Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[atanu]

I've seen Vedenta texts and Hindus I've discussed with repeatedly making this point, but I've never agreed with it.

Understandable. It needs experience.

What is "the bliss of sleep"? When we sleep, our brain waves go through measurable cycles, where in certain cycles we can dream, and in other cycles, we are in deep sleep.

Bliss of sleep? You do not know it?

Those cycles etc. are waking time observations. Meaningless for understanding dream and sleep from within the states.

What consciousness or bliss is present in deep sleep? You say everyone knows the bliss of sleep, but I don't see that as the case.

Unbroken consciousness without any contrast is the deep sleep. Because of lack of contrast nothing is known. Beginning of Subject-Object division made of inner light is dream.

Science can never be content with statements "Bliss is full of you" or "Heaven is full of you".

That again is understandable .............. some people must carry the load.

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

‘One who teaches an ignoramus or half-awakened (disciple) that ‘all this is Brahman’ will (in effect) plunge him in an endless series of hells.)

There is neither any teacher, nor disciple or even that label *Brahman* and no heaven or hell along with, HERE-NOW!!

Love & rgds

 

[Penumbra]

Understandable. It needs experience.

Either that, or it's an incorrect point.

Bliss of sleep? You do not know it?

Those cycles etc. are waking time observations. Meaningless for understanding dream and sleep from within the states.

Unbroken consciousness without any contrast is the deep sleep. Because of lack of contrast nothing is known. Beginning of Subject-Object division made of inner light is dream.

Science can never be content with statements "Bliss is full of you" or "Heaven is full of you".

That again is understandable .............. some people must carry the load.

Why would I know the bliss of sleep? The waking time observations are measured ones. They're meant to point out that, technically, some parts of sleep may be blissful (for instance, if we experience a blissful dream), but that during other parts, this isn't the case.

Subjective experience can say this too. I may feel "bliss" when I'm lying down tired on a soft bed, but once asleep, I feel no bliss, nor do I see why I should. "I" feel nothing because there is no known awareness.

 

[Quagmire]

Relax. It was a lighthearted statement referencing the fact that your latest post was only 7 multiquotes rather than some of the previous ones like 14 or 17. We have rather opposite posting styles, and it's funny.

Sorry, but I always get a little annoyed when someone I'm dealing with starts insisting on a double standard, even if they're smiling while they're doing it (actually, especially then).

I'm using the word "often" to be polite and careful. There has never been a really convincing scientific observation of consciousness without a functioning brain, to my knowledge. I've seen some claims that are interesting, but none of them were really well verified, or interesting enough to shock any major collection of scientists.

That's a rather sweeping statement for someone whose merely "seen some claims".

I've put forth ample evidence that consciousness, personality, and memories originate in the brain.

No, you haven't. All you've done was demonstrate a relationship between consciousness and the brain, which is something no one is questioning.

Our personality, memories, and cognition develop as we age from infancy to adulthood, because our brain is making connections, and these connections of neurons and synapses are essentially computing nodes. Individual neurons and synapses are fairly well understood, and are basically logical devices- the harder and more mysterious part is understanding how these trillions of units connect to each other in the broadest sense. Then, for some unfortunate people when they age past their prime, their brain begins having problems, and therefore personality, memories, and cognition begin to falter, and for some, disappear entirely or almost entirely. It's not just correlation; causation is repeatedly demonstrated.

-Consciousness, both electrically measured and subjectively experienced, can be reduced or shut off by means of damage or chemical alteration to the brain. Personality and memories can be altered or lost. Levels of awareness can be reduced or increased by chemical means.

*See previous comment.

-There is no known structure in the brain that interfaces with any external source of consciousness.

There's also no known structure in the brain that creates consciousness.

Even if something non-physical is involved, since it interacts with the physical, it should be measurable in some way. Plus it sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy, unless it were carefully and particularly modeled to show that it doesn't.

-Samples of the brain can and have been analyzed at cellular and molecular levels. Where is this vague description of consciousness coming from if it is not emergent? Can it be mathematically described, or scientifically measured?

Ah, I see your point: if we haven't figured out how to measure or describe something, it must not exist, even if we can see that it does.

-There has not been a documented and rigorously scientifically verified case of consciousness existing anywhere without a brain.

