
  14. http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley
  16. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20028
  17. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_2_gift.pdf
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

About Free Will – Σχετικά με την Ελεύθερη Βούληση

This knol deals with the problem of Free Will [english].
Αυτό το άρθρο πραγματεύεται το πρόβλημα της Ελεύθερης Βούλησης [Greek].

Introduction to the problem of free will

One of the main problems that have troubled philosophers after the discovery of the notion of “physical laws” is the questions of whether we have that thing that is called “free will” or not. In this article I attempt to clarify what great philosophers thoughts about the subject were and present some of my own ideas on it.

When we say that we have “free will” we mean that we somehow decide on our own on what to do and that we do not behave because something else made us behave like that. However from the time that science started discovering physical laws in the universe, a big question came to being: if everything in the universe behaves according to physical laws, then so does our mind. So are our thoughts and behaviour already determined by those physical laws? Are we really masters of our selfs or we just have the illusion of being free to decide?

The implications of free will’s existence

Science tells us that if we know the initial conditions and the physical laws governing a system, then we can predict its future behavior. Thus, if we know the initial conditions of our universe and all the physical laws that apply to its components, then we can predict everything that happens in it including the human behavior. Even in the quantum mechanics world of statistics, prediction is still there. Saying that there is a 60% possibility for A to happen and 40% for B to happen, is still a prediction (although there are many objections of whether the statistical results of quantum mechanics are a result of an inherent limitation of the universe or of an inherent limitation of our science). So is everything we do pre-determined? Or do we have a free will? If science predicts that a system, for example our brain, will behave in way A with a possibility of 98% and in way B with a possibility of 2% the question that arises is: can we behave in way C if we wish to do so?

Much of Arthur Schopenhauer’s writing is focused on the notion of will and its relation to freedom.

Is Hitler guilty for killing so many people or not since it was predetermined that he would do such a thing? We like to believe the first. Everybody likes to think that we are beings that decide for themselves. Everybody likes to think that we do have free will. That is why we feel responsible for our actions and we punish other people for their mistakes: it is because they are “their” mistakes and not the result of some physical processes in their brain upon which we have no power at all! Everybody is responsible for his actions because they are the result of his own free will! However it is impossible to prove that in the context of our current knowledge. Atheists like to think that they have thought that God does not exist on their own and not because it was pre-defined to do so. Skeptics tend to believe that they are skeptics because they thought it through and not because some initial conditions and laws made them to think that way.

Few people have thought about the implications of the existence of “free will”. In a fully “materialistic” (materialism is a dogma believed by many scientists today, who forget that noone has proved or shown that only matter exists in the cosmos) world of universal and absolute physical laws that define everything there is no room for free will (this is not the same as Carl Jung’s unconscious, which sometimes dictates the conscious actions: even in this case free will exists). The only way to justify the existence of free will is to base that existence on “something” that does not follow the physical laws as modern physics thinks of them (which are the ones which make everything predictable in the universe). The foundations of free will must be set on “something” that does not follow the logic “initial conditions” + “physical rules” => predictable behaviour. In that way free will opens the path for the only being that could deviate from the path of the physical laws – God (as a “first cause”)…Maybe our own free will is the result of us being made by God…

I think that the problem of “free will” points directly to the heart of the science and its limits we tend to forget: IF only matter and physical laws exist in the Universe, then given the initial conditions of the cosmos, everything is pre-determined. However everyone of us feels that he/she desides what he does. Our “feeling” of “decision” actually is totally NOT-compatible with the materialistic view of the world that some (not all – see Francis Collins for example) scientists have.

We must know that if we accept dogmatically that only protons and electones exist in the universe, then it is not possible to see anything spiritual in that universe even if it stood in front of our eyes. We should remember that metarialism is a dogma (and an extreme one to be exact) and not a proven case.

Only the acceptance of something like the thing called “spirit” by the ancient philosophers can lead to a free will which can bend the all-powerful natural laws and bypass them. Thus, the dualistic philosophical dogma (it is a dogma again, unfortunately we cannot be sure at this point) seems more well justified than the dogma declaring that nothing else than matter exists in the cosmos.

