Some beautiful (and less beautiful) things in life
Last evening I was on the Granaries for the Joseph Calleja 2012 concert. What a beautiful do it was!
Joseph Calleja was superb. No wonder the internationally acclaimed conductor Steven Mercurio declared Calleja as the occupier of the throne previously the domain of Pavarotti. The enthusiastic reaction of the crowd in Floriana seems to be similarly inclined.
Italian Gigi D'Alessio and Irish Ronan Keating added to the crowd’s enjoyment. I must admit that I prefer Lucia Dalla to D’Alessio. I was moved by the tribute the organisers did to this great artiste who died a short time after last year’s concert.
The presence of the 200-strong HSBC children's choir gave the occasion a touch of innocence which hypes up its magical touch. Their beautiful rendering of the Anvil Chorus was particularly liked. The organisers should also be praised for giving us the duets between Calleja and soprano Gillian Zammit as well as with Amber. The Malta Philharmonic Orchestra made us really proud.
During such concerts I tend to find myself following both the large screens and the centre stage. This combination of the physical with the medium generated presence enhances one’s participation as it gives us two different takes on the reality unfolding in front of us.
Well done, indeed! Like thousands of others I wait for next year’s concert.
The concert came just twenty four hours after I spent a week in Gozo together with family and friends. We hired a nice farmhouse with a large pool in Xewkija. I left the premises only in the morning to buy bread and in the evening for Mass. The rest of the time was taken by short spells at the pool and very long periods of time correcting exam scripts and assignments. I hate this particular chore. Like many others at University I would prefer to give an extra course than do the corrections. Believe me, this is one of the less beautiful things in life, is no fun at all.
During the week in Gozo I was also in the company of my recently bought new toy: iPad3. It is convenient, classy, fun and dangerously addictive. My initiation period was helped though by Beppe Lauri, about whom I wrote in one of my blogs last year.
Things were happening around us while time stood still in Gozo.
Scientists at CERN, after a lot of hard work, told us that they found the Higgs boson which is also described as “the god-particle”. I tried to read something about it but, to tell you the truth; I could not understand what all the excitement was about.
Some atheists were thrilled by the find. Catholics, on the other hand, were not dismayed. Father Gabriele Gionti, a Jesuit theoretical physicist, said that the discovery illustrates “the harmony in nature”. “If you assume faith and believe in a good God who created the Universe you do not see any conflict between science and religion.”
Back in Malta Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando Smith is graciously trying to divert our attention from the impending heat wave by speaking of the alleged collusion between Richard Cachia Caruana and high officials of the Partit Laburista during the Sant administration of 1996 – 1998. Wonder of wonders. Dr Joseph Muscat saw it fit to jump on the bandwagon and spoke up in similar tones to JPOS’s. No one was surprised.
Some see these shenanigans as evidence of the silly season in full bloom; others give them a worse interpretation.
I think that we should all be tolerant and not get too hot under our collars. I strongly believe that everyone – even seasoned politicians – have the right to endear themselves to a fairy tale of their making. It shows both a sense of inventiveness and evidence of the naughty child present in all of us. Adults do sometimes play the fancy games that very young children frequently indulge themselves in.
Take care of the real heat wave and just smile at the rest.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
36 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Arthur Soler
Jul 13th 2012, 04:22
@ Antoine Vella
Quote....."Moreover, while it is true that there exists a SMALL NUMBER of dogmas in ANY religion, their direct impact on the day-to-day decisions and attitudes of the average person is MINOR." ( My emphasis )
Did I read you correctly? Did you actually say "MINOR"?
How about the average Muslim who is required to pray 5 times every day? Or how about the average Muslim woman who in Saudi Arabia, is not allowed to vote, nor drive a car, nor go outside without a male escort, nor show any part of her body including her face? Just a minor inconvenience you would say?
Ah! but we are talking about Islam and not Christianity of course.....and we all know that Catholicism is much more tolerant ! Indeed, think about the equality that over the centuries, average Catholic gays and lesbians enjoyed every day!...or the flexibility that the Church shows about divorce!..or about artificial contraception!.
