So John chapter 8 begins with a footnote that says that the earliest manuscripts and witnesses do not have the following account. So, should we treat this with as much respect as the rest of the Bible, or do we believe some monks somewhere in the 5th century (when this first appeared) made the story up and put it in there? How are we to know what should be in the New Testament and what should not? How do we know that any of this is truly the directed word of God? After all, none of them even claim to be such books. They just claimed to be accounts of people's experiences with God, or letters of instruction from one man to others. Whatever may be said about the rest of the NT, one must reach a conclusion about this passage in John 8. Is it authentically from God or is it just a good story added in there? It's easy just to accept it because that's how Zondervan packages the Bible, but is that a sound reason? We must either believe
1. God, although deciding to use the written word to communicate to his people, decided to rely on the oral tradition for just one story, until the 5th century where he decided it was the right time and divinely inspired someone to stick it into his holy text.
2. Man inserted this story by his own volition. While this story is good and may be very instructional in figuring God out, it is nonetheless a fictional piece put in there by man's own volition.
3. Oral tradition handed this story down, and while it's not something from the mouth of God, it is still a true account.
I started to write a fourth option which was that God inspired others to include this later, but what would be the reasoning for that? Did God forget to put it in there the first time? I don't think so. So I hold to the original three options. But I think that each person needs to think about it and not brush it off.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Decision Making
So, the question is as follows: Is there any point in asking God to help us make decisions? Would God affect our thinking so that we decide to go one way on something we normally would go the other?
This would be only too great, but I think that although God certainly has the potential to be able to tweak our minds, I think that that is the one area God will not invade and control. After all, if he were willing to make up our minds for us, would there ever be any sin? If he were willing to enter our heads and make us decide to do or not do certain things, then Jesus wouldn't have had to come down and die for us, would he? So it seems to me that if God was willing to go to such extremes by having Jesus die rather than affecting our decisions, then he's pretty determined that we are going to be responsible for our own decisions.
Bottom line: If God will make our decisions for us, then we have quite assuredly lost our free will. I think that is the whole thing about the human experiment: that God gives us free will and sees what we do with it.
At any rate, I know that God has helped us along with the decision making process by giving us a conscience and reasoning abilities. And I can't explain how, so it's pure hypothesis on my part, but I am convinced that God will act on our behalf and help us make the right decisions, whether it's God removing temptation from us, our God putting us through experiences that will help us grow in wisdom, or by putting people in our lives who will give us good advice or be a good example, or some other means I have yet to realize.
And yet, while I don't want to put God in a box, I cannot fathom he will make our choices for us.
This would be only too great, but I think that although God certainly has the potential to be able to tweak our minds, I think that that is the one area God will not invade and control. After all, if he were willing to make up our minds for us, would there ever be any sin? If he were willing to enter our heads and make us decide to do or not do certain things, then Jesus wouldn't have had to come down and die for us, would he? So it seems to me that if God was willing to go to such extremes by having Jesus die rather than affecting our decisions, then he's pretty determined that we are going to be responsible for our own decisions.
Bottom line: If God will make our decisions for us, then we have quite assuredly lost our free will. I think that is the whole thing about the human experiment: that God gives us free will and sees what we do with it.
At any rate, I know that God has helped us along with the decision making process by giving us a conscience and reasoning abilities. And I can't explain how, so it's pure hypothesis on my part, but I am convinced that God will act on our behalf and help us make the right decisions, whether it's God removing temptation from us, our God putting us through experiences that will help us grow in wisdom, or by putting people in our lives who will give us good advice or be a good example, or some other means I have yet to realize.
And yet, while I don't want to put God in a box, I cannot fathom he will make our choices for us.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Grossman Lives Up To His Name
Ah Rex oh Rex, our quarterback Rex,
I'd ship you out of Chicago, using FedEx
Your throws I admit are definitely the best
They hit players right in their chest
Your throws are exact, straight and true
If only you'd throw to the players in Blue!
I'd ship you out of Chicago, using FedEx
Your throws I admit are definitely the best
They hit players right in their chest
Your throws are exact, straight and true
If only you'd throw to the players in Blue!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
PRIDE
I have presently been reading Mere Christianity, and more specifically, a section on pride. Lewis describes pride as being the worst of all sin, saying pride IS enmity. I've been thinking about it, and it seems that yes, in one use of the word it certainly can be a very hellish thing within us, but in other uses it can be quite positive.
For instance, you should take pride in your work. It doesn't necessarily mean that you should do your best in order to be better than someone else, or you should look down on work lesser than your own. To take pride in one's work means that you should give it your best effort, and do such work that you do not consider shabby and that you are not ashamed to be associated with.
A father can be proud of his son, or a coach can be proud of his player. Certainly this is a negative side of pride if you are wanting to be associated with someone in order that your own status may increase. But I found myself telling a guy I was tutoring who had done well on a placement test that I was proud of him. I only mean that I am happy for his accomplishment and he should feel good about himself for doing so. Now would he be feeling pride if he was feeling good about himself? I hardly think so. After all, we are all trying our hardest (hopefully) to be more Christlike (that includes doing your best always) and so should we not be happy when we find ourselves walking down that path? I think the negative pride comes in when we do a good job on something in order that others think higher of us, but to say that we should not feel proud if we pass a difficult test or run a long race or resist a temptation would be to say that we should never have good self-esteem.
Humility should not be confused with low self-esteem. If you ace a difficult test, you shouldn't lie to yourself that you didn't do anything very great, but neither should you display your test where all can see your high marks. Humility simply dictates us to keep our self-esteem to ourselves.
One last thing on pride. Everyone has some sort of talent, and some have extreme talent. Would it be prideful to pray to God and thank Him for it? I don't think so, as long as we understand the next point. When I understand who God is and who I am, I realize that the only reason that I am smart or that I am stupid or that I am fast or that I am slow or that I am artistic or not artistic has nothing to do with me but everything to do with how God created me. If I am particularly smart, God could have just as easily have made me quite dumb, and I could hardly do anything about it. I have no say in how God made me. When we realize this, I think it is worshipful, appropriate, and quite necessary to thank God for the talents that he gave you.
For instance, you should take pride in your work. It doesn't necessarily mean that you should do your best in order to be better than someone else, or you should look down on work lesser than your own. To take pride in one's work means that you should give it your best effort, and do such work that you do not consider shabby and that you are not ashamed to be associated with.
A father can be proud of his son, or a coach can be proud of his player. Certainly this is a negative side of pride if you are wanting to be associated with someone in order that your own status may increase. But I found myself telling a guy I was tutoring who had done well on a placement test that I was proud of him. I only mean that I am happy for his accomplishment and he should feel good about himself for doing so. Now would he be feeling pride if he was feeling good about himself? I hardly think so. After all, we are all trying our hardest (hopefully) to be more Christlike (that includes doing your best always) and so should we not be happy when we find ourselves walking down that path? I think the negative pride comes in when we do a good job on something in order that others think higher of us, but to say that we should not feel proud if we pass a difficult test or run a long race or resist a temptation would be to say that we should never have good self-esteem.
Humility should not be confused with low self-esteem. If you ace a difficult test, you shouldn't lie to yourself that you didn't do anything very great, but neither should you display your test where all can see your high marks. Humility simply dictates us to keep our self-esteem to ourselves.
