The Christian Foundation of Modern Science - DR. SARAH SALVIANDER (Link to website for slide show.)

Christianity is not only compatible with science, but was a major factor in the rise of modern science.

1. 1. THE CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION OF MODERN SCIENCE DR. SARAH SALVIANDER Defending Christianity October, 2017
2. 2. Evolution is a fact! It’s a fact the way gravity is a fact! Arguing with atheists about science…
3. 3. Fact: g = 9.8 m/s2 Which theory explains it? It’s a fact the way gravity is a fact!
4. 4. Newtonian gravity General relativity
5. 5. Aristotelian theory of gravity Le Sage's theory of gravitation Ritz's theory of gravitation Nordström's theory of gravitation Kaluza Klein theory Whitehead's theory of gravitation Brans–Dicke theory of gravity Induced gravity ƒ(R) gravity Horndeski theory Supergravity String theory Modified Newtonian dynamics Self-creation cosmology theory of gravity Loop quantum gravity Nonsymmetric gravitational theory Conformal gravity Tensor–vector–scalar gravity Gravity as an entropic force Superfluid vacuum theory of gravity Chameleon theory Pressuron theory
6. 6. ” “ WHAT IS SCIENCE? Henri Poincaré, mathematician and physicist Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.
7. 7. WHAT IS SCIENCE? Not just a collection of facts Not just explanations A system of knowledge held together by a way of thinking That way of thinking is the philosophy of science
8. 8. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE o is the search for truth about the material universe o follows the scientific method o follows all of the evidence o is based on faith in natural laws Everything else is elaboration and details.
9. 9. THE POWER OF SCIENCE
10. 10. THE POWER OF SCIENCE
11. 11. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible… Vic Stenger, physicist
12. 12. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? As the centuries go by religion has less and less room to exist and perform its obscurantist interference with the search for truth. Richard Dawkins, biologist
13. 13. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. …the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. Sam Harris, neuroscientist
14. 14. ORIGIN OF MODERN SCIENCE It is indisputable that modern science emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe and nowhere else. “ ”Edward Grant, historian
15. 15. MODERN SCIENCE EMERGED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE Not in spite of Christian faith... ...because of it.
16. 16. BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE WHEN WHO WHAT DAWN OF MAN Everyone Rudimentary technology, astronomy 3rd MILLENIUM BC Predynastic Egyptians Math (numerals, calculations) … Indians Math 2nd MILLENIUM BC Mesopotamians Math, astronomy Ancient Egyptians Empiricism 7th CENTURY BC Pre-Socratic Greeks Thales, “father of science” … Indians Brahmagupta, concept of zero 5/6th CENTURY BC Indians Trigonometry, algebra
17. 17. BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE WHEN WHO WHAT … Ancient Greeks Pythagorus, atomism, astronomy 4th CENTURY BC Classical Greeks Plato, Aristotle, deductive reasoning, empiricism, pre-physics, cosmology
18. 18. BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE 4th CENTURY BC Classical Greeks Plato, Aristotle, deductive reasoning, empiricism, pre-physics, cosmology Laid the foundation for modern science: o Deductive reasoning o Observation and induction Explosion in pre-scientific advances o Anatomy o Astronomy o Botany o Mathematics o Zoology
19. 19. BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE WHEN WHO WHAT … Ancient Greeks Pythagorus, atomism, astronomy 4th CENTURY BC Classical Greeks Plato, Aristotle, deductive reasoning, empiricism, pre-physics, cosmology 4th CENTURY BC+ Chinese Astronomy 3rd/4th CENTURY BC Hellenistic Greeks Euclid, Archimedes 3rd CENTURY BC Hellenistic Greeks Aristarchus, heliocentrism (rejected) ?-1st CENTURY BC Chinese Decimals, negative and fractional 2nd CENTURY BC ROME CONQUERS GREECE
20. 20. BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE WHEN WHO WHAT 2nd CENTURY Greco-Egyptian Ptolemy, consolidated geocentric cosmology 3rd – 9th CENTURY Greeks Astronomy, algebra, medicine, anatomy (Platonic) Arabs Medicine, mathematics, astronomy, alchemy (Aristotelian) 10th CENTURY Persians/Arabs Optics 11th CENTURY Arabs Optics, medicine Everyone Supernova 1054 observation Chinese Geomorphology 12th CENTURY Arabs Gravitation, precursors to Newton’s laws, mechanics
21. 21. BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE WHEN WHO WHAT 13th CENTURY Western Europeans Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, the scientific method Establishment of universities, paper mills 14th CENTURY Western Europeans Occam’s Razor, Oxford Calculators, mechanics, refraction 15th CENTURY Western Europeans Spring-driven clocks Movable type, Gutenberg Bible 16th CENTURY Western Europeans Copernicus, Brahe 17th CENTURY Western Europeans SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
22. 22. ARISTOTLE AND THE CHURCH o Early Church fathers like Augustine were influenced by Plato o Aristotelian philosophy came from Christians in the Middle East ~12th century o Scholasticism o Thomas Aquinas most influential promoter of Aristotelianism in the Church
23. 23. PLATO VS. ARISTOTLE PLATO o Mystic o Inductive reasoning o Spiritual more real than physical o Senses are unreliable for perceiving truth o Perfect forms; crude copies o Form is static o Math is highest form of thinking o Minimal scientific contribution ARISTOTLE o Logician o Deductive reasoning o Authenticity of everyday world o Senses are necessary to perceive truth o Objects are form + matter o Change is inevitable o Separated math and science o Highly influential in science
24. 24. MEDIEVAL PRE-SCIENCE AND MATH o Aristotle and the Church o Neo-Platonic crisis CHRISTIANITY SCIENCE Logic, realism Mathematics
25. 25. Greeks Romans 1200 AD Scientific Revolution Industrial Revolution Modern Civilization 400 BC 500 AD 1620 AD 1760 AD 1900 AD Medieval Europe COMPLEXITY à SCIENCE?
26. 26. COMPLEXITY à SCIENCE? Human need to understand our place in the world More complex societies need greater depth of understanding Does complexity necessarily lead to science?
27. 27. WHY DIDN’T OTHERS CULTURES INVENT SCIENCE? Some were insufficiently advanced. However… Greeks o Philosophically advanced o Didn’t invent science Babylonians, Romans, Chinese o Technologically advanced o Didn’t invent science Arabs o Intellectually advanced o Didn’t invent science
28. 28. WHY DIDN’T OTHERS CULTURES INVENT SCIENCE? Science is the study of nature, and the possibility of science depends on your attitude toward nature
29. 29. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is not real Pantheism and idealism: o Individuality and separateness are an illusion o Everything is an appearance of some absolute “One”
30. 30. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is real o God made everything o The world and everything in it is real o They can be studied philosophically and experimentally
31. 31. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is denigrated o Material world associated with evil o The material is denigrated o Slaves did all the labor while the upper classes pursued “higher things” à Major reason Greeks did not invent science
32. 32. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is good o “And God saw that it was good” o Church defended a high view of the material world as God’s creation o Respect for craftsmen o Dignity in work, including scientific work
33. 33. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is good “I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.” Kepler’s spontaneous notebook prayer
34. 34. ” “ SCIENCE AS TRUE WORSHIP …[Newton’s intensity was] a measure of his devotion to God. For Newton, “To be constantly engaged in studying and probing into God’s actions was true worship.” This idea defined the seventeenth- century scientist, and in many cases, the scientists doubled as theologians. Mitch Stokes, Isaac Newton
