The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet valeoak, why are you picking nits about word choices here? Are you solely referring to the Phys.org article?

If I am nitpicking, and - sorry to nitpick! - I'm not sure that's a fair description as the errors you have made are not insignificant, it is because the misuse and misreading of words has consequences. Here you have made claims about a scientific paper which are seemingly inaccurate. As a consequence, the person who first mentioned the article said:

Thank you enorbet, for verifying my suspicions about that article. It seems I can still smell a rat after years away from all that stuff.

The article may be a rat, but not for some of the reasons you brought up.

Speaking more broadly, analysing and evaluating any idea is fine, but how do you hope to fairly and critically analyse the idea if you misinterpret or misunderstand what the idea even is?

Originally Posted by enorbet Are you solely referring to the Phys.org article?

I am referring to the Slashdot repost of the Phys.org article, the Phys.org article itself and - to the extent that both articles concern it and given your subsequent borderline character slurs against its author - the scientific paper that none of us has read.

Originally Posted by enorbet FWIW I have read at least a dozen articles and many dozens of posts regarding this paper and few of them are or even can be actually scientific because Gupta has not submitted a complete science paper yet on this subject.

What do you mean by a "complete scientific paper"? MNRAS published the manuscript, including data, a week-and-a-half ago. It has not been typeset yet nor printed, but you can view it here (if you have access). MNRAS is a peer-reviewed and respected journal. If this isn't a "complete scientific paper", then I struggle to see what is.

Originally Posted by enorbet So far it is speculation approaching hypothesis as far as I can tell. I'm only referring to him as "rogue" because he is one of a handful of scientists speculating "against the grain", the weight of mountains of evidence and considerations and research of many thousands of scientists. That's not a guarantee for either side but the "With enough eyes all bugs are shallow" idea does carry some considerable weight. The "impossible galaxies" phrase has been attributed to Erica Nelson who has early access to JWST data and who is part of a team with one of the few actually scientific papers published in Nature (linked later here). The phrase has become commonplace.

No, it seems quite clearly to be a hypothesis as fair a one as generations of scientists before him have made and as fair a one as generations of scientists after him will make. Certainly, in terms of going against the grain, this is small fry. If he is a rogue for that reason, the likes of Einstein and Bohr would be scoundrels and cads. Of course, none of that makes him right - but just to dismiss his hypothesis as nothing more than speculation is unfair, particularly when one hasn't read the paper.

And that's interesting. Although I know Nelson published work on this issue in Nature in 2014, I had attributed the phrase "impossible early galaxies problem" to a 2016 paper by Steinhardt, et al called The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem and I don't think it referenced any of Nelson's work. Nelson has, of course, been published on this topic very recently.

Originally Posted by enorbet So my words reflect more than one article let alone one view. Some imply nothing less than "nearly twice as old" and others "up to twice as old" because some consider other scientist's views on the subject of Age of the Universe and the impact of recent JWST data.

What does this have to do with you attributing timeframes to the article that it doesn't actually say and directly attributing phrases to Gupta that he hasn't said (and nor have the people reporting what he said)?

Originally Posted by enorbet If you check it is vastly more simplified and conservative than Gupta's work may be and does not leap to a conclusion of some proposed new exact beginning date because we aren't that far in yet. We need a LOT more data. This is another reason I would refer to Gupta as "rogue" if he, in fact, is responsible for the hard "Nearly" date rather than "Up To".

Of course his calculated estimate will have margins of error. So too does the calculation that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I suppose all the scientists who have used this number as a "nearly date" are rogues too?

Originally Posted by enorbet The bottom line is Science will indeed change it's stance if enough proper evidence supports such a move but "contenders must beat the Champion". Not even tie scores are sufficient. Unlike boxing, "title matches" in Science generally take many months if not years.

This is the one paragraph in which I can unequivocally agree with you. But then I haven't said anything to the contrary.


Edit: For my own part, having re-read my post, I see when I say "borderline character slurs" I may be misusing a word - at least in modern usage - in that it may be seen as having something to do with his race or religion, etc. I do not think that and do not wish to imply for one second that you calling him a "rogue" has anything to do with his characteristics rather than his character.

Originally Posted by business_kid Strewth! If I were you, slac-in-the box, I would start over and investigate things from scratch. Take none of your previous positions for granted because you are very far off the mark, I'm sorry to say. At least you're trying. I have observed that the majority of words over 3 or 4 syllables seem to have been coined for people who labour under the delusion that they are talking on a higher plane. They usually are in fact, speaking through a lower one - their a**. I could devote time and energy to a point-by point refutation replete with scriptural references, but I won't, because such are ignored. Go up to someone on a JW literature cart if you want, and ask him was Jesus an ontological existentialist.

In all of my thinking and reasoning, sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is the substance. So instead of responding to the substance of either existentialism, or ontology, you resort to ad hominum logic -- thus, perhaps you should start from scratch.

Spinoza's metaphysics also used infinity to overcome infinite regression: Spinoza's metaphysics is that all is substance, but also that every entity is a cross-slice of substance, with an infinity of attributes, most of which are beyond are perception--nevertheless, not beyond God's perception--so we have the infinite pov here with Spinoza.

Some existentialist thinkers seem kind of lost in nihilism -- too much subjectivity for anyone to perceive anything meaningful (i.e. Sartre).

Metaphysics and existentialism start the shift to ontology with Martin Heidegger's work, Being and Time, which is also existential, in that Dasein is our thinker/perceiver; but also still too static, in that Heidegger believes there are inherent qualities to thinking and perceiving that ontology uncovers. But it does lead to the "I am".

Ontology gives rise to the hermeneutics of Gadamer, which explores relationships between signs and consciousness, and thus we find how far the ripples made by a thought extend.

The JWs. are surely are interested in hermeneutics?


Jesus surely was just as much a man as you or I. His why have thou forsaken me cry on the cross is evident of this. Feeling abandoned by God, by the infinity of assurances he had before, was a moment of uncertainty--like the uncertainty of existentialism.

I think what helped Jesus volunteer for anvita through atmabali is that it is still the right thing to do, even if he was all alone without the Father in Heaven helping out. He is choosing his own "I am".

As a carpenter, do you, Business_Kid, think that Jesus ever bent a nail, or had to re-saw a piece of lumber due to a mistake?


Even Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details".

Philosophically, what do you believe Jesus' thoughts were like, that lead him to peacefully allowing himself to be slain rather than practicing any kind of "self defense"?

I think this is important because such thoughts could help even non-believers choose pacifism.

Wow! Apparently I have been less than clear, so OK let's do this.

Originally Posted by valeoak If I am nitpicking, and - sorry to nitpick! - I'm not sure that's a fair description as the errors you have made are not insignificant, it is because the misuse and misreading of words has consequences. Here you have made claims about a scientific paper which are seemingly inaccurate.

I disagree that I've made any error excepting my failure to locate an actual scientific paper and not just some article by some journalist who may or may not understand a scientific paper and quite possibly has an agenda to sell copy as noted previously. I did not make claims about a scientific paper because until you linked the MNRAS, I was unaware one existed. In fact there were several posts in the thread I linked from Physicsforums.org complaining about exactly that. I did a web search but don't have access to MNRAS, and while my search terms may have not properly suited the algorithm, MNRAS didn't come up on the first page which admittedly was as far as I looked.

I don't agree at all that I misread or misused words except the ones you seem to take as the final word, the article (not a scientific paper)on Phys.org. I'm not trying to denigrate Phys.org, it's a great website. I'm just taking them how it was presented, as an article with no reference to a scientific paper. Are you going to give any examples of what you perceive as "misused or misread" or just make spacious claims?

Originally Posted by valeoak The article may be a rat, but not for some of the reasons you brought up.

I didn't refer to the man or the article as "a rat" just that it had the air of typical over-the-top mainstream journalism and I still see it that way. It's an opinion. If it doesn't strike you that way you are of course welcome to your opinion.

Originally Posted by valeoak Speaking more broadly, analysing and evaluating any idea is fine, but how do you hope to fairly and critically analyse the idea if you misinterpret or misunderstand what the idea even is?

Can you cite a specific example that leads you to conclude I don't understand the idea? I don't think I misinterpreted the idea and I'm certain I understand what Gupta sees as a basis for his ideas. Not to put too fine a point on it but I'm equally certian that I don't even begin to understand Gupta's idea as well as he does since this is his chosen field, not mine other than as a mere hobbyist in that field, and he is obviously experienced and educated in it. I simply think he has leapt to a conclusion before sufficient evidence is in. Perhaps he will flesh it out in the future and I will be quite happy to re-evaluate at that time.

Originally Posted by valeoak I am referring to the Slashdot repost of the Phys.org article, the Phys.org article itself and - to the extent that both articles concern it and given your subsequent borderline character slurs against its author - the scientific paper that none of us has read.

I don't consider "rogue" to be a slur, borderline or otherwise, nor any subsequent mentions of which you again claim but don't cite.. I referred only to the article, and as merely "tenuous" hardly an egregious error if in error at all. In fact, when I used the term "rogue" for Gupta I noted that science needs such thinkers to avoid complacency and stagnation, again, hardly an indication of a slur.

Originally Posted by valeoak What do you mean by a "complete scientific paper"? MNRAS published the manuscript, including data, a week-and-a-half ago. It has not been typeset yet nor printed, but you can view it here (if you have access). MNRAS is a peer-reviewed and respected journal. If this isn't a "complete scientific paper", then I struggle to see what is.

Thank you for the link. I see it is current as of this month of July. Excellent. I wish I could read more than the abstract but I imagine, and hope, I will see it quoted at the very least at Physicsforums. Obviously, I was unaware of it's existence until now. Since I had yet to find that o any scientific paper, all I saw was articles that gave something of an overview and perhaps loosely quoted a few lines, thus "incomplete" in my view even IF a complete version did exists somewhere I had yet to discover. I tried to allow for that. My apologies if that added to confusion.

Originally Posted by valeoak No, it seems quite clearly to be a hypothesis as fair a one as generations of scientists before him have made and as fair a one as generations of scientists after him will make.

I have to admit that, thanks to your points, it is beginning to look valid as an hypothesis but I will reserve final judgment until I have seen an actual scientific paper and not just articles by journalists for whom I have no frame of reference.

Originally Posted by valeoak Certainly, in terms of going against the grain, this is small fry. If he is a rogue for that reason, the likes of Einstein and Bohr would be scoundrels and cads. Of course, none of that makes him right - but just to dismiss his hypothesis as nothing more than speculation is unfair, particularly when one hasn't read the paper.

Maybe the word "rogue" carries negative connotations where you live that are missing here where I live, but that, too is indeed "small fry". Einstein in my view was a rogue. Bohr was a very special sort of rogue in my view. I think he often gets a bad rap as part of the Copenhagen Interpretation since he disagreed on many points with the other proponents. He owned his own mind, it seems.

As for Gupta, while I will accept some admonition for dismissing his ideas as "mere speculation" without qualifying my statement further, until his scientific paper is available to me, I will suspend that beyond continuing to note that as far as I know he has no new evidence, nor has he waited until the red shift of these "impossible galaxies" is better understood to be actual red shift due to expansion or any of a handful of other possibilities. In short, it still appears to be a substantial leap to me, but I am not expert in this field, just a hobbyist, so I could certainly and easily be mistaken.

Originally Posted by valeoak What does this have to do with you attributing timeframes to the article that it doesn't actually say and directly attributing phrases to Gupta that he hasn't said (and nor have the people reporting what he said)?

Again, my apologies for not making the link, but please, if this has any importance to you, or you think to this overall thread, cite a specific example since I don't see where I have done any of the above. BTW How would you know what I have read that was written by a different journalist or atrributed to Gupta? or are you still judging my words by your favorite Slashdot post?

Originally Posted by valeoak Of course his calculated estimate will have margins of error. So too does the calculation that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I suppose all the scientists who have used this number as a "nearly date" are rogues too?

Again with this "rogue" obsession? It is your words like these that make me wonder if I have offended you in some way since you seem to bear some sort of grudge to be so incensed by such minor details on a tangent to a thread on a General sub-section of a Linux message board. I don't know how I could have offended you since it is utterly obvious you've not read many of my posts or you wouldn't bother to mention "margins of error" in responding to me. I routinely and consistently champion continual re-assessment, refinement, and "betting with the odds" possibly ad nauseum to some.

Nevertheless, I sincerely thank you for being the first to make me aware a scientific paper does now exist and will likely be printed soon. Roughly 16 years ago I lived just outside of Washington, DC and 2 of my friends of some 20+ years were scientists at Goddard Space Flight Center. One of them worked on JWST sussing out ground loops in the incredibly complex electronics. It was he that stoked my interest in the James Webb Space Telescope, and I have been metaphorically holding my breath for almost 20 years until it was safely at Le Grange.

BTW sundialsvcs, it seems you think that we "are pretending(!) that, somewhere, there must be a source of "certainty" but Science doesn't work like that. Mathematics does, but real life Science does not. I suppose in lieu of actual 100% certainty it can be characterized that everything is speculation but even on Mt Olympus there are levels. There is substantial difference between betting the ranch on a pair of deuces and that of betting heavily on a full house. 5 Sigma is pretty damned close to certainty... certainly close enough for me to bet heavily on such odds.

Somewhat in reverse, the odds we will all witness what we still call "sunrise" tomorrow are literally and figuratively astronomical, but there will come a day when none of us would take that bet, whether individually or collectively. Of that you can be pretty damned certain.

Can you therefore please quote the "5 Sigma" estimate of the height of that elephant?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Can you therefore please quote the "5 Sigma" estimate of the height of that elephant?

LMAO - I might venture an answer if you will tell me "How long is a string?"

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't agree at all that I misread or misused words except the ones you seem to take as the final word, the article (not a scientific paper)on Phys.org. I'm not trying to denigrate Phys.org, it's a great website. I'm just taking them how it was presented, as an article with no reference to a scientific paper.

The second paragraph of the Phys.org article says: "The work is published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society." It's one of the first things you read in it.

As soon as you finish reading the article, immediately below it gives the full reference to the paper and links you directly to it.

I don't see how they could have been clearer that this was a published scientific paper.

And although you don't mention it, given it was the first thing you read, the Slashdot article also says it's published in MNRAS and links to the paper.

Originally Posted by enorbet Are you going to give any examples of what you perceive as "misused or misread" or just make spacious claims?

Sure, on this matter first you said:

Of course the Slashdot article seems tenuous with a title like "nearly twice as old" which is an over-the-top stretch from a few million to possibly as much as 7 billion. Even at it's wildest stretch, that would be little more than 50% older rather than 200%.

The Slashdot article and the Phys.org article on which it is based fairly and accurately relayed the conclusion of Gupta's scientific paper. I do not know where in the Slashdot article you got a few million years from (I mean, that wouldn't even be published given the margins of error for the current calculation of the age of the universe are +/- 20 million years) to seven billion years. The author does say "several billion years" older but immediately goes on to say what that means: his calculation puts the age of the universe at 26.7 billion years old, i.e. "nearly twice as old" as current calculations. The article is very clear with the figures it gives.

In as far as the Slashdot article is just replicating the Phys.org article (which is just reporting on the newly published paper), nothing is tenuous or click-bait. Of course, the hypothesis may be rubbish, but I don't see how we can determine that without at least having read the scientific paper and looked at the data.

You then say in response to me:

Of course I realize that Gupta used "up to twice as old" as his description of what he sees as "the impossible early galaxy problem."

But Gupta doesn't say that at all. That was your misinterpretation of the headline of the Slashdot article. It wasn't giving a range or upper limit, it was giving an approximation of a newly calculated estimate.

And you then add:

I have a problem with typical lurid click-bait titles and statements in common journalism especially when applied to scientific events and data. Such articles always make overblown leaps to grab the public's eye in a fashion similar to Chicken Little style hyperbole. Real Science needs some rogues like Gupta to combat complacency, but real results come slowly and in small steps not huge leaps.

Now this could have been a statement on media reporting in general and particularly the misreporting of science, but given your previous comments and the fact that you mention Gupta in the same paragraph (as a rogue) and your subsequent comments in your most recent reply, it seems like you were saying that these articles were click-baity or made statements that were. But the articles have faithfully and accurately reported on what Gupta has said in his paper. There is no click bait here.

And then there's the business about it being speculation rather than a proper hypothesis, and that it wasn't a published paper and then that the Phys.org articles didn't mention it being a published paper, etc. All this is wrong.

Originally Posted by enorbet Can you cite a specific example that leads you to conclude I don't understand the idea? I don't think I misinterpreted the idea and I'm certain I understand what Gupta sees as a basis for his ideas. Not to put too fine a point on it but I'm equally certian that I don't even begin to understand Gupta's idea as well as he does since this is his chosen field, not mine other than as a mere hobbyist in that field, and he is obviously experienced and educated in it. I simply think he has leapt to a conclusion before sufficient evidence is in. Perhaps he will flesh it out in the future and I will be quite happy to re-evaluate at that time.