Greek article

Ο άνθρωπος θεωρεί τον εαυτό του ιδιαίτερο πλάσμα. Ανεξάρτητα του αν πιστεύει κανείς ότι είμαστε κάτι διαφορετικό από τα ζώα ή απλά μια βελτιωμένη έκδοση τους, ο καθένας μας κατανοεί ότι έχουμε κάτι “ανώτερο”. Το βασικότερο στοιχείο που καθορίζει αυτή την εντύπωση είναι η λεγόμενη “ελεύθερη βούληση” που διαθέτουμε. Όλοι μας συμπεριφερόμαστε όπως εμείς θέλουμε και όχι όπως ο “Θεός” ή κάτι “άλλο” θέλει αυτό. Πιστεύουμε ότι δεν είμαστε μαριονέτες, αλλά ανεξάρτητα όντα με τη δική τους ανεξάρτηση θέληση. Κατά πόσο είναι αλήθεια αυτό; Έχουμε πράγματι δική μας θέληση;

Η βασική αντίρρηση στην ύπαρξη ελεύθερης βούλησης είναι η ίδια η επιστήμη. Στόχος της επιστήμης είναι η ανακάλυψη των φυσικών νόμων που ισχύουν στο σύμπαν. Αν γνωρίζεις την αρχική κατάσταση ενός συστήματος και τους νόμους που ισχύουν σε αυτό, τότε μπορείς να προβλέψεις το μέλλον του συστήματος. Η “πρόβλεψη” μέσω της επιστήμης της κίνησης των πλανητών ή της πορείας μιας σφαίρας που βλήθηκε από ένα όπλο, θέτει ένα πρόβλημα που πολλοί μας προτιμούμε να παραβλέπουμε: αφού και εμείς ανήκουμε στο φυσικό σύστημα του σύμπαντος και υπακούμε στους φυσικούς νόμους, μήπως όλα όσα κάνουμε είναι ήδη προκαθορισμένα; Αν κάποιος γνωρίζει όλες τις αρχικές συνθήκες του σύμπαντος κόσμου και όλους τους νόμους που διέπουν την κίνηση κάθε σωματιδίου ή κύματος μέσα σε αυτό, θα μπορεί να προβλέψει με ακρίβεια το μέλλον του; Η επιστήμη μας αυτό λέει. Η λογική πάνω στην οποία έχουμε χτίσει την επιστήμη μας αυτό λέει. Μπορεί να έχουμε την ψευδαίσθηση ότι “αποφασίζουμε”, αλλά στην ουσία απλά βιώνουμε αυτό που ήδη έχει προκαθοριστεί από τις αρχικές συνθήκες του σύμπαντος και τους φυσικούς του νόμους. Πόσο αλήθεια μπορεί να είναι ένα τέτοιο σενάριο;

Αν κανείς εξετάσει το ζήτημα με καθαρά επιστημονικά εργαλεία, δεν μπορεί παρά να παραδεχθεί ότι η μοίρα μας είναι προκαθορισμένη. Δεν μπορούμε να θεωρούμε ότι η επιστήμη μας δίνει τη δυνατότητα να προβλέπουμε τα πάντα αν γνωρίζουμε τις αρχικές συνθήκες και τους εφαρμοζόμενους νόμους, αλλά όχι την ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά. Δεν μπορούμε να ισχυριζόμαστε ότι όλα είναι προβλέψιμα, αλλά όχι η κίνηση των μορίων και ατόμων στο ανθρώπινο σώμα και εγκέφαλο. Αν υπάρχουν καθολικοί φυσικοί νόμοι, τότε αυτοί θα ισχύουν και για τα ανθρώπινα πρωτόνια και ηλεκτρόνια. Ακόμα και η κβαντική στατιστική πιθανότητα του να βρεθεί ένα σωματίδιο σε ένα σημείο με πιθανότητα 40% και σε ένα άλλο σημείο με πιθανότητα 60% είναι πρόβλεψη. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι θα μπορούμε να προβλέψουμε και τι πιθανότητες έχουμε να πούμε “γειά σου” αντί για “τι κάνεις;” ένα πρωινό και μάλιστα με ακρίβεια δεκαδικού; Ή μήπως να προβλέψουμε τι πιθανότητες υπάρχουν να χωρίσουμε τη γυναίκα μας μετά από έναν έντονο τσακωμό; Η κβαντομηχανική έβαλε ένα όριο στο κατά πόσο μπορούμε πράγματι να προβλέψουμε με ακρίβεια τη θέση και την ταχύτητα ενός σωματιδίου, αλλά χωρίς να θίγει στο ελάχιστο το αξίωμα της ύπαρξης γενικών (καθολικών) φυσικών νόμων που είναι τελικά κατανοήσιμοι από τον άνθρωπο οι οποίοι βοηθούν στην πρόβλεψη της μελλοντικής συμπεριφοράς ενός συστήματος. Επιπλέον πρέπει να θυμόμαστε ότι ακόμα δεν έχει διαφαφηνιστεί το τι ακριβώς σημαίνει η στατιστική “αβεβαιότητα” που εισάγει η κβαντομηχανική – αν αυτή συνδέεται με μια εγγενή αδυναμία της επιστήμης όπως εμείς την έχουμε θεμελιώσει ή αν έχει σχέση με μια αδυναμία που υπάρχει εγγενώς στο σύμπαν. Και τι σημαίνει όμως ότι υπάρχει μια αδυναμία να προβλέψουμε ακριβώς τη θέση ενός σωματιδίου εξαιτίας μιας ατέλειας της αντίληψης μας για τον κόσμο; Σημαίνει μήπως ότι αν με κάποιον τρόπο αυτή η ατέλεια αρθεί, θα μπορέσουμε να κάνουμε ακριβή πρόβλεψη χωρίς πιθανοτικές παραμέτρους;
Η ουσία είναι ότι κάθε έκφανση της επιστήμης (ακόμα και η στατιστική κβαντομηχανική) αναφέρεται σε συστήματα τα οποία μπορούμε να αναλύσουμε για να βγάλουμε συμπεράσματα για τη μελλοντική τους συμπεριφορά. Με άλλα λόγια κάθε έκφανση της επιστήμης σήμερα μας λέει ότι θεωρητικά θα μπορούσαμε να βγάλουμε συμπεράσματα πρόβλεψης και για την ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά. Ανεξάρτητα τους είδους της γραφής (δεκαδικοί, ποσοστά, άρρητοι αριθμοί), η ουσία είναι πως η μοίρα μας είναι γραμμένη κάπου και απλά περιμένει να τη διαβάσουμε…

Το ερώτημα λοιπόν είναι: αν το μέλλον ενός φυσικού συστήματος όπως το σύμπαν (ή ο ανθρώπινος εγκέφαλος) είναι προκαθορισμένο, υπάρχει χώρος για αυτό που αποκαλούμε “ελεύθερη βούληση”; Αν είναι προκαθορισμένο ότι υπάρχει πιθανότητα κατά 98% να κάνουμε το Α και κατά 2% να κάνουμε το Β, μπορούμε εμείς τη στιγμή που θα έρθει η ώρα να δράσουμε να “αποφασίσουμε” να κάνουμε το Γ; Τα όσα ανέφερα παραπάνω δεν αφήνουν κανένα περιθώριο για ελεύθερη βούληση. Είναι ανόητο το να πιστεύουμε πως η επιστήμη μπορεί να μας αποκαλύψει την αλήθεια για τα πάντα (άρα και να κάνει προβλέψεις), αλλά πως η ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά θα μένει πάντα εκτός πεδίου έρευνας της λόγω της “ελεύθερης βούλησης”. Και όμως σχεδόν όλοι μας πιστεύουμε ότι έχουμε ελεύθερη βούληση. Θεωρούμε ότι οι πράξεις μας είναι δικές μας και όχι απλά το αποτέλεσμα φυσικών διεργασιών στον εγκέφαλο μας πάνω στις οποίες δεν έχουμε καμία εξουσία. Αυτός άλλωστε είναι και ο λόγος για τον οποίο τιμωρούμε τους άλλους για τα λάθη τους: γιατί είναι “δικά τους” λάθη και όχι κάτι προκαθορισμένο. Πως όμως όλοι μας έχουμε αυτή την “ψευδαίσθηση”; Γιατί έχουμε αυτή την “ψευδαίσθηση”; Με τα δεδομένα τα οποία έχουμε αυτή τη στιγμή δεν μπορούμε να αποφανθούμε οριστικά για το αν η ελεύθερη βούληση είναι μια πραγματικότητα ή μια ψευδαίσθηση. Από τη στιγμή που δεν έχουμε ακόμα κατανοήσει πως λειτουργεί ο ιός της γρίππης, είναι αλαζονικό να πιστεύουμε ότι μπορούμε να μιλάμε για το αν υπάρχει ή όχι ελεύθερη βούληση. Η τελική ετυμηγορία αποτελεί αυτή τη χρονική στιγμή θέμα πίστης. Το περίεργο όμως είναι ότι στο θέμα αυτό όλοι σχεδόν οι άνθρωποι συμφωνούν – άθεοι, αγνωστικιστές και θεϊστές το ίδιο. Τι δημιουργεί αυτή τη συμφωνία;

Αυτά που γράφω αυτή τη στιγμή έχουν προκαθοριστεί; Ή ξαφνικά “αποφάσισα” να τα γράψω; Θέλω να πιστεύω το δεύτερο. Όταν κάποιος φονεύει κάποιον άλλον το κάνει επειδή το αποφάσισε ή επειδή ήταν προκαθορισμένο από πριν να τον σκοτώσει; Ο Χίτλερ φταίει που σκότωσε τόσους ανθρώπους ή δεν φταίει επειδή ήταν προκαθορισμένο από το σύμπαν να το κάνει; Η ποινική μας δικαιοσύνει πιστεύει το πρώτο. Κάποιος είναι άθεος επειδή έτσι είναι προκαθορισμένο να σκέφτεται ή επειδή έτσι αποφάσισε με το δικό του μυαλό να σκέφτεται; Οι άθεοι θέλουν να πιστεύουν το δεύτερο. Κάποιος συγγραφέας δημιουργεί ένα αριστούργημα που σκέφτηκε ή απλά καταγράφει σε ένα χαρτί σκέψεις στο μυαλό του ήδη καθορισμένες από την πρώτη στιγμή δημιουργίας του σύμπαντος; Όλοι μας που τον διαβάζουμε θέλουμε να πιστεύουμε το πρώτο. Κάποιος είναι ορθολογιστής επειδή είναι η μοίρα του να σκέφτεται έτσι ή επειδή έτσι σκέφτηκε ο ίδιος; Θέλει να πιστεύει το δεύτερο…
Ο καθένας είναι ΥΠΕΥΘΥΝΟΣ για τις πράξεις του ακριβώς επειδή αυτές είναι το αποτέλεσμα της ελεύθερης του βούλησης. Στο κρίσιμο ερώτημα του αν υπάρχει ελεύθερη βούληση, όλοι οι άνθρωποι απαντάνε με μια φωνή “ναι”! Έτσι πιστεύουμε. Δύσκολα όμως το αποδεικνύουμε…

