How to Defuse the Left's Most Powerful Tool
Fear is temporary unless you decide to continue with it.
Thank you. I needed that wake up call today.
John...another great post. We’ll done.
One item you brought up that questions if media believes that most scientists support the man made climate change narrative. As you know, science is not about consensus. It’s about finding truth. The Scientific Method is a great process for finding truth. All we need is just one scientist (not thousands consenting) to use this method to prove their claim that mankind significantly impacts Earth’s temperature. So far, I’ve gotten zero response from climate professors at my two Alma maters (Michigan and MIT) to this simple question.
Here's a little equation that I've assembled John. I think that it rather sums it up .....
FEAR + IGNORANCE = STUPIDITY!
Thank you John! Very helpful, especially in these turbulent times.
John, another excellent article on critical thinking, how appropriate that you write about fear on Halloween. I understand the scariest mask this year, is one of Joe Biden.
I wonder why so many of my peers are so afraid. I have heard them discuss the lengths and machinations they have endured to avoid a disease that had a 99% chance of recovery for most people. I don't know why I never bought the lies (I was interested for about a week or two), but the lies seemed to jump out for me. Plus, at age 76, I have seen a lot of their lies catch up with them, but they never admit they were wrong. I don't expect these multitude of lies to be any different.
Brilliantly written. Reading every paragraph, every sentence, every word was like taking a bath in meaningful rationale, truth, and reality. Thanks again, John, for your wisdom. In return, I'd like to offer the following: (My apologies - it is lengthy)
Most of the people on this particular bcc distribution list are either septuagenarians or octogenarians. The remaining are wise younger people, probably with rational thinking capacity beyond their years. The purpose of this email is to make those of us approaching the gate to the other side, that the other side is probably even greener than the side we all currently occupy. There's hope for all of us, people. And that hope is far more logically genuine than pie-in-the-sky wishful dreaming.
I found this masterful interview by the Hoover Institutes' Douglas Murray of 3 brilliant scientists to be nothing short of riveting. The title of the interview is "By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator". It is just under 1 1/2 hours in length, and it is far more intellectually and spiritually stimulating than anything I can imagine watching on regular TV programming.
I hope most of you will take the time to watch this interview, and if you do, please listen carefully to the compelling logic and wisdom of all 4 participants. One more thing I'd like to ask of you, is that AFTER you have listened to this interview, read a couple of short notes I've previously written, both pretty much on the same topic as this interview. If you do, I think you'll find that my two notes (the second of which includes another embedded interview of another physicist - Brian Green) are very much consistent, and add in a contributory way to the discussion amongst Behe, Lennox, Meyer, and Murray.
Here's the link to that interview: https://www.discovery.org/v/by-design/ Watch it now.
Assuming you've now watched the above linked interview:
The first of the two short notes that I referred to above is a short note I wrote to my two adult sons a few years ago (Dad's Words of Wisdom). The second is a response to one of my sisters-in-law about a lecture she asked me to comment on ("On Being" by Brian Green, which is also included as a link). I hope you find it all at least thought-provoking. But if you think it all "too strange" to be given any credence, consider that the broadly accepted "Big Bang Theory" is all about the creation of everything from nothing. That's at least just as strange.
Dad’s words of wisdom
Given enough “time” with nothing better to do, one’s mind can run a little wild. I was just thinking about Lanza’s "Biocentrism" (a book) . A poor title choice on his part I think, because even biology is made of stardust, and Lanza goes on to say that all “things” in the cosmos are but virtual “constructs” of consciousness. I think his book should have been called “Conscious-Centrism”.
Imagine that consciousness (awareness) is the only “thing” real. If there’s nothing to be aware OF though, then that consciousness or awareness would just have to “construct” something. Otherwise, it would be like being a hammer with no nails to hit. So all the tools that all living organisms have to interact with all the elements of the “construct” (e.g. tools like sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, emotion, and various other sensory tools of organisms other than human beings) are what gives the “construct” meaning and purpose. Take the biology out of the picture, leaving nothing to house the sensing “tools” or “interpretive/reaction centres”, and what’s left? Just consciousness. If the construct cannot be observed, then it doesn’t exist. This really isn’t a new idea. It’s been around in eastern philosophies for a very long time. Only probabilities of the various construct elements exist until observed (so says Lanza, and as exemplified by various unsolved paradoxes like the double slit experiments and Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance"). NOW I know the meaning and purpose of life!!! Yreka!!
If you’re wondering where our consciousness goes when our biology component dies, the answer is nowhere, since there’s not only no time (therefore no future), there’s also no space to go to. The consciousness just IS, and both time and space are nothing but constructs of the consciousness. Their existence is only virtual, and solely to give context for the tools housed in the biology components of life, and employed by the consciousness component of life. So ‘what will the consciousness do?’ is a better question than ‘where will it go?’. It will just create another construct I suppose. I can’t wait to see what that IS (will be?) but I have to “die” first it seems. It’s difficult to understand the words “will” or "first" in this context, since both connote the existence of time. So does this mean that time must also be a construct of the ONE consciousness - the One-ness? Strange indeed!
It is noteworthy that The Bible discusses the Trinity ................ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one entity. The One-ness of consciousness is a similar idea ............... the spiritual side of “being”.
Now I know why people study philosophy. It’s a great way to just wander and wonder. Two great past times. Did you know that science as we know it was born of philosophy? Check it out. It’s too bad that we don’t have an historical account of the first instances of “religious” thought. How could religion be anything other than an extension of philosophical musings? Rhetorical question.
By the way, consciousness (awareness) as we know it, cannot be explained with ANYTHING we know about physics, chemistry, or biology (the 3 basic sciences so neatly tied together and explained with math). I find that to be rather curious.
On Being - by Brian Greene
"If we didn’t have vast civilizational challenges upon us, we might be living in a constant state of wonder at what science in this century is learning and showing us about the cosmos and about ourselves — the new questions it’s giving us to live. We are the generation of our species to map the genome, to detect black holes colliding, to hear gravitational waves. The physicist Brian Greene is one of our greatest interpreters from the human enterprise that is science. And in his most recent thinking and writing, there’s a stunning evolution in his own approach to science and life and the matters of purpose and meaning. We delve into his exuberant, cosmic lens on living in the here and the now.
Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/on-being-with-krista-tippett/id150892556?i=1000529001590 "
I enjoyed the interview and I have a few comments.
There's a typical arrogance (of some scientists and all atheists) that runs through this dialogue - If it can't be rationalized then it cannot be. I find Greene to be in this camp and he's in good company. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Scientists are often so vain in their accumulated knowledge of things that they cannot contemplate that some things are beyond their reasoning ability.
Mathematics is no more than a tool invented by man to help explain and understand the science in our lives. But oftentimes, the employment of mathematics can lead to the illegitimate extrapolations to end points and conclusions that might be plausible but certainly not proven to be valid and often not even probable. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination - NOT EVEN if the person owning that imagination is brilliant.
Regarding the laws that govern science ..............
- why are they what they are?
- what if our "uni" verse is just one of many?
- why should we expect the laws of our "uni" verse to apply in all of them?
Greene ignores all of this and diminishes the idea of deities to being a product of ignorant imaginations. I beg to differ.
Where I can and do agree with Greene is in regard to his admiration and wonder of the sciences of our "uni" verse. All of it will never cease to amaze and intrigue me, so long as it remains pure and absent of political thinking and we are able to fend off its manipulation for political or other ulterior purposes. As a biochemist, I am a huge fan of Mother Nature with all her profoundly elegant checks and balances that have kept Earth so symbiotically livable for millions of years.
We are far more than "bags of particles in particular organizations" that have come together by pure and meaningless chance. There is thus far NOTHING of science that can explain any of the myriad manifestations of consciousness. I refer you to the teachings of Robert Lanza for an excellent discussion on this.
For more thinking similar to Green's, I recommend Steven Hawking's book "Grand Design". It is quite fascinating.
Have a great day!
The study of HOW best to get people to take the jabs. Social ostracism worked real well for some🤬
One of the biggest way we can reduce fear is to stop believing the lie that germs cause disease and that when you’re standing in the elevator you mentioned we have to be afraid of what germs are “landing on us” ; as a scientist, dig into this. There are numerous studies dating back to the 19 century that absolutely disprove that viruses and bacteria cause disease. They have been repeated. At this point we literally do not know why people get “sick “at the same time, but we do know that it is NOT because of a virus or a germ. We do not need to live in fear - we do not need to have signs in bathrooms that say “wash your hands because Jesus and germs are everywhere,” because they are not something we need to wash away. We do not have to be afraid of our sick children and family members, we can care for them and literally statistically we are no more likely to get sick from caring for them than if we had never been around them. Whether we are going to get sick or not has nothing to do with being around sick people. Studies prove it. Many Nurses who took care of tuberculosis patients for years on end NEVER contracted tuberculosis. Germs are nothing, terrain is everything.
Regarding God as our true solution, I think you meant “antidote” not “anecdote.”
Excellent post. There are very good reasons why the Good Book says "fear not" or "do not fear" some 70 times. I keep a file of my political fundraising mail - 90%, D and R, make appeals based on fear. Interestingly only the recent phalanx of emails from new House Speaker Mike Johnson generally does not.
How to sign up for your newsletter using a different method?
Google has shut me down claiming I violated some policy of which I have NO idea what it is.
Lise from Maine (former licensed clinician)
In doing what you know is right (walking with the outstretched hand) there is no fear.
There is no fear in Faith and no Faith in fear.
John ==> An understanding of our relationship to the universe, and thus to God, is critical in critical thinking. The unsupportable assumption that mankind is nothing more than a more intelligent worm makes life not worth living, thus the constantly destructive nature of the entire Godless progressive movement.
Knowing God created this place and He is real also alleviates fear: