Are you a visionary?

Dave

One final thing tonight - in addition to Simon's questions of the secularism of your views and where your version of Christianity sits with the other faiths,can I add another to your homework this week, please? I understand the absolute faith you have, but I wonder how you would cope if irrefutable proof was presented which confirmed that a supernatural being of any name along with any human manifestation of that being, was a figment of our imagination? I suspect the vast majority of those who 'believe' do so because of social indoctrination - through family, school etc., and because it's a nice story with a sunny outcome. Few 'believers' experience the conversion you have - and I would hazard a guess if such an event were to happen, most of these people would shrug their shoulders and just get on with life.

I mentioned the Glasgow woman who refused to counter the misdeeds of the Archbishop. My first question before we proceed is how would you react to a similar underpinning of your belief?

 

OK Mark, hope your hill climbing went well,

Your last two posts give me a clearer understanding of your position and questioning, I will have to ponder for a while and get back to those questions and Simon's, I did consider Simon's questions but I was not sure how to answer them I'll have another look.

What or where was the Glasgow woman and the Archbishop mentioned? Did you mean Undermining

Regards Dave

 

Post #68 above - yes undermining. It was a late night!

 

Dave et al.,

I would like, if I may, to offer a suggestion. The title of the thread asks a pertinent question in relation to the discussion we have been having. The organ responsible for ‘vision’ in sight and mind is, of course, the brain – being a ‘visionary’ suggests putting said organ to good use.

It is also the one organ of our body that we still have much to learn about – precisely how it functions, how the various cortex and lobes interact, what influences function and development, what determines dysfunction and disease & etc etc. The study of the brain is fascinating but until last century, most study was simply cadaveric anatomy - post mortem. What was observed were the often striking differences in structure between organs – each brain is unique (pretty much like the rest of our bodies) in its appearance and structure – and as are we are now discovering - in function too. When you consider that 75-78% of our brains is actually water and that no cell within our brain is no more than 45 days old – just how do we remember things in such detail from decades ago? It is truly amazing.

We know some factors that influence function – and these combine to form our character and personality – our environment during early development and all the rest of the building blocks through our formative years, that make us who we become. Each of us will have our own unique (yes, again) experience and development – but there will be many shared factors and experiences along the way. Now, with the help of functional neuroimaging, we can begin to study the brain in vivo and in time, perhaps we can start discovering what really makes us behave and function the way we do.

One particular area of study that will be fascinating is the issue that we are discussing now – what happens in someone’s brain when they experience an event that changes their outlook substantially and sometimes irreversibly. Could it be that certain factors combine in susceptible brains to produce an altered process – a subtle change to the biochemical balance – which creates a psychotic event of such magnitude that it registers in the conscious brain as an altered function? Perhaps in time we might find a common factor that determines whether individuals may be susceptible to the extraordinary events collectively some of us seem to have. Including religious conversions.

My suggestion is, Dave, that I think neuroscience is far more likely to solve the puzzle of these experiences, rather than scripture or belief in an imaginary deity. But that is only my opinion. In time, I think science will help explain most things – including what makes us who we are and what happens to us when we die. If you can accept that suggestion as a possibility, even a small one – then I think we might make some progress. But, of course, it opens up a whole new set of questions and possibilities!

Kindest

 

Mark

That's a great topic and I've just been reading the latest issue of Science illustrated and some sections are looking at things of the mind and brain. God hasn't put me off science and I read a lot of science and philosophy. this seems like a fresh discussion that would bring in many people who have not followed this thread so far - Do you think it would be good to start / move this topic as / to a new thread or does it need the context of this thread?

Regards Dave

 

Good. Why not leave it as it is?

Great day in the Lakes on Sunday - going back for some of this later in the week, but only after I post some very late mail....

 

Hi Dr Kidd.

Yes, thank you for clarifying the obvious Rob. We both had already discussed the two quotes in question within my previous post (i.e. the university’s position as well as Professor Behe’s position & why the quotes exist as they do)... & like I said...

I also stated in my first post on this thread that I do not have time to go round in circles (been there, done that – not productive)... of which the same past familiar traits are re-surfacing in our discussion i.e. nit picking on side issues - probably in an attempt to avoid the real questions/issues addressed – of which are still left unanswered/unaddressed.

Robert – who said anything about "biologogical anthropology" [sic]? (Your area/field perchance Rob?) Are you attempting to play that old... "move the goalpost" trick (bait & switch tactics)? Once again, I have to question your reasoning/comprehension of this discussion. I have already informed you in my two previous posts now why I submitted PhD scientists who have got their qualifications & their positions from regarded universities around the world (because you yourself questioned this aspect). I provided evidence (yet again) to the contrary to your stated opinion. This was the sole reason we went down this path; now you’re referring to "biologogical anthropology" [sic] – followed by a nonsensical analogy in relation to specialist’s opinions in other fields. You should know that science is a broad subject & scientists from many different fields (i.e. Biology, Microbiology, Genetics, Zoology, Geology, Physics, Medicine etc... oh, yes – Anthropology/Archaeology as well) have legitimate opinions on the status of evolution (i.e. Neo-Darwinism) & are qualified to make judgement... not just those within the narrow field of Biological Anthropology – unless you’re suggesting that Biological Anthropology is the only field in which evolution could be at all relevant in (& there I will probably agree with you). However, the field of Zoology (Dr Dawkins field) can be closely related to Biological Anthropology... of which there are Zoologists who question evolution & support Creationism.

Yes, Thanks Rob – I found the gentleman also when I did my search for my last post. Yes, it should go without saying that an "evolutionary biologist" (the title itself gives hints to the potential bias towards a philosophy & subsequent presuppositions towards the data) will have different opinions to mine & others (scientists) who question evolution... it just stands to reason... just like the vegetarian board will have different opinions to that of the more powerful meat board.

Say, would the biological anthropologist or the evolutionary biologist have evidence/reasoning for the generation of totally new useful (hence purposeful) genetic information within the DNA code of an organism by some supposed (undirected) process in nature (please don’t cite examples of i.e. Natural Selection, mutations, gene transfer mechanisms)? As discussed, these often endorsed natural processors does not supply the degree of information required for a completely new function/pathway (i.e. major phenotypic changes) that has never occurred before. It would appear (going by the observable data at hand via the fossil record) that these new purposeful features would have appeared suddenly (hence the evolutionary/anthropological reasoning of "punctuated equilibrium")... thus no evidence of gradual developmental changes via the now apparent mythical transitional stages/forms. The requirement of massive amounts of new genetic information is subsequently needed to encode such features to produce such major changes like i.e. wings, avian respiratory system, eyes, bipedal foot etc... We have evidence which is continually pointing to the loss of genetic information via natural processors i.e. as we study the multiple short term generations of bacteria - we see mutations contributing to the loss of genetic information &/or switching on/off or resorting already present coding.

There is much more evidence but I fear I’m wasting my time, thus if you can’t supply evidence to refute the above points... then sorry - I’m not interested.


I’ll finish with the following video which does address the topic of vision... referring to a scientist who epitomises the word "visionary"...

Interestingly it is of a specialist who does know about & deal with the realm Mark has just brought up – the brain. It is of Dr Ben Carson (American neurosurgeon & the director of paediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital) I recommend reading his life story – fascinating/inspiring – book: Gifted Hands (& movie)... [video: The Ben Carson Story in 5 Minutes]

The following is an interview with Dr Ben Carson in relation to his speech at the 2013 Presidential Prayer Breakfast... which raised some controversial issues (as well as much praise)...



- The closing comments...

Hi Mark.

Interesting points Mark – have you considered that these thoughts we share (i.e. our minds) do not fit into that of the naturalist/materialist world of matter & energy? (& it is not just mere neural "electrical impulses" which generates/comprises our mind/thoughts). Subsequently, the characteristics of this world also do not fit the evident inconsistent sole driving unguided naturalist perspective of which evolution invokes. Hence could there be something else which transcends our understanding of naturalism/materialism (i.e. that invoking solely matter & energy) & of the world we all live.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the above Matthew or how you arrive at your conclusion, but I'm a little reticent about asking for an explanation! If I may offer an observation - I can see you are an enthusiastic debater on such topics, but find your posts difficult to follow - you often appear to be having several different conversations at once and it would help greatly if you could adopt a concise, focus to your points. Despite reading a number of your posts I am still at a loss to understand your perspective on an intelligent being and where such an entity fits into your doctrine of religious belief - if you have any, that is. If you could manage a single sentence reply I will be indebted to you!

As far as brain function is concerned, who knows the potential?

 

I'm sure you can appreciate Mark that there are some topics which are rather exhaustive, of which a "single sentence reply" will not do justice. Anyhow, here it goes...

The world of the naturalist/materialist (which evolution invokes) comprises of 2 constituents: matter & energy - based on your description of the brain (of which I quoted previously i.e. "75-78% of our brains is actually water" & "cell within our brain is no more than 45 days old"), how does the nature of the mind (i.e. our thoughts, short & long term memories) fit into this deemed naturalistic world of just matter & energy?

 

What defines the naturist/materialist and why only matter and energy? Perhaps you can enlighten and offer a context to the discussion, Matthew?

 

- Materialism:

- Naturalism:

- Naturalism (philosophy):

- Hence, how do our minds (i.e. our thoughts, short & long term memories) fit into the realm of the materialist/naturalist world (i.e. natural boundaries of "energy & matter").

 

Mark

Here's a tongue in cheek answer to your query on memory, the brain being 80% water and cells only being 45 days old:

Homoeopathy - water contains memory da daaa!


Sorry Dave

 

Interesting concept. The easy answer is within both - energy is used to create the thought process within a mass of matter, but no doubt you might argue to the contrary. I know its a current fashion to pigeon-hole differing arguments and proposals, but sometimes I find boundaries constrain and inhibit development. Always examine the available evidence.

I don't see the argument against evolution and although you do, I'm still unsure what your argument is. Do you think there is a intelligent designer driving his mater plan and if you do, does this sit within an established religious doctrine to which you can align? You refer to a materialist/naturalist world. What other worlds might our thoughts and memories fit into, Matthew?

 

I am backing right away from this nonsensical piece of non-science. But two comments before I leave.

1) you have done what all Creationists have done, which is to pick on a typo, and use it to expand your non-argument.
2) my comment re: disciplines holds good in each direction. Even though I am a geology graduate (you knew that?) I am very critical of Professor Ian Plymer and his climate skeptic stuff; if I want advice on climate, I will consult a meteorologist. Just like if I want advice on evolutionary processes, I will consult an evolutionary biologist, not a podiatrist.

Reply if you like; I will not be replying - I have too much time to spend in science.

Rob

Bye

 

Hi Mark. Please, let us leave religion at the door, as you know, I don't go there. But I do go to the mountains (or rather, did). Where are you just there? I never knew the Lakes well, I was a Derbyshire Grit guy born and bred, but did go to Wales a few times. I remember good but relatively easy (I was never good, just enthusiastic) routes like the Flying Buttress on Dynas. I did do a couple of winters in the Cairngorms, even spent news year's eve 1971/2 in the Lairig Ghru at the hut who's name escapes me now - no, its coming back, the Corrour bothy (sp?). I was 16 then, I am 58 in a few days; much water has passed the bridge since I did a HVS with no protection, in the days when one was young, stupid, and invulnerable. I guess at this late stage in life, my only claim to fame is that, in his Buxton years Joe Brown was a patient of my Dad's; not that he ever said so.

 

Hi Rob
That's Rainbow Ridge in Kentmere, near Kendal - can't believe the conditions outside today- best they've been all winter. I grew up with it. Lived in Fife but started climbing west highlands and Glencoe during my teens. My aunt had a guest house near Oban and I worked there during school holidays. I used to hitch a lift to the Coe on my days off. Soon got into a climbing club and managed to notch up a few new routes. I met Joe once in Glencoe at Jacksonville - the Creag Dhu's legendary hut under the Buachaille. He was the only man to beat Arthur Paul at Arm Wrestling - the contests were brutal! Then it was Uni at Edinburgh and the legendary JMCS meets on the Ben - good days. Not got the build for hard rock routes but usually manage to get up some steep ice without too much difficulty although I tend not to leave much behind for my second! I'm now 52 and taking a deep breath - I had intended to get out to the Karakorum and Patagonia by now, but have achieved neither. I know some lads who are thinking about the big one at the back of the Baltoro next season and I think I might be tempted! Until then its days in the Lakes and the Dales and the occasional sojourn back home. Something's gotta change....!

 

I'm only surprised no-one has mentioned Rupert Sheldrake and morphic resonance yet.

 

From the same stable as Peter Fenwick who is an authority on near death experiences (NDE) and human consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenwick_(neuropsychologist) who wrote

Fenwick's research has found that near-death experiences do not, overall, tend to have a substantial religious component. The tendency is for patients to reinterpret their belief system in light of the experience, rather than to fit the experience to their pre-existing ideas. He and his wife Elizabeth Fenwick report in their studies that near-death experiences are almost always positive in nature.

 

Did go through my mind Simon. Read a few of his things in the past.

 

In the summer of 1971, after my disasterous O levels, I spent a few weeks in the Coe, one of which was on a course at Ian Clough's school; Ian was dead now - Annapurna 1970, and it was run by his widow, Nikki (also dead now). We did the usual stuff - Clachaig gulley etc, also some some on the Ben with an alpinist by the name of Ian Nicholson - he was good, very good. We also found some limestone on the rive up from Kinlochleven which was good. And I got chucked out of the Clachaig Inn for being underage! Was all good, but a very long time ago.

 

Mark Wrote

Mark
There are several very significant points there and they need a lot of consideration to give you a fair response. So I’ll address them one at a time but each will be relevant to the other.

1) “I hoped to examine your experiences rather than your beliefs”
‘Axiom drives perception’ –
To begin with how one makes sense of their experience of an event is very much dependent on their view of the ultimate initial condition that allows that experience to exist. So to separate one from the other can be difficult to do and still make sense of the experience.
Secondly if one experiences an event and interprets it in terms of axion ‘a’ and then tries to explain to a third party in order that they may understand in terms of axiom ‘b’ then there will be great difficulty in both parties coming to an understanding.

2) “Woman and Archbishop”
Even faced with indisputable evidence some people (maybe most people) and not just Christian people find it difficult to change their long held belief about an established concept. This is the same in many other situations e.g. a local doctor who used to have a practice just across the road was struck off and jailed for sexual assault and misconduct with female patients. There were not a few of my female patients who refused to believe that this doctor was anything less than the wonderful man of their experience and could not have done those things.
The fact that the man was a doctor does not make the whole NHS immoral and nor should it undermine the value of the original objectives and values of the NHS i.e. free and excellent health care for all regardless social circumstances. Likewise all the ‘woman and the Archbishop’ tale highlights is the resistance to change from what they ’know’ that people in general tend to feel and this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, any other is a generic fallacy.
The resistance to change axiom is well documented in scientific writings and experience and has been a frustration to the progression of science on many occasions.

3) “Resorting to scripture is irrelevant and only serves as a distraction from the real issues when the argument is weak”

As I pointed out in an earlier post and alluded to in point 1) - ‘scripture is the axiom that explains and validates the spiritual experience’
Just like if I ask you to explain the experience of seeing a cup fall and smash on the floor you don’t just say ‘because I saw it so it is’ no, you must resort to Newton and his explanation of gravity to validate your experience of the cup smashing event.

