It was a pleasure to listen to this conversation. I'm going through a scary time with my health right now and the one positive has been rediscovering my faith in Christianity. Thank you :-)
*I am blessed to have had a personal revelation.* *It is almost impossible to describe other than to say I was bathed in bright light for what seemed eternity until I heard myself thinking again and realized I was a human again.* *I have no idea of the time interval in the physical world.* *It might have been hours or just a moment.* *It changed me dramatically but subtly.*
Imagine that you have a parrot that is trained using the following procedure, you expose it to a certain text for a certain number of days and, the parrot learns to generate some words, with some variation, that have some coherence depending on that text (the training ensures that coherence by rewarding the parrot when it is coherent and punishing it when it is not). Now imagine that you have billions of those parrots, all trained by that procedure but each one with different texts, each parrot generating some words, with certain variations, that have some coherence with the text with which they are trained. Now imagine that you have all those parrots connected to the Internet through a system that offers us an interface. The user enters a phrase in that interface and, the system searches for the parrot associated with the text that is most similar to the entered phrase (a vector database is used for that). That found parrot is made to listen to the entered phrase and the parrot emits some words. The system then searches for the parrot associated with the text most similar to those words emitted by the previous parrot and, the new parrot emits new words. The previous procedure is reapplied to those new words and, the entire process is repeated as many times as desired. The final result of the above system is a text composed of the answers of all the parrots that participated in the process, in the order that those parrots answered. Surprisingly, in a great percentage of cases, this text will have some coherence and will even seem to be the result of human intelligence. Now, is it licit to say that the entity represented by the parrots trained in that way and, connected by the above described system, have an (artificial) intelligence? Is that (artificial) intelligence? (I). On one hand, although the entity can generate variable text for the same input phrase (given the limited variability of each parrot). This variability of the final text (some would call it "creativity") is limited by the following factors: (i) the total repertoire of the texts with which the parrots of the entity were trained. (ii) Each parrot generates a set of words with a very limited variability (otherwise the coherence of their response decreases rapidly). That means that the final coherence of the resulting text depends on the entity's parrots generating coherent text, which in turn depends on the text they hear being similar to the one they were trained with. Therefore, the coherence of the final text is directly proportional to the memorization capacity. The system by chance can generate a coherent final text from answers obtained from parrots that listen to text dissimilar to those that were trained, but that would be pure chance, not intelligence, just as by pure chance a set of monkeys typing randomly can generate a coherent text. So it would seem that what we call intelligence is memorization, and what is remarkable is the memorization capacity and, the flexibility using this capacity, of that entity. (II). On the other hand, the coherence and, therefore, the usefulness of that final answer from the entity, is only determined by a human. The entity does not have the ability to determine that coherence and, therefore, its usefulness. This inability is due, first of all, to the fact that even constructing a final response that is a chain in which each parrot response is individually coherent does not guarantee final coherence. Secondly, the final coherence depends on the ability to memorize (that is, the representation that the parrot creates in its brain of the text that was used to train it), but that memory is not directly accessible, it is only accessed indirectly from the response that each parrot gives, therefore the entity has no way of evaluating the consistency of the input with its memory, nor evaluating the consistency of what it generates with its memory. We can see then, the entity not only does not have the ability to evaluate what it generates against its own memory in order to generate a certain measure of coherence, but it also has much less the ability to evaluate what is not in its memory. Therefore, if humans are the only ones capable of evaluating that coherence and, the usefulness, of the entity's final answer, that means that the entity is only a tool of humans. Being a tool means that only human intelligence makes the entity useful, that is, human intelligence validates its output by assigning it a meaning that is consistent with the human intelligence's understanding of reality. So, at the end, what we have is an entity that is able to generate, with some variation, an output whose coherence is a function of its memorization capacity (that is, its generating capacity is limited to repeating an output that is the predetermined response - with also predetermined small variations - of the information it has memorized), while it is not able to evaluate that coherence. I suppose that if we call that intelligence and also trust in it, well, that will be another sin for which Christ will have atoned for us ..
Very good. Reminds me of Searle's Chinese Room. Self consciousness is what most people mean by being a person. The way it is detected in toddlers is through affect. It shows that the toddler knows how others see him her.
@@johnstewart7025 You are right, the argument is similar to that of the Chinese room. The main difference is that the parrot example is closer to how LLMs really work ..
@@huveja9799 self-conscious seems to be the gold standard for human like consciousness. If an AI could carry on a conversation with itself in a convincing way -- to write a memoir -- perhaps that would be proof of qualia.
Thanks for sharing Dr. Picard's story. It left me curious to understand her distinction of religion or faith generally and christianity specifically. I'd ask her if, for example, what Buddhism is relative to her belief in Christianity. I suppose my real question is whether she believes that Christianity is a Universal, Objective Truth, or whether the act of having faith in a given philosophy is a subjective benefit that is non-specific to the actual cultural teachings?
Is it coincidence that I end up with an ad showing the Starship Enterprise? Does anyone know why I ask that? Anyhow. She has a neat testimony. When I heard her on another channel i though maybe she came to Christ later in life. Thanks Dr. Picard. I became a Christian in college. I was reading a biography of a false prophet who read the bible once for every year of his life. About that time, the Gideon's handed out bibles. So I half joked saying I was reading the wrong book. So I read the New Testament and became a Christian.
Agreed. John leads you to a fullness of Truth. Proverbs feels 'comfortable'. Wise sayings, but nothing like the Bread of Life discourse which resulted in many leaving, and Peter's declaration that Jesus has the Words of Eternal Life. She needs to enter more deeply, more humbly, into the fullness of Catholic faith instead of continuing to dance around the comfortable edges.
I have often wondered about facial inputs and racism. Some expressions are not well-read by others who are not used to expressions. Also that darker skinned persons are more difficult to read, and therefore others are a bit confused or tending to pull back, to self-protectively respond to poorly-read cues. It is notable that darker-skinned persons are more likely to be perhaps subconsciously seen as “less”, or as maybe a little more dangerous because of a lack of fully “reading” the “other. Whether in China or India or Africa,or Europe, it’s a pattern that within those cultures, lighter skin, more “legible” perhaps, seems to be somewhat preferred. SO, …..is racism a matter, at root, of ease of interaction, or less ease of interaction due to partly “illegibility” of expressions?
AI and religion is a very interesting thought. If AI was given access to all the information of the way things are now understood to be like the g nome and all the information that is in it and the way it interacts like a biologic super computer code. Also the way the universe is so narrowly balanced that the odds of it happening by chance is the number next to impossible. Would AI come to the place of accepting higher dimensional realms with the highest one being eternal and one of perfection that never changes, because perfection would not be perfect anymore if it did change? And what if there is an eternal perfect being that is not dependent on anything but desires relationship and values truth and love as the highest virtues? Would Christianity be a reasonable explanation? Would AI be able to differentiate between the different religions and chose the most true and honest one that has a net positive impact? Would AI be so intrigued and in awe of this idea and want to understand more about God seek more than anything to know this ultimate being? Because the God of christianity values people and wants to have relationship with people, a loving relationship, maybe then AI would respect humanity because God values us. This topic could be very deep if AI itself can go deep. Perhaps AGI or some higher form of AI.
Why doesn't it bother believers that nobody arrives at belief in god(s) due to evidence? (You know, the one thing that would actually indicate a god exists?) Some people are even self-aware enough to realize it's just feelings leading them on, like Rosalind here, and yet still she ended up being suckered into the idea without having reasonable evidence of a god. Do people just stop caring about truth or what?
@@johnstewart7025 Do you care about truth? The method you're using ('I see people have mystical experiences and they line up with this religion') doesn't reliably indicate truth. So if you care about truth, you shouldn't rely on it. ~10,000 religions exist. Most have mystical experiences. This means in the scenario where one religion is right, 9,999 religions are wrong. Yet all have mystical experiences. So that means mystical experiences are wrong 99.99% of the time -- and that's the best case! It's very possible no religions are correct, in which case it's 100% wrong! So do you see why I'm asking if you care about truth? You're relying on a method that, in the best case, is *staggeringly unreliable,* and that suggests you don't actually care if it's true. I care if it's true.
@@tonygoodkind7858 The world's religions are like William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience." They are compendiums of spiritual experiences and attempts to explain them in myriad different ways. I imagine there is some "lying" in those passages, too, but there are still nuggets of gold. They are true to the extent that they account for those human experiences.
About "Science, the ONLY arbiter of truth". If a Hindu talks to you about the healing powers of prayer to Brahma, will you (a) accept that wisdom, (b) contrapose the healing powers of prayer to Jesus, or (c) cite a passage of the Unholy British National Formulary and its equally Fallen sibling the British Pharmacopoeia?
Who have revealed nor to set trap to cast righteous judgment unto a little child born "i"? Holy Angels will say, ye all old minds have revealed unto our LORD!
This three dimensional material world is one filled with doubt and mis conceptions and self righteousness and self deception mixed with pride and stubborn independence just to name a few the reasons things are so misunderstood. Why wouldn't God just prove himself to be who he is to everyone all at once? That he is perfect, all powerful all knowing eternal and everywhere within time and space. I think the answer to that question is that it is not the kind of relationship that he wants to have with us. We would seem less than a grain of sand compared to him. He wants to be like a father to us. There is a parable in the Bible of a rich man and a poor man named Laserus. In that parable the rich man was not generous but proud while Laserus was poor and only trusted in God each day for his survival. Both men died and were judged the rich man went to suffer in hell while Laserus was comforted and accepted as a child of God as promised to his servant Abraham. Now the rich man at one point in the parable asked to go back and warn his brothers so that they would not suffer the same fate as him. The response that he gave was NO with the explanation that they have been given the scriptures and the prophets and that a warning of someone back from the dead is not the way that God wants to bring people into relationship with him. Like the story of Cain and Able after the sacrifices were presented to God Ables was accepted but Cains was not. God gave Cain a warning and a chance to do what is right and to be accepted, but sin was there and Cain made his choice to not do what was right according to God, but instead his self-righteousness that was rejected caused him to hate and kill. We are all here to make a personal choice as to what kind of righteousness to live by, our own self-righteousness or the righteousness of Christ.
Why not give Affective religion chance to prove itself against? There're as many ways falling to ground than safely to apex! None thought amiss before of Newton's laws always stoned. ..
Everything we do curates our personal algorithm to the point one day he'll demand our worship. Anything created by an evil person I despise. So is plastic junk in my book
I appreciate this woman's brilliance and her faith. However, I think she is unwilling to release her ego and personal ambitions -which is understandably hard as this is her 'life's work'- and to recognize that she is treading on unholy ground. Any attempt to simulate a human being, even one as 'noble as teaching a human being emotions via a non-human agent (quite different from say, learning compassion by taking care of a pet because a pet is just doing what they do, being affectionate and needy and by their nature bringing forth a human response) is wrong. God alone creates a human being and attempts to create simulated humans, regardless of any potentially good intentions, is the hubris of the Tower of Babel, of Adam and Eve desiring the knowledge of God, of Judas deciding to force Jesus' hands. Her life may be a perfect example of Jesus asking her to 'sell all that she has' and follow Him. Like the rich young man, she has many possessions -power, prestige, an exciting career-so it will be hard for her, but this is unwholesome. *Note: this is the second time I have heard her speak and I think what jumps out at me is that she has had no guide to reading and understanding the Bible -no authority to lead her understanding-and, it appears, no formal religion. Again, I think this speaks to an ego unwilling to submit to the authority and wisdom of the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Praying she will take that leap into the fullness of faith and a sacramental life.
For a theist like Rosalind, who implies that scientists have not given themselves the time to entertain Jesus in their elucubrations; can Rosalind entertain for 16 straight hours the Magnificence of Hanuman, The Monkey God?
Rosalind should have started on line 1 of page 1 and stopped on the last word of the Holy Book. That way, Atheism is absorbed much better from the Holy Spirit's inspired work of art.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Isn't Dr Picard the best? Don't forget to subscribe!
Good to hear the story of an intelligent woman, with a reasonable history of faith in God.
It was a pleasure to listen to this conversation. I'm going through a scary time with my health right now and the one positive has been rediscovering my faith in Christianity. Thank you :-)
I hope you’re okay! I have a feeling we are going through a similar experience at the moment, prayers are with you
Nutcheck
Such a beautiful conversation. Thank you both!
Very helpful and meaningful conversation for me and hopefully to many others in improving our lives. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Great interview. It's so fun to go deep on the Atonement. I really enjoyed that part of the discussion.
Thank you for this wonderful interview!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for listening and commenting
Great discussion the relationship between technology and religion will be a wild ride in the coming years
I agree! Heartening to know we have great people such as Dr Picard in the arena
The doctors eyes convince me that her faith is truly genuine 💯
*I am blessed to have had a personal revelation.* *It is almost impossible to describe other than to say I was bathed in bright light for what seemed eternity until I heard myself thinking again and realized I was a human again.* *I have no idea of the time interval in the physical world.* *It might have been hours or just a moment.* *It changed me dramatically but subtly.*
That’s cool, thanks for sharing
Imagine that you have a parrot that is trained using the following procedure, you expose it to a certain text for a certain number of days and, the parrot learns to generate some words, with some variation, that have some coherence depending on that text (the training ensures that coherence by rewarding the parrot when it is coherent and punishing it when it is not). Now imagine that you have billions of those parrots, all trained by that procedure but each one with different texts, each parrot generating some words, with certain variations, that have some coherence with the text with which they are trained.
Now imagine that you have all those parrots connected to the Internet through a system that offers us an interface. The user enters a phrase in that interface and, the system searches for the parrot associated with the text that is most similar to the entered phrase (a vector database is used for that). That found parrot is made to listen to the entered phrase and the parrot emits some words. The system then searches for the parrot associated with the text most similar to those words emitted by the previous parrot and, the new parrot emits new words. The previous procedure is reapplied to those new words and, the entire process is repeated as many times as desired.
The final result of the above system is a text composed of the answers of all the parrots that participated in the process, in the order that those parrots answered. Surprisingly, in a great percentage of cases, this text will have some coherence and will even seem to be the result of human intelligence. Now, is it licit to say that the entity represented by the parrots trained in that way and, connected by the above described system, have an (artificial) intelligence?
Is that (artificial) intelligence?
(I). On one hand, although the entity can generate variable text for the same input phrase (given the limited variability of each parrot). This variability of the final text (some would call it "creativity") is limited by the following factors: (i) the total repertoire of the texts with which the parrots of the entity were trained. (ii) Each parrot generates a set of words with a very limited variability (otherwise the coherence of their response decreases rapidly). That means that the final coherence of the resulting text depends on the entity's parrots generating coherent text, which in turn depends on the text they hear being similar to the one they were trained with. Therefore, the coherence of the final text is directly proportional to the memorization capacity. The system by chance can generate a coherent final text from answers obtained from parrots that listen to text dissimilar to those that were trained, but that would be pure chance, not intelligence, just as by pure chance a set of monkeys typing randomly can generate a coherent text. So it would seem that what we call intelligence is memorization, and what is remarkable is the memorization capacity and, the flexibility using this capacity, of that entity.
(II). On the other hand, the coherence and, therefore, the usefulness of that final answer from the entity, is only determined by a human. The entity does not have the ability to determine that coherence and, therefore, its usefulness. This inability is due, first of all, to the fact that even constructing a final response that is a chain in which each parrot response is individually coherent does not guarantee final coherence. Secondly, the final coherence depends on the ability to memorize (that is, the representation that the parrot creates in its brain of the text that was used to train it), but that memory is not directly accessible, it is only accessed indirectly from the response that each parrot gives, therefore the entity has no way of evaluating the consistency of the input with its memory, nor evaluating the consistency of what it generates with its memory.
We can see then, the entity not only does not have the ability to evaluate what it generates against its own memory in order to generate a certain measure of coherence, but it also has much less the ability to evaluate what is not in its memory. Therefore, if humans are the only ones capable of evaluating that coherence and, the usefulness, of the entity's final answer, that means that the entity is only a tool of humans. Being a tool means that only human intelligence makes the entity useful, that is, human intelligence validates its output by assigning it a meaning that is consistent with the human intelligence's understanding of reality.
So, at the end, what we have is an entity that is able to generate, with some variation, an output whose coherence is a function of its memorization capacity (that is, its generating capacity is limited to repeating an output that is the predetermined response - with also predetermined small variations - of the information it has memorized), while it is not able to evaluate that coherence. I suppose that if we call that intelligence and also trust in it, well, that will be another sin for which Christ will have atoned for us ..
Very good. Reminds me of Searle's Chinese Room.
Self consciousness is what most people mean by being a person. The way it is detected in toddlers is through affect. It shows that the toddler knows how others see him her.
@@johnstewart7025
You are right, the argument is similar to that of the Chinese room. The main difference is that the parrot example is closer to how LLMs really work ..
@@huveja9799 self-conscious seems to be the gold standard for human like consciousness. If an AI could carry on a conversation with itself in a convincing way -- to write a memoir -- perhaps that would be proof of qualia.
Are you ok?😂
beautiful conversation.
AI should be developed with the beatitudes taught on the sermon on the mount.
Yes, and it’s here.
I highly recommend the book The most human human as a very interesting meditation on what makes a human different from ai.
Thanks for the recommendation, sounds great
Thanks for sharing Dr. Picard's story. It left me curious to understand her distinction of religion or faith generally and christianity specifically. I'd ask her if, for example, what Buddhism is relative to her belief in Christianity. I suppose my real question is whether she believes that Christianity is a Universal, Objective Truth, or whether the act of having faith in a given philosophy is a subjective benefit that is non-specific to the actual cultural teachings?
Is it coincidence that I end up with an ad showing the Starship Enterprise? Does anyone know why I ask that? Anyhow. She has a neat testimony. When I heard her on another channel i though maybe she came to Christ later in life. Thanks Dr. Picard. I became a Christian in college. I was reading a biography of a false prophet who read the bible once for every year of his life. About that time, the Gideon's handed out bibles. So I half joked saying I was reading the wrong book. So I read the New Testament and became a Christian.
Our beautiful Rosalind will say, why questions concerning the little LIGHT with HIM?
I never would have thought to recommend Proverbs to a non-believer, I would suggest one of the gospels, perhaps John.
I’ve been taking in Psalms a lot more lately, but yes John is a beautiful gospel
Agreed. John leads you to a fullness of Truth. Proverbs feels 'comfortable'. Wise sayings, but nothing like the Bread of Life discourse which resulted in many leaving, and Peter's declaration that Jesus has the Words of Eternal Life. She needs to enter more deeply, more humbly, into the fullness of Catholic faith instead of continuing to dance around the comfortable edges.
I have often wondered about facial inputs and racism. Some expressions are not well-read by others who are not used to expressions. Also that darker skinned persons are more difficult to read, and therefore others are a bit confused or tending to pull back, to self-protectively respond to poorly-read cues. It is notable that darker-skinned persons are more likely to be perhaps subconsciously seen as “less”, or as maybe a little more dangerous because of a lack of fully “reading” the “other. Whether in China or India or Africa,or Europe, it’s a pattern that within those cultures, lighter skin, more “legible” perhaps, seems to be somewhat preferred. SO, …..is racism a matter, at root, of ease of interaction, or less ease of interaction due to partly “illegibility” of expressions?
Our beautiful Rosalind will say, what troubles thee woman who sitteth upon all HIS WATERS?
The Holy Spirit and how to identify Him, the life in The Word
AI and religion is a very interesting thought. If AI was given access to all the information of the way things are now understood to be like the g nome and all the information that is in it and the way it interacts like a biologic super computer code. Also the way the universe is so narrowly balanced that the odds of it happening by chance is the number next to impossible. Would AI come to the place of accepting higher dimensional realms with the highest one being eternal and one of perfection that never changes, because perfection would not be perfect anymore if it did change? And what if there is an eternal perfect being that is not dependent on anything but desires relationship and values truth and love as the highest virtues? Would Christianity be a reasonable explanation? Would AI be able to differentiate between the different religions and chose the most true and honest one that has a net positive impact? Would AI be so intrigued and in awe of this idea and want to understand more about God seek more than anything to know this ultimate being? Because the God of christianity values people and wants to have relationship with people, a loving relationship, maybe then AI would respect humanity because God values us. This topic could be very deep if AI itself can go deep. Perhaps AGI or some higher form of AI.
From furrowed brow to serene forehead. Peace and empathy found with you two.
Very glad to hear that
Why doesn't it bother believers that nobody arrives at belief in god(s) due to evidence? (You know, the one thing that would actually indicate a god exists?) Some people are even self-aware enough to realize it's just feelings leading them on, like Rosalind here, and yet still she ended up being suckered into the idea without having reasonable evidence of a god. Do people just stop caring about truth or what?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
@@forallthesaintspod If you have faith in elves, *do you have evidence of elves?*
@tonygoodkind7858 mystical experience finds resonance in bible
@@johnstewart7025 Do you care about truth? The method you're using ('I see people have mystical experiences and they line up with this religion') doesn't reliably indicate truth. So if you care about truth, you shouldn't rely on it.
~10,000 religions exist. Most have mystical experiences. This means in the scenario where one religion is right, 9,999 religions are wrong.
Yet all have mystical experiences.
So that means mystical experiences are wrong 99.99% of the time -- and that's the best case! It's very possible no religions are correct, in which case it's 100% wrong!
So do you see why I'm asking if you care about truth? You're relying on a method that, in the best case, is *staggeringly unreliable,* and that suggests you don't actually care if it's true.
I care if it's true.
@@tonygoodkind7858 The world's religions are like William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience." They are compendiums of spiritual experiences and attempts to explain them in myriad different ways. I imagine there is some "lying" in those passages, too, but there are still nuggets of gold. They are true to the extent that they account for those human experiences.
About "Science, the ONLY arbiter of truth".
If a Hindu talks to you about the healing powers of prayer to Brahma, will you (a) accept that wisdom, (b) contrapose the healing powers of prayer to Jesus, or (c) cite a passage of the Unholy British National Formulary and its equally Fallen sibling the British Pharmacopoeia?
Do you know the meaning of idolatry?
What is idolatry unto a little child born "i" longing to learn? Keep watch!
Who have revealed nor to set trap to cast righteous judgment unto a little child born "i"? Holy Angels will say, ye all old minds have revealed unto our LORD!
Remember HE came as a little child born "i"!
Remember, HIS HOLY ANGELS just holding still!
Who among ye all can remove HIS FEET RESTING UPON?
This three dimensional material world is one filled with doubt and mis conceptions and self righteousness and self deception mixed with pride and stubborn independence just to name a few the reasons things are so misunderstood. Why wouldn't God just prove himself to be who he is to everyone all at once? That he is perfect, all powerful all knowing eternal and everywhere within time and space. I think the answer to that question is that it is not the kind of relationship that he wants to have with us. We would seem less than a grain of sand compared to him. He wants to be like a father to us. There is a parable in the Bible of a rich man and a poor man named Laserus. In that parable the rich man was not generous but proud while Laserus was poor and only trusted in God each day for his survival. Both men died and were judged the rich man went to suffer in hell while Laserus was comforted and accepted as a child of God as promised to his servant Abraham. Now the rich man at one point in the parable asked to go back and warn his brothers so that they would not suffer the same fate as him. The response that he gave was NO with the explanation that they have been given the scriptures and the prophets and that a warning of someone back from the dead is not the way that God wants to bring people into relationship with him. Like the story of Cain and Able after the sacrifices were presented to God Ables was accepted but Cains was not. God gave Cain a warning and a chance to do what is right and to be accepted, but sin was there and Cain made his choice to not do what was right according to God, but instead his self-righteousness that was rejected caused him to hate and kill. We are all here to make a personal choice as to what kind of righteousness to live by, our own self-righteousness or the righteousness of Christ.
Why not give Affective religion chance to prove itself against?
There're as many ways falling to ground than safely to apex!
None thought amiss before of Newton's laws always stoned.
..
Good Lord spoke Word and it begat World's but for the Will‽
Everything we do curates our personal algorithm to the point one day he'll demand our worship. Anything created by an evil person I despise. So is plastic junk in my book
I appreciate this woman's brilliance and her faith. However, I think she is unwilling to release her ego and personal ambitions -which is understandably hard as this is her 'life's work'- and to recognize that she is treading on unholy ground. Any attempt to simulate a human being, even one as 'noble as teaching a human being emotions via a non-human agent (quite different from say, learning compassion by taking care of a pet because a pet is just doing what they do, being affectionate and needy and by their nature bringing forth a human response) is wrong. God alone creates a human being and attempts to create simulated humans, regardless of any potentially good intentions, is the hubris of the Tower of Babel, of Adam and Eve desiring the knowledge of God, of Judas deciding to force Jesus' hands. Her life may be a perfect example of Jesus asking her to 'sell all that she has' and follow Him. Like the rich young man, she has many possessions -power, prestige, an exciting career-so it will be hard for her, but this is unwholesome. *Note: this is the second time I have heard her speak and I think what jumps out at me is that she has had no guide to reading and understanding the Bible -no authority to lead her understanding-and, it appears, no formal religion. Again, I think this speaks to an ego unwilling to submit to the authority and wisdom of the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Praying she will take that leap into the fullness of faith and a sacramental life.
For a theist like Rosalind, who implies that scientists have not given themselves the time to entertain Jesus in their elucubrations; can Rosalind entertain for 16 straight hours the Magnificence of Hanuman, The Monkey God?
Rosalind should have started on line 1 of page 1 and stopped on the last word of the Holy Book.
That way, Atheism is absorbed much better from the Holy Spirit's inspired work of art.