thought of in a very static manner: if something was found to be true in one place and time, then it was thought

to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!), then it was always true. But no Christian theologian today would admit the truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding of truth statements in the West has become historical, perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word: relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can be properly understood only within context; given a significantly new context, a proportionately new text would be needed to convey the same meaning. ([F02],xii). The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period.

Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad. While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary beliefs, both foreign and local. When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially in its . . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology, influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward. ([N04],v23,1013). It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for instance. Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job (1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan was no more than the servant of God, acting on his orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013). As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in . . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013). (Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.) How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster ([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists

similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes: Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90). It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan culture that . . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This idea was patterned on those already existing,

explosion in the number of

geographica l journalsduri ng the 1990s).At the same

time,howev er,the fragmentati on of the human sciencesin

general has arguably led to an increased reception of geographic

knowledge withinsuch diverse fields as cultural and gender

studies,regi onal and urban studies,or withinthe realm of

more philosophic ally oriented interests like

postmodern ism or feminism. Whether the discipline as a whole

stands to profit from this evolution remains to beseen.

CONC LUDI NG

THOU GHTS
The often disparate image of

the discipline notwithstan ding,there are a number

of clearly identifiable epistemolog ical issues that run through

many of the debates andtheoretic al positions taken up by various

practitioner s within human geography.I t is tothese that we

would like to turn as we conclude this chapter.The

first of these commontop ics or problems is a time-

honoured one,centring round the idiographic nomothetic

dichotomy that separates and unites the social sciences at

one and the same time.Acentr al point of contention, especially

during the early debate about exceptiona lismingeog raphy

(Schaefer 1953),this axis had been a dominant one in the

human and socialscienc es at least since the Methodenst reit

in the German Staatswissen schaften during thesecond

half of the nineteenth century (Strohmaye r 1997b).Is geography a

scienceconc entrating on the specific,on difference and the

uniqueness of place(s)? Or is itsgoal to uncover law-like structures

that apply under observable conditions and whichcan

be used for planning and other socially relevant purposes?

Human geography hasfound many different answers to

these questions during the course of the twentiethce

ntury and has witnessed seemingly stable configuratio

ns vanish every so often.Take,f or instance,the resurrection

of a concern for particularity within the postmodern paradigm:w

as this a return to an earlier geographica l practice or something

altogetherne w and different? Was it a child of its time just

like any other epistemolog ical break and thus

necessarily a form of localknow ledge (Ley 2003)?

Geographical visions23

Mention of particularit yshould

remind us not to overlook a second axis thatstructur ed

geographic theories during the twentieth century.Oft en hidden

beneath theidiograp hic nomothetic divide,the difference

between generality and particularity isthought by many to be

synonymou s with the former.How ever,one can well imagine

anomothetic approach to particulars,j ust as idiographic concerns for

generalities exist.Implic it in this difference,t herefore,is little less

than the importance of scale (Marston20 00) or the reminder

that the geographies we observe change depending on

context,fra me of reference and point of view.Both axes

mentioned revolve around epistemolog ical issues in that they

present us with a choice between different conceptuali

zations of what kind of science geography isand should

be.But there is a third axis we can identify that centres around

questions of causation .Centrally implicated here is the dichotomy

between structure and agency.Larg ely implicit in the

theoretical assumptions of human geography up until the 1970s,this

axis provided geographers with a whole set of answers to

the question of what or who was responsible for the creation and

maintenanc e of geographic realities:wa s itpeoples preferences

that shaped spaces,or was the particular context within

which suchchoices were made responsible for the geographies

we could observe empirically ? For aslong as geography

held fast to the kind of checklist mentality observed earlier in

thischapter,t his latter part of the question apparently did not

become an issue.Thing sstarted to change,how ever,with the move

towards more theoreticall y informed researchage ndas:here

the choice between prioritizing individual actors over social

structure (or vice versa) was often perceived to be

fundamenta l.But what about these axes? The real change in the

closing decade of the twentiethce ntury has been to

view them less as essential and mutually exclusive

choices and toappreciate their commonalit y of constructio

n.Here,agai n,we need to acknowledg e theimportan

ce of the debates surrounding structuratio n theory in the late

1970s andthrough out the 1980s for the overall shape of

theoretical discourse within the discipline(H arris 1991;Choui

nard 1997).Toget her with simultaneou s developmen

ts in feministgeo graphy,it was in these debates that the

connective nature of alleged opposites wasfirst acknowledg

ed:what had presented itself previously as a choice between

mutually ex clusive positions or theoretical points of origin was

now increasingly viewed andtheorize d as a field in which

mutually constructive elements acted to bring forthgeogra

phic realities (Thrift 1983;Grego ry 1994).In fact,the

closing years of the lastcentury witnessed a proliferatio n of papers

that analysed a professed instability andconstruc ted nature

of the categories that were used to manufactur e (often

polarized)a xes in the first place (GibsonGraham

1996;Batter sbury et al .1997;What more 1999).In the

emerging hybrid world of networks,a future generation

of geographers may wellfind many of the issues and

conflicts of old unresolved, perhaps even unresolvabl

e(Thrift 2000a). We would like to end by expressing our

admittedly minimalist hope that a geography f or the twenty-first

century will no longer have to deny the contested nature of

itscategorie s and move towards mature and tolerant manners of

dispute and discourse. T he emergence of research in the years

flanking the turn of the millennium that aims tointegrate rather than

divide positions that were previously thought to

be only loosely

24Human Geography: A History for the 21st Century

connected,e xclusive or downright opposed,mi

ght be read as a sign that such hopes arenot in vain

(Mattingly and FalconerAl-Hindi 1995;Dixon and Jones

1998;Barnet t2001;Castr ee 2003;Jacob s and Nash 2003;Engla

nd 2003).How ever,it might also be asign of fatigue:only

history can judge us now.

knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches: Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes us with the truths which are necessary for our salvation. ([M07],213). The other belief is finality. Christians . . . now await no new public revelation from God. ([D09],4). God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private revelations to an individual are still possible. These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could

write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised, extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment. Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not? Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as "Divine Tradition" and believes that . . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . . Other Christian groups disagree. In fact, [p]recisely at this point the greatest division in Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source (standard or authority), or the Bible as a source. ([P07],18). Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations. Islam holds the Koran to be revealed. Hindus believe God spoke the Bhagavad-Gita and other writings. Buddhist accept the Tripitaka. Though all of the religions we've mentioned may reject the inspired writings of other religions, they believe their own scripture is divinely revealed. In particular, religion often makes the following four claims for their own scriptures: that scriptures: (1) are consistent and truthful ("without error"),

(2) are complete and final ("all and only those truths . . . no new public revelation"), (3) are necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or liberation ("necessary for our salvation"). (4) have an inspired or divine author ("God who is their true Author"), Are these claims true? Again, theological claims are difficult to test. Is God the author of any particular book? That's beyond the reach of logic to decide. Nonetheless, the four claims can be rationally investigated. And, as we examine and test the four claims we'll come to a better understanding of the revelational way of knowing. Let's begin with the first claim, consistency and truthfulness.

Claim 1: External Consistency An external contradiction is when a scripture contradicts something outside itself, either some common belief or practice, or another scripture. Lets examine some external scriptural contradictions, beginning with three where the Bible contradicts common Christian belief or practice. First, Jesus says Just as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ([H08], Mt 12:40). According to a footnote in another Bible ([N02], for Mt 12,38ff), this quote contains an allusion to Jesus resurrection. However, common Christian belief allows less than 48 hours between the Crucifixion and Resurrection (Good Friday to Easter Sunday), two nights, not three. Second, in Mark 6:3 the people of Jesus country say: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of

Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? If Jesus actually had a brother, then either the Roman Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, or the standard Christian belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is wrong. Lastly, Jesus forbids swearing (Mt 5:34-37), saying at one point But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil ([H08],Mt 5:37). Nonetheless, it is common practice in some Christian countries for a court witness to swear on the Bible that their testimony shall be true. Now lets turn to another type of external contraction, where one scripture contradicts another. The world has many "revealed" writings. If they are all, in fact, revealed then they should all agree with each other because they all have the same ultimate author - God. How well do revealed writings agree with each other? Not very well. Let's examine some examples. Of the three major revelations of Western religion, the earliest is the Jewish Torah, which is also part of the Christian Old Testament. Later, the Christian New Testament was written. Later still, the Koran (Quran) of Islam. Are these three revelations consistent with each other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree: The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura 2:13, [K07],344). And the Koran disagrees with both: . . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . . How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148). So, advises the Koran,

. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91). Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first peoples who . . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law. ([S16],12). Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the . . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham, never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12). Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to accurately preserve God's words. . . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture" became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus. ([S16],12-13). But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped . . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. . . . focused their attention on Christ to the partial neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus compromise . . . ([S16],13). Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed . . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13). So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger, Muhammad. This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no

neglect. ([S16],14). Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran, no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is called the "seal" of the prophets. For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of God. For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12). Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true? Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss scripture's truthfulness.

Claim 1: Truthfulness Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events. Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed writings true? Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah

and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical teachings about the earth and sun. Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology, history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is . . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which God penetrated man's senses to give him an external, objective world view. ([P07],13). How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history, anthropology, and other fields is well described in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by Andrew White. Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea: that the essential difference between science and religion is that science deals with this world and religion deals with the next. Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could investigate the "next" world. How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally differ in how they know, not necessarily in what they know. Both can know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the "supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds

truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the revelational way, by following scripture. But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe . . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all truth. ([P07],21) and that [a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is man's inability to resolve the problem, not any conflict of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over science is clear. ([P07],31). Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true. They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological. Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge

about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49).

Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to

correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual.

To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman

(Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a

son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day

Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was thought of in a very static manner: if something was found to be true in one place and time, then it was thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!), then it was always true. But no Christian theologian today would admit the truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding of truth statements in the West has become historical, perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word: relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can be properly understood only within context; given a significantly new context, a proportionately new text would be needed to convey the same meaning.

([F02],xii). The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period. Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad. While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary beliefs, both foreign and local. When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially in its . . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology, influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward. ([N04],v23,1013). It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for instance.

Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job (1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan was no more than the servant of God, acting on his orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013). As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in . . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013). (Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.) How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster ([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes: Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90). It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan culture that . . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This idea was patterned on those already existing,

. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a

son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91). Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first peoples who . . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law. ([S16],12). Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the . . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham, never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12). Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to accurately preserve God's words. . . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture" became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus. ([S16],12-13). But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped . . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. . . . focused their attention on Christ to the partial neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus compromise . . . ([S16],13). Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed . . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13). So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger, Muhammad. This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no neglect. ([S16],14).

Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran, no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is called the "seal" of the prophets. For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of God. For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12). Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true? Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss scripture's truthfulness.

Claim 1: Truthfulness Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events. Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed writings true? Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy

was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical teachings about the earth and sun. Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology, history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is . . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which God penetrated man's senses to give him an external, objective world view. ([P07],13). How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history, anthropology, and other fields is well described in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by Andrew White. Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea: that the essential difference between science and religion is that science deals with this world and religion deals with the next. Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could investigate the "next" world. How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally differ in how they know, not necessarily in what they know. Both can know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the "supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the

revelational way, by following scripture. But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe . . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all truth. ([P07],21) and that [a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is man's inability to resolve the problem, not any conflict of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over science is clear. ([P07],31). Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true. They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological. Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about

the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict.

When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.

By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a

certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,

which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing,

however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel."

Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication:

Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was thought of in a very static manner: if something was found to be true in one place and time, then it was thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!), then it was always true. But no Christian theologian today would admit the truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding of truth statements in the West has become historical, perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word: relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can be properly understood only within context; given a significantly new context, a proportionately new text would be needed to convey the same meaning. ([F02],xii).

The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period. Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad. While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary beliefs, both foreign and local. When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially in its . . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology, influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward. ([N04],v23,1013). It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for instance. Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job

(1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan was no more than the servant of God, acting on his orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013). As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in . . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013). (Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.) How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster ([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes: Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90). It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan culture that . . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This idea was patterned on those already existing,

I remember as a little boy learning of God from my mother, a religious woman with a life-long devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The idea of God thrilled me, but I soon grew to dislike some of my religion's ideas. For example, I learned in a second grade Roman Catholic religion class that only people who are baptized and believe in Jesus can get into heaven. I recall thinking "What about Chinese who lived five thousand years ago? They had no chance of being baptized or believing in

Jesus. Is it fair to keep them out of heaven for no fault of their own?" I remember suspecting that the teacher, a nun, was wrong about who could or couldn't get into heaven, that she didn't know what she was talking about. As I grew up, I encountered other things I didn't believe. I found some of the ideas very odd, and wondered how anyone in their right mind could believe them. For example, I was taught that anyone who dies with an unforgiven serious sin spends the rest of eternity in Hell. In those days, intentionally eating meat on Friday or missing Mass on Sunday was a serious sin. So, a child who knowingly ate a hot dog on Friday, or skipped Mass and went fishing on Sunday, might die and spend the rest of eternity in hell, horribly tortured, in the company of murderers and devils.

Strange. But even stranger was the behavior of people who, supposedly, believed those ideas. Their words said the ideas were true but their actions said otherwise. They acted as if they themselves suspected they didn't know what they were talking about. For example, in third or fourth grade, a classmate died of appendicitis. Though some fellow classmates worried if he was in heaven, no adult seemed concerned in the least. Of course, the adults were sorry for the little boy and his family. But none showed any real worry about the fate of his eternal soul. They all assured us (glibly, I thought) that our deceased classmate was in heaven with God and the angels. Since then, I've never attended a funeral where anyone, clergy included, seem the slightest bit worried about the eternal fate of the deceased. They act as if no one goes to hell, as if hell really doesn't exist.

Science is different; scientists act as if they believe what they say. If science says plutonium is deadly, you won't find a scientist with plutonium in his pockets. And scientists seem to know what they are talking about. When astronomers say an eclipse will happen, it does. But when some religious group predicts the world will end by September fifteenth or April tenth, it doesn't. It seems science is truer than religion, more to be taken seriously, more real. But why compare science and religion? Why not leave science to scientists and religion to religious people? What's to be gained? Well, a person might reasonably have a more than passing interest in what really happens after death. They might wonder Where do I come from? How should I live my life? and What really happens when I die? Religion discusses those questions but, for many people, its answers are not believable. Science, on the other head, ignores such questions. It has nothing to say about them.

To use an analogy, it's as if science has food of all kinds, wholesome, true, healthy food, but no water. And as if religion has water, brackish water, polluted with confusion, fantasy, contradiction and lies. Seeing the quality of religion's water, some people decide to eat only the healthy, clean food of science - until their thirst drives them back to religion. Religion fulfills a deep need so they eventually participate, sometimes in spite of themselves, sometimes with the excuse "Well, children need something to believe. It's better for them to grow up with religion than without it."

If only science had water of its own, pure, clean water. Or, dropping the analogy, if only science had answers to questions like Where do I come from? How should I live my life? and What happens when

I die? If it had such answers, science would have a religion of its own, a religion as true, as powerful, and as accurate as the rest of science. The reports of science and religion would be as concordant as sight and sound. Science would finally have a comprehensive world view.

Science Without Bounds What is a world view? It's our explanation of ourselves and the world around us. It's what we believe to be true. It's our estimation of "what is what."

Most people have some explanation of themselves and the world around them. They have some idea of who they are and how they fit into the world. But ask them "ultimate" questions such as Did you exist before you were born? Will you still exist after you die? Is there an overall purpose for your life and, if so, what it is? and they usually give a standard religious answer, or say "I don't know." That is, their world view is either religious and non-scientific, or it's incomplete. Does anyone have a scientific world view that's comprehensive, that answers ultimate questions? Probably not, because science itself doesn't have a comprehensive world view. Science's world view is incomplete. Science is very good at explaining part of ourselves our liver and heart function, for example - and part of the world around us - the behavior of electricity. But science has little to say about really important questions, about ultimate questions. What the great physicist Erwin Schrodinger wrote in 1948 is just as true today.

