Infidels: Feedback : 2000 : January

Letter from the Editor:

Greetings all! As I warned in the past, feedback these months will be late (so far, feedback is being published two months after the month it is sent to us). Remember, if you ever want a fast reply to some pressing question, send mail to one of the appropriate parties listed on the Send Feedback page, not to feedback, since it may be a month or more before I even get a chance to look at it.

That aside, I will offer an impression I have had with this month's feedback, which seems to bode well for the new millenium. We have always had regular appearances by Christians and other religious persons offering interesting and respectful feedback, which is a pleasure even when it is critical or argumentative. But these contributors have always been well overcrowded by howlers and doom-and-gloomers and generally rude and ignorant fundamentalists and loons. Now, it seems to me that this month shows signs of a turning tide. Though I excised a few letters that were irrelevant threats and tirades and thus did not meet our standards of publication, I am seeing far more Christian and theist contributions that are well-written, thoughtful, and polite, than I have in my past experience here as feedback editor (and as an internet infidel generally before that). I welcome this and hope the trend continues.

-- Richard C. Carrier

Scott Cloud < scottcloud@hotmail.com>
Radford, VA USA - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 04:44:46 (MST)

I read your posting that Jeffrey Lowder is retiring and I just want to thank him and your organization for responding to my emotional state of mind a couple of years ago. He was debating on some part of the bible that I found interesting. At any rate, your group was the first contact I had after discovering the truth about Christianity and was feeling all alone with it. The Infidels responded with a kind letter and a request to publish my long-winded letter, which I agreed to. Please let Mr. Lauder know that he has a fan in Arizona and I look forward to his future post-education works. Tell him not to forget about the little people! A good student is a good teacher. A good teacher is a good student.

Sincerely,
 

Jeanette Hendricks < actionshops@home.com>
Phoenix, USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 13:55:58 (MST)

Thank you Jeff Lowder, truly! The Secular Web has helped me tremendously in my philosophical pursuits. You should know last year, another rational-freethinking-humanist-atheist was born with much of the credibility going to the authors/thinkers located at your site, a place I now consider a home.

I look forward to your next endeavor!

Scott Motyka <tyka26@home.com>
Woonsocket, RI USA - Monday, January 17, 2000 at 09:34:40 (MST)

You will be missed. Godspeed (;-))

James Reimer <jreimer@adpsystems.mb.ca>
Stonewall, MB Canada - Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 14:15:18 (MST)

Best wishes to you, Jeff, and thank you so much for all your hard work to keep this site going. I ran across this site about a year and a half ago as a "born-again" Christian. I have now been a Freethinker for about 7 months and I've never felt better. If it were not for this site, I may have never started doubting and I might still be living in the crazy world of Christianity (you don't realize how insane it is until you step out of it, believe me). I will be forever indebted to this site! Once again, best wishes and thank you!

Amie Ford <amiern1@megsinet.net>
University City, MO USA - Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 05:56:21 (MST)

I apologize in advance for contributing to what I imagine will be a deluge (of "biblical" proportions!) of good-will messages to thank JJ Lowder for his part in creating this wonderful web site. I hope that his future endeavours will be fruitful and enjoyable.

Best wishes from an atheist that finds comfort and sanity in the Internet Infidels.

David O'Neill <David.ONeill@ukmax.com>
Sheffield, UK - Friday, January 14, 2000 at 17:33:11 (MST)

Thank you Jeff Lowder for developing such a wonderful Internet Infidel web site

Paul O' Brien <obrie12@ibm.net>
flint, mi USA - Thursday, January 13, 2000 at 20:10:41 (MST)

I saw in the article concerning Jeffery Jay Lowder's retirement he had recently reviewed Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ." Any chance that review is posted on the web somewhere? A friend of mine recently gave that book and I would be very interested in reading the review. The book is very simpilistic and I'm having a hard time choking my way through it. Any insights you could pass on to me would be appreciated. Thanks.

Steven Judge <griggsmusic@netexpress.net>
Davenport, IA USA - Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 13:34:58 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

See The Rest of the Story.

I wanted to say goodbye and thank you to Jeff. And a thank you to the rest of the people that do the thankless jobs that make internet infidels what it is. Five years ago I knew what I "was not." I "was not" a Christian any longer, but I didn't have a firm handle on what it is that I "was." Much thanks to internet infidels, and hours of fasinated reading, I discovered that I was an atheist, a humanist. The articles posted on here have helped me to clarify what it is that I am, rather than what I "am not." Your posted articles have urged me to "go on" and explore many of these authors books and encouraged me to push the envelope of my mindset. And the mindsets of those around me.

In the last five years I've become active in a local group of Secular Humanists and become an advocate of freethinking ideals in my childrens schools. What you do on here makes a profound difference in many profound (but often unseen) ways. Thank you again, most sincerely - and best wishes to Jeff.

Terri Garrett < thegarretts@hotmail.com>
Anacortes, WA USA - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 14:11:21 (MST)

Good riddance Jeff. You've done the web and the world a serious disservice by posting your biased garbage.
 

Tommy
USA - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 11:29:30 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Note to our readers: this letter violates several of our publication guidelines, not the least of which being the terminal cowardice of this gentleman not even telling us his name or e-mail address. It also says nothing useful or substantial, and is shamelessly ad hominem. I am including it for one simple reason: there is no better revenge for receiving such tripe than to publish it where everyone can see it and feel vicariously embarrassed for the sad man who wrote it.

I wish Jeff good luck and much success in the future.

Regards,

Scott Bowen <hastur@execpc.com>
Milwaukee, WI USA - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 08:12:49 (MST)

Re: the J. Lowder announcement: we all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. So long as he keeps writing for the Secular Web, life will be ok!! Seriously, the best of luck.

Victor Padilla < padilla12@juno.com>
Aurora, CO 80010 - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 08:09:38 (MST)

As someone who has become a daily visitor to the Secular Web over the last year, I would like to express my thanks to Jeff Lowder for his role in creating this invaluable resource. Its educational value cannot be overstated, especially to someone such as I who is trying to cope intelligently with Christian friends and family members. I know that Jeff leaves the Secular Web in good hands, and I join in wishing him every success in his future pursuits.

Richard Heritage <rheritage@jhu.edu>
Baltimore, MD USA - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 06:03:01 (MST)

Responding to the note about Jeff Lowder's departure I just want to say that Internet Infidels is the site that more than anything else enabled me to make a rational recovery from religion at a time in my life when religious belief (as I now see it delusions) feeding into family difficulties were overwhelming me. I feel that I owe a deep debt of personal gratitude to Jeff and all the other contributors to II for leading me out of the swamp of superstition into the sunny uplands of rational enquiry and healthy scepticism. Floreat infidelia!

In order to put my money where my mouth is I have made a contribution to your fund as my first charitable gift of the new millenium. From the perspective of the USA where religion is still rife the situation in Europe must seem pretty favourable. In England for example Anglican (Episcopalian) church attendance has now fallen below one million (in a population of 60 million). A recent Gallup poll showed that a healthy 50% of interviewees did not even know what the millenium was supposed to celebrate. However secularists have to be on their guard since the fast fading religionists still have a grip on large areas of private and state funded education, enabling them, as they are well aware, to continue propagating their memes to the most vulnerable sector of the population--trusting little children. Non-Christian religions now equal Christian denominations in their numbers of active adherents and some are starting to set up their own schools with state funding. II is the best resource I know to combat these trends at an intellectual level since all schools now have internet access. In conclusion I should like to wish Jeff all succes in his future plans and again thank him for his wonderful work in starting and nurturing II to its present place at the forefront of the fight against superstition and animism (Monod's epithet for religion).

Edward Tuddenham <ted@a1fungi.freeserve.co.uk>
London, UK - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 03:26:09 (MST)

Hello, All:

Just wanted to give a fond fairwell to Mr. Jeff Lowder. I've enjoyed the Internet Infidel site for about a year and have found it to be one of my favorites. I do not think this will be the last time I hear about Mr. Lowder.

Best wishes on your journey,

Fallen Angel < fallenangel_ca_2000@yahoo.com>
Monrovia, CA USA - Sunday, January 09, 2000 at 23:05:51 (MST)

Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers everywhere owe Lowder a debt of gratitude. Although I knew I wasn't alone in this world, it's great to know that others are out there. The Secular Web has provided me with tons of ammo against the Bad Christian Apologia that I find bandied about so frequently in the debate forums of the web. Thank you Mr. Lowder.

Bret Cantwell < horemheb19@yahoo.com>
Dallas, TX USA - Sunday, January 09, 2000 at 18:42:06 (MST)

It was with great sadness that I read about the retirement of Jeffrey Lowder. His endeavours in the Secular Web have inspired myself and many others to greater and greater efforts within the freethought community. His compassion, his unyielding dedication to freethought and his forthright honesty about all matters should inspire us all. He will be greatly missed, and I wish him the very best of luck in his continued studies.

Sincerely,

Dave Holloway < dchollow@cord.edu>
Moorhead, MN USA - Sunday, January 09, 2000 at 15:41:58 (MST)

I'm new to your site and have read several articles with great interest. I too have a view and both defend and promote it. Like you, I abhor superstition and embrace knowledge. I am not interested in pissing matches, but am a pursuer of truth. I think you will agree that a position is only as sound as its foundation. As best I can tell, your foundation is laid down in your mission statement, as follows:

"Our mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself. To that end we publish the very best secular books, essays, papers, articles and reviews. We also stand as a bulwark against the forces of superstition, especially the radical religious right, whose proponents would have us fear knowledge rather than embrace it."

1. You view the universe as a natural, closed system in no need of an explanation.
2. You don't like superstition.
3. You believe that open-system adherents fear knowledge.

But, what is a 'view'? Is it not a subjective approximation of the external reality? If you do not explain the basis for your 'view' and hide behind it being "sufficient unto itself," does it not then qualify as superstition and fearing of knowledge? So, what makes II any different from the radical religious right other than your label?

I believe we agree on the following:
1. An infinite, complex, highly ordered external universe exists, an objective reality which includes humans.
2. Reasoning is the process whereby humans form subjective approximations of the external reality.
3. We observe and accept that there is a regularity of cause and effect to the highest degree of statistical probability.

Everything else must be established. Whether the universe is open or closed is a matter of belief.

Mike Young <TSeek@excite.com>
Hon, Hi USA - Sunday, January 02, 2000 at 17:02:54 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You've misunderstood the point of the open/closed system debate. The key point of misunderstanding is in your first number 3: "[We] believe that open-system adherents fear knowledge." That is incorrect, and we never say anything of the kind. Our statement is clear: it is the radical religious right who would have us fear knowledge. This has nothing to do with believing the universe is or is not closed--in fact, Christians agree, and many even argue vehemently, that the universe is a closed system, not an open one. They simply close their system with God. We do not. That is the only difference between us on that one issue. We argue that the universe itself, without the addition of a God, is closed--and we base this not on a dogmatic assertion, but on a series of arguments built on observation and logical reasoning, and like all empirical beliefs this one is contingent on the evidence not changing tomorrow in such a way as to undermine all the evidence so far. See our many essays and book recommendations under Naturalism and Materialism.

Sincerely,

Jonas Hart <jonas.hart@colorado.edu>
Boulder, CO USA - Monday, January 31, 2000 at 14:42:06 (MST)

RE: Emmett Fields
 

I just wanted to say thank you to the site supporters and particularly to Mr. Emmett Fields for his efforts at obtaining and maintaining the archives at this site. They are obviously a life's work, and valuable to me and many others beyond measure. Thank you profoundly, Mr. Fields for doing this. I have gotten presentations for our local Unitarian Fellowship from Mr. Ingersoll's work and obviously from this web work that Mr. Fields has done. Just Thanks, for showing us just how well some people can think and speak, and that they were not limited to the twentieth century. I'll try to send along some financial support to help.

Rich Seifert < ffrds@uaf.edu>
Fairbanks, AK USA - Sunday, January 09, 2000 at 15:43:10 (MST)

Not everyone exists in a black and white world of metaphysical belief/unbelief. On the contrary, many of us are on a sliding scale, usually leaning one way or the other but constantly changing with new information.

A "free thinker" should not be afraid to examine all viewpoints. Your site is one of the places that comes close to being truly objective, and your January issue brings you even closer. Thank you.

Jeffray A. Jones < djjones@sedona.net>
Cottonwood , AZ USA - Monday, January 31, 2000 at 11:16:20 (MST)

I really enjoyed Jeffery Jay Lowder's "Is 'Freethinker' Synonymous with Nontheist?"

I agreed with everything in his piece, with one exception. He wrote: "Anyone who attempts to obey Biblical passages such as these cannot be a freethinker, though a person as a freethinker could become an Evangelical Christian (and, ironically, cease to be a freethinker)."

The point Mr. Lowder missed here, was that, to my knowledge, that simply doesn't happen; it has been my experience that once someone really and truly embraces Freethought they can NEVER go back to being really being religous!

If you know of any such individuals who have, I'd like to know their respective stories.
 

M. Paul Goldberg <smithjonesinc2@juno.com>
Forest Hills, NY USA - Sunday, January 30, 2000 at 13:30:47 (MST)

In all honesty, I liked the first version better. You say you have never met a theist that was a freethinker, implying 1) that such a thing is very rare, and 2) the overwhelming majority of theists are closed-minded. I will agree with the "majority" part of the second statement, but there are more free-theists than you think. For example, do a bit of investigating into the Unitarian Church. You will find they believe in a rational, logical view of the events depicted in the bible. This is only one example. As far as the first assumption goes, I only have one thing to say: Hi, nice to meet you.
 

X < Leatherank@aol.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Saturday, January 29, 2000 at 17:54:03 (MST)

 Jefferey Jay Lowder Responds:

No, you've misunderstood me! I did not say that I have never met a theist who is a freethinker. As a matter of fact, I have met several. What I said is that I have never met someone who reads the Secular Web on a daily basis but who is a theist on the basis of Swinburne's arguments.

I've never equated freethought with atheism. Certainly, the two are often found coexisting in the mind of modern atheists, but they are not inseperable. I've long found it interesting that, philosophically, the majority of modern atheists (at least the more vocal ones) share so much in common with 18th and 19th century Deists, even though the Deists were theists, and generally uncomplementary to atheists of the time.

To me, freethought is a more significant philosophy than atheism, just as the methods and philosophy of science are more significant than specific theories and discoveries. Getting an occasional right answer for the wrong reasons is of fleeting value. But having a workable method of finding right answers, discarding wrong ones, and recognizing uncertainty, is valuable forever.

Peace,

 The future is ours to create.
William Kitchen <bill@iglobal.net>
Dallas, TX USA - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 18:54:13 (MST)

Mr. Lowder,

I think you are right on the money in your article where you discuss the use of the word "Freethinker" as a synomym for "non-theist". Non-theists are obviously not necessarily freethinkers; and the fact that a person is a theist does not automatically preclude the possibility that he/she is a freethinker.

However, I think the wording of the question in your article is problematic. You ask, "can a theist be a freethinker?", and you use similar wording throughout. This wording seems to imply that a person is a theist or non-theist FIRST, and a freethinker SECOND. What is important above all, however, is that people think freely. Whether your free thought leads you to theism or atheism is secondary.

To better reflect this, I think the question should be worded "can a freethinker be a theist?"

Greg Bahns <greg@bahns.com>
Cincinnati, OH USA - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 08:49:28 (MST)

"Freethought is not about whether a belief is true, it's about the reasons an individual has for holding a belief."

When it comes to the empirical reality beyond our mathematical models, we haven't any fact other than "cogito ergo sum." Everything else is either a belief or simply unknown. IMHO, a belief varies from being a strongly held opinion (which one either cannot support or has not bothered to support) to being a rigorously proven statement within an integrated formal system. Freethinkers avoid the former and seek the latter.

If I compute a 0.99 probability for something based on my current knowledge, is that grounds for a belief? Well, that depends on whether the facts utilized by the statistic are both accurate and complete.

A freethinker should avoid a belief until it has been redundantly supported by redundantly supported data, etc. The "God proofs" fail in this regard. A converted theist therefore must have been blinded to the obvious shortcomings of the theory by either emotion, ignorance, or ineptitude. The first of the three is quite obviously not freethought. The second, a person who is too ignorant to realize the extent of his or her own ignorance, that person might be labeled a freethinker. It is after all, as you say, the process that counts, not the details. (Thus 3-year-old children are freethinkers as well.)

As to the last one of the three, should we call someone a freethinker who continually fails to observe something which is so obvious, especially given that this person should know better? Is this a "dull freethinker?" (The term applies equally to anyone confident of the opinion that the supernatural does not exist.) Let's go ahead and call a person with a 100 IQ a "dull genius." No? Right. That's an indisputable category error. Similar, but nevertheless disputable, is the case of the dull freethinker. However, I don't see how anyone can think freely if his or her mind is chained by stupidity every bit as much as an irrational mind is chained by emotions.

If there is such a one as a "freethinking theist," this person must be totally ignorant of his or her own ignorance. (I'm willing to wager that there are at least a billion such individuals on the planet. They would be utterly convinced by Swinburne--for intellectual reasons, not emotional!) For the same reason, there are no positive/strong atheists in the world of freethought. The jury is still out on the supernatural. It's unlikely that the case shall close in our lifetime. It cannot be forced into closure with rhetoric. I hope it goes the way of phlogiston, vital essences, etc. But that's just my preference, not a belief about its truth value.

Eric Hardison <eric.hardison@edtnmail.com>
Gainesville, FL USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 19:00:42 (MST)

I agree with Jeffrey Lowder that a "freethinker" is not synonymous with a nontheist. The same can be said about being "born again". Theists cannot and should not claim to have a hold on this experience. A person can suddenly become aware of themselves and the things around him/her with astonishing insight. The experience leaves the person with the wonderful awe of the world around them. It's an awakening that never looks back and it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or a religious figure.

Rocky Harper <harper5@slb.com>
La Porte, TX USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 17:16:18 (MST)

According to Jeffrey Lowder's argument, a person who applies " 'critical thinking and logic' to their theistic belief" can be considered a freethinker. I disagree. The same argument could be applied to the definition of a mathematician. Suppose a person applies mathematical thinking to a variety of problems in mathematics. But he makes many mistakes. His conclusions are always wrong. Is this person a mathematician? No. There is a standard of correctness, a measure of the outcome, in addition to the means used to reach the outcome. I claim that a freethinker, by definition, must be an atheist. Rigourous freethinking leads to atheism just as rigorous mathematical thinking leads to accepted answers to well-know problems. I have, for example, read Swinburne's book "The Existence of God." The reasoning used in it is very unsound. One cannot use "critical thinking and logic" and arrive at the answers arrived at by Swinburne. The issue, therefore, is one of defining "critical thinking and logic." Mr. Lowder is satisfied with a less rigorous definition for these terms, a definition that leads to theism. My claim is that "critical thinking and logic" lead undoubtedly to atheism--the conclusion that there is no evidence for theism.

Thomas R Elliott <telliott@qualcomm.com>
San Diego, CA USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 11:44:47 (MST)

Mr. Lowder:

I am glad you realize that "free" thought describes methods, not conclusions. A person can be a free thinker and come to any number of conclusions, so it is of course as disingenuous to refer to all nontheists as freethinkers as it is to call all Christians nonthinkers. A free mind, theoretically, can land anywhere.

There is something about the word "free" as it describes thought, though - and especially as it describes "free"thinkers - that is deceptive. It would seem to be somewhat of a contradiction in terms to be part of a Freethinkers Association. If one is not free once he becomes a Christian, as you propose, then how much more free is someone who has decided to come down on the side of agnosticism, especially to the degree of seeking support from other agnostics? And to the extent that he is not in any way bound to the Association (in the way that a Christian would be bound to the Church), then what is he doing there in the first place?

It is because there is an unstated assumption that the word "free" is the most glorious adjective we can apply to thought, even when it is self-defeating. But a free mind is not necessarily a healthy mind, in the broad sense. I am thinking of Chesterton's dictum that the point of keeping the mind open is to shut it on something solid, and that there is no more point in keeping an open mind than in keeping an open mouth. To say that we should not be force-fed a religion is not to say that we should then willingly starve ourselves. A bachelor may remain free from the reponsibility of marriage his whole life, but he may also be free from intimacy and free from love, which are far better things. Deferring my own mind to a greater one - the Mind of the God who made the cosmos - was the most liberating and exhilarating thing I have ever done. You may assert your freedom from traditions and dogmas, but you chain yourself to a narrow and crippling autonomy at your own peril.