One last thing on pride. Everyone has some sort of talent, and some have extreme talent. Would it be prideful to pray to God and thank Him for it? I don't think so, as long as we understand the next point. When I understand who God is and who I am, I realize that the only reason that I am smart or that I am stupid or that I am fast or that I am slow or that I am artistic or not artistic has nothing to do with me but everything to do with how God created me. If I am particularly smart, God could have just as easily have made me quite dumb, and I could hardly do anything about it. I have no say in how God made me. When we realize this, I think it is worshipful, appropriate, and quite necessary to thank God for the talents that he gave you.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Parable-
During much of the 20th century, scientists have debated over the "Big Bang" Theory of cosmology and the Steady State Theory. Both on paper seemed quite plausible. When the evidence started trickling in however, it seemed that the Big Bang theory described evidences and predicted future results with more and more confidence, whereas those holding to the Steady State paradigm needed to explain away more and more incoming data. The Steady State Theory received its final blow when CMBR (radiation) was predicted in 1948 and then discovered in 1965. Now, it would seem obvious that for those who originally believed that their Steady State Theory was indeed true would switch camps when conflicting evidence would come in, as well as supporting evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It would also seem that those who would not switch camps even after being exposed to overwhelming evidence have either a pride or a stubbornness that is unyielding and unwilling to come to grips with what is much more likely to be the truth, and at the very least, come to grips with knowing their original idea is wrong.
Now the concept of a scientific theory is simply to look at a physical phenomena and try to interpret what it signifies.
Similarly, we all have "theories" about what the Bible says. We all read it, and try to interpret what it signifies.
I'm as guilty as the next of claiming that my interpretation is correct. In fact I can be quite stubborn about it, but after all, I'm right.
Just kidding of course.
So let's go to Genesis, because I believe that it is a spot where the story of the two cosmological models can be translated into our Biblical interpretations. Each of us hold some idea as to how to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. The three most common ways are these:
1. God created in 24hr. periods,
2. Each "day" of creation is an indefinite time period, a "day-age,"
3. the first chapter of Genesis is a piece of literature with the intent of teaching specific messages without any scientific considerations.
I'll pick on the first one because it is easiest.
If someone were to read Gen. 1, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created each grouping during 24 hr. periods. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created everything less than 15,000 years ago. However, when we take our noses out of the book and look around us, it takes no time at all to completely disprove this idea (despite what Recent Creationist literature may say, it is completely impossible). Yet many still believe this. Why? Well, partly it is because a bunch of hogwash that may seem like science is fed to people, but mostly I believe it is because they believe that that is what the Bible says and so there is no other possibility that could be true. Just as those who stuck by the Steady State Theory would not give in to the conflicting evidence, these Christians will not be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.
Last class period in my Science and Religion class, we were discussing the above mentioned three interpretations of Genesis 1, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. A girl piped up and mentioned what she thought was a strength of the literary view of Genesis.
"It is permissive. It allows you to believe what you want about science."
This to me reveals a serious flaw in her integrity. We as Christians ought to be truth seekers. This means that we should not be concerned one bit with what we want to believe or what we think is permitted to believe. We should not say that something is not true or is true based on what we think we are allowed to believe, but rather we should believe true what we are convinced is true. I believe quite strongly in the third interpretation of Gen. 1, but I certainly will not look down on someone who has looked at the evidence and truly thinks that the day-age interpretation is correct. Who I will think less of are those who pick any of these interpretations (even the one I think is right) because they think that is what we are permitted to believe, or because it goes along with their original interpretation of Genesis. Maybe this will illustrate what I'm getting at- In all fields of science, theories are contrived to fit the data. When new data comes which does not fit the original theory, that original interpretation is discarded for a new one (ideally of course, for in reality, people are people, Christian or no, and will stick with their own interpretation or theory). Later if still another theory comes along that describes the data better, it is adopted in place of the old. Similarly, we all have interpretations about Genesis 1, and if an interpretation comes along that better describes the facts that we have accumulated, why stick with the old which is contradicted by what we have discovered?
During much of the 20th century, scientists have debated over the "Big Bang" Theory of cosmology and the Steady State Theory. Both on paper seemed quite plausible. When the evidence started trickling in however, it seemed that the Big Bang theory described evidences and predicted future results with more and more confidence, whereas those holding to the Steady State paradigm needed to explain away more and more incoming data. The Steady State Theory received its final blow when CMBR (radiation) was predicted in 1948 and then discovered in 1965. Now, it would seem obvious that for those who originally believed that their Steady State Theory was indeed true would switch camps when conflicting evidence would come in, as well as supporting evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It would also seem that those who would not switch camps even after being exposed to overwhelming evidence have either a pride or a stubbornness that is unyielding and unwilling to come to grips with what is much more likely to be the truth, and at the very least, come to grips with knowing their original idea is wrong.
Now the concept of a scientific theory is simply to look at a physical phenomena and try to interpret what it signifies.
Similarly, we all have "theories" about what the Bible says. We all read it, and try to interpret what it signifies.
I'm as guilty as the next of claiming that my interpretation is correct. In fact I can be quite stubborn about it, but after all, I'm right.
Just kidding of course.
So let's go to Genesis, because I believe that it is a spot where the story of the two cosmological models can be translated into our Biblical interpretations. Each of us hold some idea as to how to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. The three most common ways are these:
1. God created in 24hr. periods,
2. Each "day" of creation is an indefinite time period, a "day-age,"
3. the first chapter of Genesis is a piece of literature with the intent of teaching specific messages without any scientific considerations.
I'll pick on the first one because it is easiest.
If someone were to read Gen. 1, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created each grouping during 24 hr. periods. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created everything less than 15,000 years ago. However, when we take our noses out of the book and look around us, it takes no time at all to completely disprove this idea (despite what Recent Creationist literature may say, it is completely impossible). Yet many still believe this. Why? Well, partly it is because a bunch of hogwash that may seem like science is fed to people, but mostly I believe it is because they believe that that is what the Bible says and so there is no other possibility that could be true. Just as those who stuck by the Steady State Theory would not give in to the conflicting evidence, these Christians will not be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.
Last class period in my Science and Religion class, we were discussing the above mentioned three interpretations of Genesis 1, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. A girl piped up and mentioned what she thought was a strength of the literary view of Genesis.
"It is permissive. It allows you to believe what you want about science."
This to me reveals a serious flaw in her integrity. We as Christians ought to be truth seekers. This means that we should not be concerned one bit with what we want to believe or what we think is permitted to believe. We should not say that something is not true or is true based on what we think we are allowed to believe, but rather we should believe true what we are convinced is true. I believe quite strongly in the third interpretation of Gen. 1, but I certainly will not look down on someone who has looked at the evidence and truly thinks that the day-age interpretation is correct. Who I will think less of are those who pick any of these interpretations (even the one I think is right) because they think that is what we are permitted to believe, or because it goes along with their original interpretation of Genesis. Maybe this will illustrate what I'm getting at- In all fields of science, theories are contrived to fit the data. When new data comes which does not fit the original theory, that original interpretation is discarded for a new one (ideally of course, for in reality, people are people, Christian or no, and will stick with their own interpretation or theory). Later if still another theory comes along that describes the data better, it is adopted in place of the old. Similarly, we all have interpretations about Genesis 1, and if an interpretation comes along that better describes the facts that we have accumulated, why stick with the old which is contradicted by what we have discovered?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Psychology of Morality
I was reading an interesting article yesterday on the psychology of "disgust." It was intriguing to hear the author's ideas of how our sense of disgust develops, and how it originated. The studies done however, I found to be more than a little faith shaking, as odd as it may seem for such a study to do so. The results were that most of what we consider disgusting is something that is taught. Those who were not taught to think something was disgusting did not feel that that particular something was disgusting. This was quite extraordinary to me, for I had always assumed that this feeling of disgust had nothing to do with what I was taught, but rather my feelings of revulsion were very natural and innate. This disturbed me mostly because I view how my stomach can turn at stepping barefoot on dog excrement is similar to how my innards twist at acts of immorality. They both are natural feelings and involuntary reactions to what I observe. Indeed, we consider many extreme immoral scenarios to be disgusting. They are linked to each other in an intimate way. Thus my fears began as I saw that if disgust is something that is taught, so could be the case for morality. If you do not yet understand why this frightened me, notice that if morality is nothing more than what we are taught, than there is no absolute morality, and thus no God to have given it to us.
