mere christianity is probably the best book that you will ever read if you are looking for an intellectual understanding of the christian faith.

however, that being said, not to diminish cs lewis, faith is beyond the intellectual. it comes from the heart, not from the brain.

----

on a more casual note, there has been an award winning thesis which. is, of all things, a flash game called fl0w. that, of course, refers to the actual theory of flow, but it is an amazingly well made and stimulating (thereby, empirically proving flow.)

to play it, search on google
fl0w flash game chen
chen being the last name of the person who wrote it.

posted by Bryan Lee   [10:14 AM]

If there was a real Soma, Brave New World style, would you take it?

By the way, Matt, I agree with your last post. I suppose that since I discovered legal (and not so legal) hallucinogens, my opinions on life have changed somewhat; no longer do I agree with those "self-satisfied atheists" --I don't think most are all that satisfied on the inside--about the utterly materialistic nature of the world, but I can't on the other hand bring myself to believe in an intelligent supernatural. I could believe in Gods as metaphors, and even gods over small things, but without sundry intermediates with conflicting interests I can't imagine one big God. He'd be too far up, and there's so much chaos in the order of life.

On a similar note, a friend of mine has recommended Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis to one and all. It has a most satisfying way of reconciling free will and omnipotence; God is outside of time, so for him all moments are now, therefore, he will always know what you are doing now so always knows, but this knowledge does not hinder your choice about the future since the future is relative only to you and your choice. That was a second hand summary, so sorry if its unclear.
...

John, its great to hear from you. We missed you.
One day you'll be the Democratic Senator for Nebraska and it'll be sweet (and Matt will probably be the Republican Senator for Nebraska, and that's still sweet).

posted by Adrian   [7:02 AM]

I admit to have never gone a longer period without reading our blog or posting. For this I apologize but offer no reasonable excuse besides distraction, laziness, and insecurity.

Almost six moths have passed by, and I have sheepishly not even checked the blog, afraid to notice how badly I was doing at keeping up.

I have just now read through each posting since october, and will reread them all soon and post something more relevant.

I feel that some-sort of update is needed. I dropped out of college this semester in order to help my family through some personal issues. This has required my returning to Nebraska (I am sorry Matt that we are not ex-pat's together any longer).

I will be once again a college-student (at University of NE no less) for the summer term and onward, but I've lost at least a semester of studies and progress towards my ultimate degree. Trying to make the most of being here, I have immersed myself in Omaha/Nebraska politics again. I was recently elected Committeeman for the NE Young Democrats. So, in the national organization which represents all democrats 13-36, there are about 300 votes, and I cast one. I am also doing a lot of work for a congressional candidate I believe in named Jim Esch. His website, www.jimesch.org is remarkable, and I hope some of you will visit it. I have been playing music constantly and hope to update everyone on what I've been doing when I can.

Anyone who knows Imogen Heap will know the sort of stuff I've been doing with computers and vocal modifiers. Song writing has been slow under the new system, but the world of song writing has expanded, despite getting more complicated. If I have anything amazing finished anytime soon I'll be sure to post it, if for no other reason, than to not feel like such an unremarkable person compared to everyone else. Since so many people have won such accolades since the last time I posted, rather than congratulating each individually, I am just going to say "congrats" to each and every one of you. You all make me proud to have been a tasper with you.

I promise, that at least in the months of march and april, I will be dramatically less of a stranger to the blog than I have been in the past 6 months.

I have also taken to attending church regularly, UCC denomination, for what it's worth.

posted by john owens-ream   [2:00 AM]

I think I missed a question on flow on my psych midterm. Oh, the shame.

posted by Eunice   [12:37 PM]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY OLGA!!!

Our math team had a cheer for this day
which I will recycle now:

TANGENT SECANT COSINE SINE
THREE POINT ONE FOUR ONE FIVE NINE!
GGGOOOOOO OLGA!!!!!!!!!

posted by Tae-Yeoun Keum   [10:07 PM]

Adrian, do not worry, I do not accept ID theory. I'm all for natural selection. However, since I have so little invested in Clarence-Darrow brand village atheism, I'm probably much more sympathetic to ID arguments than the usual TASPer. I want to point out that ID theorists are not creationists. They don't believe in a young earth or the seven days or whatever. They belive in shared ancestry and in evolution.

They are, however, supernaturalists. Of course, science is a materialist discipline and so their attempts to join the science country club are laughable. However, I think the debate can be instructive because it reminds us that science is only successful when its claims are limited. The ID people look foolish when they try to introduce ultimate questions into the discipline. So do the self-satisfied athiests on science faculties. Science does not pose or answer ultimate questions. By science we know the fittest survive. But how do we know that we should value survival? Only through religious means. I'm sure that we'd all laugh if Nature or Science published a headline: "Recent Studies Demonstrate That Life Has Meaning." The Vatican stands behind evolution as do all major American denominations aside from the Southern Baptists and Mormons, which are primarily regional entities, whose attitudes reflect the generally held views in their respective locales. The ideology of science is one of discovery, which values knowledge, but it can not sustain this fundamental value independent of the foundation provided by the religious humanism from which it sprang.

posted by Matthew Schmitz   [5:28 PM]

posting because we all seem to have conditioned to the social leveling of non-postingness

posted by Bryan Lee   [1:02 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML