Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0) Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people."
From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann
In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Thanks very much, Paul. This certainly places our discussion in a far more articulate vein. It's great to see this type of discussion still going on. I hope to spend much more time with it. John At 12:40 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0
Maybe it adds another dimension...?
Paul
In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack,
The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people."
From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann
In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood.
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Found this poem in the waiting area at the Episcopal Diocese office here in Arizona. Somehow it relates to this topic. To My Medial Prefrontal Cortex Isabel Galbraith People who have positive illusions are less likely to be depressed. . . . There are risks, however, in maintaining illusions that are too out of whack. – Timothy D, Wilson When I first heard of you, my scout, Spinning, glossing, scrubbing out Harsh facts about myself—the grout And plaque of melancholy— I welcomed you, my little sprout Of green and glossy holly. Within your songs, you troubadour, I'm Mark Twain, not James Fennimore, Kristin Wig, not Drew Barrymore, Marley, not Cheech or Chong; I’m touchable waves, not pompadour, Bikini, not sarong. But now I know you’re there I’m scared. What buried thoughts have not been bared? What temporary awarenesses aired Then were shut up in their towers? I don’t want to be unprepared For life’s cold thundershowers. So don’t puff me up to astronaut, Or Guinevere of Camelot, Or world’s best boss, Sir Michael Scott— The let-down’s suicidal As Dangle and his banjo not Making American Idol. And so, tonight, I try to view Myself as all outsiders do. I shut you off; now I’m see-through As a window in the dark, And in the mirror I’m 32 And what is soft is stark: Dumb jokes my friends indulge me in, New wrinkles in my oily skin, The joie de vivre that I trade in For grouchiness at home, Lost time that I could have spent Working on a poem, Dumb poems about the slightest things, A pen that’s lost and long-lost flings – They hurt, but what really stings Is when I add it up: No roommates and no wedding ring, No money, book, or cup. . . . I’m definitely glad you’re there, Protecting me from this despair, The bruises my ego would otherwise wear, Believing it deserved them. You help me function, help me dare, Steel nerves when life unnerves them. The trouble is, we must – like flowers – Receive the right amount of showers And sun to pull new blooms from bowers. To help us be us The inner eye’s more sweet than sour: Ourselves as loved ones see us Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Sun, 5/20/12, John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> wrote: From: John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:32 PM Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
thx, jim, for the charles winquist, desiring theology ('95) quote. been thumbing through it. interesting. and i've never tried to categorize my illusions as positive or negative. that too is interesting. john _____ From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Found this poem in the waiting area at the Episcopal Diocese office here in Arizona. Somehow it relates to this topic. To My Medial Prefrontal Cortex Isabel Galbraith People who have positive illusions are less likely to be depressed. . . . There are risks, however, in maintaining illusions that are too out of whack. - Timothy D, Wilson When I first heard of you, my scout, Spinning, glossing, scrubbing out Harsh facts about myself-the grout And plaque of melancholy- I welcomed you, my little sprout Of green and glossy holly. Within your songs, you troubadour, I'm Mark Twain, not James Fennimore, Kristin Wig, not Drew Barrymore, Marley, not Cheech or Chong; I'm touchable waves, not pompadour, Bikini, not sarong. But now I know you're there I'm scared. What buried thoughts have not been bared? What temporary awarenesses aired Then were shut up in their towers? I don't want to be unprepared For life's cold thundershowers. So don't puff me up to astronaut, Or Guinevere of Camelot, Or world's best boss, Sir Michael Scott- The let-down's suicidal As Dangle and his banjo not Making American Idol. And so, tonight, I try to view Myself as all outsiders do. I shut you off; now I'm see-through As a window in the dark, And in the mirror I'm 32 And what is soft is stark: Dumb jokes my friends indulge me in, New wrinkles in my oily skin, The joie de vivre that I trade in For grouchiness at home, Lost time that I could have spent Working on a poem, Dumb poems about the slightest things, A pen that's lost and long-lost flings - They hurt, but what really stings Is when I add it up: No roommates and no wedding ring, No money, book, or cup. . . . I'm definitely glad you're there, Protecting me from this despair, The bruises my ego would otherwise wear, Believing it deserved them. You help me function, help me dare, Steel nerves when life unnerves them. The trouble is, we must - like flowers - Receive the right amount of showers And sun to pull new blooms from bowers. To help us be us The inner eye's more sweet than sour: Ourselves as loved ones see us Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Sun, 5/20/12, John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> wrote: From: John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:32 PM Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Two quotes from "Unknowns" that I believe: "Illusions are the way we maintain our sanity when reality bursts in." The other "We never know reality for it is like looking on the face of God. All we know are our illusions and when they are shattered we simply replace them with new ones we invent or adopt from someone else. They are the shadows on Socrates cave". George From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of John Cock Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:26 PM To: 'Colleague Dialogue' Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design thx, jim, for the charles winquist, desiring theology ('95) quote. been thumbing through it. interesting. and i've never tried to categorize my illusions as positive or negative. that too is interesting. john _____ From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Found this poem in the waiting area at the Episcopal Diocese office here in Arizona. Somehow it relates to this topic. To My Medial Prefrontal Cortex Isabel Galbraith People who have positive illusions are less likely to be depressed. . . . There are risks, however, in maintaining illusions that are too out of whack. - Timothy D, Wilson When I first heard of you, my scout, Spinning, glossing, scrubbing out Harsh facts about myself-the grout And plaque of melancholy- I welcomed you, my little sprout Of green and glossy holly. Within your songs, you troubadour, I'm Mark Twain, not James Fennimore, Kristin Wig, not Drew Barrymore, Marley, not Cheech or Chong; I'm touchable waves, not pompadour, Bikini, not sarong. But now I know you're there I'm scared. What buried thoughts have not been bared? What temporary awarenesses aired Then were shut up in their towers? I don't want to be unprepared For life's cold thundershowers. So don't puff me up to astronaut, Or Guinevere of Camelot, Or world's best boss, Sir Michael Scott- The let-down's suicidal As Dangle and his banjo not Making American Idol. And so, tonight, I try to view Myself as all outsiders do. I shut you off; now I'm see-through As a window in the dark, And in the mirror I'm 32 And what is soft is stark: Dumb jokes my friends indulge me in, New wrinkles in my oily skin, The joie de vivre that I trade in For grouchiness at home, Lost time that I could have spent Working on a poem, Dumb poems about the slightest things, A pen that's lost and long-lost flings - They hurt, but what really stings Is when I add it up: No roommates and no wedding ring, No money, book, or cup. . . . I'm definitely glad you're there, Protecting me from this despair, The bruises my ego would otherwise wear, Believing it deserved them. You help me function, help me dare, Steel nerves when life unnerves them. The trouble is, we must - like flowers - Receive the right amount of showers And sun to pull new blooms from bowers. To help us be us The inner eye's more sweet than sour: Ourselves as loved ones see us Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Sun, 5/20/12, John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> wrote: From: John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:32 PM Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
and Denial is an important and valuable defense mechanism. Paula Rogge, MD (a wise friend of mine) ________________________________ From: M George Walters <m.george.walters@verizon.net> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Mon, May 21, 2012 3:04:52 PM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Two quotes from “Unknowns” that I believe: “Illusions are the way we maintain our sanity when reality bursts in.” The other “We never know reality for it is like looking on the face of God. All we know are our illusions and when they are shattered we simply replace them with new ones we invent or adopt from someone else. They are the shadows on Socrates cave”. George From:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of John Cock Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:26 PM To: 'Colleague Dialogue' Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design thx, jim, for thecharles winquist, desiring theology ('95) quote. been thumbing through it. interesting. and i've never tried to categorize my illusions as positive or negative. that too is interesting. john ________________________________ From:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Found this poem in the waiting area at the Episcopal Diocese office here in Arizona. Somehow it relates to this topic. To My Medial Prefrontal Cortex Isabel Galbraith People who have positive illusions are less likely to be depressed. . . . There are risks, however, in maintaining illusions that are too out of whack. – Timothy D, Wilson When I first heard of you, my scout, Spinning, glossing, scrubbing out Harsh facts about myself—the grout And plaque of melancholy— I welcomed you, my little sprout Of green and glossy holly. Within your songs, you troubadour, I'm Mark Twain, not James Fennimore, Kristin Wig, not Drew Barrymore, Marley, not Cheech or Chong; I’m touchable waves, not pompadour, Bikini, not sarong. But now I know you’re there I’m scared. What buried thoughts have not been bared? What temporary