This is why I emphasized the point that religions are all about certainty. In the eyes of the Church, gays and lesbians are certainly sinners, as are divorced people, as are those who use condoms. In the eyes of the Islamic religion, apostasy is punishable by death....and prostitutes should be stoned to death..and a woman who is raped is ostracised by her own family.
These are NOT minor issues...these are real issues that affect real people everyday.
The only reason Western Society today is much more tolerant is because of the emergence of democracy and the secular state. While hardly perfect, it is a dramatic improvement over the autocratic and dogmatic Christian Church that historically held most of the power, and crushed anyone who dared question its God's given authority and its dogmas.
Quote....."Being a Catholic, for example, implies a lot more than simply an EMPTY belief in angels, the Holy Trinity and the Immaculate.Conception." ( My emphasis )
Can you please clarify this point further? Are you saying that if one is Catholic, belief in angles, the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception is simply an empty belief? Does this mean that you don't have to believe any of these dogmas...because they are empty?
Arthur Soler
Jul 10th 2012, 17:18
@ Jessica DeBattista
Dear Jessica:
No need to apologize for "butting in". This is what these blogs are all about. In any event I always look forward to and enjoy your contributions.
You state that "We are composed of body and soul ...." and this is the essence of where you and I differ. The existence of the body is self evident...hardly so the existence of the soul.
I have noted in several earlier posts that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything that is "supernatural "actually exists...which includes the soul. The feelings and emotions that we all have are not indicative of something that is outside the "natural" world....merely the product of an immensley complex material brian, which is the product of some 4 billion years of evolution. Once the body dies, so does all the chemical activity and neurons that fire and drive our thinking, our consciousness, our emotions and our feelings. At that point we are no more alive than we were before we were conceived.
You of course believe that your soul will survive the death of your body. I would like to believe that too...but where is the evidence?
As Carl Sagan said most appropriately, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidencef". The existence of the soul and life after death are truly extraordinary claims...and there is no reasonable supporting evidence..... except for religious believers who cling onto this thing called FAITH.
Now if this is enough for you and makes you happy...that is great....and I would never want to change your views. Happiniess after all is what we all seek every day. However, I have been seeking the truth...as cruel as it may be...and based on everything that I have read and questioned, I can only conclude that life after death..physical or otherwise, is merely wishful thinking.
I hope that I am wrong and that you are right.
Jessica Debattista
Jul 11th 2012, 12:26
@ Arthur Soler: “You of course believe that your soul will survive the death of your body. I would like to believe that too...but where is the evidence?
Mr. Soler, I am a believer because I believe and not because it makes me happy to think that there is life after death. I do not dwell on that.
I hardly every think about what awaits me after I die but I think a lot about the comfort I derive when I go through bad times and I have someOne to turn to. It is therapeutic, and it gives me comfort only because I truly believe.
In case you think I am a goody-goody person, you better forget it for I am probably below average. I have doubts about certain Church teachings and at times I go by my reasoning. In fact at times I am at odds with the Church but I have enough faith in God that if I am transgressing by not holding literally to the Church teachings He knows me through and through and would understand.
You ask for evidence, which of course I cannot give but it would be very gratifying if after I die I would find out that Heaven does exist and that I am welcomed with open arms.
If on the other hand Heaven does not exist I still have my gratification in the fact that I believe in God as a being who is loving to all of humanity and looks on each one of us who believe (and maybe even those who do not believe) as a special child who is under His care.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 11th 2012, 15:42
@ Jessica Debattista:
Arthur Soler did not say that you believe because it makes you happy.
Jessica Debattista
Jul 11th 2012, 16:58
@ Kenneth Cassar: "Arthur Soler did not say that you believe because it makes you happy."
U ajma Kenneth! Don't nitpick! It is to hot for that. :-)
Read Arthur Soler's penultimate paragraph
Arthur Soler
Jul 12th 2012, 04:19
Dear Jessica:
I honestly do not want to put you in a spot. However, I am baffled by your comment “I am a believer because I believe.........”, as I always am baffled when I hear this quite typical response from other believers.