However, still dwelling on it today, the light bulb lit brightly above my head. Compare the development of morality with the development of language. Are we born already knowing right from wrong? It is quite dubious, otherwise why do we see such a maturational development as one ages? And certainly we are not born already knowing our vernacular, but we are also just as certainly born with the ability and desire and need to learn a language. Similarly, we are born with the ability and desire and need to learn what is right and what is wrong. Language becomes such a natural process within us- it is how we respond and react to things (what happens when you stub your toe?) and indeed it is how we consciously think. Similarly, morality becomes so ingrained within us, we respond and react to things with our sense of morality, and we cannot engage a moral decision without our previous moral teachings affecting our cognitive processes.
The conclusion? Perhaps more than what we thought previously, morals are based more on what a person has been taught as opposed to what would naturally develop. This does not mean that we would have no sense of morality without any teaching. We would still feel disgust towards bad flavors and odors without anyone teaching us this, and we would still feel disgust at blatant immoral behavior without anyone teaching us this. Therefore, the question of where does any sense of morality come from is still valid, and the only valid answer still is GOD.
However, still dwelling on it today, the light bulb lit brightly above my head. Compare the development of morality with the development of language. Are we born already knowing right from wrong? It is quite dubious, otherwise why do we see such a maturational development as one ages? And certainly we are not born already knowing our vernacular, but we are also just as certainly born with the ability and desire and need to learn a language. Similarly, we are born with the ability and desire and need to learn what is right and what is wrong. Language becomes such a natural process within us- it is how we respond and react to things (what happens when you stub your toe?) and indeed it is how we consciously think. Similarly, morality becomes so ingrained within us, we respond and react to things with our sense of morality, and we cannot engage a moral decision without our previous moral teachings affecting our cognitive processes.
The conclusion? Perhaps more than what we thought previously, morals are based more on what a person has been taught as opposed to what would naturally develop. This does not mean that we would have no sense of morality without any teaching. We would still feel disgust towards bad flavors and odors without anyone teaching us this, and we would still feel disgust at blatant immoral behavior without anyone teaching us this. Therefore, the question of where does any sense of morality come from is still valid, and the only valid answer still is GOD.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Three Creational Sparks
Matter, Life, Spirit- the three creation events. This idea of three sparks of creation is a new way of looking at God’s handiwork, and is worth the looking over. Some of us ask questions such as “when did God’s creation event happen?” while neglecting the various facets of creation. Others ask questions regarding when particular things came into being, while neglecting who caused it to come into being. It is time to merge these two sets of questions and see where they lead us.
1. Around 13 billion years, the first spark occurred. Matter was born out of nothingness. Space-time was created, particles and sub-particles were created, and all the laws of nature, discovered and those still undiscovered, were born- God’s first creation event.
2. Around 4 billion years ago, the second spark occurred. The first simple cells of life were formed- a true miracle and completely unexplainable. Thus was the beginning of all the miraculous life forms we view today, with all their complexities, intricacies, beauty, grace, behavior and intelligence- God’s second creation event.
3. Around 200 thousand years ago, the first Homo Sapien walked the earth. When and how the human consciousness began, this third spark of creation, I do not know, but this surely is the most profound of all. Capacity for rational thought, capacity for involved relationships, a keen awareness of aesthetics, and possibly the most significant, a development of a spiritual nature and a moral sense were all born- God’s third creation event.
Now it is interesting to ponder the symmetry of what we know of God and what we know of his creation.
1. God the Lord is the king- the ruler over everything that exists. The Lord is the creator of the heavens and the earth. His laws are obeyed by all of nature. The Lord’s power is demonstrated in this first creation event.
Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 14:19- “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.”
Deuteronomy 10:14- To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.
2. Jesus Christ put himself into the position of experiencing life on earth, to know what it is truly like being confined to a biological shell, to feel every wound and happiness. He experienced family, friends, betrayal, threat, predation, joy, food, drink, love, happiness- all the things of life he experienced.
John 1:3,4- Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
I Timothy 1:15- Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.
3. The Holy Spirit, by nature is spiritual, just as a part of man is spiritual. The Holy Spirit resides in man and guides us and helps us. The Holy Spirit is not in other biological beings because they do not have the moral choices set before men due to their spirit.
Mark 1:8- I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Mark 13:11- Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
John 20:22- And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 1:8- But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. . .
This is of course just one possible lens through which we can view God and what he has made.
1. Around 13 billion years, the first spark occurred. Matter was born out of nothingness. Space-time was created, particles and sub-particles were created, and all the laws of nature, discovered and those still undiscovered, were born- God’s first creation event.
2. Around 4 billion years ago, the second spark occurred. The first simple cells of life were formed- a true miracle and completely unexplainable. Thus was the beginning of all the miraculous life forms we view today, with all their complexities, intricacies, beauty, grace, behavior and intelligence- God’s second creation event.
3. Around 200 thousand years ago, the first Homo Sapien walked the earth. When and how the human consciousness began, this third spark of creation, I do not know, but this surely is the most profound of all. Capacity for rational thought, capacity for involved relationships, a keen awareness of aesthetics, and possibly the most significant, a development of a spiritual nature and a moral sense were all born- God’s third creation event.
Now it is interesting to ponder the symmetry of what we know of God and what we know of his creation.
1. God the Lord is the king- the ruler over everything that exists. The Lord is the creator of the heavens and the earth. His laws are obeyed by all of nature. The Lord’s power is demonstrated in this first creation event.
Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 14:19- “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.”
Deuteronomy 10:14- To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.
2. Jesus Christ put himself into the position of experiencing life on earth, to know what it is truly like being confined to a biological shell, to feel every wound and happiness. He experienced family, friends, betrayal, threat, predation, joy, food, drink, love, happiness- all the things of life he experienced.
John 1:3,4- Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
I Timothy 1:15- Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.
3. The Holy Spirit, by nature is spiritual, just as a part of man is spiritual. The Holy Spirit resides in man and guides us and helps us. The Holy Spirit is not in other biological beings because they do not have the moral choices set before men due to their spirit.
Mark 1:8- I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Mark 13:11- Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
John 20:22- And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 1:8- But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. . .
This is of course just one possible lens through which we can view God and what he has made.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
What will heaven be like?
Well, I've got the best wife in the world, a good job, a great school, a wonderful family, great friends, good health. . . it's hard to think of an improvement.
Honestly, I think it will be much more similar to this life than what I've heard from mainstream Christianity. After all, it would seem that this reality was intended to be our eternal home. Which is strange since, albeit it's WAY in the future, eventually the sun will run out of gas,. So did God originally intend for us to expand away from planet Earth? Strange thought. Anyways, I think heaven will be infinitely complex to satisfy our minds, infinitely beautiful to satisfy our aesthetic sense, infinitely large to satisfy our desire to discover. I think we will probably have to work, for two reasons: work develops and strengthens our character, and in a sense is self-sharpening. Second, that sense of accomplishment is so satisfying. I think we will be able to experience God in a way that none of us can yet comprehend. This last one is what I'm looking forward to the most- I'm worn out wondering what or who God really is, and cannot wait to understand Him, His power, His glory, His beauty, His love, unhindered.
