>
>Day Brown wrote to Mark Bloss about Ordered Universe?
 MB> I cannot accept an ordered universe without God. 
 DB> How about one that is not *perfectly* ordered?  The time was when 
 DB> the heavens were regarded as perfect and unchangeable, and this 
 DB> was viewed as proof of the existence of God.  The revelations of 
 DB> the telescopes which showed supernovae proved imperfection much 
 DB> to the consternation of the Vatican. 
 
 I must correct you here - the reason there was consternation, was not
 because the universe was imperfect - but rather that the universe's
 perfection was miscontrued to be a static universe.  It is quite
 obvious, that supernovae is part of a perfect universe - not because
 they are beautiful or magnificent, but simply because they _are_.
 It takes change for the universe to remain ordered.  Supernovae
 are part nature, the expansion of the universe is a part of nature,
 and whatever it is we find in nature - makes it natural - and thus
 is part perfect.  
 DB> 
 DB> The chaotic conditions in the microcosm of quantum physics are so 
 DB> severe that cause and effect, at the heart of sin and damnation, 
 DB> are no longer reliable. 
 DB> 
 I don't think the evidence supports you here - but it is interesting
 that you think so.  Sin and damnation are two separate things - sin
 being the "missing of the mark" - "mistake" is the modern analogous
 term - and if we used the modern term in your statement above it is
 more clear that we _must_ rely on what we learn from mistakes, more so
 than ever.  Damnation is never in the purview of God's judgement - for
 He is not the damner.  That's why it is vain and vulgar to say that
 God damns, He is not!  He's rather the saver.  It is ourselves and
 "the devil", in cooperation, who damns.  And considering how many
 still manage to do this to themselves, I would say damnation is alive
 and well in the 90's.  God is unwilling that any be damned.  
 
 DB> The MRI shows the dramatic effect on the rational mind of drugs, 
 DB> environmental pollutions, and hormone imbalance that *sometimes* 
 DB> will, or sometimes will not, have on the thinking process.  Most 
 DB> psychological studies of behavior show a chaotic distribution on 
 DB> a given trend line so that while you can predict that some number 
 DB> of individuals will be irrational, you cannot tell who, or when. 
 DB> 
 DB> It is the abundance of chaotic variability that has made progress 
 DB> so slow for my planet, my race, and me. 
 
 Agreed, Day, that there is no reliable way for us to predict who or
 when a given person will be irrational - but that is not to say it
 is not already known who will be irrational.  But how that can help
 us on our quest for "progress"; all we can do is not quite trying -
 but never _ever_ delude ourselves as to what "progress" actually
 _is_.
 
 Progress is better eyesight.
 
... Windows may be slow, but at least it takes up a lot of room ...
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------