I was one of the few individuals (actually, I don't know the precise number of individuals) who contacted the author after reading the book.  It was then that I learned that he sent out S.T.R.R.I.P. Tease bulletins to those who contacted him, free of charge.  (S.T.R.R.I.P. = Society To Restore Rationalism In Physics, or something to that effect.  Yes, he was a dirty old man.)  The S.T.R.R.I.P. Tease bulletins were further physics lessons that he had not included in his book.

Monson was/is (I don't know if he is still alive) an atheist and dedicated an entire chapter to debunking religion, but despite that, I had to send him some emails concerning the similarities I found in modern revelations with the physics he was proposing.  Needless to say, finding a spiritual counterpart in his theory didn't make him very happy and he tried to convince me of the errors of my ways.  I had fun corresponding with him and I think it was fun for him, too, as he was getting up there in age and most people just thought of him as "old Monson with the crazy space balls."  (Space balls was a theory he invented to help explain physics phenomena.)

Monson was set in his irreligious ways, and accepted a great deal of mainstream science, while attempting to debunk the rest that he felt did not hold up to rational, physics scrutiny.  He either wasn't aware of the plasma scientists and their experiments, or chose not to consider their results in his model of the Universe.  I believe that he simply didn't know about it.  I also believe that if he had known about it, he probably would not have liked it, as the discoveries plasma scientists make tend to confirm the scriptures, and he, being an atheist, probably would not have liked that very much.  Also, as he tended to ridicule everything he felt was wrong, if plasma science was available to him, and he thought it was erroneous, it probably would have gotten a mention in his book.

Let me just say here and now to Monson, if you are still alive: I thoroughly enjoyed your book and am glad it was written, both for its witticisms and its portrayals of new concepts. And if he is not alive, then to his son and any other surviving family members: Your departed relative made an impression for the better upon at least one individual on this planet.  I hope one day someone takes up and finishes his foundational work.

Physics Is Constipated (Intellectually That Is)

That is the title of Monson's book.  Even if the content was horrendous, the title alone would be hard to forget.  To his credit, though, it was engaging and fun.  Heck, even the front and back cover artwork and text were thought-provoking.  But it has been many years since I last read it.  So, what was my surprise when along comes an electrical theorist, Wallace Thornhill, proposing an electric gravity model in an electric universe and using words that seemingly conveyed the same types of thoughts as Monson?

Here is Thornhill's shortened, but nevertheless interesting paper:

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Gravity, Einstein and Scientific Saints

Gravity is the most familiar force. We are subject to it every day of our lives. Newton gave us his ‘law of gravity,’ which describes its effect but doesn’t explain it. “I frame no hypotheses,” he wrote.  (Thornhill, first paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.)

Unlike Newton, Monson actually attempted to explain gravity.  And his explanation, using only two material types,  which he called structured space and structured matter, made pretty darn good sense.  Thornhill seems to build upon this Monsonian base—has he read Monson's book?—, including the all-important electrical connection.

Einstein wasn’t so prudent when he introduced his “postulates.”  Unfortunately, his unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity either. The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation!  (Thornhill, first paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.)

Thornhill throughout this article does the same thing Monson did: show the Einsteinian age as the death of rational physics.  Monson is a bit harsher in his denunciation of Einstein, whereas Thornhill at least gives Einstein the benefit of doubting his own words:

How has this situation arisen? In the 20th century technology perfected wireless communication and computers and got man into space, while fundamental science fell deeper into a ‘black hole’ of complication, illogicality and metaphysics. I consider the principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural philosophy and physics by theoretical mathematicians. Meanwhile Einstein, perhaps to his credit, remained sceptical of his own work. (Thornhill, 6th paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe, emphasis mine.)

Monson spoke of the scientific community with disdain as being made up of "scientific saints" and "scientific priests."  In this paper, Thornhill quotes Mike Disney in his footnotes as saying:

The most unhealthy aspect of cosmology is its unspoken parallel with religion. Both deal with big but probably unanswerable questions. The rapt audience, the media exposure, the big book-sale, tempt priests and rogues, as well as the gullible, like no other subject in science.

The Aether and the Michelson-Morley Experiment

Monson was a believer in the Aether.  He rejected the concept that space was filled with nothing.  In his view, there were but two elements that made up the entire Universe: structured space and structured matter and the interaction between these two elements as they competed for the same volume of space accounted for all of the seen and unseen energy manifestations around us.  He believed in simplification as the key to the promulgation of the sciences among the masses.  The structured space was the motive element whereas the sctructured matter was basically just pushed around.  Each element was completely opposite in its qualities.  For example, one could be compressed and deformed like a hollow balloon whereas the other was a dense ball of super hard, indestructible stuff.  There was no volume of space that was not occupied by either structured space or structured matter.

Sound familiar?  When I brought to his attention Lehi's writings of that which acts and that which is acted upon (see 2 Ne. 2: 13-14) or the Lord's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants about the Light of Christ filling the immensity of space (see D&C 88: 12), etc., he wasn't too happy, but I was pleased to see that he had come to these conclusions on his own, independent of the word of God, merely by observing nature.

Monson's major problem was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had apparently failed to detect the aether.  His solution was a modification to that experiment that, in his estimation, would have shown that the aether does, in fact, exist.  (He believed that the experiment failed because the experimenters didn't know what to look for.)  At any rate, as the experiment had been discredited as a failure, any newbie (such as Monson) contending that the aether was real was laughed at as a crackpot.

Thornhill in this paper brings up the same Michelson-Morley experiment, adding, though, that Dayton Miller repeated the experiment and found an aether drift! Monson, apparently, was not aware of that fact, as Miller was written out of the text books, which would have helped his case immensely.

Structure, structure, everywhere

As stated above, Monson believed the Universe was composed of structured material of two types.  Thornhill, likewise, addresses the Universe as structured, even taking the electron and breaking it down into smaller structures called subtrons.

Gravity, Electromagnetism and Inertia

Both men tie gravity, electromagnetism and inertia to the same common source: the aether.  Whereas Monson contended that the aether "deformed balloons" pushed back at structured matter to produce gravity, Thornhill explains that the minute, structural, electric dipoles align in one direction to produce gravity.  In either case, all manifestation of any type is explained from a single source.

Gravity is a Variable

Both Monson and Thornhill come to the same conclusion: gravity varies depending upon the aether environment. Monson described the aether environment in terms of compression and torsion and Thornhill describes it in terms of charge and electricity.

The speed of light and gravity

Both men also address the near instantaneous speed of gravity, no matter how far the distances, and the slowness of light.  Both Monson and Thornhill address the e=mc2 equation, including when the speed of light is put into the equation.  Neither men get time slowing down or Alice in Wonderland Effects.  Everything remains based in reality and rationalism.  However, Monson, again, explains things using compression and torsion, while Thornhill explains it in electrical terms.  Both men, though, make sense.

Mass

Monson and Thornhill both explain mass in terms of the aether environment and not as "quantity of matter."  As a result, this opens up the possibility that mainstream science's expectation of fluffy, spongy or hollow bodies could turn out to be solid and dense while the expectation of solid and dense bodies could turn out to be hollow or spongy.

Thornhill, in fact, draws from recent cometary and asteroid evidence, which should have shown fluffy snowballs but instead showed apparently dense rocks, suggesting that our models—of what type of a body ought to produce the gravitational field were are seeing—are inaccurate.  Monson, whose book was written in the 1980's, never had this astronomical data to work from.

Electric Gravity and Hollow Planets

Electric, or aether-generated gravity opens up the very real possibility of the planets being hollow.  The current thoughts on gravity, that it requires a certain amount of matter to have a certain amount of gravity, preclude many planets from being hollow.  They must be solid in order to account for the amount of gravity detected.  So, if gravity is shown to have an electric connection, the main obstacle to hollow planets vanishes altogether.

Although Monson never intended to promote the hollow earth theory, his model could be equally applied to both solid and hollow planets, without destroying the model.  Likewise, Thornhill's model is also consistent with hollow spheres or structures, both on the subatomic level and on the planetary or galactic scale.  The electric universe theorists usually do not categorically state that their model favors a hollow planets scenario, as they are marginalized by the mainstream scientists enough, as it is, but as one reads more and more of their findings, it becomes apparent that it does.

Black holes

The major break between Monson and Thornhill is their opinion of black holes.  Whereas Monson accepted that black holes do, in fact, exist, Thornhill and the other plasma scientists think it's just a mathematical invention, an imaginary device that has no counterpart in the real world.  But, again, Monson didn't have the plasma data to work with.  If he had, he might have discarded the notion of black holes, too.

LDS Scientists: Pay Attention

The plasma theorists and scientists are on the cutting edge.  Despite being largely ignored by the mainstream, they are forging ahead and breaking new ground.  It would be to our benefit (as an LDS community) to pay attention to their findings.  The day may come when we have to rebuild society.  If and when that day comes, a proper understanding of all physics findings will be needed to correct the errors perpetuated by the current scientific community, your non-LDS peers, otherwise we LDS will be no better off or no more enlightened than any other people on the planet, regardless of the gospel knowledge we possess.  The electrical connection may be the most important of all.

The keys to correcting the errors are the scientific anomalies, which invalidate many theories.  Often we don't hear about these anomalies.  They are briefly reported and then swept under the rug.  Out of sight, out of mind and the current popular scientific theory remains intact.  Inform yourself about the anomalies. Bring them up, focus on them and seek to correct the errors.  A knowledge of the plasma research will help as that field of research addresses anomalies.

Previous Plasma Theology article: The hollow earth theory, the plasma model and Mormon theology

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Sathya Sai Baba has constantly denigrated reason, science, logic and scholarship in favour of faith, especially faith in himself. However, he has proved that he cannot be relied on at all in any way. With his deeply flawed logic and demonstrated ignorance of scientific fact and logical thought, he cannot face up to any rational discussion and to avoid it happening he has surrounded himself with servitors who cast out anyone who raises the slighest question to doubt or criticise him. He and his so-called 'teachings' are among the many obvious targets for the general criticism by world-famous Professor Richard Dawkins, some of whose words I quote here:-

There are two ways of looking at the world – through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence – in other words, through reason. Reason and a respect for evidence are precious commodities, the source of human progress and our safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the truth. Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason.

Apparently harmless but utterly irrational belief systems from astrology to New Age mysticism, clairvoyance to alternative health remedies are booming. Richard Dawkins confronts what he sees as an epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking...

He explains the dangers the pick and mix of knowledge and nonsense poses in the internet age, and passionately re-states the case for reason and science. See http://richarddawkins.net/

Taleb's book failure is the failure to follow through on what he presents.  He effectively trashes much of academia (though he fails to show the limits of the more directly empirical sciences like physics, where Platonicity manifests more indirectly).  He shows how easily our theories and stories about the world are trash.  Most scarily, he doesn't just show that for predictions of the future, but our understanding of the past.

In the end though, his answer really boils down to "learn the biases [common errors] and heuristics [shortcuts that create holes] in your cognition and develop practices to avoid them" and he gives some examples, like not giving your money to a mutual fund manager.

But what would he replace the academy with?  What research programs would he devise?  What theories of the world (other than the theory that we have certain tendencies toward certain errors) would he construct and with what method?

He has shown that understanding the past and predicting the future are even harder than most of us realized, and he has even perhaps narrowed the limits of what we could predict and understand even if "perfect."  However, by identifying the mechanisms that distort our understanding, he has made it possible to be more precise in our theories and models of the past and future.  While what we can predict may be more limited than thought before, using his tools, it can be strengthened.

But he shies away from grasping at the reigns of history.  Wimp! :)

One thing he taught me about theory building relates to the search for mechanisms.  

A Platonist would reject something whose mechanisms seem impossible according to his theories.  At least an average skeptical empiricist may accept something that seems to work yet conflicts with his models of the world but would also not attempt to figure out why that is (or Taleb seems not to).

Take homeopathy.  The mechanism by which it claims to work (diluting a substance with water so much that it's impossible that any significant amount of the substance is left in the 'medicine', taking which is supposed to help the person) is scientifically impossible.  However, there is some evidence that it "has an effect over a placebo."  The harder the investigation, the less evidence.

Now turn to antidepressants.  The mechanisms by which they claim to work are scientifically plausible, but only plausible.  They're actually little understood and disputed.  And a recent review of the studies as to effectiveness show that in a majority of studies for most patients the difference from placebo was minimal (and it should be noted that homeopathy has no direct side effects, whereas antidepressants have many, including suicidal urges).

A skeptical empiricist could say the "superstition" of someone following homeopathy would've protected him from the rational idiocy of something like antidepressants.

But I want to propose a mechanism they have in common: the relationship of the client and healer.  I propose that it's that relationship that produced the positive effects (including from the placebo, especially in the depression studies: not the belief per se that the pill was making them better, but the hope that someone was caring for them).

Now, the empiricist says, "Where's your data?"  I would point to the qualitative but indirect data of how humans evolved in close-knit communities, how babies can die if given their "physical" needs but are not held, etc.

I think a better approximation is (from the overcoming bias blog): "How does this constrain your expectation?"  In other words, if a statement can equally explain or not explain something, it's nonsense.  How would the world be different if my proposition is wrong?  One could then design experiments based around my supposition.  I think Taleb's method fails to show how to get to this point.  How to develop a theory in a way that is aware of the common errors and takes steps to prevent them: a back and forth between empirical (concrete) and theory (abstract).

How does one decide what medicines to take?

The skeptical empiricist will outlive the Platonist.  But the anti-Platonist theorist will save both their lives.

But what that means could be developed more.  Saying a balance or back and forth between concrete and abstract is not enough.  A big step is 1) taking into account the anti-biases of Taleb and 2) passionately striving for the grand theories, for taking up the reigns of history, anyways.  Something like that...perhaps.

The Naracoorte Herald [17 July 2008] has a piece on an upcoming event that includes a quotation that a Major was used by God to raise a dead person back to life. All glory to God!

Now, I know some people get a bit uptight at this. And I recognise that we shouldn't believe everything in the newspaper. But, Evangelist Heidi Baker puts it this way: "Did God forget how to do the impossible? You believe that a doctor can make someone well, but when God does it you want videos before you'll believe it. Haven't you read the book?"

Amen, Heidi Baker.
----
The Major, quoted in the newspaper, confirms, "I have seen the lives of men and women changed by the power of the Holy Ghost; people with cancer healed..." (there is no indication in the article as to the timing).

It's a shame that the administrator of this blog, whom I will call Mr. Blogger, doesn't allow comments (nor does he have an email link). I would love to have seen the discussion that this entry could have generated. Since I can't comment over there, I'll have to do it here instead. So, as Julie Andrews sang in The Sound of Music, "Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start." I'll start by raising three questions about the opening paragraph.

Question #1: Why did the blogger merely reference the quotation in question rather than quoting it? This is an astonishing claim that warrants a direct quotation. Give us unfiltered evidence, Mr. Blogger! Yours is a third-hand account, at best. It would have been grand of you to have made an effort to get us a little bit closer to the original source.

Question #2: Why is the Major anonymous? Even if one grants that he or she is humble and does not want to attract attention to himself or herself, this is a remarkable miracle. People can hardly be blamed for wanting to know who accomplished such a feat. This is not the time to keep one's identity under wraps. Take off those glasses and reveal yourself, Clark!

Question #3: Why is there no specific information about the blessed event? When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who was the lucky Lazarus? In short, the only concrete information contained in this paragraph is a) the name of the newspaper that supposedly published the account, and b) the date of publication. I searched the online edition of the publication and could not find the story in question. In fairness, it's possible that the online edition differs from the print edition, so I will understand if you take my failure to find the story with a grain of salt. In fact, I expect you to do so.

We've started at the beginning and learned nothing substantive. Nevertheless, we will move to the middle of Mr. Blogger's piece. Mr. Blogger knows that the claim he's made in the first paragraph will raise questions, perhaps even doubts, in the minds of his readers. Some may even raise their eyebrows. Mr. Blogger moves to forestall such happenings by reminding his readers that they are obligated to believe that their God performs miracles and they should not require evidence of such claims. Take it all on faith, baby! The medical analogy is beyond lame. When physicians heal people, we actually have evidence of that. We know what medications or surgical procedures they used and we can see the results. Presumably, when God raises someone from the dead, I should also be able to see someone who was once a corpse carrying on with normal life activities. That being the case, I wouldn't need video and the question of whether I'd read the book would be moot. (The book question is moot anyway; it's merely there to admonish believers. If they've been lax in adhering to their spiritual disciplines, then they have no right to question God - they need to get right with him before raising any questions about his activities).

But, as I noted earlier, I have no idea who Major Miracle is and I have no idea who Lazarus is. All I have is a fuzzy report that I'm supposed to accept solely because Mr. Blogger expects his readers to accept his authority and trust his trustworthiness. Carl Sagan famously said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What we have in Mr. Blogger's case is an extraordinary claim that is not supported by even a shred of ordinary evidence. In the place of evidence, he provides admonition. I'll bet you've never seen a Christian make that move before.

Finally, we reach the end. Contrary to Mr. Blogger's implication, the quote from Major Miracle does not confirm anything about raising the dead. It is simply a claim about routine happenings that can be explained in various ways. I will not dispute that many people's lives change when they get religion, nor will I dispute that people are cured of cancer all the time. With regard to the former, I suggest that the reason people's lives change when they get religion is because they themselves change the way they live, rather than any activity on the part of a god. There is no more evidence for the Christian assertion that God Did It than there is for my assertion that The Person Did It. With regard to the latter, cancer is cured via medical science. In this case, there is much more evidence that People Did It than there is that God Did It.

Mr. Blogger closes this account with the lame, "there is no indication in the article as to the timing." So, God changed lots of people's lives and he healed people on multiple occasions and we can't get even one citation? Who was cured? Whose lives were changed? You can't cite one specific example or name one name? Excuse me, but that's lame even by the standards of ordinary prayer and praise meeting testimonies.

As is the case with all bloggers, Mr. Blogger has a particular audience whom he addresses with his posts. Fair enough. Since he does not allow comments, however, I know nothing about his audience. Are they all unthinking sheep who simply accept accounts like this because they respect Mr. Blogger? Are any of them critical thinkers who would raise questions like those I've raised (and, hopefully, far better ones)? These questions disturb me deeply. Christians don't like it when atheists contend that they do not exercise good thinking habits. But, how can we do otherwise when we read unsubstantiated garbage like Mr. Blogger's post? I know that Mr. Blogger is one man and neither he nor his audience represent the whole spectrum of Christian belief. Still, it strikes me that thoughtful Christians should find posts like this excruciatingly embarrassing. It embarrasses me and I'm not even a Christian. But I was one. And, when I read pieces like Mr. Blogger's, I'm embarrassed about that too.

-- the chaplain

[/caption]

Just the link between feeling and action makes it closer to our knowledge of neuroscience and the body than the rationalist view which too narrowly focuses on abstract conception and fails to explain many phenomenon (see research on neuroplasticity).

Another angle of the chakras is that each one is associated with a certain color (see above) and tone (as well as different chants, hand positions and other things).  This is difficult for the rationalist to accept, or it was for me at least.  Yet, think of "seeing red" or the "green eyed monster"--certain colors are strongly associated with certain emotions.  Note that those two colors correspond to the chakra colors above (anger relates to base level threats, jealously to relationship).  As for tones...I don't know (but present an experiment idea below), but I do know that Doidge used tones for reading (?) training that had a side benefit of helping some autistic children.  My point is that most rationalist theories would dismiss the a relationship between tone, color, and emotional functioning out of hand and this is wrong.

More on chakras and the body: especially in the past but even now, the deepest feelings are often associated with...the gut.  Early Christian disciples would sign letters: "I love you in the bowels of Christ."  We have "gut feelings."  And now we know that...the gut produces lots of neurotransmitters, such that anti-depressants can affect digestion.  Of course the heart is strongly associated with love.  A rationalist views this with superstition, yet the work of people like Damasio shows how emotions are felt with the body, and the changes in heart rhythms and other aspects of the heart's functioning are key to emotional experience.

Now let's move more to the brain proper.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="Chakra system"][/caption]

1. 1. If the Gospel is God's power on Earth to save [Romans 1:16], so,
2. 2. The Church exists to uphold the Truth [1 Timothy 3:15], then
3. 3. All Word ministry is equally crucial- Study, Teaching, and Preaching[1 Tim. 4:13 & following], because (See #1).

"....While strands of Christian, especially Protestant, theology have adopted the more rationalistic stance of Plato, throughout history many theologians have affirmed the aesthetic as a central medium of both revelation and truth, particularly Neoplatonic theologians such as Bonaventure. This emphasis on the aesthetics has received renewed interest in contemporary theology due to the work of Hans urs von Balthasar, Jean-Luc Marion, and Jeremy Begbie. At the core of these theological aesthetics (or aesthetic theologies) is a rejection of the rationalistic axiom, which assumes that truth is communicated only in cognitive propositions. Rather, there is a mode of truth telling that is unique to the aesthetic or 'affective,' that cannot be reduced to cognitive propositions. Appeal is often made to the liturgy itself as an example of this, particularly the rich eucharistic liturgies of Orthodox and Catholic traditions, where all of the senses are engaged in order to communicate the truth of grace. Theological aesthetics has entailed a double development: both a renewed interest in arts and a retooling of theology in response to aesthetic reality."

The excerpt comes from the definition of "Aesthetics" in the excellent (if rather utilitarian in title) 101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance for Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

The above excerpt is what I wished I had said when I founded LiturgicalCredo.com, because it explains much of my editorial stance.

-Colin Foote Burch

Presuppositionalists claim that their presuppositions - 1. that God exists and 2. that the Christian version of God is the correct one - are not unreasonable and are, in fact, the only ones by which humans can make any sense of the world. Naturalists, on the other hand, claim that humans are capable of observing and testing data in the world and drawing sound conclusions about the nature of the universe on the bases of their tests and obsevations. This claim, which does not necessarily require or rule out a supernatural cause, may be regarded as the naturalist's presupposition. Naturalists take humankind's capacity to learn as a self-evident fact, an axiom, if you will, just as presuppositionalists take God's existence as an axiom. If it is indeed the case that we are all starting with presuppositions of some sort, why is it that the theist's presupposition is circular and the naturalist's is not? Simply this: naturalists are not setting out to prove their presuppositions; they are using those presuppositions as means for moving forward into inquiries about all sorts of matters. Theists, on the other hand, are using their presuppositions specifically and solely to argue back toward what they've presupposed. Notwithstanding the clever claims of Van Til, Bahnsen and others, this is simply circular reasoning.

Some Christian apologists try to get around this distinction by restating (read: misrepresenting) the naturalist position. Such apologists assert that naturalists start with the presupposition that God does not exist. By doing this, they recast the naturalist position as a mirror image of the theistic position, an argument that corresponds precisely with theirs. Thus, we're just as guilty as they are. In reality, as I've already noted, the naturalist presupposition is neutral regarding a creative entity; it requires neither acceptance nor rejection of that entity. It simply applies Occam's Razor and ignores the supernatural altogether.

A related presuppositionalist error (or tactic) is to mistake (or misrepresent) the null hypothesis as a presupposition. Good research is built on stating a null hypothesis (if phenomenon A is the result of random agents, then agent B will have no observable or measurable effect on A), and an alternative hypothesis (if agent B has an actual effect on phenomenon A, we will be able to observe and/or measure it). When it comes to questions about God's existence, naturalists begin with something akin to a null hypothesis: if natural phenomena can be explained via natural agents, then supernatural agency has no observable or measurable effects on nature. It is important to note that this is not a positive statement of God's non-existence; it is simply a statement about whether God's agency has been observed or measured. The alternative hypothesis is this: if God has actual effects on nature, then we will be able to observe and/or measure them. Naturalists start from a neutral position and do not posit God Did It until all other explanations have been discredited. God is simply one of many possible hypotheses. If the null hypotheses fail, then the alternative hypothesis, that God did, indeed, do it, must be accepted. The naturalist's method of inquiry allows for two possible outcomes; the presuppositionalist's method begins and ends by precluding the outcome it does not desire. It's clear to me which of the two methods is more honest than the other.

To summarize, what I've explained here is:

a) Presuppositionalists and naturalists both begin with axiomatic premises.

b) These premises are not mirror images of each other, because

c) the presuppositionalist uses his/her premises to argue back toward themselves and thereby "prove" them; investigating God's existence begins by assuming that existence. This is circular reasoning.

d) the naturalist uses his/her premises to argue away from the premises themselves toward all sorts of other conclusions. This is not circular reasoning.

e) The naturalist's approach to investigating God's existence does not begin with a presupposition either for or against such an entity. Instead,

f) the naturalist's method begins with both null and alternative hypotheses and is open to confirming or rejecting either one.

g) The presuppositionalist's method rejects the null hypothesis entirely and is only interested in reinforcing the alternative hypothesis.

h) The naturalist's approach toward investigating God's existence is more methodologically and logically sound than the presuppositionalist's approach and is, consequently, more reliable.

-- the chaplain

First, Robin asked me to consider this structure as a work of art, without regard to its religious context. Okay, I'll play along. In my view, this structure has no aesthetic appeal for two reasons. First, it is entirely too large. Art should relate to its setting in an appropriate fashion. That's why, for example, painters and photographers spend lots of time choosing just the right mats, frames, lighting and so on to display their works. This cross does not fit its setting at all, it simply dwarfs everything around it. Second, while simplicity is often an artistic virtue, this structure has no geometric appeal. It is simply two intersecting white lines. There's nothing artistically engaging about either the shape or the color. So, irrespective of its religious intent and purpose, this structure is not any more artistic than the thousands, perhaps millions, of billboards that line American highways - all of them are eyesores.

Next, Bob, who is associated with the Cross foundation, offered his rationalization for this structure. The first thing he said was, "Most people automatically assume that the money used for the construction of the Cross was the only money ever spent towards non-profit activities." First of all, Bob, I'd like to know how you know what "most" people assume. Second of all, I'm not "most people." I'm me, and I'm very familiar with the ways in which millions of charitable dollars are spent. I donate to charities myself, and I try to ensure that my donations fund actual good works rather than self-indulgent crap like this cross on the highway. The second thing Bob said was that the Cross has had an impact on people's lives. I won't argue with that. What I will say is that, in my experience, the negative effects of Christian belief outweigh its benefits. Consequently, the fact that the cross has had an impact of the sort Bob and his cohorts desire does not convince me of its value.

Bob concludes this comment with a lame analogy to the money spent on Super Bowl commercials and claims that "Few people complain about how that money could have been spent for food and clothing." Again, I'd like to know how Bob knows what "few" people think or say about Super Bowl ads. Second, I'm not "few" people, I'm me. Personally, I think the money spent on Super Bowl ads is ridiculous. But Bob is missing a key difference between the corporations that advertise during the Super Bowl and the Christian organization he represents: corporations exist to make money; they have decided that it is in their interests to spend those advertising dollars to get their product branded into people's minds. Christian organizations are not supposed to be for-profit entities. They are supposed to be the eyes, ears, hands and feet of God in the world. Therefore, it is appropriate to hold them to a different standard than that of corporations. Ford, GMC, Coors and those companies don't ask me to donate funds to them; they ask me to buy their products - they offer transactions. Christian organizations don't offer transactions, they ask me to fund their ministries. Well, Bob, I happen to believe that there are many other "ministries" to which the funds used to erect and maintain this cross could be put.

Bob offered another comment in which he explained that the people who donated to the cross have donated far more money to other charitable works, such as feeding the poor. Kudos to them for all of the donations they made in which the money was well spent. That has nothing to do with the fact that, in this case, they made a poor choice. This money was not spent wisely.

CBGrace suggested that God has given people various gifts and has called them to different ministries, and stated that the people who erected this cross are lifting up Jesus. She concluded by saying that I am criticizing the worship of the people who built and maintain this cross. She's right. I am unapologetically criticizing their worship. Their religion is not a worthwhile investment of either time or money.

Grandma criticized me for criticizing the cross people and complained that my criticism was cruel. She also said that I don't have the right to be critical and mean. Wrong, Granny. The US Constitution guarantees that I can have opinions and that I can air them publicly. You know this, because you concluded your comment by stating that you have as much right to your opinion as I do to mine. Indeed, you do. You think the cross is beautiful; I do not agree with you. We are both allowed to hold and express our opinions. Ain't America great? By the way, I'm not at all pissed off that you prayed for me. I believe you wasted your time, but that was your decision to make.

Finally, jjbo astounded everyone by quoting a passage from Matthew 26. I guess jjbo didn't have any thoughts of his own, so he had to borrow a thought from an anonymous author who's been dead for nearly two thousand years. That quotation added as much to the dialog as a recitation of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" would have done. Thanks, jjbo.

With that, ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to conclude today's edition of Mere Christian Drivel, courtesy of several Christians at the Cross.

-- the chaplain

In order to see the real battle lines, and the motivation behind the anti-Western forces we can look at the history of Western relations with the Arab East over the last two centuries, but that the resentments built up there are used more as a motivation tool than the primary cause. So also the fact of the more recent Western intrusion on Arab culture through the Media. It is not hard to see that the image of "America" that is seen overseas with the increase in porn in even the mainstream movies and the outrageous crimes in the news shows a nation of total disregard for the most basic sense of decency. To a people raised to revere a god of wrath and judgment, who condones the execution of a woman for allowing a bit of hair to show from under her head scarf, this "America" of such blatant indecency and violence is a great threat to their traditional family-centered way of life! On one hand, an Arab's religion is everything to him- his pride, his tradition, the ground of his being. On the other, no religion can change a person from the inside, to give them different "want-to's," so at the core there is a deeper motivation than "my pretense is higher than yours." Besides, why would the Left, both in Europe and the US, have such heart trouble opposing a militant "fundamentalism?"

In Belfast this summer a strange thing happened. When President Bush visited Belfast there were protests both at Stormont, the Northern Irish Parliament building, where he spoke, and at the Belfast City Hall. Significantly, one of the protestors hauled down the British Union Jack from the City Hall staff and replaced
it with an Iraqi flag. Now the Iraqi government is actually allied with the Western forces in trying to carve out some semblance of stability for those poor folks. Either he was just borrowing the flag pole to express his appreciation for the current government there, or he was cheering for the previous administration with its
untold atrocities against its own people. The first option wouldn't fit the anti-Bush, anti-America, message of the protest, but why on earth would he choose the second?

What other ways does this war show itself? Marxism, politely known as Liberalism today, is consistently coming out against Christianity. Whether in the different "freedom from religion" initiatives that make it an offense to wear a cross as jewellery or be seen with (let alone read!) a Bible in public in North America, or the more "progressive" laws in, say, mainland China where a person may still get 20 years of hard labor for praying with friends in his or her own home, the Left seems to see Christianity as a great evil, while wholesale abortion, even forced, and even late term and at-birth is somehow virtuous. This could be the reason why thousands of Christians in Asia or the Muslim nations for that matter, can be imprisoned, tortured, even beheaded on the way to school like those four teen girls in Indonesia, and the (Marxist) Press turns a blind eye, and even the big human rights groups have a hard time noticing! Are we talking conspiracy? Absolutely, and not at all. Con + spire, to breathe together: There is a growing movement among those who reject the Gospel to reject it more aggressively. Is there a Central Committee pulling the strings? Not that I'm aware. John wrote, "We know that we are of God, little children, and the whole world lies in wickedness," and that Jesus' light was revealed in the midst of this world's darkness, but the powers of this world are not able to comprehend that light.Today we see a growing animosity toward the Church on two fronts, and for two reasons. On the one hand, there is a message of righteousness which goes against the grain of everyone who would rather make, and break, their own laws. Just look at the noise that gets generated when a Christian group suggests that abstinence would slow the spread of STD's or that self-control in any way might even be an option! On the other hand, though, there is the problem of gross hypocrisy in the Church. The Gospel we too often preach, and live, is so weak and diluted that millions of people are claiming to be new creatures in Christ but living at least as badly as before they presumably were "saved." Anyone with the least bit of self respect is going to resent being told they "need" something which they see as completely hollow, and is going
to be in no hurry to associate with people who claim to take it seriously. In short, in order to survive this attack the Church must find her "clue bag" and take hold of the God Who is straining to transform and empower her to once again be the one effective offensive force against the spiritual darkness of this world, or
else wind up a battered and bruised laughingstock like the sons of Sceva. We don't fight fear, or curse darkness: Just turn on the Light! Is your Light bill paid?

TTC, The Teaching Company, produces courses on various topics. I've purchased several courses, all of them were excellent. I'm currently listening to Philosophy of Science course, which begins with a simple question “what makes science science?”, then turns to definition of definition and later on pursues the meaning of meaning. If it sounds crazy, it's because it is. But it turns out that you really need to understand this kind of stuff if you want to know why science works and why do scientists get their grants.

I also watched a bit of human anatomy course, but hearing about all the things that can go wrong in heart basically make me faint, so I'm progressing rather slowly. But it's nevertheless a fascinating course. It would have helped me a great deal if I watched it before writing my thesis.

Here's today's perk. In celebration of the 2008 Olympic Games in in Bejing, The Teaching Company makes a lecture about the history of olympic games available for free download. Lectures are available until the 4th of September 2008. ]]> http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/?p=1230 Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:56:16 +0000 sathyasaibaba http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/?p=1230 'Great Tantra Challenge' Hoax? Rationalist International, India TV & Sanal Edamaruku
Was 'The Great Tantra Challenge' A Hoax & Publicity Stunt? This article was written to supply the general public with factual and verifiable information pertaining to an incident that was aired on India TV between the Indian Rationalist & Atheist Sanal Edamaruku (who is a vocal critic and skeptic of Sathya Sai Baba) and an unknown Tantrik & Black Magician named 'Pandit Surinder Sharma'.

Pandit Surinder Sharma alleged he could kill anyone within three minutes by using tantra mantras and tantric rituals. Sanal Edamaruku challenged the Black Magician to kill him. The Tantric Priest chanted mantras and used various rituals but could not kill Sanal Edamaruku.

Rationalist International Article About The Death Challenge

The Great Tantra Challenge
On 3 March 2008, in a popular TV show, Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India's most "powerful" tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the "ultimate destruction ceremony" on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

Everything started, when Uma Bharati (former chief minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh) accused her political opponents in a public statement of using tantrik powers to inflict damage upon her. In fact, within a few days, the unlucky lady had lost her favorite uncle, hit the door of her car against her head and found her legs covered with wounds and blisters.

India TV, one of India's major Hindi channels with national outreach, invited Sanal Edamaruku for a discussion on "Tantrik power versus Science". Pandit Surinder Sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his TV shows, represented the other side. During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

The tantrik tried. He chanted his mantras (magic words): "Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili..." But his efforts did not show any impact on Sanal – not after three minutes, and not after five. The time was extended and extended again. The original discussion program should have ended here, but the "breaking news" of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules.

Now the tantrik changed his technique. He started sprinkling water on Sanal and brandishing a knife in front of him. Sometimes he moved the blade all over his body. Sanal did not flinch. Then he touched Sanal's head with his hand, rubbing and rumpling up his hair, pressing his forehead, laying his hand over his eyes, pressing his fingers against his temples. When he pressed harder and harder, Sanal reminded him that he was supposed to use black magic only, not forceful attacks to bring him down. The tantrik took a new run: water, knife, fingers, mantras. But Sanal kept looking very healthy and even amused.

After nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik's failure. The tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom Sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. "No, I am an atheist," said Sanal Edamaruku. Finally, the disgraced tantrik tried to save his face by claiming that there was a never-failing special black magic for ultimate destruction, which could, however, only been done at night. Bad luck again, he did not get away with this, but was challenged to prove his claim this very night in another "breaking news" live program.

During the next three hours, India TV ran announcements for The Great Tantra Challenge that called several hundred million people to their TV sets.

The encounter took place under the open night sky. The tantrik and his two assistants were kindling a fire and staring into the flames. Sanal was in good humour. Once the ultimate magic was invoked, there wouldn't be any way back, the tantrik warned. Within two minutes, Sanal would get crazy, and one minute later he would scream in pain and die. Didn't he want to save his life before it was too late? Sanal laughed, and the countdown begun. The tantriks chanted their "Om lingalingalingalinga, kilikilikili…." followed by ever changing cascades of strange words and sounds. The speed increased hysterically. They threw all kinds of magic ingredients into the flames that produced changing colours, crackling and fizzling sounds and white smoke. While chanting, the tantrik came close to Sanal, moved his hands in front of him and touched him, but was called back by the anchor. After the earlier covert attempts of the tantrik to use force against Sanal, he was warned to keep distance and avoid touching Sanal. But the tantrik "forgot" this rule again and again.

Now the tantrik wrote Sanal's name on a sheet of paper, tore it into small pieces, dipped them into a pot with boiling butter oil and threw them dramatically into the flames. Nothing happened. Singing and singing, he sprinkled water on Sanal, mopped a bunch of peacock feathers over his head, threw mustard seed into the fire and other outlandish things more. Sanal smiled, nothing happened, and time was running out. Only seven more minutes before midnight, the tantrik decided to use his ultimate weapon: the clod of wheat flour dough. He kneaded it and powdered it with mysterious ingredients, then asked Sanal to touch it. Sanal did so, and the grand magic finale begun. The tantrik pierced blunt nails on the dough, then cut it wildly with a knife and threw them into the fire. That moment, Sanal should have broken down. But he did not. He laughed. Forty more seconds, counted the anchor, twenty, ten, five… it's over!

Millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their TVs. Sanal was very much alive. Tantra power had miserably failed. Tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. It needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one's life at risk, he said. By doing so, Sanal Edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph.

In this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in India suffered a severe blow. (Ref)

[caption id="attachment_1256" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Pandit Surinder Sharma Trying To Kill Sanal Edamaruku With Tantra And The Life-Preserving Mahamrityunjaya Mantra"][/caption]
[caption id="attachment_1254" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Pandit Surinder Sharma Lost His Composure And Broke Down Laughing A Couple Of Times - Which Is Indicative Of Acting"][/caption]
Irrefutable Facts About The Alleged Black Magician 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' That Strongly Suggest A Hoax & Publicity Stunt By India TV And Sanal Edamaruku:

• Besides stories duplicating the 'Great Tantra Challenge', there are no credible sources, reliable references or independent websites that confirm that 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' (not to be confused with the Hindi Poet, Surinder Sharma) is:
1. A real person.
2. A "tantrik of top politicians".
3. A person "well known from his TV shows".
• One would think that such a famous "tantrik" and "black magician" would have at least one webpage dedicated in his honor, at least one newspaper article covering his philosophy or at least one blogged article making reference to him. There are no independent articles, webpages, media or blogged posts about 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' on the internet whatsoever.
• Sanal Edamaruku acknowledged that the claims of Uma Bharti accusing opponents of using tantrik powers against her were false (no reputable media ever made such a claim). Therefore, the entire premise for the encounter was based on a known untruth. Sanal Edamaruku said:
• "Both of us were invited to comment on the claims of Uma Bharti, former chief minister of Indian state Madhya Pradesh, that her political opponents were using tantrik powers to damage her. It was a staged controversy. (Ref)
• Sanal Edamaruku clearly stated numerous times that the alleged "Shaman" - "Black Magic Priest" - "Tantric" was an actual and genuine person who was widely regarded by politicians and television as a renown Priest of Tantra and explicitly stated that the encounter was not a stunt (Listen To Edamaruku's Interview With NPR's Rachel).
• The alleged "Tantrik" broke down laughing a couple of times during his attempt to kill Sanal Edamaruku with mantras (See YouTube Video 02). One could easily discern how the "Tantrik" quickly tried to conceal his laughter and regain his composure. Even a viewer on YouTube (who believed the video) expressed surprise by this behavior. Why would 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' treat a matter of life & death (as well as his integrity and reputation) so casually?
• Several Indians familiar with Sanskrit were thoroughly perplexed by the fact that 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' was chanting the Mahamrityunjaya Mantra (which is a well-known life-restoring mantra that is never used to induce death). Why would a Black Magician chant a mantra that is believed to protect one from death while trying to inflict death? The "Tantric" clearly chanted:
• Om Tryambakam Yajamahe
  Sugandhim Pushtivardhanam
  Urvarukamiva Bandhanan
  Mrityor Mukshiya Maamritat
• 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' chanted vedic slokas that are never used to induce death. Several Indians familiar with Sanskrit also pointed out that 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' incorrectly pronounced some of the mantras. He mostly repeated (ad nauseam) "Om Linga Linga Linga Linga", which is unknown in Vedic or Tantric circles to cause or induce death.
• India TV received a tremendous boost in ratings while the event was aired and Sanal Edamaruku alleged there were several hundred-million viewers. Strangely enough, after this unexpected and tremendous viewership, another night program was scheduled for the "ultimate destruction ceremony".
• Although it was alleged that 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' was unaware and unprepared to be challenged on national TV to kill Sanal Edamaruku, he apparently brought his own music cd that played eerie background music (with mantra sounds) while he chanted his death invocations.
• Numerous viewers expressed utter astonishment that 'Pandit Surinder Sharma' would publicly engage in this type of behavior when he had everything to lose in front of hundreds of millions of viewers. This would not be astonishing if the event was a hoax or a set up. It would be very astonishing otherwise.
• Contrary to Edamaruku's claim that the Tantric Priest was "trapped" by his challenge to kill him using Tantra, the alleged Tantric Priest could have resorted to any numer of innumerable excuses to avoid being humiliated before hundreds of millions of viewers (amusingly, many excuses that could have been used to avoid the drama were raised by skeptics and critics on numerous webpages).
• Indian Rationalists are notorious for their "Anti-Superstition Campaigns" in which Rationalists dress up as Holy Men, Gurus, Saints, Tantric Priests, Witch Doctors, Magicians, etc., to perform magic tricks and expose what they believe to be blind faith in religion and miracles by uneducated Indian villagers. Even Sanal Edamaruku's son, Samkhya Edamaruku, pretended to be a devotee of a fake Guru (rationalist K.M. Sunny in guru attire) while working with his father at these "Anti-Superstition Campaigns".
• Indian Rationalists are well known for this type of theatrics. A similar incident occurred in the GuruBusters Documentary (View Actual Video) in which a dog was subjected to a bite from a venomous snake and an alleged 'witch doctor' was produced who said he could cure the dog using mantras. The 'witch doctor' failed, instantly became a rationalist, denounced his trade as a farce and told the crowd they should embrace rationalism and to not believe in religion, mantras or gurus. To the educated eye, the entire drama was an unconvincing set up. Nevertheless, to the uneducated Indian villagers, it was a convincing performance.

Tantriks / Tantrics - Tantra - Black Magic - Death Invocations: In Conclusion:
This 'Great Tantra Challenge' was published on numerous blogs (including Blogger, Yahoo, Wordpress, Forbes, Technorati, StumbleUpon, etc.), numerous Indian newspapers, numerous news broadcasts, numerous rationalist websites, numerous atheist websites, numerous online forums, numerous online groups (including Yahoo and Google), numerous online video websites (including YouTube: 01 - 02 - 02), Richard Dawkins Website, NPR, Wikipedia - The Great Tantra Challenge, etc.

Surprising how so many people and so many websites blindly jumped on this bandwagon. Those who are so critical of "blind belief" should think deeply and reflect about what prompts them to blindly accept stories that enforce their scientific and/or atheistic beliefs and mindsets.

It is ironic how those who ask the general public to embrace rationalism, logic, skepticism, the scientific process and free thinking do not subject stories that advance their beliefs to the same standards they apply to stories that advance spiritual people's beliefs. As far as is known, this is the first article that takes a critical look at Sanal Edamaruku's 'The Great Tantra Challenge'. Not even one scientist, researcher, atheist, skeptic, rationalist or free-thinker has publicly expressed the slightest doubt about what appears to be nothing more than a hoax and publicity stunt to advance Sanal Edamaruku's extremist and fanatic atheistic beliefs and to boost the fairly new India TV's television ratings.

For centuries we are a society without reason. We do not have the slightest idea about anything we do in our lives and we never care to find out why. Almost five centuries ago, some “learned” people of our religious establishment decided that human reason (that was carried on in Islamic traditions for almost a millennium) was not to be trusted. The application of reason and logic to human life should be out of question. The doctrine of “following” was thus established. Human reason was denied its due share in human development. People were asked to blindly following the clergy as it was the best path towards salvation. Reason and logic were declared incompetent and in fact heretical as they could lead someone to search for some of the fundamental questions and as a result find out that truth could be found without clergy.

The shift from reason to following has created a large intellectual black hole in our society. Deviance from reason encouraged rote learning as the only form of education. We can still see that rote learning prevails throughout our education system. Closing doors of mind towards active learning and reasoning has developed a mass myopia. We are not ready to learn, progress or open up to facts of rapidly changing world.

This short sightedness has restrained our people from looking at the wider aspect of everything. Today we have an educated class (an outcome of rote learning), that puts to shame some of the most ignorant tribes of Amazon. You may go out and have a lunch with some of the highly educated people of our middle class. A large number of them would be anti-Semites who would revere Hitler as their ideal without even pondering that if subcontinent would have been located where Austria and Poland are, their grand parents would have been Auschwitz survivors.

A significant number of these educated intellectuals would see an international conspiracy in everything that happens in their daily lives. For some, the recent engine failure of their cars would be triggered by a Jewish/Zionist/American conspiracy to prevent these devout followers from overthrowing these satanic forces from the world (which they are going to accomplish by discussing these conspiracy theories in their air-conditioned rooms).

A few of these would always reject that the recent suicide bomb blast was even a suicide attack. For them every suicide attack is remote controlled and they won’t even bother to read the eye witness accounts of sufferers who saw the bomber with their own eyes.

Talk about reading the eye witness account, they never have read anything. I can’t forget the day when somebody told me that the currently ongoing (at that time) Inquest on Princess Diana’s death was triggered by the death of her son. I was unable to suppress my shock upon knowing that I was ignorant of the fact that a Prince of British Crown has died recently. Upon inquiring, the confident intellectual claimed that he was told by his brother who is very much in into the current affairs thing. (They all have such brothers!). It has been months and I have been unable to find the unlucky prince who died. Maybe the deceased princess had a third son whose whereabouts were only known to the all so informed brother. How many times have you heard someone telling you some graphic details of some government operation/activity/embezzlement /party of which he was informed by some well informed insider (who always remains unknown)?

Absence of reason, blind following and lack of scholarly attitudes create a society where people only believe what they are told and what they hear. They would never try to find out truth on their own. Education is sought for the sole purpose of acquiring degrees and well paid jobs. These well paid jobs are sought to fulfill their consumerist desires.

Religious fanaticism is a product of all the above. A major reason of such fanaticism has been attributed to ignorance and lack of education but it may not be true in all the cases. It’s true that better education proves helpful but we can see some of the highly educated fanatics around us. It’s a fact that our stinking education system cannot open up minds to reason. It promotes memorization and blind following.

Every year or so, there is a messianic frenzy in our society. Every natural disaster (earth quake, hurricane) attributes towards the rumors of approaching doom. Once again this is not limited to the uneducated. We can easily witness it in the educated circles. Some pseudo-intellectuals and religious scholars can contribute further by using mass media to present their highly interpretive predictions of doom and messiah. It’s a fact that even our educated classes are widely ignorant of any such thing known as history and for them any recent activity is a sign of dooms day.

The mass myopia prevails!

Alta „erezie” denuntata de ortodocsi ca un capat de tara: Imaculata Conceptiune, confundata adesea cu zamislirea feciorelnica a lui Isus de catre Maria. Pentru cativa jurnalisti „progresisti” din Romania echivaleaza nici mai mult nici mai putin decat cu... Intruparea Mantuitorului (sic!). In realitate, avem de-a face cu o fateta „intelectuala” a cultului marianic, cult aparut in crestinismul oriental, ajungand aici la forma exceptionala a hiperdouliei (de la hiper, „foarte, mai presus” si doulia, „slujire”, in sens religios; la origine, termenul inseamna „robie”). Maria se bucura, asadar, si in ortodoxie, nu doar in catolicism, de o atentie cu totul speciala in raport cu restul sfintilor din calendar. Catolicismul a tinut sa formalizeze, tarziu, in secolul al XIX-lea, aceasta hiperdoulia, prin promulgarea unei dogme. Este vorba de Imaculata Conceptiune a Mariei. Iata cum suna, in originalul latin, bula Ineffabilis Deus, promulgata pe 8 decembrie 1854 de catre Papa Pius al IX lea:

Am insistat asupra avatarurilor acestei dogme in Introducerea la volumul de Evanghelii apocrife (editia a IV-a, 2007, Polirom). Voi prelua de acolo o serie de pasaje, multumindu-ma sa adaug cateva comentarii. Dogma respectiva trebuie legata si de temperamentul profund mistic al lui Pius al IX-lea, unul dintre cei mai „controversati” Papi ai secolului al XIX-lea, ales in plin marasm european (e cunoscut mai ales pentru Syllabus, o lista a tuturor „ereziilor” modernitatii, de la comunism si pozitivism pana la ateism si liberalism). Pius al IX-lea avea o relatie duhovniceasca aparte cu Fecioara Maria, pe care o supravenera. A scris, de altfel, pagini unice despre Maica lui Cristos. Imaculata Conceptiune trebuie inteleasa, in primul rand, ca o completare a cultului marianic in Occident. Pe langa Feciorie, Sfintenie si Adormire, Biserica occidentala a tinut sa sublinieze dogmatic puritatea conceperii Mariei, ca Maica biologica si Fiica spirituala a lui Isus.

Celebrul Manual de teologie dogmatica al lui Ludwig Ott mentioneaza urmatoarele lucruri: „Incepand cu secolul al VII lea e cunoscuta, in Orientul grec, o sarbatoare dedicata conceperii Sfintei Ana (Conceptio S. Anae), adica a conceperii pasive a Mariei. Sarbatoarea se va raspandi si in Occident, prin Italia meridionala, patrunzand mai intai in Irlanda si Anglia sub numele de Conceptio Beatae Virginis. La origine, obiectul acestei sarbatori a fost conceperea activa a Sfintei Ana, concepere care, conform Protoevangheliei lui Iacob (apocrifa din secolul al II-lea), a avut loc dupa o lunga perioada de sterilitate, fiind anuntata de un inger ca o favoare extraordinara din partea lui Dumnezeu”. Ce inseamna „concepere pasiva”? Inseamna momentul (primo instanti, zice bula papala) cand sufletul este unit cu trupul, asadar dupa conceperea trupului Mariei de catre cei doi parinti, adica dupa conceperea activa. Pentru ca abia din momentul insuflarii de catre Dumnezeu a sufletului in materia pregatita de parinti preafericita Maria a inceput sa existe ca persoana.

Prin urmare dogma Imaculatei Conceptiuni nu sustine, cum se rastalmaceste adesea, inconstient sau rau intentionat, ca Maria s-ar fi nascut, precum Isus, fara parinti trupesti, in afara vreunei legaturi carnale. Ea sustine doar impecabilitatea Fecioarei, dar nu din eternitate, precum Isus, ci din momentul conceperii ei pasive. Distinctia intre conceperea pasiva si cea activa, operata de teologii catolici, este esentiala pentru intelegerea corecta a dogmei. Maria nu este asezata pe picior de egalitate cu Isus (lipsit de pacat din vesnicie); ea se bucura de privilegiul impecabilitatii 1) datorita „meritelor lui Isus”, cum precizeaza bula papala; si 2) din momentul unirii sufletului cu trupul. Dumnezeu o „fereste” de consecintele pacatului originar tocmai pentru ca ea Il naste pe Isus-Fiul lui Dumnezeu. De aici, ideea de prerascumparare, sustinuta de Duns Scot si preluata de Biserica.

Un calugar britanic, Eadmer, discipol al lui Anselm, a fost primul care a scris o monografie despre conceperea pasiva fara pacat a Mariei. Bernard de Clairvaux insa, desi fervent adorator al Fecioarei – poate cel mai mare mistic marianic al tuturor timpurilor – respinge ideea sustinuta de Eadmer, afirmand ca Maica Domnului a fost sanctificata dupa ce a fost conceputa, dar pe cand se afla totusi in pantecele matern. Cum autoritatea morala a lui Bernard de Clairvaux o intrecea chiar si pe a Papei, urmasii sai (teologii secolelor al XII-lea si al XIII-lea: Petru Lombardul, Bonaventura, Albert cel Mare, Toma din Aquino) s-au pronuntat, pe rand si cu argumente asemanatoare, impotriva Imaculatei Conceptiuni versiunea Eadmer. Prin urmare, lucrurile nu s-au petrecut lin nici in sanul catolicismului.

Solutia definitiva a fost propusa de franciscanul Duns Scot. Acesta afirma ca animarea (animatio) trebuie sa preceada numai conceptual, iar nu si temporal sanctificarii (sanctificatio). Gratie inventarii termenului de „preredemptiune” (praeredemptio), Duns Scot reuseste sa impace faptul ca Maria a fost eliberata de pacatul originar cu necesitatea existentei unei mantuiri, a unei rascumparari si pentru ea. Prezervarea de pacatul originar constituie, pentru teologul franciscan, perfecta mantuire, totala izbavire de pacat. Ulterior, Papii Paul al V-lea (1616), Grigore al XV-lea (1622) si Alexandru al VII-lea (1661) s-au aratat favorabili invataturii Imaculatei Conceptiuni. Pius al IX-lea, dupa consultarea prealabila a tuturor episcopilor, a ridicat aceasta invatatura la rang de dogma de credinta. Sarbatoarea catolica a Imaculatei Conceptiuni, de pe 8 decembrie, corespunde, in calendarul ortodox, „Zamislirii Sfintei Fecioare de catre Sfanta Ana”, o sarbatoare marianica secundara (fara tinere) de pe 9 decembrie.

Dogma Imaculatei Conceptiuni are un punct de sprijin in Protoevanghelia lui Iacob, text in care ne sunt prezentati parintii Fecioarei, Ioachim si Ana. Acestia erau oameni instariti, destul de inaintati in varsta, dar un blestem apasa peste casa lor: nu aveau copii. Odata, pe cand Ioachim vroia sa aduca jertfe la altarul Domnului, un preot ii taie calea si-i zise, cu glas biciuitor, ca celui fara „samanta in Israel” nu i este ingaduit sa intre in incinta sacra a Templului. Sacrificiul adus de un asemenea om ar fi o intinare, o profanare avand consecinte nefaste pentru intreaga comunitate. Cu suflet amarat, Ioachim isi aduna in pripa ciobanii si turmele si pleaca departe, in munti, fara macar sa-si ia ramas bun de la sotia sa. Aceasta se vede asadar dintr-o data lipsita si de copii, si de barbat. Intr-o zi de sarbatoare iese in gradina casei sale, pe la ceasul al noualea, sa se plimbe si sa-si aline dorul. Aici ochii i se opresc pe un cuib de vrabii agatat de varful unui dafin inverzit. Privelistea o tulbura nespus. Izbucneste intr-un bocet-rugaciune atat de fierbinte, incat Domnul se indupleca si o asculta. Un inger coboara indata si-i vesteste credincioasei femei ca va naste prunc. Un alt inger ii apare, in munti, si lui Ioachim (exact la ceasul pranzului). Si iata ce-i zice: „Ioachim, Ioachim, Dumnezeu ti-a ascultat rugaciunea; coboara cu turmele din pustie, caci femeia ta, Ana, va ramane (sau „a ramas”) grea” (IV, 2).

Din perspectiva ecumenica, trebuie precizat faptul ca Imaculata Conceptiune, ca si Filioque, nu constituie element de blocaj, Vaticanul amintind de nenumarate ori ca nici o „biserica sora” nu va fi constransa vreodata sa accepte dogma respectiva. Exista o compatibilitate de esenta intre hiperdulia ortodoxa si Imaculata Conceptiune catolica, asa cum demonstrase, inca din 1952, teologul M. Jugie, intr-un studiu intitulat L’Immaculée Conception dans l’Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale. Disensiunile tin strict de ignoranta (reciproca) sau de terminologie.

Infailibilitatea Papei ex cathedra

Tot Pius al IX-lea a fost cel care a convocat Conciliul Vatican I, impotriva rationalismului epocii si a curentelor teologice liberale. In sprijinul tezei acestui articol se impune amintit cel putin un lucru. La inceputul pontificatului sau (anii 1846-1847), Pius al IX-lea a fost salutat, in special de catre populatia italiana, ca un Papa novator, deschis lumii seculare (invingand reticentele cardinalilor sai a impus, de pilda, electrificarea oraselor din statele pontificale si construirea de cai ferate, ambele „inovatii” ale modernitatii fiind considerate de oamenii Bisericii ca „unelte ale diavolului”). Totusi, dupa experienta revolutiei europene de la 1848 (un cardinal a fost ucis chiar in palatul de pe Quirinale iar Papa insusi a trebuit sa fuga pe ascuns din Roma) si mai ales dupa starnirea revolutiei italiene, care va culmina cu pierderea, de catre Vatican, a vastelor sale teritorii, Pius al IX-lea s-a vazut obligat sa „treaca in opozitia” reactionara. Contextul epocii a jucat un rol hotarator in impunerea dogmei infailibilitatii, controversata la inceput. Pentru reactionarii din sanul Bisericii catolice (Veuillot et comp.) proclamarea infailibilitatii reprezenta o masura necesara si urgenta menita sa stopeze valul rosu, comunisto-revolutionar, care se abatuse asupra Europei. In acelasi timp, Pius al IX-lea isi putea justifica, retroactiv, deciziile politice, nu tocmai „liberale”. Daca, din punct de vedere ecleziologic, dogma respectiva a fost judecata ca nelegitima (55 de episcopi s-au retras din Conciliu pentru a nu vota; majoritatea au votat-o), din punct de vedere politic ea s-a dovedit utila, cel putin pe termen scurt si mediu. Papalitatea a reusit sa salveze Europa occidentala de la un dezastru ideologic (nu intamplator sistemul autoritar comunist a prins in tarile cu asa-zise Biserici „autocefale”, in realitate supuse puterii politice). Conciliul Vatican I, la care au participat o mie de episcopi, si ale carui lucrari au inceput pe 8 decembrie (data fetis a Papei) 1869, n-a putut fi incheiat din cauza izbucnirii razboiului franco-prusac (1870).

Dogma infailibilitatii papale a fost inserata in cap. 4 al constitutiei dogmatice Pastor aeternus, promulgata pe 18 iulie 1870. Am mentionat deja serioasele opozitii la acest capitol ale unei parti a episcopatului catolic. Ma voi opri acum asupra continutului textului, care, din pacate, e citat si „comentat” pe nestiute, caricaturizat si denuntat ca „erezie”. „Atunci cand vorbeste ex cathedra, se spune in Pastor aeternus, adica atunci cand, indeplinind functia Sa de invatator (doctor) si de pastor al tuturor crestinilor, cand el defineste, in virtutea supremei sale autoritati apostolice, ca o invatatura ce priveste credinta sau obiceiurile (mores) trebuie respectata de intreaga Biserica, Papa se bucura, prin asistenta dumnezeiasca ce i-a fost promisa in persoana sfantului Petru, de infailibilitatea dorita de dumnezeiescul Rascumparator pentru Biserica, atunci cand aceasta defineste invatatura privitoare la credinta si la obiceiuri/moravuri. Prin urmare, aceste invataturi sunt de neschimbat in ele insele si nu in virtutea unui consimtamant al Bisericii”. Deformarile ortodoxe privesc tipul situatiei in care hotararea Papei este considerata infailibila si hiperautoritarismul acestuia. Totusi, lucrurile sunt formulate cat se poate de limpede! Chiar daca nu suntem de acord cu principiul in sine, infailibilitatea papala nu se defineste