That's my thoughts, at any rate. Most of them don't have too strong of a base, other than this is what I imagine "perfection" being. It could be totally different.
Honestly, I think it will be much more similar to this life than what I've heard from mainstream Christianity. After all, it would seem that this reality was intended to be our eternal home. Which is strange since, albeit it's WAY in the future, eventually the sun will run out of gas,
That's my thoughts, at any rate. Most of them don't have too strong of a base, other than this is what I imagine "perfection" being. It could be totally different.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The war of Science and Christianity- (long but I think worth reading)
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
-Jeanette Rankin
Hostility abounds when reading both religious articles on science and scientific articles on religion. Any scientist who is religious or makes hypotheses inclusive of a higher Intelligence is certainly subject to verbal or active persecution. Anyone immersed in religious circles who believes particular scientific views contrary to orthodox religious views are perceived very critically, may be considered less spiritual, or the ultimate Christian insult, "liberal."
Of course it is unfair to say that this is always the case, and to do so would be incorrect. We are, however, at war with one another.
This leaves those Christians in the sciences feeling much like metal between hammer and anvil.
What are the causes? Is this war needed? Can it end?
Before addressing these questions, let's look at the history of the S&C War. One could say that science experienced the suppressive nature of religion in the medieval age. One must wonder though, is this truly the beginnings of the S&C War? Certainly natural philosophers (precursory nomenclature for scientists) were persecuted and excommunicated by the church, but on a second glance backward through time, we see that free thinking in general was prohibited by those in power, and this is the real persecution. It expands beyond science and into religion, since the commoners were not allowed to read or own a Bible. In the Age of Reason, we see a beautiful amalgam of science and theology. Sir Isaac Newton made the statement that describes both his beliefs and those of his contemporaries, "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." So the question arises, when did the war begin? The answer seems to point clearly to the Darwinian Revolution.
Here lies the answers to when the S&C War began, why it began, and why it persists.
When The Origin of the Species was written in 1859, there was no animosity between religion and science, which is as it should be, since Christianity should not be concerned with the mechanisms of how God created. However, in the early 1900's, the Christian population believed, as many still do today, that God created everything both separately and immediately. The notion of common descent, especially applied towards men, was contrary to the popular interpretation of inspired Biblical teaching. To the eyes of Christians, Darwinism left no room for God.
What could have happened is this scenario: the Christian population pushes pride aside and asserts that their interpretations of the Bible may or may not be correct. To discover the answer, they objectively look at the evidence and weighing it, pick the more probable paradigm- their current Creation model, or common descent. Of course this is not what happened at all. The Christian population assumed that what they already believed was infallible, and assumed that this apparent attack on religion was the first shot fired in the S&C War, and many viewed other scientific theories of origin such as the Big Bang Theory in the same artillery barrage.
In response to this perceived attack, a few Christians took charge of an offensive against Darwinism. This was manifested in the Scopes Trials of course, but was preceded by Harry Rimmer who founded the “Research Science Bureau” without actually being a scientist, and Ellen White who founded Seventh Day Adventism who’s claims came by "revelation." This latter organization claimed that geological phenomena and fossil findings were produced in full by the Biblical global flood, claimed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, and therefore not enough time existed for evolution to take place. A very influential writing that subscribes to these views, The Genesis Flood, was written in 1961 by Henry Morris (again, not a scientist) and is still in print. These individuals and their organizations have shaped the views of Christians and antagonized the scientific community for over 80 years. As Christians, we should be absolutely outraged that we have been hoodwinked by this bad science. The general Christian population was and is not a group of scientists who can successfully analyze data from various fields of science, and so these hypotheses that seemed scientifically sound to the non-scientific seemed to eliminated any doubt that the original Christian interpretations of the Bible were correct. Meanwhile, this bad science was attacking the scientific community who did know better and attacking their progress. This fueled the fire for hostile responses and completely eradicated any sense of respect for religion within scientific circles.
Allow me to explain BAD SCIENCE- put very simply it is to put conclusions upon the evidence, rather than derive conclusions from the evidence. An example-those who believe in a young earth expect evidence to support this, and so fantastical theories are derived to explain how this could be. True evidence of the age of the earth are looked at after the conclusion is already reached, and explained away using these extravagant and unrealistic theories. BAD SCIENCE is assuming that the current understanding and interpretation of the Bible supercedes what is clear in nature. (Our interpretation and exegesis of the Bible is a dynamic enterprise, and fallible. Think of the difference in how a biography is written today, and what the four gospels look like. Now think of writing styles at least twice as old as the gospels and consider how different they ought to be. It should be clear that the possibility of misinterpretation is high.)
Let me remark here the sad irony that we Christians who proclaim to be such avid seekers of truth, are not honest with observable evidence!
Is this war needed? Of course not. Yes, Christians should be unyielding in battles regarding our sense of morality. This is not such a war. The Bible is very, very silent on any scientific knowledge, and simply does not address the issues of HOW God acted and continues to act. Does not nature only act because God formed the laws they ceaselessly obey? So If God acts, what is the difference to him whether we judge it to be by natural or supernatural means? In both, God acts! It seems that today it is common for Christians to either dismiss evidence for scientific theories, while others ignore it completely, and still others listen only to the far fetched theories accommodating particular Biblical interpretations.
Can it end? Time alone will tell. I think that as long as Christians refuse to look at all the evidence without bias and from there make an informed and intelligent decision (I'm not saying the beliefs must change), we will never be respected within the scientific community. That is what we must do to end the S&C War. The scientific community for their part must diminish the hostility towards those who hold religious views.
The animosity against us [Christians] must fade, and we must stop giving them reason for such animosity.
-Jeanette Rankin
Hostility abounds when reading both religious articles on science and scientific articles on religion. Any scientist who is religious or makes hypotheses inclusive of a higher Intelligence is certainly subject to verbal or active persecution. Anyone immersed in religious circles who believes particular scientific views contrary to orthodox religious views are perceived very critically, may be considered less spiritual, or the ultimate Christian insult, "liberal."
Of course it is unfair to say that this is always the case, and to do so would be incorrect. We are, however, at war with one another.
This leaves those Christians in the sciences feeling much like metal between hammer and anvil.
What are the causes? Is this war needed? Can it end?
Before addressing these questions, let's look at the history of the S&C War. One could say that science experienced the suppressive nature of religion in the medieval age. One must wonder though, is this truly the beginnings of the S&C War? Certainly natural philosophers (precursory nomenclature for scientists) were persecuted and excommunicated by the church, but on a second glance backward through time, we see that free thinking in general was prohibited by those in power, and this is the real persecution. It expands beyond science and into religion, since the commoners were not allowed to read or own a Bible. In the Age of Reason, we see a beautiful amalgam of science and theology. Sir Isaac Newton made the statement that describes both his beliefs and those of his contemporaries, "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." So the question arises, when did the war begin? The answer seems to point clearly to the Darwinian Revolution.
Here lies the answers to when the S&C War began, why it began, and why it persists.
When The Origin of the Species was written in 1859, there was no animosity between religion and science, which is as it should be, since Christianity should not be concerned with the mechanisms of how God created. However, in the early 1900's, the Christian population believed, as many still do today, that God created everything both separately and immediately. The notion of common descent, especially applied towards men, was contrary to the popular interpretation of inspired Biblical teaching. To the eyes of Christians, Darwinism left no room for God.
What could have happened is this scenario: the Christian population pushes pride aside and asserts that their interpretations of the Bible may or may not be correct. To discover the answer, they objectively look at the evidence and weighing it, pick the more probable paradigm- their current Creation model, or common descent. Of course this is not what happened at all. The Christian population assumed that what they already believed was infallible, and assumed that this apparent attack on religion was the first shot fired in the S&C War, and many viewed other scientific theories of origin such as the Big Bang Theory in the same artillery barrage.
In response to this perceived attack, a few Christians took charge of an offensive against Darwinism. This was manifested in the Scopes Trials of course, but was preceded by Harry Rimmer who founded the “Research Science Bureau” without actually being a scientist, and Ellen White who founded Seventh Day Adventism who’s claims came by "revelation." This latter organization claimed that geological phenomena and fossil findings were produced in full by the Biblical global flood, claimed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, and therefore not enough time existed for evolution to take place. A very influential writing that subscribes to these views, The Genesis Flood, was written in 1961 by Henry Morris (again, not a scientist) and is still in print. These individuals and their organizations have shaped the views of Christians and antagonized the scientific community for over 80 years. As Christians, we should be absolutely outraged that we have been hoodwinked by this bad science. The general Christian population was and is not a group of scientists who can successfully analyze data from various fields of science, and so these hypotheses that seemed scientifically sound to the non-scientific seemed to eliminated any doubt that the original Christian interpretations of the Bible were correct. Meanwhile, this bad science was attacking the scientific community who did know better and attacking their progress. This fueled the fire for hostile responses and completely eradicated any sense of respect for religion within scientific circles.
Allow me to explain BAD SCIENCE- put very simply it is to put conclusions upon the evidence, rather than derive conclusions from the evidence. An example-those who believe in a young earth expect evidence to support this, and so fantastical theories are derived to explain how this could be. True evidence of the age of the earth are looked at after the conclusion is already reached, and explained away using these extravagant and unrealistic theories. BAD SCIENCE is assuming that the current understanding and interpretation of the Bible supercedes what is clear in nature. (Our interpretation and exegesis of the Bible is a dynamic enterprise, and fallible. Think of the difference in how a biography is written today, and what the four gospels look like. Now think of writing styles at least twice as old as the gospels and consider how different they ought to be. It should be clear that the possibility of misinterpretation is high.)
Let me remark here the sad irony that we Christians who proclaim to be such avid seekers of truth, are not honest with observable evidence!
Is this war needed? Of course not. Yes, Christians should be unyielding in battles regarding our sense of morality. This is not such a war. The Bible is very, very silent on any scientific knowledge, and simply does not address the issues of HOW God acted and continues to act. Does not nature only act because God formed the laws they ceaselessly obey? So If God acts, what is the difference to him whether we judge it to be by natural or supernatural means? In both, God acts! It seems that today it is common for Christians to either dismiss evidence for scientific theories, while others ignore it completely, and still others listen only to the far fetched theories accommodating particular Biblical interpretations.
Can it end? Time alone will tell. I think that as long as Christians refuse to look at all the evidence without bias and from there make an informed and intelligent decision (I'm not saying the beliefs must change), we will never be respected within the scientific community. That is what we must do to end the S&C War. The scientific community for their part must diminish the hostility towards those who hold religious views.
The animosity against us [Christians] must fade, and we must stop giving them reason for such animosity.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
NERDS R US
The fourteenth of March is today
St. Pat's Day is three days away
But much more preferred
For the taste of the nerd
Is National Pie Day HOORAY!
3.14.08
St. Pat's Day is three days away
But much more preferred
For the taste of the nerd
Is National Pie Day HOORAY!
3.14.08
Human/Divine Endeavors
So in my science and religion class we're having a few lectures from a professor from the Bible department. He mentioned that he thought of science as a human endeavor, while theology was a divine endeavor. I must say, I couldn't disagree more.
The Bible is possibly and possibly not directly from God. Nature most surely is directly from God. The "Word of God" was written down by men. Nature was created by the WORDS of God.
So is the study of the Bible the divine endeavor or is science (the study and attempt to understand nature) the divine endeavor? You could say that in one sense they are both human enterprises, because both are man's efforts, and man's methods of study. On the other hand, it could be said that they are both divine enterprises because they both have the goals of understanding God.
Of course, as is sadly most often the case, science is undertaken without thought to the fact that by understanding how nature works we are understanding how God works. But similarly, the Bible can be studied for cultural and historical relevance, without any intent to discover divine truth from it.
The Bible is possibly and possibly not directly from God. Nature most surely is directly from God. The "Word of God" was written down by men. Nature was created by the WORDS of God.
So is the study of the Bible the divine endeavor or is science (the study and attempt to understand nature) the divine endeavor? You could say that in one sense they are both human enterprises, because both are man's efforts, and man's methods of study. On the other hand, it could be said that they are both divine enterprises because they both have the goals of understanding God.
Of course, as is sadly most often the case, science is undertaken without thought to the fact that by understanding how nature works we are understanding how God works. But similarly, the Bible can be studied for cultural and historical relevance, without any intent to discover divine truth from it.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Choice to Believe
Here's the question of the day: Is belief a choice? I ask this because according to most people's interpretations of Christianity, salvation is based on belief in Jesus.
It seems to me that people have no choice as to whether they will believe something or not. There are lots of decisions that lead to a belief, but the actual choice to believe is nonexistent. For instance, say you're sitting in your living room, and someone comes up to you and claims that there's a dragon squatting behind your couch. Do you have the choice to believe this claim? Could you if you desired strongly enough believe it? Of course not. It's not a choice, because your brain will not allow you to think that this is true based on your prior knowledge and ability to reason. The choice that is presented to you is to ask for evidence or to look for evidence yourself of this claim, but there is no choice to believe. This is a significant conclusion when applied to Christianity. If the popular view is correct, then although we have no choice as to whether or not we will believe in Jesus, we are told to do so, and told that if we do not believe, we will not receive eternal life. The choices we actually do have are to ask God and others for evidence of the claims of Christianity and to look for evidence ourselves. Beyond this we are powerless. We will believe what our brains can rationalize based on the existing evidence. So, if someone looks with all their ability for Christian evidences, but doesn't find enough to convince oneself, then can God hold this person accountable and damn him? Either the answer is yes, or belief is not what God bases salvation on.
The things that seem reasonable to be held accountable for are for lazy thinking, unwillingness to search for truth, and apathy. What seems apparent is that God should look with scorn upon these traits, yet here's the clutch point: while many non-Christians do not believe because of these traits, many Christians are believers due to these very things. Which should God reward, those who believe God because that's what they were told to believe, or those who didn't believe in God because that's what they were told to believe? Which should God reward, those who blindly accept Christianity without reason, or those who assume Christianity is false without reason? Which should God reward, those who believe in God because it's easy, or those who are atheists because it is easy? Neither would seem to be the fair answer, yet in judging these two categories of people, popular Christianity of course favors those who happened to be raised in a cultural or family setting where the suppositions of Christianity were assumed to be true, and belief is accepted and expected in others.
It seems to me that people have no choice as to whether they will believe something or not. There are lots of decisions that lead to a belief, but the actual choice to believe is nonexistent. For instance, say you're sitting in your living room, and someone comes up to you and claims that there's a dragon squatting behind your couch. Do you have the choice to believe this claim? Could you if you desired strongly enough believe it? Of course not. It's not a choice, because your brain will not allow you to think that this is true based on your prior knowledge and ability to reason. The choice that is presented to you is to ask for evidence or to look for evidence yourself of this claim, but there is no choice to believe. This is a significant conclusion when applied to Christianity. If the popular view is correct, then although we have no choice as to whether or not we will believe in Jesus, we are told to do so, and told that if we do not believe, we will not receive eternal life. The choices we actually do have are to ask God and others for evidence of the claims of Christianity and to look for evidence ourselves. Beyond this we are powerless. We will believe what our brains can rationalize based on the existing evidence. So, if someone looks with all their ability for Christian evidences, but doesn't find enough to convince oneself, then can God hold this person accountable and damn him? Either the answer is yes, or belief is not what God bases salvation on.
The things that seem reasonable to be held accountable for are for lazy thinking, unwillingness to search for truth, and apathy. What seems apparent is that God should look with scorn upon these traits, yet here's the clutch point: while many non-Christians do not believe because of these traits, many Christians are believers due to these very things. Which should God reward, those who believe God because that's what they were told to believe, or those who didn't believe in God because that's what they were told to believe? Which should God reward, those who blindly accept Christianity without reason, or those who assume Christianity is false without reason? Which should God reward, those who believe in God because it's easy, or those who are atheists because it is easy? Neither would seem to be the fair answer, yet in judging these two categories of people, popular Christianity of course favors those who happened to be raised in a cultural or family setting where the suppositions of Christianity were assumed to be true, and belief is accepted and expected in others.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The notorious issue of pain and suffering
Here's an issue hotly debated for centuries, and still goes unanswered. The issue: if God is good and all powerful, why do bad things happen? Is it because God is indeed not good, or is it because, though God is good, he is incapable of stopping bad things from happening?
Well, the problem seems divided into two categories, one of which is rather simple, the other a bit more complex. Either a bad event occurs due to a human cause, or a bad event occurs due to a non-human cause.
The first case is easily explained in a way that fits inline with the notion of a loving and all-powerful God. Or rather, potentially all powerful God. The truth is that in giving fickle humans freewill, God donated some of his power to us, limiting himself, and empowering us. You see, if we choose to disobey our moral code, God could not possibly stop us if he has truly given us free will. If God were to stop us, then we never had the chance to choose good from evil, which is to say, we never had free will to begin with. If we were not given free will, our lives would be akin to this analogy. I'm sitting in the testing center taking the GRE, and Stephen Hawking is sitting beside me. Before I click on an answer, I tell him, and if it's right, he lets me click. If I'm wrong, S.H. takes the mouse from me and clicks on the right answer. In the end I score perfectly. But who really took the test? Was I given the choice of which answer to pick? No. I was able to look at the choices, tell S.H. which I would have chosen, but S.H. took the test. I had in reality no choice. The right answer would always be chosen. Similarly, if God maintained his power, which I have no doubt he could do if he desired, we would never have choices to do right or wrong, and thus no free will. Since obviously I for one have sinned, this demonstrates that God has given up some of his power to me. Unfortunately, we often misuse this power. This is what leads to these bad occurrences due to human behavior. God will not stop us from hurting one another. Likewise, he will not stop us from helping one another. This is the beauty of God's plan, that contains both dark and light hues in our lives, that allows us to experience the contrasting stuff of hate, love, rudeness, kindness, etc.
I can imagine the counterargument- "Forget contrast, I think the world would be a better place if it was filled with Mother Teresa's." However, the flaws in this argument are abundant. First, if the world were perfect, there would be no need for M.T. to fulfill, and thus no one would experience her love and kindness. Second, even if it wasn't paradoxical to have such a need in a perfect world, would anyone really feel loved by, or feel respect for M.T. had she been working under compulsion, much like a slave?
The second category is indeed difficult to explain, if nothing more than the opposite views to everything. Without ocean storms that cause tsunamis, the earth would quickly become an arid and uninhabitable planet. Without bacteria's ability to mutate into destructive organisms, bacteria crucial to our survival would not have been able to survive through the ages. Without plate tectonics that lead to earthquakes and volcanic activity, we would not have continents, fresh soil and nutrients, and a planet with a habitable atmosphere. So while these things seem very malevolent to those directly affected, they are celebrated by the rest of humanity.
So it would seem that the following are the possible conclusions one can draw from natural disasters (which I am including biological ailments as well). 1) God does not exist. 2) God does exist, he created the world, and now he's watching it spin. 3) God created the world and will intervene when we ask for it. 4) God created the world, and everything has a purpose (in other words, those who suffer got what they deserved).
I cannot convince myself there is no God, or that there is a malevolent God. I won't discuss this option here. The other three I will discuss, in reverse order.
I counter this argument with two simple things: First, we all know good people, more than that, incredible people, who have suffered greatly due to causes not human in origin. Second, Jesus himself said (in Luke 13) that people who had recently suffered were no worse than those He was speaking to. This seems to counter any idea that bad things happen because God wanted them to happen.
The second possibility seems plausible, and may in part be accurate. However, anyone who's been struck by lightning didn't necessarily have time to ask for God's intervention. The fact that this is usually the case with disasters seems to indicate that this is not the way God works. The fact that sometimes in regard to a disaster with a longer duration (i.e. cancer) we ask for help, and yet it doesn't arrive. This also seems to indicate that this explanation is inaccurate.
Our last option is that God takes a hands-off approach to our world. As stated previously, many if not all of these disasters benefit the majority of mankind. The earth is so extraordinary, so regenerative, so stubborn to carry life, it is, for me at least, not difficult to imagine God creating matter, watching planets and galaxies form, watch as earth was formed around the sun, watch as life began to develop, and see how it led ultimately to man, saying, "It's good." Everything we know about the origins of the universe seem to tell us that God did something similar to setting up a sequence of dominoes and tipping the first one over. This gives leeway to bad things happening to the good and bad alike. Credence is also given to this notion in recognizing our own capabilities. God gave us the most powerful tool in order to deal with what could and often do become catastrophes. We have solved many of these problems, and are continuing to increase our abilities to protect ourselves. This is another way that God showed us that he loved us- by giving us these capabilities.
These conclusions, I'm sure, will be in stark contrast to many if not most others'. However, this is where I find the evidence leading. It, by the way is not necessarily what I would wish to be the truth, as I would much rather have the idea that God's angels are ready to stop my electron polarity next time there's a thunderstorm, or provide a distraction for sharks if I were to fall in the ocean. This would obviously be more preferable than the idea that God gave me a certain set of capabilities and it's my responsibility to use them and keep myself out of trouble. So if anyone would like to convince me I'm wrong about God's seemingly aloof characteristics, I'm very willing to listen.
Well, the problem seems divided into two categories, one of which is rather simple, the other a bit more complex. Either a bad event occurs due to a human cause, or a bad event occurs due to a non-human cause.
The first case is easily explained in a way that fits inline with the notion of a loving and all-powerful God. Or rather, potentially all powerful God. The truth is that in giving fickle humans freewill, God donated some of his power to us, limiting himself, and empowering us. You see, if we choose to disobey our moral code, God could not possibly stop us if he has truly given us free will. If God were to stop us, then we never had the chance to choose good from evil, which is to say, we never had free will to begin with. If we were not given free will, our lives would be akin to this analogy. I'm sitting in the testing center taking the GRE, and Stephen Hawking is sitting beside me. Before I click on an answer, I tell him, and if it's right, he lets me click. If I'm wrong, S.H. takes the mouse from me and clicks on the right answer. In the end I score perfectly. But who really took the test? Was I given the choice of which answer to pick? No. I was able to look at the choices, tell S.H. which I would have chosen, but S.H. took the test. I had in reality no choice. The right answer would always be chosen. Similarly, if God maintained his power, which I have no doubt he could do if he desired, we would never have choices to do right or wrong, and thus no free will. Since obviously I for one have sinned, this demonstrates that God has given up some of his power to me. Unfortunately, we often misuse this power. This is what leads to these bad occurrences due to human behavior. God will not stop us from hurting one another. Likewise, he will not stop us from helping one another. This is the beauty of God's plan, that contains both dark and light hues in our lives, that allows us to experience the contrasting stuff of hate, love, rudeness, kindness, etc.
I can imagine the counterargument- "Forget contrast, I think the world would be a better place if it was filled with Mother Teresa's." However, the flaws in this argument are abundant. First, if the world were perfect, there would be no need for M.T. to fulfill, and thus no one would experience her love and kindness. Second, even if it wasn't paradoxical to have such a need in a perfect world, would anyone really feel loved by, or feel respect for M.T. had she been working under compulsion, much like a slave?
The second category is indeed difficult to explain, if nothing more than the opposite views to everything. Without ocean storms that cause tsunamis, the earth would quickly become an arid and uninhabitable planet. Without bacteria's ability to mutate into destructive organisms, bacteria crucial to our survival would not have been able to survive through the ages. Without plate tectonics that lead to earthquakes and volcanic activity, we would not have continents, fresh soil and nutrients, and a planet with a habitable atmosphere. So while these things seem very malevolent to those directly affected, they are celebrated by the rest of humanity.
So it would seem that the following are the possible conclusions one can draw from natural disasters (which I am including biological ailments as well). 1) God does not exist. 2) God does exist, he created the world, and now he's watching it spin. 3) God created the world and will intervene when we ask for it. 4) God created the world, and everything has a purpose (in other words, those who suffer got what they deserved).
I cannot convince myself there is no God, or that there is a malevolent God. I won't discuss this option here. The other three I will discuss, in reverse order.
I counter this argument with two simple things: First, we all know good people, more than that, incredible people, who have suffered greatly due to causes not human in origin. Second, Jesus himself said (in Luke 13) that people who had recently suffered were no worse than those He was speaking to. This seems to counter any idea that bad things happen because God wanted them to happen.
The second possibility seems plausible, and may in part be accurate. However, anyone who's been struck by lightning didn't necessarily have time to ask for God's intervention. The fact that this is usually the case with disasters seems to indicate that this is not the way God works. The fact that sometimes in regard to a disaster with a longer duration (i.e. cancer) we ask for help, and yet it doesn't arrive. This also seems to indicate that this explanation is inaccurate.
Our last option is that God takes a hands-off approach to our world. As stated previously, many if not all of these disasters benefit the majority of mankind. The earth is so extraordinary, so regenerative, so stubborn to carry life, it is, for me at least, not difficult to imagine God creating matter, watching planets and galaxies form, watch as earth was formed around the sun, watch as life began to develop, and see how it led ultimately to man, saying, "It's good." Everything we know about the origins of the universe seem to tell us that God did something similar to setting up a sequence of dominoes and tipping the first one over. This gives leeway to bad things happening to the good and bad alike. Credence is also given to this notion in recognizing our own capabilities. God gave us the most powerful tool in order to deal with what could and often do become catastrophes. We have solved many of these problems, and are continuing to increase our abilities to protect ourselves. This is another way that God showed us that he loved us- by giving us these capabilities.
These conclusions, I'm sure, will be in stark contrast to many if not most others'. However, this is where I find the evidence leading. It, by the way is not necessarily what I would wish to be the truth, as I would much rather have the idea that God's angels are ready to stop my electron polarity next time there's a thunderstorm, or provide a distraction for sharks if I were to fall in the ocean. This would obviously be more preferable than the idea that God gave me a certain set of capabilities and it's my responsibility to use them and keep myself out of trouble. So if anyone would like to convince me I'm wrong about God's seemingly aloof characteristics, I'm very willing to listen.
To Dave
So Dave has the flu. too bad. I wrote him a deeply moving song about it, but since so many others have the flu, i'll share it. get the kleenexes ready.
Hi Ho, you've got the flu.
You know what it do?
It makes you spew.
Hi Ho, you've got the flu.
You know what it do?
It makes you spew.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ode to the South
Ode to the South
To those in the south, this paean's for you,
To all of those proud of their neck's red hue.
Who cares you can't talk right, or read well for that,
Who cares that fried foods make you look a bit fat!
You think well of your okra, hominy and grits,
Though I can't agree- it gives my throat fits.
Who cares that your grandpappies lost the great war,
although by now that flag's an eyesore.
You're where the folks are friendly and kind,
Unlike the north, according to your unbiased mind.
Only one thing that bothers me, that gets me each time,
That I consider just a little less than crime:
Oh you Southern girls and boys,
Please quit saying it, "Illinois"!
-Dan Sewell
To those in the south, this paean's for you,
To all of those proud of their neck's red hue.
Who cares you can't talk right, or read well for that,
Who cares that fried foods make you look a bit fat!
You think well of your okra, hominy and grits,
Though I can't agree- it gives my throat fits.
Who cares that your grandpappies lost the great war,
although by now that flag's an eyesore.
You're where the folks are friendly and kind,
Unlike the north, according to your unbiased mind.
Only one thing that bothers me, that gets me each time,
That I consider just a little less than crime:
Oh you Southern girls and boys,
Please quit saying it, "Illinois"!
-Dan Sewell
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Basis of Morality
MORAL: of or relating to the principles of right and wrong; WRONG: unfair or unjust action; UNFAIR: unjust; UNJUST: unfair
This is where Webster's dictionary leaves us. Not far. If we can determine what is right and what is wrong, then we can define morality. What is "bad"? This initially seems obvious, but isn't quite so after a little inspection. Is death bad? Yes. But without it, there are the problems of no food, overpopulation, etc. Let's be specific and define what can be bad. Actions? Is causing violence bad? Yes, but not in self defense. Is shooting an animal bad? If it's for fun, possibly, but if it's to provide for one's family, it's good. Is lying bad? Yes, unless it is to protect someone from harm or to keep from gossiping. It would seem that for every action there is a good and a bad way to implement it. Then is it the reasoning behind actions? Is motivation what defines good and bad? The previous examples seem to indicate as much. Murder is wrong, but sometimes justice demands it to be done. Even torture, which seems so black, can also shift into the greyscale when it is done to obtain life saving information. So is it motivation behind the action, or is it just the motivation? If I am jealous, but I keep my actions in check, have I done anything wrong? Likewise, if I want to do good, but don't actually do anything about it, have I done anything good? The answers to these questions show that it is a coupling between motivation and action that seems to be the basis of morality. But keep in mind that if there is even one exception to something, it is not an absolute truth. If I work hard at my job, is that a good thing? What if the reason I do so is because there is something that I want to buy for myself? Does that make me working hard at my job wrong because I'm being selfish? I would think not. Also, there are numerous cases in history of good motivations inspiring bad actions (the crusades being the most obvious instance). To look at all the combinations and the contradictions:
good motives and bad actions -crusades=bad, violence done in self defense=good
bad motives and good actions- giving to charity for the recognition=bad, the judge who enjoys sending people to prison=good,
Of course, it would seem obvious that bad motives paired with bad actions lead are bad, and good motives paired with good actions are good. However, the key to this discussion has been left out.
We have been able to hold this discussion because we all know what is right and what is wrong. Of course there will be scenarios that are riding the fence where one person may judge one way, and another will disagree, but for the majority of the time, we are in accordance. Why is this? It could be argued that our sense of morals is based on what we have all been taught. However, given the vast number of civilizations born in this world, all the differing ideology, theology, and culture, I cannot be convinced that we have all been taught the same thing by chance. Another point to this end is that there are infinitely many situations in which moral judgment must be passed, and it is simply not possible that we are all taught how to respond to each of them by our elders.
I find that our sense of morals is exactly that: a sense. Just as all our olfactory senses agree on pleasing and displeasing aromas, just as our aural sense tell us that scraping a chalkboard is not as pleasing as Bach, so our moral sense tells us when something reeks or is satisfying. This explains why there is no set rule without exceptions upon which to base morality. Morality is not based on a system of rules to follow, it is based on innate feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
This is where Webster's dictionary leaves us. Not far. If we can determine what is right and what is wrong, then we can define morality. What is "bad"? This initially seems obvious, but isn't quite so after a little inspection. Is death bad? Yes. But without it, there are the problems of no food, overpopulation, etc. Let's be specific and define what can be bad. Actions? Is causing violence bad? Yes, but not in self defense. Is shooting an animal bad? If it's for fun, possibly, but if it's to provide for one's family, it's good. Is lying bad? Yes, unless it is to protect someone from harm or to keep from gossiping. It would seem that for every action there is a good and a bad way to implement it. Then is it the reasoning behind actions? Is motivation what defines good and bad? The previous examples seem to indicate as much. Murder is wrong, but sometimes justice demands it to be done. Even torture, which seems so black, can also shift into the greyscale when it is done to obtain life saving information. So is it motivation behind the action, or is it just the motivation? If I am jealous, but I keep my actions in check, have I done anything wrong? Likewise, if I want to do good, but don't actually do anything about it, have I done anything good? The answers to these questions show that it is a coupling between motivation and action that seems to be the basis of morality. But keep in mind that if there is even one exception to something, it is not an absolute truth. If I work hard at my job, is that a good thing? What if the reason I do so is because there is something that I want to buy for myself? Does that make me working hard at my job wrong because I'm being selfish? I would think not. Also, there are numerous cases in history of good motivations inspiring bad actions (the crusades being the most obvious instance). To look at all the combinations and the contradictions:
good motives and bad actions -crusades=bad, violence done in self defense=good
bad motives and good actions- giving to charity for the recognition=bad, the judge who enjoys sending people to prison=good,
Of course, it would seem obvious that bad motives paired with bad actions lead are bad, and good motives paired with good actions are good. However, the key to this discussion has been left out.
We have been able to hold this discussion because we all know what is right and what is wrong. Of course there will be scenarios that are riding the fence where one person may judge one way, and another will disagree, but for the majority of the time, we are in accordance. Why is this? It could be argued that our sense of morals is based on what we have all been taught. However, given the vast number of civilizations born in this world, all the differing ideology, theology, and culture, I cannot be convinced that we have all been taught the same thing by chance. Another point to this end is that there are infinitely many situations in which moral judgment must be passed, and it is simply not possible that we are all taught how to respond to each of them by our elders.
I find that our sense of morals is exactly that: a sense. Just as all our olfactory senses agree on pleasing and displeasing aromas, just as our aural sense tell us that scraping a chalkboard is not as pleasing as Bach, so our moral sense tells us when something reeks or is satisfying. This explains why there is no set rule without exceptions upon which to base morality. Morality is not based on a system of rules to follow, it is based on innate feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Jesus' humanity part 2
One thing is certain: Jesus, while on earth was not omniscient. Our brains, although incredibly powerful tools, are still finite in capacity. From the world's creation, there is infinite amount of knowledge to be had, however irrelevant most of it seems (from knowing how many stars are in the universe to what each subatomic particle in that universe has done since the beginning of time.) Keeping this in mind, we mesh this idea with one other: Jesus knew he was the Son of God, and had inside information about God. I attribute this to gradual recall of being God-gradual recall since it is hardly likely that Jesus as a baby could have spoken out about how he was the Son of God nor could a baby have the language to even have these thoughts, and the fact that when his brain did develop speech, he did speak out. If this gradual recall is accurate, then God must have put memories (or knowledge) inside of the physical brain with the intention of serving Jesus while limited in the physical realm. Here's the question of the day: Which memories did God choose, and why did he choose them? I see two options. God selected the memories that God guessed would come in handy, OR God knew what information Jesus would need throughout his human experience and put that inside his head. If the answer is the first option, no new revelations are exposed, for we all expect God to make rather wise guesses, and get them right. But what is unspoken in the first option is that God did not know what was to happen, and just made an educated guess. The second option is more direct in this issue. It states that God knew exactly what circumstances would arise, and what questions would be asked, and thus the appropriate knowledge to answer these scenarios.
What all this leads to is that God may very well have foreknowledge of what is to happen. If this is the case, God knows each and every time I'm going to sin, and he did not take precautions to prevent this. This implies that God remains passive as I decide to live for him or without him. The fact that God knows the future and sees us sinning is demonstrated in the prediction of Peter's denials (which makes you wonder about the eventual recall- is it strictly of God's memories of the past, or God's memories of the future as well? Think about Jesus' statements on the end times as you dwell on this idea). So here is the paradox: We believe our God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent. In other words, our God knows we are about to sin, can change those circumstances easily, and loves us enough to do this. And yet we sin. Here's the solution. As I've heard it said in the South, "I ain't your momma," so God, a bit more eloquently I'm sure, says to us that we are responsible for ourselves, for there is no free choice without the actual possibility of you choosing. Jesus clears this point up in the Lord's Prayer by modeling, "lead me not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." God knows what's coming, and loves us enough to do something about it, if we only ask.
What all this leads to is that God may very well have foreknowledge of what is to happen. If this is the case, God knows each and every time I'm going to sin, and he did not take precautions to prevent this. This implies that God remains passive as I decide to live for him or without him. The fact that God knows the future and sees us sinning is demonstrated in the prediction of Peter's denials (which makes you wonder about the eventual recall- is it strictly of God's memories of the past, or God's memories of the future as well? Think about Jesus' statements on the end times as you dwell on this idea). So here is the paradox: We believe our God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent. In other words, our God knows we are about to sin, can change those circumstances easily, and loves us enough to do this. And yet we sin. Here's the solution. As I've heard it said in the South, "I ain't your momma," so God, a bit more eloquently I'm sure, says to us that we are responsible for ourselves, for there is no free choice without the actual possibility of you choosing. Jesus clears this point up in the Lord's Prayer by modeling, "lead me not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." God knows what's coming, and loves us enough to do something about it, if we only ask.
Jesus' humanity part 1
I wanted to explore the idea of Jesus' state of humanity/divinity. To begin, understand that discovery is an essential part of the human experience. Discovery of the world around you, and, as we all remember through the ever dreaded teenage years, discovery of self. If discovery is an essential part of being human, and Jesus was human, then Jesus had to discover the world around him. Which is significant because one could argue that Jesus, while on earth at least, was not omniscient. Which means he had to make judgment calls on people and his environment. So even though Jesus was there when God created the world, and saw how it was made, Jesus, at some point in his childhood, had to learn that fire was hot, that gravity always works, etc. Did Jesus struggle with his own identity? When did Jesus discover that he was the son of God? Did God speak to him and fill him in on the details, or was this a gradual self-discovery? Was a specific date and time predestined for this knowledge to set in, or was it a gradual process? What was the manner in which it came to pass? An intriguing thought is this: since all we know of our own existence is based on memories (think on that awhile), did memories of being "up there" with God gradually or suddenly come to him? Did Jesus suddenly recall vividly creating the world? (According to our Bible he was: Gen. 1:26 and others.) This instills a sense of irony: man remembering creating man! There will be another part to this discussion, but I save it for a different post due to a different direction taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
