Search This Blog

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Stage model of lifespan development - psych notes

Schaie’s   (1977- 78) stage model of lifespan development:
1.  Acquisitive Stage :  Children and adolescents acquire information for own sake.
2.  Achieving Stage:     Late teens and twenties, use knowledge to be competent and independent.
3.  Responsible Stage:  Late 30’s to early 60’s – Knowledge to accomplish goals, solve practical problems associated with their work and family responsibilities.
4.  Executive Stage:  30’s and 40’s – achieving and responsible stages overlap and are custodians of social life.
5.  Re-integrative Stage:  Older adults – concentration on what has personal meaning.         

Monday, 27 August 2012

An invitation to former fellow students

I have sent all my peers from 2nd Advance Counselling Education an email suggesting we all get together for peer review, referrals, sharing of reading material and of course socializing.   I suggested once a month Mondays or Saturdays and am waiting for feedback.  Anyone else who have already graduated ahead of us is welcomed to join us if you wish.   My email will be in your old manuals.  It has not changed.

What do you think?

Friday, 24 August 2012

Post- Formal thought and Social reasoning (psyc notes)

 Social problems arise out of necessary subjectivity in which there are different views of a situation and “reality” is in part created by the knower (Sinnott, 1984, p 250).  Immature thinkers are more egocentric and less able to detach emotionally from a problem.  Older, more mature thinkers are aware of the subjectivity involved in problem issues and recommend solutions based on understanding and mutual respect for the parties involved.  Sometimes crises situations prompts a shift to more advanced post-formal thought patterns when the world no longer makes “sense” as it has previously.
Sinnot’s (1984) criteria for post-formal thought:
1.  Shifting gears - seeing from another point of view.
2.  Multiple causality, multiple solutions.
3.  Pragmatism - how practical is this? Can we do it? And
4.  Awareness of Paradox – ironies.    

Tuesday, 21 August 2012

LIFE AFTER DEATH (BOOK REPORT)

LIFE AFTER DEATH
                                                                                              by: Silva Redigonda                                                                                   
            People search for answers to what is not fully understood.  Death is not only
puzzling, it has a mysterious finality to it.  There are people who determine death to be
the end for themselves and for those who they have loved and died.   Others find death to be a
passage towards some other chance at life such as re-incarnation.  There are also those who
believe that they will go to their creator – God.  There are endless possibilities to the creative
mind.  Life After Life[1] by Raymond Moody promises a dimension between life and death.   This
paper will list what the author has gleaned from his interviews with or about people who have
died or were near death.  At the same time the reliability of what is disclosed will be examined.
 