I find it so difficult to understand why learned people choose to believe in anything without reasonable evidence. Indeed, if a personal God does exist, the evidence would indicate that he is anything but loving or caring. .Just look at how cruel nature is....natural disasters, plagues, horrible diseases, devastating accidents, conjoined twins, children born without a brain, cancer, painful childbirth, predator and prey, ice ages, cosmic collisions.....and the list of horrors that afflict mankind is endless. How does one reconcile these horrors with a loving personal God?
Homo Sapiens has been on this Earth for some 250,000 years or so. During this time our ancestors suffered through untold pain and misery as they struggled to survive in very difficult conditions. In fact, anthropologists have noted that our species came close to extinction some 80,000 years ago, as our numbers dwindled to a few hundred. As an aside our genetic cousins the Neanderthals and Homo Erectus were not quite so lucky...they became extinct.
The point is this. Where was this loving God when we were struggling for survival? In fact, where is he today when so many people pray to him and have their prayers go unanswered? A few days of rain in the very arid parts of Africa would save the lives of countless millions who die prematurely of hunger or malnutrition. Surely, a loving God should listen to the prayers of the thousands of people who pray for rain and a good harvest.
As I see it, once you eliminate God from this equation, it all makes complete sense. There is no divine plan that guides any of these activities. We are the product of a cosmic accident with no particular purpose. We are literally made from star dust and as star dust we shall return.
Fatalistic and sad? True...but most probably reality.
There is a book which I found very interesting and I think you may too. It is called "On Being" by Peter Atkins..Here is the link......
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/185-9590421-8510203?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=on+being+peter+atkins
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 12th 2012, 06:37
@ Jessica Debattista:
It's not nitpicking. It's called clarifying. I thought it was important for you to know that nobody is saying that you only believe because it makes you happy. Perhaps I was wrong in pointing that out. You're welcome anyway.
Jessica Debattista
Jul 12th 2012, 11:32
@ Arthur soler: “I find it so difficult to understand why learned people choose to believe in anything without reasonable evidence. Indeed, if a personal God does exist, the evidence would indicate that he is anything but loving or caring. .Just look at how cruel nature is..”
Mr Soler, I do reflect on what you say above and it is truly baffling and it makes my blood boil to know that all that you mentioned is apparently true. But what is apparent to us is not necessarily the will of God.
Some of my doubts arise from knowing that the world is more often than not terrible but let’s face it, some of these terrible situations are not of God’s making but rather the result of man’s greed. Need I elaborate on how much man seems to have tampered with the natural world that is seems to be rebelling and paying us back for what we took out of it? It is not just the natural world that is rebelling but also our pockets!
If man had really lived by God’s commandments, there would not be so much turmoil in the world.
But just as a good being exists there is also a negative being and the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor of this fight against good and evil.
Unfortunately love towards our neighbours is only limited to our immediate family and maybe a few scattered acquaintances who touch our lives. For the most part we do not seem to be concerned about the people in want. If we had always lived by the commandments and thought of other people/s as brothers we would not be in such a predicament.
You are always after evidence because only that suffices for you who are so scientifically inclined and who profess to be rational.
There is another side to mankind and that is the drive to seek a spiritual truth.
Unfortunately the latter cannot be measured by any material device since by its very nature it is abstract. We cannot measure love, hate, anger, greed etc, we only witness the result and gauge the power of these emotions only by the effect they leave behind them.
We can love to the extent that we are ready to give our lives for the ones we love – parental love is often of this kind. We can hate to the extent that we are ready to kill to eliminate the one we hate. We can be greedy to the extent that we care only for our wellbeing and to hell to all those who do not belong in our circle.
If all these emotions were chanelled in the right direction, the positive ones could perhaps include the whole of mankind, and the negative ones could perhaps be lessened and the damage neutralized.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 07:24
Fr Joe tells us that some atheists where thrilled by the discovery of the "God particle". Big deal. I'm confident that so were many Christians. I don't understand the need of this polarisation on what should be a purely scientific issue that leaves the question on the existence of a prime-mover or first cause unresolved.
Jessica Debattista
Jul 9th 2012, 22:18
@Arthur Soler: “.... can you provide just one shred of evidence that anything spiritual actually exists?”
Sorry to butt in Mr Soler but if I may I would like to reflect on your question.
I do not think that anything spiritual can be provided with evidence as such but I suppose we all experience the spiritual.
One can contrast spirit with carnal.
We are composed of body and soul and I suppose that all that we experience through the five senses have to do with the body but what we experience through feelings, thoughts, sensations have to do with the soul.
We might think that science has nothing to do with the spirit but in fact it has a lot to do with it. Everything starts with a thought – idea - and rationality is motivated by the spirit.
We tend to think that spirituality has to do with religious faith only but that is not so. Religious faith which is not based on tangible proof relies a lot on feelings, and belief in God is nothing other than a feeling that God exists.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 09:08
"Everything starts with a thought – idea - and rationality is motivated by the spirit".
It's actually the other way round. Thoughts are the product of material brains, and spirituality is motivated by rationality.
"...but what we experience through feelings, thoughts, sensations have to do with the soul".
Actually, they have to do with our material brain. In fact, thoughts, feelings and sensations are altered or eliminated when the brain itself is altered (either through accidents or laboratory experiments).
Andy Farrugia
Jul 10th 2012, 10:36
@ Kenneth Cassar
Howard Gardner (psychologist) proposed a theory of MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES which everyone has:
a. SPATIAL - ability to visualise things;
b. LINGUISTIC - ability to use, understand and memorise language;
c. LOGICAL-MATHEMATICAL - ability to reason with and understand numbers and abstractions;
d. MUSICAL - ability to respond to, reproduce and interpret music;
e. BODILY-KINAESTHETIC - ability to understand, use and control one's bodily actions skilfully;
f. INTERPERSONAL - ability to empathise and interact with oothers;
g. INTRAPERSONAL - ability to think and reflect internally;
h. NATURALISTIC - ability to understand and enjoy the natural world;
i. EXISTENTIAL - ability to see and empathise with spiritual, religious and psychic belief.
However, according to Gardner we are all different : for some of us, perhaps, one of these intelligences may be more developed than others. Likewise there may be some intelligences which are either underdeveloped or wilfully suppressed.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 10:49
@ Andy Farrugia:
I am in complete agreement with your post.
Jessica Debattista
Jul 10th 2012, 11:34
@ Kenneth Cassas:
My quote: "Everything starts with a thought – idea - and rationality is motivated by the spirit".
- Your quote: “It's actually the other way round. Thoughts are the product of material brains, and spirituality is motivated by rationality.”
Trust you Kenneth to convolute what I say. I try to simplify what I want to say and you opt to counter it with a statement that complicates matter. The brain is that grey stuff where we think all thoughts originate from but you forget that what triggers a thought is something prior to that – more like a feeling.
When you say that “spirituality is motivated by rationality” what do you have in mind? Do you actually believe that a rational person is a spiritual person because if so then we are not so much in disagreement.
My quote :"...but what we experience through feelings, thoughts, sensations have to do with the soul".
- Your quote: “Actually, they have to do with our material brain. In fact, thoughts, feelings and sensations are altered or eliminated when the brain itself is altered (either through accidents or laboratory experiments).”
But Kenneth, altering the function of the brain through an accident or laboratory experiment does not do away with the spirit. Feelings may be different but they are still there, albeit not apparent to us who stand on the outside of the person.
Of course I speak as an ignorant layperson and maybe it is not for us to discuss these matters for we are only conjectoring since both if us, I suppose, do not know enough. But I enjoy an argument for the sake of getting my grey matter working which incidentally was the method of Plato to arrive to the truth (spiritual truth????)
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 11:35
@ Andy Farrugia:
Of course. I agree.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 12:08
@ Jessica DeBattista:
If you are going to take disagreement too personally, please let me know so that I'll desist. But I trust you won't, so I'll have a go.
It is not my intention to complicate matters, only to state facts. If facts make matters more complicated, I'd take the risk anyway.
You tell me that feelings precede thought. But think about this: What is the source of all feeling? It is the brain that converts contact with the outside world to feelings. When someone pricks you with a needle, it is the brain that gives you the sensation of pain, as well as "tells you" to move your hand away and maybe shout.
When I say that spirituality is motivated by rationality, I mean that without a sufficiently rational mind (the product of the brain), one cannot have a spiritual life, and that spirituality is the outcome of highly developed minds (of course, by spirituality I do not mean the supernatural kind), but it certainly does not mean - as you seem to have understood - that all rational persons are spiritual. All spiritual people are rational, but not all rational people are spiritual, if you get what I mean.
You tell me that altering the function of the brain through an accident or laboratory experiment does not do away with the spirit and that feelings may be different but they are still there, albeit not apparent to us who stand on the outside of the person. Well, that would depend on what one means by spirit (I suspect you are using different meanings concurrently). Feelings may be completely eliminated through meddling with the brain. In fact there is even a medical condition where patients don't feel any pain at all.
And finally, although I certainly do not believe that you are an ignorant layperson, I would like to stress that no, I am not conjecturing. I mostly read science, so although I do not consider myself an expert (I most certainly am not), I know what I am talking about.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 12:25
@ Jessica DeBattista:
By the way, just in case I haven't made myself clear enough, I do consider myself a spiritual person. So I'm hardly to be one to ridicule or criticise spirituality in itself (with provisos, of course - there are both rational and irrational spiritualities, and lots in between). At least we can agree on this.
Jessica Debattista
Jul 10th 2012, 13:18
@ Kenneth Cassar:
To buttress my argument originally directed to Arthur Soler I would like to butress my argument with the following:
Spiritual
1. Immaterial, incorporeal: consisting of spirit.
2. Referring to the higher faculties (mental intellectual, aesthetic, religious) and values of the mind.
3. Referring to non material human values such as beauty, goodness, love, truth, compassion, honesty and holiness.
4. Referring to moral, religious and aesthetic feelings and emotions.
- The Harper Collins Dictionary -PHILOSOPHY
Jessica Debattista
Jul 10th 2012, 15:15
@Kenneth Cassar: “Well, that would depend on what one means by spirit (I suspect you are using different meanings concurrently). Feelings may be completely eliminated through meddling with the brain. In fact there is even a medical condition where patients don't feel any pain at all.”
Kenneth I think it is you who are using different meanings concurrently. I speak of feelings that are intrapersonal and not detected by any device..... How can we be sure that a person whom we describe as being in a vegetative state has no feeling? The spirit is still there for I think that only when one take one’s last breath that the spirit actually snaps.
When my father was dieing and my mother was staying with him, I used to keep her company for long stretches of time and my father never moved a muscle. The doctor had told me to take care of my mother now, for at this stage my father was not feeling anything.
It was not true! My brother came visiting and he stayed for a very short time for my father was totally in a coma(?) In a soft voice my brother told us that he was leaving and at his words my father’s eyes opened and they appeared to be questioning him.
To me it appears that my father was aware that he was not alone in the room because my mother and I were carrying on a conversation very careful, of course, not to mention anything negative about his sickness. When my brother visited he must have been aware of it too and when he wanted to leave, he was moved to make an effort and open his eyes questioningly.
Was there any feeling there Kenneth? Could love have been the feeling that made him open his eyes? I don’t know of course but man is so complex. We try to give explanation to everything but there is another level of our existence which cannot be proved theoretically.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 21:02
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Feelings that are intrapersonal and not detected by any device (yet) are still the product of the brain. Far from being sure that a person in a vegetative state is unfeeling, such a person most probably still has sensations (although perhaps arguably to a lower degree). Only the brain-dead (when the brain ceases to function completely) can we be sure that the person has no feelings whatsoever. It is, after all, the brain that interprets the information (through the senses) with the outside world. No brain = no senses.