Uh huh. There's also never been documented or rigorously scientifically verified case of radio waves being detected without some sort of equipment.

I don't see how my statement led you to ask if I'm saying consciousness doesn't exist.

I think you're refusing to, but that's OK.

Actually, the debate or "argument" is initially and primarily about whether Hawking's statement was reasonable. You asserted that he was making a positive claim that he needs to justify, and my response was that a) he did justify it and b) his position is the far more straightforward one, and the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims,

Everything he said is predicated on the belief that consciousness is a product of the brain. Asking "how do we know it is" is not an extraordinary claim. It isn't a claim at all, it's a question.

You haven't demonstrated how we know that consciousness is produced by/in the brain, you've only explained why you believe it is.

and that it's fair for him to dismiss things there is no evidence for. The debate about the nature of consciousness is merely an important and related debate.

Heaven can be defined in many ways, but taking context into consideration for Hawking's short statement by noting that he is from areas associated with Christianity or at least general monotheism, and that he referenced it as a fairy story for people afraid of the dark, he was likely referencing heaven as a joyful continuation of a person.

In what way would transitioning consciousness from a confined form expand it?

If we agree to view consciousness in accordance with the wave/ocean scenario for the sake of argument, then it would be reasonable to assume that consciousness would only be capable of manifesting itself in the brain to whatever degree the brain is capable of accommodating it. What I mean is, going by the ocean/wave of consiouness example, if the wave could talk it would be saying to itself, "Now I'm a wave, now I'm the ocean, now I'm a wave, now I'm the ocean....." the "I" may not be so much defined by the limits of it's dwelling place as confined by them.

As I've already put forth, why would it be assumed that our conglomerate "unit" is what receives continuation? Why not all the little cells, or all the little atoms, or whatever the smallest unit of consciousness you proposes is?

Because, as many Eastern philosophical descriptions of reality maintain, and as quantum physics is beginning to suggest, the conglomerate unit may be a macrocosm of all the tiny microcosms. In other words the "I" blueprint of a structure may be imprinted on each and every cell that comprises that structure. Genetically speaking, we already know that it is in the individual DNA of each cell.

Wouldn't they scatter and disperse? Instead of a confined form of consciousness transitioning to an expanded form, why wouldn't consciousness scatter into a large number of smaller forms?

Exactly (see above).

When a wave crashes back down into the ocean, the number of molecules of water in the wave remain consistent, but they disperse back into an unrecognizable and scattered form. The wave doesn't become the ocean simply because its identity merged with it.

I think you're expecting too much from the metaphor.

If, what you say is true, and consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed, then letting it out of confinement shouldn't expand it; it should disperse it.

Expansion and dispersion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive conditions.

 

[atanu]

Either that, or it's an incorrect point.

I agree -- from your view. My view is clear.:areyoucra

Why would I know the bliss of sleep? The waking time observations are measured ones. They're meant to point out that, technically, some parts of sleep may be blissful (for instance, if we experience a blissful dream), but that during other parts, this isn't the case.

Subjective experience can say this too. I may feel "bliss" when I'm lying down tired on a soft bed, but once asleep, I feel no bliss, nor do I see why I should. "I" feel nothing because there is no known awareness.

No. Sleep is pure bliss. It sustains. Dreams do not. Try not sleeping for two days.


Why should we know the nature of sleep? OK. The sense of touch is in skin. Now, if the sense of touch was not there with all other senses intact, you would not be limited within a bag of flesh/bones/blood. This sense of touch gives many pleasures, the main ones being the sexual ones. But at later age, the same sense of touch is mainly pain.

Both the pleasure and the pain are but conditioned awareness created by operation of certain senses. So with all other senses. They function to create such pain-pleasure mixture. And we are trapped by the wrong notion that "I am this pain-pleasure complex". It pays to know what one actually is.
.............

The above is just an illustration.

The main point in this thread is that Hawkings seems to imply that computers have life at present and they will lose such ife on breaking down of the components. No such thing. Computers do not have life of their own.

 

[Penumbra]

Sorry, but I always get a little annoyed when someone I'm dealing with starts insisting on a double standard, even if they're smiling while they're doing it (actually, especially then).

That's a rather sweeping statement for someone whose merely "seen some claims".

First I used the word "often" to be careful and polite, and you pointed it out and criticized the use of the word often, so I was a bit more straightforward and said that to my knowledge, there never has been one, and now you criticize it as a sweeping statement.

I'm not sure what you're looking for there.

No, you haven't. All you've done was demonstrate a relationship between consciousness and the brain, which is something no one is questioning.

*See previous comment.

There's also no known structure in the brain that creates consciousness.

Ah, I see your point: if we haven't figured out how to measure or describe something, it must not exist, even if we can see that it does.

Uh huh. There's also never been documented or rigorously scientifically verified case of radio waves being detected without some sort of equipment.

I think you're refusing to, but that's OK.

Everything he said is predicated on the belief that consciousness is a product of the brain. Asking "how do we know it is" is not an extraordinary claim. It isn't a claim at all, it's a question.

You haven't demonstrated how we know that consciousness is produced by/in the brain, you've only explained why you believe it is.

And I've already granted that it's non-falsifiable. But considering I've seen no evidence put forward to the contrary, why should I consider otherwise?

This is more than just evidence of a relationship. It's evidence of causality. Doing things to the brain can change, reduce, or temporarily or permanently eliminate our consciousness.

-Eliminate: People can point out that during certain times, due to injury or chemicals, their consciousness was temporarily completely gone. But you've again shifted towards non-falsifiability by suggesting that consciousness existed during that time, but we just can't remember.

-Reduce: Instead of being completely eliminated, consciousness can be reduced by altering the brain. There is a whole spectrum of states between wakefulness and complete unconsciousness. Your defense against this as far as I can tell was to propose that the brain is merely the tool or expression of consciousness, and affecting the brain affected consciousness. But, if consciousness can't be created or destroyed, where is the remaining consciousness when a fully conscious person has their level of consciousness severely reduced? The statement about not-remembering isn't really applicable anymore.

The straightforward causality, combined with absence of evidence for other alternatives despite considerable research of the brain (no known structures to receive external consciousness, nothing known on the molecular or atomic level to produce consciousness), makes a very compelling case. What other valid hypotheses should Hawking or others consider?

Furthermore, you said that everything he said is predicated on consciousness being a product of the brain, but this is not precise. Everything he said is predicated on the belief that the mind is a product of the brain. Mind includes a lot more than just consciousness. Although definitions sometimes vary, a mind includes consciousness + intellect + memories, and sometimes also personality and emotions.

If we agree to view consciousness in accordance with the wave/ocean scenario for the sake of argument, then it would be reasonable to assume that consciousness would only be capable of manifesting itself in the brain to whatever degree the brain is capable of accommodating it. What I mean is, going by the ocean/wave of consiouness example, if the wave could talk it would be saying to itself, "Now I'm a wave, now I'm the ocean, now I'm a wave, now I'm the ocean....." the "I" may not be so much defined by the limits of it's dwelling place as confined by them.

This doesn't follow the conservation of consciousness you suggested earlier. Do you intend this to go along with that, or is this a separate hypothesis? This doesn't hold to conservation of consciousness. Rather than the ocean becoming a wave, it's becoming many waves. If each wave contains the whole ocean, consciousness is not being conserved.

Because, as many Eastern philosophical descriptions of reality maintain, and as quantum physics is beginning to suggest, the conglomerate unit may be a macrocosm of all the tiny microcosms. In other words the "I" blueprint of a structure may be imprinted on each and every cell that comprises that structure. Genetically speaking, we already know that it is in the individual DNA of each cell.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you clarify?

Are you saying that, like all the cells have DNA for the whole body in them, that each person has information for the whole universe in them?

Exactly (see above).

I think you're expecting too much from the metaphor.

Expansion and dispersion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive conditions.

I'm not expecting too much from just the metaphor- I'm expecting much from the metaphor combined with your explanations.

On one hand, you've basically been suggesting the possibility that the brain is just a tool or physical expression of consciousness, so the reason it's possible to alter consciousness by altering the brain is because, somehow, consciousness is using the brain rather than the brain producing consciousness. And you've suggested that when we sleep, we're not really unconscious, but instead we're in greatly expanded consciousness but just don't remember it because our memories are in our brain.