Life After
    In Dr Moody’s Life After Life  the author explains that he writes primarily about reports, accounts or narratives which others have provided verbally and includes third parties.
These reports involve  being able to see and hear what is going on when people are pronounced dead but not able to talk, feel others, or feel pain.  There are reported sensations of peace and comfort.  There are sounds which are pleasant (14-19) and sounds that are disturbing.  There are also recordings of a passage through a dark tunnel with a floating sensation, of weightlessness to their new spiritual bodies (pp 21, 35).
     Dr Moody indicates that he is not trying to prove that there is life after death (xxvii).  This seems clear in how he presents his information.  Dr Moody will report two people having a similar experience of a voice telling them that they have to go back [to life] (p 48).  He will report one other person who associates heat with the light who talks to him (p54). In another he will report the observations of another, sole person, “It was a fun person to be with! It had a sense of humor, too- definitely.”(p55).  There seems to be general sense of vagueness regarding the information that is provided.   As an example, there is no explanation for the humor or what the humor is.  There seems to be a consistency of unanswered questions.  Who is each participant?  What are the backgrounds of these people?  The author does report listing the findings from 50 cases (p 9) so why isn’t he more specific with each case and why is it common for the author to report similar findings from only one or two cases as mentioned?
     The author begins his study with one man’s particular experience.  This man states that he heard himself being pronounced dead by his doctor.  The participant then hears a loud ringing or buzzing and feels himself moving rapidly through a long dark tunnel.  He subsequently finds himself as a spectator as he watches himself being resuscitated at a distance from his physical body which is different from its’ physical form.  He also has different powers from its’ former self.   Spirits of dead relatives and friends come to meet and help him.   A beam of light also approaches and speaks to him “nonverbally” so that he may question his life.  The man then finds himself at a “barrier or border” from this life to the next.  He returns to his body which he resists.  He experiences intense feelings of joy, love and peace (p 11-12). 
     The aforementioned is documented as an actual account from one person.  However, the author concludes that it is not intended to be a representation of anyone person’s experience but a model of common elements found in many stories.  In Dr Moody’s “abstract model,” each element occurs in many separate stories”(p 12).  Providing an abstract model and not indicating such at the beginning of the description of events, becomes distracting.  There is an aura of trickery by what is eventually disclosed.  However, one cannot ignore the thought provoking ideas that is encouraging.  Dr Moody reports that one participant who suffers a heart attack finds himself in a gray mist, with wonderful lights and people and perhaps buildings.  He is told by his “Uncle Carl” (who died years earlier) to “go back” because his “work on earth is not completed.”(pp 68-69)  One is left wondering if that is what life is about?  Is it about completing our work?  Then what is my work, one may ask?  
    Life After Life reveals that some of the participants have a change of attitude for the better.  Dr Moody indicates that “almost every person has expressed” that he no longer fears death (p 88). Though it is unknown exactly how many participants are religious and from what faiths, Dr Moody does indicate that, “Others say that although they had read religious writings, such as the Bible, they had never really understood certain things they had read until their near-death experiences (p 129).  What that is, is never clarified but one may presume that if a person experiences death, than life in general would have more meaning. 
The author does provide comments from individuals and extends this to “a small number of cases” without indicating exactly how many have an altering life experience.   These changes include life being more precious, the mind being more important than the body, and in a “small number of cases” acquiring or noticing intuition bordering on the psychic (pp 84-87).   The author indicates that there seems to be no difference in experiences reported by the men or women, though women seem to be able to talk about their experiences more. Since Dr Moody never provides a gender demographic, there is again an element of inconclusiveness.  It should be noted that when Dr Moody reveals that “almost every person has expressed…” (p88).  These persons are referred to as “…he…”.   How many men actually were hesitant to report the findings from the 50 cases?  It appears that women may be the minority in the cases presented  if the author is to be taken literally.  This continuous vagueness of where the information is from, is at times difficult because it gives the reader a feeling of incompleteness.  However, this feeling is also often replaced by genuine curiosity when cases seem to become more real, even proven.   “In quite a few instances” many persons report being out of their bodies for extended periods and these could be verified by what they saw when they should not have been able to as they were dead or close to death.  Several doctors have reported being baffled that patients with no medical knowledge could describe in details the resuscitation “attempts” when the patient was “dead” (p. 93).  This is interesting because Dr Moody also indicates that in only one of the cases did a physician reveal any familiarity at all with near-death experience (p.80).  Reliability is put to the absolute test when Dr Moody provides an account of authenticity for his participants. “I have detected in their voices sincerity, warmth, and feeling which cannot really be conveyed in a written recounting.  So to me, in a way that is unfortunately impossible for many others to share, the notion that these accounts might be fabrications is utterly untenable.”(p 126) This belief in his participants continues with they, “are not victims of psychosis.  They have struck me as emotionally stable, normal people who are functional in society.  They hold jobs and positions of importance and carry them out responsibly. They have stable marriages and are involved with their family and friends….” (p160).  It appears that Dr Moody’s idea of honesty from his participates is very subjective.  How sure can one be that every participant is truthful?  Is there at least an acknowledgment of a margin of error?  Apparently not.  There is a sense of truth due to the similarities of information cited but the reader must take the word of the author for everything that is provided.  There is also at times a climate of what seems incredulous, such as one participant’s report of a spirit in the shape of a ball of light, globe like with a hand reaching out of it (p 96).  This seems to be the extreme from what is usually reported.
          The author indicates that his study is not scientific because his sample of participants is not a random sample of humans.  His definition of random sampling is restricted to an example of demographics of “Eskimos, Kwakiutl Indians, Navahoes, Watusi tribesmen, and so on.  However due to geographic and other limitations, I have not been able to locate any (p 133).”  One wonders if the author understands the definition of “sample”.  A sample is a set of individuals selected from the population, usually intended to represent the population in a research study.  For example one study might examine a sample of 10 children in a preschool program or use a sample of over 1000 registered voters.[2]          
The End
    Life After Life has sold over 13 million copies worldwide.  A phone consultation with Dr Moody is $200.00 per hour.[3]   This demonstrates that people hunger to know about experiences after this life time. Someone may read this book and realize that a dream she had was not a dream but a life after life experience.  She in turn can soothe her ill mother with that knowledge.   People need to believe that there is something more, that there is a God and another place that can be called home.  Sometimes people need more than the written word.  They need proof that there is more than this.   Dr Moody has successfully teased the brain to want to know more about life after death.  But, Dr Moody has also failed to demonstrate a satisfactory degree of reliability.