Αυτό που λίγοι όμως έχουν αναρρωτηθεί είναι το ποιες είναι οι επιπτώσεις της ύπαρξης τελικά “ελεύθερης βούλησης”. Σε ένα σύμπαν όπου όλα καθορίζονται από καθολικούς φυσικούς νόμους, η ελεύθερη βούληση δεν μπορεί να υπάρχει. Για να υπάρξει πρέπει να αρύεται την ίδια της την ύπαρξη από κάτι “εκτός” του σύμπαντος κόσμου, από κάτι που δεν ανήκει στο σύστημα του κόσμου τούτου και κατά συνέπεια δεν υπακούει στη λογική “αρχικές συνθήκες + φυσικοί νόμοι => καθορισμός μελλοντικής συμπεριφοράς”. Για να υπάρξει “ελεύθερη βούληση” πρέπει να υπάρχει κάτι που δεν υπακούει στους φυσικούς νόμους που κάνουν τα πάντα προβλέψιμα. Η ύπαρξη της ελεύθερης βούλησης ανοίγει το δρόμο για την παραδοχή της ύπαρξης αυτού που συχνά αποκαλείται “Θεός”…Ίσως η ελεύθερη βούληση του καθενός μας να είναι αποτέλεσμα του ότι έχουμε φτιαχτεί καθ’ εικόνα και κατ’ ομοίωση Του…

Αν λοιπόν στο σύμπαν υπάρχουν μόνο φυσικοί νόμοι και ύλη που υπακούει σε αυτούς, τότε δεν υπάρχει “ελεύθερη βούληση”. Ωστόσο η αίσθηση μας είναι ότι εμείς αποφασίζουμε για αυτό που κάνουμε. Η λύση του αινίγματος πρέπει να αναζητηθεί στο δόγμα του υλισμού το οποίο διαπνέει πολλούς (όχι όλους) επιστήμονες σήμερα. Και πρέπει να θυμόμαστε ότι ο υλισμός είναι δόγμα και όχι αποδεδειγμένη υπόθεση…

Modern Platonic Dialogue I: A theist, an atheist and an agnostic talking…

The purpose of this article is to show to everyone that live dialogue is the best way to understand the world and come closer to the one truth: that you cannot prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt and that the only thing you can be certain of is that you think as Descartes once said…Live dialogues are here to demonstrate the magnificent complexity of human mind…

Religion-Science Philosophy articles series

What Modern Platonic Dialogues are

Modern Platonic Dialogues (MPD) is an idea that attempts to revive the noble art of dialogue that Socrates and Plato exercised 2,500 years ago in the Agora in Athens, Greece. The aim is to present all different views for currently controversial issues via online dialogues in which everyone can participate.

Plato

Having a “live” dialogue can be much more productive and efficient than someone just writting an article with his/her views on a subject. Not all people agree on everything, not all people have the same “logic”. The point is not to try to persuade others that we have the correct logic, but to understand that our fellow-human arguments may be as “logical” as ours.

How to participate in an MPD

All Modern Platonic Dialogues are open via the Moderated Collaboration model. You can all send me your comments for a new dialogue! Comments are also welcomed in this page!

List of Modern Platonic Dialogues

The idea of MPD is new and dialogues are expected to increase in number exponentially in the ofllowing years. Please keep coming to this page for updates on what topics are currently under discusion. The Platonic dialogues that currently exist are listed in the following catalogue:

1. Modern Platonic Dialogue I: A theist, an atheist and an agnostic talking…

2. Modern Platonic Dialogue II: A mathematician and a knowledge anarchist talking… (in progress)

Modern Platonic Dialogue I – An agnostic, an atheist and a theist

Below stands a dialogue between an agnostic man, an atheist man and a woman who believes in God. All of these people believe in “something” or believe that they don’t have to believe in “anything”. Does any of them have evidence to support his/her view? Does modern scientific data show the way to the truth in favour of any one of them? Whose “logic” is more “valid”?

Agnostic – Why do you believe in God?

Theist – I believe that something more than stones and dirt exists in the universe.

Atheist – But that’s silly! I “believe” means nothing to me! Why don’t you also believe that hand-reading can reveal your future?

Theist – What do you mean?

Agnostic – It’s simple! Why don’t you believe in anything else like mumbo-jumbo vooodoo magic but you choose to believe in something so weird as “God”?

Th – I have my reasons…

Ath – You mean beyond simple faith?

Ag – What reasons could that be? We all know that you cannot prove that God exists.

Th – You probably don’t know Godel.

Ath – Who is Godel?

Th – Someone who proved that the perfect being we call “God” exists by using modal logic.

Ag – I’ve heard that “proof”. It’s all based on the wrong axioms. Godel started in the wrong way.

Th – But you do believe in mathematics.

Ath – What does that have to do with God?

Th – You complain that Gödel used the axioms he wanted. Isn’t that what we do in all mathematics?

Ag – Yes, but that is different.

Th – Different how?

Ag – Mathematics work in real life. We can see they are true.

Th – That seems to be case, until someone realizes the process we follow to make them work. We see things happen and then formulate the mathematics to explain these phenomena. Mathematics work because we have made them to work. They just describe things we see. They are not “true” in their own sense. At least not so true as the table we see in front of us…

Ath – That’s ridiculous! We can prove things with mathematics!

Th – Based on the theorems you chose and on the logic you know. What if you chose different axioms?

Ag – Then you would have something like the non-Euclidian geometries.

Ath – Yes. And we know that these geometries work!

Th – What do you mean by that “work” you keep saying? That when you see one tomato and another tomato the equation 1 + 1 = 2 actually “works”? It just represents what we see! We made it what way! It’s more than logical that it works. We made it to!

Ag – But that means nothing to you?

Th – It means that mathematics are a nice tool to represent and study reality. But it says nothing about how mathematics exist or not. It does not say if they are “real” or not.

Ath – So you doubt that π exists?

Th – I know that a number we cannot write down on paper troubles me.

Ag – We know that number. We know how it can be represented…
Th – …in a great number of ways, I know. But you still cannot write it down on paper. You cannot write it down, as simple as that!

Ag – Number π comes out of many equations.

Th – Equations that you made based on your axioms and your logic.

Ath – These are many kinds of logic?

Th – There is my logic, your logic, his logic…

Ag – Mathematics have only one logic.

Th – And you bet that you know it better than Godel? The greatest logician after Aristotle?

Ath – That means nothing. He could be wrong.

Th – Correct. So could you.

Ag – But what is more un-logical than believing in something you don’t see?

Th – Ask a nuclear physicist for that…

Ath – Hey! What does all that have to do with God?

Th – I just want to show to you that you argue against Godel proof of God’s existence but you don’t apply the same level and depth of criticism to other things you take for granted.

Ath – It’s maybe all other things we take for granted are things we can see, unlike your God…

Th – So you can see atoms?

Ag – No. But our models based on their existence work.

Th – Very nicely put. And what happens when a new theory replaces the existing one?

Ag – Nothing. Life goes on.

Th – And you wouldn’t be a fool to have believed in something that was finally proven to be wrong?

Ag – That is how science moves forward.

Th – And has science proved that God doesn’t exist?

Ath – No. Neither that it exists.

Th – So?

Ath – So why do you believe in him?

Th – You mean besides the fact that Gödel proved it? I have many other reasons.

Ag – I bet they are not based on logic…

Th – They are “logical” reasons. But not logical in the mathematical sense.

Ag – I remember you implied something like that before. What other kinds of logics exist beyond the pure mathematical logic?

Th – Beyond the mathematical logic that says that a perfect being like God exists? Well…there is also your logic which says it doesn’t.

Ath – “Our” logic?

Th – Yes. And it doesn’t look very “mathematic” to me.

Ag – What do you mean? I use mathematics every day.

Th – That may be the case, but your answer to modal logic is just talk. Not mathematics.

Ag – Arguing against the axioms Godel used is mathematic.

Th – That is mathematic, yes. But the “logic” that tells you which axiom is “correct” and which is not is certainly not mathematic.

Ath – So you say we think irrationally?

Th – No. I am telling you that you have your logic and I have mine.

Ath – And what is the true logic?

Th –  I wish I knew. Do you?

Ag –  I know that you must have reasons to believe in something so extraordinary as God.

