basically, this starts with the punchline.

your computer is driven entirely by ritual.

an "algorithm" is exaclty that, a repetetive
routine that your computer engages in at
all times to the exclusion of all else.

well, with the advent of multi-tasking,
your computer can walk and chew gum at
the same time, but your computer's gum
chewing process is entirely routine
and ritualistic.

it needs a rather explicit set of instructions too.

you can't just tell a machine, "chew gum"

you have to neatly define each and every phase
of the gum chewing process before you can
ever tell it to "chew gum"

something you can do without too much forethought.

but yet, this describes an inherent
set of gum chewing instructions that
come as original equipment.

so, you can't *really* look your nose down
on "ritual" because one of your grandest
achievements, the great and wonderful
iterative electronics box, [computer]
is doing nothing more than carrying
out a programmed ritual.

and it basically only
gets a passing grade. C++

you're still a lot better than that.

always will be.

it's only because religious folks have taken
"ritual" up and called their sacred things
"rituals" that you think that's the
only thing it is.

first and foremost, a ritual
is some iterative repetition.

like reciting the alphabet and
memorizing your times tables

you can't design a machine that
even closely compares to
a human being,

as mentioned before, that computers run on
machine code and machine programs encode
"algoriths" and "algoriths" are "rituals"
and "rituals" don't lift themself up off
the kitchen floor?

and as such, DNA is an algorithm?

and this algorithm is encoded on itself.

that is, the algorithm and the
mechanism is identically DNA?

where the algorithm is encoded
on a molecular latticework?

and this chemical mechanism
is constantly running its ritual?

but look, apparently, in DNA there
are what may be considered ..oh...64
some odd "letters".

that is the 4 base pairs A G T C, not
considering U for now which is only
found in RNA, gathered in groups of three.

AAA AGA AGT AGC GCA ... etc etc etc

and these letters code for the production of
amino acids which link together to form proteins.

and most of the living creatures are
made of proteins and sugars and a
variety of other little goodies.

anyway, a lot of what the living creatures
are is a bunch of letters or numbers, sort of,

but only a small fraction of all that
soup is geared around group identity.

one could easily develop a
"brown hair principle" that was
devoid of any real meaning.

"ooh well, red heads only display a small
portion of the "brown hair principle" and
blonds are basically dumb"

maybe it shoulda been called
the "dumb blond principle"

oh, yeah, right, they
do got one like that.

it's not really all that meaningful.

anyway, you can develop any number
of "genetic trait principles"

"type O negative theory"

and then all of a sudden you've grouped
yourself into an "us vs. them" type situation.

anyway, though there was a time when I may
have found a problem with ritual in the
religious sense, I came to a greater
understanding of its usefullness
and effectiveness.

just as computers are involved in ritual,

where an "algorithm" -is- a "ritual"

your little machine is constantly
going thru its own little ritual.

then there's the idea of "bugs"

where, say, consider what Paul
says about taking the eucharist,

"don't take this to your condemnation"

same ritual, but for some,
the "output" is problematic.

and then there's the "bind these commands
to your forehead and keep them before
you at all times" which concerns the
little box the Orthodox wear
called a phylactery.

coincides nicely with Paul's suggestion
that we constantly dwell on these things;

love patience joy etc. the fruits of the spirit.

so, whatever keeps your mind geared towards the
hope you have in Christ is a good use of ritual.

lest you should run the race in vain.

well, seems like you get up you go
to sleep you get up you go to sleep
and much of life is a repetetive algorithm.

algorithm=ritual

and, the occupation of perfecting algorithms
makes things run more smoothly.

and so, if human beings are unavoidably
involved in ritual, it's not a far stretch
to call them "religious" by nature.

the implication being;

deity is not central to 'religion'
in and of itself, ritual is central
to religion

you'll find folk out there who say
"christianity isn't a religion"

something about it being
a relationship with God.

the various ritual aspects just
play to Man's ritualistic nature.

but, back to another thing,
along the same lines;

cell replication is an algorithm.

i mean, that's what it is,
in essence and in practice.

and a rather complex algorithm at that.

and the algorithm is encoded upon itself.

and little helper machines run to and
fro, bringing materials to the
site of necessity.

i mean, it's a brilliant little machine.

and it's churning all the time.

and human beings cannot fully design as complex
a set of algorithms and mechanical devices
to accomplish all of these tasks.

not yet, perhaps not ever, from scratch.

and it's still a perfectly reasonable argument
to suggest that such ritual driven mechanisms
don't simply raise themselves from
the kitchen floor.

at least, no such thing has
ever been observed to occur.

no one has ever seen an algorithm
write itself into existance.

no one has seen a mechanical device erect itself.

and that thing, "observation", is
the hallmark of scientific discovery.

not, and never;

"it's this way because i say so and
because i say there is absolutely no
other way for it to have happened"

that's just ....what you'd call a

"blind belief dogma"

and without a reasonable observation of
algorithms writing themselves and mechanical
devices erecting themselves, you'd simply
be spouting a reckless opinion.

and by you i mean anyone setting forth or
agreeing with the consideration that the
living cell wrote itself into existance.

this event has never been observed.

cannot be rigorously tested and verified,

and is therefore not a scientific discovery.

it's just an opinion based on no evidence.

you're welcome to hold your opinions,
but refrain from holding your
opinions up as the truth.

and in the case of "scientific discovery"

you tell lies when you make
such statements aside from
actual observation.

i'll outline a generalized experiment for you.

if you get the time proven results,
you will have your proof.

first of all, like i've asked many of your ilk,
you answer this, and you'll begin to understand
the _form_ your "proof" will take

how will you explain the color blue to a blind person?
how will you prove that Regulus exists to a blind person?

my personal direct experiential proof
is non-transferable you will have to
experience it yourself.

in much the same way that two people can
compare notes on the taste of spaghetti
and tomato sauce.

with me so far?

If i eat it and someone else eats it, we can
share our common experience and relate to
each other that which we both have experienced.

if I have eaten it, and some other person
has not eaten it, they must take my word for it.

if they insist that spagetti has a certain
taste or has no taste _apart_ from eating
it for themselves, they are not a reliable
witness, and I may accept my rendering of
the taste as the nearest thing to the True taste.

I can tell you what God is like and show
you God's workings in my life and things
of that nature, but I cannot transfer my
direct experience of God to you ay more
than you can taste an apple when -I- eat it.

understand?

of course you do, this is
basic analytical reasoning.

but my direct experience of God
is substantial and evidentiary.

and just as i have tested and re-tested my sensory
perception against known standards in the material
world, and have shown that they remain a
credible witness to reality,

I have compared and continue to compare my
spiritual perception against known standards
and reliable agreeing witnesses.

i.e. other witnesses to God.

this is the exact nature of
the so-called "scientific method"

you have no agreement -without- like experience.

and so, you cannot prove to anyone that you
have elucidated the mechanism for a particular
chemical reaction unless you get another
credible witness to see what you saw
and get the same agreeable data.

and even then, you have only a small band
of believers in your understanding, until
everyone sees your thing.

now, the way I came across Jesus and came
to believe in and trust in God was by
accepting Jesus as my personal Savior.

I came to a realization that I was unable
to own my own life, that I must turn that
life over to God in order to realize
it's potential.

I accepted Jesus as Savior, in full assurance
of -my- good faith, and God greeted -that- with a
special Gift of God's own Presence in my Life.

an experience -of- God in my personal awareness.

that is how this experiment works.

and many people have carried it out
in this very same manner and acheived
reliably reproducible results.

I'm sure that if you carry this experiment
out properly, you will have your proof.

and if not, you will have to try again until
you see for yourself that God tastes good.

mind you, the experimental procedure
doesn't -end- at the realization of
God thru Jesus Christ, it -begins- there.

and -now- the adherent traces out the
algorithm of Faith within his or her
own unique set of personal parameters.

finding bugs amending 'software'

using the system practically
in day to day to day routine.

it's perfectly reasonable

and, in fact,

"Logos" driven.