One area where the jostling has always been intense has been the education of children. While most Protestant schools were absorbed into the State school system in the 1870’s the Catholics did not relinquish any of theirs. From the 1970’s on, the balance in the State school system between competing ideological forces began to shift decisively against the values of Christian parents with the result that, at great cost in terms of time, money and commitment, they began building independent Christian schools which are now educating a significant proportion of children across Australia. Some Christian parents have gone even further into home schooling. The result is the State School system is stagnating not because of lack of funding but for ideological reasons. A growing proportion of Australian parents prefer independent and faith based schools. Arguably, the anti religious faith, specifically anti Christian mindset that came to dominate in the education system from the 1970’s on, has only achieved a spectacular own goal.

I find it incredibly ironic, the law of unintended consequences, that the current push by Atheists to remove religious education from State Schools, if successful, will only increase the drift away from the State system. In the church I attend, only one family that I know of has their children in State based education, the rest of the children (and we have a lot of them) are in independent or Christian schools or are being home schooled.

Well, at least it will keep them out of our universities.

One last post for today: mralstoner, “says the Western World is in serious decline and the humanist movement is stagnating when it should be building communities and political parties. Time is running out”.

This fits with my charge that Atheism is not morally serious – this was never clearer than when observing the wildly cheering audience on Friday night at the Convention responding to a bunch dirty minded juvenile comedians whose every fifth word was ‘f...ing’ (OK Ben Elton was clever, considered, Mikey Robins ordinary whilst Jim Jeffries was gross IMO). How serious is that? “Caused them to think”, said one of the great ones, the following day. Sure, no further than their genitals. (My comment doesn’t extend to the presenters Kylie Sturgess or Lawrence Leung who were excellent with good natured clean humour from Lawrence)

This is the way I see it. The Atheists had their Convention and now they all go to their individual homes, saying, “well that’s over for another 2 years” and console themselves by writing pathetic anti religion entries on websites, or looking for the next offering from their puffed up Atheist clergy. There was nothing at the Convention to build an ongoing visible community to do specific good and noble deeds, just the stroking of the egos of the clergy, who no doubt took away all that adulation in a warm glow with a fat wallet of money in the pocket. The Western World is in serious decline and Atheism is part of that dying, but we in the Church don’t mean to die because we care so much about the Christian Gospel and what it means to the lives of ordinary people. We will adapt to our circumstances as we have always done through the centuries without whingeing, or being all that too fussed by the presence of Atheism because at the end of the day Atheism does nothing to help people make a success of their lives as citizens, members of families and the like.

Thanks David for your courage to sum of the predictable. Keep spreading the good news mate. You have certainly have displayed courage and seen yet again what the pathetic alternative is. The moral void created by secularism will just gravitate people like Anders and Mulsims to extremism. Maybe the flood of children to schools with at least some morals might give us a glimmer of hope. I have met many young brave kids who reject the secularist religion despite being bombarded by their dogmas. They can see clearly through the vileness of such a religion that masquerades as an angel of light.

Poirot,

Re your quote from Brian Greene: "..From the well-worn statement that the speed of light is constant, we conclude that "space and time are in the eye f the beholder".

This would seems to suggest (per: 'well-worn statement') that the speed of light may in fact vary from a constant 'C'. "In the eye of the beholder" suggests either an 'illusion' (optical?) or a fault in our measuring equipment?

Greene plays what appears to be a neat slight of hand here: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant: space and time do behave this way." Space and time Do behave this way? And how can he demonstrate a proof for this explanation? I have not seen others suggesting that light may only 'appear' to travel at 'C' - but rather have stated clearly that light always travels at 'C'.

This would appear to conflict with a potential theory/explanation (from my 'reading') that 'red-shift' in a beam of light escaping a high-gravity object suggests that the expenditure of part of the beam's energy (to overcome gravity) causes the beam to extend its wavelength, and hence reduce its frequency, but thereby maintaining a transit speed of 'C'. Similarly, that same beam of light would be expected to reduce its wavelength, and hence increase its frequency, when approaching an attractive gravitational force - again to maintain a constant 'C'.

My original question(s) re light speed and space-time are yet to be adequately answered, and I'm still waiting for a quantum physicist's response.

My inquiry re 'the Way the Truth and the Light' may hinge on that response.

chrisdbarry,

Re my statement: "The quest continues, and for the intuitive mind there's more to life than mere existence."

The intuitive and seeking mind of Albert Einstein revolutionised human understanding in physics, mechanics and mathematics, but he also made some intuitive observations of the human condition, which, coming from the greatest mind of our time, warrant deep consideration. Albert was not satisfied with mere existence, but was also 'human', and was troubled by the future of nuclear weapons and the future of humanity. If Albert stated that the future of humanity lies in compassion, understanding and respect for All Life, we should take heed.

The challenge, the quest, is the achievement of harmony and respect - the next 'evolution' of civilisation - rather than pure and divorced 'science' for its own sake. Can spirituality play a part in this, the ultimate quest? The jury is still deliberating.