. . . [T]he scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is . . . silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. . . . [T]he scientific world-view contains of itself no ethical values, no aesthetical values, not a word about our own ultimate scope or destination, and no God . . . Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity . . . of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. . . . Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.

Schrodinger says science hasn't investigated ultimate questions. Other writers believe science can't investigate them. For example, M.I.T. philosophy professor Huston Smith believes:

Strictly speaking, a scientific world view is impossible; it is a contradiction in terms. The reason is that science does not treat of the world; it treats of a part of it only. He continues: Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like sea slips through the nets of fishermen. Yet man swims in this sea, so he cannot exclude it from his purview. This is what was meant . . . that a scientific world view is in principle impossible.

But is it? Will science's world view always be limited, always less than comprehensive? Or will science someday develop a comprehensive world view, a world view that explains our place in the universe, our origin and destiny? Can science investigate questions it has ignored for centuries? Or has it ignored those questions for good reason? Certainly, some early scientists had good reason to ignore ultimate questions - their own survival. The most famous is, perhaps, Galileo, who had to answer to the Inquisition for teaching the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo escaped with his life. Other early scientists were not so fortunate. In its struggle to be born in the 16th and 17th century, science wisely decided not to investigate certain religious, philosophical, or metaphysical questions. Rather, it limited itself to the natural world, within bounds set by organized religion. Today, science still lies within those boundaries, certainly no longer out of necessity, perhaps only out of habit. Einstein describes such science as

. . . the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible.

"This world" seems to limit science's domain. It seems to bar science from investigating the possibility of existence before birth or after death. It sets up the "perceptible phenomena of this world" as a boundary which science shouldn't cross. But did Einstein think science should forever remain within that boundary? Perhaps not, for in the very next sentence he offers a broader description of science's scope.

To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.

knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches: Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes us with the truths which are necessary for our salvation. ([M07],213). The other belief is finality. Christians . . . now await no new public revelation from God. ([D09],4). God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private revelations to an individual are still possible. These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are

usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised, extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment. Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not? Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as "Divine Tradition" and believes that . . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . . Other Christian groups disagree. In fact, [p]recisely at this point the greatest division in Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source (standard or authority), or the Bible as a source. ([P07],18). Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations. other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree: The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura 2:13, [K07],344). And the Koran disagrees with both:

. . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . . How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148). So, advises the Koran, . . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91). Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first peoples who . . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law. ([S16],12). Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the . . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham, never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12). Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to accurately preserve God's words. . . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture" became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus. ([S16],12-13). But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped . . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. . . . focused their attention on Christ to the partial neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus compromise . . . ([S16],13). Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed . . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and

obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13). So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger, Muhammad. This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no neglect. ([S16],14). Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran, no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is called the "seal" of the prophets. For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of God. For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12). Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true? Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss scripture's truthfulness.

Claim 1: Truthfulness Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events. Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed writings true?

Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical teachings about the earth and sun. Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology, history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is . . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which God penetrated man's senses to give him an external, objective world view. ([P07],13). How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history, anthropology, and other fields is well described in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by Andrew White. Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea: that the essential difference between science and religion is that science deals with this world and religion deals with the next. Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could investigate the "next" world. How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally

differ in how they know, not necessarily in what they know. Both can know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the "supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the revelational way, by following scripture. But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe . . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all truth. ([P07],21) and that [a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is man's inability to resolve the problem, not any conflict of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over science is clear. ([P07],31). Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true. They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological. Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g.

natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),

and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.

Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him

from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin

Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some

Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect

tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist

([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was thought of in a very static manner: if something was found to be true in one place and time, then it was thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!), then it was always true. But no Christian theologian today would admit the truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding of truth statements in the West has become historical, perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word:

relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can be properly understood only within context; given a significantly new context, a proportionately new text would be needed to convey the same meaning. ([F02],xii). The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period. Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad. While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary beliefs, both foreign and local. When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially in its . . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology,

influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward. ([N04],v23,1013). It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for instance. Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job (1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan was no more than the servant of God, acting on his orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013). As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in . . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013). (Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.) How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster ([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes: Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90). It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan culture that . . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This

idea was patterned on those already existing,

"Existence" is a much broader term than "this world." It includes any and all worlds - whatever exists. It suggests that even if our origin, meaning and ultimate destiny is in any way "supernatural," it's nonetheless a part of existence and a valid object of scientific inquiry.

Is Einstein's wider definition appropriate for science? Is it reasonable? I believe it is. Moreover, it better agrees with science's original goal as established by the ancient Greeks: the making of . . . a mental model of the whole working of the universe.

And it agrees with contemporary physicist Stephen Hawking's description of science's purpose. Our goal is a complete understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence. Certainly, our understanding is incomplete if we don't know who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.

Today, science is no longer struggling to be born. Rather, it's a mature, growing culture, the only world-wide culture, and the greatest intellectual achievement of the last four centuries. If it wished, it certainly could investigate ultimate questions. Moreover, Schrodinger believed it should.

. . . I consider science an integrating part of our endeavour to answer the one great philosophical question which embraces all others . . . who are we? And more than that: I consider this not only one of the tasks, but the task, of science, the only one that really counts.

Certainly, many people - especially those unconvinced by religion's answers - would welcome any light science could offer on such questions. Carl Sagan has observed ([K01],37) there are in the United States 15,000 astrologers but only 1,500 astronomers. Many newspapers that don't have any sort of daily science column carry a daily horoscope. Irrational, superstitious beliefs are easy to criticize, but what does science offer in their place? What is our place in the universe? Why are we here? How should we live our lives? Must science forever ignore these questions? Or can it break its centuries-old bounds and investigate questions of ultimate importance?

Ways of Knowing

But how can science investigate ultimate issues? How can it find answers as true, accurate, and reliable as science itself? How can it create a scientific religion? Suppose all the world's scientists decided that Jesus (or Mohammed or Krishna or Buddha) is right. Suppose they unanimously voted to adopt Christianity (or Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism) as science's official religion. That would certainly provide science with a religion, but would the religion be scientific? Would its answers be as true, accurate, and reliable, as open to question, criticism, revision, and improvement, as the rest of science? No. Why not? What makes something a science? Something is a science when it uses science's way of knowing. Chemistry uses science's way of knowing so chemistry is a science. Palmistry doesn't, and therefore is not. No existing religion uses science's way of knowing, so no existing religion is a science. So, even if all the world's scientists accepted a particular religion, that religion would still not be scientific.

But what is a way of knowing? It's a way of deciding if something is true or not. An illustration may be helpful. Astrology teaches that a Cancer is sensitive and reserved, and a Gemini is communicative and witty. How can we decide if astrology is true? What way of knowing shall we use? Personal experience is one way - my Aunt Alice is a Cancer and she's sensitive, my friend Tom is a Gemini and he's witty, so astrology must be true. Another way is authority or faith - someone I respect believes in astrology and says it's true, so I believe in it, too. Yet another way is tradition - it's thousands of years old and millions of people have believed in it, so it must be true. Judging from personal experience, judging from authority or faith, judging from tradition - each is a way of knowing, a way of deciding what's true and what's not. But none of those ways is scientific. How can we decide scientifically if astrology is true? How can we judge astrology with science's way of knowing?