[1] Moody, Raymond. Life After Life.  New York: Harper Collins, 2001.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by page number only.  
[2] Gravetter, Frederick  J., and Wallnau, Larry B.  Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Sixth Ed. Wadsworth: Belmont (2004).
[3] The Official Online Presence of Raymond A. Moody, M.D., PhD.  Life After Life.  (1997-2005) Online.  Raymond Moody.  Internet 6 Oct. 2009. Available:  www.lifeafterlife.com.

Sunday, 19 August 2012

Take some time today to ask yourself if you are where you want to be

I have been writing a bit about development in my blog.  Have you been able to identify where you are at in your life?  Have you examined if you are ok with it or are you feeling that you are still searching for something?  Are you working?  Are you unhappy at work or in your relationship?  Are you waiting for someone to come into your life to enhance you?  What is lacking in your life, is within you to explore.  Only you, can help yourself.  The first step is usually trying to determine what is making you feel sad, or angry.  What is it about your life that feels not right?  Why not starting thinking about making some changes for yourself  to feel better?  Start examining your emotions and what it does to your body?  How do you feel right before you want to hit someone?  Hold on to that feeling?  When have you felt it before?  How far back can you relate with that feeling?  What can you do to change some aspect of your life, that will enhance it?  Something to reflect about.  What do you think?

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Animals / Pets

     Not everyone can understand why people love their animals so much.  An abuser will often hurt or kill a pet because it helps him or she to control who he is abusing and it is also a way for her to vent her anger to the pet.  Again, society has a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves, the elderly, children and animals.  There are rightfully laws in place to control abuse. 
     After the Oklahoma bombings, dogs that were utilized to find bodies were provided with dolls to soothe them, because they were getting depressed.  In New Orleans during their flood, people died needlessly, choosing to remain with their pets.  We have learned from that disaster.  In Toronto should we have a disaster, people will be able to keep their pets, according to an Emergency Management seminar I attended at York University several years ago. 
      An elderly Italian woman who was about to sell her home, did not because she was not able to bring her beloved cat of many years with her to a senior's apartment specific to her culture.  She was devastated.   I wonder how people hurt each other sometimes intentionally and sometimes because they simply do not know.  During my undergrad I learned in one elective course, how an American man began an initiative of having pets and plants in a senior home for his mom.  He could not find something suitable for her so he began a novel concept.  Some places in Toronto have discovered and implemented this as well.  It has been learned that people in senior homes live longer and are happier when they have an animal to love and when they have responsibility for the pet and/or other responsibilities such as watering the plants.  As one senior dies, another takes on the responsibility of care for the pet etc...  Animals are so amazing and beneficial.  A little kindness goes a long way.  We need more people to become aware of what is lacking for seniors.  Love and stimulation is required.  They need to feel that they are loved.  They need to feel that they are needed and they need to feel that they still serve a purpose.  There are more suicides among elderly men in Canada than any other groups.  I know that in North America we offer a lot to our seniors.  However, we need to be more compassionate to their needs.  Not everyone likes animals and not everyone understands the benefits of having a pet.  But more needs to be understood by people who have a responsibility to care and provide for the elderly what is important to them.  What do you think?    

Saturday, 11 August 2012

Teilhard de Chardin and Evolution

Teilhard de Chardin and Evolution

    All too often there is a select group, a privileged group, who learn, explore, and debate in a university cluster.  Knowledge can never be understated, neither can the opportunity for growth.   Humans evolve.  The universe evolves.  Catholicism evolves.  At times knowledge of the revolving Catholic faith becomes restricted to a select group who either fail to discuss outside the cluster of safety or the elite or choose to ignore the congregation because it is easier than to explain.  This paper is a reflection of growth and knowledge that needs to be understood for Catholics to defend and to debate their religion.  It is a minute detail, but important none the less. 
     This paper will demonstrate how Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest contributed to Catholicism in his understanding of evolution which is Catholic teaching today.  This evolution is widely known as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution".  Who Teilhard de Chardin was, what the theory of evolution is and how it is relevant to Roman Catholicism in an evolutionary world will be explained.
Static World vs Dynamic : Evolution

    If a juggler has three balls it is important that they are each of equivalent weight.  If not, the balance is affected and the balls fall.  Think of three balls as one being the world, one being God, and the other being humanity.  In theology one may understand our evolving state by utilizing this concept.  We live in a developing universe.  There was a time of nature gods, there was a mythology, but not a history and therefore a divine purpose could not be declared.
     By the time Christianity appeared, the Roman world would have been entirely familiar with the thought that the universe might have gradually come to be as it is.[1]
      In the year 1616, the Holy Office declared that the sun is the center of the universe, and consequently does not change place and that the earth is not the center of the universe and is not motionless, but is in motion as a whole and its daily rotation. [2]  We know with absolute physical certainty, that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind[3]
From Early Times
     The average Catholic has no true understanding of how their religion originated and how this has changed throughout the centuries.  By understanding this concept there is a better understanding of how humanity has evolved and thus continues to evolve. 
     The primary focus of the Old Testament is about salvation.  In Israel's faith, redemption was primary and creation secondary.  This was not only in order of theological importance, but also in order of appearance to the Israelite tradition.  The first chapter of Genesis was not composed until after the Babylonian exile in the sixth century B.C., long after the historical chronicles. The fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and the loss of the land reflect the feeling of a collapse, a chaos all over the earth and a cry to Yahweh as the One on whom all order depends, the One who first brought order from chaos.  The opening chapter of Genesis composed around this time, expresses confidence that the same Lord who has protected Israel from its beginnings is the Creator.  It retells the story of Creation presented in the much older and more primitive account of the origins of man and woman, as Chapter Two of Genesis.  The creation from nothing, is of later Christian tradition.[4]  In the Bible the story of creation does not stand by itself as though it were a prescientific attempt to explain the origin or evolution of nature.  Creation is the starting point of history.  It sets the stage for the unfolding of the divine purpose, a historical drama.[5]
     The history of the gospel tradition is a history of the translation of a story from Aramaic into Greek, even though the earliest stages of this history are lost to us.  The Greek language determined to a substantial degree the formulation of the message.[6]          
     The biblical writers show little if any interest in a causal explanation of natural process.  The Greeks however were fascinated by it.  They speculated of how water or fire or atoms in motion could explain the world they saw(McMullin, p21). Greek natural science attained its height with Aristotle.  He created whole fields such as physics, theoretical astronomy, logic and biology.  Aristotle foreshadowed evolution, "we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste, for each and all will reveal to us something natural…Nature's works exemplify…the conduciveness of everything to an end, and the resultant end of Nature's generations is a form of the beautiful." (McMullin, p22)
