Are we alone?

[Traveler]

Like Carl Sagan I believe in Occam's razor. But I have a different intrepretation of it.

It seems to me that belief in a Creator with design and intent to bing to pass the immortality of man, would require far fewer assumptions than that of evolution as currently taught by our department of education.

If I were God which I am not. I would take a galaxy and populate multiple planets at the same time to test my spirit children with mortality concurrently.

This would explain why Enoch and his city are currently ministering translated angels to different planets.

The problem as I see is that we make assumptions concerning the purpose of creation. If man is the prime purpose then our universe does not make sense. If man is a secondary or a lessor purpose then there is a possibility that the universe as we are learning of it could have a greater purpose that for now eludes us.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

How is it a flaw in his choice of words? It would be perfectly rational for an agnostic physicist to make the statement that he did...

I have no idea if Sagan has converted or not... Agnostics tend to be stubborn.

"Flaw" was a bad choice of words. I didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to point out the subtle belief he had in a higher power, the little light of Christ shinning through in his statement.

Because a "waste" is only a waste if one sees purpose in our existence or purpose of the universe. If one sees purpose in our existence it is a claim of some higher purpose, even if at a subtle level. Of course, we all know that even Carl Sagan believed in Christ in the pre-mortal world. Some of that light of Christ always breaks through to some degree, even in the most stubborn.

[mikbone]

The problem as I see is that we make assumptions concerning the purpose of creation. If man is the prime purpose then our universe does not make sense. If man is a secondary or a lessor purpose then there is a possibility that the universe as we are learning of it could have a greater purpose that for now eludes us.

The Traveler

From Moses 1:38 it appears that the purpose of creation is to train men to be like God.

[Traveler]

"Flaw" was a bad choice of words. I didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to point out the subtle belief he had in a higher power, the little light of Christ shinning through in his statement.

Because a "waste" is only a waste if one sees purpose in our existence or purpose of the universe. If one sees purpose in our existence it is a claim of some higher purpose, even if at a subtle level. Of course, we all know that even Carl Sagan believed in Christ in the pre-mortal world. Some of that light of Christ always breaks through to some degree, even in the most stubborn.

In defense of many scientist - traditional religion (especially traditional Christianity) has so muddied the water in any sense for describing G-d or a creator; that many (most) scientists have come to the conclusion that religion has failed to supply intelligent rational answers to honest questions growing out of explosions of data enhancing man's understanding of things.

If not for the restoration and revelation teaching many new enlightened principles concerning G-d I would myself be an agnostic. Realizing the difference between an agnostic and an atheists. So there is a paradox for LDS as we talk to the world with our new found concepts. When we try to reconcile our brand with traditional Christians we will alienate the scientists that have given up on traditional Christianity and the more we try to reconcile our new revelations with science we alienate our traditional Christian friends.

For myself, I have decided that LDS must pursue a separate religious path from everyone else so rather than play to religion in general I play more to the sciences for the only reason that for the most part scientist hope to discover something new that will change everything and that for most involved in traditional religion they fear the discovery of something new to change anything.

The Traveler

Edited April 18, 2013 by Traveler

[Traveler]

From Moses 1:38 it appears that the purpose of creation is to train men to be like God.

????? - don't you mean verse 39?

The Traveler

[mikbone]

yes thank you

moses 1:35-39

[Anddenex]

From Moses 1:38 it appears that the purpose of creation is to train men to be like God.

I really like Elder Bednar's association to Moses 1: 39 (which is most often quoted) while D&C 11: 20 is often ignored or not discussed much.

We know God's work and glory, and we also know our work. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

In defense of many scientist - traditional religion (especially traditional Christianity) has so muddied the water in any sense for describing G-d or a creator; that many (most) scientists have come to the conclusion that religion has failed to supply intelligent rational answers to honest questions growing out of explosions of data enhancing man's understanding of things.

If not for the restoration and revelation teaching many new enlightened principles concerning G-d I would myself be an agnostic. Realizing the difference between an agnostic and an atheists. So there is a paradox for LDS as we talk to the world with our new found concepts. When we try to reconcile our brand with traditional Christians we will alienate the scientists that have given up on traditional Christianity and the more we try to reconcile our new revelations with science we alienate our traditional Christian friends.

For myself, I have decided that LDS must pursue a separate religious path from everyone else so rather than play to religion in general I play more to the sciences for the only reason that for the most part scientist hope to discover something new that will change everything and that for most involved in traditional religion they fear the discovery of something new to change anything.

The Traveler

Faithlessness does not separate agnostics from atheists. They both fail to pass the test of faith.

True science never has to be defended. Theories and opinions sometimes are defended.

Knowing the truth, we don't have to categorize the groups who muddied the water into scientists and religion, we just say man has muddied the water. But that is the way it is supposed to be. That is what allows us to choose between God and mammon. Whether it is wealth of material goods or wealth of knowledge, one cannot worship wealth and God because in reality the worship of wealth of knowledge or material things is a self centered mode of thinking. Knowledge in and of itself is not evil just like money is not evil, but the love of it without having an eye single to the glory of God (which is how one could describe agnostic or atheist scientists) is a force that muddies the waters, pulling away from the things of God.

So, give credit where credit is due. Scientists have equally contributed to the dissolution of faith by their selves.

What do you think is more valuable, faith or knowledge in this life (without saying "both" - the key words being - 'more' as well as 'in this life')? Of course both are valuable but where should one put most of their efforts while in this life?

[Traveler]

Faithlessness does not separate agnostics from atheists. They both fail to pass the test of faith.

True science never has to be defended. Theories and opinions sometimes are defended.

Knowing the truth, we don't have to categorize the groups who muddied the water into scientists and religion, we just say man has muddied the water. But that is the way it is supposed to be. That is what allows us to choose between God and mammon. Whether it is wealth of material goods or wealth of knowledge, one cannot worship wealth and God because in reality the worship of wealth of knowledge or material things is a self centered mode of thinking. Knowledge in and of itself is not evil just like money is not evil, but the love of it without having an eye single to the glory of God (which is how one could describe agnostic or atheist scientists) is a force that muddies the waters, pulling away from the things of God.

So, give credit where credit is due. Scientists have equally contributed to the dissolution of faith by their selves.

What do you think is more valuable, faith or knowledge in this life (without saying "both" - the key words being - 'more' as well as 'in this life')? Of course both are valuable but where should one put most of their efforts while in this life?

Sometimes I am troubled with the efforts to qualify important elements that cannot be completely separated. Faith and knowledge are two sides of the same coin of truth and it is impossible to come into possession of one with out at least some connection to the other.

But we are talking specifically concerning attributes of G-d. So another question could be: what value is knowledge of; or faith in, misleading attributes of the living G-d? Would that be any better than believing in a false G-d that does not exist? I see the last two question as one in the same. There is no more benefit in worshiping false attributes of G-d than a false G-d. With the one possible caveat that there may be a true attribute lost in the mix of false attributes. So without some knowledge of the true and living G-d faith become fruitless and incomplete at best.

Then there is another issue - as science looks deeper into the creation of things and begins to put the pieces of the great puzzle together (which religion could not or at least did not do in a manner consistent with reality) - traditional religions have drawn the line and said G-d is not limited by laws and did not put the universe together in such a manner but by shear power of his will and word. In essence it is the theology of religion that has told scientist that the attributes of G-d embedded into creation and testified to by the very existence of the universe is not G-d that has forced scientists to doubt such a being so inconstant with discovery as being real.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

Science and religion is a complex topic. But in reality it boils down to only 2 real options.

There is no God and the universe only works on the laws of physics that just happened by total random chance to be what they are... I find this option unsatisfactory.

There is a God and He created our physical universe with a specific plan in mind. Because God wants us to live by faith we will never be able to understand completely how He manipulates the matter and energy to create our universe.

You can't really have a combination of the above 2 options. They abhor one another.

Man I love to learn about the universe, I have a great big telescope that I have used to check out our celestial neighbors. But I recognize that although we have learned lots about physics we are still only children trying to figure things out.

We have no idea what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is or if they even exist (which we currently conclude that they composes over 3/4 of the mass of the universe).

We have no idea what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

We are still very confused about the origin of matter. Is string theory real or is it complete garbage? Do we live in 4 dimensions or 13?

If we look at the assumptions that our scientists had only 100 years ago, it is easy to see that we were totally lost. It was much worse 1000 years ago...

Let us assume that the Lord just forgot us and there was no second coming. And that we were able to continue learning at our current pace without either killing ourselves or having some kind of event occur that destroys the planet Earth. How long do you suppose it would take us to learn all the secrets of the universe? A century, millennia, or millions of years? Do you think that we could come to the technological presence wherein we could build a tower of babel that would allow us to come into Gods presence? I don't think so.