Imagine giving a hundred people three horoscopes, their own and two others. Ask them which horoscope describes them best. Ask their family, their friends, their co-workers. Do they pick their "true" horoscope more than one-third of the time? Do their family and friends? If they do, then that's scientific evidence that astrology is true. But if the "true" horoscope is picked about thirty-three times in a hundred, if no one can tell the "true" horoscope from the "false" ones, then we have scientific evidence that astrology doesn't describe personality any better than flipping a coin. Heads you're sensitive, tails you're witty. Of course, deciding scientifically is work. Deciding by faith, authority, tradition, or what other people believe, may be easier. But is it as good? Each way of knowing has its advantages and disadvantages. For a person eager to be accepted by some group of people, accepting what those people think may be the best way of knowing. Faith, authority, or tradition may be the best way for someone who wants to practice some religion. Science's way of knowing has proven very useful for understanding the natural world. Yet, while each way of knowing has its own advantages and disadvantages, they all aren't equally good. Some are better than others. And picking the best way can be important. In fact, it can be a life-and-death decision. The history of medicine offers a poignant example.

Western medicine once used a way of knowing remarkably similar to science's.

Looking nature full in the face, without being blinded by either the divine or the customary, Greek intellectuals sought rational explanations of all within man's ken. In the medical field perhaps this was exemplified best by the followers of Hippocrates (born ca. 460 B.C. on Cos). Their best writings and practices showed the fundamentals of the scientific method observations and classification, rejection of unsupported theory and superstition, and a cautious generalization and induction that remained open to critical discussion and revision. . ..

Medicine was on the road to understanding and curing disease. It took a detour in the sixth century when the bubonic plague hit the Roman Empire. The plague - which would ravage Europe again in the 14th century - struck about 540 C.E., during the reign of Justinian, and raged until about 590 C.E. At its height it claimed over 10,000 victims a day. Its total toll is estimated at one hundred million. Because contemporary physicians couldn't understand or stop the disease, many people turned to religion.

The effect of the plague of Justinian on the field of medicine is unarguable, and was unfortunate. The Christian Church rushed in to fill the medical void, becoming doctor to the soul and the body. Progressive Greek and Roman physicians had taught that disease was caused by pathogenic agents; they were slowly, but correctly, creating the discipline of medical science. The church, however, in its new role as healer, equated disease with vice and sin, the punishment for leading an errant life . . . The brilliant ideas of Galen and Hippocrates became heresies. This repressive attitude lasted until the fourteenth century and vastly altered what would have been a very different course of medicine had it not fallen under the domination of dogma and miracles. . Medicine rejected a scientific way of knowing and understanding disease, and turned to a way based on faith and divine revelation. No longer need it laboriously search for the cause of disease; divine and unerring scripture had the answers. The "answers," however, aren't very good. Medicine based on scripture doesn't work, medicine based on science does. So, it's fortunate that medicine eventually returned to the "heresies" of Galen and Hippocrates. Medicine abandoned its faith-based way of knowing and understanding disease, and returned to a scientific way. As a result, someone you know is alive today who would otherwise be dead, perhaps one of your parents or children. Perhaps you.

Sciences and Religions Ways of Knowing We'll see more about ways of knowing in the first two chapters; the first chapter explores religion's way of knowing while the second explores science's. We'll see that religion decides something is true because some authority or book says so. Therefore, the religious way of knowing demands blind acceptance; its beliefs are "set in stone," fixed, not open to criticism, revision and improvement. On the other hand, we'll see how science's way of knowing - often called the scientific method discourages blind acceptance, and welcomes discussion, criticism and improvement. As we'll see, when a scientist theorizes that atoms behave one way, or electromagnetic fields behave another, other

scientists don't blindly accept the theory. Rather, they test it with the scientific way of knowing. Once the theory is proven, engineers exploit it by making useful devices based on the theory. In doing so they further test and prove the theory. A radio, an automobile, and a computer are more than useful tools; they're living proof of the accuracy of the scientific theories and engineering principles they're based on. Scientific beliefs work, they prove themselves in daily life.

In medicine, in astronomy, in history, and in numerous other fields, science's way has yielded more and better knowledge than religion's way. We'll see why science's way of discovering and testing truth - its way of knowing - has generally been more accurate than religion's. Of course, some questions seem to demand religion's way of knowing.

Are Jews God's chosen people? Is Jesus the Son of God? Is Krishna God? Is Mohammed God's messenger?

Could science ever answer such questions? No. But science could investigate and answer other important, and perhaps more relevant, questions, such as Who am I? Why am I here? How should I live my life? and What happens when I die? How could science investigate and answer such questions? That takes a few chapters to explain, but in a nutshell it's this: it could apply its way of knowing to them. Describing how science might do so is the task of chapters three, four, five and six. Chapter three discusses what science studies, with emphasis on an area that religion studies, too. Chapter four discusses what religion studies, with emphasis on the same area viewed from a religious perspective.

Chapter five discusses types of knowledge, and people who claim direct knowledge of God or "ultimate reality." Chapter six builds on ideas of previous chapters to describe how science can apply its way of knowing to ultimate questions, how it can create a scientific explanation of our place in the universe, an explanation that's as verifiable, as open to question, disagreement and improvement, as true, and perhaps as useful, as science's explanation of physical, mechanical and electrical phenomena.

Like any other knowledge produced and tested with the scientific method, a scientific religion would be an extension of science, an integral addition. Science's world view would finally include a religion of its own, a religion not merely compatible with science, but thoroughly scientific, a branch of science in its own right, a scientific religion and religious science. Science would finally have answers to questions such as Why are we here? What is the purpose of our life? Where did we come from? and What happens when we die? answers as thoroughly tested, true, and accurate as science itself.

A Scientific/Religious Comprehensive World View

In the first six chapters fundamental ideas are explored. Based on those ideas, Part II - chapter seven, eight, nine and ten - presents a world view that's deeply religious yet quite compatible with science, a world view that discusses the external world we live in, our individual internal world of thoughts and feelings, and the world of the "supernatural." And while our world view doesn't agree with all religions (it couldn't because religions themselves don't agree), and doesn't agree with any single religion, it does substantially agree with the so-called "perennial philosophy," the philosophy that Aldous Huxley considers ([S18],12) the "Highest Common Factor" of the world's religions, and that Huston Smith calls ([S14],x) "the primordial tradition." Our world view is an example of applying science's way of knowing to certain religious, philosophical, and metaphysical questions. But is it fully scientific? No, because it's the world view of just one person. Yet because the world view is presented in the scientific spirit, as a hypothesis that others may criticize, correct, amend and extend, it's also potentially a starting point for deeper inquiry. Just as other sciences grow, develop, and evolve, the world view presented in these pages may, too. Rather than a dogmatic, fixed, answer-for-all-time, it's a seed that may one day become a comprehensive, fully scientific world view. And it's certainly not the only world view that could be derived by applying the scientific way of knowing to spiritual and mystical insights. Other world views are possible. In Part I and II, we'll meet ideas of great richness and beauty, a few perhaps truly difficult, others not so much difficult as unfamiliar. In the third and final part - chapters eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen,

and fifteen - we'll apply those ideas. We'll attempt to answer the questions "So what? How can all this affect me and my daily life?" by deriving practical consequences. A short chapter concludes the book, followed by a bibliography.

Odds and Ends We'll end the introduction by discussing some miscellaneous points. First, a brief point. I've chosen to follow what seems common usage and label years C.E. Years C.E. correspond to years A.D. Therefore, 1234 C.E. and 1234 A.D. are the same year. Why not A.D.? Because A.D. is Anno Domini, Year of Our Lord, and is therefore appropriate only for Christians. C.E., however, can mean either Christian Era or Common Era and so is appropriate for Christians and non-Christians alike. Now, a more extended point. As you read this book you'll see many bits and pieces of other books; that is, you'll see many quotations. Quotes have full references, including page numbers, and they're exact: any italics shown are also in the original. I do, however, occasionally correct punctuation, change an uppercase letter to lower or vice versa. These changes are indicated in the usual way, with square brackets. I also use square brackets at the end of the quote to indicate its source. For example ([M12],9) indicates page nine of book [M12] in the bibliography. Why all the quotations? First, since this book is an exposition and synthesis of mostly nonoriginal material, it seems appropriate to include the original sources, to present direct evidence. Rather than being told what someone thinks, you see for yourself what they wrote. Second, quotations

sometimes make the point vividly and forcefully. Third, they introduce you to authors and books with whom you may want to become more acquainted. Fourth, translations differ. So it's wrong to say the Bible says this, or the Tao Te Ching says that. When a book wasn't originally written in English, it's more accurate to say this translation of the Bible says this, and that translation of the Tao Te Ching says that. In such cases I present a direct quotation. Lastly, quotations allow me to steer a middle course between two unsatisfactory extremes. On one hand, if I present an idea but neglect to mention some religious analogue, I could be justly criticized for presenting an idea of Jesus or Buddha as my own. On the other hand, if I say that Jesus or Buddha taught a certain idea, I could again be criticized for overstepping myself and acting as an official religious spokesman. To avoid these two extremes, I present my ideas as simply and clearly as possible, along with quotations from the world's religious, philosophical, scientific, and mystical writings. I'll let the experts decide whether any of my ideas are actually identical to, similar to, or entirely different from someone else's. Now let's discuss one purpose quotations aren't meant to serve. When I quote the religious or philosophical opinions of a world famous scientist, I don't mean to imply their achievement in science somehow guarantees they're right. So, suppose Einstein thought religions should give up belief in Gods who are Persons. Or suppose Schrodinger decided mystics of different cultures and times had essentially similar experiences. And suppose Einstein and Schrodinger were great scientists. They may still be wrong. In fact, there may be equally great scientists who disagreed with them. So why present the quotations at all? Because the quotes do

demonstrate that the beliefs aren't inherently absurd to the scientific mind. It would probably be hard to find a reputable, much less accomplished, scientist who believes in leprechauns, elves, or unicorns. But if some scientists believe the idea of God as a Person should be abandoned, or that mystics often experience the same thing, then perhaps these ideas are worth examining further. In addition to quotations, you'll also meet a definition now and then. Words and concepts are often defined before they're used. The definitions are probably a result of my years in mathematics. In higher mathematics, ideas and concepts are almost always defined when they are introduced, before they're used. There are two other reasons for definitions. First, they're often essential for clarity and understanding. Many words have multiple meanings or an unfamiliar meaning. Or I may use a word in an unfamiliar way. In these cases, definitions aid understanding. Clear definitions also help avoid futile arguments. Consider the following illustration. You agree to participate in an experiment. You are asked to hold out your hand. A heavy weight is placed in it. You are also asked to keep your hand absolutely still for 10 minutes. By a great effort you manage to do so. Your back, shoulder, and arm ache. Finally, the weight is removed. Have you just done any work? The answer depends entirely on the definition of "work." One definition of work is "effort, labor, toil." Using this definition, you've just done work. The physicist, however, defines "work" in an entirely different way: work equals force multiplied by distance. Using this definition, you have done no work at all since the distance you moved the weight was zero - and zero distance multiplied by any force you exerted still gives

zero work. So there are two answers; you've done a fair amount of "everyday work" and exactly zero "physicist's work." We could waste a lot of time and energy arguing if any "real" work has been done, but I intend to waste none - there are two different ideas, everyday work and physicist's work. Substitute an emotionally charged word such as "God" for "work" and even more time and energy - and even blood - could be wasted. To help avoid such waste, I define what I mean. If you understand my meaning, then we have a basis for discussion. If, on the other hand, you just don't like my definition and insist, for instance, real work has been done no matter what the physicists say, or God is only as you conceive God to be and no one has the right to use the word "God" in any other way, then we have no basis for discussion. Even with definitions, of course, you may not agree with what I say, but at least you'll understand it. If I've done my job, the following chapters will be lucid; if you as a reader have done yours, you'll have a clear idea of what I said. From that point, comments will be appreciated; I welcome any insights and criticisms. Aside from the use of definitions and quotations with references, you'll find the discussions informal, not highly technical or scholarly. Two factors force this informal level of presentation. First, necessity I don't have the education needed to discuss science, philosophy, metaphysics, religion, and theology on the professional level. Second, readability - this work may already be too obscure and pedantic for some people. A book that demanded the learning of a professional scientist, philosopher, metaphysician, and theologian would be, for almost everyone, an incomprehensible book. Instead, I've tried to

write the clearest book I could. Nonetheless, you may find some ideas unfamiliar and a few, difficult. When you do, feel free to skim ahead, at least on first reading. After you've seen the overall picture, things may fall into place. Enjoy.

Part I: Fundamentals

1
- Religion's Way of Knowing Chapter Summary: This chapter examines how religion decides what is true. It begins by describing religion's way of knowing and then examines four claims religion usually makes for scripture: consistency and truthfulness, completeness and finality, necessity for salvation, and divine or inspired authorship. The chapters point out some flaws of religion's way of knowing. Who are we? Where did we come from? How should we live our life? What happens when we die? How can such questions be answered? People have traditionally turned to religion for answers. And religion has usually answered in theological terms: Who are we? We are children of God. How should we live our life? As God wills. What happens when we die? We go to heaven or hell. How good are religion's answers? How accurate? How true? Deciding can be difficult or impossible if the answers are stated theologically. It's hard to imagine how such answers can be investigated and tested, scientifically or any other way. But how does religion know? How does it find the answers? Usually by using the revelational way of knowing. Though we can't directly test its answers, we can examine and

evaluate religion's way of knowing. That is, we can investigate how good the revelational way of knowing is at knowing, at finding answers. We can ask how good of a way of knowing is it. We can ask how well, how accurately, it decides what's true. We can ask if the knowledge that the revelational way of knowing has produced is truthful, consistent and comprehensive. This chapter examines the revelational way of knowing, the way of knowing used by religion. It identifies some of its shortcomings and shows why it's an inferior way of deciding what's true. The next chapter explores the scientific way of knowing, it identifies some its shortcomings, and shows why it's nonetheless a superior way of deciding what's true. In this and the next chapter, we'll find that the revelational way of knowing is faulty and that science's way of knowing is superior. Subsequent chapters will attempt to apply science's better way of knowing to ultimate questions. The Revelational Way of Knowing What is the revelational way of knowing, the way of knowing used by religion? Briefly, it's a way of knowing based on revelation, on scripture. It decides some writings are inspired, are ultimately written by God, and then follows them without question or criticism. Religions don't often describe their way of knowing so directly, however. Rather, they proclaim beliefs about scripture, beliefs from which their way of knowing naturally follows. Let's examine some of these beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that . . . the books of the Bible are the inspired word of God, that is, written by men with such direct assistance of the Holy Ghost as to make God their

true Author. ([N08],177). Similarly, the Seventh-day Adventists believe that [t]he Bible's authority for faith and practice rises from its origin . . . The Bible writers claimed they did not originate their messages but received them from divine sources. ([S10],7). From such beliefs it naturally follows that revelation should be accepted without question. Since God wrote it, revelation is not to be criticized, judged, or changed. Therefore, Seventh-day Adventists teach that [j]udging the Word of God by finite human standards is like trying to measure the stars with a yardstick. The Bible must not be subjected to human norms. ([S10],13). Another consequence of divine authorship is that revelation is error-free. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that the books of the Bible . . . teach firmly, faithfully and without error all and only those truths which God wanted written down for man's salvation. ([D09],12), and a Seventh-day Adventists publication has: Science Without Bounds How far did God safeguard the transmission of the text beyond assuring that its message is valid and true? . . . while the ancient manuscripts vary, the essential truths have been preserved. ([S10],11). Two more beliefs are usually part of the revelational way of

can sail one through the GS paper and one need not to sit for hours to command mastery over the traditional areas. Such fallacious interpretations miss a vital fact that there is always an element of continuity between the past, present and future in every domain and a holistic treatment of any issue will require the same. The fine point that syllabus by itself raises (and which is also one of aim of this article also) is that both traditional areas and emerging areas are equally important. For example in paper 2 GS topic 1 mentions that Indian constitution will cover Another important dimension to issues of current relevance isUnderstanding the importance of current relevance will also help in prioritizing the syllabic content and directing your energy towards most rewarding topics. (Remember the universal advice by almost all successful candidates that It is not important how much you are studying rather what you are studying is more important. ) For example the topics mentioned like Salient features of worlds Physical Geography, Contribution of moral thinkers and philosophers from India and world are limitless topics as far as breadth of topics is concerned. Similarly, many topics like Philosophical basis of governance and probity, role of civil services in democracy, human values lessons from the lives and teachings of great leaders, reformers and administrators, concept of ethics, attitude and aptitude etc. are limitless as far as the depth of topics is concerned. In such a scenario, one who is aware of happenings in surroundings can smartly chose the areas that need to be focused. For example because there was a recent issue in South China Sea over the sovereignty, one should not forget to see the important geographic features of area concerned. But overstretching the above criterion will again lead to problem of plenty, because invariably every region of world must be witnessing some important event at one time or another. In such a scenario, issues that have direct repercussions on interest of India must be focused, rather than important issues of general nature. For example in row over South China sea, vital interest of India were at stake because it is a major trade route and OVL had interest in oil exploration in same area. Change Is Not The LAST WORD

