Mr. Hammond:
I welcome you. It takes courage to humble oneself even when others seem
not to be understanding or appreciative. Sometimes a disastrous event
can be the catalyst for mutual humbling.
Your areas of specialty differ greatly from mine. Perhaps we can pool
our strengths. There is one area where our thoughts may intersect. I
quote from your post to this list on 5/20/2001 as follows:
> In the case of Psychology, what is done is to take every psychology
> test in the world, and give them to say 20,000 people. Say there are
> 100 questions on every test. Each question is like a guy reaching into the
> tent to try and see what's in there. OK, so they compute the
> 100x100 correlation matrix and then extract the eigenvectors. Guess
> what, it turns out to be a 3D time varying BOX
> [George Hammond]
>
The late Dr. Austin Farrer of Oxford University suggested in _Faith and
Speculation_, masterfully explained by Dr. Charles Conti, that the place
to begin understanding oneself, God and the universe might be in the
believer's personal experience of contingency, or dependence. I would
for the moment apply this approach to believers in all religious faiths,
although there are essential differences among these faiths. In this
venture I would even extend it to serious-minded agnostics and atheists.
The result might be something like what C.S. Lewis described in _The
Abolition of Man_--a sort of "Tao," or [almost] universally accepted set
of moral and ethical beliefs. The use of this term is not intended by
Lewis to be the same as its technical sense in Taoism.
Still, the resulting body of data might be somewhat like the result of
the psychology tests used in your example. It could be distilled by your
"Factor Analysis" or some similar process, yielding common
understandings and attitudes. These could serve as bridges for further
discussion and (hopefully) fruitful debate. To be sure, the process
would also uncover some of the above-mentioned essential differences of
which specialists in theology are keenly aware. While the final product
might not fit into a neat scheme, it could serve as a helpful tool in
the analogical process. A commentator on Farrer described this process
in sailing terminology as "tacking towards the truth," or continual
dialogue and refinement.
Jesus may have had this sort of approach in mind when he told his
disciples, "He who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). The
application to this past week's tragic events could be what I have
termed an "Abraham Alliance," referring to the common ancestor of
Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It has been pointed out that Isaac and
Ishmael, whose respective descendants clash to this day in the Middle
East, joined together to bury their father Abraham (Genesis 25:9).
_Eternity in Their Hearts_, by Don Richardson; _Understanding the Arab
World_, by Dr. Louis Hamada; the Institute for Muslim Studies at the
U.S. Center for World Mission in Pasadena, CA, and Dr. Ed Jaeger at
Prairie Bible Institute in Saskatchewan all have valuable insights on
this issue.
The time will eventually come when Jesus' contrasting statement will
apply: "He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather
with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30). Until that time comes in earthly
dialogue and ultimately in the final judgment, I believe we should heed
his pronouncement in Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers…." In the
words of Edwin Markham in his poem "Outwitted,"
"He drew a circle that shut me out--
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!"
(From _The Best Loved Poems of the American People_,
selected by Hazel Felleman. Garden City, NY: Garden City Books, 1936.)
Dan Eumurian
La Crosse, WI
> Dear George Murphy and Edward Hassertt:
>
> I find the present situation personally embarrassing and disastrous
> to the point of mortification. Nevertheless, dire circumstances force me
> to have to face up to it and undertake a constructive initiative. There
> are several factual circumstances that bear on this.
> In the first place it is obvious that the world social structure is
> undergoing a rapid change. The good guys of yesterday may easily become
> the villains of tomorrow, and vice versa, and many innocent people are
> at risk. At the center of all this is a potential religious confrontation
> between the Christian and Moslem worlds involving 40 Billion dollars worth
> of potential military action. And central to this type of social situation
> is certainly anything such as the proposal of a "scientific proof of God".
> We have already seen growing levels of hate in the lower realms of our
> society and the situation can get worse if educated people don't put their
> heads together fast and start displaying a proper role model for behavior
> in the coming few years apparently of religious, social and military crisis.
> Therefore, I am going first.. I am officially "standing down" vis a vis
> any further disputation and confrontation concerning the discovery of a
> scientific proof of God. Out of pure concern of the consequences of further
> disputation, I am initiating an effort of reapproachmont; first.
> Edward Hassertt has complained bitterly that I have said that the SPOG
> can only be understood by Nobel Laureates and International authorities.
> The answer to that is yes and no. It can only be confirmed by authorities,
> but it can be understood by anyone. The problem is that no authorities have
> confirmed it, so therefore no one will bother to try and understand it
> because they have no way of knowing if they're wasting their time on
> something that may not be true.
> In order to solve this problem, I have recently sent the abstract for a
> summary paper on the SPOG to Philip Hefner, editor of the peer reviewed
> journal ZYGON. Sir John Polkinghorne, an eminent Physicist and Theologian is > a frequent contributor to this journal, and I have asked Dr. Hefner if Zygon
> would give me an assurance that they would ask John Polkinghorne to review
> the paper. Polkinghorne was a student of Dirac's, was head of Particle
> Physics research at Oxford, was President of Queen's College in London,
> is a member of the Royal Society and a Knight of the Order of the British
> Empire as well as being an Ordained Minister in the Anglican Church.
> This is exactly the kind of expertise that is necessary to evaluate
> something like the scientific proof of God.
> Now, I mention this at some risk to myself, since George Murphy is also a
> contributor to Zygon, and Howard Van Till, also on this list, is a Book
> Reviewer for Zygon. All I would need is for either one of them to pick up
> the telephone or send an email to Philip Hefner telling him that they
> thought George Hammond was a crank, and that would be the end of any
> publication of the SPOG in Zygon, or any chance of John Polkinghorne ever
> seeing it. Any other angry person on this list could do the same thing.
> However, as I said, the current social situation has now reached
> disastrous proportions involving something like a 40 Billion dollar budget for > military action, and there is no doubt that there is going to be shooting
> between Moslems and Christians soon. Therefore, the matter of a "universal"
> scientific proof of God has become even more vital and at the same time more
> volatile.
> Therefore, I am now officially "standing down" from my previous adversarial
> posture and now intend to pursue a course of peacemaking, reconciliation,
> and strictly sincere dialogue in all matters pertaining to Religion, starting
> with the matter of a scientific proof of God. I have great fear of the
> situation.
> As for the matter of "simple explanations" of the SPOG, sure, there are
> many, but again, none of them are sufficient to "prove" the theory... that can
> only be done at advanced levels, by talking it over with someone like John
> Polkinghorne, or perhaps Robert Elliot Pollack, director of the CSSR at
> Columbia. But the only way that can be done is to get it published in the
> peer reviewed literature.
> I published the foundational paper in the peer reviewed literature (Hammond
> 1994), and now intend to publish the final paper, the scientific proof of God
> itself in a peer reviewed journal. Then and only then will we be able to get
> the opinion of people like Polkinghorne and Pollack and others, and find out
> if the theory is true. After that, assuming it is true, then "simple"
> explanations will become effective because people will know that what they are > trying to understand has already been proven correct. In the meantime,
> arguing with lay people using heuristic models can never "prove" or "disprove"
> the theory.
> It seems to me that the most constructive avenue is to support the
> publication of this theory in the peer reviewed literature, so that we can get
> the opinions of the Nobel Laureates and international authorities. I would
> hope that nobody would maliciously go out of their way to prevent that.
> In the meantime, I intend to stand firmly by my resolve to resist all
> temptations toward unruly behavior or carelessness. The current situation
> between two of the world's great religions is too serious, the danger of
> social violence and further damage is too immanent, and I am resolved to
> pursue a new reapproachmont
> along all religious fronts, including my own efforts.
> If someone is sincere and cautious enough to want to pursue a discussion
> of this discovery, within the confines of this new social and political
> reality,
> which calls for only the most constructive and positive efforts... sure, I
> will respond. But, nota bene, the days of ridicule, and superficialities
> in serious religious matters such as this one, are gone with the wind.
>
> --
> Be sure to visit my website below
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> Email: ghammond@mediaone.net
> Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 16 2001 - 05:24:04 EDT