awarenesses aired Then were shut up in their towers? I don’t want to be unprepared For life’s cold thundershowers. So don’t puff me up to astronaut, Or Guinevere of Camelot, Or world’s best boss, Sir Michael Scott— The let-down’s suicidal As Dangle and his banjo not Making American Idol. And so, tonight, I try to view Myself as all outsiders do. I shut you off; now I’m see-through As a window in the dark, And in the mirror I’m 32 And what is soft is stark: Dumb jokes my friends indulge me in, New wrinkles in my oily skin, The joie de vivre that I trade in For grouchiness at home, Lost time that I could have spent Working on a poem, Dumb poems about the slightest things, A pen that’s lost and long-lost flings – They hurt, but what really stings Is when I add it up: No roommates and no wedding ring, No money, book, or cup. . . . I’m definitely glad you’re there, Protecting me from this despair, The bruises my ego would otherwise wear, Believing it deserved them. You help me function, help me dare, Steel nerves when life unnerves them. The trouble is, we must – like flowers – Receive the right amount of showers And sun to pull new blooms from bowers. To help us be us The inner eye’s more sweet than sour: Ourselves as loved ones see us Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Sun, 5/20/12, John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> wrote: From: John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:32 PM Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
George, Perhaps the primary way we talk about reality is to tell stories about reality. When we forget that our stories are not reality, that they are stories about reality, our stories become illusions. When we think our stories are reality, i.e. that our illusions are the way it really is, we get dogmatic and ideological and exclude all those who tell other stories about reality. That's one way to define fundamentalism. Fundamentalists, religious and otherwise, literalize and absolutize their own stories, as if they were more than stories, insist that everyone else do the same, and exclude those who will not. So, John, maybe what George's quotes refer to as illusions that soften reality and save us from insanity are "good" illusions, and the ones that make us dogmatic and exclusive are "bad" illusions. Not sure, just ruminating. Randy "Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the course of being in the world; not to be supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires." -Martin Buber (adapted) ________________________________ From: M George Walters <m.george.walters@verizon.net> To: 'Colleague Dialogue' <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Two quotes from “Unknowns” that I believe: “Illusions are the way we maintain our sanity when reality bursts in.” The other “We never know reality for it is like looking on the face of God. All we know are our illusions and when they are shattered we simply replace them with new ones we invent or adopt from someone else. They are the shadows on Socrates cave”. George From:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of John Cock Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:26 PM To: 'Colleague Dialogue' Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design thx, jim, for thecharles winquist, desiring theology ('95) quote. been thumbing through it. interesting. and i've never tried to categorize my illusions as positive or negative. that too is interesting. john ________________________________ From:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Found this poem in the waiting area at the Episcopal Diocese office here in Arizona. Somehow it relates to this topic. To My Medial Prefrontal Cortex Isabel Galbraith People who have positive illusions are less likely to be depressed. . . . There are risks, however, in maintaining illusions that are too out of whack. – Timothy D, Wilson When I first heard of you, my scout, Spinning, glossing, scrubbing out Harsh facts about myself—the grout And plaque of melancholy— I welcomed you, my little sprout Of green and glossy holly. Within your songs, you troubadour, I'm Mark Twain, not James Fennimore, Kristin Wig, not Drew Barrymore, Marley, not Cheech or Chong; I’m touchable waves, not pompadour, Bikini, not sarong. But now I know you’re there I’m scared. What buried thoughts have not been bared? What temporary awarenesses aired Then were shut up in their towers? I don’t want to be unprepared For life’s cold thundershowers. So don’t puff me up to astronaut, Or Guinevere of Camelot, Or world’s best boss, Sir Michael Scott— The let-down’s suicidal As Dangle and his banjo not Making American Idol. And so, tonight, I try to view Myself as all outsiders do. I shut you off; now I’m see-through As a window in the dark, And in the mirror I’m 32 And what is soft is stark: Dumb jokes my friends indulge me in, New wrinkles in my oily skin, The joie de vivre that I trade in For grouchiness at home, Lost time that I could have spent Working on a poem, Dumb poems about the slightest things, A pen that’s lost and long-lost flings – They hurt, but what really stings Is when I add it up: No roommates and no wedding ring, No money, book, or cup. . . . I’m definitely glad you’re there, Protecting me from this despair, The bruises my ego would otherwise wear, Believing it deserved them. You help me function, help me dare, Steel nerves when life unnerves them. The trouble is, we must – like flowers – Receive the right amount of showers And sun to pull new blooms from bowers. To help us be us The inner eye’s more sweet than sour: Ourselves as loved ones see us Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Sun, 5/20/12, John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> wrote: From: John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:32 PM Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________Dialogue mailing listDialogue@lists.wedgeblade.nethttp://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
And then there are myths: "Myths are things that never happened but always are." --Sallustius, 4th cent. A.D. (quoted in Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden) Sunny Sunny Walker SunWalker Enterprises 303-587-3017 (cell) 303-671-0704 (home/office) sunwalker@comcast.net Aurora, CO No mattter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back. ~ Turkish Proverb _____ From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of R Williams Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:02 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design George, Perhaps the primary way we talk about reality is to tell stories about reality. When we forget that our stories are not reality, that they are stories about reality, our stories become illusions. When we think our stories are reality, i.e. that our illusions are the way it really is, we get dogmatic and ideological and exclude all those who tell other stories about reality. That's one way to define fundamentalism. Fundamentalists, religious and otherwise, literalize and absolutize their own stories, as if they were more than stories, insist that everyone else do the same, and exclude those who will not. So, John, maybe what George's quotes refer to as illusions that soften reality and save us from insanity are "good" illusions, and the ones that make us dogmatic and exclusive are "bad" illusions. Not sure, just ruminating. Randy "Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the course of being in the world; not to be supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires." -Martin Buber (adapted) From: M George Walters <m.george.walters@verizon.net> To: 'Colleague Dialogue' <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Two quotes from "Unknowns" that I believe: "Illusions are the way we maintain our sanity when reality bursts in." The other "We never know reality for it is like looking on the face of God. All we know are our illusions and when they are shattered we simply replace them with new ones we invent or adopt from someone else. They are the shadows on Socrates cave". George From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of John Cock Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:26 PM To: 'Colleague Dialogue' Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design thx, jim, for the charles winquist, desiring theology ('95) quote. been thumbing through it. interesting. and i've never tried to categorize my illusions as positive or negative. that too is interesting. john From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] <mailto:%5bmailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net%5d> On Behalf Of James Wiegel Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design Found this poem in the waiting area at the Episcopal Diocese office here in Arizona. Somehow it relates to this topic. To My Medial Prefrontal Cortex Isabel Galbraith People who have positive illusions are less likely to be depressed. . . . There are risks, however, in maintaining illusions that are too out of whack. - Timothy D, Wilson When I first heard of you, my scout, Spinning, glossing, scrubbing out Harsh facts about myself-the grout And plaque of melancholy- I welcomed you, my little sprout Of green and glossy holly. Within your songs, you troubadour, I'm Mark Twain, not James Fennimore, Kristin Wig, not Drew Barrymore, Marley, not Cheech or Chong; I'm touchable waves, not pompadour, Bikini, not sarong. But now I know you're there I'm scared. What buried thoughts have not been bared? What temporary awarenesses aired Then were shut up in their towers? I don't want to be unprepared For life's cold thundershowers. So don't puff me up to astronaut, Or Guinevere of Camelot, Or world's best boss, Sir Michael Scott- The let-down's suicidal As Dangle and his banjo not Making American Idol. And so, tonight, I try to view Myself as all outsiders do. I shut you off; now I'm see-through As a window in the dark, And in the mirror I'm 32 And what is soft is stark: Dumb jokes my friends indulge me in, New wrinkles in my oily skin, The joie de vivre that I trade in For grouchiness at home, Lost time that I could have spent Working on a poem, Dumb poems about the slightest things, A pen that's lost and long-lost flings - They hurt, but what really stings Is when I add it up: No roommates and no wedding ring, No money, book, or cup. . . . I'm definitely glad you're there, Protecting me from this despair, The bruises my ego would otherwise wear, Believing it deserved them. You help me function, help me dare, Steel nerves when life unnerves them. The trouble is, we must - like flowers - Receive the right amount of showers And sun to pull new blooms from bowers. To help us be us The inner eye's more sweet than sour: Ourselves as loved ones see us Jim Wiegel Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses --- On Sun, 5/20/12, John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> wrote: From: John Cock <jpc2025@triad.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:32 PM Rather delicious trialog, Paul. Thanks. I was delighted to hear Dawkins say he was an agnostic, not an atheist, to the laughter of many. Whatever he is, he has been thinking it all through seriously. Williams was definitive but open. The moderator, a philosopher, was less open. I watched and listened as I watched my Braves beat the Rays. That too was delicious as our first closer came in in the 8th inning, Braves ahead 2-0, with two Rays outs, then proceeded to hit the next two batters, loading the bases, followed by the next batter hitting a blistering grounder that hit a Rays runners and ended the 8th inning--and of course our closer finished off the 9th inning as always, remarkably, leaving the Braves in first place. Do inform us again, Paul, when they next debate, when they hopefully get to the heart of the matter of the evolution of the Earth community to deal with its future, and not just depend on Darwinian evolution and Godly intervention. John -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0 Maybe it adds another dimension...? Paul In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack, The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people." From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood. _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________Dialogue mailing list <mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Thanks Paul for this fascinating dialogue. It was far more civil than some of the exchanges of ideas that often occur on this side of the Atlantic. IMHO, Dr. Dawkins was quite modest in his claims to certainty about things, and Archbishop Williams was quite articulate in defining what he did and did not mean by "God." It seemed, though, that Dr. Dawkins was objecting to a notion of God that Archbishop Rowan did not advocate, and that is an example of what I find objectionable about Steven Hawking's book. Of course it would be silly to expect physicists to be experts in theology, as it would be for theologians to claim expertise in physics. The two can co-exist quite harmoniously with one dealing with value and meaning (why) and the other dealing with the nature of reality and its operations (what and how). John At 12:40 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0
Maybe it adds another dimension...?
Paul
In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack,
The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people."
From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann
In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood.
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
John I and II (Epps & Cock) You saw something quite different than I did. I found all three to be not helpful for the dialogue. I found the Archbishop to be defending the two story universe on more than one occasion and Dawkins arguments is full of holes. I won't try and go point by point, but I have a friend who has written a book that takes on Dawkins arguments. And I'll attach a small segment from his opening chapter. You (John Epps) are very kind to Dawkins with your last statement "The two can co-exist......" because, although there is a general acceptance of evolution by most theologians (but not necessarily to the degree of mindlessness that Dawkins advocates), their side (Dawkins) does not recognize the other side at all. All of the wonder and mystery will some day be understood as simply brain signals that trigger these feelings etc. etc. So the whole "game" is played on the left brain rules of the game; logic, science and language. I'm not going to again make the case for an intelligence implicit in all things, but the ability to have a purpose to all this requires some direction, some purpose behind all the science activity. The capacity to integrate experience and thus evolve into better survival capacity requires intelligence. Jack Anyway, here is an excerpt that is a commentary on Dawkins book "River Out of Eden". "DOWNSIZING DARWIN: An Intelligent Face for Evolution" by Robert Campbell. reface to River out of Eden: Dawkins begins his book with a poem by Piet Hein: Nature, it seems, is the popular name For milliards and milliards and milliards Of particles playing their infinite game Of billiards and billiards and billiards. There you have the bias of science wrapped up in a nut shell. Everything is the result of local interactions between elementary particles, going all the way back to the big bang. This is the view of the cosmic order held as immutable truth by mainstream science—an article of faith without a shred of supporting evidence. Think for a moment. If all being, including the entire universe, is truly just a random game of atomic billiards, then there is no real or transcending basis to values of any kind, including truth. Therefore there can be no basis for saying that everything can be reduced to atomic billiards, for this mindless view offers no basis whatever for truth itself. It is a self contradictory position. It presumes a thing as true while implicitly denying there is such a thing as truth. Truth can hardly be the accidental result of atomic billiards. One should be able to stop right there. The inherent contradiction should be seen by those who would maintain the position, discouraging them from holding to it. They should look for a more self consistent view, for an implicit order that allows of truth. . Why don’t they then? Because they do not have access to a practical alternate paradigm that will allow us to understand how intelligent processes work. (My bold and underline - JG) I would like to be kind and give Darwinists the benefit of a few doubts that may emerge here and there, and overlook weaknesses in their arguments in the hope that their intentions are directed toward an impartial determination of the truth. But they don’t see how they can open the door to other possible options because the alternative is creationism. This is not just a matter of a difference of opinion over a few minor issues. Arguments on both sides are riddled with obvious flaws and flaunted in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. Such an entrenched approach on both sides carries with it a good measure of self-deception. They are reactionary positions in the evolutionary arena. These opposing positions have little to do with the facts of the matter. They would dispense with most of philosophy, most of psychology, and proceed to contradict the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention the impact on our cultural traditions. On the scientific side this blind one-gearishness would ultimately reduce us all to mindless greed and obsessive action, all in the guise of logical argument. Darwinian evolutionists must choose to ignore a large body of contradictory evidence in order to foster their beliefs. Their faith in the blind process of “natural selection” prejudices their efforts. On the basis of Dawkins’ book, it will be shown that extreme Darwinism is a blind belief without foundation, as fervent as any religion and with all the ear marks of self-deception. To suggest, as Dawkins does at the outset, that the Darwinian view has poetic beauty and inspirational value is to seriously compound the deception, for now we are treading in a fanciful world of double speak. It is inconsistent with Dawkins’ argument to throw in a healthy dose of values, including beauty and inspiration. Beauty and inspiration are larger than the bare facts of life. They are universally recognized qualities that are implicitly associated in some way with ultimate truth, transcending physical existence. We all sense their transcendent quality and we credit their ephemeral essence as real. Values determine everything that we do. But here we are urged to use them in order to justify a blind materialist view with no self-consistent place for values at all. At the same stroke we are to believe that this is in accord with sound reason. That’s double speak. After all, no intelligent reader is likely to deny a place in their lives for beauty and inspiration. Are atomic accidents beautiful? We can’t even see them, much less assert with such confidence that they determine our being. Who really wants to live in a world reduced to atomic billiards? Who really believes it? If no one really believes it, yet say that it is so, why do they make such efforts to sustain the deception? Why did Darwin go to all the trouble in the first place? No one can deny the “extreme perfection and complication” of nature’s mechanisms, but to suggest that Darwin’s hypothesis explains them is an unsubstantiated leap of blind faith. Why did Darwin take this leap? Is it as Richard Dawkins suggests, that nature’s complex mechanisms fulfill an apparent purpose? Purpose again implies values in anticipation of achieving a future objective. We take medicine for the purpose of curing a disease. We say it is valuable for achieving that anticipated result. Can we invest genes with the capacity to anticipate the future? Purpose implies intelligence at work to achieve a meaningful result. Then how can all creation be the accidental result of blind atomic billiards? We shall see that double speak pervades the arguments for Darwinism. .... On May 21, 2012, at 4:52 PM, jlepps@pc.jaring.my wrote:
Thanks Paul for this fascinating dialogue. It was far more civil than some of the exchanges of ideas that often occur on this side of the Atlantic.
IMHO, Dr. Dawkins was quite modest in his claims to certainty about things, and Archbishop Williams was quite articulate in defining what he did and did not mean by "God." It seemed, though, that Dr. Dawkins was objecting to a notion of God that Archbishop Rowan did not advocate, and that is an example of what I find objectionable about Steven Hawking's book. Of course it would be silly to expect physicists to be experts in theology, as it would be for theologians to claim expertise in physics. The two can co-exist quite harmoniously with one dealing with value and meaning (why) and the other dealing with the nature of reality and its operations (what and how).
John
At 12:40 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0
Maybe it adds another dimension...?
Paul
In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, LAURELCG@aol.com writes: Jack,
The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people."
From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe, Jann
In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, icabombay@igc.org writes: As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood.
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
participants (9)
-
Jack Gilles -
James Wiegel -
jlepps＠pc.jaring.my -
John Cock -
M George Walters -
mhampton＠att.net -
PSchrijnen＠aol.com -
R Williams -
Sunny Walker