Th – I have reasons.

Ath – Like? Name one.

Th – Many parameters of the universe like the gravitational constant are set to exactly the value required to have a universe able to sustain life. I can hardly believe that this is a result of random or chance.

Ath – But what if it?

Th – But what if it isn’t?

Ag – So you base all your belief in coincidence?

Th – Actually you base your disbelief in the belief that randomness can result in that magnificent tuning of all universe parameters.

Ag – Now you are talking illogically. If you don’t have evidence for something you cannot believe in it.

Th – I observe a fact and I draw a theory to explain it.

Ath – That God has set these parameters?

Th – Yes. Isn’t that a valid scientific proposition for you?

Ath – Of course not.

Th – Why not? Random is better explanation that God?

Ag – At least random doesn’t suggest the existence of things we have not proved they exist.

Th – So π didn’t exist before mathematitians “discovered” it?

Ath – Your point is?

Th – My point is that because your logic – and I stress “your” because Godel’s logic is different – has not yet accepted the existence of something, that doesn’t mean that this thing does not exist.

Ath – But you have to prove that God exists. Not we that he doesn’t.

Th – Why is that? Are there court rules for God issues?

Ag – You know what he means. Don’t play stupid.

Th – I don’t. You say I have to prove my theory and that’s fine. But you don’t say that you have to prove your theory also! The “all came out from nothing” theory, you know…

Ath – So you admit you haven’t proved your theory?

Th – I admit that the existence of these parameters are not “hard”-mathematic logic as Godel’s.

Ath – So you admit that you rely on soft evidence for your belief in God.

Th – Actually I say much more that that. I am saying that all of us are relying on “soft” logic for what we believe. You have your logic, I have mine. We said that before…

Ag – Yes, but we didn’t agree on it.

Ath – So you say that there are two kinds of logic? One mathematic and one…other kind of logic?

Th – I believe so, yes?

Ag – You believe or you know?

Th – Is there a difference?

Ath – So you say there is nothing we actually know? All things we know are just beliefs we have?

Th – We exercise belief in every aspect of our lifes.

Ath – I certainly not do that when I use mathematics. I use specific rules.

Th – But your logic, your non-mathematical “soft” logic, tells you which rules to use. Which axioms to use so as to set the foundations of your mathematical world.

Ath – Axioms are things we actually know they are true.

Th – Like in the case of the Euclidian geometry? I doubt that…

Ag – For someone who is a non-believer, you certainly belive too much though…

Ath – Yes. I agree. You doubt everything but you say that God exists.

Th – I say that “I believe God exists”. There is a huge difference. And I already told you that my belief is supported by my logic also. “Hard” and “soft” logic alike…

Ag – You think that science will someday come to prove or disprove the existence of God?

Th – No I don’t think so. I believe science and religion lie on different realms.

Ag – Then what is all that talk about Godel? Where you playing with us?

Th – I just showed how someone might have different logic than you. I didn’t say that my logic is the same with Godel’s logic. It is of great importance for everyone to trully know that the only thing that’s certain is that we don’t know…

Ag – Εν οίδα ότι ουδέν οίδα, like Socrates said, huh?

Ath – I disagree. I think science and religion try to interpret the same truth and that science will someday answer everything. I wander where would religion stand then?

Th – Where it stands right now. Trying to answer the “why” questions. Science just tries to answer all the “how” questions.

Ag – Why won’t science answer those “why” questions too?

Th – Because science by its nature deals with natural phenomena. The question “why do we exist?” is for sure not a natural phenomenon.

Ath – So you believe in Christ also?

Th – Yes.

Ag – Based on what universe parameters?

Th – Nice one. Actually there are many historical witnesses in favour of my opinion.

Ath – And based on hearsay you believe that someone walked on water?

Th – Do you believe that straight lines are composed of an infinite number of infinatelly small parts?

Ag – That is what mathematics tells us.

Th – But many mathematitians don’t believe in the idea of “infinite”. Did you know that all we can do with the use of infinites in mathematics can be done without them as well?