Learning about physics is awesome. No doubt we will have scientific breakthrough that allow us to live more comfortably, and expand our horizons; but we will never be able to utilize science to break the faith barrier.

The second coming will arrive sooner or later. At that time we will realize that what we though was science is just a shadow of the reality that is the priesthood.

[Apple_Acres]

Random silly thought to add... Playing the video game Dead Space makes me nervous about what is out there in the universe. Haha

[Vort]

From Moses 1:38 it appears that the purpose of creation is to train men to be like God.

Note that this belief is common to all Christianity, not just the LDS Church. The difference is that we take the similarity to its logical conclusion.

[Traveler]

Science and religion is a complex topic. But in reality it boils down to only 2 real options.

There is no God and the universe only works on the laws of physics that just happened by total random chance to be what they are... I find this option unsatisfactory.

There is a God and He created our physical universe with a specific plan in mind. Because God wants us to live by faith we will never be able to understand completely how He manipulates the matter and energy to create our universe.

You can't really have a combination of the above 2 options. They abhor one another.

....

I am not sure the two abhor one another - I have posted this before but considering that the universe had came about by chance and has produced in our solar system a human civilization as advanced and capable of manipulating (changing) or environment as ours is - and if we are to say such evolution is infinite and unbounded - then one must concede the possibility that the process of evolution become intelligently guided and controlled. So even if it all started out without a G-d the process that gets us to here if allowed endless possibility - that must be in order to get us to here. Then a G-d is possible. And if possible then according to the principle of occam's razor - There is a G-d.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Let us assume that the Lord just forgot us and there was no second coming. And that we were able to continue learning at our current pace without either killing ourselves or having some kind of event occur that destroys the planet Earth. How long do you suppose it would take us to learn all the secrets of the universe? A century, millennia, or millions of years? Do you think that we could come to the technological presence wherein we could build a tower of babel that would allow us to come into Gods presence? I don't think so.

Learning about physics is awesome. No doubt we will have scientific breakthrough that allow us to live more comfortably, and expand our horizons; but we will never be able to utilize science to break the faith barrier.

The second coming will arrive sooner or later. At that time we will realize that what we though was science is just a shadow of the reality that is the priesthood.

Thanks for this post!

I agree.

The other thing to consider is that we believe that the realm of God is not made of the material we have before us. Even if we were to learn all about the 'course matter' we have in front of us, all of it's physics and physical properties, who is to say that 'fine matter' follows similar properties and physics. God is not reachable through science and physics or the learning of man.

The Book of Mormon title page states "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." The brethren were also concerned about the language of the Doctrine and Covenants before it was published. They thought they might correct some of the language that was revealed. In other words, they thought because they had more learning they could come closer to the truth than one who was given the spirit to do so. As a result they were chastised for such a thought.

This is section 67. .... " 10 And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual.

11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.

12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.

13 Ye are not able to abide the presence of God now, neither the ministering of angels; wherefore, continue in patience until ye are perfected."

It says here, pretty specifically, that the problem was the lack of humility in that the elders thought they could reproduce similar speech and revelation through their own carnal mind power and not through the spirit. The Lord responds, very specifically, that no natural man after the carnal mind can abide the presence of God and that the only way to get there is by admitting that we can't (humility). The more we even consider that possibility (which is exactly what the elders did about those words of the revelations), by definition, there is not enough humility to reach God. There is no other way, not through science, not through learning, or any other method of the carnal mind.

This is a good example of how the Lord teaches us that there is a difference between the carnal mind and the spiritual mind. To differentiate the two within us can be difficult but one clue is who we give credit to, our own knowledge, or the humility generated thoughts from the spirit.

I agree, we do not need to repeat the tower of Babel experience.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am not sure the two abhor one another - I have posted this before but considering that the universe had came about by chance and has produced in our solar system a human civilization as advanced and capable of manipulating (changing) or environment as ours is - and if we are to say such evolution is infinite and unbounded - then one must concede the possibility that the process of evolution become intelligently guided and controlled. So even if it all started out without a G-d the process that gets us to here if allowed endless possibility - that must be in order to get us to here. Then a G-d is possible. And if possible then according to the principle of occam's razor - There is a G-d.

The Traveler

I think you are claiming that one does not abhor the other from a philosophical stand point where the issue is not in the claims made by one or the other but the state of mind of the people making the claims. The issue lies in that science claims to know based on our own knowledge, which is inherently a prideful statement. Whereas, religion in general but more specifically, LDS religion, we know of the value of humility, the Joseph Smith story being a great example. One cannot be self centered, prideful and eye single to the glory of God at the same time. That is where one abhors the other the most. Of course, if a person does not care about pride or humility then I suppose the claims from one side versus the other could make for a great discussion.

[Traveler]

I think you are claiming that one does not abhor the other from a philosophical stand point where the issue is not in the claims made by one or the other but the state of mind of the people making the claims. The issue lies in that science claims to know based on our own knowledge, which is inherently a prideful statement. Whereas, religion in general but more specifically, LDS religion, we know of the value of humility, the Joseph Smith story being a great example. One cannot be self centered, prideful and eye single to the glory of God at the same time. That is where one abhors the other the most. Of course, if a person does not care about pride or humility then I suppose the claims from one side versus the other could make for a great discussion.

I just do not see that religious thinkers rejecting science are any less prideful. And if there would be one side to take the lead and being an example in being less prideful it should be the religious side because of the very nature of religion - but such is hardly the case. The excuse of science is that they look for truth - not the moral high ground. Sometime I am not sure what it is or for what reason, beyond pride only, religious thinkers refuse to consider scientific discovery. Many times with the excuse - That such things do not affect their salvation???

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I just do not see that religious thinkers rejecting science are any less prideful. And if there would be one side to take the lead and being an example in being less prideful it should be the religious side because of the very nature of religion - but such is hardly the case. The excuse of science is that they look for truth - not the moral high ground. Sometime I am not sure what it is or for what reason, beyond pride only, religious thinkers refuse to consider scientific discovery. Many times with the excuse - That such things do not affect their salvation???

The Traveler

For the most part I agree with you, only because I cannot speak for all religion and religious leaders, I am not sure what is in their heart. I can only really speak of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please tell me about your belief that scientific discovery affects my salvation. Are you to say that with more scientific discovery more people would accept the gospel? I am not sure about the idea that a greater percentage of people would accept the gospel with each advance in scientific discovery. I haven't seen that to be true. Of course, when talking about this, you would have to include the numbers of those that accept the gospel in the spirit world too. Since you probably don't have those numbers, I am not sure that you could prove your hypothesis to be true.

I do think that scientific discovery polarizes people more quickly and so it might intensify the process. But, we already knew that through religious prophecy, that the battle would become more intense in the last days. So, that fact was already proven by religion.

[Traveler]

For the most part I agree with you, only because I cannot speak for all religion and religious leaders, I am not sure what is in their heart. I can only really speak of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please tell me about your belief that scientific discovery affects my salvation. Are you to say that with more scientific discovery more people would accept the gospel? I am not sure about the idea that a greater percentage of people would accept the gospel with each advance in scientific discovery. I haven't seen that to be true. Of course, when talking about this, you would have to include the numbers of those that accept the gospel in the spirit world too. Since you probably don't have those numbers, I am not sure that you could prove your hypothesis to be true.

I do think that scientific discovery polarizes people more quickly and so it might intensify the process. But, we already knew that through religious prophecy, that the battle would become more intense in the last days. So, that fact was already proven by religion.

Knowing the truth and salvation are one in the same thing. Jesus makes this distinction in John chapter 8. First in verse 31 he tells us that if we continue in his word then and only then are we his disciples. But then he goes on and says something very interesting about the power of being a disciple and I quote Jesus.

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

If something is true, a disciple of Christ will know it whenever it is before them.

I believe the problem is that many think of being a disciple as a destination or choice rather than a method or way of life. So they think that once we choose to be a disciple everything magically falls into place. Obviously that is not the case. But as we become disciplined in the good Word of G-d we become magnets for truth - not some picky person at some smorgasbord picking the truths we like or that meet our fancy.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Knowing the truth and salvation are one in the same thing. Jesus makes this distinction in John chapter 8. First in verse 31 he tells us that if we continue in his word then and only then are we his disciples. But then he goes on and says something very interesting about the power of being a disciple and I quote Jesus.

If something is true, a disciple of Christ will know it whenever it is before them.

I believe the problem is that many think of being a disciple as a destination or choice rather than a method or way of life. So they think that once we choose to be a disciple everything magically falls into place. Obviously that is not the case. But as we become disciplined in the good Word of G-d we become magnets for truth - not some picky person at some smorgasbord picking the truths we like or that meet our fancy.

The Traveler

Yes, that goes along with what I am saying, that if we follow the gospel of Jesus Christ then we shall have all the truth. In other words, if one lives a religious life in accordance with the gospel of Christ then they will eventually have all the truth. So, how does that support your hypothesis that scientific discovery affects salvation?

What you have said above does not distinguish a person who follows Christ in 1840 versus one who follows Christ in 2013 but has more scientific discovery available. How is the one in 2013 greater with the additional scientific discovery specifically?

[Traveler]

Yes, that goes along with what I am saying, that if we follow the gospel of Jesus Christ then we shall have all the truth. In other words, if one lives a religious life in accordance with the gospel of Christ then they will eventually have all the truth. So, how does that support your hypothesis that scientific discovery affects salvation?

What you have said above does not distinguish a person who follows Christ in 1840 versus one who follows Christ in 2013 but has more scientific discovery available. How is the one in 2013 greater with the additional scientific discovery specifically?

The problem is what you are using to measure truth. Rather than think of truth as a place at which one arrives - think instead as we are taught in scripture. Or to who much is given much is expected. Thus it is not just about what we accumulate compared to someone else in another place and time but our efforts to discover and use truth available to us. This is why James said if we know it is good to pursue truth and do not do it and instead make excuses for not doing it - then that is a sin (see James 4:17)

We also learn in the D&C that if we have to be commanded what to do for every little thing as to if it is necessary for salvation and if we are not engaged in doing this that are good - we are not very good servants. I think that is a warning that such thinking can affect our salvation.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

The problem is what you are using to measure truth. Rather than think of truth as a place at which one arrives - think instead as we are taught in scripture. Or to who much is given much is expected. Thus it is not just about what we accumulate compared to someone else in another place and time but our efforts to discover and use truth available to us. This is why James said if we know it is good to pursue truth and do not do it and instead make excuses for not doing it - then that is a sin (see James 4:17)

We also learn in the D&C that if we have to be commanded what to do for every little thing as to if it is necessary for salvation and if we are not engaged in doing this that are good - we are not very good servants. I think that is a warning that such thinking can affect our salvation.

The Traveler

You think that 'where much is given much is expected' applies to scientific discovery for all of us?

If God commands me to spend all my days serving others without spending any time in pursuing scientific discovery then I am giving much back where it is expected. Or if God commands me to spend my time in scientific pursuit then I should be doing that. But there is nothing special about scientific pursuit unless it is specifically part of one's life mission to do such a thing according to the promptings of the spirit.

I have a good friend who is a well known artist. She has devoted her life to painting and has contributed to many church publications and other uses. She has testified in church that she believes she has been called to devote her time to these pursuits but to do it with an eye single to the glory of God and then she would be successful. I don't think she would be better off studying science then that what she feels is an inspired pursuit.

I think what makes a good servant is not what is learned but how and with what intent. Specifically, if it is done to better the kingdom of God, as opposed to the kingdom of man or self. Granted there are some that pursue science for altruistic and selfless reasons but I would think there is a greater percentage of people that pursue religious based service with unselfish desires. (at least in my world that seems to be the case and I am surrounded by many who have devoted their life to scientific pursuits.) I guess I have been around way to many "scientists" who are pursuing the recognition, wanting to be published or have their name behind some discovery and who see their self as that discovery, my own father being one of them. "I am the one who first discovered ___" "I am the first to implant an artificial heart" etc. None of the that is useful in the world to come without it being done with an eye single to the glory of God.

[BenRaines]

My two cents. Didn't read all posts but some.

Earth was created from elements existing in space. Was it part of prior worlds? When the elements were combined in to our planet were there existing bones and things from prior inhabitants of the other planets that were used to construct this one?

Those are some of my thoughts.

Ben Raines

[Traveler]

You think that 'where much is given much is expected' applies to scientific discovery for all of us?

If God commands me to spend all my days serving others without spending any time in pursuing scientific discovery then I am giving much back where it is expected. Or if God commands me to spend my time in scientific pursuit then I should be doing that. But there is nothing special about scientific pursuit unless it is specifically part of one's life mission to do such a thing according to the promptings of the spirit.

I have a good friend who is a well known artist. She has devoted her life to painting and has contributed to many church publications and other uses. She has testified in church that she believes she has been called to devote her time to these pursuits but to do it with an eye single to the glory of God and then she would be successful. I don't think she would be better off studying science then that what she feels is an inspired pursuit.

I think what makes a good servant is not what is learned but how and with what intent. Specifically, if it is done to better the kingdom of God, as opposed to the kingdom of man or self. Granted there are some that pursue science for altruistic and selfless reasons but I would think there is a greater percentage of people that pursue religious based service with unselfish desires. (at least in my world that seems to be the case and I am surrounded by many who have devoted their life to scientific pursuits.) I guess I have been around way to many "scientists" who are pursuing the recognition, wanting to be published or have their name behind some discovery and who see their self as that discovery, my own father being one of them. "I am the one who first discovered ___" "I am the first to implant an artificial heart" etc. None of the that is useful in the world to come without it being done with an eye single to the glory of God.

Interesting - my father was an artist. It was his love and passion. It was from him I learned the discipline of what seems to repulse you in science. I know many like to think there is something different between art and science. But I have never understood it. Jesus called his followers disciples. In essence he referenced their discipline and encouraged them to be disciplined as he was. The path to freedom is discipline. It is the same in what you call art. Art is discipline. If an artist is undisciplined their work is useless and is not art. Science is discipline and once one understand that principle they will understand that art is a science and likewise science is an art.

I have no problem for what a person disciplines themself. For in the end it is still discipline. Like my father use to tell me - you may look at a piece of art and not like it but you should know and be able to identify good art.

If you do not mind a story - when I was in high school my father gave me an article to read about a painting that just sold at auction. This painting was by a famous American artist and sold for more $$$ than any painting by an American artist. What surprised the critics is that the painting - though large was completely black. It stood over over 12 feet high and about 4 feet wide. Many criticized the painting and the price for which it was sold. It seamed that the price paid was foolish and the critics thought it silly to pay for black canvas even if the painter was famous.

But one critic look closer at the painting and discovered that the entire canvas was painted with very small strokes using a very small thin brush. Why would the painter take such pains to paint a canvas black. Why not just use a paint roller to accomplish the same thing. As the critic continued to inspect the painting he discovered a most astonishing thing. If the critic got down on his knees before the painting and looked up as light shined on the canvas that the artist had reversed his brush strokes and suddenly he was able to see in the light the figure of Jesus hanging on a cross. But it could only be seen by the observer willing to humble themselves and kneel before the painting looking up.

None of us will ever appreciate much of anything if viewed through the eyes that look down. But if we are willing to discipline ourselves to look up and see through other eyes of a master craftsman, artist or scientist - it will change our lives. I have a brother that spends months preparing to take just one picture. He has a lot of crappy picture but there are a few - that are unbelievably incredible.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Interesting - my father was an artist. It was his love and passion. It was from him I learned the discipline of what seems to repulse you in science. I know many like to think there is something different between art and science. But I have never understood it. Jesus called his followers disciples. In essence he referenced their discipline and encouraged them to be disciplined as he was. The path to freedom is discipline. It is the same in what you call art. Art is discipline. If an artist is undisciplined their work is useless and is not art. Science is discipline and once one understand that principle they will understand that art is a science and likewise science is an art.

I have no problem for what a person disciplines themself. For in the end it is still discipline. Like my father use to tell me - you may look at a piece of art and not like it but you should know and be able to identify good art.

If you do not mind a story - when I was in high school my father gave me an article to read about a painting that just sold at auction. This painting was by a famous American artist and sold for more $$$ than any painting by an American artist. What surprised the critics is that the painting - though large was completely black. It stood over over 12 feet high and about 4 feet wide. Many criticized the painting and the price for which it was sold. It seamed that the price paid was foolish and the critics thought it silly to pay for black canvas even if the painter was famous.

But one critic look closer at the painting and discovered that the entire canvas was painted with very small strokes using a very small thin brush. Why would the painter take such pains to paint a canvas black. Why not just use a paint roller to accomplish the same thing. As the critic continued to inspect the painting he discovered a most astonishing thing. If the critic got down on his knees before the painting and looked up as light shined on the canvas that the artist had reversed his brush strokes and suddenly he was able to see in the light the figure of Jesus hanging on a cross. But it could only be seen by the observer willing to humble themselves and kneel before the painting looking up.

None of us will ever appreciate much of anything if viewed through the eyes that look down. But if we are willing to discipline ourselves to look up and see through other eyes of a master craftsman, artist or scientist - it will change our lives. I have a brother that spends months preparing to take just one picture. He has a lot of crappy picture but there are a few - that are unbelievably incredible.

The Traveler

Good comments. You said earlier "scientific discovery" - that is what started the conversation in this direction.

In reality only a very tiny portion of what you and I know was "discovered" by us. ... and that is how it is in the next life too.

[Praetorian_Brow]

No.