Can Science really prove the basis of modern Physics?

Realms Beyond

I've demonstrated in other posts,  that transcendent realms were not the origination comcept of suernatural. That is, however, the modern Western concept. Thus, we might as well ask, are there realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment. Victor Stenger, however, wants to be able to assert that he’s disproved them so he argues that the magisteria do overlap. “There exists a widespread notion, promulgated at the higher levels of the scientific community itself, that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural…”^[1]

He sights the national academy of sciences and their position that these are non overlapping magisteria, “science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Weather God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”² Stenger disagrees. He argues that they can study the effects of prayer so that means they can eliminate the supernatural.

Two things are wrong with Stenger’s approach. First, he doesn’t use Lourdes or any other empirical record of miracles. He’s going entirely by double blind studies which can’t control for prayer from outside the control group; that makes such studies virtually worthless. So in effect Stenger is taking the work of people who try to empirically measure what is beyond the empirical, then when it doesn’t work he says “see, there’s nothing beyond the empirical.” That proves nothing more than the fact that we can’t measure that which is beyond measuring. Secondly, he doesn’t deal with the real religious experience studies or the M scale. That means he’s not really dealing with the empirical effects of supernature. I’ve just demonstrated good reason to think that supernature Is working in nature. It’s not an alien realm outside the natural, it’s not a miracle it’s not something that sets its self apart form the daily regular workings of the world. Supernature is of God but nature is of God. God made nature and he works in nature. We can tell the two apart by the results. Now I am going to deal with the other two issues, are there realms beyond the natural? Are there evidences of a form of supernatural in the world that stand apart from the natural such that we can call them “miracles?”

Are there realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect? Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits of stuff. They are not solid matter.³ Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory comes in.

This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.

So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?⁴

There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet reductionsts make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangible or solid or material they are not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are mathematical. In fact why can’t they be the same realms?

Then there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own, certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these universes, but some don’t.

Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42 billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.⁵

Well there are two important things to note here. First, that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically. There’s a professor at Columbia named Peter Woit who writes the blog “Not Even Wrong” dedicated to showing that string theory can’t be proved.⁶ There is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved either.⁷ That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things it’s about disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work not because they have any real evidence.⁸

We could make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s no proof that this is place one can actually go to, but the idea of it suggests the possibility, there’s the world of anti-matter, there are worlds in string membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own. In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the distaste for religion.

All that is solid melts into air

This line by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The reductionst/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is no proof of anything not material and not ‘physical” (energy is a form of matter).  The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.

This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.⁹

Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite. Composite are made are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are willing to believe in things they don’t understand.¹⁰ While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural” (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. That will come in the next chapter. The point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such as supernatural and supernature.

1 Victor Stenger, God and The Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst: New

York: Prometheus Books, 2012. 225.

2 Stenger, ibid, quoting National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1998, 58.

3STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx

4 ibid

5 George F.R. Ellis. “Does the Miltiverse Really Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line version URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist

George F.R. Ellis is Professor Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been professor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA (Trieste)

6 Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted on September 18, 2012 by woi blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

7 ibid, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” Posted on May 21, 2012 by woit

URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4715

8 Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “String Theory.” Website URL: http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm

9 STFC ibid, op cit.

10  Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media, 2009, pp. 1–3.

Answers from My Discussion With an Atheist: Logic Lad.

 



I have been have a bit of a discussion with this atheist blogger "logic lad" who goes on message boards and argues about God. Something I've been known to do form time tot time (like every waking moment of every day for the last decade and a half). LL is a nice guy he's putting with my crankiness pretty well so I appreciate that. I don't like the answers I gave him on his blog. So I'm making more answers here. Why did I give bad ones? Well not but not satisfying. It has it has to do with the hour of the morning, the level of cafine intake and so on.

Logic Lad:

All the great minds that have built this intricate theology also all started from the point of view that there is a god so we better explain how we know that, not the scientific approach of look for evidence and then formulate testable hypothesis, and test them. Also I find it more than slightly telling that as human understanding of the workings of the universe moves forward so the philosophy that hides god from being testable also moves forward, almost as if the more we lift the curtain the more we must be convinced that god is in the small bits still in shadow.

Meta:

 What may appear to be better ways to hide something are just really more dependable realizations about the certainty of it. The thing of which we are more certain is the nature of God that outstrips any sort of empirical nature. He spoke of an evolution of understanding in God talk. That's the appraoch I've taken in that discussion. It's basically like the appraoch I took in my blog piece of recent months on the evolution of God (part 1, part 2). So what evolves is not God but our understanding of God. Thus as our understanding evolves we gain a deeper sense of the magnificent of the God concept and it's transcendence of any human ability to pin it down or produce it through empirical data. What they are going to simply have to understand is that God is not a thing. God can't be controlled he's not going to subdued and conquered and understood as though he some kind of bit of nature that performs on demand for scientists. They can carp all they wish about not fulfilling their dreams of being charge but they are not and they are not going to be. God will say God. We can't expect the basis of reality to conform to being a small part of the whole. I think the wish to move beyond the limitations and get to the bottom of God is actually the sense of cognitive dissonance that one has when reality suddely doesn't match the paradigm that our ideology has led us to feel that it should.


LL:

If there was obvious and unambiguous evidence for god, we would not be having this conversation, the fact that may great people have believed is a simple argument from authority with a little argument from popularity thrown in, lots of very bright people believe unsubstantiated and unproved things that doesn’t prove that what they believe is true, or do you think homeopathy works based on noble winning scientists thinking they have proved it?

 Meta:
 "unsubstantiated" and "unprovable" doesn't equate to "stupid" or "not believable." Scientific theory of today has produced many aspects of thought that are unsubstantiated and unprovable:

Dark Matter

various opinions stated on that page but that's the point, it's not provable now and while one might "hope" or have "faith" that it will be, we don't know. 

String membranes
 Not even wrong is a blog ran by physicist Peter Woit who is not on the band wagon for string theory he's not the only one. He thinks it's unprovable. so do many others.
Multiverse
No emprical evidence for Multiverse and there may never be.

These ideas are science they are blessed by the priesthood of knowledge that says we may think of them and support them. Atheists mock and ridicule any idea that's not backed by empirical proof but they accept non empirically probable ideas when the priesthood of knowledge says they must. That's the demand for empirical proof on God rather laughable. They have to accept the fact that there's a different set of rules, not scinece but logic and its' part of knowledge too. It doesn't have to all the be scinece, there can be other methods for acquiring knowledge of truth. There can be logic and phenomenology. Physicists can't control that stuff so the reduce it out of the world of thought. It lends itself to supporting belief in God so atheists reduce it out of the world of thought. It's still there, it's still valid, and one simply has to learn it to be a real thinker.

Let’s ask this straight, do you believe in the Christian interventionist god? If so give me a good piece of actual evidence, not scripture, not philosophical musings, actual evidence that this being exists.

 The problem with that concept is that it's based upon the straw man atheist version of supernatural(SN) that was foisted in the enlightenment. I've written about that too in recent months. The counterfeit SN is God breaking into a closed system that doesn't allow him. The true concept originally was the notion of God raising the natural to a higher level. The SN is the power of God to draw us to a higher level of consciousness, and at times natural effects bend toward the higher law. God isnt breaking in nature is reaching up. You might try to charge that this is just a cleaver way of  spinning it but (well hopefully cleaver) but it's more than that. SN (which is the power of God) is the ground and end of nature. So nature is moving toward God's end for it anyway. If natural law is not perspective but description then descriptions are open to various witnesses. Some people do observe miracles and and amazing things that atheist refuse to accept. The atheist is in the dilemma not the believer. If natural law is prescriptive then the idea of mind as the basis of it is more important becuase it's more parsimonious than having a bunch of disembodied laws floating around with no reason for them to be. If it's descriptive, which is the bias of modern science, then it has to be open to different descriptions which do include miracles. Either way the former materialist closed realm of discourse has to open up. The empirical evdience that supports this is Lourdes. See my article on medical historians who find in the academic journal The History of Medicine and Allied Sciences* that Lourdes miracles are still inexplicable. See my miracle pages on rules of Lourdes and some of the results. There are also backing Protestant miracles.

LL:

I am not afraid to listen to actual thinkers, but the problem with philosophy is that at some point you need to test your thought experiments against reality, if your god exists and he can have an effect in the world then there should be evidence of it.

 The Lourdes stuff establishes that and the other protestant miracles. Even more accessible to pining down is the body of empirical work around mystical experience. The results of mystical experience in so far as they transform the lives of the experiences in a vital and postiive way are what we should expect form the divine. That fits exactly with the concept of God having a effect upon the world that can be empirically tested. Thanks to Ralph Hood's M scale these experiences are testable, predictable and can be documented as empirically valid. They are linked to the divine by both their content and their results.

 LL:

 If not then all the philosophy in the world does not make the imaginary real. If you have evidence let’s get on to that, you need to convince me that there is a god, specifically a Christian god (as that is your chosen faith) before I commit the time and energy to looking in to any deeper truths

Meta:
Of cousre that's just begging the question. These things can only be real if they fit the criteria that I set and that support my view. If the things that support my view are not used as the only criteria for truth then I reuse to accept it. That's basically what he's saying, and that is the standard line of atheist mentality these days. Nothing but begging the question, as he begins with the assumptino that it can't be real. "philosophy does not make the imaginary real." Why is it imaginary just becuase it doesn't fit the criteria that supports his view?

This is one of the great shams of the atheist movement. They want to take over truth by eliminating any other view rejecting other scientific views. Their libel and slander of the empirical studies on religious experience re nothing short of shameful. I've been getting that on atheist boards for years. Logic is not fantasy. We don't have to go looking for square circles, we know they don't exist. We can prove that logically without every having to look for them. They not the kind of thing that requires empirical proof, that sort of purely logical issue is beyond the empirical. It may be easy to prove God that pure logic alone but the point is there are aspects of reality that are open to different methods, everything doesn't necessarily revolve around the same kind of empiricism that supports the atheist view point. There are phenomenological answers that support belief, for example. There are kinds of empiricism such as the mystical experience concept that support belief. That is what they are doing by construing the fortress of facts strategy. They are touting a truth regime that replaces real thinking with the aspects of thought that put turth under their control.



 *
 Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012 pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28  all the page numbers given are from pdf

Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

All That is Solid Melts Into Air

....I have a radical theory that I have not put up a lot of stuff about. I hope some day to wrote a book on it. It's a long term project and so I'm just taking my time to work out all the bugs. I think it will be of tremendous help to the chruch when I get it done.It's based upon Issac Newton's private answer to the problem of gravity as action at a distance. His answer was the universe is the sensorium of God. In other words the universe is a thought in the mind of God and that's how he does action at a distance, gravity is God's thought holding it all together. While this idea raises a lot of problems it solves more problems: the problem of temporal beginning[1] problem of God's creative action in a timeless state,[2] the problem of all the practical stuff like "what is God made of, where is God," and so forth. The first step to understanding the solution is to understand the transitory nature of material existence. This also answers questions about "are there transcendent realms?" "Do we have any evidence of anything beyond our own realm?" This theory is played out more in my God argument about Berkeley and Gaswami.

////The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to detect is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

////We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.

....This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.[3]

Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chuncks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural” (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is an end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence placing evidence, it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. I found some to back up this idea in a video about the unsolidity of quantum particles. This is form a site called Beginning theistic scinece. It is sort linked with "Christian science" kind of ideas. Yet the site is done by a physicist so I think we can take his scientific knowledge as documentation. We have to take his theological framework with the proper caution. I do not mean that as a slight to any Christian scinece or Swedenborgians. There is a Swedenborgian connection to the video.

 Ian Thompson, Theoretical Nuclear Physicist.

"levels of Causation."

 June 2, 12013

Begining theistic science.

The second is a blog post by George Gantz

He wrote "Causation – another highly disputed concept in physics".  After discussion of previously-suggested possible ways to describe top-down causation, he finds them unsatisfactory, and in the last three paragraphs describes the ideas I am advocating.

Causation in this sense is similar to top-down causation, but puts the disposition (a higher level structure) as the primary cause and the circumstances and form of the underlying system as secondary. In the language of dispositional essentialism, there is a generative process of causation flowing from dispositions and a selective process resulting from the underlying circumstances of the object or system. In many cases, the result of the top-level disposition is to create or change dispositions at the next level, in a cascade of causation operating across multiple levels.

Thompson provides a series of examples of causation flowing though multiple generative levels in physics and psychology and reviews the work of a number of other experts in these fields. “Summarizing the quantum mechanical case, we see that here again, the principle causes act forwards down a set of multiple generative levels whose range of actions at any time is selected from all those presently possible, as constrained by past events.” P.67 When applied to psychology, the model places the role of intention (disposition) as central to the process of causation. Thompson also applies the model to the question of the highest generative level – the dispositions of God.

While this new model of causation working top-down in generative levels may seem more complex that the reductionist model we started with, it does a far better job at explaining the way the world works. It resolves all the criticisms of reductionism.[4]

(The page number refers my book "Starting Science From God" indicated on the right)


Both these presentations give suggestions for how God can be related to the universe in the way theism expects to happen. This is, in a rational manner we may yet understand, that God both sustains and enlivens all physical, mental and spiritual processes continually.[5]

These mentions of Swedenborg [6] should not be taken as an endorsement on my part of his ideas.

The link is that the immaterial unsolid nature of matter that can be used as an argument for the notion of the universe as a thought in the mind of God. It's a natural set up for the idea of final cause, that the eternally infinitesimal nature of sub atomic world is as untenable as eternal causal regression.

---

[1] Temporal beginning, there is no change in a timeless void, yet beyond the big bang is a timeless void. that means big bang expansion had to begin an state of timelessness which means theoretically it should have been impossible. This is expalined in greater detail in my God argument, Argument from Temporal Beginning.
[2] The problem that no change in a timeless state so God would be frozen in eternity and would be unable to think, unable to act. Of course that assumes that God is subject to the laws of nature. God created the laws of nature, they are thought in his mind, nature is in his mind, thus they have no hold hold on him than a day dream does to us.
[3] STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Scinece and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx
[4] George Gantz quoted by Beginning theistic science blog.George Gantz is a graduate of Stanford University with a B.S. in Mathematics and Honors Humanities, 1973. He lives in Wayland, Massachusetts with his wife Wenda Junge Gantz, and currently serves as President of the Boston Society of the General Church. Mr. Gantz has been employed for the past twenty three years by Unitil Corporation, a utility holding company headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire, where he holds the position of Senior Vice-President, Customer Services and Communications. He also serves on a number of nonprofit boards and associations.
[5] Brain David, author of the video on beginning theistic scinece site.

[6] Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1672) a mystic, scientist, philosopher, theologian. Best known for his work on after lie Heaven And Hell. He had dreams and visions that he was commissioned by God to reform Christianity. He clearly saw himself as a Christian. He actually is best known for spiritualism but he actually warns about the dangers of it. It's that connection with spiritism that leads me to give a sharp caution and disassociate myself with support for him. The Wiki article on him lists among his ideas: "New Church Doctrine rejects the concept of salvation through faith alone, since he considered both faith and charity necessary for salvation, not one without the other, whereas the Reformers taught that faith alone procured justification, although it must be a faith which resulted in obedience. " That's another view that I find heretical and can't sign on with. He was honored by Sadu Sundor Sing whom I admire, and also among the ranks of his followers was Helen Keller.


Note: about the title. Its form Marx but he meant in a social sense, social structures melting away.