On the other hand, you're suggesting that after the brain dies, the "I" is greatly expanded. Again, I don't really see why this would be the case, as I've explained above. Why isn't the "I" just dispersed without expansion, if consciousness is conserved? Why would the conglomerate receive a continuous afterlife rather than individual cells receiving continuous afterlives? In addition, if things like memories, ability to process information and be intelligent, and the ability to feel emotions are all products of the brain, what sort of meaningful existence would a dispersed consciousness hold? In what way could it be considered a heaven in any way? If the brain is so important for consciousness, why wouldn't discarding the brain greatly hinder it?

 

[Penumbra]

I agree -- from your view. My view is clear.:areyoucra

No. Sleep is pure bliss. It sustains. Dreams do not. Try not sleeping for two days.

It may seem clear, but so far I haven't seen that to be the case. You're saying sleep is bliss, and I don't see that as the case at all.

If a thing sustains something else, it does not mean that this thing was bliss. I'm not arguing we don't need sleep. During sleep, our brain waves become more organized. But in what way would someone call sleep bliss?

It's blissful to lie down on a soft bed when tired, and it's blissful to wake up and continuing to feel comfort of relaxing in the bed, but during the time of unconsciousness, how can a thing be said to be bliss?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Penumbra,

This is what western research says :
The Mystery of Deep Sleep | Psychology Today

In some eastern mystical traditions the state of consciousness through which we ordinarily experience the world is thought of as being one of gross awareness. There is a more subtle state of awareness that may be developed through meditation and can be thought of as being more subtle and like that of the dreaming state of consciousness. The deepest level of consciousness in this scheme is the very subtle one in which it is possible to become aware of the emptiness in which all phenomenon are thought to occur. According to the integral philosopher Ken Wilber, with training in advanced meditation, it is possible for people to be aware of the subtle and very subtle states of consciousness to the point of being aware of the states of dreaming and even the state of deep sleep. We now know that lucid dreaming is possible. During lucid dreaming people can be aware of and alter their dreams. If Wilber is correct, then some advanced practitioners of meditation may actually be able to maintain a form of conscious awareness of even the formless void of deep sleep.

Personal understanding is that sleep is nothing but a period of rest. Rest is needed by both body and mind but never to consciousness and so a meditator can still remain conscious in sleep as explained above and even Gautama once told Ananda his companion that he never twitched or turned in his sleep as he never required any rest only his body did.
If we see that there is life in a body because it is breathing and with breathing oxygen gets into the body and through blood reaches all the cells to keep them alive and this in the Indian sub-continent is known as *prana* that keeps one alive which enters through breath. Even if we take it as oxygen the truth is that one has no control over his own life except forcing the air to enter his own body for few moments.minutes at most. Life goes on its own without one's effort and in sleep this happens more deeply as the mental or conscious thoughts waves are absent allowing most body parts to be in its natural condition to get energized through the process of intake of oxygen etc.etc. Meaning in sleep the connection with the form and existence is more than in the waking state.

More as we go along.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Friend Penumbra,

This is what western research says :
The Mystery of Deep Sleep | Psychology Today


Personal understanding is that sleep is nothing but a period of rest. Rest is needed by both body and mind but never to consciousness Love & rgds

Thank you for your post. I will like to say, however, that rest is not required by the body, since it is inert.

 

[PolyHedral]

Thank you for your post. I will like to say, however, that rest is not required by the body, since it is inert.

How can the body possibly be inert? It releases large quantities of energy constantly.

 

[atanu]

If a thing sustains something else, it does not mean that this thing was bliss. I'm not arguing we don't need sleep. During sleep, our brain waves become more organized. But in what way would someone call sleep bliss?

It's blissful to lie down on a soft bed when tired, and it's blissful to wake up and continuing to feel comfort of relaxing in the bed, but during the time of unconsciousness, how can a thing be said to be bliss?

At least we agree that deep sleep sustains.

There is a difference between pleasure and bliss. A soft bed is pleasurable but it may not remain so. But sleep is undiluted bliss, which however, cannot be known by mind, since the state is characterised by absence of the ego mindd, comprised of desires and thoughts.

However, existence is not dependent on ego mind, which in fact is a product -- an emergent property of existence. For humans, the nature of bliss is hinted during fine gaps that has to be experienced.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-discussion/112211-stargazing.html

Like I cannot explain the taste of mango to another person, I cannot explain this to you. There is not likely to be any other mental evidence for this bliss, since working of mind superimposes its own model on the substratum. But there are personal evidences of meditators and sages.

The assumption that you are working on is that the 'human conscious mind' is all that is there to consciousness. That is the illusion of ego. This human consciousness is ego conscious which takes birth and dies. The irony is that individuals have no control over appearance and/or disappearance of this ego consciousness which comes and goes with birth and death. Yet, we all are so very certain that that is all there to consciousness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was mostly just an (I thought) interesting aside, but if I were going to try and use it to make a point it would be this:

you said:

Question is: why was it in the purview of science? Would it have been if mystics and philosophers hadn't suggested it first?

Well... the development of germ theory probably did arise from ideas that started with mystics and philosophers, but not in the way you suggest.

Louis Pasteur was studying fermentation and spoiling of food products. As part of this, he tested the assumption of spontaneous generation (which, according to Wikipedia, was first suggested by Aristotle) and found it to be false. This and further experiments led him to conclude that the living agents that cause fermentation and spoil food (which we now know to be bacteria) had to be introduced from outside. This is what led him to hypothesize that a similar mechanism might be at the root of some diseases: that it was being caused by tiny living organisms entering the body.

Before the invention of the microscope, could it really have been considered a scientific theory, or at that stage was it still a philosophical one?

Yes, I think it was scientific. Pasteur's methods were rigorous and based on valid inferences. You can read more about them here if you're interested: Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe because scientists have stopped paying attention to mystics and philosophers.

Have they? Hawking apparently hasn't - he just disagrees with them (or the ones that hypothesize Heaven, anyhow).

But I was trying to talk about the other side: it seems to me like the "mystics and philosophers" are trying to get some sort of exemption from scientific inquiry. Even though they're making factual claims, they apparently don't want those claims to be rigorously investigated. Instead, they (or at least some of them) claim that they're somehow "beyond science".

Case in point:

Another one of the few things I think he assumes to much on (other things include string theory, big freeze, and the existence of aliens). I personally think it would be better if a wall was built between religion and science, and scientist could work without focusing on anything religious in nature.

Heh... if we instituted a rule that people couldn't talk on religious subjects unless their opinions were well supported by fact and logic, churches would become very quiet places.

Any factual claim is potentially within the purview of science. If religions don't want to be subject to scientific scrutiny, then all they need to do is to stop making factual claims. OTOH, if they do make factual claims, then they need to realize that they create the potential that science will one day come along and say "you're wrong".

But personally, I have much less of an issue (edit: actually, no issue at all) with a scientist giving his personal opinion about a religious subject than I do with theologians giving pronouncements about morality and ethics as if his knowledge of religion gives him special authority in that area.

Because, as many Eastern philosophical descriptions of reality maintain, and as quantum physics is beginning to suggest, the conglomerate unit may be a macrocosm of all the tiny microcosms. In other words the "I" blueprint of a structure may be imprinted on each and every cell that comprises that structure. Genetically speaking, we already know that it is in the individual DNA of each cell.

So in identical twins, their separate "I"s refer to the same person?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What would you classify as "religious in nature"?

The problem I see with this is that religion was designed to offer one explanation of reality.

My take is it would be more productive if scientist didn't waste effort into trying to use science to disprove religion. Sure many stories have been debunked, but why bother when the same effort can be used for more productive research? It also makes for a more welcoming setting for people to learn about things they are told are wrong if the people presenting them aren't showing hostility towards those who are ignorant of the given subject. Such would be evolution. Without any doubts there are church flyers, pamphlets, and other literature that is filled with quote after quote of Richard Dawkins attacking religion, which works to only keep people from learning about evolution because they are being taught that because people like Dawkins are so anti-religious that his teachings are just as evil.

 

[outhouse]

My take is it would be more productive if scientist didn't waste effort into trying to use science to disprove religion. Sure many stories have been debunked, but why bother when the same effort can be used for more productive research? It also makes for a more welcoming setting for people to learn about things they are told are wrong if the people presenting them aren't showing hostility towards those who are ignorant of the given subject. Such would be evolution. Without any doubts there are church flyers, pamphlets, and other literature that is filled with quote after quote of Richard Dawkins attacking religion, which works to only keep people from learning about evolution because they are being taught that because people like Dawkins are so anti-religious that his teachings are just as evil.

you make a good point but i dont think your taking into account the brainwashing involved.

for most religious people reason and logic dont always apply.

what you forget is creation is big buisiness raking millions of dollars each year preying on the ignorance of the religious.


