tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post5496585360801496449..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The God ProjectorMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35711181487267636272009-07-19T04:25:13.199-07:002009-07-19T04:25:13.199-07:00最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセ...最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセージが多数書き込みされています。彼女たちはお金がないので掲示板で知り合った男性の家にでもすぐに泊まりに行くようです。あなたも書き込みに返事を返してみませんか家出http://ruby.iwatukisan.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23510217468526364702009-07-17T08:02:10.488-07:002009-07-17T08:02:10.488-07:00最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.07...最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.0720@docomo.ne.jp 連絡待ってるよ☆メル友募集noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-68242312409260721452009-07-06T06:50:20.730-07:002009-07-06T06:50:20.730-07:00みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあ...みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあの子も実は精神年齢オバサンということも…合コンや話のネタに一度チャレンジしてみよう精神年齢http://new.haaaasagasou.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-48388064775375856502009-07-04T05:38:19.291-07:002009-07-04T05:38:19.291-07:00さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆...さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆円助交際』を提供します。逆円交際を未経験の方でも気軽に遊べる大人のマッチングシステムです。年齢上限・容姿・経験一切問いません。男性の方は無料で登録して頂けます。貴方も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか逆円助http://new.googlejuku-navi.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3751499503721112412009-04-23T09:21:00.000-07:002009-04-23T09:21:00.000-07:00An alternate explanation to the computer study cou...An alternate explanation to the computer study could have to do with the protection of our own egos. That which I am currently using or is mine creates in me a sense of ownership. They become linked to our identity and we instinctively try to protect our own self image.<br /><br />Yet another explanation could be that sociologically we become accustom to getting socked in the nose when we say certain things in someone's presence. This in turn forms a belief, I ought to only give accurate performance evaluations when away from "x." This would have then turned into more of a situational cue rather than a projection of personality.<br /><br />Of course, that's the problem with psychological theories, the whole unverifiable thing.<br /><br />Anyhow, that aside, I think that there is a great charm to personification. There is something nice about being able to say when someone looks at my beat up old car "oh that? that's old Betsy, she's quite a fighter." The extent to which we project compassion and humanity isn't necessarily an error, but can be a conscious extension of the very thing that makes us human.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41732034720583883902009-04-20T12:44:00.000-07:002009-04-20T12:44:00.000-07:00Replying to ketan's queries above. The experiments...Replying to ketan's queries above. The experiments reported by Reeves and Nass included consistent higher scores from those with great experience of computer programming and software engineering as well as from those without such experience/ability. Much of their point was that this is a completely subconscious bias. Other elements of psychology tell us that being aware of such a bias may help us to reduce the effects of it, but such a subconscious bias is very difficult to remove in providing qualitative measures. However, the practice of science depends to a great extent on independent measurement. It is the use of independent measures that allows us to identify our subconscious biases towards pattern seeking (as ungullible discusses above) and to remove them from our process as much as possible. Thus independent verification is also a part of the scientific process (though in modern times the expensive nature of some experiments and the paucity of funding have undermined such scientific work).Dr Andrew A. Adamshttp://blog.a-cubed.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33209238706159375482009-04-20T10:42:00.000-07:002009-04-20T10:42:00.000-07:00One thing about the hollow mask/schizophrenia stud...One thing about the hollow mask/schizophrenia study that bothers me: they didn't actually use hollow masks. Instead they used stereo pair images. As someone who uses stereo imagery for a living, I know that they have limitations. You can view a stereo pair in two different ways, by diverging your eyes (wall-eyed) or by crossing them. The direction of the third dimension depends on which method you use. This could be restricted by the eyewear used, but in either case the stereo pair information is decoupled from other 3D cues such as depth of focus.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45045646682108164472009-04-18T11:15:00.000-07:002009-04-18T11:15:00.000-07:00Ketan, i'm not sure I am understanding you. In one...Ketan, i'm not sure I am understanding you. In one sense you are saying transcendance is imaginary but in another you say it can be useful in regards to music. I don't think transcendental knowledge claims to take place of ordinary knowledge i.e. scientific knowledge etc. But there are some things about the wrold that cannot be known through merely external impressions alone. As Kant believed one is preocupied with objects and the other with the knowledge of the knowledge of objects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-85227632409732582442009-04-18T01:09:00.000-07:002009-04-18T01:09:00.000-07:00How, is point 4 in Kant's idea of transcendental a...How, is point 4 in Kant's idea of transcendental any different from my abstract description of music? Nothing becomes knowledge unless it is verifiable and consistent across persons. More on this some time later.