WHAT IS FREE WILL?

By JULIAN HANCOCK The Christians have it all worked out: God created a perfect world, and perfect "In the image of God" humans, but he gave us free will and we stuffed it all up. Well that conveniently answers everything, doesn't it. We can't blame God for pain, tragedy, war, environmental destruction and so on. He gave us a perfect world, and we blew it. Well I have given the matter much thought and have concluded that most of our "free will" actions are nothing more than a matter of taking the path of least resistance given all the circumstances involved. When we are hungry, we eat; when we are thirsty, we drink; when we are tired, we rest; when our bladder is full, we relieve ourselves. Is there actually any free will involved in these basic examples of common human day-to-day experience? We don't think, we don't reason, we don't make a calculated decision; we just respond naturally to our body's demands. We can apply this analogy to far more complex situations: a married couple find that they can no longer stand each other's company. So do they just walk away and start life anew? No, because financial considerations and responsibilities to offspring make up a much more complex equation. Eventually the couple will choose the course of action that causes the least stress to all involved, or in other words, the path of least resistance. Anyone who takes the time to analyse the many "free will" decisions which they may make in a single day will soon see that, given all the circumstances involved, they are merely taking the path of least resistance. However from time to time, and possibly even several times a day, we are faced with a choice of actions that are all of equal strength: there is no path of least resistance; a decision has to be made but it is impossible to choose between several equally compelling options. And this, I believe, is where true free will comes into play: without knowing why, we randomly choose one of the competing options. I challenge anyone to present to me a scenario in which a conscious and deliberate choice can be made between multiple courses of action which are equally compelling. Is it a free will decision not to murder someone who has caused us intolerable stress? Probably not, because we weigh the alternatives of eliminating the source of our pain, with the probably consequence of spending many years in jail, as well as considering our conscience and deeply embedded social mores. In every minute action we take each day our "choice" is predominantly determined by an amalgamation of our genes, upbringing, life experience, belief system, laws and so forth. I don't begin to understand the process that causes us to make a random choice when faced with no obvious preferred choice. But it is ONLY THIS PHENOMENON WHICH I WILL DIGNIFY WITH THE TITLE OF FREE WILL. And now I would like to skip back to Genesis and try and make some sense out of the "free will" decision which is allegedly responsible for all the mayhem that has occurred from the inception of the human race. Christians will no doubt be shocked and mortified by my declaration that the first great "leap of faith" made in the history of Christianity was the decision by Eve, and subsequently Adam, to risk death in order to acquire wisdom. " ... you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Well we know that was a lie, don't we, or you wouldn't be reading this now. And if God was referring to a spiritual death as distinct from a physical death, then he didn't bother to clarify the issue. So when the serpent said: "You will not surely die ... when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil," Eve and Adam were faced with a decision which quite possibly meets my criteria for a free-will choice, as they had no foreknowledge on which to judge whether God or the serpent was telling the truth. It is also an excellent example of that most admirable of human qualities: the willingness to risk death in the quest for knowledge. But I reject the simplistic interpretation of this incident by the Christian Church. Obviously they would not have wilfully rebelled against God if they believed that by "death" he meant annihilation.

"Plato and Aristotle" by Raphael

PLATO

The Greek philosopher Plato was among the most important and creative thinkers of the ancient world. His work set forth most of the important problems and concepts of Western philosophy, psychology, logic, and politics, and his influence has remained profound from ancient to modern times. Plato was born in Athens in c.428 BC. Both his parents were of distinguished Athenian families, and his stepfather, an associate of Pericles, was an active participant in the political and cultural life of Periclean Athens. Plato seems as a young man to have been destined for an aristocratic political career. The excesses of Athenian political life, however, both under the oligarchical rule (404-403) of the so-called Thirty Tyrants and under the restored democracy, seem to have led him to give up these ambitions. In particular, the execution (399) of SOCRATES had a profound effect on his plans. The older philosopher was a close friend of Plato's family, and Plato's writings attest to Socrates' great influence on him. After Socrates' death Plato retired from active Athenian life and travelled widely for a number of years. In c.388 he journeyed to Italy and Sicily, where he became the friend of Dionysius the Elder, ruler of Syracuse, and his brother-in-law Dion. The following year he returned to Athens, where he founded the Academy, an institution devoted to research and instruction in philosophy and the sciences. Most of his life thereafter was spent in teaching and guiding the activities of the Academy. When Dionysius died (367), Dion invited Plato to return to Syracuse to undertake the philosophical education of the new ruler, Dionysius the Younger. Plato went, perhaps with the hope of founding the rule of a philosopher-king as envisioned in his work the Republic. The visit, however, ended (366) in failure. In 361, Plato went to Syracuse again. This visit proved even more disastrous, and he returned (360) to the Academy. Plato died in 348 or 347 BC.

