Yes, indeed good sir. Glad to see you've come to appreciate the inerrant nature of Holy Scripture! :-)
I've actually been thinking a lot about that. Interesting how the Lord works to bring things to my attention when I'm stewing about them the most. In church last Sunday the pastor spoke of too many people being too distracted from the things of God because we're so embroiled in "secondary things." How true. How truly secondary this whole "VE" thing really is. Being overcome by a stubborn need to have my way within a secondary space, I've allowed myself to be anything but a shining light on the hill. Shame, shame on me.
I am off for a week, good friend. To the wilds of Canada. I shall return to blogging in six days! Between now and then, abide in the Lord Jesus and know that he is God.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Romans Chapter 12 Verse 21
If they lie to you as soon as spit in your face (your words my friend):
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
There is a marvellous thunderstorm going on, lightning has been flashing closeby for the last hour. Truly stunning.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
There is a marvellous thunderstorm going on, lightning has been flashing closeby for the last hour. Truly stunning.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
"All Property is Theft?"
Say what? Is the premise underlying that statement that by one person owning something it necessarily deprives another? Is that really a supportable position?
As an official member of the right-wing nutjob club, I must register my disapproval of that statement! What are you, some kinda commie-sicko? :-)
* * *
I really don't know why there is this apparent requirement for humans to compete. Built into our beings through eons of survival struggles? A vestige of the competition formed when God expressed pleasure over Abel's offering but not Cain's?
If I were to venture a guess, it would be that the desire to win is a response to a deeper insecurity. I don't wish to sound too new-age fuzzy here, but doesn't it always seem like people who strive to win are most often trying to "prove" something or another? In almost every case that's what goes on inside my heart. I take offense at some perceived slight, and then I go into a competitive mode trying to right the wrong. It's an awful thing.
Some famous rich person from the last century -- I forget who, but I think it was someone like Carnegie or Vanderbilt -- was asked how much money was "enough." The answer was, "One dollar more than I have." Isn't that a horrible view? What I don't know is whether that sentiment was expressed in an aggressive, competitive way, or whether it was expressed with a sigh, as if there's an element of helplessness in the constant, consuming pursuit of more.
* * *
One of the interesting twists to this "eminent domain" thing is that if local municipalities feel emboldened by this ruling, we can expect to see more and more churches displaced. Churches pay no taxes in the United States. If the Kelo ruling found that increased tax revenue was sufficient reason to invoke eminent domain, then it follows that property offering no tax revenue is a ripe target.
It's not without precedent. Out in California a church owned some property on which they planned to build a new church. The local government invoked eminent domain and attempted to turn the property over so a Costco super warehouse store could be built. I think in that case the court ruling came in favor of the church, but that was pre-Kelo.
* * *
I'm sorry to hear that the Alice/Tony saga turned out so messy. I'm really sorry to hear that there's the spectre of emigration hangs over things. Let us hope and pray that such a thing is too bold a move, and that your daughter stays close to you.
As an official member of the right-wing nutjob club, I must register my disapproval of that statement! What are you, some kinda commie-sicko? :-)
* * *
I really don't know why there is this apparent requirement for humans to compete. Built into our beings through eons of survival struggles? A vestige of the competition formed when God expressed pleasure over Abel's offering but not Cain's?
If I were to venture a guess, it would be that the desire to win is a response to a deeper insecurity. I don't wish to sound too new-age fuzzy here, but doesn't it always seem like people who strive to win are most often trying to "prove" something or another? In almost every case that's what goes on inside my heart. I take offense at some perceived slight, and then I go into a competitive mode trying to right the wrong. It's an awful thing.
Some famous rich person from the last century -- I forget who, but I think it was someone like Carnegie or Vanderbilt -- was asked how much money was "enough." The answer was, "One dollar more than I have." Isn't that a horrible view? What I don't know is whether that sentiment was expressed in an aggressive, competitive way, or whether it was expressed with a sigh, as if there's an element of helplessness in the constant, consuming pursuit of more.
* * *
One of the interesting twists to this "eminent domain" thing is that if local municipalities feel emboldened by this ruling, we can expect to see more and more churches displaced. Churches pay no taxes in the United States. If the Kelo ruling found that increased tax revenue was sufficient reason to invoke eminent domain, then it follows that property offering no tax revenue is a ripe target.
It's not without precedent. Out in California a church owned some property on which they planned to build a new church. The local government invoked eminent domain and attempted to turn the property over so a Costco super warehouse store could be built. I think in that case the court ruling came in favor of the church, but that was pre-Kelo.
* * *
I'm sorry to hear that the Alice/Tony saga turned out so messy. I'm really sorry to hear that there's the spectre of emigration hangs over things. Let us hope and pray that such a thing is too bold a move, and that your daughter stays close to you.
Competition and winning
How unfortunate to have one's house taken off of one, I bet the takers would not wish to be treated in such a fashion. It just goes to show how accurate the statement all property is theft actually is.
You wrote:
Let me ask, what is "winning" and why do we like to do it? Why do we wish to compete with one another? Whether it be in athletic or business endeavours we seem to wish to do "better" than our fellow human being.
I assume that rich politicians/businessmen aren't going to get that much more pleasure out of a bigger house or car or boat -- are they?
Maybe we are competing against ourselves? "I wish to know the extent of my limits" one oftens hears. But why do we wish to know the extent of our own limits? Is self discovery that important? I wonder what Dr. Maslow would say about it?