One important caution point we would like to raise at this juncture is

Has the syllabus delineated the boundaries of syllabus and students can have some relief from the uncertainty of range of questions? Well, one might be tempted to answer in affirmative but, this is half truth. Uncertainty of questions in last couple of years has resulted mainly because of shift in focus to questions of current relevance rather than questions from traditional areas. This focus will be further accentuated in coming years because uncertainty in administration itself has increased and today only dynamic, enthusiastic and positive minded administrator can meet the challenges successfully. If one understand and appreciate the uncertainty of job then he/she will find the range of questions very much justified and logical. Syllabus has delineated the boundaries in certain areas and mentioned areas should act only as light house to guide your preparation. Mentioned syllabus is not the last word because in many areas very wide ranging terminology has been utilized and deadly word etc. has been used quite frequently. Change Will Work As A Guidance

Another major change in new prescribed syllabus is delineation of areas that have relevance for guiding the preparation. For example, earlier syllabus of mains mentioned under heading Constitution of India and Indian Polity: "This part will include questions on the Constitution of India as well as all constitutional, legal, administrative and other issues emerging from the politicoadministrative system prevalent in the country." Whereas, the new syllabus will help the students in understanding demands of examination. For example in case of GS paper 2 it is mentioned that syllabus will include issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein. Such clarity is also present in other portions of polity syllabus. Issues of federalism and devolution of powers to lowest level of governance is a continuing theme and its importance has been shown by mentioning this part of syllabus under a separate heading. Salient features of RPA Act have been included in syllabus in light of recent outbursts of demands for corruption free environment and elections malpractices are considered the mother of corruption. Separation of power has been put under severe stress in recent years where instances of Judicial Activism and overreaching judiciary has forced even the CJI to advise against the same. How Jat and Gujjar agitation held the state govts ransom and splurge of violent protest across length and breadth of country demands that the study of dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions must be an integral part of an administrative exam. Emergence of Governance paradigm to replace the Government model in Public Administration makes it mandatory to study the role and importance of NGOs, SHGs and other stakeholders in development processes and development industry for any aspiring administrator.

Topic 'e-governance models, successes' has a large overlap with current affairs. At same time, link of this change/advancement with aspects of governance, transparency and accountability can be studied within the mould of traditional models. Topics under foreign relations which cover issues like status of present relations, effect of different groupings, agreements, policies, politics and mandate & structure of important international institutions are almost synonymous with areas of current affairs. Inclusive growth has been the explicit theme of both 11th and 12th five-year plans and is projected as one of the cross cutting agenda in all govt. interventions. If one notices carefully than it can be found that other topics included in the GS paper 3 have a strong link with the agenda of inclusivity. For example interventions in agriculture transport and marketing, e- technology for farmers, animal rearing, food processing, land reforms etc. are aimed at correcting the imbalance in Indian growth story, which has bypassed the majority of Indians more so in aftermath of NEP of early 1990's. S & T developments, achievements of Indians in the field, indigenization and developing of technology, awareness in the fields of IT, Space, Computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology and issues relating to intellectual property rights are areas from where questions will be asked about recent developments. Syllabic content related to Internal security includes the latest developments in the field like role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges (example of misuse of these sites for spreading rumors and posing new challenges in instance of panic outmigration of people of North East from Banglore and other South Indian Cities and how law enforcement agencies found it difficult to deal with such a fluid problem) and basics of cyber security (e.g. spate of cyber attacks and increased vulnerability in present context, where digitization has become a norm in many strategically important areas). At the same time Topic Internal security also includes traditional areas like role of external state and non-state actors Linkages between development and spread of extremism. Security challenges and their management in border areas linkages of organized crime with terrorism Various Security forces and agencies and their mandate

GS paper 4 Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude is more of a new addition to the GS syllabus. Compared to other 3 papers, portion of current relevance are least visible to an untrained eye in this paper. But after a careful analysis, one can find a strong undercurrent of current relevance. For example syllabus mentions that 'This paper will include questions to test the candidates' attitude and approach to issues relating to integrity, probity in public

life and his problem solving approach to various issues and conflicts faced by him in dealing with society. Questions may utilise the case study approach to determine these aspects." Case study approaches in such questions will be having a strong link with the recent developments. For example in light of recent outbursts of public functionaries in front of media, a case study might be given where your probable response can be asked as a senior, colleague or junior to deal with such cases. Topics like empathy, tolerance and compassion towards the weaker-sections will determine the role of civil service in ensuring inclusive growth, which is the current keyword of govt. policies. Govt's efforts towards strengthening the information sharing and transparency enhancement by passing revolutionary legislations like RTI are more or less topics of current relevance. Besides, subjective ideas like ethics, morality, human values are not static concepts. These are very dynamic concepts because these concerns are part of human society and human society is a living organism, not a dead wood. A student will have to not only study the basics of the topics mentioned in paper 4 but he will have to keep himself aware of happenings around him to be in sync with the ethos of current time. Such synchronization cannot be possible without study of current events. With this we would end the article by summarizing the broad areas covered. In totality, discussion: we can draw following conclusions from the above

1. Understanding the importance of current events will help in prioritizing the efforts by cutting unnecessary flab and focusing on important areas. 2. In absence of concentrated efforts a candidate will end up penalizing himself/herself. 3. One will need to restrict both horizontal and vertical spread of syllabus and by internalizing the relevance of concurrent themes for administration one can smartly do the same. 4. Relevance of current events has increased but without commanding the traditional areas discussion of any issue will remain shallow. Hence there is no point in endlessly discussing the relative importance of current vs traditional area, rather one has to strike a fine balance between the two areas. Traditional areas will give you a sound foundation but outer structure of your successful journey will be made of current material. So we would suggest students not to swim against the current, rather with the current to enhance their success rates. And the end is not this.

In all these concepts you must have a critical and analytical bent of mind so that you are well equipped to answer questions of "higher" level.