PYTHAGORAS

PYTHAGORAS (fl. 530 BCE) must have been one of the world's greatest men, but he wrote nothing, and it is hard to say how much of the doctrine we know as Pythagorean is due to the founder of the society and how much is later development. It is also hard to say how much of what we are told about the life of Pythagoras is trustworthy; for a mass of legend gathered around his name at an early date. Sometimes he is represented as a man of science, and sometimes as a preacher of mystic doctrines, and we might be tempted to regard one or other of those characters as alone historical. The truth is that there is no need to reject either of the traditional views. The union of mathematical genius and mysticism is common enough. Originally from Samos, Pythagoras founded at Kroton (in southern Italy) a society which was at once a religious community and a scientific school. Such a body was bound to excite jealousy and mistrust, and we hear of many struggles. Pythagoras himself had to flee from Kroton to Metapontion, where he died. It is stated that he was a disciple of Anaximander, his astronomy was the natural development of Anaximander's. Also, the way in which the Pythagorean geometry developed also bears witness to its descent from that of Miletos. The great problem at this date was the duplication of the square, a problem which gave rise to the theorem of the square on the hypotenuse, commonly known still as the Pythagorean proposition (Euclid, I. 47). If we were right in assuming that Thales worked with the old 3:4:5 triangle, the connection is obvious. Pythagoras argued that there are three kinds of men, just as there are three classes of strangers who come to the Olympic Games. The lowest consists of those who come to buy and sell, and next above them are those who come to compete. Best of all are those who simply come to look on. Men may be classified accordingly as lovers of wisdom, lovers of honour, and lovers of gain. That seems to imply the doctrine of the tripartite soul, which is also attributed to the early Pythagoreans on good authority, though it is common now to ascribe it to Plato. There are, however, clear references to it before his time, and it agrees much better with the general outlook of the Pythagoreans. The comparison of human life to a gathering like the Games was often repeated in later days. Pythagoras also taught the doctrine of Rebirth or transmigration, which we may have learned from the contemporary Orphics. Xenophanes made fun of him for pretending to recognize the voice of a departed friend in the howls of a beaten dog. Empedocles seems to be referring to him when he speaks of a man who could remember what happened ten or twenty generations before. It was on this that the doctrine of Recollection, which plays so great a part in Plato, was based. The things we perceive with the senses, Plato argues, remind us of things we knew when the soul was out of the body and could perceive reality directly. There is more difficulty about the cosmology of Pythagoras. Hardly any school ever professed such reverence for its founder's authority as the Pythagoreans. 'The Master said so' was their watchword. On the other hand, few schools have shown so much capacity for progress and for adapting themselves to new conditions. Pythagoras started from the cosmic system of Anaximenes. Aristotle tells us that the Pythagoreans represented the world as inhaling 'air' form the boundless mass outside it, and this 'air' is identified with 'the unlimited'. When, however, we come to the process by which things are developed out of the 'unlimited', we observe a great change. We hear nothing more of 'separating out' or even of rarefaction and condensation. Instead of that we have the theory that what gives form to the Unlimited is the Limit. That is the great contribution of Pythagoras to philosophy, and we must try to understand it. Now the function of the Limit is usually illustrated from the arts of music and medicine, and we have seen how important these two arts were for Pythagoreans, so it is natural to infer that the key to its meaning is to be found in them. It may be taken as certain that Pythagoras himself discovered the numerical ratios which determine the concordant intervals of the musical scale. Similar to musical intervals, in medicine there are opposites, such as the hot and the cold, the wet and the dry, and it is the business of the physician to produce a proper 'blend' of these in the human body. In a well-known passage of Plato's Phaedo (86 b) we are told by Simmias that the Pythagoreans held the body to be strung like an instrument to a certain pitch, hot and cold, wet and dry taking the place of high and low in music. Musical tuning and health are alike means arising from the application of Limit to the Unlimited. It was natural for Pythagoras to look for something of the same kind in the world at large. Briefly stated, the doctrine of Pythagoras was that all things are numbers. In certain fundamental cases, the early Pythagoreans represented numbers and explained their properties by means of dots arranged in certain 'figures' or patterns.

RELATIVISM

By MATTHEW J. SLICK, President of CARM [Christian Apologetics and Research Ministery] Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are: cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth. moral/ethical relativism all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed. situational relativism that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation. Unfortunately, the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our pluralistic society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the envelope of morality and decency, in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance", etc. In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography on TV, fornication, and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong, but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot. Of course, this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points of view are true, yet reject those who profess absolutes in morality. It seems that what is really meant by the moral relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes, or an absolute God, or absolute right and wrong. Some typical expressions that reveal an underlying presupposition of relativism are comments such as "That is your truth, not mine," "It is true for you, but not for me," and "There are no absolute truths." Of course, these statements are illogical, which I demonstrate in the paper "Refuting relativism." Relativism is invading our society, our economy, our schools, and our homes. Society cannot flourish nor survive in an environment where everyone does what is right in his own eyes, where the situation determines actions and if the situation changes, lying or cheating is acceptable -- as long as you're not caught. Without a common foundation of truth and absolutes, our culture will become weak and fragmented. I must admit, however, that there is validity to some aspects of relativism. For example, what one society considers right (driving on the left side of the road) another considers wrong. These are customs to which a "right and wrong" are attached, but they are purely relativistic and not universal because they are culturally based. Child rearing principles vary in different societies as do burial practices and wedding ceremonies. These "right and wrong ways" are not cosmically set in stone nor are they derived from some absolute rule of conduct by some unknown god. They are relative and rightly so. But, their relativism is properly asserted as such. It doesn't matter what side of the road we drive in as long as we all do it the same way. Likewise, there are experiences that are valid only for individuals. I might be irritated by a certain sound, where another person will not. In this sense, what is true for me is not necessarily true for someone else. It is not an absolute truth that the identical sound causes irritation to all people. This is one way of showing that certain aspects of relativism are true. But, is it valid to say that because there is a type of personal relativism that we can then apply that principle to all areas of experience and knowledge and say that they too are also relative? No, it is not a valid assumption. First of all, to do so would be an absolute assessment which contradicts relativism. Furthermore, if all the things are relative, then there cannot be anything that is absolutely true between individuals. In other words, if all people deny absolute truth and establish relative truth only from their experiences, then everything is relative to the individual. How then can there be a common ground from which to judge right and wrong or truth? It would seem that there cannot be. Of course, the issue that is important here is whether or not there are absolute truths. Also, can there be different kinds of absolute truths if indeed there are absolute truths? We might ask if it is always wrong to lie? Or, does 1 + 1 always equal 2? Is it always true that something cannot be both in existence and not in existence at the same time? Is it always true that something cannot bring itself into existence if it first does not exist? If any of these questions can be answered in the affirmative then relativism is refuted -- at least to some degree. More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid, then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong we must first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism, standards of right and wrong are derived from social norms. Since society changes, the norms would change and so would right and wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right in the future? Finally, is it fair to apply logical analysis to relativistic principles? Many relativists say no. But, I do not see why not. If a relativist were to convince me that logic isn’t necessary in examining relativism, he’d have to convince me using logic, which would be self defeating. If a relativist uses relativism -- the subjective view of his own opinions -- to validate his position, he is using circular reasoning; namely, he is using relativism to establish relativism. So, either way, he has lost the argument. To conclude, if relativism is true and all points of view are true, then is my view that relativism is false, true? Does truth contradict itself? No it doesn't.

"Philosophy" by Raphael

ARISTOTLE

With the possible exception of Plato, Aristotle, 384-322 BC, is the most influential philosopher in the history of Western thought. Logic into the present century was basically Aristotelian logic. The study of the natural sciences was dominated by Aristotle until early modern times, and modern physics was developed in reaction to the Aristotelian tradition. His metaphysics continues to be the subject of philosophical debate, although his ethics now constitutes that part of his philosophy which appeals most to contemporary philosophers. Aristotle's influence extends far beyond philosophy, however. For example, Aristotle was the founder of biology; Charles Darwin regarded him as the most important contributor to the subject. Aristotle's POETICS, the first formal work of literary criticism, had a strong influence on the theory and practice of modern classical drama. Aristotle's immense influence is due primarily to the fact that he seemed to offer an all-encompassing system, which, although lacking in certain respects, was as a whole formidably imposing and unrivaled in its comprehensiveness. Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stagira in northern Greece. His father, Nicomachus, was a physician with close connections to the Macedonian court, connections that were maintained by Aristotle and by his school even after his death. It may have been his father's influence that gave Aristotle a strong interest in anatomy and the structure of living things in general, and that helped him develop a remarkable talent for observation. In 367, Aristotle went to Athens to join Plato's Academy, first as a student, then as a teacher. Plato had gathered around him a group of outstanding men who worked in a wide variety of subjects, ranging from medicine and biology to mathematics and astronomy. They shared no common doctrine but were united by the systematic effort to organise human knowledge on a firm theoretical basis and expand it in all directions. This effort, more than anything else, characterises Aristotle's own work. It was also part of the Academy's program to train young men for a political career and to provide advice to rulers. Thus, after Plato's death, Aristotle joined (347) the court of Hermias of Atarneus, and later went (343) to the court of Philip II of Macedonia, where he became tutor to the young Alexander the Great. In 335, Aristotle returned to Athens to found his own school, the Lyceum, or Peripatus. Whereas the Academy had become rather narrow in its interests since Plato's death, the Peripatus under Aristotle and his successor, THEOPHRASTUS, pursued a wider range of subjects than the Academy ever had. In particular, prominence was given to the detailed study of nature. After the death of Alexander the Great in 323, anti-Macedonian feeling in Athens rose, and Aristotle retired to Chalcis, where he died the following year.

PLOTINUS and NEOPLATONISM

Plotinus ( Greek: Πλωτίνος)(ca. 205–270 CE) is widely considered the father of Neoplatonism. Much of our biographical information about Plotinus comes from Porphyry's preface to his edition of Plotinus' Enneads. Biography Porphyry believed Plotinus was sixty-six years old when he died in 270, the second year of the reign of the emperor Claudius II, thus giving us the year of his teacher's birth as around 205. Plotinus had an inherent distrust of materiality (an attitude common to Platonism). This distrust extended to the body, including his own; it is reported by Porphyry that at one point he refused to have his portrait painted, presumably for much the same reasons of dislike. Likewise Plotinus never discussed his ancestry, childhood, or his place or date of birth. Eunapius however reports that he was born in Lyco or Lycopolis in Egypt, as he may have been a Hellenized Egyptian. From all accounts his personal and social life exhibited the highest moral and spiritual standards. Plotinus took up the study of philosophy at the age of twenty-seven, around the year 232 CE, and travelled to Alexandria to study. There Plotinus was dissatisfied with every teacher he encountered until an acquaintance suggested he listen to the ideas of Ammonius Saccas. Upon hearing Ammonius lecture, he declared to his friend, "this was the man I was looking for," and began to study intently under his new instructor. Besides Ammonius, Plotinus was also influenced by the works of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Numenius. Expedition to Persia and return to Rome He spent the next eleven years in Alexandria when, by now 38, he decided to investigate the philosophical teachings of the Persians and the Indians. In the pursuit of this endeavour he left Alexandria and joined the army of Gordian III as it marched on Persia. However, the campaign was a failure, and on Gordian's eventual death Plotinus found himself abandoned in a hostile land, and only with difficulty found his way back to safety in Antioch. At the age of forty, during the reign of Philip the Arab, he came to Rome, where he stayed for most of the remainder of his life. There he attracted a number of students. His innermost circle included Porphyry, Gentilianus Amelius of Tuscany, the Senator Castricius Firmus, and Eustochius of Alexandria, a doctor who devoted himself to learning from Plotinus and attended to him until his death. Other students included: Zethos, an Arab by ancestry who died before Plotinus, leaving him a legacy and some land; Zoticus, a critic and poet; Paulinus, a doctor of Scythopolis; and Serapion from Alexandria. He had students amongst the Roman Senate beside Castricius, such as Marcellus Orontius, Sabinillus, and Rogantianus. Women were also numbered amongst his students, including Gemina, in whose house he lived during his residence in Rome, and her daughter, also Gemina; and Amphiclea, the wife of Ariston the son of Iamblichus. Finally, Plotinus was a correspondent of the philosopher Cassius Longinus. Later life While in Rome Plotinus also gained the respect of the Emperor Gallienus and his wife Salonica. At one point Plotinus attempted to interest Gallienus in rebuilding an abandoned settlement in Campania, known as the 'City of Philosophers', where the inhabitants would live under the constitution set out in Plato's Laws. An Imperial subsidy was never granted, for reasons unknown to Porphyry, who reports the incident. Porphyry subsequently went to live in Sicily, where word reached him that his former teacher had died. The philosopher spent his final days in seclusion on an estate in Campania which his friend Zethos had bequeathed him. According to the account of Eustochius, who attended him at the end, Plotinus' final words were: "Strive to give back the Divine in yourselves to the Divine in the All." Eustochius records that a snake crept under the bed where Plotinus lay, and slipped away through a hole in the wall; at the same moment the philosopher died. Plotinus wrote the essays that became the Enneads over a period of several years from ca. 253 until a few months before his death seventeen years later. Plotinus was unable to revise his own work due to his poor eyesight, yet his writings required extensive editing, according to Porphyry: his master's handwriting was atrocious, he did not properly separate his words, and he cared little for niceties of spelling. Plotinus intensely disliked the editorial process, and turned the task to Porphyry, who not only polished them but put them into the arrangement we now have. Plotinus' theory The One Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity or distinction; likewise it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience, and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects, and therefore is beyond the concepts that we derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing", and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence), but "is prior to all existents". Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One. For example, thought cannot be attributed to the One because thought implies distinction between a thinker and an object of thought. Likewise, neither will nor activity can be ascribed to the One, since doing so would logically require distinction between an "agent" of will or act, and its object. The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world not through any act of creation, wilful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus resorts to a logical principle that the "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process. Later Neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings as emanations between the One and humanity; but Plotinus' system was much simpler in comparison. Emanation by the One Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo ('out of nothing'), which would make God suffer the deliberations of a mind and actions of a will. Emanation ex deo ('out of God'), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby "lessening" itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected. The first emanation is Nous ('Thought'), identified with the "demiurge" in Plato's Timaeus. From Nous proceeds the "World Soul", which Plotinus subdivides into "upper" and "lower", identifying the lower aspect of Soul with Nature. From the World Soul proceed individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively negative assessment of the material world, Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of Nous and the World Soul. The essentially devotional nature of Plotinus' philosophy may be further illustrated by his concept of attaining "ecstatic" union with the One. Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such a union several times during the years he knew him. This may be related, of course, with " enlightenment", "liberation", and other concepts of mystical union common to many Eastern and Western traditions. Many scholars have compared Plotinus' teachings to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta, (advaita "not two", or "non-dual"). Neoplatonism was sometimes used as a philosophical foundation for paganism, and as a means of defending the theoretic of paganism against Christianity. However, many Christians were also influenced by Neoplatonism, most notably St. Augustine who, though often referred to as a "Platonist," acquired his Platonist philosophy through the mediation of Plotinus' teachings. Indeed, Plotinus' philosophy still exerts influence today: in the 20th century, American philosopher Ken Wilber has drawn heavily upon the Enneads in his cosmology, reaching some metaphysical conclusions comparable to Plotinus' own.

