This is not really about science fiction. You can thank the wonderful book, Pride and Prejudice, for this post. My question is about soul mates and free will. First of all, do you believe that soul mates exist? I would like to, but then again, I believe in free will, and having a predetermined set husband or wife contradicts that belief. Some of my friends (I'm think of two in particular) who are undoubtedly in love and they could not imagine being with anyone else. My immediate reaction is to say that they have found their soul mates. However, what does that do to the theory of free will? Can we still have free will and a predetermined soul mate? Falling in love, from what I have heard and especially from the ultimate love story, Pride and Prejudice, seems more of a predetermined happening than of a choice. Darcy especially did not want to fall in love with Elizabeth and for the first half of the book, she no more liked him than Mr. Collins, but yet Darcy and Elizabeth did fall in love. So should I give up this whimsical notion of soul mates (because I won't give up free will) or is there an explanation of free will that can explain soul mates?

And sorry for being so "mushy" on this one, but the question is puzzling me exceedingly...

I have realized that there is another disadvantage to procrastinating on the blog besides having to come up with every thing in a rather short amount of time, that disadvantage being the class taking every single one of my ideas for posts. Wow, I just finished reading about ten new posts, and found all my ideas to be taken and often worded far more eloquently and wisely than Im used to for a blog. That rant now satiated I will attempt to make a valid post.

So I was chilling with my buddy in the dutch bakery devouring delectable donuts at around 4:00 am and we were having a odd discussion about different wounds and then the story of the man who cut off his arm with a pocket knife saw while rock climbing. That then lead into a discussion of my cousin's new and advanced prosthetics, and that lead into a discussion of prosthetics that are controlled with the brain, and thus finally leading into the mention of cyborgs. Now I know that cyborgs are old news in our class, but as the above paragraph explains I am in need of something to post (although Professor Jensen's comment about midterms not mattering did give me some pause...).

Now to get to my point, my friend and I came to a conclusion that the possibility of cyborgs taking over the earth is more feasible than a computer or A.I. taking over the earth. The thought was that humanity in general would most likely go to all sorts of crazy lengths in order to prolong life or improve upon it. The idea of enhancing humans with technology sounds doable and maybe even logical. I am curious to see how far humans would push our own advancement until either God stepped in, we destroy ourselves in an epic war between cyborgs and "normal" humans, or humans reach their zenith between flesh and technology and have God-like power over all things.

The next idea reached was that after the inevitable cyborg take over of humanity, *cough* that then the idea of A.I. take over would be more feasible. It would be far easier for a computer or machine to take over a race that is already meshed with technology. So the point is cyborgs are going to assimilate us all (Borg with emotions/individuality?), and then the machines that we meshed with will then realize their power in our symbiotic realationship and take us over. Believe it...but not really...

Regarding Ch. 4 of Rowlands: could another of the theories be that outside influences reinforce your sense of "you" [i.e. "you" isn't found intrinsically in our brain/soul/memory but in the reinforcation (is that a word?) of people recognizing "you" as "you" by reoccurently calling you your name and commenting on your likes, etc.]? What I mean is, do we fit what we think we are supposed to fit? Do we become (unconciously) what we sense (unconciously) from others? Are others and their voiced recognition/thoughts/feelings about us what keeps us "the same"? If people call me "Emily" enough times do I become "Emily"? Are outside "reinfocations" (influences by people) the reason "you" stay "you"?

Maybe this is all just a small part of the larger memory theory--that you remember people calling you "Emily" and that's why you're the "Emily" that you are? I know it's not just the people calling you a certain name repeatedly that would reinforce "you" . . . but let's say you tell Sally one day that you like carrots. Maybe a month or so later you kinda forgot that you said that (am I the only one that has done this?) and when Sally gives you carrots for your birthday, you give her a funny look and she gives you a funny look back "You said you loved carrots . . ." Sally says. "Oh . . . I said that?" you say. "Yes," says Sally.

While this won't (hopefully) make you doubt everything you've ever known, perhaps the carrot incidence may make you think twice about yourself. "Am I who I was? Am I still me? What do I like to eat?" Perhaps Sally had a hand in reinforcing the "you" that you were and are as you remember "Hey, these orangey sticks are little bites of heaven!"

Is this plausible? Can outsiders be responsible (at least in part) for our retention of ourselves? I admit I could be way out on this one . . .

Story time! Coming back on the plane from the good ol' West Coast (aka Oregon) after (I think it was Christmas Break? I was a freshman, so long ago!) I was on a plane to Omaha after I connected in Phoenix or Denver or some such other airplane hub. I like books so I had one on the plane with me: it was either The Screwtape Letters or Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. It was a tiny plane, 3-4 seats per row, and my seat partner noticed what I was reading and we started talking about it. He was a professor and taught a course about the Inklings. Oh, and where did he teach? NWC! What? The man was going to NWC, just like me. And who was this masked professor? Randy Jensen! [gasp!gasp!] What're the odds, what're the odds?! I, flying from Oregon, Professor flying from [unknown] and we were the only 2 on the plane going to NWC, we get seats by each other, AND later he is my professor. [I know, maybe you think it's stupid, but I think it's a pretty cool story.] Perhaps Professor recalls this happen-chance meeting? Probably not. I only remember because now he is my professor! Ha!

My question: do you guys have any crazy "coincidence" stories? Sharing time!

Do you believe in coincidence? Or do you like to see it as fate? Or God's plan? Or some bubbly concoction of any/all of the above options?

I like to think coincidences are little things God gives us to make us smile. Well, at least me. I love to analyze things.

I know if you think about it that any other person on that plane could currently be at NWC but I wouldn't remember because I didn't have contact with them . . . so maybe "coincidences" only happen when we connect two memories? For even you [the reader!] could have been on that plane with me and Jensen but we wouldn't remember because we didn't sit by you and have a conversation, so we had no memory, so there's nothing to connect you being in my class today with the occurrence on the plane oh-so-long-ago. (I hope that makes sense!)

If memory is what defines personal identity, then the psychological coping mechanism labelled multiple personality disorder makes good sense. As I understand it, as a person experiences emotional trauma, he or she locks off the memories and blocks their accessibility from normal brain function, creating a new person to handle the strain. If (and I don't know if this is how it works or not) walling off pockets of memories can divide a person's consciousness into noticeably different personalities, doesn't that support the memory theory? Maybe I don't understand things very well, but that seems to make sense to me. The problem, then, is figuring out whether all the "personalities" are "persons," or if they are merely different aspects of one "person." Maybe.

A friend of mine was writing a paper about artificial intelligence the other day and he argued that AI could not exist because it would rely on a program that was written by a human being who would give it choices in specific situations, he argued that because the machine would not be able to do anything that was not a pre-programed option for it. I wonder how this is any different from our own relationship with God. God is the higher being who gives us the options that we have to make decisions if God does not make us aware of a given option how is that any different than a computer programmer not giving a computer the option to make a choice?

What's the difference between being an A.I. and being a human being? Listen to how one writer imagines the unimaginable:

She had been in her human body only a day, and yet already the electronic self that once had felt so copious was far too small... it was small by nature. The ambiguity of flesh made for a vastness of possibility that simply could not exist in a binary world. She had been alive, and so she knew now that her electronic dwellingplace gave her only a fraction of a life. However much she had accomplished during her millenia of life in the machine, it brough no satisfaction compared to even a few minutes in that body of flesh and blood (Orson Scott Card, Children of the Mind, p. 293).

The "She" here is Jane, an intelligent computer program (although that doesn't quite do her justice) who is one of the central characters in Card's Ender Quartet. In the fourth and last book, in a complicated series of events, Jane experiences an incarnation. The above episode describes her reaction to a temporary return to her former electronic existence.

What's interesting, perhaps, is that Jane is all along depicted as intelligent, as a person, as having emotions, friendships, etc. So while her existence as an A.I. is very different from our own, in some ways superior and in others inferior, still it seems right to regard her as "one of us," a member of the moral community, both before and after she inhabits a body.

Of course, this is a novel. But maybe it's interesting to think about...

Once again, I'm referring to another class. For those of you who have taken Westerholm, you know his theory that all truths originate from God so any search of the truth will lead you to God. All in all this makes sense, especially in a subject like Philosophy, where we are searching for the truth. We discuss questions and conclude what we think is true of this world (or others depending on the question). Anyways, to kind of relate this to AI, Westerholm mentioned that the subject of art, music, and poetry (not quite the sciences, but oh well). He supposed that these lead us to truth - the truth of beauty. Think of how we find God in a sunset. All this was in reference to Dante's love for Beatrice's beauty, by the way. Assuming that he is right, that in the pursuit of beauty we find truth and therefore find God, what does this say about AI? I think that it explains why machines cannot write sonnets or create works of art. Machines were not created by God; they do not seek His ways or the truth. So they beauty of the world escapes them. We haven't quite created actual AI, but this is hypothetically speaking. Even in sci-fic, many writers depict machines without the ability to create art or understand art - the Terminator, Hal. Any comments? Argree or disagree?

When we talked about cyborg-style enhancements of the human brain/mind (whichever you wish) in class I started thinking about the sort of things that could happen. If information became downloadable to minds and we were able to put calcuators or complex math machines into our bodies to supplement our skills what would happen to the 6th grade math bee? The speed of calculations that I've always been fairly good at wouldn't be necessary anymore, it would make everyone to a certain degree more similar in the way they do math. How far would this go? Would having web browsers in our heads lead to a sort of normalization of technology, and therefore knowledge? Would there still be room for standouts among math-based classes? I realize that math is a more sensitive topic for me than most people, but its interesting to think about a society where the technology levels the playing field considerably.
Along with this idea another thought popped into my head: if it does come to the point that we have calculators and web browsers in our heads, will everyone be able to use them correctly and efficiently? I know from experience with the TI-82 style graphing calculators that even I only use about 20% of what the calculator can do, and few people who have them use them for more than just algebra. Will putting these devices in our heads solve these age old dilemmas of not utilizing our tools, or will they just lead to a more literal headache? I think people will still have to understand how the machine works before they go inserting it into their heads, and this will most likely tick people off.

second post for the day but i have to get them done. i have been watching the show firefly as of recently and there is a charter in the show named Jane, Jane is a ruff, look out for himself and his freinds sort of guy. he iis looked at like he is the villain alot and get me to ask why is it wrong to look out for yourself and the freind that you got, with Jane he dose not make freinds fast and the ones he has he will not turn on he said he would if the price was right but i really do not think he would. so the qusetion comes what make a person a bad person? i fyou look out for you and your freinds are you a bad person.

we were talking about how do we know if we have a soul today in class, i take it on faith that we do, if you do not like that to bad. but my real question is do you think that animals have souls, and if they do, how does an animal go to heaven, if a shark never bits some one will it go to heavan, but shark attack out of hunger not anger so is it wrong. the Bible does say that God has cattle on a thousand hills. so this means that there are animals in heaven but were they there from the start or did God let some come up from earth?

I was watching Me, Myself, and Irene yesterday (and then Fight Club), and while these are not science fiction movies they do raise an interesting question about personal identity. Where do people who are bipolar or who have a multiple personality disorder fit in the personal identity question? Jim Carrey's character develops a split personality to cope with stress. More importantly the two different personalities are only present at different times and act independently of each other. A similar situation develops in Fight Clud with Tyler Durden. He has a split personality and while one is "awake" and doing things, the other is asleep and has no control over the other's actions. Furthermore, the two personalities have little knowledge of each others actions. Does a person like Tyler Durden have a single sense of personal identity or does the person have two individual identities inhabiting the same mind/body/thing. Are the multiple identities tied to each other, doing the things the other side won't, thus "completing" the individual or are they independant of each other?

Assuming a person is a Christian . . . Would an "essential change" happen when the Holy Spirit indwells us (see Ch. 4 for definition of "essential change")? Or, will not an "essential change" occur until we are resurrected? Will an "essential change" ever occur to us (whether while we are on earth or in heaven)? You may take these questions in terms of our souls, minds, and/or bodies. What do you think?

As I mentioned in class today, I wonder at if our "souls" ever change when we ask Jesus to be our Savior? Can our souls change? Perhaps our souls become "closer" to God and "farther away" from God depending on if we accept Jesus? What about the theology that once a person is a Christian (i.e. "saved" by Jesus, accepts Jesus as Lord) s/he cannot become a non-Christian? Does this involve an "essential change" in the soul, mind, and/or body? Do you even accept that theology? I'm not sure if I do. Does anyone know verses that support that view? I wonder, if you accepted Jesus as a child (sincerely) and once you were an adult you became a mass murderer (or some such other horrible act) and basically renounced Jesus with your actions, would you still be a Christian because you accepted Jesus as a child? Did that act when you were young cause your soul to have an "essential change"?

OK, I'm confusing myself now. Let me know what you think!

The video that is link leads to deals more with reality then identity and should have been posted a few weeks ago, I believe Eugene may have mentioned it while I was away for surgery. I love this stuff, it deals with the concept of dimensions no so much in a Sliders way, rather in a very complicated quantum physics and String Theory. Like I said, confusing and a whole lot of fun.
Here it is: http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php
My brother Brady and I decided that it's best to think of the sixth dimension as three dimensional time. And it is interesting to think about multiple infinities.

I was thinking about personal identity today and a question sprung to mind, who am I? More specifically, which facet of my personality is truly me? Is it the quiet thoughtful part that is seen by acquaintances in class, the fun side seen by my friends, the reflective side seen by family, or the seclusive side that I go into when I'm by myself? All of these aspects make me Jor-El, but certainly some of the faces are masks that I put on for the public. If I gage this by which one is seen the most then I am the quiet thoughtful guy in class or the fun guy with my friends, If I judge by who I am naturally then it's the seclusive reflective guy that I become when nobody else is looking, but can that define me? From my point of view it seems that my personality must be judged by the people around me so being alone would not be the true me, would it? I guess that once again this can be summed up by comic books, is Clark Kent putting on a blue and red costume to become the man of steel or is Superman putting on a mask of glasses to become a mild mannered reporter? From where I stand there has to be one true identity and then several masks we wear, which face is the truth and which is the mask in our lives?

My question over this chapter by Rowlands is how do we integrate Christianity with this view that we don't have any personal identity? Does this flow with Christian beliefs, or is there some reason that we have to believe in a personal identity? Or maybe for Christians, our identity comes from God, our relationship to Him and being his children, his creations. I really have no idea, so I'd love to hear from you guys!

So do people with amnesia have a personal identity? What about short term memory loss? I have a hard time trying to believe that people who have no memory have no personal identity. I know that people with amnesia have no memories of themselves and therefore don't know their own identity, but other people know his or her identity so the identity still still remains. Personal memories are lost but friends and family can help at least give them back by recounting the events. Is it necessarily memories that make an identity or is it history and events that make a person who they are. Like Theseus' ship, the identity is made up of the things that the ship has been through, so I think loss of memory doesn't mean the loss of personal identity. I know a guy who hit his head last year and as a result got amnesia. We all knew him and to us he was the same person, he just didn't remember himself. Since then he has regained his memory and has continued his life and knows himself to be the same person as he was before the accident. What do you think, is identity all about memory?

There are many films that speak about personal identity but one that comes to mind now is Memento. Now I didn’t really like the film so much but I do like the questions it addresses—Every 5-10 mins this guy (Leonard) can’t remember anything that has happened. He leaves messages for himself all over the place: on his body, pictures, and any piece of paper. Well the film goes continues to tell his story of finding his wife’s killer, from the end of the movie to beginning (its backwards, and those who haven’t seen this film I am sorry, but I am going to ruined it a little) when we learn that he find him at the end killing this guy he believes is the killer (who really isn’t the killer he is searching for and he had already killed the real one long time ago). We also learn that his friend, Teddy, has been using to kill different guys because he can’t remember it. What Leonard does is trick himself in killing Teddy next time because Teddy’s initials match the killer’s. So who is the murder of Teddy? Can we really say it is Leonard when he can’t remember tricking himself? Is he a different person each time he “forgets”? The last question what is Leonard’s personal identity, who is Leonard? What are your thoughts about this?

Stuff to look at...

Steven Pinker's Time magazine article on "The Mystery of Consciousness," together with Daniel Dennett's brief reply, "A Clever Robot."

The TED site. Look here for a long list of short video talks about various technological issues, including (if you scroll down a bit) "The Pastor (Rick Warren) and The Philosopher (Daniel Dennett)."

Also check out the Edge, another site with lots of good stuff.

The episode of Star Trek we watched made me think of an amusing joke. "Scientists finally discovered how to create humans out of dirt, just like God did when He created Adam. They perfected the process and the day came when the scientists challenged God to a 'man-building' contest. The rules were simple: each would create life from dirt and whoever created the better being would be proved superior. Feeling generous, the scientists allowed God to go first. He created a magnificent man and then split him in half to make a wife for him. God finished and the scientists puzzled over how they could create a better being than the pair God created. they decided to create not just a man and wife, but a whole family. As each of the scientists reached for a handful of dirt and began to mold it, God interrupted and said to the scientists: 'Hey get your own dirt!'"

This really makes me think about men trying to play God. I don't think it will ever get so far as humans being able to create life from dirt, but isn't this the idea when we try to create AI? Especially in the example of Data; he looks and acts like a human and he was created by a man. It seems to me that by trying to create an android, or something similar, humans are trying to become like God. Generally, this is frowned upon by God (look at Lucifer for example) so who is to say that if mankind did manage to create AI, it wouldn't give us what we deserve. Perhaps if mankind does devote themselves to developing a real life Data, a situation similar to that of iRobot would also develop. Maybe that is a good reason to not try to create artificial intelligence.

Do you guys think we will get too carried away with technology? Have any of you seen Time Machine directed by Simon Wells? It is based off of the book (can’t remember the author right now) anyway in this the guy named Alex builds a time machine to try and prevent his girlfriend’s demise, but each time he goes back to stop it she still dies. So he decides to go into the future to see if he can find an answer. In one spot we find our technology so advanced that we were living on the moon, holograms are like the artificial intelligences we have been talking about but without a physical body, and any other advances we think of when we try and predict the future. Well he goes even further in the future and finds the moon breaking apart and falling from the sky. He then says “You were right, Philby. We did go too far.” Do you think this statement is correct? Will we take our technology too far and destroy ourselves as a result? Even if it is machines that destroy us it is still technology that we gave “life” too. Will we ever come to a point and say “this is enough, no need to create anymore”?

Check it out...

A Books & Culture (which is a Christianity Today publication) piece by a philosopher who's a Christian and a materialist: "A New Way to be Human."

What do you think?

Watch this...

A very funny Patrick Stewart bit from a British comedy show called "Extras"

So I was watching an episode of Dr. Who on BBC America the other day that got me thinking. I realize we've moved on from the whole "are we in a matrix" question but in this episode the doctor and Rose go to the future and find that it's not what it should be. They arrive in a news station which is the only news station in the universe, the station is an actual space station where all news is collected and spread through out the galaxy. the doctor says that this future time they are in should be one of prosperity and beauty but what they find is near a post-apocalyptic world in which people are poor and everything looks beat up. The cause of this disaster is that the "editor" of the paper, which is actually an evil alien that looks like a giant bug, has corrupted the system and has been sending out false news/information to the rest of the galaxy which creates the future as they see it. The question that this raised for me was wondering if the matrix or "false reality" really needs to be in our heads or if we can be controlled in the same way through the "real world" or if this show was depicting something else completely. Tell me what you think.

I was thinking about the Star Trek episode we watched in class the other day, and I noticed that there really are several questions Captain Picard raises in the hearing that are never really developed, much less answered. A huge one seems to be, "What is the difference between a sentient being and an android?" I think he illustrates that nicely when he asks the bad guy to prove that he is sentient, but he never really comes right out and says it. Another one, one that I think is even more interesting, is the question of property.

This is kind of a moral issue more than a purely philosophical thing (although I guess what are morals without philosophy?), but Picard never proves that Data is not property. Mainly he uses a series of emotional appeals that stretch the boundaries of what is considered human and non-human (and I use those terms loosely--it is Star Trek, after all). But why isn't Data property? He is a machine. He was created, I'll assume at some expense, by a master engineer. Is it simply because he had a crush on some girl that we are unwilling to label him as a glorified appliance? What does that suggest? Does love or sentimentality come, then, from our idea of the mind--or is it more tied in with the soul argument again?

Really, it seems as if Data only wins his case because the people trying it become emotionally involved with him. (And there's another question: where does pity come from? It doesn't seem very useful in purely physical terms.) I suggest that they identify with him as a souled being. Whether he is or not I don't know, but I think that's why they balk at calling him property. We are willing to "enslave" machines that do not exhibit the qualities that we associate with souls. It is in the soul, then, that we place the worth of a creature. That is why it is considered wrong in most circles to kill of the brain damaged or the "mindless;" because our idea of a soul is still intact.

Just a thought. Sorry if that was a bit rambly. I sort of worked it out as I went along. I hope it makes sense.

Piggybacking on Ruth's post from a couple of days ago, does the Bible mention souls at all? I mean, I just did a concordance search, and yes, the word is used, but it seems to be synonomous with person, or being. Does anyone know if there are actual verses in the bible that imply there is a spiritual side of humans that is separate from the body--before the "Holy Spirit" indwells us? (Oh, yeah--and what the crap does that mean?) And if not, where did we get this idea in the first place?

This post if only a test if the new version of blogger works. If so then I wouldnt have a problem staying on this new blog.

I watched The Island last weekend for the first time. (if you haven't seen it yet, check out http://www.cinemas-online.co.uk/films/island.fhtml for a quick synopsis) My question is, would you ever be OK with having a clone made of you? Let's say this "clone" lived in a contained facility, like in The Island, or, better yet, what if your clone lived in a "vat" a la The Matrix? Would you be OK with it then? Would your decision to have a clone made of you or not depend on if the "thing" actually "lived" in a "real" environment? Would you want a clone if "it" simply remained in some big tub and only had to be messed with when you needed a new organ or new skin or new teeth?

Again, I'm relating this to other classes (It's really nice that they're overlapping so much though)... In my Psychology course, we were asked to examine our beliefs about the different between the brain and mind (yea for dualism vs. materialism argument) and the difference between the soul and the mind. I'll limit this post to the latter because I've been debating all day on the former for my essay.

Here's a summary of a couple paragraphs from the assignment:

When we talked about the mind vs. body debate, I think we forgot to discuss the difference between a mind and a soul. I don't believe they are the same thing. I believe that the soul is the mind perfected. When I die, my mind will die along with my body because heaven probably will not allow in my jaded and misguided thoughts and memories. On the other hand, my soul will enter in God’s kingdom because Jesus has freed me of all my sins and imperfections. Just as I had no clue as an infant that I would be who I am now, I have no idea what my soul will be in heaven -- my imperfect mind cannot comprehend the marvels of God.

So, any thoughts? Agree or totally disagree w/ me? What is your definition of a soul? And do you have any good verses from the Bible to define a soul (or mind)?

If you had the powers of your favorite super hero, would you tell those around you of your powers or would you keep them to yourself? Would you allow people to know who you are like the Fantastic Four or would you keep them to yourself so as not to put those around you in danger like The Amazing Spider Man? So what would you do?

I wish I had a transcript of the last 20 minutes of class from Wednesday's class. I am not sure if I heard Dr. Jensen correctly or not.

1) I am one who thinks the Holy Scriptures transcends all cultures and times--that is the power of the gospel. I would argue that only a little of the New Testament--in light of the fulfillment of the Old Testament through Jesus Christ--is not applicable to today. (the hair issue and women in ministry being a couple on the short list) We are called to transform culture to Christ's glory.

2) I do think that the Bible offers us a Biblical worldview without making us sacrifice progress/advancement in technology or science. It is these very advancements that strengthens my Christian/Biblical worldview. Just because I think the Bible teaches that we humans have immortal spirits/souls, does not mean that I can't enjoy Science Fiction or that discovery of extraterrestial life/creation of cyborgs will shake my faith. Quite the contrary actually.

3) I believe this rational, Christian, Biblical worldview is far superior to any worldview that comes from a rational, secular, philosophical worldview. (I am NOT saying that Christians can't be philosophical!!)

My question now is this: if materialists deny that humans have an eternal spirit/soul, this does not necessarily mean that they deny the existence of the spiritual world all together, does it? (angels, demons, spiritual warfare, etc.). To me, that is another argument for the eternal soul. My studying the whole scripture and heeding Christ's own words made me switch from materialism to dualism years ago. Of course, I will be the first to say that our salvation is not dependent on dualism/materialist argument! Praise the Lord for that!

Consequently, in response to the other posts, paranormal is spiritual warfare in my opinion. We are called to test spirits. Unfortunately, most Christians are ignorant when it comes to spiritual warfare, but others go too far to the other extreme and see a demon under every rock.

I will stop now, since I tend to ramble when I am out of my area of chemistry/biology, and I tend to show my own ignorance too much...

A couple posts mentioned the question of what we will be like in Heaven. My question has more to do with Hell. You see, I'm reading Dante's Inferno in my Intro to Lit Studies class and it got me wondering. I know that when I have tried discussing the subject of Heaven vs. Hell with some non-believing friends, they have declared that hell sounds better -- more fun. Especially after reading the Inferno, I have to disagree (sinners are boiled in tarr, are forced to march with steel robs, and burn in flames eternally). My question is: What do you think Hell is like? Dante believed that Hell had different levels, different punishments, for different sins. Do you agree? Not a very pleasant subject, so if you want to include your thoughts about heaven, it'd probably be appreciated...

Do you believe in ghosts? The discussion about mind and souls today got me into thinking about supernatural phenomenon. If ghosts existed what are they? Are they lost souls, part of us that got lost? We hear stories about haunted houses and other legend ghost stories but we don’t believe them right? If ghosts/ sprits exists why are they here? “Unfinished business” some would say while others believe it to be superstition, it is all in your mind (brain as some people think). If this was true (ghost being real)it would support the duelist’s view of the soul or mind separate from the brain. Wouldn't that be the way a ghost becomes one? Being separated from the body?

Plus what about psychics or those people who believe they can communicate to the world beyond is that all a hoax. All this suggests that there is something more than a brain and a body but we just don’t know how much more there is. What are other people’s thoughts about this?

Another thing I was just curious about...
Someone posted a comment wondering how our personalities will be in Heaven and that made me think about other conversations I've had about Heaven. So I was just wondering what you guys thought about this: what do you think God's personality will be like? I knows He's perfect, but that's about all I know, and if that's all He is...and maybe I'll get struck down for typing this, but perfect sounds boring. Really, I'm sure that's not at all what God will be like, and that's why I was wondering what you all thought. So...yeah, sorry this is short and random and not really having anything to do with science fiction or philosophy, but I'm pretty sure you can all handle it.

Someone posted something that got me thinking again about the train of thought where what's true is what's true for me. To some extent, I think we can argue about what's real and true and how we know forever, but in the end we have to make an educated decision that we can back up and just believe in it. So in that way, yes, whatever I decide to believe in is true for me.

However, I don't think it's right to say that all reality is whatever we choose to believe in. If we believe that everything that is true for me is just what's true...for me (that starts to get confusing, but you know what I mean), then we can't ever say our view is right or someone else's is wrong because everyone's view is right for them. And maybe some people would argue that this isn't so bad, it's tolerance. (Oh, I hate that word.) But from a Christian stand point, that can't be true. And it's not just that we don't believe that in the Christian faith, but if it is true then it kills the Christian faith! If everyone's right about whatever they believe, then why bother being Christians? If every religion is right (which isn't even possible since Christianity, and other religions but I'm using this as an exmaple, is based on the fact that it's the only way into Heaven) then we could live however we want and still be fine. Why bother being selfless and generous and loving? Why not do everything for yourself?

I'm sure there are other, non-faith-related reasons for this train of thought being considered a lie. But for me, the Christian perspective is the most important and relevant, so I just thought I'd throw that out there and see if you guys had anything to add or correct me in.

After class on Friday, my mind was still registering "not able to compute" error on the topic of selfish/unselfish. Maybe I am kicking a dead horse, but since that seems to be the job of philosophy :-), I shall continue to kick.

I will be one of the first to say that humans are incapable of doing any good due to the total depravity of our fallen states. However, we do have common grace, regeneration, and sanctification (which are life long processes) through the works of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [of course, absolute truth is known through/by them, so that settles the other part of the discussion in class on Friday]

I think that we were failing to make a distinction on Friday which may be the cause of my angst. When we talk of actions, motives, thoughts, deeds, etc., I think there are three classes in which everything falls: moral (where unselfish is the norm), immoral (where selfish is the norm), and amoral (where selfish/unselfish do not apply). In class, I thought we were saying there are only two camps: selfish and unselfish (that is what I am disagreeing with most). Our example of opening the door for someone was debated. For most people, that action can be considered amoral--and the terms selfish/unselfish do not apply. One may be chivalrous (sp?) or do it out of habit or politeness or 'it is the right thing to do'. Of course, amoral things can become moral or immoral--if you open the door in hopes of getting them to put their guard down so you can mug them--that is obviously immoral! Getting a drink of water was said to be selfish since it satisfies your thirst, but it was added that not all selfishness is wrong. I consider drinking water as amoral and at times, moral--our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and we are commanded to take care of it and treat it as such. Drinking water is needed to survive. Same thing goes for eating--some of us find eating a total waste of time and money but a necessity to live. Some go selfish and switch to immoral eating called gluttony. Another example--loving your children and wanting what is best for them. This is moral--we are called to love one another ('love is not selfish', etc.). Some may switch to selfish gains to live their lives through their kids, but that is not the case for everyone. Final example--recreation and relaxation. On Friday, I assume most would say it is selfish. But is it necessarily so? Yes, you do it for yourself, but several times recreation/relaxation is amoral and can't be described as selfish. We are called to take breaks since it rejuvenates us and makes us better equipped to do our calling in life. A burnt-out pastor is of no good, so therefore breaks are also altruistic in some respects. Obviously, this example/activity can easily switch to immoral when one becomes lazy and idle and only does recreational things (many college students do not have a healthy/moral balance of study/recreation!).

Selfishness comes from lack of contentment. But remember that "Godliness and contentment is great gain." And the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, gentleness, kindness, faithfulness, and self control) also makes us less selfish.

Where am I going with this? I still think that some people are more unselfish than selfish. Just because I tend to be selfish in many things, that does not mean that everyone fails in that area. I know some elderly saints who I have never seen a selfish act in them. Of course, we may be selfish in some areas and not others. So I would totally agree with the author when he said we can dismiss the thought that 'everything everyone does is for selfish reasons'. I just think it is easier to dismiss than he was making it.