• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Thomas Fusco Show - April 15, 2012

Free episodes:

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Take two!

So what did you guys think about this episode. I'm not a fan of tying theology and religion, and scientists do actually have a theory about the big bang - it isn't a miracle.

Also - Sheldon Cooper is not an actual physicist. I don't think Mr. Fusco caught that one :)
 
Good questions, Angelo. I've searched and haven't really found any formal credentials for Mr. Fusco. I did enjoy the show on many levels. I know I've said it before, but one thing that I listen to The Paracast for is just listening to Gene and Chris host the show, respond, counter, use humor (always appropriately), agree/disagree, and so on, the give and take, the listening and leading the guest to reveal, etc. Fascinating. I do agree with what you're implying, though. I happen to think that formal credentials in really weighty subjects, religion, science, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc. do count, they do signify a degree of following a prescribed course of study to attain degrees, and so on, and makes the recipient aware of peer review, that they're a member of a club that will come down hard.

For me, and Mr. Fusco, I cannot do otherwise than tie theology/religion and science, but I think Chris did actually have a good point about the Big Bang. And miracle? Even C.S. Lewis, in his book, Miracles, and I know he was an apologist, make a point to point out that a miracle does not/should not defy the laws of science.

May I suggest some actual physicists/scientists with degrees?

Bernard Haisch, author of the The God Theory and The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God. Very good books, and Haisch is careful in what he postulates, but has some intriguing conclusions. He also has appeared in a few podcasts.

Wow, and indeed: John Polkinghorne, a mathematical physicist AND Anglican priest. He's written a number of books, all of which I've read, that address God and science.

Rick Strassman, the M.D. psychiatrist (they're all M.D., but wanted to point out the degree), who conducted rigorous, government-approved studies of DMT, which we've all heard of. I've read his The Spirit Molecule, and just fascinating. Point being, that he carefully brings his conclusions into the realm of Judaism.

And we can't, really, forget a favorite, too, of mine: the renowned Frank Tipler, a mathematical physicist. I think he's still at Tulane. He wrote, and I'm sure you've read it, The Physics of Immortality, which incited a lot of controversy on both sides, but fascinating. And, I hesitate to bring up, and will only allude to, another book he wrote, that is just well, WOW. But it isn't for the faint of heart. And you have actually got to read it to give it a fair shake. It's entitled The Physics of ............................. I tread lightly on that one! Kim

Anyway, I could go on. Good questions, Angelo, and I enjoyed the show. Kim
 
I did suggest physicists with degrees too though. Brian Greene and Neil Degrasse Tyson are probably two of most distinguished out there.
Bernard Haisch was on the show a while back and sadly, his theories are lacking in scientific theory and lean more towards the theological.
 
his theories are lacking in scientific theory and lean more towards the theological.

I didn't find that to be the case at all with Haisch. What part of his thoughts do you find "lacking" Angel? I don't mean his opinion I'm talking more about when he discusses science? for some reason when a scientist declares "we know a god didn't" fill in the blank he is still being "scientific" but when a scientist says "well, it looks like it has a purpose" he is being theological. Things that make me go hmmmm. ;)
 
Truly true. ;) But, I think Mr. Haich has solid scientific credentials and I think it's interesting when people like that think outside the box. :cool:
 
A god is not falsifiable.

I'm of the opinion that before someone uses the word "God" (capitalized or not) in a discussion they should define the term and state where the information in the definition came from.

For example: God is thus and such. I get this from some source. Where thus and such and some source are supplied by the speaker.

I'm always confused when people want to drop the term or name (it isn't a name though) and then assume everyone knows what they are referring to without supplying any further information.

Mankind has worshiped over 3000 gods and goddesses throughout time. While many of these concepts are similar, most are not and contain their own creation stories, cosmologies, and so forth. Are they referring to a specific character or some nebulous concept they themselves don't understand well enough to articulate yet expect others to accept and discuss as a matter of course?

Am I being unreasonable? He's being purposely thick you're saying, everyone knows who God is, what God is after all. Do they? Is that why the world is the way it is? But I digress.
 
When I say god, lower case, I mean all gods in the supernatural sense of the term. None are falsifiable.

In this case you would be referring to:

a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. See Websters.

This includes all supernatural beings claiming the title or description with no exceptions. Your source is your understanding of Mythology and Religion through some class work of some kind. I assume this from my knowledge of your background. I have some idea of what you mean when you say, god. You have no burden to define it much beyond that given your lack of any claim concerning the subject. I mean to say, you aren't making claims about god beyond you can't come up with a falsifiable hypothesis concerning the concept.

I'm hope I'm not coming across the wrong way. I'm coming from decades of worshiping something I neither understood or could reasonably articulate. Neither could anyone else that I have ever met. To me, this became a very significant question, "what do you mean when you say god?" rendering the debate or discussion about someone's personal god almost moot. I'm not angry and I'm not out to hurt anyone's feelings. It's just an important point in my view of any discussion involving god, gods, or goddesses.

The God that Mr. Fusco seems to be talking about is something like a living universe, however I don't get this is a "god" that requires worship. Is that what everyone else got?
 
Yes, trained, I think that's a good question. One thing that makes me angry, actually, are people who presume to know the nature of God to the extent that they judge others horrifically. For instance, God hates homosexuality, so homosexuals are sinners, and poor people, they're sinners, but I love THEM but I hate their sin, and on and on. True, you can read the Old Testament and find laws in, for instance, Leviticus, that proscribe and prohibit all sorts of arcane stuff we find silly today. But the Jews of the time were codifying laws that, I think justifiably, were for the protection of the Jews, nothing to be criticized. Things were different in those days, and I don't hold it against the Jews with all these esoteric strictures that we can, purportedly, laugh at. Those laws made for the cohesiveness of a society in sometimes precarious situations. Did GOD really spell out these laws specifically? Well, that's for the Jews of that time to have considered, and who am I to judge those times. I've never claimed that every word in the Bible is specifically from the mouth of God. Did the Jews hear God? I think they did.

But, for me, God is so vast, so huge, so infinite, so, well I don't know what to say, there are no words. I may be cheating on your question, trained, but for me, God is, literally, UNKNOWABLE. I may, and do, scream at God for the misfortunes in my life, but do I doubt that he exists? No. And, yes, we can say, well, if there's a benevolent and loving God, why is there so much cruelty and evil in the world? But that gets into some pretty deep theology, and that whole thing of free will.

We can have only a taste of what the vastness of the universe is, that distance that can't be measured. I mean, can you imagine voyaging out and passing by some of those nebulae? I mean, for me, I will never get that chance, but something tells me if I was taken on a ride and flew by other planets and stars and swirling clouds of colorful gasses, I would start crying, and I would almost dissolve in what I'd call the most abject fear. Not horror, but the respectful fear of God, the immensity that I can't even begin to conceive.

But I do think God did start it all. What the plan is, what the purpose is, I don't know. I also think he communicates with people. With me? Well, I don't think so in a earthshaking way, and I get a bit angry with people, as stated above, who claim they talk with God all the time. I don't think God is to be toyed with in that way, I do believe he is loving, benevolent. I don't believe in the, who were they called, the theists, who say he wound the clock and it's just running now on its own. I believe he is all those omni-things, omnipresent, etc. But to presume that I know much at all about him is hubris. At the same time, I think he's accessible, wants to be so, but I get pretty angry with him a lot.

But I think, in some human ways, we can and are deciphering the science behind it all. And I don't think at all there's a war between science and religion. In fact, I think God respects our efforts and intelligence. That's where I think we really err when we're always saying that aliens would be to us as we are to the ants. I think that diminishes the wonders of ants, and of ourselves. If you want a real wow experience, at least I thought it was for me, get Stephen Hawking's book, he's the editor of it, entitled On the Shoulders of Giants. In it you can read, in English translation, of course, many of the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, I think, and a bunch of others. You can read their actual words, see the actual pictures and diagrams they drew, and see their ACTUAL mathematical equations about all sorts of things gravity, orbital, mechanical, etc. Wow. And I think many people are very, very intelligent, and I think we underestimate man's achievements and intelligence all through the ages. Kim
 
But, for me, God is so vast, so huge, so infinite, so, well I don't know what to say, there are no words. I may be cheating on your question, trained, but for me, God is, literally, UNKNOWABLE.

Then would you not agree that arguing for the dominance of one god concept over another is pointless if it is unknowable? If it is unknowable and undefinable then it isn't anything that can be discussed. Contemplating the incomprehensible isn't always valueless but it is particularly problematic when one's values are dictated by it.

I don't think Fusco is talking about the same "God" that either you or Angelo are. Would you agree?
 
I don't think the argument is over which god is the right one. I think there is just one, and yes, that's where I think the Jews had an idea when THEIR god was one god and insisted on such. They weren't the first ones to come up with monotheism, but they certainly codified it and made it a stalwart part of themselves. Men have worshipped gods and spirits in trees, rocks, animals, as people like themselves (Greeks and Romans and their whole pantheon), and so on and on. I don't think it's a contest, I just think Cro-Magnon worshipped/thought about/conceived of, whatever the same god as the Jews. There's only one God in my opinion, and I think the Jews did create something special in that sense. Additionally, the Jews' god insisted on some sort of morality, and to me that's a key thing. Yes, the Greeks had their gods embody certain virtues and non-virtues, but they were an unruly bunch on Olympus. I'm not being anti-pagan here, gosh, I mean that. I'm just saying the Jews had a god who darn well told them to do this and do that to and for each other. Now, yes, the Old Testament has God tell Joshua in the most horrific language what to do to Jericho. But that's not god, that's the Jews, who had a heck of a time with their neighbors and there was a rough row to hoe there in Canaan. They were a people, and they had their stories to keep them together. But the thread of morality runs through the Old Testament, and if the Jews had a god that protected them, they also had a god who raised heck with them also if they strayed from this basic morality. I do think that's an evolution in religion/theology.

What is this morality I claim is a characteristic of God? I will type some of what C.S. Lewis wrote. Yes, Lewis was an apologist for Christianity, in the sense of the word apologist, not apology, but an explainer of something that dragged him kicking and screaming to it. Yes, I know, Lewis is the darling of the very, very conservative spectrum of Christianity, but he wrote a lot that was not Narnia. His so-called space trilogy beginning with Out of the Silent Planet is very much adult.

You can probably find this whole passage on the internet. I'm just typing it from his book Mere Christianity, and NO, I'm keeping to the topic of this thread, God. My definition of God, of the Jews, is UNKNOWABLE. But he did set down a basic morality. Here's Lewis.

"Every one has heard people quarelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say.........'How'd you like it if anyone did the same you?' 'That's my seat, I was there first.' Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm.' Why should you shove in first?' 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine.' Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups."

"Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have.".................................................

"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities."

"But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference..................."

"It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong...................................."

"For example, some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?'...................................But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not."

Anyway, enough. You can find this probably online somewhere or of course, the book. My points in defining what is god are: 1. All gods are one. 2. The Jews did take it a step farther, I think, in so assiduously and insistingly codifying a god who insisted on certain behavior. 3. There is a moral law that transcends all, that is natural to us, though we may hem and haw and argue over the whys and wherefores, but on which we more than just essentially agree. That, to me, is God, partially defined from my perspective and opinion. And I don't think human beings are so, as I said in my previous post, so degraded, so like ants to some advanced aliens, that humans were/are not worth the notice of God. The vast laws in the universe he created, and which some well respected scientists attribute to him, are another huge thing which is awesome in the most literal meaning of that word to me. I just think God can be defined, but all this is my opinion, and I know only too well how weakly I've tried to do it, and probably have not been successful. Kim
 
I'm not sure Fusco's model qualifies as a falsifiable scientific theory. That happens when the math is done. But I think he puts forward some viewpoints worth pondering. Characterizing gravity as virtually paranormal may not be as radical as would first appear. Gravity remains almost as mysterious today as it was to Isaac Newton. Einstein managed to shed a bit more light on its interaction with our universe but was pretty well stymied by gravity at the sub atomic level.

Not sure how Fusco gets from gravity to traditional concepts of god. But I have also not read his book and will probably give this one a second listening. His notion of the ufo phenomenon as an intelligence that has mastered the physics of the paranormal (and especially gravity) is not new, but he presents it from an interesting angle.
 
My definition of God, of the Jews, is UNKNOWABLE. But he did set down a basic morality.


I have to say Kim, it doesn't follow that something is unknowable yet makes its desires known. That is nonsensical to me.

Here's Lewis. ... You can find this probably online somewhere or of course, the book.

Yes, I read my Lewis some 30 years ago. There may be even some left on the shelves around here somewhere.

I would put to you that there is a standard of behavior dictated by a natural empathy for our fellow human beings and another established through education. Neither require or show any evidence of any extra-human input in the past that I can see.

My points in defining what is god are: 1. All gods are one.

Isn't that a tad bit tautological and therefore meaningless?

2. The Jews did take it a step farther, I think, in so assiduously and insistingly codifying a god who insisted on certain behavior. 3. There is a moral law that transcends all, that is natural to us, though we may hem and haw and argue over the whys and wherefores, but on which we more than just essentially agree. That, to me, is God, partially defined from my perspective and opinion...

These are things being said about something (a god) this is yet undefined which deal largely with this undefined thing's desires about how human beings should behave. Can you blame anyone for being atheistic about this thing as you have defined it? More importantly how can we expect people to entertain, let alone hold themselves or others accountable to concepts that cannot be effectively communicated? How can meaningful conversation even be engaged in when the subject cannot be properly defined or communicated?

Whatever it is you mean, I think it is safe to say that it is something entirely different that what Fusco or Angelo mean when they use the word. Would you not agree?

And yes, the question isn't "Which is the right one?", the question is "What are these things that are being spoken of?"
 
Can you blame anyone for being atheistic about this thing as you have defined it?

I can't blame anyone for being atheistic period. I'm just not! As for God, I guess I look at it in different ways. first, is that from what I have observed in my lifetime, everything in nature has meaning. I can go back and look at myself and my genes and traits that have been passed from ancestor to ancestor as far back as you can go. Now, if somebody looks at that and says "Well, I think that is all natural" I don't have a problem with that. Meaning is natural. What we call paranormal and even what we call "laws" of science is simply the meaning we give something at the time. Will it change? No, but our understanding of it might. Therefore the limits we put on it may or may not be true. Let me tell you a story. Southerners are good with stories. This is a true story. Some here (Trained, since I know you had a similar religious background) can relate to some of this I'm sure:

When I was very young I was in a very fundamentalist Southern Baptist Church. The preacher had a sermon on blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Now, I was indeed a impressionable child. So, the minute he said that you could never be forgiven I was instantly under attack in my mind. Actual demons? Psychological? Didn't really matter to my young mind. Anyway, I went out back once I got home and I prayed. I prayed devoutly and I remember a sense of presence. I got a mental picture of a room and a couch or chair. I remember the thoughts that came into my head. "Be calm" "I'm not a fortune teller" "I'm not outside looking in" "I know your heart and your thoughts." "when they come just set back and I will answer the door." "After all, it's me they are talking about, not you." All I can tell you is from that moment to this 55th year of my time on earth I am sane (relative term) ;) I am in the presence of the one who knows me and knows me from all time and not as a fortune teller or somebody outside me. Hard to describe, maybe impossible. But, when I approach that presence I know that I am known. It's not a get out of jail card for free. I have had and continue to have tribulations and problems and at times I honestly doubt any of it is real. But, when I get quiet I know that it is. Now can you put it down to simple psychological defense mechanisms? Sure, but you would be wrong. But, that's OK with me. When I have lost family or friends I have been able to approach that presence. I will be ready on my last day to approach that presence. Now does that explain God or prove it? NO, but it at least gives you some idea of where I'm coming from. Or at least I hope it does. Now, one more story.
I am a fan of the Larry David "Curb your Enthusiasm" show. Funny stuff. No friend of religion is Larry David. Not even Judaism. But, an older comic actor played his father in the first few seasons of the show. Once in a behind the scenes interview he was talking about personal life and experience. I'm sorry, I don't know his name but you could google it I'm sure. Anyway, he talked about a Jewish service he was attending. He said (bad paraphrase coming) "We were dancing and singing and praying and all of a sudden" "It came" I don't know what it was. I don't know how to describe it. (he gets tears in his eyes at this point) But, it came!

This reminded me of the best of worship and seeking and simply being. This has no name and no denomination and no religion. this is and was and will always be part of being human. So, proof? No. Can you rationalize it all away? Of course! But, I know when it came and I know when I am in the presence. Saint? Not me! But, I offer this to you only for your perusal. Not for any other reason. I don't think you have to understand it or accept it. It's just a small part of my experience and a small confirmation from another "faith."

Steve
 
Very nice show. Some food for thought there. I think Mr Fusco is asking the questions scientists just won't ask if they don't want to be driven to the fringe. Like he said "it's bad for business". I sure hope we get to hear from more people of his caliber. Scientifical thinking but not reluctant to look into things like UFOs and hauntings. The right stuff IMO.
 
I very much appreciated hearing Thomas Fusco and found his points of view refreshing. I particularly would love to hear follow-up on whether or not some of his theories will be put to the tests that he claims could withstand scrutiny. Chris, you seemed very interested in this so please keep us posted!
 
Back
Top