As Philosopher Karl Popper in his "critical rationalism" has said that "Test for truthfulness about any theory rests on its chances of being proved false"; so based on this the examiner expects that a to-be-bureaucrat must have that critical elements within his intelligence so that She/He can come up with better ways of policy interventions and thus establish the fundamentals of Governance (read Good Governance). Questioning the status-quo and attitude of inertia within the wider domain of the concept of State and Governance must be inculcated within each aspirant. After, we have analyzed the symptomatic problems, it becomes your writers moral obligation to come up with solutions or say ways and means to come up with as-expected answer for questions of GS Paper. Emphasizing the aforesaid, the writer would again encore that development of a critical attitude that is fearless of asking questions that question the resistivity of inertia within any and every aspects of society and wider system of Governance is a-must. For this, reading newspaper (a standard and "real" newspaper (not the tabloid types)) is a must. Apart from this spending "constructive" time with net also comes in handy. Going beyond the newspaper and reading the actual source of how the news reports are made also proves useful. So sometimes you can also read the actual monetary and fiscal policy as released by the RBI and Finance Minister respectively so that you can construe your own original views. Remember, reading first-hand information from the original source can only make you develop original views regarding things. And, With where there is originality you in tend thought to there is no limitation. things.

freedom,

question

Finally with questioning you develop that "critical" aspects and attitude so much required for this examination particularly for the present trend of GS Paper and more so after the change when GS has 50% weightage on the entire score. In a nutshell, your writer would only like to say that bringing general score (read below 45% as has been the current established pattern) in GS really put a question mark on the whole preparation. Apart from severely proving to be the deciding factorial even when the single optional paper will have a certain similarity of marks for all sincere students; it also somewhere resides in your system as a lingering pain that I got less m

*TA *CR-

Current

Traditional

Areas Relevance

Syllabus itself answers the question raised above that both TA and CR will remain entangled for a successful preparation. Limiting Breadth and Depth of Your Efforts

Another important dimension to issues of current relevance isUnderstanding the importance of current relevance will also help in prioritizing the syllabic content and directing your energy towards most rewarding topics. (Remember the universal advice by almost all successful candidates that It is not important how much you are studying rather what you are studying is more important. ) For example the topics mentioned like Salient features of worlds Physical Geography, Contribution of moral thinkers and philosophers from India and world are limitless topics as far as breadth of topics is concerned. Similarly, many topics like Philosophical basis of governance and probity, role of civil services in democracy, human values lessons from the lives and teachings of great leaders, reformers and administrators, concept of ethics, attitude and aptitude etc. are limitless as far as the depth of topics is concerned. In such a scenario, one who is aware of happenings in surroundings can smartly chose the areas that need to be focused. For example because there was a recent issue in South China Sea over the sovereignty, one should not forget to see the important geographic features of area concerned. But overstretching the above criterion will again lead to problem of plenty, because invariably every region of world must be witnessing some important event at one time or another. In such a scenario, issues that have direct repercussions on interest of India must be focused, rather than important issues of general nature. For example in row over South China sea, vital interest of India were at stake because it is a major trade route and OVL had interest in oil exploration in same area. Change Is Not The LAST WORD

One important caution point we would like to raise at this juncture is Has the syllabus delineated the boundaries of syllabus and students can have some relief from the uncertainty of range of questions? Well, one might be tempted to answer in affirmative but, this is half truth. Uncertainty of questions in last couple of years has resulted mainly because of shift in focus to questions of current relevance rather than questions from traditional areas. This focus will be further accentuated in coming years because uncertainty in administration itself has increased and today only dynamic, enthusiastic and positive minded administrator can meet the challenges successfully. If one understand and appreciate the uncertainty of job then he/she will find the range of questions very much justified and logical.

Syllabus has delineated the boundaries in certain areas and mentioned areas should act only as light house to guide your preparation. Mentioned syllabus is not the last word because in many areas very wide ranging terminology has been utilized and deadly word etc. has been used quite frequently. Change Will Work As A Guidance

Another major change in new prescribed syllabus is delineation of areas that have relevance for guiding the preparation. For example, earlier syllabus of mains mentioned under heading Constitution of India and Indian Polity: "This part will include questions on the Constitution of India as well as all constitutional, legal, administrative and other issues emerging from the politico-administrative system prevalent in the country." Whereas, the new syllabus will help the students in understanding demands of examination. For example in case of GS paper 2 it is mentioned that syllabus will include issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein. Such clarity is also present in other portions of polity syllabus. Issues of federalism and devolution of powers to lowest level of governance is a continuing theme and its importance has been shown by mentioning this part of syllabus under a separate heading. Salient features of RPA Act have been included in syllabus in light of recent outbursts of demands for corruption free environment and elections malpractices are considered the mother of corruption. Separation of power has been put under severe stress in recent years where instances of Judicial Activism and overreaching judiciary has forced even the CJI to advise against the same. How Jat and Gujjar agitation held the state govts ransom and splurge of violent protest across length and breadth of country demands that the study of dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions must be an integral part of an administrative exam. Emergence of Governance paradigm to replace the Government model in Public Administration makes it mandatory to study the role and importance of NGOs, SHGs and other stakeholders in development processes and development industry for any aspiring administrator. Topic 'e-governance models, successes' has a large overlap with current affairs. At same time, link of this change/advancement with aspects of governance, transparency and accountability can be studied within the mould of traditional models.

Topics under foreign relations which cover issues like status of present relations, effect of different groupings, agreements, policies, politics and mandate & structure of important international institutions are almost synonymous with areas of current affairs. Inclusive growth has been the explicit theme of both 11th and 12th fiveyear plans and is projected as one of the cross cutting agenda in all govt. interventions. If one notices carefully than it can be found that other topics included in the GS paper 3 have a strong link with the agenda of inclusivity. For example interventions in agriculture transport and marketing, etechnology for farmers, animal rearing, food processing, land reforms etc. are aimed at correcting the imbalance in Indian growth story, which has bypassed the majority of Indians more so in aftermath of NEP of early 1990's. S & T developments, achievements of Indians in the field, indigenization and developing of technology, awareness in the fields of IT, Space, Computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology and issues relating to intellectual property rights are areas from where questions will be asked about recent developments. Syllabic content related to Internal security includes the latest developments in the field like role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges (example of misuse of these sites for spreading rumors and posing new challenges in instance of panic outmigration of people of North East from Banglore and other South Indian Cities and how law enforcement agencies found it difficult to deal with such a fluid problem) and basics of cyber security (e.g. spate of cyber attacks and increased vulnerability in present context, where digitization has become a norm in many strategically important areas). At the same time Topic Internal security also includes traditional areas like role of external state and non-state actors Linkages between development and spread of extremism. Security challenges and their management in border areas linkages of organized crime with terrorism Various Security forces and agencies and their mandate

GS paper 4 Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude is more of a new addition to the GS syllabus. Compared to other 3 papers, portion of current relevance are least visible to an untrained eye in this paper. But after a careful analysis, one can find a strong undercurrent of current relevance.

For example syllabus mentions that 'This paper will include questions to test the candidates' attitude and approach to issues relating to integrity, probity in public life and his problem solving approach to various issues and conflicts faced by him in dealing with society. Questions may utilise the case study approach to determine these aspects." Case study approaches in such questions will be having a strong link with the recent developments. For example in light of recent outbursts of public functionaries in front of media, a case study might be given where your probable response can be asked as a senior, colleague or junior to deal with such cases. Topics like empathy, tolerance and compassion towards the weakersections will determine the role of civil service in ensuring inclusive growth, which is the current keyword of govt. policies. Govt's efforts towards strengthening the information sharing and transparency enhancement by passing revolutionary legislations like RTI are more or less topics of current relevance. Besides, subjective ideas like ethics, morality, human values are not static concepts. These are very dynamic concepts because these concerns are part of human society and human society is a living organism, not a dead wood. A student will have to not only study the basics of the topics mentioned in paper 4 but he will have to keep himself aware of happenings around him to be in sync with the ethos of current time. Such synchronization cannot be possible without study of current events. With this we would end the article by summarizing the broad areas covered. In totality, we can draw following conclusions from the above discussion: 1. Understanding the importance of current events will help in prioritizing the efforts by cutting unnecessary flab and focusing on important areas. 2. In absence of concentrated efforts a candidate will end up penalizing himself/herself. 3. One will need to restrict both horizontal and vertical spread of syllabus and by internalizing the relevance of concurrent themes for administration one can smartly do the same. 4. Relevance of current events has increased but without commanding the traditional areas discussion of any issue will remain shallow. Hence there is no point in endlessly discussing the relative importance of current vs traditional area, rather one has to strike a fine balance

between the two areas. Traditional areas will give you a sound foundation but outer structure of your successful journey will be made of current material. So we would suggest students not to swim against the current, rather with the current to enhance their success rates. And the end is not this.

In all these concepts you must have a critical and analytical bent of mind so that you are well equipped to answer questions of "higher" level. As Philosopher Karl Popper in his "critical rationalism" has said that "Test for truthfulness about any theory rests on its chances of being proved false"; so based on this the examiner expects that a to -be-bureaucrat must have that critical elements within his intelligence so that She/He can come up with better ways of policy interventions and thus establish the fundamentals of Governance (read Good Governance). Questioning the status-quo and attitude of inertia within the wider domain of the concept of State and Governance must be inculcated within each aspirant. After, we have analyzed the symptomatic problems, it becomes your writers moral obligation to come up with solutions or say ways and means to come up with as-expected answer for questions of GS Paper. Emphasizing the aforesaid, the writer would again encore that development of a critical attitude that is fearless of asking questions that question the resistivity of inertia within any and every aspects of society and wider system of Governance is a-must. For this, reading newspaper (a standard and "real" newspaper (not the tabloid types)) is a must. Apart from this spending "constructive" time with net also comes in handy. Going beyond the newspaper and reading the actual source of how the news reports are made also proves useful. So sometimes you can also read the actual monetary and fiscal policy as released by the RBI and Finance Minister respectively so that you can construe your own original views. Remember, reading first-hand information from the original source can only make you develop original views regarding things. And, where there is originality in thought there is no limitation. With freedom, you tend to question things.

Finally with questioning you develop that "critical" aspects and attitude so

much required for this examination particularly for the present trend of GS Paper and more so after the change when GS has 50% weightage on the entire score. In a nutshell, your writer would only like to say that bringing general score (read below 45% as has been the current established pattern) in GS really put a question mark on the whole preparation. Apart from severely proving to be the deciding factorial even when the single optional paper will have a certain similarity of marks for all sincere students; it also somewhere resides in your system as a lingering pain that I got less marks in General Studies Paper in an exam which is all about developing a Generalist approach!

22Human Geography: A History for the 21st Century

What unquestiona bly has become more difficult

through these intervention s is theconstruct ion of

coherent bodies of geographica l knowledge. Knowledge

in todaysrapi dly changing academic world has

become more akin to a socially constructed crossword puzzle,wher

e some pieces fit while others do not and where the overallpictu

re is not known to anyone at the beginning,r ather than

representing solid pieces of reality uncovered (Haack 1998;Curry

1998).Susta ining the analogy,we could furtherlame nt the

continued fragmentati on of geographic insights into crossword

puzzlesbou nd by specific national traditions;al l too few

are willing to shed light on theconstruct ion of other peoples

knowledge puzzles.The global hegemony of English asthe prime

medium through which scientific insights are communicat

ed has to someextent helped to overcome this problem;at

the same time,howev er,it has eliminated a wide array of practices

from the fold (BeaujeuGarnier 1983).Synth etic

disciplines( such as geography), in particular,ar e threatened

by many of these developmen ts in thatthe fragmentati on of

concerns both within and outside the discipline proper

results inever smaller audiences (witness the explosion in

the number of geographica l journalsduri ng the

1990s).At the same time,howev er,the fragmentati on of the

human sciencesin general has arguably led to an increased

reception of geographic knowledge withinsuch diverse fields as

cultural and gender studies,regi onal and urban studies,or

withinthe realm of more philosophic ally oriented

interests like postmodern ism or feminism. Whether the

discipline as a whole stands to profit from this evolution

remains to beseen.

CONC LUDI

NG THOU GHTS

The often disparate image of the discipline notwithstan

ding,there are a number of clearly identifiable epistemolog

ical issues that run through many of the debates andtheoretic

al positions taken up by various practitioner s within human

geography.I t is tothese that we would like to turn as we

conclude this chapter.The first of these commontop

ics or problems is a timehonoured one,centring round the

idiographic nomothetic dichotomy that separates

and unites the social sciences at one and the same time.Acentr

al point of contention, especially during the early debate about

exceptiona lismingeog raphy (Schaefer 1953),this axis had

been a dominant one in the human and socialscienc

es at least since the Methodenst reit in the German

Staatswissen schaften during thesecond half of the nineteenth

century (Strohmaye r 1997b).Is geography a scienceconc entrating on

the specific,on difference and the uniqueness of place(s)?

Or is itsgoal to uncover law-like structures that apply under

observable conditions and whichcan be used for planning

and other socially relevant purposes? Human geography

hasfound many different answers to these questions

during the course of the twentiethce ntury and has

witnessed seemingly stable configuratio ns vanish every so

often.Take,f or instance,the resurrection of a concern for

particularity within the postmodern paradigm:w as this a return to an

earlier geographica l practice or something altogetherne w and

different? Was it a child of its time just like any other

epistemolog ical break and thus necessarily a form of

localknow ledge (Ley 2003)?

Geographical visions23

Mention of particularit yshould remind us not to

overlook a second axis thatstructur ed geographic theories

during the twentieth century.Oft en hidden beneath theidiograp

hic nomothetic divide,the difference between generality

and particularity isthought by many to be synonymou s with the

former.How ever,one can well imagine anomothetic approach to

particulars,j ust as idiographic concerns for generalities exist.Implic

it in this difference,t herefore,is little less than the importance

of scale (Marston20 00) or the reminder that the geographies

we observe change depending on context,fra me of

reference and point of view.Both axes mentioned revolve

around epistemolog ical issues in that they present us with a

choice between different conceptuali zations of what kind

of science geography isand should be.But there is a third

axis we can identify that centres around questions of causation

.Centrally implicated here is the dichotomy between structure

and agency.Larg ely implicit in the theoretical assumptions

of human geography up until the 1970s,this axis provided

geographers with a whole set of answers to the question of what

or who was responsible for the creation and maintenanc e of

geographic realities:wa s itpeoples preferences that shaped spaces,or

was the particular context within which suchchoices

were made responsible for the geographies we could observe

empirically ? For aslong as geography held fast to the kind of

checklist mentality observed earlier in thischapter,t his latter

part of the question apparently did not become an issue.Thing

sstarted to change,how ever,with the move towards more

theoreticall y informed researchage ndas:here the choice between

prioritizing individual actors over social structure (or vice

versa) was often perceived to be fundamenta l.But what

about these axes? The real change in the closing decade of

the twentiethce ntury has been to view them less as

essential and mutually exclusive choices and toappreciate

their commonalit y of constructio n.Here,agai n,we need

to acknowledg e theimportan ce of the debates

surrounding structuratio n theory in the late 1970s andthrough

out the 1980s for the overall shape of theoretical discourse

within the discipline(H arris 1991;Choui nard 1997).Toget

her with simultaneou s developmen ts in feministgeo

graphy,it was in these debates that the connective nature of

alleged opposites wasfirst acknowledg ed:what had presented

itself previously as a choice between mutually ex clusive

positions or theoretical points of origin was now increasingly

viewed andtheorize d as a field in which mutually constructive

elements acted to bring forthgeogra phic realities

(Thrift 1983;Grego ry 1994).In fact,the closing years of the

lastcentury witnessed a proliferatio n of papers that analysed a

professed instability andconstruc ted nature of the categories

that were used to manufactur e (often polarized)a xes in the

first place (GibsonGraham 1996;Batter sbury et al

.1997;What more 1999).In the emerging hybrid world of

networks,a future generation of geographers may

wellfind many of the issues and conflicts of old unresolved,

perhaps even unresolvabl e(Thrift 2000a). We would like

to end by expressing our admittedly minimalist hope that a

geography f or the twenty-first century will no longer have to

deny the contested nature of itscategorie s and move towards

mature and tolerant manners of dispute and discourse. T he

emergence of research in the years flanking the turn of the millennium

that aims tointegrate rather than divide positions that were

previously thought to be only loosely

24Human Geography: A

History for the 21st Century

connected,e xclusive or downright opposed,mi ght be read

as a sign that such hopes arenot in vain (Mattingly

and FalconerAl-Hindi 1995;Dixon and Jones 1998;Barnet

t2001;Castr ee 2003;Jacob s and Nash 2003;Engla nd

2003).How ever,it might also be asign of fatigue:only history can

judge us now.