Nothing wrong with a few statements to shine a light on reality, like it or not.

 

[Badran]

for most religious people reason and logic dont always apply.

Don't you mean for most people in general?

Or do you think most non-religious people apply reason and logic always?

Nothing wrong with a few statements to shine a light on reality, like it or not.

I assume you're referring to Hawking's statement?

If so, thats not what he did. What he did is offer his personal opinion about a subject that has no definitive or known answer, neither can such an answer be provided for it right now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My take is it would be more productive if scientist didn't waste effort into trying to use science to disprove religion. Sure many stories have been debunked, but why bother when the same effort can be used for more productive research?

How can you tell which research - especially pure research into new fields - is going to be productive until you do it? I'm sure that when Darwin was skipping class at Cambridge to run around the marshes collecting beetles, many of his contemporaries thought that was a waste of time.

It also makes for a more welcoming setting for people to learn about things they are told are wrong if the people presenting them aren't showing hostility towards those who are ignorant of the given subject. Such would be evolution.

Given the threat to public education that creationism has posed in recent years, I think the hostility is well-founded. We're not talking about a benign belief.

Without any doubts there are church flyers, pamphlets, and other literature that is filled with quote after quote of Richard Dawkins attacking religion, which works to only keep people from learning about evolution because they are being taught that because people like Dawkins are so anti-religious that his teachings are just as evil.

Do you think that any people who read an anti-religious Dawkins quote in their church bulletin would be any more likely to study evolution if it was replaced with a pro-creationism Ken Ham quote?

 

[outhouse]

Don't you mean for most people in general?

all people are guilty of this ,,, I see your point. in the context I was speaking though was generalized at religious people blocking logic and reason when it comes to science that states differently then their religion. They lock up so to speak and their minds are not always open.

Or do you think most non-religious people apply reason and logic always?

definatly not always. But they dont "generally" let belief put up a barrier that closes minds.

I assume you're referring to Hawking's statement?

yes

If so, thats not what he did.

now that all depends on what statement your referring to, does it not?

as an example

saying you only believe what you do because of the geographic location you were born, for me seems to be fairly accurate.



Id like to add, i should have put in my opinion to my original statement. It did come out wrong, but I believe you understand what im getting at

I do see where I "stepped in it"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you think that any people who read an anti-religious Dawkins quote in their church bulletin would be any more likely to study evolution if it was replaced with a pro-creationism Ken Ham quote?

If there weren't so many scientist that are too eager to demonize religion, then the religious leaders would have a harder time demonizing science.
As for the issue of evolution and creationism in public schools, you can go about the issue without blatant hostility. Sure you can't be too nice, but given that it has been consistently upheld that creationism and ID have no place in the science room when challenged shows that all that is needed is presenting the facts.

you make a good point but i dont think your taking into account the brainwashing involved.
for most religious people reason and logic dont always apply.

I use to be a fundamental Baptist, so I am very aware of what goes on, and it isn't nearly as much deliberate brain washing as you might think. But considering all the reasons that people are religious, of which the demographic area is a very large one, many people are only religious because it's what everyone else does, and they are presented with what the church gives them, which in a fundamental environment does often include many incidents of a "leading scientist" attacking religion, which from their perspective only proves that theories such as evolution come from the devil because he is obviously controlling these scientist. But if religion where left largely alone and unmentioned, then they wouldn't have nearly as much fuel to further their agenda. Actually the best thing that could have a significant impact on the number of people who accept evolution in the United States would be if Christian scientist were to publish massive amounts of literature on it, and how it is fully compatible with the Genesis creation story (given that many Christians already have the understanding that "day one" isn't a literal 24 hour day, and how the Bible does report a gradual appearance of various species.), and then explain how the theory actually works and it is still possible to hold the thought that humans are God's special creation.

 

[lunamoth]

saying you only believe what you do because of the geographic location you were born, for me seems to be fairly accurate.

interestingly, this also applies to everything you believe or know, not just your religious beliefs.

 

[outhouse]

interestingly, this also applies to everything you believe or know, not just you religious beliefs.

that it does