35. 35. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is deified Pantheism and idealism: o Nature is the abode of gods or emanation of God’s own essence o Pagan man “lives in an enchanted forest” alive with spirits, sprites, and demons; focus is on appeasing or warding them off o Nature is sacred
36. 36. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is a creation o Nature is good, but not a god o It is merely a creation, not a deity o De-deification of nature was a crucial step toward science
37. 37. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is arbitrary Paganism: o A multitude of immanent gods who are personifications of natural phenomena o Arbitrary and capricious
38. 38. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is ordered o Nature was created by God o God is trustworthy o Creation is regular, ordered, dependable
39. 39. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is alive Paganism: o Nature is alive and operates through mysterious forces
40. 40. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is ordered o The world is the creation of a Law-Giver o It is governed by laws; God is the “legislator” of natural laws
41. 41. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is crude Greek paganism: o The world was structured by a lesser god who struggled against stubborn matter o Material world is rough, imperfect copy of Forms and Ideas o Mathematics is in the realm of the divine, separate from the material world
42. 42. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is precise o God is sovereign o The universe is precisely what God intends it to be Kepler’s stubborn refusal to ignore a discrepancy à Kepler’s laws
43. 43. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is inscrutable Paganism: o If there is any order in nature, it was not ordained by a rational being o It is inscrutable by human minds
44. 44. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is knowable o Science arose from the leap of faith that the universe is ordered by God and knowable by rational minds o Faith comes from the belief that humans are made in the image of God o Humans are endowed with the gift of reason
45. 45. Science is different to all the other systems of thought… because you don’t need faith in it. You can check that it works. Brian Cox, physicist SCIENCE DEVOID OF FAITH?
46. 46. Science is different to all the other systems of thought… because you don’t need faith in it. You can check that it works. Brian Cox, physicist SCIENCE DEVOID OF FAITH?
47. 47. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature need not be tested Aristotelianism: o Once an object’s purpose has been determined, we can deduce everything else we need to know about it o No need to test o Inspired by geometry
48. 48. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature must be tested o Voluntarism vs. scholasticism o God’s freedom to impose his will in the world o God could have created any sort of world o Inspired experimentation o God is not constrained by Forms, but by his own nature
49. 49. NON-CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature must be conformed to Animism and pantheism: o The divine is immanent o Humans should try to know nature only to conform and adapt to it
50. 50. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS Nature is for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind o We are made in God’s image o Our kinship is with God, not nature o We are free to manipulate God’s creation intellectually and with experimentation o 17th century Protestant ideal: studying nature was a duty imposed by God
51. 51. CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTIONS AND IDEALS o Nature is real o Nature is good o Nature is a creation o Nature is orderly o Nature is lawful o Nature is precise / mathematical o Nature is knowable o Nature must be tested o Nature is for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind o Time is linear
52. 52. MEDIEVAL PRE-SCIENCE AND MATH o Aristotle and the Church o Neo-Platonic crisis CHRISTIANITY SCIENCE Logic, realism Mathematics
53. 53. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. Sam Harris, neuroscientist
54. 54. John Philoponus Bede the Venerable Rabanus Maurus Leo the Mathematician Hunayn ibn Ishaq Pope Sylvester II Hermann of Reichenau Hugh of Saint Victor William of Conches Hildegard of Bingen Robert Grosseteste Pope John XXI Albertus Magnus Roger Bacon Theodoric of Freiberg Thomas Bradwardine William of Ockham Jean Buridan Nicephorus Gregoras Nicole Oresme Nicholas of Cusa Otto Brunfels Nicolaus Copernicus Michael Servetus Michael Stifel William Turner Ignazio Danti Bartholomaeus Pitiscus John Napier Johannes Kepler Galileo Galilei Laurentius Gothus Marin Mersenne René Descartes Pierre Gassendi Anton Maria of Rheita Blaise Pascal Isaac Barrow Juan Lobkowitz Seth Ward Robert Boyle John Wallis John Ray Gottfried Leibniz Isaac Newton Colin Maclaurin Stephen Hales Thomas Bayes Firmin Abauzit Emanuel Swedenborg Carolus Linnaeus Leonhard Euler Maria Gaetana Agnesi Joseph Priestley Isaac Milner Samuel Vince
55. 55. Linthus Gregory Bernhard Bolzano William Buckland Agustin-Louis Cauchy Lars Levi Laestadius George Boole Edward Hitchcock William Whewell Michael Faraday Charles Babbage Adam Sedgwick Temple Chevallier John Bachman Robert Main James Clerk Maxwell Andrew Pritchard Arnold Henry Guyot Gregor Mendel Philip Henry Gosse Asa Gray Francesco Faà di Bruno Julian Tenison Woods James Prescott Joule Heinrich Hertz James Dwight Dana Louis Pasteur George Jackson Mivart Armand David George Stokes George Salmon Henry Baker Tristram Lord Kelvin Pierre Duhem Georg Cantor Henrietta Swan Leavitt Dmitri Egorov Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin Pavel Florensky Agnes Giberne J. J. Thomson John Ambrose Fleming Max Planck Edward Arthur Milne Robert Millikan Charles Stine E. T. Whittaker Arthur Compton Ronald Fisher Georges Lemaître Otto Hahn David Lack Charles Coulson George R. Price Theodosius Dobzhansky Werner Heisenberg
56. 56. Michael Polanyi Henry Eyring Sewall Wright William G. Pollard Aldert van der Ziel Mary Celine Fasenmyer John Eccles Carlos Chagas Filho Sir Robert Boyd Richard Smalley Mariano Artigas Arthur Peacocke C. F. von Weizsäcker Stanley Jaki Allan Sandage Charles Hard Townes Ian Barbour Freeman Dyson Richard H. Bube Antonino Zichichi John Polkinghorne Owen Gingerich John T. Houghton Russell Stannard R. J. Berry Gerhard Ertl Michał Heller Robert Griffiths Ghilean Prance Donald Knuth George Frances Rayner Ellis Colin Humphreys John Suppe Eric Priest Christopher Isham Henry F. Schaefer, III Joel Primack Robert T. Bakker Joan Roughgarden William D. Philips Kenneth R. Miller Francis Collins Noella Marcillino Simon Conway Morris John D. Barrow Denis Alexander Don Page Stephen Barr Brian Kobilka Karl W. Giberson Martin Nowak John Lennox Jennifer Wiseman Ard Louis Larry Wall Justin L. Barrett
57. 57. ARCHITECTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Rodney Stark surveyed 52 scientists key to the Scientific Revolution o 50 Christian o 1 unknown o 1 atheist Of the 50: o 60% “devout” o 40% “conventional”
58. 58. Scientific method Copernican revolution Empiricism and mathematics in science United the heavens and earth, gravity, calculus Relativity Quantum revolution Big bang theory
59. 59. Scientific method Copernican revolution Empiricism and mathematics in science United the heavens and earth, gravity, calculus Quantum revolution Relativity Big bang theory
60. 60. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan. Fritz Schaefer, Quantum chemist
61. 61. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. Wernher von Braun Rocket scientist
62. 62. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION? It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. Arthur Schawlow Physicist (Nobel laureate) I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.
63. 63. SUMMARY o Modern science arose in 17th century Christian Europe and nowhere else o Greek philosophy + Christian theology à science o Science arose because of Christianity, not in spite of it o 96% of the architects of the Scientific Revolution were Christian o Christians need to embrace science as one of the blessings of their religion

https://www.slideshare.net/SarahSalviander/the-christian-foundation-of-modern-science-80963981

I’m Coming Out Of The ‘Conspiracy Closet’ – By James McDougall

IN BRIEF

·         The Facts:

A growing number of us don't believe the world is run the way we’ve been told by mainstream media and in school. However, it is often challenging to open up to family and friends about our views for fear of being ridiculed, and even exiled.

·         Reflect On:

Why are some of us so scared to speak up? Is it possible to say what we believe without damaging our reputations and relationships? We must not only think about what information we share, but that we share it with humility and an open heart.   

Hello, I’m James, and I’m coming out of the conspiracy closet, also known as the bunker.

I’ve been a free thinker since before I can remember, always asking questions and not just accepting the status quo. My Dad gave me the book “Was God An Astronaut?” when I was in my teens and I remember something about that book just really opening my mind to so many possibilities, thinking for days on end about how the pyramids were built, or wondering if humans were in fact somehow created by alien beings that seeded life on earth.

As I delved deeper down the rabbit hole, I started seeing the world very differently, learning about hidden energies, false flag attacks (which undeniably have happened throughout history), and really creepy stuff like Bohemian Grove, where, if you didn’t know, some of the world’s elite dress in black robes, have a mock (or maybe real) human sacrifice, and burn a massive wooden owl in effigy. The owl represents conscience–yes, they are literally burning their conscience for the year so they can justify not having one. I think we can agree this is a bit strange, and shows us how these people are not how they portray themselves to the world.

Scared To Speak Up

There are many reasons I’ve come up with for NOT speaking out. “People might think I’m crazy,” or, since I work as an actor, “I’m in the entertainment industry, I don’t want to get blacklisted.” I sometimes have even more serious concerns, like becoming a targeted individual, or being killed for saying too much. There have been many different stories I’ve made up over the years to not actually say what I believe. But where does this fear come from? For that, I have had to look within.

In many cases when we’re experiencing fear about something, it’s just our own shadow that’s frightening us. I’m starting to see that now, and I’m learning over time to be more open about my beliefs. I find that when I am, I’m usually surprised at how receptive people are, and how many people share similar thoughts and ideas but don’t talk about them. It’s a large number and it’s growing by the day.

Those Awkward Family Dinners

With Thanksgiving coming up, I’ve been reflecting on the many times my family dinners have gotten a bit, well, awkward, to say the least. The gun debate seems like an easy one if you believe that there’s an ever-growing tyrannical government that’s infringing on our freedoms by the day, but if you don’t see that, I can’t blame you for thinking the world might be safer if civilians did not have easy access to guns. This topic alone is enough to end a family get-together with a blowout.

But does any of that really even matter? Are we all just getting caught up in the minute details? Are we being systematically divided? I’m pretty sure that’s what’s happening y’all. That’s what my gut instinct says. A huge lesson in Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War is ‘divide and conquer.’ That’s what I feel is happening to us.

Divided by gender, race, sex, religion, sports team, political party, favorite professional wrestler, believing if Burt and Ernie are gay or not, (seriously, there was legit outrage about this recently) and the list goes on and on. This is how we’re getting pitted against each other. I know it’s not a new idea but it’s one worth looking deeper into for sure–and you can to that here.

How We Can’t Change The World

We can’t change our lives and the world by sitting around bickering with each other about small details, especially since they are just a minuscule percentage of the many symptoms emerging from the DISTRACTION MECHANISMS that are in place to keep our focus away from who we truly are and what we’re capable of. The fact is that once we start opening up to and really see the bigger picture, small political debates about policies and left/right issues seem totally frivolous. It’s like a doctor focusing on a stubbed toe when the patient actually has a stage 4 brain tumor.

Top of Form

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY EMAIL

START YOUR DAY WITH THE LASTEST NEWS

SUBSCRIBE

Bottom of Form

Nothing is going to change if we keep believing that it really makes a difference as to who gets into office. That is the magic trick, the sleight of hand, being drawn to what the magician is telling us to look at. If we want to catch the trick we need to focus on what he doesn’t want us to see, which is often what we ourselves are scared to look at.

So, all that being said, this wild journey of discovery has lead me to Collective Evolution. I’ve been working with the incredible team and helping to build CETV, which we are all really excited about. We have some mind-blowing content coming soon. I believe in the idea of conscious media greatly. Don’t get caught up in the outrage trap. Love and light!

The Takeaway

Overall, I believe it comes down to this: we need to speak our truth in order to bring ‘light’ to ‘darkness’. Plain and simple, if awakened individuals stay silent about their beliefs, the powers that be will remain strong, and the collective consciousness of humanity will not expand. Keep challenging your beliefs, keep growing and expanding your consciousness, keep learning from others, and most importantly, keep seeking truth–just don’t be afraid to speak up when you find it.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/10/08/coming-out-of-the-conspiracy-closet/

WWW Inventor’s New Internet OS Would Allow Users To Control Their Personal Data – By Richard Enos

IN BRIEF

·         The Facts:

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the 'World Wide Web,' has created a new startup company named Inrupt which is poised to 'interrupt' the data domination and invasion of privacy of big internet companies like Facebook and Google.

·         Reflect On:

Can you envision an internet in which each one of us is the gatekeeper of our own data and we can all operate on the internet in an equitable way?

Facebook, Google, and the rest of the censorship and data mining cabal–you have now officially been put on notice.

Something that I hinted at in a previous article ‘Anti-Defamation League, Facebook, Google & Youtube Appoint Themselves As Official Internet Censor‘ has taken on new significance. When I said that I’m not sure the “censorship cabal” led by Facebook should really be messing with an Awakening Community, it turns out we have some pretty powerful people in the Awakening Community.

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the ‘World Wide Web’ and one of Time magazine’s ‘100 most important people of the 20th century,’ had the noblest intentions when he turned the keys of the internet over to the world for free in 1989. This awakened genius saw the potential for increased openness, connectivity, and productivity on the platform which was fundamentally designed as a medium for positive change and human empowerment.

The Emergence Of  A Frankenstein

Instead, Berners-Lee has seen his creation turn into some kind of Frankenstein, as noted in this Zero Hedge article:

“For people who want to make sure the Web serves humanity, we have to concern ourselves with what people are building on top of it,” Tim Berners-Lee told Vanity Fair last month. “I was devastated,” he said, while going through a litany of harmful and dangerous developments of the past three decades of the web. He lamented that his creation has been abused by powerful entities for everything from mass surveillance to fake news to psychological manipulation to corporations commodifying individuals’ information.

Berners-Lee has worked in recent years in and out of different companies and advocacy groups trying to preserve the sanctity of the internet and retain its initial purpose and vision, but despite his efforts, he has seen its gradual takeover by powerful entities who have been able to centralize much of the internet’s activities, and along with this have been able to horde much of its valuable information.

Dreams Of Freedom And Openness

In the face of this, Berners-Lee and other internet activists have long been dreaming of a digital utopia where individuals control their own data and the internet remains free and open. But for Berners-Lee, the time for dreaming is over. “We have to do it now. It’s a historical moment,” he has said. Ever since revelations emerged that Facebook had allowed people’s data to be misused by political operatives, Berners-Lee has felt an imperative to get this digital idyll into the real world.

And so, Berners-Lee has launched a start-up that intends to end the dominance of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, while in the process letting individuals take back control of their own data.

Solid and Inrupt

This began with ‘Solid,’ which is a decentralized web platform that Berners-Lee designed and built with a small team at MIT over several years. It can be considered as a kind of operating system for the internet that will serve as the foundation for applications which support the decentralization of information.

On Solid, all of one’s information is under the user’s control. Every bit of data he or she creates or adds on Solid exists within a Solid ‘pod’–which is an acronym for personal online data store. These pods are what give Solid users control over their applications and information on the web. Anyone using the platform will get a Solid identity and Solid pod. This is how people, Berners-Lee says, will take back the power of the web from corporations.

He then created Inrupt, Berners-Lee’s new online platform and company that serves as a user interface to these pods, where everything from messages, music, contacts or other personal data will be stored in one place overseen by the user instead of an array of platforms and apps run by corporations seeking to profit off personal information. The project seeks “personal empowerment through data” and aims to “take back” the web, according to company statements.

Top of Form

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY EMAIL

START YOUR DAY WITH THE LASTEST NEWS

SUBSCRIBE

Bottom of Form

Inrupt Will Just Be One Of Many

Once again, as per the Zerohedge article,

Unlike Facebook or Twitter where all user information ultimately resides in centralized data centers and servers under control of the companies, applications on Inrupt will compete for users based on the services they can offer, and only the users can grant these apps “views” into their data, making personal data instantly portable between similar applications.

“The main enhancement is that the web becomes a collaborative read-write space, passing control from owners of a server, to the users of that system. The Solid specification provides this functionality,” the Solid website says.

If all goes as planned, Inrupt will be to Solid what Netscape once was for many first-time users of the web: an easy way in. And like with Netscape, Berners-Lee hopes Inrupt will be just the first of many companies to emerge from Solid. In this way, creative developers will be able to compete with their latest and greatest interfaces to internet information, but unlike the opportunity seized by the likes of Facebook and Google, these new interfaces will never be able to ‘own’ or ‘house’ people’s personal data, and therefore the corrupt and fraudulent abuse of that data by big corporations will disappear from the internet. This failsafe is now built into the architecture of the Solid operating system.

The Takeaway

Many of us in the Awakening Community have been upset by the assault on our privacy and our freedom by the large internet corporations, but we can take solace in the fact that sometimes these very acts of injustice are what triggers consciousness to move us forward, and enables awakened humans to fulfill their dreams of creating the next great thing that will truly empower humanity.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/10/06/tim-berners-lee-internet-os-control-personal-data/

Marxism and Education - By Anthony J. DeBlasi (This article encapsulates the fundamental American national conundrum - cause and effect!)

(If this article does not confirm the fundamental premise of my website, I don't know what does.
Read the website for yourselves and then link to the archive - the recovery of American culture and education is in our hands.
Yes - we allowed the degradation – and we are restoring it - NOW! -  http://www.crushlimbraw.com - )

At Columbia University's Teachers College, in the early years of the 20th century, a handful of men inspired by "laws of social evolution" gathered to presume a "science" of education linked with a "science" of human behavior.  They were no mere researchers.  Their sights were on nothing less than the establishment of a new social order.

Laws?  Science?  The scientific method bends out of shape over things like the will.  Love, hate, loyalty, treachery, humility, arrogance, and many other common items of human experience melt science down to its core.  And the study of humans by humans is – well, circular, is it not?

The intellectual arrogance, not to say quackery, of men like John Dewey may be forgiven as a human weakness.  But lording over one's fellows by presuming to make of them a better breed smells not only of conceit, but of treachery.  In this plot – a good one for mad scientist movies – parent and pastor were to take a back seat while behavioral "experts" rewired the strands of human behavior, using schoolchildren as experimental subjects.  Their motive?  A new age was dawning.  It was a matter of when, not if, collectivism and socialism would come to America.  Was it not the task of the public educator to prepare its subjects for the new order?  Was it not the job of the public teacher to change basic perceptions, attitudes, social relations?

That such high horsing violates democratic basics meant nothing to these "progressives."  To them, democracy was less a form of government than a means for "reforming" society.  Today's "liberals" still believe that.  For them, "majority" meant a body to be molded.

The founders of our republic labored diligently to ensure a level political playing field for themselves and for posterity.  But reformist heavyweights of the early 20th century saw fit to tilt the field their way or risk failing in their mission to groom American society for a collectivist future.

Their methodology was and remains to indoctrinate the public through school, media, and church, under the rubrics of "science" and "experts" and "studies" and – most conniving of all – "the changing times."  Individuals who think for themselves and express unorthodox views must be marginalized and denied equal access to media, market, and due process.  Collectivist agenda operatives are still as anxious as ever to ram their great ideas down the public throat.  If it means becoming "journalists," political activists, "social justice" mercenaries, or "pastors," lying and deceiving are not a problem.

How can any majority weed out bad ideas when ideas don't circulate freely and compete in an open market?  When journalists spread political narratives instead of reporting the news?  When the curiosity of the child, who asks why-why-why, is dulled or washed out by graduation time?  When church and school become conduits of propaganda instead of places for reflection and learning?

It was from the early-twentieth-century Pandora's box of questionable theory and Marxist fever that the missionaries for educational reform issued.  The minds of the young in this country – particularly those who as teachers and leaders were to transmit the gospel of a new social order – were subverted by Marxist activists a long time ago.

Do you wonder why you never got this in history?

Reorienting the mind

I thought it silly, while in school in 1946, to let kids do what they wanted to do in school.  For me, and for a school pal, the "Progressive" experiment was great fun.  My friend Bob and I were permitted to cut classes we didn't care for in favor of painting murals on the walls of Brooklyn's Halsey Junior High School.  That we both succeeded academically proves not the wisdom of Dewey's theories but that diligent students manage to transcend obstacles to their progress.

Progressive educators now wire young minds via satellite, assuming an unfounded desirability of forming a global community of similar (washed) minds.  What's wrong with globalist thinking is a subject for a library.  But the right to be different and to associate with those of like kind and mind continues to shelve the one-world notion of human association under "Fiction."

Quality of life faded after "group" trumped individual, a side-effect of progressive leveling.  The pressure to conform replaced the incentive to rise.  Group orientation made it easier to alienate youth from family and tradition, a precondition for forming a collective social order. A society that links generation with generation in shared values and cultural ties interferes with establishing a collective society under totalitarian rule. 

New-age honchos like to operate behind the scenes, à la the Wizard of Oz, pulling levers of screen, magazine, lyrics, and stage to alter society by filling budding minds with "politically correct" images and ideas, playing on youth's innocence and natural idealism, stirring passions untempered by reflection.  The result of a long plague of such brainwashing and indoctrination is a base of voters with moral and intellectual disability and an abiding aversion to family, country, God, and truth.

The mental holiday declared by early progressive educators spawned a most dangerous social myth, that of value-neutral ethics.  A value-neutral society is for all purposes a valueless society.  Freed of timeless standards of ethical behavior, people act as though anything-goes is normal and right, unaware that they have become valueless selves that no therapy or "self-esteem" program can prop up with real confidence or sinless theology fill with lasting hope.

"Progress"

The original goals and tactics have been forgotten.  Today's public-school educators are unaware of their own history and why they think and teach as they do.  But though the memory is lost, the desire for bringing forth a "new social order" remains imbedded in their consciousness.

Sadly, the world caves in on minds when they actually face the reality that the only possible reform is self-reform, when better communities and a "better world" can be had only with better selves, so crucial in a democratic form of government.

In conclusion

The "education problem" in America is not one of inadequate funding or management.  It is one of defective educational philosophy.  The legacy of early Marxists on their way to a "global" future under some species of collectivism has been the worst possible foundation for a sound education system.  Established educational philosophy is mired in misconceptions regarding both the nature and the business of education.  Public-school
teachers are victims of teacher education that emphasizes ideology over substance, relativism over enduring values.

Fundamentals that must be restored include the following: school authority is subservient to parental authority.  The school has no business vilifying tradition, slurring religion, or disallowing individual accountability.  In short, it has no mandate to alter society.

And so sparks will continue to fly between those who want parents to be in control of the education of their children, in an atmosphere where multiple points of view may compete fairly, and those who insist on dragging the outdated baggage of their Marxist ancestors to its ultimate destination: the dustbin of history.

Anthony J. DeBlasi is a graduate of Brooklyn College, 1953.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/marxism_and_education.html