     St Augustine (5th century) argued the Genesis account of creation in six days could not have been meant as literal history.  How could there be days, in the literal sense, before the sun was created?  Yet, the sun appears on what is called in the text the fourth day.  Further, the term day is a day in one part of the earth, it is night in the another.  The six days of the Genesis account involve the entire earth.  St Augustine concluded that the term must be taken metaphorically and speculated what it may have meant.  St Augustine stated that if there is a conflict between a literal reading of Scripture and a well-established truth about nature, this is sufficient reason to take the scriptural passage metaphorically.  There cannot be a contradiction between nature and Scripture since God speaks to both. St Augustine indicated that no one should worry if Christians are ignorant of those he called physicists regarding the natures of things.  It is enough for Christians to believe that the cause of all created things, whether in the heavens or on the earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator (McMullin, p 27).
     In the mid 1200s, the natural science taught in universities, including theology students, was that of Aristotle (McMullin, p 27).  Aristotelian cosmology and Christian theology were merged to form the medieval picture of the universe.  Earth was the fixed central sphere surrounded by the spheres of the heavens.  Man was unique and central in location and importance.  This view would soon be challenged by science.[7]
     Galileo (1564-1642) combined mathematical reasoning and experimental observation.  Galileo formulated a new picture of nature, that as nature in motion.  Galileo called mass and velocity, primary qualities.  What some Catholics may not know is that Galileo was a devout Catholic and found no conflict between his scientific and religious beliefs. He upheld the importance of scripture but claimed that it reveals not scientific facts but spiritual knowledge for man's salvation, truths that are above reason and could not be discovered by observation.  Galileo put nature and scripture on the same level as avenues of God (Barbour, pp 23-30).   
     Newton (1642-1727)invented calculus but he was also an ingenious experimenter in mechanics and optics.  Newton's law of motion and gravity, a novel insight, was the idea that the earth's gravitational pull might extend to the moon.  Newton believed and found time for God and the human spirit (Barbour, pp 34-37).     
     The eighteenth century saw itself as the Age of Reason (Barbour, p57)
Charles Darwin and the Church
         Darwin spent twenty-five years studying in detail the breeding of domestic animals, such as dogs where new breeds would be produced that never existed before from greyhound, to St. Bernard to Chihuahua.  Here was evolution with human choice replacing natural survival.  Darwin studied problems as diverse as hybridization of plants, comparative structure of embryos and the geographical distribution of animal and plant forms, both living and extinct.  The range and magnitude of information he brought into correlation with his theory is staggering.  After all this research, he published Origin of Species in 1859 (Barbour,p86.)
     For Roman Catholicism evolution was not in principle as disturbing as it was for Protestant conservatism.  In Catholicism, revealed truth is to be sought not in scripture alone, but in scripture and tradition as interpreted by the living church.  Moreover, the doctrine that scripture is divinely inspired has not excluded considerable flexibility and diversity in biblical interpretations (Barbour, p 100).
     By the close of the century, the fact of evolution was accepted by virtually all scientists, and by the vast majority of theologians.
    In the Middle Ages it was believed that frogs generate spontaneously from mud (Barbour, p 269).  Today we know better.    In 1950, Pope Pius X11, in Humans Generis, a "doctrine of evolution" was directly addressed.  There was no talk of the woman originating from man.[8]
    In 1951, an address of Pope Pius X11 cited with approval the views of several astronomers that the universe had a beginning in time.  In general, it is maintained that the creation of both the universe and the first man and woman were historical events, but that the biblical portrayal of these events is figurative (Barbour p 374).     
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)

Ursula King describes Teilhard de Chardin as a traveler, explorer, scientist, priest, and mystic.  She writes that for many he was too complex, too difficult a writer, too daring an innovator.  He was in love with the world and he was in love with God, deeply faithful to the Catholic Church.[9] Teilhard de Chardin was one of the Catholic Theologians who accepted and interpreted the faith with the understanding of evolution.  Teilhard de Chardin divides the energies that propel the world forward in time into two radically different sorts, tangential (preserves what evolution has provided) and radial (draws a given element forwards).  Chardin argued that to explain the evolutionary process, one must introduce a "radial" energy that is basically psychic in nature and whose operation can be discerned only by employing a mode of understanding, a special seeing of pattern.  Teilhard claimed that the radial energies of the universe are the manifestation of a hyperpersonal Omega point toward which the universe is both ascending and converging.  Teilhard identified this Omega Point with the Creator God of the Christian tradition (McMullin, pp36-37).  He believed that everything, in some way, has existed from the very first.  There is no sharp life unless there was already incipient life in all matter.  Similarly there is no line between life and thought.  Mind, like activity, of an elementary kind reaches all the way down the scale of life, though it becomes lost in darkness as we trace it back. Teilhard believed that evolution is incomplete. Creation is continuing and the universe is still in the process of being born (Barbour, p 399).  Teilhard was convinced that our world is a dynamic world, an embryonic cosmos still in growth.  In such a world, origins are less important than directions of development, and the past is less significant than the future.  God is involved in continuous creation (Barbour, 408).      
     Teilhard was trying to find a balance between science, religion and humanity when he said, "Our Christology is still expressed in exactly the same terms as those which, three centuries ago, could satisfy men whose outlook on the cosmos is now physically impossible for us to accept.  Unless we admit that religious life and human life are independent of one another
(which is a psychological impossibility) such a situation must a priori produce a feeling of dismay, a loss of balance…the answer must be in bringing Christology and evolution into line with one another (Chardin, p77).  What Teilhard was trying to do was bring, humanity, God and the world together again.  He was trying to balance the juggling of the balls.       
     Teilhard accepted science and believed that now was the time to look forward, "What now has to be done following the cosmic currents revealed by history, is to confront the future; and that means, now that we have recognized evolution, to drive it further ahead.  All the spirit of the earth combines to produce an increase of unitary thinking: that is the avenue opening up ahead of us. Teilhard was trying to make sense of an evolutionary world.  "Logically, we should have to admit that if the world is advancing towards the spiritual there must be a conscious peak to the universe." (Chardin, p 90) Teilhard believed it was necessary to have a faith in God ahead and a faith in God above, combining the immanent God of evolution with the idea of a transcendent God.  Teilhard was one of the early pioneers of interfaith dialogue. He supported and took part in interfaith activities from 1946 onward. "Faith in Man" was read at the Union des Croyants formed in 1947. Today we know it as inter religious dialogue.  Teilhard's address was based on the idea that people of different faiths and world views can, in spite of their differences, come together through their shared faith in the value of the human being.  Believers of different faiths can cooperate in building together a common future.[10]
     Teilhard was mocked as great men and women before him have been.  His views were described in Canadian and American newspapers as the "Jesuit who believes man descended from apes."  But he was recognized among his intellectual peers.  He was awarded the prestigious Mendel Medal in recognition of his work by the Catholic University of Villanova (King, Ursula, p 164).
Our Present Knowledge
     There is no doubt that we are living in an amazing time with endless opportunities.  Of course we are also living in a dangerous time.  Regardless of our scientific discoveries that continue to expand along with our technical and medical knowledge, we are still allowing people to starve in major portions of the world while we exploit our world in others.  Hopefully we can continue to evolve intellectually as well as spiritually without destroying each other or our planet with our tampering.  There is an end for all of us including our universe as most of us know.  As Catholics we should take our faith seriously, try to do something good for others and our world, even if it is in a small way.  We need to understand the changes we are introduced to in science because we need to understand our faith in the context of a changing world.  We need to maintain the balance of the three balls, of humanity, God and the world.  We depend on our Catholic leaders to educate us, to enlighten us and to help us with our faith. We depend on our leaders to help us to help others.  We depend on our leaders to guide us, nurture us and to help us understand God in our changing world.  It is the responsibility of every priest to enlighten his congregation.  It is every theologian's responsibility to do the same.  But the onus is also on the congregation to explore and to understand our world in relation to our faith.  Creation is not only about us as humans, it is about all the animals we share life with, it is about our planet that we should nurture and respect and take care of as we should with everything that is within our control.  We will continue to grow, and we will continue to spiral. Teilhard tried to make sense in juggling the balls to reconnect our present selves to God.  We will continue to do the same as we move forward and closer to God.       
     Vatican Council II admitted that the evolutionary ideas of Teilhard de Chardin had "a certain influence, at least indirect and diffuse on some orientations of the council". In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) it states, "And so mankind substitutes a dynamic and more evolutionary concept of nature for a static one." (GS 5)This is followed in the same document by, "historical studies tend to make us view things under the aspects of changeability and evolution" (GS 54)(Korsmeyer,p 18)
     In June 1988, in a message to a group of scientists and theologians, Pope John Paul 11 urged scientists and theologians to come to understand each other for their mutual benefit.  Pope John Paul said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition.  Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  In October 1996, Pope John Paul 11, in a formal address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, declared that "fresh knowledge" produced by scientific research now leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."  Still he said Roman Catholics must believe that "the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."(Korsmeyer, p20)
     Studies have confirmed that over 99.5% of our DNA is the same as a chimpanzee(Korsmeyer, p 81). What does this tell us?  It tells us that we are arrogant to think that we are so much more important in this world than anything else in it. 
     This paper is about theology and theology is about faith seeking understanding.  Teilhard was a Jesuit priest.  Jesuit spirituality is helping people in finding God in all things. This is not a paper about science. This is a paper about theology.  But we can not talk about theology without talking about science.  We cannot ignore scientific findings.  We cannot continue to insist that a frog is generated spontaneously from mud.  If we do, then the balance of the balls is not possible and will collapse.  The concepts of the Middle ages cannot continue.  Our society and our intelligence are evolving.  Not all have the opportunity for an education.  Not all have the possibilities to learn.  Therefore, it is imperative that our priests educate accordingly.  For they have the opportunity to learn and the obligation to teach the congregation.  Theologians too are obligated to teach.  But one can refuse to learn or laugh at what one doesn't understand or want to understand.  As Catholics we believe in God.  As Catholics we need to understand the balance of the three balls, our world, God and humanity.
     It is fitting that we conclude with our understanding of the world as it was and as it is.
     The entire course of 15 billion years of cosmic evolution can be calculated backwards from the present state of the universe until a point of 1 divided by 10 followed by 42 zeros.  Quantum theory does not allow us to get any closer to time zero.[11]
 15 billion years ago the universe began as a stupendous energy.   14.5 billion years ago the sun was born.  4.45 billion years ago planets were formed.  Earth brings forth an atmosphere, oceans and continents.  395 million years ago we have insects.  245 million years ago 75%to 95% of all species of that time were eliminated. 235 million years ago, dinosaurs appeared; flowers spread. 15 million years ago there is a cosmic impact – a catastrophe. 8 million years ago we have our modern cats (early cats and dogs were 35 million years ago).  6 million years ago there were modern dogs.  3.3 million years ago, current ice ages begin.  2.6 million years ago - first humans.  3,500 years ago the world population has 5 – 10 million.  3,500 B.C – chronic warfare.  3,000 B.C. there is the civilization of the Nile in Egypt and there are advances in technology.  4 B.C.E. Jesus.[12]  
    The Genesis 1 story is primarily meant as a reflection about the relationship between God, the world and humankind.  It gives meaning and purpose to the process of cosmic and biological evolution (Bonting, p28).  As Teilhard realized we will continue to evolve towards God.  Times have changed since St Augustine reported that one should not worry if Christians are ignorant of the nature of things.  If ignorance continues, then we will no longer be able to maintain a balance in the juggling of the balls.     




Bibliography

     Anderson, B.W. Creation, in G.A. Buttrick et al, eds. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.  Vol.1. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1962.
     Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
     Bonting, Sjoerd. Chaos Theology: Revised Creation Theology. Ottawa: Novalis, 2002.
     King, Ursula. Christ In All Things: Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin New York: Orbis Books, 1997.
     King, Ursula. Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of Teilhard de Chardin.  New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
     Korsmeyer, Jerry. Evolution and Eden. New York: Paulist, 1998.
     Ladd, G.E. The Patterns of the New Testament Truth. Grand Rapids: Everdmans,1968.
     McMullin, Ernan. Ed. Evolution and Creation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, pp. 1-27.
    McMullin, Ernan.  Natural Science and Belief in a Creator, in David Byers, ed, Religion,Science and the Search for Wisdom.  Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1977.
     Swimme, Brian and Thomas Berry. The Universe Story. New York: Harper Collins, 1992.
     Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jamanovich, Inc. 1971.
     Wildiers, N.M. The Theologian And His Universe.  New York: Seabury, 1982.

    









































[1] McMullin Ernan. Ed. Evolution and Creation.  Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, pp 7.
[2] Wildiers, N.M. The Theologian And His Universe. New York: Seabury, 1982.  Pg 97. All further reference to the text will be indicated by the Author's name followed by page numbers.
[3] Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution. New York: Harcourt race Javanovich, Inc. 1971.  P.38. Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's name followed by page numbers.
[4] McMullin, Ernan, Natural Science and Belief in a Creator, in David Byers, ed., Religion, Science and the Search for Wisdom.  Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1977, pp 17, 19, & 20.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the Authors name followed by page numbers.
[5] Anderson , B.W. Creation, in G.A. Buttrick et al, eds.  The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 1. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1962 p 727.
[6] Ladd, G.E. The Patterns of New Testament Truth.  Grand Rapids: Everdmans, 1968.  P 11.
[7] Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966. P 18.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's surname and page numbers.
[8] Korsmeyer, Jerry.  Evolution and Eden. New York: Paulist, l998. Pg 18.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's name followed by the page numbers.
[9] King, Ursula.  Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of Teilhard de Chardin. New York: Orbis Books, 1996.  P vii.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's full name, followed by the page numbers.

[10] King, Ursula. Christ in all Things; Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin New York: Orbis Books, 1997. Pp 109-111.
[11] Bonting, Sjoerd. Chaos Theology: Revised Creation Theology.  Ottawa: Novalis, 2002. P 26. Further reference to the text will be indicated by author's name followed by page number.
[12] Swimme, Brian and Thomas Berry.  The Universe Story.  New York: Harper Collins, 1992.  (Time Line for the universe pp 269-278)

Friday, 10 August 2012

Are you going to buy my book? I wrote it for fun.

     Trying to sell a book as a novice writer is no easy task.  It doesn’t help that the small independent book stores have been gobbled up by big corporations.  It does not help that I am not any of my favorite writers. It does not help that if I hired a distributer, I would be in the red for 10 % on each book. So if you do decide to buy my book, please keep in mind that it has nothing to do with theology.  It is not a psychology book either.  I cringed when I found it there in a bookstore.  I wrote this for fun and it took two months to complete.  I am writing my second book now which is a bit more serious as it has to do with life in the military.  However, it is more about the social perspective - about people.  It has nothing that should put me in jail and not pass go.  It is about life, and growth and fairly soon about history.  My first book however is just pure fun.  It provides dating advice for men. And some men really do need to open up and take heed.  I was once asked by a local community reporter, what it is about my book that is different from other books about dating.  I have no clue since I never read any.   I did however, since I have spent most of my life in the company of men, listen to their many woes.  Sometimes men thought I was an expert about women because I am one. 

     I have been surprised about the feedback I have received and I am not sure why I was so surprised.  After all people have different perspectives.  I am pleased that men who have enjoyed my book seem to have read it in the spirit with which it was meant.  Since these men were handsome and secure, I was quite flattered.  There are some men who have been given this book by their wives and I understood that they have hated it.  There was one who also thought that he fell in love with me which was a bit creepy.  Ok, it was a lot creepy!  But, it really is just for fun and if I can make some money while enjoying writing, it is even more fun.  So if you want to buy this book from a struggling writer and give me some positive feedback without the love stuff (too creepy) please send $9.95 in Canadian or American funds to  Silva Redigonda, P.O. Box 58074, 3089 Dufferin Street.  Toronto, Ontario, M6A 3C8.  No taxes are required to be paid at this time, since I have not sold enough to even be taxed (how bad is that?).   What do you think?