Drew Dernavich <pad11@earthlink.net >
Bedford, MA USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 08:35:32 (MST)

Can a theist be a freethinker? Interesting little piece, very entertaining to read. If I am understanding the gist of the article correctly, it is analgous to when a theist asks the question "Can a nontheist be moral?" The theist often sees morality and God as being interdependant, when the truth is even if there is indeed a God, it is quite possible to not believe in said God, and yet have some other basis for morality. The non theist who says theists can't be freethinkers by definition are doing the same thing? Am I understanding the gist of the article correctly?

I can't say for certain that I agree with it at this point because it seems to me to be something worth my time to think about, and I really can't think of anything nicer to say about anything than [that] it gave me something to think about.

Jim Brice <jammybrice@yahoo.com>
la, Ca USA - Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:05:21 (MST)

For many nontheists, the concept of a "theistic freethinker" is a contradiction in terms. For example, the Campus Freethought Alliance (CFA), the campus outreach program of the Council for Secular Humanism, states that "Freethought is the application of critical thinking and logic to all areas of human experience, and the rejection of supernatural and authoritarian beliefs." Thus, on the CFA's definition of "freethought," theists by definition cannot be freethinkers.

I submit this feedback to the article noted above. And specifically to the lead paragraph. I make no criticisms or accolades to the Author, in fact his claim and argument are, to my thinking, self supportive. However, the statement, of the CFA, and I believe that since it's in quotes, it must be..."Freethought is the application of critical thinking and logic to all areas of human experience, and the rejection of supernatural and authoritarian beliefs."

Here we see such a blatant disregard for 'freethought' that it just jumped out at me, immediately upon first read! I would have to say that the finer issue, of the first paragraph, is... is it not a contradiction in terms for the alumni of the CFA, to stand in agreement with a pledge which acquieses "rejection" of any sort. The CFA, while flying high the 'banner of freethought', "in all areas of human experience", immediately follows their opening cry with..." and the rejection of supernatural and authoritarian beliefs."

Is not a conundrum apparent to all? How shall the CFA reign, from on high 'freethought in all areas of human experience' and then expound "rejection of any type belief." Simply amazing! This statement by the CFA is truly befuddled! Can the supernatural and authoritarian human experience be said, 'not to exist'? If these experiences did not exist there would be no reason to require rejection. However, since these experiences do exist indeed, they are certainly part of the human experience, as a 'freethinker' one could not be told to reject them.

As a freethinker, one would have to be permitted to think freely of any and all experiences. The key here is that the CFA requires its, so called 'freethinking' alumni as 'freethinkers' not to give thought, (get it...freethinkers...not to give thought) to these experiences. Reminds me of Christians extoling Divine Salvation to all those who seek... and in the next breath, reminding that only those chosen shall be Saved. Again a conundrum.

I submit this feedback to elicit, I hope, a wry smile and an ever so slight nod of agreement from all those who here read.

Thank you.

Tam Eden <timu002@worldnet.att.net>
Miami, FL USA - Monday, January 24, 2000 at 02:56:05 (MST)

Elaine Boggs < eboggs@preferred.com>
USA - Saturday, January 29, 2000 at 18:42:47 (MST)

Dear Fellow Infidels, Heretics, Skeptics, etc.;

Forgive me two "feedbacks" in less than a month but I feel I must respond to both Kevin Huddleston and James Still regarding their individual notions of an afterlife.

I've just finished reading the rebuttal by Mr. Huddleston ("Afterlife And Meaning") to Mr. Still's "Death Is Not An Event In Life". I would suggest both gentlemen refer to Flannery O'Connor's short story, "The Violent Bear It Away"; specifically, to the passage "I am born once and no more. What I can see and do for myself and my fellow man in this life is all my portion and I am content with it. It's enough to be a man."

In response to "Death is not a part of life." I am sorry to hear of the author losing his father. He sounded like a wonderful person. Respectfully, as a Christian, I must disagree with some of his points. I think he puts to much emphisis on this life. In answer to the age old question,"Why are we here?" I believe the only reason we're here is to make 1 decision. Do we accept Jesus as our savior, or do we reject him. The rest is just life.

I think this life is the gateway to forever, consisting of 2 gates. One to heaven, one to hell. If we accept Christ we go to heaven, and if we don't, hell. Opposed to some Christian teachings, it has nothing to do with what we do, but what we believe. I'm still a sinner, but I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and that's what I believe will take me to heaven.

Everyone on this web site seems very intelligent. Please do me a favor. Study the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as you would some of these other topics. Read "Who moved the stone." and "The signature of GOD" by Grant Jeffery. There is overwhelmingly proof of the resurrection. If he rose from the dead, I need no better definition of GOD.

I'm not trying to change you. I thought you might like someone elses point of view.

Have a good day,

Tom Rhodes <www.bheart1@webtv.net>
Asheville, NCn USA - Thursday, January 27, 2000 at 08:42:13 (MST)

The view on death that James Still expresses in his article, "Death Is Not an Event in Life", seems to me as fanciful and counterproductive as the "life after death" myths that he mentions. We progress by overcoming our limitations, not by "accepting" them, or rationalizing them away with wishful thinking or convoluted self-delusion. Where would we be if we just accepted helplessness in the face of diseases, instead of looking for cures? Where would we be if we just accepted that we can't fly, instead of creating airplanes? Where would we be if we just accepted our ignorance about the cosmos, instead of studying it?

"[D]eath is not an event in life . . . our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits..." is just a thinly disguised "I can't..." A poor excuse to not rise to the challenge that presents itself to us. There is no reason to believe that the challenge of death cannot be overcome just like countless others before it.

You can wish it away if that makes you feel better, but the loss of a human life is a tragedy. There was a time, not long ago, when no one had ever travelled beyond the earth's atmosphere. That no one has lived much beyond a century is no more reason to accept the inevitability of death than our lack of wings is reason to accept the inevitability of not being able to fly.

William Kitchen < bill@iglobal.net>
Dallas, TX USA - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 19:50:39 (MST)

James,

What a beautiful way you have of putting your thoughts into words. I very much enjoyed reading how you feel about death and I agree with you completely. Have a wonderful life and enjoy the memories of your father when you see those sunsets!

Regards,

Audrey X <audrey@astro.ufl.edu>
Gainsville, FL USA - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 14:29:36 (MST)

I was excited when I saw the title of the article "Death Is Not an Event in Life" By James Still because it seemed to mirror my own thoughts on the subject. I became disappointed as I read however. Indeed, death need not be an event in any life, other than a temporary one. James paints a picture of a great man, but to assuage his sorrow at the loss of his father, he accepts death as a necessary part of life.

How much better if his father could have been cryogenically frozen, to be revived when technology makes it possible to repair both the damage due to freezing and that caused by his stroke. His "examined life" of quality could have continued and his wisdom grown. We are so close to defeating death... it is possible that many now alive will never die. How sad it is to miss such a great adventure by mere years.

Is cryonic resuscitation currently possible? No, it isn't. But that in no way means that it won't be in the future. Consider it a last, desperate gamble, an extreme last ditch medical effort. You could lose the bet... but that just means you remain dead.

On the other hand, you could win.

Loree Thomas <lthomas1@uswest.net>
Seattle, WA USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 20:30:55 (MST)

I am in complete agreement with the author that there is no life after death. What I would add, though, is we don't have to die. With the advancement of technology we will create a condition to allow us an immortal life. Because every human is a complex arrangement of atoms and automic precision instruments are a reality, each individual will have the choice of keeping their complex arrangement maintained for as long as they like.

Until this technology is available every man, woman, and child has the option of cryogenics. This ambulance to the future will keep a person's complex arrangement from deteriating by freezing that arrangement in place until the technology becomes available to fix the condition which caused the original deteriation.

It is in every atheists interest to know about this evolving technology, because no person who wants to live has to die.

Clint O'Dell <clintodell@visto.com>
Denver, CO USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 17:21:11 (MST)

I was really touched by Mr. Still's tribute to his father. In a day where the world is full of fathers, but few real dad's, Mr. Still's father is an inspiration of what a dad DOES do. I just grieved for him. I wish all kids had a dad like yours - I know I thank God for mine (oops - I let the cat out of the bag there!) and I am striving to be one for my son and daughter.

However, I'd like to respectfully submit that I'm a little confused about the blending of "heart issues" and stone-cold reality (at least Mr. Still's reality). Mr. Still says "I believe that this great atheistic awareness is the solution to the so-called problem of life because to experience such awareness is also to realize that we are free (perhaps even obligated) to fill the void with meaning. The memories of my father mean a great deal to me now. To honor those memories of him, I will likewise strive to live an eternal authentic."

I haven't read all the books and philosophers in the world, but it seems to me that Mr. Still makes no sense when he says we make meaning in life in void, and yet in reality (according to his world-view) "life" is a mistake - as meaningless as a dust particle 2 trillion miles away. What is honor? What is meaning? What is authenticity? I thought atheism makes no claim and therefore cannot afford a "solution."

I submit that these are universal values found in all men - and it is not without accident. These transcendent thoughts - including the gut-wrenching loss of a beloved daddy - come from a Universal Law giver.

Sean Lee <slee@cysource.com>
Olathe, KS USA - Saturday, January 22, 2000 at 22:03:01 (MST)

A beautiful epitaph for what must have been a good man.

Isaac Jones <isaac42@aol.com>
Corvallis, OR USA - Saturday, January 22, 2000 at 17:50:18 (MST)

In response to James Stills "Death Is Not an Event in Life", Wow, I love it when you read something that puts into words what you have been thinking for ages. Thanks a lot.

Dion Whitehead < the_last_of_the_sith@clear.net.nz>
Levin, NA New Zealand - Saturday, January 22, 2000 at 04:26:34 (MST)

I found the article about his father passing on rather interesting. You see my 17 year old son passed on on the same day 12/22/1999 at 4:28 PM EST. I don't think I found this page by accident.

Bill Patterson < wtpj@mindspring.com>
Lithonia, GA USA - Friday, January 21, 2000 at 11:55:53 (MST)

Dear Mr. Still,

I appreciated your insight into the importance of acknowledging death's finality. I, too, have found that the Christian belief in an eternal soul to be a devaluing of this current life, as well as a reduction of the significance of Jesus Christ's resurrection. To me, the fact that death ends one's existence makes resurrection such an incredible miracle. If God resurrects no one, then death would have the final sting. Unlike you, I believe that an accounting for all men's lives is an encouragement to live a better life here. Most religions teach that through good works one is saved; I am not advocating such a doctrine, as I believe that only by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ can one be saved from death's finality. However, as I understand, all will stand before God for what they have said and done. Rather than existence being purposeless, we are created for a reason--to give glory and honor to an awe-ful God. I've found that living for this reason gives meaning to life, in addition to an anticipation of an eternity with Him. That some will experience God's judgment of endless death makes His gracious gift of immortality a very precious gift indeed.

Sincerely,

C.C. Castle <dcastle@thf-inc.com>
Ft. Collins, CO USA - Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 15:12:38 (MST)

Thoughts on Reading James Still's "Death Is Not an Event in Life."

* James Still's ideas about living in the present--about finding eternity now, in the experience of the given moment--are hardly new in the history of philosophy. But then again, facing the death of one's father isn't very "original" either, is it? The same experiences recur, generation after generation, never getting any easier for the individuals who have to face them. We each must reinvent the wheel, learning all over again, as if for the very first time in human history, the hardest lessons life has to offer.

* It is this thought that makes me want to respond to Still's beautiful meditation. As atheists and agnostics, we are all too often driven by our intellectual passions: by our "righteous" anger with religious chicanery, and our zeal for the truths, however tentative, of philosophy. But amid all the arguments and counterarguments, we may sometimes lose sight of the real-world problems of life, love and loss--problems which religionists, of course, are only too ready to "solve" for us. The average Christian (or Moslem, Jew, Hindu, etc.) probably doesn't have the faintest idea of, or interest in, the kind of philosophical and theological disputes that animate the pages of the Secular Web. Not that academic disputation is bad: the rigorous search for truth is an end in its own right. But the heart of religion (or at least, to be "philosophically" circumspect, of Christianity, the only theistic religion I know well) is emotion, not erudition. Christianity, despite all its patent absurdity, continues to thrive because it satisfies an emotional need. It reassures the believer, in the face of death and apparent futility.

* Like Still, I too believe that the "reassurance" which Christianity offers is a cop-out; and I too have been pained, when dealing with loss in my family, by the glib platitudes of well-meaning friends. Moreover, I share Still's belief that atheism can and does offer a meaningful, empowering, life-enriching alternative. And I know that many visitors to the Secular Web must feel the same way. What I want to say in conclusion, then, is thank you to James Still for sharing his grief and his faith with us. (Yes, I will use the word "faith"; you may howl as you please.) The religious world is awash with "inspirational" and "meditational" literature--but while worthy in its focus on real-life emotion and pain, it betrays us in the end as it inevitably shifts gears into God-talk and hocus pocus. It trivializes human experience by trying to conjure it away. James Still's essay is a wonderful reminder that it doesn't have to be so. I hope that we may see more such contributions to the Secular Web in the future--though not all inspired, of course, by the deaths of loved-ones or friends. While we are busy demolishing superstition and religious fraud, it would be worth our while to stop now and then to celebrate the positive aspects of an atheistic view of life: ethical, reasoned, human (and humane), Epicurean in the best--the true--sense of the word, joyous, wondering, serene.

Stephen Collington < ellecoll@idirect.com>
Hamilton, ON Canada - Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 03:37:34 (MST)

Interesting thoughts, but some I must disagree with. You have fallen prey to a mindset that seems quite prevailant on this site: namely that arguing against Christian ideas (quite the easy task, I might add) negates all ideas of there being more to existance than the physical. There is so much more than that. I have asked many of the same questions you asked in your article (the "annoying preface" analogy was very apt), but I took the time to look around a bit more, instead of just turning completely away from the spiritual. So I will leave you with a thought; energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed. So what is consciousness but a form of energy?

JCS <leatherank@aol.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 02:05:38 (MST)

I think that this man puts it right. This thing he has written is exactly what any non-believer or materialist should read, and when questioned by any believer or spiritualist they must fire back that their life is more precious to themselves than the believer's life is to him/herself. I believe that this is why I get up every day and realize just how happy I am. I don't depend on things, and that is why I am so happy. I don't cherish objects or an afterlife, and I don't fiddle with my time praying or whatever trying to get in touch with "god", but I spend life making the most out of it, and I hope to spread some happiness around to at least 5 people in my life and they will be just as happy if not happier than myself.

Lo Fat <lo1fat@gowebway.com>
Cottonwood, CA USA - Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 14:18:56 (MST)

Thank you, Mr Still, for your essay on the death of your father. It brought back many thoughts and memories of my own mother's life and death 12 years ago.

I look at myself, and my brothers and sisters, and see my parents in each of us. I look at my brothers and sisters in law and see how my parents taught us to choose our friends and lovers wisely and carefully. I look at my 10 nieces and nephews and see how, though becoming less so because of generational distance, they are carrying on my parents' lives. It is this "eternal life" that I have come to value more highly than any reference to heaven, or, less politically/religiously-correctly, hell. Absent a god, my mother's life was amazing, and her legacy speaks to a truly wonderful woman who made a great impact in those short 58 years.

Unfortunately, I cannot discuss these thoughts with most of my immediate family. I am thought of as cold and hard-hearted because I don't think my mother is in heaven, blissfully looking down on us, waiting for us to join her. I have learned that the subject is much too emotional to be brought up. I had one brother say to me, "Don't you want to see Mom again?"

So, until the time when I can discuss this subject with my family without the heat of emotion, I will continue to look at those my mother affected and be thankful for the life she lived and passed on to her children, and children's children, and so on.

Peter Perreault < pippip2@hotmail.com>
Gilbert, AZ USA - Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 12:51:28 (MST)

The question posed by James Still, regarding what the purpose of this life is if we really have an eternity to come, is quite simple. From a biblical standpoint, those who are redeemed have their desires removed by God so they are not trapped in the permanent state of sin that we are trapped in, in this life. In this life God leaves us alone so that we can make free choices. The most important choice being whether to accept Christ or reject him. If we did not start off with this life, but immediatedly found ourselves in a heavenly state we would be unable to exercise this free choice, being mindless automatons.

Craig Kolb <craigk@xsinet.co.za>
Durban, KZN RSA - Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 11:53:16 (MST)

A wonderful article from James Still! If I may let me add MY favorite Wittgenstein quote: "We must live out the truth of our mortality without succumbing to either fantasy or despair."

Roy E. Overmann < reover@juno.com>
St. Louis, Mo USA - Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 05:58:28 (MST)

I felt moved to respond to Mr. Still's article because my mother died on December 29, 1999, exactly one week after his father's death. As I anticipated there were many of my family and friends who made statements to the effect that she was in heaven now. It was said that she was with her parents and my sister (who had died many years ago). I found these comments not only annoying but they, as Mr. Still says, detracted from the real event that took place.

At the time of my mother's death I was the only person in the room with her. I think this has significantly helped my being able to cope with her death. It has helped me realize that this was a totally natural event that I was witnessing, that I do not need someone else's interpretation of it and that I do not need to see it as some supernatural event.

I agree with Mr. Still that talking about eternal life stretches this life into sheer meaninglessness. What is a few decades of life compared to an infinite march of them? Sometimes in trying to make some supreme conquering over death we end up losing everything else. It's a very human attempt, but for me it fails miserably. Thank You Mr. Still.

Sincerely,
Randy Wall <RandW52666@aol.com>
Albuquerque, NM USA - Monday, January 17, 2000 at 23:55:13 (MST)

My father died on New Year's Day six years ago. He suffered for a year and one-half with a horrible form of cancer. On the notification that he was hospitalized and there was nothing anyone could do now myself and his immediate family went to visit. It was myself, my brother, and his wife that arrived at mother's house. My sister-in-law mentioned something about how it was "God's will" and that he was "going to a better place". I became infuriated! I responded with, "Who created cancer? It can't be the devil because anyone knows that angels cannot create and he was once an angel. In fact, the bible states that your god created everything! In short, your god killed my father! Now, you want me to rejoice? He's suffering horribly!"

My brother just glared and said nothing. My sister-in-law just exclaimed that I was "upset but everything works out according to God's will." I stormed out. Hurt that my dad was dying and in pain but also because someone could try to justify something and make me happy about it! My father lives within me now. His memories live on. I gave his eulogy and left many to think about his humanity, his faults, and his overall goodness. I didn't make him a saint, I made him a father. People wanted a copy of the eulogy but there was none. You see, I spoke from the heart.

I won no converts to rationality. I don't blame a god for my father's death. This was biological in origin. If nothing else, it made me realize how precious this life is. I cherish each moment that I have and try to make my own "immortality" by leaving behind good memories for my family and friends but most importantly, to teach to live for the time we have.

Randy L. <rll1961@hotmail.com>
Lawrenceville, GA USA - Monday, January 17, 2000 at 11:17:38 (MST)

To James Still:

I read with great interest and emotion your article on the death of your father. As a Christian, you and I share opposing views of life, however one thing we do share is a search for purpose and a reason to live at all. One of the most challenging things I have ever put to the test against my Christian belief is "can you ever know FOR SURE what the truth about life is?" I think it is dishonest when me and my fellow believers say they never doubt the truthfulness of their worldview.

And although it is not a proof of any worldview, I often come back to the question..."If my existence is only the result of chance, why do I care about if it is or not?" Thanks James, for sharing this story. It is good that you have those great memories of your father.

Joel Batts <joel.batts@exac.com>
Gainesville, FL USA - Monday, January 17, 2000 at 10:19:03 (MST)

It's my opinion that one of the greatest reasons, if not THE greatest reason, for belief in a deity or deities is the emotional comfort that belief can bring. This is never more apparent than when dealing with things like the death of a loved one.

What do you say to a child that has lost a parent? Or a parent that has lost a child? What comforting words can you give if you don't believe in an "after-life"? Some theists will go to great lengths in the attempt to portray an existence where no other life waits for us as bleak and hopeless. But is it really?

Sometimes I think that people put so much time into finding meaning in the "end", they forget to find the meaning in the here and now. Sometimes I think people just don't want to make the effort that is required to have meaningful life. Its easier to sit back and leave "purpose" in the hands of some god.

Our lives don't just have "meaning". Our lives have meaning TO ourselves and TO others. Without that reference, the question of meaning is incomplete. Our lives have meaning TO ourselves and TO others through the friends we've made, the accomplishments we achieved, the family's we've lived with and the ones we have loved. Our lives have meaning TO others in the impact we've had on them, in the happiness (or sorrow) that we've brought to them. Our lives have meaning TO others in whether we have caused the tears of pain and sorrow to flow, or the tears of happiness and joy.

As I read James Still's letter on the death of his father, I got the impression of a man who had a meaningful life. A man who loved his family and who apparently knew that meaning wasn't derived from wealth or money, but from how he "lived". A man that brought happiness to those around him. A man that brought wisdom and joy to his son. Unfortunately I never had such a relationship with my father, but now that I am a father myself, I can take another example of a man I never knew, and do the best I can to make my life as meaningful as he apparently did his.

Max Hebert <madmax9@home.com>
Edmond, OK USA - Monday, January 17, 2000 at 08:46:33 (MST)

To the point, I am an agnostic. I'm not here to rant about Heaven; in addition to going through a ridiculously apathetic Catholic school, as well as analyzing Christian fundamentalism and finding it uttery absurd, I have recently taken a great amount of interest in the subject of death. I am only 22, and Mr. Still might say that I am in a prime position to live my life to its fullest. But I don't kid myself. It could all end tomorrow in an accident, or I could live to a ripe old age of babbling senility.

While I agree that the concept of life as a "way station" has an insulting tone to it, the atheistic idea of oblivion represents such a waste of the beauty of human consciousness and individuality. It seems then in the absence of the denial of death represented in the Christian's arrogant fantasy (that only the people who follow petty, pointless rules go to the good place), Mr. Still has substituted a denial of an inevitable future of nothingness. Regardless of whether it has been a good life led or a bad one, we will simply have it all snatched away.

I analyze and learn from my past so that I can improve my future (of which I am all too aware death is a part), and if I lived purely "for the moment" I would feel no better than your average amoeba. The concept of life after death as "impossibility" means that all of our struggling to find meaning, atheistic or Christian or Bhuddistic, is futility on a cosmic scale. The human race is reduced to just another mindless, automatic function of the universe, all of history's suffering and injustice (past, present and future) our only real legacy.
I do not claim that Mr. Still or the atheistic position is wrong -- life may well be only a short biological tour. But I think it's irresponsible to just say "yeah, there's nothing waiting for us, no purpose" without addressing what the ramifications of this position are for our species: without at least a slim hope for something better, no matter how deluded it may be, we are nothing.

Joe Mossman <ninfan45@hotmail.com>
Canada - Sunday, January 16, 2000 at 21:29:30 (MST)

Very good exposition of the humanist/atheist position. I agree wholeheartedly but still find myself getting a little depressed that the fairy tales are not real. I continue to strive for the day when I can be as centered as you seem to be. Thank you for saying these things. My condolences on the death of your father.

Scott Collie <colliehome@aol.com>
Reidsville, NC USA - Sunday, January 16, 2000 at 15:44:30 (MST)

This article reminds me greatly of existentialist philosophy. Anyone who agrees with it, especially the last two paragraphs,should read the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Jason Colman <taft@usermail.com>
MI USA - Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 23:25:56 (MST)

I agree completely and totally with Mr. Still. If only more people understood life quite as fully as he does, this would be a much more... conscious one, not fooled by its own stupidity and fear. I do believe much of your father's wisdom has rubbed off onto you, Mr. Still.

FrE@K < the_freak@softhome.net>
G-Town, TX USA - Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 22:50:22 (MST)

It's everywhere, this deluded attitude. I had reason to join Al-Anon a couple of years ago. For those who don't know, It's a support group for families of alcoholics. And what do I find? It's a 12-step group and apparantly all one's problems can be solved by belief in a--wait for it--HIGHER POWER!!! Then when I was unable to do that, and not through want of trying, I found that I was still left with the practical problems of handling living with someone else's alcoholism.

In the town where I live (Colchster, UK) it's so widespread, this belief in a higher force. As well as the umpteen churches etc., these new-age shops and centres are appearing all over the place. There is a centre for people with eating disorders. Does it give practical advice? No, it has a Women's Group which starts each meeting with 'visualization' and 'centering' and all that rubbish. Aromatherapy and Shiatsu are offered. The people running the place are all very well-meaning but I ask you...!?

I could rant on about this stuff all day. I am delighted to have found these pages and I am pleased that there are some people out there that actually THINK instead of believing all the **** that is forced down our throats and into our brains from the deluded majority.

Sharon Tucker <shaztuck@yahoo.com>
England - Monday, January 31, 2000 at 02:50:54 (MST)

Bravo. For years I have been searching for a to-the-point answer to the smug "if there is no god and death is the end for everyone, then how can your life have any meaning?" question often posed by the mindless believers.

"The underlying assumption behind the claim that life is meaningless because it ends in death is that for something to be meaningful or worthwhile it must last forever. The fact that many of the things we value (such as relationships with others) and activities that we find worthwhile (such as working on a political campaign or raising a child) do not last forever shows that life does not need to be everlasting to be meaningful."

That is the answer. Thank you!

Joe Shanahan <jshanahan@austin.rr.com>
Austin, tx USA - Sunday, January 30, 2000 at 19:21:19 (MST)

I have a question that was pretty much raised in the drange-wilson debate. It didn't seem to me that Professor Drange answered an important question, or idea, that Wilson presented him with. So, my question is, how can one justify using reasoning as the best tool to use without appealing to reason? Won't one always beg the question? I realize you are very busy and it doesn't matter at all if you print this in the feedback section, but if one of you get the time I'd appreciate a response.

Sincerely,

Christopher Peck <Peckypooh1@aol.com>
marlton, nj USA - Sunday, January 30, 2000 at 12:35:16 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You would have to define "Reason" and "Justify" before coming to such a conclusion. I also think you need to carefully define what "truth" is, since this is necessarily an implied part of your question: "reasoning as the best tool" for what? For getting at the truth? Ergo, what is truth? I think once you decide what to call "truth," then you will have already set the conditions for the best truth-finding tool, and you will then choose to call that tool "reason," which will then be justified, as all justified things are, by certain fundamental and inescapable desires that you have (e.g. the desire not to get killed) in conjunction with a body of memories that you have ("knowledge").

Borrowing from what Ted Drange has said on this subject, in another sense your question is unclear. For what does it mean to justify an action? Is it to show that the action will lead to its intended outcome? But then, if one must appeal to reason in order to justify an action, then the answer to your question is easy. One simply cannot justify any action (in the intended sense of 'justify') without appealing to reason. It would be impossible. But it is unclear how this fact begs the question. To beg the question is to assume in one's reasoning the very conclusion that one is aiming at. And Drange does not appear to have done that.  For if reason is itself unjustified, then there is no such thing as justification, and you must beg the question to ask for one.

Essays on the subject of the justification of reason are brewing behind the scenes here, but it may be some time before anything gets published. For right now, one form of a similar argument appears in what is called the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), which has been criticised in our section devoted to the subject of TAG. But a subtly different form of the argument is called the Argument from Reason, defended here by Victor Reppert. I see very little in his presentation that forces the case (he all but concedes every relevant point to the physicalists), but I am contemplating an essay in response in the distant future. Generally, even these arguments center around the metaphysical or ontological nature of thought and logic, and not on tautological problems like the one you suggest—since even theists cannot escape the same tautology. You can find some of my own thoughts on this issue where I discuss one version of the Argument from Reason in my Review of Nash (see my concluding paragraph there for the circularity in theistic solutions). I have also touched a bit on the subject in A Fish Did Not Write This Essay and Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?.

Regarding Wilson's opening comments: What drugs has that man been taking to get his molecules to move that way? If the rest of his debate is going to be like that, don't waste the time or the internet space.

Jagger Smith <jagger1jagger@yahoo.com>
Los Angeles, CA USA - Tuesday, January 11, 2000 at 17:14:11 (MST)

There is life after death.

Dana Normand < www.musicman@kricket.net>
USA - Friday, January 28, 2000 at 19:40:29 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You've lost nothing? I cannot be certain of that—insofar as you have cut off entire avenues of life and thought, and devoted substantial portions of your time or money to what may be nothing more than an elaborate placebo, I cannot say from my point of view that you have lost nothing. See Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?. Have we lost anything? I don't see what I am missing. Atheism, and philosophy in general, has changed my life, too, and I am also a happy person and have a great sense of peace. And if there is such a heavenly Jesus, and he does in fact love me, and is in fact all-powerful, then he will have no cause whatsoever to exclude me from an eternity in heaven—a man who loves does not judge the one they love by whether they believe in him. Such a man does not allow those he loves to come to harm, but gives them every gift of happiness. Thus, even if you are right, I have lost nothing.

Cheers,

Bryan Hayward <bhayward@xta.com >
Friday, January 28, 2000 at 09:07:11 (MST)

I wish to thank Mathew for the essay "Get A-Life." I'm very glad to see others excited about the Tierra and related programs. I was also glad to see a list of references at the end of the essay. Again, thank you.

I would, however, like to encourage writers to use footnoting to allow readers to follow up on different points made in the essays. A simple bibliography doesn't allow a reader to verify "facts" cited very easily.

For instance, I haven't yet connected "evolving Field-Programmable Gate Arrays" or "Lockheed Martin's evolved spacecraft maneuvering code" to any of the listed sources. I'm grateful to have both of these topics introduced to me by Mathew's Get A Life essay, but I'd like to learn more. Not to mention, you don't expect the readers to take what is written on faith, right?

Eric K. Herman < eric@igps.org>
St. Louis, MO USA - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 09:28:58 (MST)

Your pages on "proof" for evolution was disappointing. I don't call this proof. I see this as "fancy talk" and if I had the time, I could offer much more "proof" of creation than you have evolution!

Ricky X <trickyricky44@yahoo.com >
Elizabeth City, NC USA - Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 17:46:11 (MST)

Matthew:

I read with great curiosity your essay about computer simulations and Sim-worlds (the Lindenmeyer formula reminds me of the Fibonacci sequence), and how they are supposed to rebuff Creationists who point out the impossibility of scientific proofs of evolution. It is fascinating stuff. The logical next question, of course, is: who makes the cells and the "simple" rules? Just as it took an intelligent designer to configure an orderly system and create a black square to play with, does it not also require an intelligent designer to configure an orderly universe and a cell to play with? The question cannot be avoided. A computer cannot come up with a formula for how nothing suddenly turned itself into something.

Drew Dernavich <pad11@earthlink.net>
Bedford , MA USA - Tuesday, January 11, 2000 at 14:44:34 (MST)

Yes but, someone had to creat the program to make it happen in the computer sim... so if you view it like you did at the end, that it was actualy showing how life started... you miss the fact that the program that shows life was "Created". SO I think that shows one of two things. One, life couldn't of started with out some higher help or two, the sim is floored from the start because we created the sim our selfs, even if after we start it, it looks after its self.

The fact we had to do some work our selfs on the computer to start it doesn't answer the question of creation. Don't you agree? We are just working out how God made us? Not proving we made our selfs?

Jason Elgenia <acidburn@iinet.net.au>
Perth, WA Australia - Tuesday, January 11, 2000 at 14:14:10 (MST)

One of the most interesting articles I have read on the Secular Web. I didn't see this article posted on the "What's New" section of the website (unless I missed it) and feel it should be displayed there. Keep up the great work guys.

Doug Newman <kdoug@bluegrass.net>
Louisville, KY USA - Tuesday, January 11, 2000 at 03:55:13 (MST)

I wanted to express my sincere congratulations to mathew for his article on a-life. I've been casually acquainted with -- and profoundly fascinated by -- John Conway's Game of Life, Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (and others of his consistently wonderful books), Genetic Algorithms (TM?) and artificial neural networks. Mathew's overview of much of this area is comprehensive, clear, informative, insightful and concise. It left me with a feeling of absolute awe.

The answer to the question of how species originate(d) has been known, in principle, for over a century. I consider the question of abiogesesis (the arising of replicating -- and therefore "living" -- matter from non-living matter) to be the final frontier and it seems that a solution to even this question is closer than ever -- certainly much closer than I had previously thought. It's a good time to be alive! I hope to see that last shred of rug pulled out from beneath the creationists. Perhaps then, though, they'll move their controversy mongering back to the moment of the big bang when matter itself came into being (leaving biologists and paleontologists alone while harassing physicists). Undoubtedly, creationism will develop such mutant strains in response to the changing ideosphere: it's as reliable as clockwork -- or, more appropriately, random mutation + natural selection. :)

Richard Young <richardyoung@hotmail.com >
Ottawa, ON Canada - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 23:55:19 (MST)

In regards to GET-A-LIFE,

I think that this simple computer program is a wonderful discovery, however I disagree with the conclusion that this somehow disproves a created and designed universe. What intrigues me the most is that this human "designed" program was "created" to produce simple life and we are in some ways amazed that this simple program performed much better then we could have thought. If a simple man-made program can amaze us, I am sure that our complex universe is much greater and more wonderful then we can ever imagine.

I'm a not surprised that simple life (if you can call it that) can be emmulated in a computer program that is designed to reproduce it (even though the results were better then anticipated) because our creativity is in many ways a small reflection of Gods superior creativity.

Many times I have heard how improbable it is for carbon-based life (intelligent life would be even more improbable) to live in what is often believed to be a chaotic and random universe flooded with with life threatening radioactivity. While creationist point to life as a miracle and evolutionist state that life is nothing more than a game of chance, I think in many ways that both the creationist and the evolutionist are saying the same thing. A creationist believes that a "miracle" is something that by all human reason should not occur or is an extremely rare natural (super-natural not anti-natural) event, while the evolutionist believes the similar "improbability" is something that should not occur or has an extremely rare chance of ever happening (not impossible). The main diffence between these two similar views is that creationist "miracle" world-view was designed with a reason and a purpose for happening while the evolutionist "improbability" world-view by its own nature does not have a logical reason and purpose for occuring.

I guess what boggles my own mind even more is how a person can believe and follow the evolutionist "improbable" world-view and still use reason and logic to prove why the universe (intelligent human life included) has no reason and purpose for existing. Ironically we are all living examples of life living in this universe with a reason and purpose, even if some people are living and searching for the anti-purpose to it all.

God bless,

John P. Schoettler < srecmail@aol.com>
huntington beach, calif USA - Monday, January 10, 2000 at 22:41:23 (MST)

See Dr. Kent Hovind for Proof a good debate on evolution/creation. He offers $250,000 to anyone to prove Evolution to be true. You guys have to have a lot of faith to believe that we all came from a rock! Dr. Hovind can blow away any evolutionist you guys can come up with and will debate. Evidence sides with the Biblical view of creation and a young earth (less that 10,000 years old). To see the wise Dr.'s web page just type in Hovind Kent--that will get you there. You guys have been brain washed by the same public school system I was in, but now I am truly a "free" thinker as I have studied "Both" sides in depth.

Tim Kush
Chicago, IL USA - Thursday, January 06, 2000 at 05:17:39 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Dr. Hovind offers $250,000 to anyone to prove Evolution to be true? Not exactly. His offer is convoluted and crafted, but when you follow it through you find that it is only an offer for scientific proof that "evolution...created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution)." This is not evolution. Evolution is the observed pattern of change toward complexity over time in the existing evidence of life. What Hovind is asking proof for is called abiogenesis, the chemical or physical process which gave rise to the first replicator (this must happen before evolution can even begin). Although there is a concept of "chemical evolution" sometimes deployed to account for this, the theory operates on slightly different principles than Darwinism, and is the present object of scientific study.

I agree we have yet to prove (or even to discover) exactly what produced the first replicator. In reality, though, we have yet to really prove there was a Big Bang—all we have are theories, on a par with theories of abiogenesis and only slightly better confirmed by ambiguous observations. But the fact that there are numerous and entirely plausible theories proves that natural abiogenesis is not impossible (see Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?).

To your other points, evidence does not even remotely support a 10,000 year-old earth or universe. You should know better. And you say we have to be brain-washed by the same public school system to believe evolution? My wife is an evolutionist, and she had an excellent education, from 1st grade to 12th, at a prestigious private religious school (Chamenade). And I was hardly taught anything at all about evolution in public school. I didn't study it until I took Physical Anthropology in college. That pokes holes in your theory, I think.

Thanks a lot for this article, I found it extremely interesting and thought provoking. I had heard about such attempts at 'artificial life' before and read Dawkin's version, but it's very good to get more recent information. I was particularily struck by the concept of hardware evolution as well as software evolution. Perhaps this can be applied to nanotechnology as well and eventually reach a point where our computers and machines can evolve and adapt themselves to whatever problem we wish them to solve. I am very enthusiastic about this prospect and would like to ask if the author has any particular reference he can recommend as regards the evolutionary applications he mentions.

Regards,

Scott Bowen <hastur@execpc.com>
Milwaukee, WI USA - Monday, January 03, 2000 at 09:10:31 (MST)

The article on A-Life by "matthew" was excellent. I look forward to further articles in this series by "mark", "luke" and "john"!

Larry Geary <larry.geary@usa.net>
Somerville, NJ USA - Saturday, January 01, 2000 at 21:53:08 (MST)

To Mathew ("get a life" article):

I was very interested in your "get a life article". I'm a Christian and a Creationist, but my letter is not intended to bash or insult you in any way. I was wondering if a man of your intelligence would be interested in checking out a tape series by a man named David T. Moore called "somebody's trying to make a monkey out of you". I would be extremely interested to hear an evolutionist's commentary on it. Not to sound arrogant, but call it a challenge.

This 4 tape series has changed my view of our existance and is available for $24.95 at 1-800-715-1444, item #635638. You're obviously a very smart man, not to mention possessing a whole lot of faith to believe that this life is all there is, and that we're all really animals anyway. I hope you consider this chance to state your points against this view of creationism (which by the way, is all taken from the works of famous scientists and evolutionists.)

Thanks for your time,

Jesse Schluntz <captaincarrot55@hotmail.com>
encinitas, ca USA - Saturday, January 01, 2000 at 13:45:17 (MST)

How did space and time evolve?
How did the laws governing all nature evolve?
How did constancy evolve?
In the world of "chance and chaos" how does any process repeat itself in regular periodes ?
(Chance, chaos must be random otherwise it is NOT chance)

Regards:

X. Gabor <gabor@YesIC.com>
Toronto, Ontario, Canada - Friday, January 28, 2000 at 08:14:00 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Why did space and time or constancy or the behaviors of particles have to "evolve" at all? It seems to me that all this could be just as brute a fact as creationists want their god to be. And on the one hand, we have no evidence of that invisible brute fact, but plenty of a visible one: the universe itself; while on the other hand, whence came the existence, constancy, and properties of God? The inability to explain that shows how creationist complaints against naturalism only rebound against themselves.

Chaos is not the same thing as chance—we have scientifically proven that even fully deterministic systems can exhibit chaotic patterns of behavior, and in turn that chaotic systems, even if random, can produce order and pattern. Of course, when it comes to true chance, we have yet to prove it even exists—the closest we have come is the impenetrable randomness exhibited at the quatum level, yet that can be as much the result of our ignorance of the causes as of anything fundamental about the universe. Thus, what appears random might after all be totally deterministic—just as a role of a die is deterministic, yet appears to us random because we do not precisely know and cannot calculate the precise causes of its movement. Many physicists suspect that this is indeed the case. But even those who don't can easily point to the fact that seemingly-random quantum behavior is only partly random—for it behaves with enough order to produce patterns and complexity.

On the rest of your broadside, many of us here are actually Bible scholars. I myself have read the entire New Testament in the original Greek (as far as that original can be reconstructed from the conflicting and variant texts that survive). I wonder whether you have. In the end, we certainly ask that you take more care in your critiques. For instance, your criticism of "Mr. Steiger" I believe is meant for Mr. Stenger, but you give no hint of where this argument is that you are claiming to have attacked here. And before clearing this up for us, you had better first read my Entropy Explained to make sure you understand this issue correctly.

Congratulations on a great book. I am a Christian from the evangelical camp who has been quite strongly influenced by Josh McDowell's work over the years. However, a few months back I was working on a book for Moody Press, an Evangelical publisher, that included some historical proofs for the existence of Jesus, etc. I was looking for Josh on the web when your book came up. I started reading through it and found I just couldn't "put it down." It really opened my eyes to a lot of the half-truths and poor research that seem to characterize a lot of Josh's work. It really got me thinking. Thanks for taking the time to write this book. I tell all of my Christian friends about it, but they are too afraid to read it. Thankfully my faith rests on a foundation that is much firmer than Josh McDowell's research. There just aren't enough thinking Christians out there. Or rather, we aren't critical enough of each other's work.

I am currently attending seminary, and McDowell is often laughed at in an "in-house" sort of way. His "Evidence that demands a verdict" approach went out with the 70s as far as most educated Christians are concerned. Unfortunately the common pew-warmer doesn't know that. There are many, many more books of an infintely higher quality than McDowell's if you're interested in finding some more substantive arguments to rebut. God bless. You're doing all Christians a service, whether you are one or not (I take it you're not.)

Kevin Miller <kevind@vancouver.net>
Vancouver, BC Canada - Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 23:55:28 (MST)

RE: Known Rebuttals to Jury:

Many years ago I encountered "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." I welcomed it because it offered critical thought regarding evaluating the claims of the Bible. When I saw your website and the essays offering a critical rebuttal it interested me. I have always been interested in the idea of a free debate regarding truth and have believed that honest criticism should be welcomed. To your credit you do include rebuttals from Christians who differ with you.

What I would like to point out is that as human beings any activity we pursue regarding religious truth is seldom if ever free from underlying premises and beliefs we have come to hold prior to any religious discussion or debate. Certainly you have an agenda, as does Josh McDowell. Oversimplified it is easy to look at the conclusions of Evidence that Demands a Verdict work backwards and imagine that the evidence was gathered in support of its conclusion. Your work does no less. I wonder if you would admit to having preconceived notions about the Bible? This is not to evade the genuine questions you may have raised regarding "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Those types of questions are always legitimate, but the motivation behind them may not always be so.

As a lawyer I see how people can become entrenched in positions regardless of their truth and not be willing back down. And certainly, you have built a huge structure in order to defend yourself against the claims of Christianity. The larger the structure, the more difficult it is to break it down. Being fair the same questions can be lodged against Christians that they don't want to be willing to admit when they're wrong and have an equally large edifice supporting their belief system.

What concerns me is that your work is a systematic attack upon "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It appears that at every point you are willing to challenge and doubt. And while I do not want to put words into your mouth, such an approach lends itself to a kind of nihilism. I think that is something you may want to consider.

While I see that you have put a great deal of time into this project, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I do not see anything on your web page that replaces what you tear down. Ideas do have consequences. I see the logical end of your work as leading to a kind of void as you offer nothing to take the place of the Bible that you criticize so much. Such a nihilism and emptiness can only lead to despair. While Christ offers hope, what I have seen from your work only seeks to tear down. If I am wrong then please correct me. Please include the philosophy or religious view that you espouse so that your motivations may be more clearly known. What is the truth that you have set higher than the Bible, Jesus, or Christianity? I think it would be helpful to the debate as it would reveal much regarding your heart and the truthfulness of your pursuit of truth.

Doug MacLean < mrlentil@hotmail.com>
Detroit, MI USA - Sunday, January 16, 2000 at 07:33:22 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Motivation is irrelevant when one presents all the facts. Bias only becomes a problem when this bias leads you to leave out details or to distort them, or invent them. But it is most commonly a problem by leading you to act credulously with regard to favorable evidence, and uncritically when collecting evidence in general. Yet a biased person can still accomplish an unbiased argument by refusing to adopt these foibles and instead treating favorable evidence skeptically, researching it deeply, and trying as hard as possible to play Devil's Advocate and to refute one's own theories. Thus, when evaluating an argument, it is unwise to dismiss it simply because the author is biased—instead, one must ask whether the author is being complete in his presentation and representation of the evidence. And in that respect, I find the critics of ETDAV to be more trustworthy than McDowell, having as my favorite example one particular item that I know a lot about, the chronologer Thallus. After all, it is not bias that matters so much as where that bias comes from—a good analysis of all the evidence, or something else. Bias of the former kind is actually to be welcomed.

As to the notion that criticism leads to nihilism, this is a very mistaken view. I address some elements of this issue in my essay Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?. And if you had looked around more carefully, you would have found numerous examples of our positive philosophy—you would also have come to see that we represent a large body of secular views, not just one dogmatic party line, and thus our site offers more than one positive position on almost every issue. As just some examples, see What an Atheist Ought to Stand For, and our section on Nontheism. And the many secularist organizations we link to often have one or more philosophies and various positive doctrines of their own—all you have to do is look.

Nick Kamm < nc_wdstk@hotmail.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 00:07:21 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

It is funny how people can regard straight reporting as "repulsive." After all, the purpose of a secularist newswire is to report things of interest to secularists. In the most common secular opinion, women own their own bodies, and can do with them what they like—that includes denying residence to a growing foreign body in their womb.  We will soon publish a debate on whether the growing body inside counts as a person with overriding rights.  But even if we don't like it, we understand that the concept of freedom entails letting people control their own bodies, even if they want to do things with their bodies that we find unsavory. And this ties right in to the issue of gays, who likewise ought to be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies, no matter how repuslive it is to you. That is what it means to live in a free country. Ever heard of that?

In the event, it really doesn't matter. When asked about the veracity of life after death and reincarnation Swami Satchidanana gave the most truthful answer I've come across. "Who knows?" Having reached enlightenment, maybe he knows something you and I still don't.

Andre Gauthier <stand1950@aol.com>
New York, NY USA - Saturday, January 22, 2000 at 12:56:05 (MST)

Mr Goddard's interpretation and message are correct; however, semantics become important in such a message. "The real world is thus never directly perceived." The statement is incorrect, as interpretation is inherent in the term perception.
Thus our direct perception of the world is subject to inconsistencies with the concrete source.

Perception (from Websters)

1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
4. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
5. The capacity for such insight.

In response to Ian Goddard's insightful yet brief neurological explanation of so-called "out-of-body-experiences" I would like to share three comments.

First, one quickly notices Goddard's clearly Kantian phenomenological approach: the real world (i.e., noumenon) is inaccessible to us; we only perceive reality via interpretation and mental construct of our sensory input (i.e., phenomenon). One may, of course, rationally hold to such a metaphysical interpretation; however, right off the bat it seems that Goddard has made the assumption that what we perceive is not a true extension of reality but only an inner construct of how our brain pieces together what we sense. But why should I assume that what I perceive is merely a model of things "out there" instead of believing that what I perceive is truly how things in fact are? Granted that some things are too small for my naked eyes to see (i.e., molecules, etc.) and so the whole of reality before me might not be immediately accessible, but given the right equipment I could perhaps even "see" the building blocks of all reality. Indeed, to put such emphasis on the idea that the whole world is just some personally pieced-together construct of what truly "is" leans heavy toward radical subjectivism (which, in the end, is self-contradictory). Therefore, I would suggest that Goddard has created too great a chasm between what we "think is" and what "truly is".

Second, that being stated, I would suggest that in most cases we are able to differentiate between what is dream and what is reality. Why is that? Simply because most of the time I recognize the difference between what is purely "in my mind" (e.g., a dream) and what is real (e.g., when I awaken). Granted, there are certainly times that -- due to drugs that alter or confuse the mind, neuroses or other such recognized contributors to mental confusion -- I may suffer some illusion that prevents me from differentiating reality from illusion. In most cases, however, when no such inhibitors are obviously present, I can safely assume that I know the difference between a dream and reality. Why should we say any less for those who experience "out-of-body-experiences"? After all, these experiences are certainly not infrequent or undocumented. There are literally millions of cases of seemingly legitimate testimonies from people who have claimed to have left their body (whatever all that might mean or imply). Many of these people have no claim to fame or reason to lie and most are adamant about the reality of their experience (that they knew it wasn't a dream just as you know with strong assurance that you're not dreaming right now). Of course one might argue that the moment of death or inducing deep meditation are good candidates for being contributors to the illusion Goddard speaks of. I would also grant that possibility, but the sheer number and similarity of "out-of-body" cases, especially with many that defy neurological explanation, trying to claim illusion in 100% of the cases is more of a burden than Goddard might want to bear. Thus, it is certainly at least possible that these people were not in fact dreaming or suffering from an illusion.

Finally, I would only add that I'm uncertain what Goddard's ultimate point was in writing his piece. Perhaps it was purely educational, though I suspect that due to the content of this web-site that it had motive to bolster atheism (or at least metaphysical naturalism) and swipe at theism. Two points here if my assumption is true. First, why should "out-of-body-experiences" offer a threat to the atheistic worldview? After all, it is possible that there is no God and yet somehow we might be able to truly transcend our bodies (many Platonists believe this). Furthermore, to disprove such experiences does nothing to discredit the theistic worldview. One may be a theist (as I am) and yet believe that when you are dead, you are dead -- period. I question the OBEs just like many do, but to me it has no bearing on my belief in God.

Kevin D. Huddleston <khuddles@seidata.com>
Milan, IN USA - Friday, January 21, 2000 at 15:24:24 (MST)

In regards to the article on out of body experiences, the author forgets to take one important fact into consideration. His arguement is that everything that we view externally is reconstructed in our brain as a simulation, so that the monitor I am staring at is not what I am looking at, but a simulation in my brain reconstructed from sensory input via my nervous system to my brain. He further argues that as long as my simulation is concordant with the external world, then I am OK. But if my brain, and therefore my simuation, "malfunction," then an OBE is an artificial construct in my mind.

Let's look at a specific example. A man is crossing the street when he is hit by a car. He is thrown a good ways, and lands on the street onconscious. About five minutes later (remember, this is fiction), an ambulance arrives, and the paramedics place him on a stretcher and put him in the ambulance. They start IV's and all that good stuff. All of a sudden, the victim finds himself hovering above the ambulance. He sees it sitting there, below him, he sees crowds of people rubbernecking. He sees cars backed up behind the ambulance....'oh cool, a Corvette, a Jetta, just like I have' he thinks, then remembers he is looking down at the ambulance housing his body!! He panicks. He then feels himself all of a sudden drawn downward and now his consciousness is one of exquisite pain, chaotic voices shouting medical terms about him, his wife crying hysterically, etc.

Now let's try to fit this into the model offered by the author. If his 'view' from above the ambulance is simply a 'simulation' in his mind, how can he view accurate things he has never seen? Many people have been able to recall seeing things accurately that they never saw before while conscious -- patients can describe operating room details explicitly, including its layout and the relative positions of the doctors surrounding their body even when they have never been in that OR before and their eyes are taped shut while under anaesthesia. My example is similar to a story where a man recalled cars behind the ambulance that later agreed with videotape footage.

One's brain could construct only simulations, or models, of things it has seen or is seeing -- or fill in the gaps with assumptions, but the chances of these detailed assumptions being exactly in concordance with the reality it is trying to simulate is extremely unlikely.

And many people who report these OBE's do not experience pain, or temperature sensation. I will submit that these parts of the nervous system could be non- or mal-functional due to whatever trauma took place, but what is the likelihood of a "clean hit" like that since pain tracts are intimately associated with other nerve fibers until reaching the spinal cord.

In short, many people who have reported OBE's can recall details of their surrounding reality that would NOT be accurately constructed because they are not receiving, nor ever have received, the corresponding data through their sensory nervous system of the physical body.

Edward W. < loosmrbls@hotmail.com>
Honlulu, HI USA - Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 16:20:45 (MST)

I don't understand why the author would use the term "spirit" and "spirit body" in a paper that is meant to disprove the actuality of there being a spirit in a person, or am I reading this wrong? I do like his idea that what we perceive is only "Recognition" of pieces of reality and what we see is only a reconstruction made out of previous images. I would like to have an explanantion still of what an out of body experience is. Are you just saying that there is a misreading of what is perceived due to faulty wiring in the brain? I'm trying to get a simple hang on what the author's point is.

June <teecozy@aol.com>
W. Hollywood, CA USA - Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 00:26:24 (MST)

It is ironic that the gentleman who wrote about how paranormal experiences happen due to an alteration of the "normal" model of reality inside our heads disproves his own theory by his own words. The human brain is a remarkable organ: it stores information, processes it, sends information and instructions almost instantenously to limbs and organs, and does so billions of times every second. Yet this author would have us believe that it models reality inside itself and that we do not perceive reality directly.

This leads to the question of what is reality? If reality to us relies solely and exclusively on perception, then it follows that any so-called "true" or "absolute" reality is impossible to discern, and in fact it may not even exist. We may, after all, perceive it to be an altered rather than an absolute reality without knowing which it actually is.

This idea uttterly destroys all either-or concepts since either-or concepts are based on absolutes. Yet in this case there are no absolutes. But if there are no absolutes, then these so-called paranormal perceptions cannot be correctly labelled as paranormal, since an absolute of normal does not exist! Therefore these so-called paranormal perceptions are simply perceptions, with nothing normal, abnormal, or paranormal about them.

To make a long story short, the theory contradicts itself. It attempts to explain how a paranormal experience, aptly mislabelled, is a product of an altered model of reality, then explains how such an alteration can happen. Yet because it is impossible to actually perceive the reality that was altered (or was it?), there is no basis from which to claim an alteration. The evidence presented to support the theory actually discounts it! We can only conclude that the theory is faulty and must be discarded, and the entire concept of what is paranormal, abnormal, and normal reality needs to be reexamined.

Zerbechen <zerbechen@hotmail.com>
Midway, CO USA - Friday, January 07, 2000 at 20:36:05 (MST)

If you're talking about "near death experiences" I think these are recollections of birth, triggered by "rebooting" the brain after going into a "near death" state. I have no "scientific" evidence, just conjecture based on reported experiences:

-- being "sucked through a tunnel into a bright light" -- coming out of birth canal
-- "held by friendly loving people dressed in white" -- doctors and nurses
(they used to wear white when a lot of us were born.)
-- "went back into my own body" -- if the person experiencing NDE was a woman, this could easily be confused with being placed in the arms of her mother
-- "saw people who were long dead" -- but not dead when they were born!

Joe Austin <jaustin_hotmail@hotmail.com>
Hawkins, TX USA - Tuesday, January 04, 2000 at 18:08:12 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Fun, but no cigar. The definitive book on this issue is Susan Blackmore's Dying to Live, and I cannot recommend it enough. You will find all the hard evidence for very good scientific explanations there. Problems with your thesis are many. First, babies eyes are shut, and not facing down the canal (but toward the canal wall), when they are born. Moreover, we now know that the brain must build perceptual skills. A baby cannot recognize a person's face because they haven't even built the basic structures for distinguishing shapes and colors, much less constructed the more elaborate brain centers needed for face recognition. They pick these skills up quickly enough, but it would be impossible for them to remember any pattern as detailed as a face or even a torso from the very moment of birth. There are also so many other reported features of NDE experiences (and OBE's are not only experienced during NDE's), so a good theory would explain all, not some of them. Blackmore hits the nail on the head in my opinion.

Regarding your comments on the "spiritual body" and out of body experiences, there is something that might be added here. It is generally common knowledge that the brain (often during surgery or near death) becomes loaded with carbon dioxide. When brains are so starved of oxygen, they produce hallucinations and sometimes, out of body experiences.

Wayne Bent <wayne@strongcity.com>
Safford , AZ USA - Tuesday, January 04, 2000 at 07:21:51 (MST)

Ok. Even considering this theory of "perception" to be the answer to "why" this particular paranormal experience occurs, it would seem much more interesting to piece together these "explorations outside percieved reality" to try to develop even the most refracted mosaic vision from what theoretically should be pieces of "real reality" that break through the perception and result in these paranormal experiences.

Susand < susand@intcon.net>
Tulsa, Ok USA - Tuesday, January 04, 2000 at 03:26:18 (MST)

Your theory on out of body experiences is interesting and if one is open minded, yes it could be true. But if an out of body experience happened to YOU would you be so sure? It just seems so strange that so many people have experiences that are so SIMILAR. I've read the accounts in books... but, there is one person who I knew very well that I KNOW was not making up a story. Call it faith but I just know this person who was not particularly religious was not giving me a line of B.S. and his experience was very similar to the books. I am not particularly religious either but this one makes me wonder.

J. Harding < dharding@oh.verio.com>
USA - Monday, January 03, 2000 at 20:24:13 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

I will recommend again the definitive book on this issue: Susan Blackmore's Dying to Live.

Boy, have you missed the point. Sorry to start off with such a negative statement, but it is unfortunately true. If you take a bit of time to study the purpose of things such as OBEs and meditation, you will find that the entire point of these activities is to show that what we percieve is an illusion. Instead of disqualifying these ideas, you have shown their validity. Oh, one more thing... if the world is real and our perceptions are illusion, and our senses are the only way we can percieve the world, what's to say that the world is not as much an illusion as our perceptions are, or even that our perceptions are the only thing that really exist?
Food for thought.

Jim Struck <leatherank@aol.com>
x, x USA - Monday, January 03, 2000 at 03:12:49 (MST)

Kristy X
Paw Paw, WV USA - Friday, January 21, 2000 at 13:16:27 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Let me get this straight.  You want to make a difference by persuading people to subvert the ideals of our Constitution? That is a strange notion of doing a public service. School students still have and have always had the right to pray in school on their own, without hindering or disturbing or mistreating others. So what exactly is it that you want, which you do not already have? Do you really want the government to enforce Christianity or Christian religious observances by law? Are you going to be the one to put the gun to the head of your neighborhood Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Secular Humanist and demand that he praise Jesus in public, or else be thrown in jail, or publicly villified or belittled by government employees? I'm sorry, but that is a nightmarish world I do not want to live in—I wouldn't want to live in it even if I were a Christian. I hope some day you will join me in this.

Based on this information, I hardly think Christianity can be dismissed as an illogical, irrational myth. This evidence is only the beginning, too. If I were not short on time I would gladly share more. Please consider this firm evidence for Christianity before merely accepting Mr. Darrow's opinions on a very solid and proven faith.

Sincerely,

Anna Merritt <a.merritt@mailcity.com>
Conway, AR USA - Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 17:15:55 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Well, okay, this isn't quite a response to a dead guy, since it is addressed to present readers of our archived works of Clarence Darrow. But I am also making an exception against our rule not to publish feedback to people long dead because of the very strange reasoning exhibited here. I wouldn't press any certainty about what the ancient Hebrews thought of the shape of the Earth, but Isaiah 40:22, even as you quote it, does not say the Earth is a sphere. A mere circle is still flat, and indeed, anyone who thought the world was flat would almost certainly have also thought it was circular, like a disk (since they can see in every direction what appears to be a circular horizon), as in Presocratic Greek thought this is exactly how the Earth was depicted. It is almost certain the Hebrews shared this view, as did all Ancient Near Eastern cultures.

But I also must caution you to examine your history: you claim that this was recorded in the Bible "two thousand five hundred years before scientists finally figured it out around A.D. 1500." There are two mistakes here: First, Isaiah himself began his prophetic life in 742 B.C. (less than 2300 years before A.D. 1500), and the book attributed to him was compiled between 700 and 500 B.C., in particular chapter 40 was written by a later disciple during the Babylonian exile (586 and 539 B.C.--thus barely 2100 years before A.D. 1500); Second, scientists had figured out the Earth was a sphere at least as early as Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. and very likely even earlier. The earliest discoverer of Earth's sphericity is probably Anaxagoras in the 5th century B.C., though it is possible that the Babylonians had made such a discovery even during the exile period (but we have no record of this and it is rather unlikely, all things considered).

And I would not try to sell rocks as pearls. Anyone who can see, even stone age peoples, will think that stars are far away and too numerous to count. You can come to this conclusion merely by looking up at night and trying to count or reach them—after all, stars are obviously at least as far away as the farthest point on the horizon, even when standing on a mountain, and even when travelling toward them. So knowing such things does not count as being "very knowledgable about astronomy." It counts as having eyes and being awake at night. The same goes for observing that stars shine with different degrees of brightness—as anyone who looks at the Big Dipper or the North Star will observe at once. None of these things had to wait until the modern age of science to be known—they were known by all cultures even from the very distant past. So you have hardly demonstrated anything impressive about the Bible.  It still looks like just another primitive religious handbook.