4) “The story of your cherished Grandmother, the facets of love you enjoyed through her life, your struggle to explain and deal with the loss, grief and extraordinary experiences after her death ”
Mark, I appreciate the deep love and grief you have courageously shared in this story. I’m going to try and answer objectively so please don’t be offended if I sound unsympathetic.
As I read this story I see, in many ways, the previous points 1,2 and 3 borne out. There is an amazing illustration of cognitive dissonance here in this story.
Your emotional experience of your relationship with your Grandmother is expressed in the concept of Love not in the axiom of science. You didn’t say love is unexplained by science in terms of the physiological and psychological processes of the brain therefore I prefer not to believe in it. You also didn’t say I’ve spoken to many people who loved someone and they all had similar experiences this shows the mind is a powerful organ and we don’t understand its full potential, therefore love is just one of its stunning tricks and so I won’t believe in my affection or grief for my Grandmother until I see the scientific explanation, which believe will someday be forthcoming.
No you didn’t say that at all you just felt the love and believed it was real, it really Theaffected you and it really made you question ‘what is real in life if not love’?
Now when you hear of someone expressing an experience of love for God you ask ‘how can you know this love and all the facets and extraordinary experiences of that relationship are not just a psychological disturbance’?
You can accept your love as real because it’s a ‘normal’ human experience so therefore you accept that the experience of many is good evidence to allow acceptance even without evidence in the mode of the scientific method.
Maybe that is because the experience of many is common to your experience of love and maybe it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that if you had not experienced love in your life you might be sceptical as to the existence of it unless and until you were given tangible or scientific evidence.
Now! The common experience of God’s love is expressed by billions of humans but, sadly, not by you yet. Therefore while the criteria for acceptance for this experience is fulfilled to the same standard as in your experience of love for your Grandmother, you still refuse to accept it because you have not yourself experienced it or if you have you have rejected the concept because it has not been ‘proved by science’. The same science that can say nothing about the reality of the love you have for your Grandmother. Your ability to hold onto two contradictory views at the same time despite firm evidence for not doing that appears to be as illogical as the lady and the archbishop and the women and the GP.
You may say ‘ah yes but God doesn’t exist or at least is not discernible by our usual senses and so my experience says one can only love a real person who exists. But yet you still have love for your Grandmother when she no longer exists to your usual senses. Memory, memory you say, I remember my Grandmother, she exists in my memory – but as you later said in your posts, how ephemeral is memory, impossible it seems to be fixed in the physical brain and yet where else? Even so the love that cleaves you to the memory of your Grandmother still has such reality that you earnestly desire to find a rational explanation for its tangible after effects.
The bible has an axiom that explains the love of God, the reason why God loves you, the reason why He wants’ to communicate with you, the mechanism for how He can communicate with you and you with Him, how He put that mechanism in place and the reason why every human should and has the capacity to find and love God. God is Love, He’s not the epitome of love, He is Love and as a human made in His image you have the capacity for love and to experience love as a reality, so when you experience love you experience God.
So is it unreasonable then to conclude that your experiences of your late Grandmother were an expression of love, an expression of God’s love in your life.
Or would you prefer that love stayed in the convenient category of powerful mind tricks and psychological disturbance, just a meaningless manifestation of electrical impulses or some other unknown but potentially explainable phenomena. Will that be all love or just the love that does not fit with your personal experience?

5) “Phenomenal experiences and detailed notes”
The fact that you choose not to accept your supernatural communication with your Grandmother as evidence of God or any sort of afterlife does not allow the conclusion that these things do not exist. Neither does your experience of what seemed to be your Grandmothers essence confirm that these things do exist.
Also just because one unexplained experience is because of a psychological disturbance doesn’t allow the conclusion that therefore that is all they ever are or can be.
You spoke about the GP’s who both experienced a vision of the dead mother of one of them. You say that they are both still atheists as if that is surprising in the light that they may have seen evidence of life after death.
Two things occur to me here:
a) What they choose to believe is entirely their own will. God does not make it compulsory, by some divine power, to believe in Him whatever good evidence He might give, that is a personal choice.
b) What kind of psychological disturbance would fit the bill here?

Hallucination: A sensory experience in the absence of environmental stimuli. Hallucination is a personal thing, one person cannot engage in another’s hallucination any more than one person can join in with another person’s dream. For two people to have the same hallucination at the same time would require an extraordinary set of simultaneous and common psychological circumstances.

Illusion: Illusion is a false belief or more precisely a distorted perception that misrepresents external stimuli.
Delusion: Is the determination to hold onto a belief despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

So the two GPs are unlikely to have seen the same hallucination unless they were both deluded in the fact that the mother was not really dead despite seeing her funeral and so both were so deluded that they had the same hallucination at the same time. Once two people have the same vision simultaneously then hallucination is a difficult conclusion to draw.
Of course there is always the possibility it was an illusion, i.e. the person they saw was just someone who appeared to look like the mother. But that would not account for the other altered sensations the experienced unless of course they had some stress or shock reaction to the possibility of seeing a ghost. We’ve all had those experiences when things tend to slow down at the point of extreme stress or shock, like a fight or a driving accident. I read in New scientist that under these circumstance the brain is allowed to take in much more information per second than in normal situations and therefore the slowing down of time phenomenon is only a function of memory i.e. it takes longer to remember all the data than it did to collect it so it appears from memory that the event was in slow motion.

Of course these events would not be supernatural and would therefore not tend to incline someone to believe they were unless they were deluded.
This doesn’t mean that all similar events are not supernatural only that those ones were not, the perception may have been the same but the mechanism could be entirely different. Like just because I’m usually paranoid doesn’t mean that this time I’m not being persecuted.
So if a person has a vision or experience that says to them “I Am God”, then they can choose to believe that or not but if they believe it then they must believe it was God. ON the other hand if someone has a vision of their mum then they can choose to believe it was actually their mum but they then have to make a leap of logic to conclude that it proves the existence of God.

Either way a choice has to be made, I made the choice it was God but I also said at the time ‘so what’. It has been a long difficult journey of exploration that lead to relationship that lead to deep faith and confidence that lead to greater experience and exploration of the Holy Spirit and so greater faith.
There wasn’t one sudden experience followed by unquestionable conversion, I have, over 4 years or so, gathered evidence and reasoned and experienced toward a strong faith. There is a necessity to abandon yourself to faith, which allows a submission to the Holy Spirit that allows experience that confirms the reality and worth of submission in faith. This is all choice, nothing can be gained by obligation or self determination.

6) Absolute faith V’s Irrefutable proof
You will see from the above that my faith didn’t become strong based on one experience or piece of evidence (even though that could happen). I did reason and judge but at the same time I also chose based on a decision to be faithful. So if there were irrefutable evidence then by definition, unless I was delusional, I would have to give up on my belief. However this is a ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ type question, because however I answer I am left open to defeat by opposing argument.
I answer as I have above and you can then say, well here is irrefutable evidence and when I don’t give up my faith, because I don’t think the evidence is irrefutable, then I can be accused of being delusional. If I say no I wouldn’t give up my faith whatever the irrefutable evidence then you would say that in that case I am unreasonably dogmatic.

7) “How would I proceed given a similar situation to the Glasgow woman and the Archbishop?”
Men are men whatever their profession or vocation and men are sinners who, by definition, do bad stuff. The ideal for Christians is not to Judge or condemn only pray and forgive of course there are consequences to and action and for the sinner they need to be faced and repented. I’m not beyond the failings of man even though I strive to be, so I could, in some circumstances, hold onto a strong belief in someone despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Say someone presented me with evidence that my mum had murdered 7 people before the age of twenty. I might find that very difficult to believe as I suspect you would regarding your Grandmother. But these scenarios of irrefutable evidence versus immovable faith is a pointless consideration for the reasons I stated earlier. What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The premise is illogical, the two cannot exist together in reality, either one or the other is true but both cannot be simultaneously even though they can as an abstract idea.

Simon wrote:
“Dave, I should be interested to hear how you came to the conclusion it was:

a) God showing you things / talking to you?
b) not the Devil trying to deceive you?
c) why you should become an active member in the christian faith following this experience as oppose to any other faith?

And also I should like to ask if you believe those following faiths other than the christian one are delusional? For example, what are your views on Buddhism, Shinto, etc.?”

A) I think I have answered the question in the text above, but the short answer is because I recognised God for who he was. If I could answer that question with a testable reply then God would be undeniably true to all (no faith required). It felt, it loved, it said by every sense that I AM GOD and since has gone on to confirm that.
B) Unlikely that the Devil would succeed in convincing me of God since that would be his most repugnant desire and since if the Devil did exist then so must God then of course this question is redundant.
C) Because it was God who made himself known and not Vishnu or Thor.
D) They are not delusional since as pointed out earlier delusional is to believe in something despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Since God requires faith and not irrefutable evidence delusion is not possible. Actually this follows from c) – Because there is only one God then all other attempts to find God thru other idols are misdirected. All men have a need for God since He is their ultimate Father so men search for their father and many find and are content with surrogates but these will take them nowhere. That is why
Jesus gave all Christians the great commission to go and tell all the world about God the father and the pathway to Him which is faith in Jesus.

Regards Dave

 

Ian was a rare breed - an Englishman who was warmly welcomed in the Clachaig!! And for good reason. He attracted a lot of publicity with his siege tactics on the FA of Point Five Gully on the Ben - 3 days it took to climb! (these says a competent party can knock it off in 2-3 hours in good conditions - less solo). But it was still a landmark climb. The Scots did salvage some pride when McInnes, Nicholson and Patey did the 2nd ascent in 4 hours and Nicholson went on to do the first solo ascent the following winter in less than 2 hours! He was also very prominent in the RAF Rescue before starting his climbing school. Didn't realise Nikki had died.

Big Ian (Nicholson) owned the Kingshouse at the other end of the Coe for a good spell - and became a legendary figure in the Creag Dhu. A real hard-man on and off the hill. The 70s and 80s were the golden years - with the likes of Nicholson, Arthur Paul, Norrie Muir, Hamish MacInnes and Tom Patey - all contributing some tremendous classic climbs (and not forgetting Dougal Haston flying the international flag). My 'initiation' was one summer late 70s with Norrie Muir up Rannoch Wall on the Buchaille when it was "suggested" that I climb Agags Groove (a classic 600' V Diff) solo - then reverse climb it solo from the top! The most frightening experience ever - my hands still sweat thinking about it now. I was 18 at the time and had to be carried out the bar at the Kingshouse that evening.

 

I heard second hand that Nikki had died - not trauma - the Big C. I think it was something to do with the release of Jim Perrin's book on Whillans: there was stuff in there about Ian' behaviour in Patagonia that had to kept under wraps until after Nikki had gone! (or did I just imagine that?). My other enduring memory of the 'Coe in 71-71 is their bunk house: what was that name of that classic Scottish tight-arse skinflint (no, not me, the other one) who ran these? Ros and I were there in 1972 - all very proper, in separate dormitories! She has less than favourable memories of it! Has we lived in the highlands, it is quite likely that we would not have left The UK; maybe I would still be diving out of Oban every summer? All part of life's rich pattern. We are in the UK for a few months next year when I finally get the hang of being retired - I will make the unprecedented offer of buying the first beer!

 

Don't remember who ran the bunkhouse in the 70s although I think Mal Duff had something to do with it at some point. I tended to use the huts - the 'ville at the top end and the Drey (The Squirrels 'hut' - really an underground camouflaged doss) above Altnafeadh at the Meeting of the Three Waters - initially MacInnes's house - later Jimmy Savile's. Happy days. Gotta dash - sun's up and it is munus 5 outside - got something interesting on the menu today! Look forward to that beer.

 

Simon wrote

Now having answered at 0200 this morning and reread my reply today at 0930 I find that there is more to consider in that question than at first presents itself.

My reply was

But since Judaism and Islam both believe in the same God as Christianity, how then would I know which religion or church to go to when my first experience was only of God as a whole and not specifically God the Father or the Son or The Holy Spirit?
It may be that my natural affinity was to gravitate toward what was familiar and relative in terms of the God experience i.e. the Christian Church.
It may be that I would have become comfortable with Islam if my natural environment had been a muslim culture or Jewish if I had grown up in Israel.
Would I have mistaken God for any other god of a more exotic culture? Vishnu for example is described as not unlike the Christian God and the three including Brama and Shiva do have the Triune quality of Father Son and Holy Spirit and at end times and Vishnu reincarnated as Kalki comes back to earth to end the world and rides on a white horse much as Jesus is described as doing in Revelations (bible).
I don't know the answer to these questions, maybe I should ponder them some more or maybe I should just be thankful that I found the true God first. Such is faith.

Regards Dave

 

Why do you think that is?

 

And you trusted your judgement despite the fact that you were hallucinating? So, a guy walks up to you in the street tomorrow and says: "hello Dave, I'm God"... And you'd say....

I thought the Devil's role was to deceive. Hence, the whole modus operandi of Satan is to exert his "repugnant desire" upon you, David. Yet, your statement here suggests that you believe that you are more powerful than a fallen angel? If he managed to convince you that he was God and you changed your life on the basis of what he told you... then you are now serving the Devil; how do you know that you are not? Let me guess... faith. If one believes in God, then surely one also has to believe in the Devil, under Christian teachings. Ergo, I don't see how this makes the "question redundant"? How do you know you are not now serving a false prophet and why do you presume to have greater insight than the angels, fallen or otherwise? Let me guess... faith.

How do you know that? That your hallucination told you he was God? See: B) above. Or, because (s)he didn't have four arms or a hammer and horns on his helmet? And God is male because...

Yep, if you say so.

A further thought: how do you know you (or I) are not:
a) God?
b) Satan?

 

Mark,
Calendar arrived today. Many thanks. I've only looked at the cover and April because that's the law. So far... nice work fella. I have faith that the photographs that follow will be equally stunning.

Best wishes,
Simon

 

Rob et al.,

My idea of heaven - why wait til you're dead?! Yet another fantabulous day in the Lakes. Never thought we'd see conditions like these in England in April. Isn't global warming wonderful!

 

Note to self: Get up to the lakes and do some walking/ scrambling/ climbing again.

 

:good: Remember:
"Religion is the biggest trick the Devil ever pulled"

 

You're most welcome - I have another pile to send at the weekend so if last year's select haven't had a parcel yet, it will soon. Just arrived back to a parcel of my own today - lovely surprise too!!

 

'Twill be a test case; good luck fella.

 

Yep, get that. But could someone explain why Grace decided she wanted to draw a picture of the Devil ( she made a picture of red faced, two horned devil- I've no idea were she got this image from) while I was writing this, given that she had not seen what I was writing about? She also wrote a poem about the Devil to go with her picture:

One of his eyes are half blue
The other eye has a cross on him
He's got three green bogies on his nose
His snot dribbles down his teeth and mouth
The people call him the devil who never speaks
Because he never spoke to anyone, not even his family.

I'll get my coat.

 

Mark did you have any fore warning of this action ? Doesn't someone have to make a complaint before the HCPC can take action? Are you up for this? Courageous and trail blazing - respect!

RegardsDave

 

If you've got the puff - its hard going even without the white stuff. Get training on the treadmill at full tilt.. these days I get a gasp on just going up our little hills with the dog.

Regards Dave

 

I've kept myself relatively fit since I stopped playing rugby- cycling. But the specificity of exercise suggests I'd struggle.

 

I've been waiting four an a half years for the HCPC to start prosecution - I was getting worried that they had forgot! This is for a misuse of title, Dave - you don't need to have a complaint for this part of the act (although I now know the osteopath and his wife who I used to rent a room from until he stole money from my account and stopped paying his staff their holiday pay/overtime/wages - has made a complaint despite knowing and endorsing my decision to deregister in 2008 - as have two podiatrists who have taken a dislike to me on podiatry forums - guess who?). But if that was the precursor to the summons then I have them to thank.

When I get a chance to sort through the bundle I'll upload the documents to the relevant thread. This is merely the hors d'oeuvre though - the real McCoy will be later in the year...

 

Dave

How would you feel about undergoing MRI and EEG neuroimaging whilst under deep hypnosis with the objective of recreating your conversion event? That way we can identify the areas in your brain that may be responsible for the vision you experience. Just so happens I know of two colleagues who might just be convinced into running a session - I'm sure we can comply with ethical considerations if you were willing. News from the BBC today regarding imaging of dreams http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22031074

Just a thought....

 

Sounds reminiscent of the "God helmet" controversy.

However, based on content outlined in my next post Mark (i.e. no cognitive religious/spiritual experience) I would be interested in partaking in such experiments (as was Dr Dawkins).