That was more a general point (hence, my "Speaking more broadly...") about the importance of words which you felt I was nit-picking over. But to be honest, it wasn't a specific thing but instead the course of your posts that led me to believe you didn't understand what you were criticising: the use of timeframes that aren't mentioned (and completely missing the one important timeframe in the article that is), the misreading of a headline, the misattribution of words to Gupta, claiming there wasn't a "complete" scientific paper, etc. It all just screamed to me: "This person hasn't even read properly the articles which are reporting on the paper, let alone knows something about it we don't." Perhaps that's unfair, but it's the impression I developed.

By the way, and for what it's worth, I too am sceptical of Gupta's hypothesis. My gut instinct says that whilst the LambdaCDM model is almost certainly going to be changed or discarded in favour of a better model, that there's reasons to believe that new or modified model will account for an older universe but also changes to our understanding of galaxy formation (at least under certain conditions) that doesn't involve a near doubling in the age of the universe as is currently accepted to properly account for the redshift observed in well-formed galaxies. However, not having read Gupta's paper, and not having the means to analyse his data, I will recognise that my opinion is the speculation here (rather than Gupta's paper) and I will await the publication of response papers or new research to either solidify Gupta's hypothesis or cast doubt on it. That is the scientific method in practice. I'm not going to dismiss his work with the wave of a hand.

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't consider "rogue" to be a slur, borderline or otherwise, nor any subsequent mentions of which you again claim but don't cite.. I referred only to the article, and as merely "tenuous" hardly an egregious error if in error at all. In fact, when I used the term "rogue" for Gupta I noted that science needs such thinkers to avoid complacency and stagnation, again, hardly an indication of a slur.

Okay, I'll drop the stuff in relation to "rogue". So you know, it seemed to me like you were playing the man rather than the ball, and even the context in which you used it first (i.e., words to the effect of "Science needs rogues like Gupta"), it seemed like something of a backhanded compliment. To me, what matters is not the nature of the scientist, but the evidence that supports and/or contradicts his hypothesis. There have been far, far bigger upheavals in physics than this, and so "discovering" that our universe is twice as old as we previously estimated is not something (although I am sceptical of it) I will dismiss out of hand, nor its proponent simply for making the hypothesis.

Originally Posted by enorbet Again, my apologies for not making the link, but please, if this has any importance to you, or you think to this overall thread, cite a specific example since I don't see where I have done any of the above. BTW How would you know what I have read that was written by a different journalist or atrributed to Gupta? or are you still judging my words by your favorite Slashdot post?

Please see my points on your errors above.

And I don't favour the Slashdot post. Here's what I did when I came across business_kid's post:

1. I skimmed the Slashdot post as I prefer to go to the source (though I still managed to pick up on the link to the scientific paper).
2. Quickly moved on to the Phys.org article, which I read in full (knowing that I wouldn't be able to read the published paper). Then I checked the Phys.org's editors' notes.
3. Then I followed the link on the Phys.org article to the published paper. I read the abstract to see if there was any contradiction with the Phys.org article's reporting or important caveats or conditions that had been missed. And then I checked to see in what stage of publication the manuscript was and to check that there weren't any warnings or cautions attached to the article by the journal's editors.
4. Then I went to some favoured popular science and news publications (New Scientist, BBC News, etc.) and did some web searches to see how others were reporting it, if at all, to see if there was anything different to the points they made.

Between the two of us, the one that seemed to favour responding about the Slashdot post without bothering to read the article that it was republishing was you.

And if you were quoting articles other than the ones which were the focus of business_kid's post, perhaps you could make that clear and cite the articles in which Gupta does say what you're claiming he has said?

Originally Posted by enorbet It is your words like these that make me wonder if I have offended you in some way since you seem to bear some sort of grudge to be so incensed by such minor details on a tangent to a thread on a General sub-section of a Linux message board.

You've not offended me at all, although I will admit to feeling some frustration as this discussion has developed. My apologies if that has come across in our discussion.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box In all of my thinking and reasoning, sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is the substance. So instead of responding to the substance of either existentialism, or ontology, you resort to ad hominum logic -- thus, perhaps you should start from scratch.

Yes, I admit my comments, although written in frustration are in fact ad hominem instead of expressing that frustration. Allow me to apologise.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box Spinoza's metaphysics also used infinity to overcome infinite regression: Spinoza's metaphysics ...

As a Christian, you no doubt believe in the Scriptures. So you'll believe in 1 Cor 4:6 which tells us not to go beyond what is written. A philosopher can't give you what he hasn't in most cases got - Spirituality. Jehovah's Witnesses stick to what is written. No Guru, no modern day prophet, just the scriptures.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box But it does lead to the "I am".

The "I am" I have already commented on as a sub-optimal translation much beloved by some faiths, and won't repeat it.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box The JWs. are surely are interested in hermeneutics?

Not as a way to arrive at spiritual truth. We let Scripture interpret Scripture. Do you do what the scriptures encourage you to do time and time again? 1 Tim 4:15-16

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box Jesus surely was just as much a man as you or I. His why have thou forsaken me cry on the cross is evident of this. Feeling abandoned by God, by the infinity of assurances he had before, was a moment of uncertainty--like the uncertainty of existentialism.

I agree Jesus was a perfect human, although left without support in the end of his life. He had to endure the pain of his final time on earth. I reject your efforts to link to existentialism.As a perfect man with a prehuman existence as the first born (or made) beside God, Jesus knew all the answers.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box As a carpenter, do you, Business_Kid, think that Jesus ever bent a nail, or had to re-saw a piece of lumber due to a mistake? Even Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details". Philosophically, what do you believe Jesus' thoughts were like, that lead him to peacefully allowing himself to be slain rather than practicing any kind of "self defense"? I think this is important because such thoughts could help even non-believers choose pacifism.

We enforce pacificism and strict neutrality. Any who do otherwise are shunned. An announcement is made that they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

If these matters (mentioned in your quote) interest you, walk up to the next JW Cart you see, or fill in the 'Request a visit' form on our website. Alternatively we can move to PM. I'm not going to start laying that stuff out here because there's far too much noisy interference here. JWs just go by what the Bible actually says, and it works and is rewarding. Paul is a bit long-winded at 1 Cor. 1:18-25 but he is right. If you look at his speech in the Aerogopagus at Acts 17:22-31, he employed plain simple facts while adressing philosophers.

Let's generally keep "JW" out of this discussion, except in a purely descriptive way. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and to not be disparaged for their particular "brand" of it.

Speaking personally for myself: "I am" derailed by this one word, "scriptures." Because this implies that these 66-odd books (the Catholics have about a dozen more) are somehow "the penultimate source of all Knowledge." But this is said by people who probably do not know and probably have never inquired as to how(!) this particular collection of books managed to wind up in their hands – and, in their present form. Whereas I find the entire subject to be quite interesting, even compelling. It's much better than the best murder mystery because, even though it's "about [God]," it's totally human."

My interests are not limited just to "this" religious tradition. I've read a lot of other books cover-to-cover too, including the Q'Oran and the Baghavad Gita, as well as some Buddhist sutras. The more you read of this sort of thing, the more you realize that, while all of them are different, all of them are also very much the same. And, the politics surrounding every one of them is always very intense.

Originally Posted by business_kid As a Christian, you no doubt believe in the Scriptures. So you'll believe in 1 Cor 4:6 which tells us not to go beyond what is written. A philosopher can't give you what he hasn't in most cases got - Spirituality. Jehovah's Witnesses stick to what is written. No Guru, no modern day prophet, just the scriptures.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. Thus philosophers love to fear the Lord. Wisdom and spirituality are inherently related. Plenty of philosphers have been spiritual. Check out Soren Kierkegaard.

As mentioned before, Jesus did not come to take away our minds. In any scripture, the words have meaning--the substance in the container made out of letters. I believe God wants us to think about the meanings of the words in the Bible, and not ever follow by rote... which is why I am suspicious of Paul, who you quote: here is Paul trying to encourage people not to think about the rules he created on his I'm an apostle too ego trip.

How about refuting philosophy with the gospel instead of Paul's letters? Perhaps Paul is one of those who honor Christ with his words, while his heart is far from Christ. The substance in the words of Christ found in the gospel differ from the substance of the words of Paul.

As a Christian, I believe God want's us to contemplate the scripture, and expose every bit of internal dissonance or incoherence within the substance of its words. Perhaps God allowed Pauls words into the Bible as a test to see who could smell a rat.

I don't believe that Christianity implies automatic beilef by rote all scripture. I believe Christianty is essentially a profession of pacifism onto and beyond death. Soldiers are morons, but Christian soldiers are oxymorons. Christianity is willingness to peacefully die for peace.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box Philosophy is the love of wisdom.

You're entitled to your view, but No to the above statement. A translation of the Greek words means what you say, but in fact philosophy is a very wide study with a very tenuous relationship to wisdom. The way to aquire Godly wisdom is laid out in the early chapters of Proverbs, chapters 2 & 3 particularly. As you will see, it does not involve philosophy.

I also disagree fundamentally on Paul. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, who learned Christianity in Damascus. He was selected by Jesus as Apostle to the nations (Acts 9:15-16). So he was hardly apostate. He was speaking to people in Asia Minor, Today's Turkey and Greece. Local issues were different, so of course his approach was different. But Peter backed him up. 2 Peter 3:15-16

If we remember, not a lot was left in Israel after 70 CE, and nothing was left after Hadrian in 136 with every Jew being deported from Israel. Christianity then expanded from Paul's converts in Asia Minor, and areas around Israel e.g. Egypt. It's somewhat rich to say Paul is out of step with the teaching of the Early Christians. It is rather that some later Christians are out of touch with Paul and the early Congregations. Philosophy is only mentioned once in scripture, at Colossians 2:8

The Jews of Bible times never had any time for philosophy either. But I foresee little agreement here. You are welcome to your views despite my clear disagreement, and we can leave it there. Otherwise it's a tedious back & forth, of no value to anyone.

EDIT: One last thing: In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus concludes with the words at Matthew 7:24-28. Now think: Where does that choice leave the one who 'doen't follow by rote' and doesn't do Jesus' sayings, but thinks about them?

Thank you, valeoak, for expanding the explanation of your position and in particular noting that you, too, regard Gupta's proposition with a "wait and see" attitude much like I do. I actually think the wrinkle in there regarding interpretation of the below as a slur...

Originally Posted by valeoak So you know, it seemed to me like you were playing the man rather than the ball, and even the context in which you used it first (i.e., words to the effect of "Science needs rogues like Gupta"), it seemed like something of a backhanded compliment.

...is what has instigated this conflict... that and I still can't seem to communicate that 1) I had not read the Slashdot article nor the Phys.org version it was apparently recounting, but 2) I have read more that one account that addressed common complaints about LambdaCDM and used "millions, up to 10s of billions" as a time frame. I did not pull that timeframe out of any disdain for Gupta or anyone else nor out of the ether or some nether region.

FWIW I in no way intended to simply dismiss Gupta or even the competition to LambdaCDM out of hand. These are ideas of worth. It's just too soon with far too little evidence, at least any of which I am currently aware, to come to a conclusion especially a hard, locked down number.

Originally Posted by enorbet Thank you, valeoak, for expanding the explanation of your position and in particular noting that you, too, regard Gupta's proposition with a "wait and see" attitude much like I do.

"Wait and see" is a very fair summary of my position on Gupta's hypothesis.

Thanks for the discussion, enorbet.

Anyone who is interested in the current conflict regarding the age of the Universe, largely given some traction by reactions to fairly new and unexpected cosmic phenomenon, and specifically issues surrounding the Gupta challenge to LambdaCDM, and who might enjoy a reasonable video as opposed to researching papers, can find an interesting and a bit lighter but still quite accurate wait-and-see assessment here ------->>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v32EPrdw-Jk


I think whatever your conclusions or beliefs you will find this a refreshing look at how Science deals with controversy, if only eventually. It portrays an excellent view of the quieter way in which the Scientific Method still works despite some journalistic excesses.

How many believe that naturally pyschadellic plants, mushrooms, frogs, etc. are gifts from God?

Sometimes I wonder about that Manna from heaven--a ground that has no food on it, is covered in food the next morning: mushrooms flush that quicly, and not much else.

After consuming the Manna, the Israelites are "guided" by a pillar of fire -- sounds like psychadellic halleucination to me.

Perhaps God created these infinity phones and left them scattered about for a reason?

WHo believes that spritual and religious use of these natural psychadellics are a freedom worth defending and worth legal protection?