TED Conversations

Bernard White

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed.

Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

I started this debate, with a new aspect (or perspective) on our current education problem. Considering many focus on how to motivate students and various other aspects. Yet this (creationism) still remains a big problem to the American education system today, and I don't think many people think about this when they consider the education system today.

I feel I should have probably made this clearer, when I say creationism, I am making reference to the type of creationism which tell people "Evolution is wrong". (Or in other words the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate).

Creationism - http://www.creationism.org/
Does it have any credibility to it? Should it be considered a science?
Considering due to recent polls 46% of American believe in creationism.
Link :
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Many psychological studies have shown a strong correlation between a lack of education and creationism. These studies indicate that not many creationists actually understand what the scientific method is.
With all this talk of how to "improve education" surely it would be wise, to finally finish the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate, if we wish to ensure a better scientific education!
Watch this 3 minute link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo (By Lawrence Krauss)

Here are some reasons, people believe creationism should be taught in schools, which I believe are false :
http://listverse.com/2013/02/07/10-reasons-creationism-should-be-taught-in-school/
Considering, if the polls are to be believed, 46% of Americans are missing out (in my opinion) on a proper scientific education.

I think it is worth mentioning though, that I am fine with "Theistic evolution".
A good book recommendation on this matter is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller. I personally have never understood the claim "Atheism = Evolution"...

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 4 2013: Austin,

    you had me until you said " The reason that people"...
    Faith doesn't have to prove science. If you could prove a hypothesis of faith by science it would no longer require faith. Faith is simply a belief in a truth that cannot be proved but you know it is true. Something deep inside causes you to believe. Others can say that you are wrong because your beliefs can't be scientifically be proved.
    I would ask why?
    Why is it important to challenge another's faith and beliefs? Does it improve your position in belief to try to prove them wrong? I see no value in questioning another's belief. What does it do for me... other then to make me seem petty. And who is to say that they are wrong in their beliefs? Me!
    Now, if someone expresses his beliefs and states that he is 100% correct and I am so wrong... we will have
    a discussion.
    You say that you are a teacher. So,why are you not exposing your students to all the ideas and knowledge that is out there. Are you the filter that determines what students are to learn. If one of your students comes from a religious family that has strong beliefs in creationism, is it your job to tell this student that his parents are full of crap and he/she should only listen to you? Not easy is it. That is why you must teach all ideas and not be fixed on one.
    • thumb
      Jun 4 2013: I think you forgot to press the "reply" button. :-)
      Kind regards,
      Bernard.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: Brilliant prose and your only comment is I forgot a button?
        I'm crushed !
        Humbly,
        Mike
        :- 0
    • Jun 4 2013: Hey Mike,

      Thanks for your reply.

      I am, in fact, a Christian because I do understand at a deep, deep level what Christ did for me on the cross. I get it at a very personal level- that I am both very messed up (a sinner), and very loved (have received grace) at the exact same time- and you are right that my belief cannot be proved and that it's faith.

      However, I am also a science teacher, and my job is to teach the science! The idea that God created the earth is not a testable hypothesis. Since we cannot show that it is wrong (i.e. we cannot test it) then I cannot and should not teach it in a science class. It is a matter of faith.

      I do not put anyone’s faith down/challenge them. I address this issue in the first class every year. My high school students learn this distinction, they get it, and they move on, keeping their faith and learning some awesome (and by awesome I mean awe inspiring) knowledge about how the universe works, at the same time. If they decide on their own to draw the conclusion that God made all of this cool stuff then that is up to them personally.

      I do only teach one idea (we call it a theory or theories) of the origin of the universe, Earth, and ultimately us- yes. This is because this is/these are the only theory/theories that have been supported by the evidence. I mention of course (by this time in the year it has been said many times) that there are other stories/ideas about how things came to be- but again, "since we cannot test these class are they science?" "No" says the class. I cannot teach that God made everything.

      Please let me know if you still have any questions/comments because I do legitimately want to clear this up with folks. The nature of science can be confusing as I mentioned above and I feel that as a Christian science teacher I am in a unique position to explain the distinctions.

      Once you separate the two endeavors, science and faith can both be fulfilling, different, parts of one’s life! They have been for me.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: Hi Austin just a question,
        --"However, I am also a science teacher, and my job is to teach the science! The idea that God created the earth is not a testable hypothesis.."--

        How do you proof to your class that matter, nature and then us evolved out of nothing?? I assume that what science says IS a "testable hypothesis." Or does science have more answers nowadays?

        Just as everything that is 'man made' originated from a person's spirit, not his neurons or his electrical connections, so did the universe originate in God's spirit.
        One more thing, Revelation (and a faith therein can explain and reveal worldly phenomena, as through the science of correspondences. Maybe you'd like to have a look?
        http://www.scienceofcorrespondences.com/

        Just as an expert has ways to determine if a painting is made by e.g. Rembrandt, so should we have ways (if we want to) to determine if this world, and us, are more than just an accident with no purpose whatsoever.
        • Jun 5 2013: Hello Adriaan,

          I'm not sure that 2000 characters is enough space to explain all of the testable hypotheses that have been put forward about the origin of the universe, and us.

          Matter, nature and we did not evolve from nothing- the Big Bang theory says that ALL matter that is in the universe currently was originally in a single point in space 13.5 billion years ago. So we didn't come from nothing.

          Now the question of how everything got to that singularity in the first place, before the universe started expanding, is currently a hotly debated topic in cosmology circles. Was there a previous universe that had undergone a "Big Crunch?!" Is this an endless cycle of expansion and contraction? We don't know- but that is where the tests (mostly crunching numbers in complex equations of physics) are being done today.

          I would argue that things that are "man made" come from/are reorganizations of, existing matter- not spirits.

          And the evidence tells us that we really are "an accident" yes. That is to say that we were not created for a purpose- there is no purpose for anything in the universe. Now, that sounds very depressing, but at the root of the science- that's it! We happened because of a long chain of events that were not going somewhere- there was no/is no end goal in sight. There is no one's sight for an end goal to be in!

          It's humbling to realize that we are not the pinnacle evolution. We're not. To borrow from Stephen Hawking- "intelligence is not required for life. Bacteria don't have it and have been around for over three billion years."

          I will take a peek at the website- thanks. I already had to go to the FAQ page in order to find the definition of the science of correspondences and I'll keep looking. If the evidence doesn't hold up though I will stick to the current, peer reviewed theories.
        • Jun 6 2013: Adriaan,

          "How do you proof to your class that matter, nature and then us evolved out of nothing?"

          You've got it wrong. In science class we teach what the current theories are, and about the stage where they are. We are very far from pretending that scientists have figured out everything. We are very far from saying that science has an answer for everything. When a student asks a question whose answer eludes science so far. I say so.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: OK, a reasonable stand. Science does need experiments and provable conclusions if I remember my schooling. What I was alluding too is many science teachers go out of their way to deny creationism
        and ridicule students who ask and that to me is the tragedy.
        • Jun 5 2013: Hey again Mike,

          I couldn't agree more. Many science teachers step outside the realm of science instruction and speak on matters of faith- which is inappropriate and a tragedy- I agree.

          When my students ask a question that cannot be answered by science (because there is no testable hypothesis) I tell them every time, "that is a question of faith that I don't know the answer to as your science teacher."

          I leave it up to them to decide what their beliefs will be. If they ask me what mine are I share after class- this builds deep relationships with my students which are the foundation of effective education.

          Thanks for the comment Mike- it's important for us science teachers to remember our place!
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2013: It is a ridiculous proposition to be made scientifically, I think it is therefore that science teachers tend to ridicule it.

          You say "Faith is simply a belief in a truth that cannot be proved but you know it is true." But how do you KNOW Mike, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE!? By this reasoning everything is true, as long as a single individual thinks it is.

          I know it to be true that unicorns exist. And vampires. And I know it to be true that *insert anything that most people don't accept but have heard stories of*

          The place of science teachers is to educate in science. And it is true that the role of the teacher is not to ridicule but to educate. But if you said to your math teacher that 5+7 =1 then I'm pretty sure that you would feel ridiculed by that teacher as well.

          If you understand science, just the basics, then you would feel the same way about the statement of creationism as a math teacher would for 5+7=1
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2013: Hi Austin, thanks for keeping an open mind and to keep looking.

        --"ALL matter that is in the universe currently was originally in a single point in space 13.5 billion years ago. So we didn't come from nothing."--

        I see this as an expression based on faith in Scientism. No proof but only assumptions. How big was the "point"?

        --"Is this an endless cycle of expansion and contraction? We don't know"--

        Ah ! So there are things science admits it does not know and cannot proof.

        --"I would argue that things that are "man made" come from/are reorganizations of, existing matter- not spirits."'--
        I don't think you got my point. What would you say created Rembrandt's paintings? Was it his hands, his brain or his spirit? Since you say you are a Christian, I assume you also believe that a person has/is a spirit.

        I sincerely hope that at some point science will settle down and recognize its limitations. This sibling rivalry is useless and going nowhere. I have full respect of what science has done and can accomplish but it is all about matter. Being useful is above matter so cannot be measured, just like love. To make that as "evidence" of --"we were not created for a purpose- there is no purpose for anything in the universe."-- is totally beyond me. In my mind, every single item in this world is here for a reason and has a relationship..
        • Jun 6 2013: Austin very clearly told you that such was what the Big Bang theory said, not that it was a definitive answer. It is not "based on scientism," it is based on the evidence of the expansion of the universe "ran" backwards, plus many features of the universe that betray it's age, and shows remnants of the high energetic state of the initial stages of expansion. That's not "scientism" but science. How big was the point is an excellent question. Still in the works, but I read something about a "Plank something." I did not go too deep though.

          Of course science does not have answers for everything. Why would anybody think otherwise?

          Of course that science recognizes it's limitations. Otherwise we scientists would be out of a job. It's only obvious.
        • Jun 6 2013: Hey again Adriaan,

          Entropy did a great job of addressing your earlier comments so I will simply echo his thoughts on those. Thanks Entropy!

          To your later points about Rembrandt's paintings and the "sibling rivalry" you spoke of, what separates humans from other species is our larger brains which then allowed us to do things like create art and engage in the scientific process. I am a christian yes- but I have to continually SEPERATE that from my knowledge of science (not easy to do as this comment stream shows).

          As in, I believe that we have spirits but I know that science/ the evidence shows us that we do not. My belief in our spirits does not mean that we have them. This may seem like a contradiction- which might lead some to say I am either not a true christian or not a true scientist. I cannot answer either of those questions I guess.

          Maybe I'm not a true christian or scientist. I try not to concern myself with that though... I just keep on learning more and more about the universe we live in and the history of life in it, including ours. I also just keep learning more and more each day what it means to live like Christ- to follow his example.

          Siblings might not be the best way to describe faith and science. I have heard others explain the two this way before. Siblings implies that they are nearly the same, maybe two slightly different ways to describe the same events. This is not accurate. They can't.

          The difference, as I have said on here previously, is that claims of science must be TESTABLE and then, the results of your test must be repeated by OTHER scientists in order to be considered validated (the peer review process). Faith is quite different! It is deeply personal- even within traditions. Most times people who share your tradition do not ask you to defend it- there is no "peer review" process in faith. Unsubstantiated claims are the hallmark of faith actually! That's why they are faiths- because you have to believe something you cannot prove.
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2013: Greetings, Adriaan,

          I was pretty sure that I was missing something, and I thank you for your clarification. In my youth I read the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and found them impressive. I still have them in my collection, and read them from time to time.

          I purchased several of his books at the Wayfarers Chapel's bookstore, the chapel designed by Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright's son.

          "We believe they can easily be seen as the 'index' of the whole Bible, because of their spiritual significance."

          Precisely. And in many ways, the table of content as well.

          "But you have to turn on your light."

          I agree. Stumbling around in the dark can lead to serious injury
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2013: "I would argue that things that are "man made" come from/are reorganizations of, existing matter- not spirits."

        I agree with Socrates: What we see in the physical world corresponds to that which exists in a non-physical realm, existing because of it, including our physical bodies. He called this interaction "correspondence."

        "And the evidence tells us that we really are "an accident" yes."

        The evidence is inconclusive, as is M-theory which posits the existence of 'self-generating matter," matter that was, before the big bang, non-living and non-intelligent, but in combination gave birth to our universe, including intelligent man. For my part, that's more "magical" that positing a God, a Universal Intelligence" as the source of our origin.

        "That is to say that we were not created for a purpose- there is no purpose for anything in the universe."

        Then, there's no purpose for us. If there's no purpose for us, then there's no purpose for love, and its opposite fear, yet, most of us are capable of expressing and experiencing both, in one of its various forms or another.

        I aver that we're pure love (as is our Maker), and that fear--and the world of relativity--was created so that we might experience who we are. Granted, we don't always express love, but most of us have the human capacity to do, whether we do so often, consistently, or not.

        "To borrow from Stephen Hawking- "intelligence is not required for life. Bacteria don't have it and have been around for over three billion years.""

        If intelligence is so overrated, as the Hawing statement suggests, let me ask you this: "Would you trade places with a bacterium, or an amoeba?"
        • Jun 6 2013: Hello Will,

          Thanks for the reply. I really enjoy these conversations. Here are my thoughts about your replies.

          Sounds like "the science of correspondences" that Adriaan sent me a link to above. I have not had enough time to read through it... however a hypothesis that there is a non-physical realm as Socrates described, cannot be tested so it is not science- but a belief.

          The evidence for the history of life is not complete- indeed. But there is A LOT we DO know. That is what I was referring to when I said we (life) were an accident. How the Big Bang, and the universe, originated is still being tested. If you want to call that inconclusive that's fine.

          I have not read anything about M-theory- maybe I should. Thankfully it's easy to google anything. Self generated matter doesn't sound plausible based on current understandings of physics and chemistry (matter is neither created or destroyed).

          Love and fear are human emotions that ultimately have no purpose because as I said- nothing has a purpose! Biologists would say that love is meant to drive us towards other humans for the proliferation of our species. Fear then is meant to protect us from things that would kill us. But those are not ultimate purposes-but instincts.

          Since I do not think love and fear were "created" then I cannot say if they were made so that we could experience who we are, as you said. I feel that humans act more bestial then human most of the time. Maybe that's just what we see and hear on the news though because that's what sells? I don't know.

          On that note- us humans tend to complicate things and sometimes I wonder if life as another animal would be simpler! I/you certainly wouldn't be aware of anything other than if you were safe and well fed, and your offspring were too. Maybe bacteria and amoebas live a perfectly satisfied life, after all ignorance is bliss! Maybe they are constantly terrified. By luck of the draw I'm typing this now. That's all- I could have easily been a bacteria
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2013: "How the Big Bang, and the universe, originated is still being tested. If you want to call that inconclusive that's fine."

        It would be difficult to call it anything other than inconclusive, wouldn't you say? Creating the supposed physical conditions that existed just before the big bang, using the Large Hadron Collider, and studying that, won't get us any closer to definitive answers than we already have, despite claims that the God particle was detected.

        "Self generated matter doesn't sound plausible based on current understandings of physics and chemistry (matter is neither created or destroyed)."

        If not "created or destroyed," then matter exists and preexisted, as religionists say God exists, as an eternal substance, having neither a beginning nor an end. The only thing we haven't done yet is ascribe to this preexisting matter a consciousness, or a mind, but claim that this nonliving and mindless matter created both life and mind.

        "Love and fear are human emotions that ultimately have no purpose because as I said- nothing has a purpose!"

        Not even self-generating matter--it had no purpose? It supposedly created our purposeless universe, and peopled it with all kind of purposeless lifeforms. Using that purposeless mind, science has concluded that neither it, the universe, nor life itself has a purpose. Now I wonder what's the purpose of that? Science can't come up with a better hypothesis?

        "Biologists would say that love is meant to drive us towards other humans for the proliferation of our species."

        The sex drive does that without the introduction of love. It's what drives prostitution, and pornography as industries. Besides, how many other lifeforms in the animal kingdom mate without the impulsion of love.

        "Since I do not think love and fear were "created" then I cannot say if they were made so that we could experience who we are."

        You're right: Love wasn't made, but has always existed, and fear is a contrivance, and I'm running out of characters.
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2013: "Love and fear are human emotions that ultimately have no purpose."

        I regret to say that you don't know Love. You haven't explored it, nor have you plumbed its depths, or you would never make such a statement. But you're not alone, most of humankind share your indifference to what you dismiss as a "human emotion."

        "a hypothesis that there is a non-physical realm as Socrates described, cannot be tested so it is not science- but a belief."

        Most of what make life purposeful can't be "tested." Science doesn't have to hypothesize a "non-physical realm," we enter it each time we enter the region we call sleep. We get further vestiges of this non-physical realm when science attempts to source life in body and mind in brain, and come up empty.

        "Maybe bacteria and amoebas live a perfectly satisfied life, after all ignorance is bliss!"

        You're begging the question; it doesn't make for a meaningful discussion. How many humans would opt to live life as a bacterium or an amoeba?

        "By luck of the draw I'm typing this now. That's all- I could have easily been a bacteria."

        Or by your judgment any life form. As much as you seem to want it to be so, your existence is not the work of chance, nor the "luck of the draw." Even now, in your life, as with all humans, nothing is left to chance. Along with billions of others, you're creating your experience, and you're creating it consciously and unconsciously.

        Metaphysics make life purposeful; without it, life would indeed be purposeless, and meaningless. More than a material world, we live in a world of ideas, which can't be seen nor touched, where house becomes home, a collection of people become families, and neighborhoods, political lines on a map become a nation, states, cities, so much paper and metal become currency, and squiggly lines on paper or on a computer screen become mathematics.

        Take away ideas, and the world truly becomes purposeless. With them, life becomes worth living, for the purpose of life is life itself
        • Jun 7 2013: Hey again Will,
          To put this in context- you are only arguing with half of me- my "science half." You and my faith half agree on a lot of this, and you and my science half disagree.
          Again-we do not yet know what happened before the big bang but the "self generating matter" idea most likely didn't because of what we DO know about matter now. Might there have been different rules of physics before the big bang? Maybe- we're crunching the #s now, and maybe we'll never know you're right.
          The evidence has led to the current theory yes- that very much by accident there was more matter in the early universe than antimatter. Also much by accident there was an unequal distribution of this matter. That meant that gravity could do its thing and the matter was attracted to the other matter which is why we got galaxies, stars, planets, and us.
          Yes again, science has found that ultimately there is no "purpose" even to the endeavor of science itself. This is a fine hypothesis! Why come up with a better one? We explore because we are curious, but the universe would go on without us, and if we didn't do this, our species would go on as well.
          Our emotions have been discovered to be combinations of neurotransmitters and hormones. My "faith" half still succumbs to them of course. I am happily married and have a 5 month old so I "feel" love regularly. Knowing love is tough- does anyone really "know" love?
          To beg the question is a valid argument if the premise is valid. Since the evidence shows that life is possible without intelligence (bacteria, etc..) then my premise was valid and so was my argument.
          See the third paragraph- we ARE the work of chance! To put this on the ground a bit- things happen to us almost daily that are "by chance" or in other words out of our control.
          Metaphysics is not science. That's ALL I've been saying- separate the faith and science. Ideas are not necessary for life. Saying the purpose of life is life itself is begging the question with an invalid premise.
      • thumb
        Jun 7 2013: Hi Austin, I agree with your point about how the word 'siblings' is not quite right. Science and religion are very different approaches to the same thing. The spiritual realm is completely outside the spectrum of science.
        I just wish it would be easier for a scientist to say: 'although science cannot detect it, that does not mean it does not exist.'

        I also do not appreciate someone saying: there is evidence of what caused the big bang in a point, somewhere, 35 billion years ago. Would evidence be regarded the same as proof, or just looks like it?

        You mentioned the word faith a few times. This is our definition of faith.
        Faith is a person's internal acknowledgement of truth, from seeing and understanding it.
        This means that a faith in something we do not understand, is seen as a blind faith.
        • Jun 7 2013: Hey again Adriaan,

          I think it's hard for scientists to say "even though science can't detect it, it may exist" because science is all about evidence and if we don't have evidence then we cannot say for sure one way or the other. So an honest scientist would say "we don't know yet, maybe."

          I'm not sure who told you anything about 35 billion years ago- I wouldn't listen to any of that- the universe is "only" 13.5 billion years old (that's a HUGE amount of time!) so before that we don't know.

          More to your point though, evidence of the expansion of the universe is pretty good. Everywhere we look the light coming to us is red shifted which means the objects are moving away from us. What caused the big bang is another question. Really, the question is what happened before the big bang. It makes sense that if there was that much matter/energy in one point it would be unstable and would expand, or "explode."

          Does evidence equal proof- no. In science we cannot "prove" anything! We can only say "the evidence supports this hypothesis." Or "the evidence does not support this hypothesis." When enough evidence is found supporting a hypothesis it may become a theory but it's not unfalsifiable. There may come enough evidence later to show that it is wrong. If that doesn't happen it holds up. The only Laws though are mathematical equations based on physics such as F = MA.

          Thanks for your comment on the definition of faith. I'll mull it over, but wanted to get back to you about the first couple of comments right away. Take care.
      • thumb
        Jun 7 2013: "Our emotions have been discovered to be combinations of neurotransmitters and hormones."

        This is the physical equivalent of an experience that occurs beyond the body, just as we can see some physical activity in the brain during the process we call thinking, although, like emotions, thinking occurs outside the brain.

        This rounds out the illusion of life in body and mind in brain, as science can't source in body or brain what was never there.

        "Since the evidence shows that life is possible without intelligence (bacteria, etc..) then my premise was valid and so was my argument."

        Your argument suggests that there's very little difference between complex life forms and simple life forms. And I countered by saying: Ruling out mental illness, the most complex life form, man, won't opt to be a bacterium or an amoeba.

        "This is a fine hypothesis! Why come up with a better one?"

        Science can do as it chooses, but, just as religion has failed to evolve mankind spiritually, science is leading the way by resolving all things into material components, as it searches for cause in effect. It won't find it there, but it will continue to try.

        Science reinforces the lie that we're physical beings (rather than spiritual entities), beings living in a physical universe, when our universe is actually mental, supported by a non-physical matrix, and subject to our thoughts on both the individual and collective levels.

        Drifting in the wrong direction, mankind will continue to struggle to exist, and, if not careful, it will destroy the very world that has served it so well.

        "We explore because we are curious, but the universe would go on without us, and if we didn't do this, our species would go on as well."

        Actually, we're on the threshold of self-annihilation, thanks, in large part, to science.

        "Metaphysics is not science."

        I never said it was, but it does drive science. It's called mathematics.

        "Ideas are not necessary for life"

        But where would life be without them?
        • thumb
          Jun 8 2013: Processes occur beyond the body and mind because spirit is a false entity driven by the chemical processes within neurons. This is a mystical thing we call consciousness.

          "Mankind will destroy the very world it has served well." Well, if you mean by all of the atheist scientists telling religious people to stop pollution and acknowledge climate change as realism then yes. Science can even help us reach a new world beyond our own, like the moon and Mars.

          "Actually, we're on the threshold of self-annihilation." Largely due to military exercises because extremist and activist religions and even non-religious organizations won't accept humanity as a whole that needs to work together. This is largely due to lack of our own people refusing to help and distribute technology.

          Metaphysicians are often times just overly arrogant ontologists about their religion.

          Life would be where it was before ideas evolved into our time, obviously.

          Spirit is a false sense to meet human ambitions and expectations. Let's say there is nothing but horror, misery, and disappointment at death. Too bad. Death happens, and it doesn't mean it has to be a pleasant sense when you die with virgins, heaven, or your own planet.

          "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan
      • thumb
        Jun 8 2013: "Knowing love is tough- does anyone really "know" love?"

        To "know love" is not an intellectual exercise but one of expression. Had you as a young man practiced the presence of love, before you became an old man in the ways of the world, you would have developed a sense that would have given you amazing powers--"he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways."

        We call this sense, "spiritual sense," and to the degree that you develop it will you wield this little-known, and little-used power.

        Jesus stilled the storm, turned water into wine, healed he sick and raised the dead with spiritual sense alone.

        Just think where mankind would be now had they simply practiced loving--dwelled in love--that purposeless emotion, if we're to believe science? The message is almost as old as recorded history:

        "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

        "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

        It's never too late, but as with all things that require mastering, the sooner you start the more masterful you become over time.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2013: Hello Austin and Wil,
        The subject of love... it is the all in everything. As i mentioned before in relation with Rembrandt and his paintings. Nothing is done or changed, by a person, that is not motivated by a love or an affection. Even if that love can not be detected by science.

        Swedenborg says that love is not nothing but is a spiritual substance. It also can only exist in a free environment. No freedom means no love. Love is to wish well to.. whatever we love, to be connected to .. whatever we love, and to make whatever we love happy and content.

        However, love is only half the equation. Love without wisdom is nothing. We cannot love what we do not know or understand. We also cannot be wise on a subject we do not love.

        I love Swedenborg's writings because they seem to drive religion and science together. Our spiritual environment corresponds perfectly with our natural environment.
        Regarding that there exists a perfect correspondence between love and wisdom with the spiritual organs that receive them, namely our 'will' and 'understanding'. Again, this correspondence is perfectly expressed and portrayed by the relationship between our heart and our lungs.

        This means that the more we know (from science) about what a heart does and how the lungs work, and how they relate, the more we can know how our mind works.

        This, hopefully will shed more light on the subject. Our spiritual environment is portrayed by the Tabernacle of Israel, from the materials, their colors, the furniture including its placement, and the complete layout to the way it was used. As can be seen in this book.
        I asure you that God did not go into this much detail because He is a picky camper.
        http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/The%20Tabernacle%20of%20Israel.pdf?attredirects=0
    • Jun 5 2013: There's no reason to "teach all ideas." That's pure nonsense. If someone comes from a family that believes that the planet is flat and that there's edges from which ships can fall, why should I teach such crap? That someone believes it does not make it true. That someone believes it does not make it a reason to teach it.

      In science we teach science. not fantasy. If someone wants to "learn" that the planet is flat, and that they were created from mud, and that the first women was created from a rib, they are welcome to do so in their fantasy-land schools. I don't know about Austin, but I teach science. I will not pretend that fantasies are scientific. Not now, not ever.

      Do I teach them that their parents are full of crap? Nope. That's a judgement that they are free to pass if they so wish. I also don't tell them that they have to believe the science. If they prefer fantasy they are welcome to it. Only in the tests they have to demonstrate that they do understand the science. Understand, not believe.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.