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64503444596397325312009-04-18T00:47:00.001-07:002009-04-18T00:47:00.001-07:00The value of trancendance tele is obvious wheras a...The value of trancendance tele is obvious wheras a valid conclusion is not despite it being correct or shall we say true. You must admit to yourself that not every truth or shall we say correct thing is framed into a binary framework in logic - some truths are self evident. And these self evident truths often provide the basis for mathmatics etc. trancendance I believe is a way of receiving truth from mean other than analysis. If any of you reject obtaining knowledge by any other means than analysis then you may want to further explore how you learned things about the world before you made it to your intro logic course...<br /><br />Ketan,to frame transcendance as imaginary is way off.<br /><br />Here is the notion of transcendance from a well known philosopher via wiki style...<br /><br />Immanuel Kant<br /><br /><br />""In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new term - transcendental, thus instituting a new, third meaning. In his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. He also opposed the term transcendental to the term transcendent, the latter meaning "that, which goes beyond" (transcends) any possible knowledge of a human being.[2] For him transcendental meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. "I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them."[3] He also equated transcendental with that which is "...in respect of the subject's faculty of cognition."[4] Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind "constitutes" objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects. This is based on Kant's acceptance of David Hume's argument that certain general features of objects (e.g. persistence, causal relationships) cannot derive from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant argues that the mind must contribute those features and make it possible for us to experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the "Transcendental Deduction of the Categories", Kant argues for a deep interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates both the structure of objects and its own unity"""Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40633533435609897892009-04-18T00:47:00.000-07:002009-04-18T00:47:00.000-07:00The value of trancendance tele is obvious wheras a...The value of trancendance tele is obvious wheras a valid conclusion is not despite it being correct or shall we say true. You must admit to yourself that not every truth or shall we say correct thing is framed into a binary framework in logic - some truths are self evident. And these self evident truths often provide the basis for mathmatics etc. trancendance I believe is a way of receiving truth from mean other than analysis. If any of you reject obtaining knowledge by any other means than analysis then you may want to further explore how you learned things about the world before you made it to your intro logic course...<br /><br />Ketan,to frame transcendance as imaginary is way off.<br /><br />Here is the notion of transcendance from a well known philosopher via wiki style...<br /><br />Immanuel Kant<br /><br /><br />""In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new term - transcendental, thus instituting a new, third meaning. In his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. He also opposed the term transcendental to the term transcendent, the latter meaning "that, which goes beyond" (transcends) any possible knowledge of a human being.[2] For him transcendental meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. "I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them."[3] He also equated transcendental with that which is "...in respect of the subject's faculty of cognition."[4] Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind "constitutes" objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects. This is based on Kant's acceptance of David Hume's argument that certain general features of objects (e.g. persistence, causal relationships) cannot derive from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant argues that the mind must contribute those features and make it possible for us to experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the "Transcendental Deduction of the Categories", Kant argues for a deep interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates both the structure of objects and its own unity"""Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-68108724429483694402009-04-17T23:03:00.000-07:002009-04-17T23:03:00.000-07:00That was an interesting article. Thanks!That was an interesting article. Thanks!Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82089766837440247092009-04-17T13:34:00.000-07:002009-04-17T13:34:00.000-07:00Hollow Mask Illusion Fails To Fool Schizophrenia P...<A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102557.htm" REL="nofollow">Hollow Mask Illusion Fails To Fool Schizophrenia Patients</A>Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32333186301528036452009-04-17T00:17:00.000-07:002009-04-17T00:17:00.000-07:00Why do I choose the latter account as "truth" and ...Why do I choose the latter account as "truth" and not the former two?<br /><br />Because the former ones are subjective (someone could visualize Clayedrman's music as honey spreading over pancake!) and thus inconsistent (you'd call it simply noise if all you want is to sleep peacefully for some time!), and most important, that won't help me create more music. Whereas, through latter (materialistic) explanation, I could create more music. By which I'm not implying that knowledge of acoustics is useful, but just that each time someone records music it attests to the accuracy of our understanding of acoustics, audiology and neurology. Now you could try to read my original post in this perspective and undertand why I'm fully capable of having transcendental experiences (like feeling one with the God or feel the presence of God in the world around; to tell you, I've been a believer in the past, and indeed used to see the world in these ways at various points in time), but won't use it as a correct account of the way the world (Universe) is.<br /><br />For a more meaningful dialogue, please do tell about your definition/understanding/idea of transcendence.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17239825057419106502009-04-17T00:15:00.000-07:002009-04-17T00:15:00.000-07:00But, I'd point out that all are in decreasing orde...But, I'd point out that all are in decreasing order of apparent volition involved. In the first case, you've to actively imagine, and had I asked to imagine something conceptually more complex (say, how feedback and feedforward inhibition between neurons occur), you'd have required to "concentrate harder" (i.e., use up more of your volition). In the second case, one needn't concentrate that hard, meaning one needn't actually see the color, shape and size of one's soul, nor whether the one wringing your soul is doing so in clockwise sense or counterclockwise sense! In the third case, the element of volition is not apparent, but it is indeed subconscious. If you'd be jealous of your neighbor, you could use the same device (grocery store) to make him lose all his money (go bankrupt). <br /><br />Most of the transcendental experiences border between levels 2 and 3 I mentioned here. I can visualize an electric rock song to hit me in "waves of enthusiasm", corresponding with each beat of the song. I can also feel inner peace spreading within me like sun rays gradually emanating from the horizon and illuminating the sky and the landscape, when I say listen to Richard Clayedrman's music. The last two are very similar to transcendental experiences. Don't mistake the presence of a physical stimulus (sound waves) to be a prerequisite for such experiences. Over time I can learn to be hit with the currents of enthusiasm and visualize the spread of that inner peace even by just "playing the music in my head".<br /><br />Similarly when one "feels one with the God", say through meditation, one is visualizing abstract things<br />with a degree of volition specific to the person as well as their state of mind (mood). When a panentheist feels the manifestation of God in the world around us, the stimulus is the awe experienced at the complexity of the Universe.<br /><br />To put my origingal post in perspective, if I'd be asked to describe the nature of music, I'm not going to call it "wave of enthusiasm that hits people at regular intervals" or as "inner peace spreading within one's mind"; rather, I'd still describe it as rhythmic disturbance of air produced by vibrating diaphragm of the speaker, which in turn disturbs the ear drum with the same frequency and proportionate amplitude, in turn the mechanical energy of vibrations getting transduced by cochlea to action potentials, which are synthesized by the brain to form the sensory experience of "music"...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75463841975159904292009-04-17T00:13:00.000-07:002009-04-17T00:13:00.000-07:00Anonymous, it'd be more useful if we come up with ...Anonymous, it'd be more useful if we come up with how we define "transcendence". All the entities we confidently know of (tangible objects; physical quantities like mass, energy, force, electric charge; empirical principles like law of conservation of mass and energy, "bad money drives good money out of the market", "there's no free lunch") either can be directly perceived through our senses or at least can be verified (for the predictable and consistent effects they produce, which in turn are perceptible/measurable). Needless to say, the above entities increase our knowledge of what we know about the world, both in terms of its present state, and why and how it came to be that way. Of course, every person's knowledge would be limited by two factors--their personal inability to acquire knowledge in more than one professions (say it's very difficult for an engineer to acquire as much knowledge and understanding of economics as the most knowledgeable economist, and conversely, it's difficult for the economist to gain as much expertise to be able to build a bridge without external guidance) and by the limitation of body of knowledge of experts in the said field. So, when I use the term transcendence, I mean "use of a mental faculty other than the ones that make us aware of the above ("worldly") entities". What is that mental faculty? I'd call it transcendence. It is some or the other kind of imagination.<br /><br />My argument in favor of this statement is--one cannot feel to acquire transcendent knowledge unless one "puts one's mind to it". Can you feel "the presence of God" or "or feel one with the God" while playing a computer game, or negotiating a difficult turn on the road, or trying to mentally calculate the square of 26? What I'm trying to drive at is that transcendal experience requires us to momentarily suspend all other complex mental functions we'd be performing at that time. We've to devote mental capacity for it. In that sense it is what imagination is.<br /><br />Now of course, imagination can be of various kinds--totally goal oriented--like if I ask you to imagine the Moon to be a round mirror (level 1), or it can be some form of abstraction--someone wringing joy out of your "soul" (level 2), or it could be a form of wishful fantasy--say at the end of your reverie you become rich by simply opening a grocery store (level 3). You'd easily agree that all the three are acts of imagination...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86965623877753194512009-04-16T22:35:00.000-07:002009-04-16T22:35:00.000-07:00Anonymous,
What is the value of transcendance and...Anonymous,<br /><br />What is the value of transcendance and what is its necessity if it does not lead to valid conclusions about the state of the supernatural? Am I missing something?<br /><br />Are you suggesting that even if you have no way of determining whether your belief system is valid, that you would still follow it anyway, without further questioning?<br /><br />Why is it so important to you that you would allow for far more uncertainty in this area of your life than you would reasonably allow in any other kind of decision? Are the benefits irrespective to the validity of the actual claims?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3878120495756535862009-04-16T17:11:00.000-07:002009-04-16T17:11:00.000-07:00I dont see any problems with transcedance througho...I dont see any problems with transcedance throughout different religions. Whether your a budda, christan, or muslim, transenance is trancedance. Some of you here are treating transcedance as a logically framed notion which is a mistake.<br /><br />Ketan I dont think a trancedant experience is imaginary. But if it was how does that make it not real or shall we say false?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32077311616222799242009-04-16T09:20:00.000-07:002009-04-16T09:20:00.000-07:00Anonymous,
How exactly would you define "transcen...Anonymous,<br /><br />How exactly would you define "transcendence"?<br /><br />Therein lies the "devil in the details", to use an ironic metaphor.<br /><br />If I transcend through Islam, and you are a Hindu or a Christian, you will be upset. If I transcend through Hinduism, and you are a Muslim or a Christian, you will be upset. If I transcend through Christianity, and you are a Hindu or a Muslim, you will be upset.<br /><br />If I transcend as a Sunni, and you are a Shi'a, you will be upset. If I transcend through Roman Catholicism, and you are a "born-again" Christian, you will be upset. <br /><br />Do you see how there could be significant problems if one relies on "transcendence" alone in the approach to religion/spirituality?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36189073686067588792009-04-15T23:56:00.000-07:002009-04-15T23:56:00.000-07:00Anonymous, the issue with an atheist (okay, me, an...Anonymous, the issue with an atheist (okay, me, an atheist) is not the inability to imagine (transcendence); it's only with incorporating that imagination into my account of how the world is, and why so. TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37769326023005421592009-04-15T23:50:00.000-07:002009-04-15T23:50:00.000-07:00Dr. Adams,
Interesting experiment with interestin...Dr. Adams,<br /><br />Interesting experiment with interesting result!<br /><br />Just one doubt, there must be people taking the test, who're difficult to satisfy and could be labeled as (for want of a better term), vindictive. Would their giving low scores to the machines they worked on not lower the scores for those macines for the same reason that the user would want to "hurt" the feelings? Of course, I'd myself concede that this is suspicion is difficult to address experimentally.<br /><br />Is it possible to compare results for those much more acquainted with the process of software-development with those totally clueless about it? I suspect that the above mentioned bias would be less likely found in the former group as knowing the workings of a software would NOT make them assign human qualities to it (software/machine).<br /><br />With this point (analogy), I'd also like to take off from the point made by professor McCormick, that even if people of both the dispositions (tending to label a certain phenomenon as miraculous v/s trying to find consistent reasons for it) exist among theists as well as atheists, in my personal experience, I've found people of science usually to be (materialist/rationalist) of (in my opinion, because they have better idea of how the "Universe works") the latter disposition, i.e., less likely to assign human-qualities to the world around them (say, pantheism) and also less likely to attribute that to some supernatural, inexplicable phenomenon (say, God created and operates the world in INSCRUTABLE ways). I'd like to believe that these assumptions<br />are not merely wishful thinking on my part as I don't have any studies to back these speculations.<br /><br />Take care.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75923697518195548262009-04-15T22:40:00.000-07:002009-04-15T22:40:00.000-07:00Yes matt God's existence is not about evidence but...Yes matt God's existence is not about evidence but transcendance. If only the atheist could get out of his mind for a bit the world may reveal a new prespectiveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51678267942589096282009-04-15T21:26:00.000-07:002009-04-15T21:26:00.000-07:00Thanks Dr. AA, this is one of the more thoughtful ...Thanks Dr. AA, this is one of the more thoughtful responses I've had in a while. Two ideas: first, what sort of real empirical testing could be devised that could check the God projector hypothesis. Your evidence and the evidence that I cite are examples that are at best consistent with the idea, but we need some testing that could possibly disconfirm it. Second, I like the suggestion that some people try to find inconsistent data, like the mask viewed from an angle, and then they aren't satisfied until they can explain it, while others have a favored view and they stick to it while rejecting any evidence that might counter it. We've all certainly seen both. I think it's uncharitable to say that that distinction is between religiously minded and scientifically minded people. There are surely people in both camps who are guilty of the denying/ignoring counter evidence mistake, and there are people in both camps that are actively and earnestly trying to incorporate all the evidence into one comprehensive picture. But I agree, of course, that ultimately theism cannot be reconciled with all the evidence when you take this large view. Thanks again. I'll look at your blog.<br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-59385019263621043042009-04-15T17:40:00.000-07:002009-04-15T17:40:00.000-07:00There is a very good book by Reeves and Nass calle...There is a very good book by Reeves and Nass called "The Media Equation" looking at the psychological responses of human beings to various media, including television and computers in particular. One of the telling elements which jibes quite well with the ideas presented here is solid evidence that our psychological reactions to computers automatically ascribe human emotional contexts to machines. One of a number of well-documented examples is the subconscious positive bias we make when filling out a survey about the qualities of a computer program. If we fill it out on the same physical computer on which we used the program, then we give higher scores than if we fill it out on a different (but otherwise identical) machine. So, given a lab with two identical Dell computers in them if we fill out the questionnaire on the one we used a program on then we give higher results for the program than sitting at an identical machine. The only mechanism that seems plausible for this conclusion is that we're hardwired to avoid hurting the feelings of the computer we used. These results are consistent even among people with a high level of education about computers and a high level of intelligence. So, there are hrd wired subconscious elements of the human brain that attempt to ascribe human-like qualities to everything we interact with. Hence "don't make the lightning mad" is perfectly reasonable as a first hard-wired reaction. However, what makes humans different from most animals is our abilities to communicate abstract ideas in multiple forms, including writing. In addition to our conscious and subconscious minds we have generated new meta-rules such as science which allow us to bypass our hardwired perceptions and reactions to some extent. So, although it may be impossible for us to directly perceive the concave face sculpture as its reality of convex, we are capable of taking multiple viewings of it, including oblique ones where the visual illusion does not interfere with the accuracy of our perceptions. We then beliueve that the sculpture is concave even when the evidence of our senses from certain viewpoints is that it is convex. The difference between a religious and a non-religious person is, to my mind, that when confronted with the concave/convex perceptual discontinuity, a religious person declaims "a miracle" that transcends our understanding of reality. A scientific person looks at the evidence of sight (sometimes concave, sometimes convex) the evidence of touch (always concave); the evidence of multiple sight (always concave from some viewpoints, convex only at times, consistently so) and comes to the conclusion that the convexity is an illusion, and then continues to explore why the illusion occurs. A non-religious person explores the unvierse with all their senses and tries to create a consistent theory which is true for all people at all times, and then adjusts that theory when it is shown to be partly invalid (see Lakatos' Proofs and Refutations). A religious person declaims a miracle and says that something is beyond understanding, and is hurt when others proffer a non-miraculous explanation. I've posted elsewhere on my own blog (http://blog.a-cubed.info/index.php?p=84) about Roger Zelazny's excellent description of this tendency whereby "bowing before the unknown" and "calling it unknowable" makes one lose sight of the solid foundations of the universe. As has been said many times by others, antibiotics, radios, airplanes and many other technological achievements of modern life would be miraculous to someone from the middle ages, but are not miracles, just the application of solid exploration of the physical universe.Dr Andrew A. Adamshttp://blog.a-cubed.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69811853025150171802009-04-11T18:33:00.000-07:002009-04-11T18:33:00.000-07:00And before any theists criticize my post by tellin...And before any theists criticize my post by telling me that there are millions of highly intelligent people who believe in god(s); yes, I know that intelligent people believe in god(s), but numerous studies have shown, the greater the intelligence the less likely the person is to believe in god(s) and religiousity does decline purpotionate to one's intelligence (statistically speaking).Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.com