So yes, as long as the brain is not completely dead, there is probably some feeling.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Jul 9th 2012, 01:27
Dr Joseph Muscat saw it fit to jump on the bandwagon and spoke up in similar tones to JPOS’s. No one was "surprised." Such even-handedness from a 'man of God' ..... No wonder the Catholic Church is such a bad state in Malta.
B Ellul
Jul 9th 2012, 08:37
What's wrong with that sentence?
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jul 9th 2012, 12:45
Mr Ellul: Joe Borg says he is a priest of the Maltese Catholic church. His statements are partisan and one sided. His penultimate paragraph implies that JPO is a liar. What are catholic labourites going to conclude after reading this? Not that the catholic church is run by the nationalist party? The more this Joe Borg who says he is a priest writes, the more harm he is causing the catholic church - especially if the Archbishop does not rein him in. If you cannot his anti-labout prejudice, you must be blind.
B Ellul
Jul 9th 2012, 15:50
OK Andew.... then what have you got to say about Mark Montebello, Fr Colin etc? Bravu.... and thanks I'm not blind!
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jul 9th 2012, 16:22
Mr Ellul, yes they too create harm for the church when they talk partisan politics - no priest should take political sides. And as far as I know, we have not heard from fr Colin for a long time. I don't think Fr Montebello talks partisan politics - i.e. favouring one party over another. On the other hand, Joe Borg's blogs are partisan.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 10th 2012, 09:11
@ Andrew Camilleri:
Priests are not barred from having political opinions and expressing them. And they shouldn't. Priests are citizens with equal civil rights to any of us. And I say this as a person who often finds himself in disagreement with Fr Joe.
Arthur Soler
Jul 8th 2012, 21:17
@ Fr Joe Borg
Quote...."Some atheists were thrilled by the find ( Higgs boson)"
Can you please elaborate on this sweeping statement? You seem to be needlessly attacking atheists, which would not be that unusual anyway.
From all the articles that I have read, the people who were really thrilled by this discovery were the nuclear physicists who, for the past 50 years or so, have been searching for evidence that this particle actually exists. You may want to read the following article to perhaps better educate yourself on the scientific significance of this remarkable discovery.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/opinion/krauss-higgs-particle/index.html?iref=allsearch
Science is all about uncertainty....and nothing is accepted as fact unless there is solid evidence to suppport any theory. Every scientific claim is subject to intense sceptical scrutiny by peer groups, before anything is accepted as a scientific reality. This is the scientific method.
By contrast, religion, any religion that is, is all about certainty. Certainty about Heaven and Hell, about the Devil and the nature of God, about life after death etc. All these claims are accepted as fact because of faith, not because of reasonable supporting evidence.
Some people prefer the scientific method...others have faith in religion. I choose the former...and you the latter. I cannot prove you wrong, nor vice versa. So why don't we just respect each other's opinion and leave it at that.
.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Jul 9th 2012, 01:34
Arthur, you are oh so so wrong. Did you not know that when it comes to religion it is about faith and mysteries. Three persons in one God. And don't make mention of Plotinus because you'll give them the creeps. They don't teach that to the faitful. Or how God commanded genocide (Joshua 6-11). Charming God! Onward Christian soldiers. It is quite OK to park your brains when you believe.
Franco Farrugia
Jul 9th 2012, 12:12
Mr Chetcuti, sir: actually, no, it is not 'quite OK to park your brains when you believe.'
In believing, I have doubts, many doubts. And that is part of 'believing'. But I believe because if I didn't, then this world with only human beings like you and I, would be a very sorry place. A very sorry existence.
I even believe that non-human animals will live on, after this life. Again, if I didn't believe that, I would be one of the saddest persons around.
Only people who choose not to believe, do so.
Antoine Vella
Jul 9th 2012, 13:27
Arthur Soler, Fr Borg doesn't need any defence but I'm poking my nose in this anyway.
"Some atheists were thrilled " is NOT a sweeping statement. it is, in fact, the opposite of a sweeping statement.
A sweeping statement would have been "atheists were thrilled" but the addition of that adjective changes and restricts the meaning.
Antoher sweeping statement is "nuclear physicists . . . were thrilled". Are you sure? Do you have solid proof of it? Is it possible that there might exist at least one physicist who was not thrilled?
Yet another sweeping statement is "religion is all about certainty". Apart from the fact that you are obviously confusing religion with faith, a common mistake of some atheists, this statement is patently wrong.
An essential element of faith is actually a search for spiritual truth, but to seek answers one must have questions. And if one has questions than one is obviously not certain.
Arthur Soler
Jul 9th 2012, 18:04
Dear Antoine Vella:
Thank you very much for your lesson in English grammar. I am impressed!
However, if one were to be perfectly precise, the statement "some atheists were thrilled" is still a sweeping statement, inasmuch as the "some" in the sentence has not been properly quantified. As it stands , it could very well mean that 99.99% of all atheists were thrilled, and that would be a very sweeping statement indeed.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that my statement "nuclear physicists . . . were thrilled". could also be interpreted as a sweeping statement. So, in order to clear up this oversight, please refer to the following link from the BBC....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455
You then contend that my claim"religion is all about certainty" is another sweeping statement and that it is patently wrong, I find this quite interesting. Simply stating that it is "patently wrong" is a very sweeping statement indeed, as you offer not one iota of support for your claim.
I do stick to my position about religion and I do not confuse it with faith. Religion is all about certainly as it relates to God's existence, Heaven and Hell, Angels and Archangels, Resurection from the dead, Virgin Births, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, Faith is actually believing in all these things WITHOUT REASONABLE EVIDENCE.
You conclude by claiming that "An essential element of faith is actually a search for spiritual truth". Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what this"spiritual truth" is all about and how does one go about searching for it? Putting it another way, can you provide just one shred of evidence that anything spiritual actually exists?
Antoine Vella
Jul 9th 2012, 19:30
Arthur, my lesson was not about grammar but logic.
Arthur Soler
Jul 9th 2012, 21:11
Dear Antione:
My apologies...but I am still trying to understand your logic. For example, how is it logical to have faith and believe in something without reasonable supporting evidence? Can you elaborate please?
Many thanks.
Arthur
Antoine Vella
Jul 11th 2012, 23:58
Arthur Soler,
It is misleading and illogical to compare science to religion because the former is simply a systematic observation of facts (which is why proof is needed) while the second is basically a set of values that influence and guide a person's behaviour.
How can you "prove" a value? It doesn't even make sense to try.
Moreover, while it is true that there exists a small number of dogmas in any religion, their direct impact on the day-to-day decisions and attitudes of the average person is minor. Being a Catholic, for example, implies a lot more than simply an empty belief in angels, the Holy Trinity and the Immaculate.Conception.
This is why your statement that "religion is ALL about certainty" is rather shallow and an over-generalisation.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 12th 2012, 09:10
@ Antoine Vella:
"It is misleading and illogical to compare science to religion because the former is simply a systematic observation of facts (which is why proof is needed) while the second is basically a set of values that influence and guide a person's behaviour".
Belief in God is not a set of values (although values may be derived from the belief). Either God exists, or "he" doesn't. Therefore, one may claim that observations about God are observations on facts (or non-facts), and therefore proof (or at least some evidence) should be necessary. That is, if people are to claim as a fact that God exists.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 12th 2012, 11:47
@ Franco Farrugia:
Belief is not something one has the power to choose. You can test that by trying to believe in something you don't, for a day or so, without examining evidence to the contrary. You won't succeed. If, on the otherhand, your beliefs are changed after examining the evidence, you would hardly have any choice, would you? It would be the evidence that changed your beliefs.
Please choose the reason of your report below: