This totally sucks, but at least the kid's okay

[Geoff Grace]

I really don't have to pretend like I know how the universe works. I'm fairly bright, and I still have no clue.

Even if you were the smartest genius of all time, you'd still be using a finite brain to try to understand an infinite universe. Therefore, at best, your understanding would still be limited (finite).

Personally, that concept alone is enough to keep me humble. It doesn't stop me from taking an interest though...

Best,

Geoff

[Dean Roddey]

Even if you were the smartest genius of all time, you'd still be using a finite brain to try to understand an infinite universe. Therefore, at best, your understanding would still be limited (finite).

 

 

I appreciate the point, and I agree in a way, but there is a difference between infinite size and infinite complexity. An infinite expanse of empty space would be exceedingly simple to understand. It is almost certainly possible for humans to completely understand all of the physical processes of our universe, given time. They are not infinite, and in fact the deeper we go, the more fundamental and simple things get. It just gets harder and harder to go deeper because it requires more energy, finer measurements and so forth.

 

That doesn't mean we can understand those things that might lie outside our universe (if anything, or even know if there is anything or not) or what came before or might come after. It just means a full understanding of the physical laws and processes that control our universe. The bulk of everything out there is fairly well understood. Of course all the interesting stuff is in that much smaller amount that isn't.

 

We'll certainly continue to get a deeper and deeper understanding of our universe, though we don't even necessarily need to have the ultimate understanding in order to vastly improve/expand our capabilities. Newtonian physics turned out to be superseded by relativity, but Newtonian physics is still correct except at very high speeds or need very large chunks of matter. We still run our space program on Newtonian physics for the most part.

 

Relatively expanded our understanding up to the points at which our science necessarily breaks down (at the speed of light or in points of infinite density, black holes.) There might still be some deeper structure that lies behind relativity, and I'd love to know it. But for practical purposes, as along as it gives the right answers, it's good enough for 'daily usage'. And it's been tested very carefully and gives the right answers within the limits just mentioned.

 

Anyway, the point is, our understanding has expanded enormously in just the last few hundred years. In another few thousand, though it will have to slow down in rate of expansion since the low hanging fruit becomes less and less common, it will continue. Given how well we understand everything out there that we can see so far, I think that eventually we'll have a fairly solid understanding. Of course you can never know that you don't know something, so we'll never be sure. But in practical terms, for us as humans, it will vastly change our lives (for better or worse, according to how we use that understanding) so much that it would be indistinguishable from magic to us today.

[TBush]

Again, you put words in my mouth that I never said. I wasn't trying to prove anything of the sort. I was trying to prove the irrationality of people who believe in a specific mythology made up by humans, and why that's a dangerous thing. If people who did believe such things would try to actually rationally defend their beliefs, they might get a chance to prove they aren't of substantard intellect, but they seldom seem to want to. I can only assume because they don't really want to think critically about their own beliefs, because they might have to face some uncomfortable disparities in their belief system.

 

 

Ok, so (again) I've been busy as heck in the studio, and I realize this is an old posting, but just a few thoughts. Dean, more than once you've conveyed incredulity and shock regarding all theistic beliefs in general, and, having lumped them all together, you've made a target to shoot at. If Christianity is just legend and myth as you claim, then of course your befuddlement would make sense. The fact that you are aghast at the notion that there are actually Christians in the world today ("flabbergasts" is the word you used) doesn't offer any real argument- in fact, it allows one to avoid the issue of the truth claims of Christ altogether, never really answering the question of his deity and resurrection, "...but I'm just shocked and dismayed by these fanatics", etc...

 

It also belays a strict materialist presupposition, i.e., only that which can be touched, tasted, smelled, etc... is real. So then that assumption defines anything not physically testable out of the question- it's defined out of existence. That's Hume's argument against the miraculous- and it's ultimately circular. So any account of any event that's outside of a closed universe is disregarded.

 

You've already stated many times here that you believe all faiths to be irrational and crazy- like believing in Zeus or something. Christianity is unique because it is based on real events, narrated in the books (plural, not just one) of the New Testament, and having its context formed by the Old Testament. These books are like any other historical documents- and have been given the most exhaustive and scrupulous investigation of any documents of antiquity. I certainly am not a Christian based merely on myth and folklore- or because it makes me feel good or insulates me from the real world- and there is more than enough evidence for the person of Jesus Christ having been who he claimed to be. For example, the specific timetable of His advent from Daniel 9:20-27 written over 6 centuries before the events took place (just one example), or the meticulous care that Luke took with giving accurate historical background (see Luke 2:1 or 3:1-2) and reliable eyewitness testimony in his epistle and in the book of Acts.

 

So the "rational" sequence would be: reliable manuscripts, their historical accuracy, their content, internal consistency, and finally ethical and existential relevance (which led to, in my case, conversion and inclusion in the New Covenant). You may not care for what is narrated in the text, but you can't just blow it off as irrational and assign it a place with all other mythology. Well, you can, but then it's not really an issue of whether it's true or not- it's that you just don't like it.

[Geoff Grace]

 

I appreciate the point, and I agree in a way, but there is a difference between infinite size and infinite complexity. An infinite expanse of empty space would be exceedingly simple to understand. It is almost certainly possible for humans to completely understand all of the physical processes of our universe, given time. They are not infinite, and in fact the deeper we go, the more fundamental and simple things get. It just gets harder and harder to go deeper because it requires more energy, finer measurements and so forth. That doesn't mean we can understand those things that might lie outside our universe (if anything, or even know if there is anything or not) or what came before or might come after. It just means a full understanding of the physical laws and processes that control our universe. The bulk of everything out there is fairly well understood. Of course all the interesting stuff is in that much smaller amount that isn't. We'll certainly continue to get a deeper and deeper understanding of our universe, though we don't even necessarily need to have the ultimate understanding in order to vastly improve/expand our capabilities. Newtonian physics turned out to be superseded by relativity, but Newtonian physics is still correct except at very high speeds or need very large chunks of matter. We still run our space program on Newtonian physics for the most part. Relatively expanded our understanding up to the points at which our science necessarily breaks down (at the speed of light or in points of infinite density, black holes.) There might still be some deeper structure that lies behind relativity, and I'd love to know it. But for practical purposes, as along as it gives the right answers, it's good enough for 'daily usage'. And it's been tested very carefully and gives the right answers within the limits just mentioned. Anyway, the point is, our understanding has expanded enormously in just the last few hundred years. In another few thousand, though it will have to slow down in rate of expansion since the low hanging fruit becomes less and less common, it will continue. Given how well we understand everything out there that we can see so far, I think that eventually we'll have a fairly solid understanding. Of course you can never know that you don't know something, so we'll never be sure. But in practical terms, for us as humans, it will vastly change our lives (for better or worse, according to how we use that understanding) so much that it would be indistinguishable from magic to us today.

 

 

No doubt, we've learned a lot that can be put to practical use; and we'll learn much more, presuming we survive and continue to thrive as a species. And you make a valid point about infinite size verses infinite complexity. For example, the atomic building blocks seem much less varied than the things they build. On the other hand, the atom isn't the bottom line we once thought it was ... and how many string theories do we now have to choose from? Only one can be correct -- that is, if any are correct at all. And how many spacetime dimensions are there? So much of science is still at the theory stage, and yet how many of these theories are provable? How does one prove that there's a different physical reality for each possible outcome, for example?

 

The scientific method depends upon the ability to observe; and while our five senses are capable of gathering much information, they are deficient in some ways compared to those of other creatures. There are sounds we can't hear and sights we can't see, for example. What if our species had never developed sight? Would we have ever discovered the existence of the rest of the universe? Perhaps we're missing a key sense that never developed in any species on Earth with which we could have detected another massive layer of existence otherwise unknown. What if we were the size of an electron? How would reality appear to something that size? Maybe we might be able to understand a molecule, but would we be able to perceive larger structures like rocks, or planets, or suns, solar systems, and galaxies? Is there a level of reality that we'll never know because we're too small or too large or only able to perceive three dimensions plus time?

 

Is it possible that perhaps the complexity of the universe -- while less impressive than its size -- is infinite nonetheless? After all, infinity divided by a trillion is infinity.

 

Perspective and context greatly influence our perceptions of reality. You assert that "the bulk of everything out there is fairly well understood;" and compared with past observations and understandings, our level of knowledge is vast. However, one can only truly make that kind of statement with authority once one has finally learned all that can be known and then compares our current level of knowledge against it.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Dean Roddey]

You cannot use the Bible as proof of itself. That's circular reasoning. There really is not any historical proof that Jesus actually existed, that I am aware of. As in proof from other than the Christian church's claims and those in the Bible. I've looked into this and I could not find any disinterested historians that said that there was any third party proof that this person even existed. It's likely that a person of some sort is behind the legend, but I don't believe that any mainstream historians claim to have any definitive proof that he actually existed, much less that the things written about him are remotely accurate.

And, of course, you conveniently leave out the fact that, if the book of the religion says it's true and that makes it true, then Islam is also true. Do you believe that Muhammad flew to Mecca on a winged horse? If not, then you cannot claim to believe what the Bible says just because it says it, because the Koran says he did that and certainly the Koran has been 'studied' just as much as the Bible has.

And of course there's things like the fact that the entire basis of Jesus' legend is the *Jewish* mythology, and that Jews don't recognize him. Christianity is just a scism of Jewish theology. Jews went one way and Christians went another. Christians don't follow the Jewish religion, despite the fact that Jesus was a Jew and his claim to fame is clearly based on the Jewish religion.

And of course there was the purging of all the variants of Christianity that didn't fit into the mainstream. This was a human driven political thing, to chop it down to a core set of beliefs and throw away the other writings and variations that didn't fit into that set of beliefs.

I just cannot see how you can take such a mythology literally when it's so full of obvious contradictions.

[TBush]

You cannot use the Bible as proof of itself. That's circular reasoning. There really is not any historical proof that Jesus actually existed, that I am aware of. As in proof from other than the Christian church's claims and those in the Bible. I've looked into this and I could not find any disinterested historians that said that there was any third party proof that this person even existed. It's likely that a person of some sort is behind the legend, but I don't believe that any mainstream historians claim to have any definitive proof that he actually existed, much less that the things written about him are remotely accurate. And, of course, you conveniently leave out the fact that, if the book of the religion says it's true and that makes it true, then Islam is also true. Do you believe that Muhammad flew to Mecca on a winged horse? If not, then you cannot claim to believe what the Bible says just because it says it, because the Koran says he did that and certainly the Koran has been 'studied' just as much as the Bible has. And of course there's things like the fact that the entire basis of Jesus' legend is the *Jewish* mythology, and that Jews don't recognize him. Christianity is just a scism of Jewish theology. Jews went one way and Christians went another. Christians don't follow the Jewish religion, despite the fact that Jesus was a Jew and his claim to fame is clearly based on the Jewish religion. And of course there was the purging of all the variants of Christianity that didn't fit into the mainstream. This was a human driven political thing, to chop it down to a core set of beliefs and throw away the other writings and variations that didn't fit into that set of beliefs. I just cannot see how you can take such a mythology literally when it's so full of obvious contradictions.

 

 

First of all, it's not circular to recognize external and internal information which then validates content. It's like starting with pure narrative and realizing that if it's true, then it's more than just history- it's meta-history and theological as well.

 

Secondly, the Koran is the product of just one man, in a cave, re-writing history in the process, and then narrating his "revelation" to redactors. The Bible is a collection of 66 books, spanning over 1500 years, in such good condition as to warrent it's authentication.

 

You haven't found historians to verify the Christ of history?

They're out there- just not at the "Jesus Seminar".

Someone earlier sent you a link to basic apologetics- maybe you could start there.

 

The Jewish issue is addressed quite simply by recognizing that Christ fulfilled all their ceremonial and national laws, and when the temple was destroyed in AD 70 (by the Roman general Titus) it finalized the transition period between covenants.

 

And you presume to know the motives of the councils regarding the canon of scripture. Why don't we ask them (by reviewing the writings of that period)? Couldn't it been just as possible that some teachings had arisen that were blatent attempts to "gnostic-ize" the faith, and were contradicting and confusing to some? Do some primary source research and you'll find that to be the case, not some ginned-up political/control machinations.

[Geoff Grace]

By the way, Ken, I just want to say how sorry I am to read about the child in your care who has struggled with so many health problems. I certainly understand your frustration over the situation.

It's good at least that you're aware of some of the positive sides of his life -- a loving family, lots of support at school, and a smart and compassionate special ed. teacher named Ken. There are physically healthy children who don't get that kind of emotional support. It may seem a small compensation, but his life may have more expressed love in it because of his fragile health.

I hope as you try to cope with your concern about your student that you feel our support and know you're not alone.

Best,

Geoff

[UstadKhanAli]

Thanks, man.

[UstadKhanAli]

As far as the Bible offering proof, I should remind people that the Bible is a bunch of other writing that was cobbled together by numerous bishops called together by Emperor Constantine in 325 AD to try and achieve consensus.

However, much more of the gospels and other writing was left out of the Bible, including things that were different or contradictory. Most of these were destroyed, but were also useful historically.

And if we're looking at the Bible from a historical perspective - the argument here - then the Bible is leaving out quite a lot of writing. I don't need to tell anyone here what happens when you do something by committee under the watchful eye of an emperor who is trying to "consolidate his holdings".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Super 8]

 

Actually you cannot. You cannot prove a negative. This is a basic point of logic. You can prove Santa does exist, if you find him and document it. You cannot prove he doesn't exist because he could just be somewhere else.

 

 

But we have a corpse.

Saint Nicholas died in 343 in Lycia. We've been to the North Pole. Each year parent's -not Santa- put gifts under trees and tell their kids it came from Santa. The story of Santa doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Whether it is logically possible for Santa to exist is irrelevant. It's a question of belief and the grounds for belief.

 

 

 

I don't argue that they are *created* equal. I argue that they are all just human inventions and therefore not true. There is absolutely no reason to believe in Christianity or Islam or any other religion.

 

 

Of course there is. There are many reasons. You just haven't discovered them yet.

[Dean Roddey]

First of all, it's not circular to recognize external and internal information which then validates content. It's like starting with pure narrative and realizing that if it's true, then it's more than just history- it's meta-history and theological as well.

 

 

It is circular. If you don't have third party proofs then it's meaningless, for the obvious reasons I gave above (i.e. that if a book is proof of itself, then every book is true.) And it doesn't matter whether the actual *history* discussed in the Bible is true or not. Lots of documents discuss the actual history of the period. What's at question is the super-natural elements of the mythology.

 

 

Secondly, the Koran is the product of just one man, in a cave, re-writing history in the process, and then narrating his "revelation" to redactors. The Bible is a collection of 66 books, spanning over 1500 years, in such good condition as to warrent it's authentication.

 

 

I find this really funny. You dismiss with a wave of the hand a religion that is followed by probably more people on the planet than Christianity. But you refuse to see what it means about your own beliefs and the proofs you hold up for it.

 

 

You haven't found historians to verify the Christ of history? They're out there- just not at the "Jesus Seminar".

 

 

Find me some references to internationally recognized histiorians from non-religious institutions that make claims of such proof. I don't think you will find one.

 

 

The Jewish issue is addressed quite simply by recognizing that Christ fulfilled all their ceremonial and national laws, and when the temple was destroyed in AD 70 (by the Roman general Titus) it finalized the transition period between covenants.

 

 

It's quite simply addressed by the fact that one set of Jews decided to believe one thing and another decided not to, and therefore they split into two different groups that now hold different beliefs, and the latter spent the next couple thousand years persecuting the people from whom their own religion derived. And then later that group split off into Protestant and Catholic derivatives, and there will be more derivatives going forward.

 

It's just people deciding to believe whatever they want to believe. If you had been born in Iran, you'd be arguing with someone about how the Koran is the absolute truth and you'd believe it every bit as much as you believe what you do now. You only believe what you do because of when and where you were born.

[Dean Roddey]

Of course there is. There are many reasons. You just haven't discovered them yet.

 

 

OK, I didn't phrase that correctly. If you include giving me a warm fuzzy feeling that someone is watching over me as a reason, then I guess their could be one. The point I was making is that there is no reason to believe that any of the current mythologies are any more true than the hundreds of others that came before them, and therefore there is no reason other than personal comfort to believe in them. And I put truth before personal comfort.

[Super 8]

OK, I didn't phrase that correctly. If you include giving me a warm fuzzy feeling that someone is watching over me as a reason, then I guess their could be one.

 

 

Oh, now you're just being a cynic. You seem more intelligent than that.

 

 

The point I was making is that there is no reason to believe that any of the current mythologies are any more true than the hundreds of others that came before them,

 

 

And as I pointed out before, you are equating all religions. There are reason's to believe, you just haven't discovered them yet.

 

 

And I put truth before personal comfort.

 

 

And that's assuming you know the truth. If you know the truth then please elaborate because I happen to be looking for truth myself. My guess is that you've drawn a conclusion based upon an assumption which makes your belief no more valid than those that you dismiss. Where do you arrive at this certainty? I've never seen god, never heard god, probably never felt god. I don't have belief, I have wonder. But it takes real balls to just say there is no god and then claim truth.

[Dean Roddey]

And that's assuming you know the truth. If you know the truth then please elaborate because I happen to be looking for truth myself. My guess is that you've drawn a conclusion based upon an assumption which makes your belief no more valid than those that you dismiss.

 

 

The proveable truth, at any given time, is what can be proven true. There is no proof for any religion. And the claims made by religions are at complete odds with what we know about the physical world and what is possible and what is not. Therefore, I cannot believe in someting that is so clearly to me no different than Greek mythology and woudl require a complete breakdown of science, unless there was overwhelming proof that it was true. Without such proof, it's crazy to just assume it's true. If anyone made similar claims about anything else besides religion without any proof you would consider them nuts.

[Phil O'Keefe]

No doubt, we've learned a lot that can be put to practical use; and we'll learn much more, presuming we survive and continue to thrive as a species. And you make a valid point about infinite size verses infinite complexity. For example, the atomic building blocks seem much less varied than the things they build. On the other hand, the atom isn't the bottom line we once thought it was ... and how many string theories do we now have to choose from? Only one can be correct -- that is, if any are correct at all. And how many spacetime dimensions are there? So much of science is still at the theory stage, and yet how many of these theories are provable? How does one prove that there's a different physical reality for each possible outcome, for example? The scientific method depends upon the ability to observe; and while our five senses are capable of gathering much information, they are deficient in some ways compared to those of other creatures. There are sounds we can't hear and sights we can't see, for example. What if our species had never developed sight? Would we have ever discovered the existence of the rest of the universe? Perhaps we're missing a key sense that never developed in any species on Earth with which we could have detected another massive layer of existence otherwise unknown. What if we were the size of an electron? How would reality appear to something that size? Maybe we might be able to understand a molecule, but would we be able to perceive larger structures like rocks, or planets, or suns, solar systems, and galaxies? Is there a level of reality that we'll never know because we're too small or too large or only able to perceive three dimensions plus time? Is it possible that perhaps the complexity of the universe -- while less impressive than its size -- is infinite nonetheless? After all, infinity divided by a trillion is infinity. Perspective and context greatly influence our perceptions of reality. You assert that "the bulk of everything out there is fairly well understood;" and compared with past observations and understandings, our level of knowledge is vast. However, one can only truly make that kind of statement with authority once one has finally learned all that can be known and then compares our current level of knowledge against it. Best, Geoff

 

 

Outstanding post IMHO Geoff.

[Dean Roddey]

But you have to consider that we long ago exceeded our own senses in terms of what we can measure. We can understand planets and suns and solar systems and galaxies because they work on the same principles of physics as molecules do. It's really on in the sub-microsopic that things get really wierd, much more so than on the large scale, where we have a pretty good understanding of how everything out there works so far. Obviously we'll learn more, but there's probably a lot less confusion in cosmology than in quantum physics, generally speaking.

I think that it's on the small end of the scale that the really amazing stuff is likely to happen. However, that could take a while because to get down to smaller scalers requires more and more energy to break things apart. We can break nucleons apart into quarks, but going beyond that might take a long time. And at any point the next step might be just pure energy. At some level matter is just congealed energy, and at some point as you break it apart, you'll pretty much have to get back to that energy.

[Phil O'Keefe]

It's really on in the sub-microsopic that things get really wierd, much more so than on the large scale, where we have a pretty good understanding of how everything out there works so far.

 

The majority of the universe is something we know very little about - dark matter.

 

Black holes are still very mysterious - we have some ideas, but nothing is definite. And that's gravity on a very large scale... And again, it's something that, due to its very nature, we can not fully measure, we can not observe. Once you can't experiment and observe, the scientific method can no longer apply.

 

Dean, I for one want to thank you for how reasonably and calmly you have discussed things with everyone - you're a class act in my book. :phil:

[Dean Roddey]

Just for the record blacks holes are gravity on an infinitely small scale :-) That's why they are so wierd, because relativity breaks down when gravity becomes infinite, which causes all the matter in the black hole to be in a dimensionless point, as it is believed is the case inside black holes. A lot can be inferred about black holes because until you hit the singularity, the laws of physics still work (though with relativity becoming very important because of the huge gravity.)

If anyone wants a good read about black holes, Kip Thorne's "Black Holes & Time Warps" is an excellent book. It's not overly technical at all. It does use embedding diagrams a good bit, which might take you a little bit to get your head wrapped around if you aren't used to them. but overall it's just a very interesting read.

There are interesting factoids in there. Such as, when you are traveling near the speed of light or hovering above a very intense gravitational field, you start seeing everything in a fisheye lens sort of way. Normally, when you are sitting still, light from behind and to the sides comes right by your eyes, it just doesn't enter in, it skims right past the front of your face. But when travelling very close to the speed of light, you start catching up to that light (or conversely it gets pulled down towards you when hovering over a large gravitational field) so that you start seeing things first from the sides and then further and further back behind you, and it becomes concentrated in a smaller and smaller fisheye as the speed/gravity increases.

And of course there's the whole falling into the black hole thing. When the gravity is that intense as you get near the singularity, the difference in pull between your head and feet (the tidal forces) will become so intense that it will just spaghettify you, which would be more than a little painful. It's like being put on the rack but probably a lot worse.

[jlampson]

I'm sorry if I missed it, but wasn't there something about a young boy with health problems buried in here somewhere?

[Geoff Grace]

But you have to consider that we long ago exceeded our own senses in terms of what we can measure.

 

 

Granted, but by how much in the grand scheme of things? What you're talking about may well be akin to shining a light in a tunnel. Sure, you learn a lot more about the tunnel that way, but the light won't show you that there's so much more than the tunnel.

 

First, we gathered leads based exclusively upon the reality we perceived with our five senses. Then we built instruments to tell us more about that reality, but we're still only exploring parts of reality that stem from the reality we originally detected with our five senses.

 

Let's say that there are scores of other layers of reality that coexist with the physical universe, but they may not impact the physical universe in any way that can be observed from within the physical universe. How will any device we invent within our physical reality even detect these other layers of reality, let alone examine and explore them? Presuming our universe began with the Big Bang, then it's more than plausible that at least one additional layer of reality exists and that it "gave birth" to physical reality. In that particular case, the effect could be seen in our reality -- or at least the effect's aftermath, but what of the cause?

 

Of course, even if these hypothetical layers of reality don't exist, as I mentioned in my last post, we and the instruments we create still have obvious limits to our perspectives. We'll never get a "bird's eye view" of the universe and discover whether or not it's a small part of something much larger, for example. We'll never be able to witness the Big Bang either. There are more examples than I've given here and in my last post, but I hope these will do.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[UstadKhanAli]

I'm sorry if I missed it, but wasn't there something about a young boy with health problems buried in here somewhere?

Yes, but discussions about God and the Cosmos are always fun, no?

My student is coming back to school on Monday! It's gonna be a little weird to see him without his leg, but that'll be far outweighed by the sheer joy of simply having him back!! The doctors are apparently taking off the stitches from the amputation already. He's going to stay in his chair for a while instead of crawling around on the floor and moving about, but at least he'll be back. Cross yer fingers that they got all the cancer.

[Dean Roddey]

Let's say that there are scores of other layers of reality that coexist with the physical universe, but they may not impact the physical universe in any way that can be observed from within the physical universe. How will any device we invent within our physical reality even detect these other layers of reality, let alone examine and explore them?

 

 

They would be irrelevant, other than as an item of interest to philosophers. They would have no measureable impact and therefore, from a scientific perspective, would not be meaningful. If it doesn't affect any experiment, then it's mostly a metaphysical thing. Obviously we'd be interested in knowing just to know, but it would not make any difference to our lives or expand our capbilities, if they truely do not interact with our physical world. The would be just real versions of the ether, something that might be completely around us but which has no measurable effect.

[jlampson]

Yes, but discussions about God and the Cosmos are always fun, no? My student is coming back to school on Monday!

Hey, they certainly are fun. I've had too many this decade so I'm going to take a breather from this one.

On the subject of your student, that is great news, and you obviously care a lot about him and the other students you teach. Very refreshing. And it definitely does put things into perspective, doesn't it? Take care and I hope you're sleeping better.

[Ernest Buckley]

Whatever you take on religion vs. nature, it doesn`t matter.
Whats important is how this child handles or rather, is taught how to handle his disabilities.

My wife taught a position like yours Ken so I know the type of person you are just because I know my wife, you have a heart and tons of compassion.

You are the type of person that brings love wherever you go. For this kid, you are a bright light.

Do your thing my friend and I suppose trying to figure this all out is beyond the scope of my being.

EB