goerge and david f.,

not that it matters, but no, i'm not confusing infinitesimals with infinity. i'm aware that cantor formalised the notion of infinity as a number. but nonetheless, as david f says, infinite processes are implicit in every step of the workings of the calculus, and explicit completed infinity appears in taylor series and the like. yes, newton was an applied mathematician, and he wasn't the first to successfully wrestle with infinity, but he was the first to win by knockout (to mix my fighting metaphors). maybe, just he landed some low blows.

and i'm sorry to harp, but there's something really weird about this world-view argument. first of all the euclidean-hyperbolic-spherical metaphor doesn't work. yes, there are different axiom systems, but all are studied successfully using euclidean geometry. there is one mathematical universe.

secondly, there are some extrinsic measures of the value of world views. or even of mathematics – some axiom systems are more fruitful than others, in measurable ways. i don't care if the religious beef looks a little (ahem) hyperbolic, but it is still fair to ask where and what it is.

thirdly, at times there are extrinsic measures of the truth of world views. if one thinks that someone was born of a virgin, that's not merely a world-view statement, that's a statement about physical reality.

does george believe that? god knows. because george doesn't actually state his world-view, or what he gains from it. fine. of course he's under no obligation. but that's a personal choice, not a logical or philosophical hurdle.

the raven is still there.

one under god, It is clear from your last posts, that I have caused you a great deal of distress. You are clearly a person of profound faith and I have challenged you beyond your boundaries. Please accept my apology.

crabsy, relda, Squeers, your comments relating to intelligence, spirituality and knowledge are accepted, all of which have multiple connotations. My use of the word knowledge was over simplistic but was specific to the assertion made by Peter Sellick.

Relda, <<spirituality” isn’t knowledge, just as technology isn’t science>>, spirituality is the only measure of self knowledge and technology is one of many products of science.

Your reference to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is interesting. The Church today is much less tolerant of such concepts, from a Jesuit or otherwise. If one accepts evolution, it would not be unreasonable to accept that “matter”, which includes the human brain, evolved along with all other physical attributes, hence consciousness. Therefore they are the same reality, why would we need theology to explain such a BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious)? All our intellectual domains are all products of consciousness.

Squeers, not sure I agree that personalities and AVB’s are abstractions. In the broader sense I see human cognitive skills as embracing all identifiable forms of intelligence:

1. Raw intelligence or IQ as defined by Isenk
2. Spiritual IQ or self knowledge as defined by Helen Palmer (Enneagram).
3. Emotional IQ (four stages)
4. Social IQ (Attitudes, values and beliefs)

I do agree that perception is our own reality, the point being made was that perception of anything and everything differs depending on your position on the continuum, it was not my intention to imply that one perception is any more right or wrong, just different, thus we all have different reactions to different things. That’s why there are currently about 6.5 billion different personalities on the planet.

spidoc,
I guess I’d have to agree in that, “spirituality is the only measure of self knowledge”, as placing it the other way around could well imply a deception i.e., by defining our spirituality through our self-knowledge. I would add here, however, the concept of self-awareness (or consciousness) is entirely another matter.

In the February 2009 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research (Jay P. Carlson and colleagues of the Union University) found people are very good at deceiving themselves about their own knowledge. A similar study in 2005, in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, reached the same conclusion. In that case, researchers warned: "The work world is full of overconfidence and flawed self-knowledge as well. Employees underestimate how long they will take to complete tasks. And CEOs and entrepreneurs are famously (sometimes disastrously) overconfident in making business decisions." In fact, self-deception creeps into decision-making all the time, as we pretend we are right, no matter what. Undoubtedly, this can also apply to most other areas within our lives.

A certain ‘objectivity’ is reached when finding a ‘self-less’ state. Our lofty secular ideals are not quite so devoid of the selfish bias we might imagine. The so called admission of a ‘selfish gene’ appears even more erroneous. A particular finding suggests that one core tenant of spiritual experience is selflessness. "If you look in the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament, in the Koran, a lot of Sufi writings, Buddhist writings, and Hindu writings, they all talk about selflessness," said Johnstone (a neuroscience researcher).

Spiritual outlooks have long been associated with better mental and physical health. These benefits, Johnstone speculated, may stem from being focused less on one’s self and more on others. (http://www.livescience.com/health/081224-brain-spirit.html)

Dear Bushbasher,

There is not one mathematical universe. There is one universe. Mathematics is a human construct and a way of looking at that universe from different aspects. Spherical geometry and hyperbolic geometry are non-Euclidean since they both deny the parallel postulate basic to Euclidean geometry.

The Catholic doctrine of the virgin birth is based on syncretism and mistranslation. Adonis or Tammuz, the Syrian god of vegetation, was a very beautiful youth, born of a Virgin. Attis, the Phrygian God, was born of a Virgin--Nana--who conceived by putting a ripe almond or pomegranate in her bosom. Krishna, the Indian god was born of a Virgin (Devaki). Christianity has absorbed these pagan beliefs. The Isaiah prophecy in the original Hebrew was that almah, a young woman, would bear a son. Almah was translated into the Greek parthenos meaning virgin.

I do not believe that there was any virgin birth, and it seems obviously a fable. However, we humans are compartmented. We rationalise our behaviour. George may believe in the virgin birth or may feel being a Catholic is worthwhile even though Catholicism contains beliefs he doesn’t accept.

However, I think George, you and I all accept the scientific method. Many people on this list don’t.

During WW2 I wanted to enlist in the army when I was 17 and not wait to be conscripted. I passed the physical and mental tests and had to take an oath before I could be a soldier. The oath required me to swear to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.” Hold on there! The learned justices of the Supreme Court spend their time discussing the constitutionality of various actions and I, a 17 year kid conscious of my ignorance, may have to decide on the constitutionality of my acts. “Well, are you in or out?” growled the officer, as he saw me hanging back. I stepped up and took the oath disregarding my misgivings. I did as expected and don’t worry about oaths any more.

I imagine the virgin birth and other dogma is something most Catholics don’t worry about.

Relda, I always find it patronising when someone uses the word ‘confusing’. Since I mentioned neither Darwinism, or social Darwinism, I really don’t see how the word applies.
I know this must seem ‘confusing’ to you, but I was actually making a statement of my own beliefs, rather than merely reiterating someone else’s; as you seem so fond of doing.
It is my belief that if the Human race manages to survive, it will be through cooperation, rather than individual effort. As you admit, the Golden Rule is an almost essential tool in that cooperation, and it is not a (IMHO) spiritual or religious law. Confucius espoused the rule long before Jesus.
I won’t suggest there is no such thing as ‘the spiritual plane’. I wouldn’t even emphatically deny the existence of ghosts. More than one sci fi writer has speculated on a ‘neutrino world’, and other ghostly parallel universes.
Electrical probes inserted into the brain of a frog show that the critter literally cannot see a falling leaf. No survival value. It is quite feasible our perceptual filters don’t allow (at least plebs like me) a direct perception of the ‘spiritual’ for the same reason.
Like the many scientists who believe that God is not necessary to the Universe, I don’t believe the spiritual is necessary to morality.

Dear David f,
Thanks for the considerate words of support.

>> The premises themselves are unprovable. The mathematical systems of Euclidean Geometry ... Analogously in religion. <<
This reminds me of an analogy that occurred to me, when on some other thread you brought up Euclidean axioms.

“Religious axioms“ or “articles of faith“ are often referred to as “necessary truths” and until the 1800s also Euclidean axioms were understood even by mathematicians not as formal axioms but as self-evident or “necessary truths”, since they were convinced that Euclidean geometry was the only correct idealisation of the properties of physical space. “Since the axioms of geometry are our basic facts about physical space and vast branches of mathematics and physical science use the properties of Euclidean geometry the mathematicians wished to be sure that they were relying upon truth” (Morris Kline, Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times, Vol. 3, OUP 1990).

Today mathematicians don’t speaks of axioms (Euclidean or other) as self-evident or “necessary truths” any more. So maybe this might hint at a more open-minded view of the articles of one’s own faith, although “the (religious) man in the street” will still be able to see his articles of faith only as necessary truths, as he will also Euclid’s axioms.

bushbasher,
>>george doesn't actually state his world-view<<
Well, it certainly would not fit into 350 words, but if you want to box me, my philosophy is based on theism (because of maths with an inclination towards Platonism) and my religion is Christian of the Catholic orientation.

As for “virgin birth” that is part of my religion, not biology, and as other religious symbols it has many interpretations that again can be either naive, or would not fit into 350 words. As an event it is supposed to have been a unique occurrence, so you cannot falsify it. I certainly don’t believe you can replicate it today (though I am not so sure about the future, if one is to believe all those things about human cloning :-)