Psalm 139 vs 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
The Bible tells us, ?The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'? (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. ?For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?His eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse? (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, ?The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.?
Success can be intoxicating, and intoxicated people aren't known for being too bright or trustworthy!
So if you want to experience God's grace and power in your life, you must be willing to die to self-interest, ego, and independence.
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.07.1708 MDT)]
···
At 11:33 PM 8/9/2009 +0100, Susan McCormack wrote:
SM: Psalm 139 vs 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
The Bible tells us, ?The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'?
(Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without
excuse for not believing in a Creator God.
BP: How do you decide whether to believe what is written in the Bible?
Best,
Bill P.
Please remove my url from your email list.
R J Robertson
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Susan McCormack Susan.Mccormack@STUDENT.MANCHESTER.AC.UK
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009 5:34 pm
Subject: Hi Rick I thought you might find this interesting
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Psalm 139 vs 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together
in my mother’s womb.
The Bible tells us, ?The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no
God’?
(Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are
without
excuse for not believing in a Creator God. ?For since the
creation of
the world God’s invisible qualities?His eternal power and
divine
nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been
made, so that men are without excuse? (Romans 1:20). According
to the
Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why,
then,
are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept
that
evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific
data?
According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not
imply
a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are
brilliant
intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly
apply
knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, ?The fear of the LORD is
the
beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.?
Success can be intoxicating, and intoxicated people aren’t known
for
being too bright or trustworthy!
So if you want to experience God’s grace and power in your life,
you
must be willing to die to self-interest, ego, and independence.
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.09.23.37]
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.07.1708 MDT)]
SM: Psalm 139 vs 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
The Bible tells us, ?The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'?
(Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without
excuse for not believing in a Creator God.
BP: How do you decide whether to believe what is written in the Bible?
I once asked a not unintelligent research scientist who was also a Christian fundamentalist this same question. His answer: "Because the Bible tells me that it is true".
I told him that what I write is true, and I wrote down that what I write is true, but he didn't believe me.
Martin
···
At 11:33 PM 8/9/2009 +0100, Susan McCormack wrote:
(Gavin Ritz 2009.08.10.16.39NZT)
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.09.23.37]
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.07.1708 MDT)]
Hey Martin that shouldn't surprise you, PCT says that the reference signals
value is almost the input functions (perfectly).
SM: Psalm 139 vs 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
The Bible tells us, ?The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'?
(Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without
excuse for not believing in a Creator God.
BP: How do you decide whether to believe what is written in the Bible?
I once asked a not unintelligent research scientist who was also a
Christian fundamentalist this same question. His answer: "Because the
Bible tells me that it is true".
I told him that what I write is true, and I wrote down that what I write
is true, but he didn't believe me.
Martin
···
At 11:33 PM 8/9/2009 +0100, Susan McCormack wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.09.2250)]
Gavin Ritz (2009.08.10.16.39NZT)
Hey Martin that shouldn't surprise you, PCT says that the reference signals
value is almost the input functions (perfectly).
Indeed, not changing one's beliefs based on evidence is not surprising
from a control theory perspective, but it's not quite for the reason
you say. Control systems do act to keep perceptual signals (not the
input functions that compute these perceptions) matching reference
signals. But this only happens when there is skillful control; that
is, when the control system is properly designed (in terms of gain and
slowing, mainly) to produce this result.
I imagine that controlling religious perceptions requires considerable
skill, particularly if one is a scientist. I think any scientist would
experience rather intense disturbances to the religious perceptions
(beliefs) they are trying to control, the fossil record being one
example. It must take enormous intellectual skill to be able to
simultaneously believe (perceive) that Genesis is a good description
of creation and that dinosaurs roamed the earth 60 million years ago.
I think my problem is that I've just never been smart enough to be
religious; Ms. McCormack is right about me being a fool, if being
simple minded is the same as being a fool. I am very simple minded.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.10.10.21]
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.09.2250)]
I imagine that controlling religious perceptions requires considerable
skill, particularly if one is a scientist. I think any scientist would
experience rather intense disturbances to the religious perceptions
(beliefs) they are trying to control, the fossil record being one
example. It must take enormous intellectual skill to be able to
simultaneously believe (perceive) that Genesis is a good description
of creation and that dinosaurs roamed the earth 60 million years ago.
Yes, I was (and remain) astonished that such a good scientist could so compartmentalize his perceptions of the way the world works. It seems that the ability to sustain mutually incompatible perceptions is one that might well need a PCT explanation. Perhaps such an explanation might also go some way toward an explanation of multiple personalities, in which one personality seems to be unaware of another. Modularity of mind in the extreme!
Martin
[From Dick Robertson, 2009.08.10.1031CDT]
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.09.23.37]
SM: Psalm 139 vs 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me
together in my mother’s womb.
The Bible tells us, ?The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’?
(Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are
excuse for not believing in a Creator God.
BP: How do you decide whether to believe what is written in
the Bible?
I once asked a not unintelligent research scientist who was also
a Christian fundamentalist this same question. His answer:
“Because the Bible tells me that it is true”.
I told him that what I write is true, and I wrote down that what
I write is true, but he didn’t believe me.
Did he explain why the people–that he never met personally–who wrote the Bible, are more credible than you, his friend? Has he never run across advertising scams in ostensible news anouncements?
Best,
Dick R
···
At 11:33 PM 8/9/2009 +0100, Susan McCormack wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.10.1000)]
Martin Taylor 2009.08.10.10.21]
I was (and remain) astonished that such a good scientist could so
compartmentalize his perceptions of the way the world works...
Modularity of mind in the extreme!
Good point. Actually, PCT is a very modular model of mind. Each
control system in the hierarchy of control systems is a self-contained
module, doing it's own thing, which is acting (by varying it's
outputs, which may be inputs to lower level systems) to keep it's
perception matching (as closely as possible) it's reference. So a PCT
theorist really shouldn't be surprised to find that a person can
control for what appear to an observer to be completely incompatible
perceptions. We have to learn to see control from the actor's point of
view. From our point of view the perceptions the actor is controlling
may seem completely incompatible but that would only be because of the
way _we_ would go about controlling those perceptions. Controlling
what seem like incompatible perceptions to us may present no
difficulties at all to an actor who controls those perceptions
differently than we do.
Indeed, I think this puzzle (how people can control for apparently
incompatible perceptions, like, to put it very generally, religion and
science) is a great illustration of why testing for controlled
variables is so fundamental to understanding human nature in PCT
terms. Controlled perceptions (perceptions controlled by separate
control system modules) are incompatible only to the extent that
successful control of those perceptions requires that some lower level
control system module keep its perception (the means of controlling
the higher level perceptions) in two different states at the same
time. That is, controlled perceptions are incompatible if controlling
them results in a conflict. In principle it should be possible to use
the test for controlled variables to "map out" a person's hierarchy of
control system modules, not only to determine what each module is
controlling for but, more interestingly, to find out _how_ each module
controls it's perceptions by finding out which lower level perceptions
are involved in the control of those perceptions.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com