THE SERENDIPITY SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY

By JULIAN HANCOCK For those of you who are not familiar with the meaning of the word "Serendipity," it is defined as: "The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident." (Coined by Horace Walpole, from the Persian fairytale "The Three Princes of Serendip," in which the heroes possessed this gift). About 10 years ago, following a series of such occurrences in my life, I decided to establish, in a light-hearted fashion, the Serendipity School of Philosophy (SSP). The foundation members included some friends with whom I met regularly in the Belaroma Coffee Shop at Lindfield. I even appointd a Patron Saint, Christina [Pictured above] a lovely woman who was inaccessible because of her married status, but used to show up at the Belaroma when I least expected it. Being a Roman Catholic by faith, she was delighted and flattered to have this "honour" bestowed up on her. So I laid out some basic precepts for the Serendipity School of Philosophy: 1. Commence each day with a clean slate, having no expectation of what may or may not happen. 2. Each time you greet someone you already know, regard it as a first-time meeting. Do not clutter up the communication with left over dross from previous encounters. Additionally, do not expect the person to respond to you in the same manner, good or bad, as they may have in the past. 3. At the closing of each day, be thankful for the pleasant things which may have happened, and be grateful for the opportunity to learn from any unpleasant things which may have occurred. Membership of the SSP is available to anyone who feels comfortable with the above principles, and contributes an account of at least one serendipitous experience, which might include the unexpected answer to a prayer, or some other "miracle." I look forward to your contributions, which may be addressed to jul646@aol.com THE RAINBOW: By TAMI [Arizona, U.S.A.] One day, when I was driving home from work, I noticed two girls at a bus stop. It looked like rain was approaching, and I knew they just got out of school because of their bags. They were going to the mall and I felt compelled to "mother" them and tell them how to stay out of trouble and such. They just seemed like they were the type to be a bit ornery -- not bad girls, but the ones that might steal if they had the chance -- (I just got that 'feel'). So I was talking to them and they asked me about religion. Although I don't practice any particular faith, I do believe that religion has its place here (at times). So then they asked me about angels because of the things that were in my truck -- angel things. So it began to sprinkle rain, but the sun was shining brightly ... and there it was, a rainbow. Now as we drove into the parking lot and I was looking for a place to pull over so they could get out ... I gave them each some money to spend ... THEN ... I turned the corner to stop ... AND ... the RAINBOW was ON my truck, pouring down from the skies. It was HITTING the hood of the truck and you could FEEL the energies. The girls were screaming and I was crying. They said, "you ARE an angel ... you ARE, you ARE!!!" The colours were radiating from the skies like a waterfall and there were little beams of light sparks bouncing off the hood ... somewhat like a sparkler. It was ABSOLUTELY amazing. We were frozen in time. I've never seen anything so beautiful.

ATHEISM IS A TRULY DIVINE SCIENCE

By KAILASH VAJPEYI In 'The Song Divine,' Krishna classifies nature as material nature and supernature. He says that supernature is incomprehensible to people who are not in tune with the subtlety of infinity. We think we choose to live, but the fact is we have no independent will to be born. We only know how to defend or save this corporeal frame. But how many of us know that every second, a hundred million impulses assault our nervous system and that if we didn't reject them, we would collapse? We think we're special, but biology places humans alongside all other species. Beyond food, sex and territory, animals are not aware of any other reality; they also do not have any aspirations towards immortality. Since there is no fear or idea of death in their lives, they have no concept of God or codified system of philosophy. They live by instinct and die without seeking to prolong their lives. Humans, however, have woven a complicated web of ideas in order to understand the implications of our ordinary and extraordinary states of consciousness. The lives of animals are governed by an unquestioning acceptance of the inevitable. If we go through all the systems of Indian philosophy, we find a grand purposeful design and an invincible quest or effort to define the phenomena of germination and termination of life. The range of phenomenology is so vast that it embraces every aspect of being and nothingness. India's unique corpus of metaphysical doctrines has echoes of both theism and atheism. It is simultaneously centrifugal and centripetal and includes the purely spiritual, the purely material as well as the material-spiritual. These schools of Indian philosophy are divided into two groups -- the heterodox and the orthodox. The heterodox schools like Charvaka, Jainism and Buddhism do not believe in the existence of God. Their well-structured logic is atheistic. The orthodox schools -- sankhya, nyaya, yoga, vaisheshik and vedant -- accept the authority of the vedas and believe in God. There is another school of Jaimini, known as mimansa, which makes no mention of God. Traditionally, atheism is a system of views rejecting faith in the spirits, gods, life beyond death, etc. Atheism criticises religious dogmas from the standpoint of scientific study of the universe. It expresses the social role of religion and shows how religion has created misery from time immemorial. The philosophic basis of atheism is materialism and to a certain extent material spirituality. In Greek philosophy, Heraclitus, Demectrius, Epicurus and Thales are considered to be staunch atheistic thinkers. Brihaspati is seen as the propounder of atheism in Indian philosophy and this school is known as Charvaka or Lokayata School. We also have annihilationists and naturalists, who did not believe in the existence of God. Jainism is another school of thought that practices atheism and follows the teachings of Mahavira. The Jains consider the arguments about the existence of God as being fallacious. The universe has no beginning, so the question of a creator has no logical basis. Every one of us is a reservoir of positive energy. Divinity is not somewhere out there. So each one of us should strive for perfection and purity of consciousness. Buddha's argument is that if God is all-pervading, why is there so much evil all around? Like Charvaka, the Buddha also rejected the concept of soul but he did argue in favour of a continuity through life and successive lives. Atheism strengthens the divine in man and generates an inexplicable joy. Whoever denies God asserts his own divinity.