Ath – So?

Th – So why do you believe in lines with infinite parts?

Ag – And that has something to do with God and Christ?

Th – It has to do with what you believe. I say that all people believe in various things. The only difference is what these things are.

Ath – But the only thing you have about Christ is some people say he existed. A handfull of people!

Th – In most important historical facts we base our knowledge on one or two eye witnesses. Why is the case here dfferent?

Ag – It’s different because not every day you hear about people walking on water…

Th – So if you saw one, you wouldn’t tell your friends?

Ath – I would tell them. But I don’t think I will ever see one.

Th – Suppose your closest friend, a man you know that can be trusted, comes to you and tells you he saw someone walking on water. What then? Would you believe him?

Ag – I would hardly believe him. No. In fact I wouldn’t.

Ath – Me either.

Th – So you have ruled out the possibility of such a fact happening. Even if it does, you will never know even if your are told!

Ath –  I think so, yes.

Th – It’s called “trust” and it is based on believing. People exercise that every day. You should try more hard if you want to keep your friends.

Ag – I don’t want friends who lie.

Th – But even if they didn’t lie, you wouldn’t tell the difference!

Ag – So have you seen a donkey flying?

Th – Even if I had, you wouldn’t believe me! But on second thought, you are something even more thatn just that…You are something like an “improved” version of Doubting Thomas. Even if you saw yourself a flying donkey you wouldn’t believe it either!! You would deny it and persuade yourself that there must be a logical explanation for what you saw. And even if you never found that logical explanation, you would still be looking for that explanation and you would never believe that you saw a miracle! You see, it is a dogma in your science that you must follow?

Ag – Science does not have any dogmas!

Th- It has when it claims that everything is made of matter that obeys the natural laws. You have ruled out the possibility of spirit from the beginning! No wander you can’t find it! Even if you see it in front of you, you would simply deny it and try to explain it in your own terms!

Ath – Do you have any proof that spirit exists? Than something else than matter exists?

Th – Do you have evidence for the opposite? That’s what I am telling you, it is a dogma you have chosen to believe as true. If you think that everything is made out of small particles, how can you discover anything else?

Ag – But even if we hadn’t thought of it, wouldn’t we see it when it came to existence?

Th – What do you mean?

Ag – I mean that noone was believing in the existence of gravity before it was discovered by Newton. But nevertheless we “discovered” it when we were mature enough.

Th – So gravity “exists”?

Ath – It seems so, yes. I mean according to the evidence we have so far…

Th – But it almost certain that the theory for gravity will change in the neas future. Scientific theories alsways change, don’t they?

Ag – They do. But what is your point?

Th – My point is that when – because it is certain that someday will happen – the theory of gravity is replaced by a theory for “dark matter” or “dark energy” fields, apples will continue to fall on Earth…

Ag – Because of gravity.

Th – Because period!

Ath – So gravity doesn’t exist?

Th – I am saying that the reality is what is is. Apples fall down on Earth no matter what our theory is. Reality is a completely different thing than science. And the fact that reality exists does not make our scientific theories any more or less valid.

Ag – But science interprets reality.

Th – That’s right. It interprets it.

Ath – Science helps us understand the world.

Th – So the world is understandable? Intelligible as Aristotle might say?

Ag – Yes. And that is the only one “miracle” I can accept…

Th – “Intelligible” means that we can understand it, that we can find the cause behind things happening…

Ath – Yes, so?

Th – So what is the “first cause” of everything?

Ath – Why should there be a first cause?

Th – Because if no first cause exists, then the universe stops being intelligible.

Ag – Aristotle told that.

Th – I didn’t say he didn’t. But what is your answer to that?

Ath – Who says we need to search for a first cause? Couldn’t the universe just exist with no first cause?

Th – But if no first cause exists, then we end up with an infinite series of “causes”…

Ath – So?

Th – …so we end up not knowing the actual “cause”.

[text is in progress as the dialogue continues]

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%