Are we pre-programmed with the need to compete? (After all this is what leads to the activity you described in your last post). If so, why?
I like what Rudyard Kipling wrote on winning and losing in his famous "If ..." poem ...
Current song: "Don't Look Back in Anger" -- Oasis
PS. Alice found out that Tony had been two-timing her and as such they have now apparently parted ways. Alice is devastated. My slight worry is that Alice said "Let's emigrate to Australia" to the kids. My daughter phoned me and said "If we go to live in Australia can you come and live in Australia too please daddy?". Ho hum, well, at least I am alive and very very happy to be here -- not in pain!! It could be a lot worse. Thank you Lord!
You wrote:
I do think there's a fundamental aspect of human nature at play at the core
of this, and to the best of my knowledge it's not been written about.
Let me ask, what is "winning" and why do we like to do it? Why do we wish to compete with one another? Whether it be in athletic or business endeavours we seem to wish to do "better" than our fellow human being.
I assume that rich politicians/businessmen aren't going to get that much more pleasure out of a bigger house or car or boat -- are they?
Maybe we are competing against ourselves? "I wish to know the extent of my limits" one oftens hears. But why do we wish to know the extent of our own limits? Is self discovery that important? I wonder what Dr. Maslow would say about it?
Are we pre-programmed with the need to compete? (After all this is what leads to the activity you described in your last post). If so, why?
I like what Rudyard Kipling wrote on winning and losing in his famous "If ..." poem ...
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
...
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
Current song: "Don't Look Back in Anger" -- Oasis
PS. Alice found out that Tony had been two-timing her and as such they have now apparently parted ways. Alice is devastated. My slight worry is that Alice said "Let's emigrate to Australia" to the kids. My daughter phoned me and said "If we go to live in Australia can you come and live in Australia too please daddy?". Ho hum, well, at least I am alive and very very happy to be here -- not in pain!! It could be a lot worse. Thank you Lord!
Saturday, June 25, 2005
"Eminent Domain"
The major flap-doodle over here right now is a recent decision by the Supreme Court in a case involving a municipality's use of the power of eminent domain. That is a legal concept whereby governments (federal, state, city or local) may appropriate private property for the purposes of the public use. A typical examples of its use is when a highway is to be built, and the plan calls for the road to go through private property. In theory those whose private property is to be seized are to be offered "just compensation" for the property.
The case that came before the United States Supreme Court involve the town of New London, Connecticut, which attempted to invoke eminent domain to secure residential property so commercial property could replace it. This is quite different from the typical use of eminent domain -- typically the property is directly used for the public good: roads, hospitals, schools. Here the property was to be transferred from one private owner -- a handful of homeowners -- and turned over to a private development corporation.
The homeowners sued, claiming this was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Ammendment, which has what's known as the "Takings Clause":
The case that came before the United States Supreme Court involve the town of New London, Connecticut, which attempted to invoke eminent domain to secure residential property so commercial property could replace it. This is quite different from the typical use of eminent domain -- typically the property is directly used for the public good: roads, hospitals, schools. Here the property was to be transferred from one private owner -- a handful of homeowners -- and turned over to a private development corporation.
The homeowners sued, claiming this was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Ammendment, which has what's known as the "Takings Clause":
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Lawyers for the homeowners argued that since the property was to be taken and turned over to a private development concern, the use of emiment domain in this case violated the "public use" qualifier of the Fifth Ammendment "Takings" clause. Lawyers for the City of New London argued that conversion of the property from residential property into commercial property would provide greater tax receipts, which would be for the greater "public use."
The case wound its way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled -- in a 5-4 vote -- in favor of the City of New London. The precedent is now set: municipalities may invoke eminent domain to confiscate private property and turn it over to other private concerns if the resulting tax receipts are greater.
The blog chatter on this topic is quite intense, and there are some very thoughtful and scholarly things being written about case law and precedent. Apparently, case law in the area of eminent domain has been drifting in this direction for about a hundred years now. There's also all sorts of talk about who will benefit from this politically. Some say the Democrats, because on the surface this looks like siding with "big business" (Pfizer, in this case -- the property would be for a Pfizer building). The problem with this is that the five most liberal justices voted for this. Some say the Republicans will benefit because this case helps illustrate the problem of the judiciary that abuses its power.
I'm not so sure either will benefit. I'm starting to wonder if both won't get hurt, but in a very indirect way.
Most people have lost pretty much all confidence in the voting process being effective at the local government level. Turnout is often extremely low, and most who do vote do so on name recognition only, rather than the issues. That means that the best-funded candidates typically win at the local level, and that funding comes from -- most often -- land developers. In other words, local politicians are essentially a bought-and-paid-for bunch.
Note: Back in Reston, Virginia, where I used to live. The town of Reston had strict rules about the cutting down of trees. Anything over 4" in diameter required a permit. Only spot-cutting could be done, not clear-cutting. Homeowners did not have sovereign rights over the trees on
their own properties. (The act of buying a house in Reston required the signing of covenant. Don't like the covenant? Don't live in Reston.) But, when Oracle looked to build a new commercial building in Reston, they were given authorization to clear-cut a five acre expanse of land, which up to that point had been virtually unheard of. Why were they given this dispensation? Money. Plain and simple. Hence the lack of any confidence in local government treating the individual with any degree of justice.
Having lost confidence in the local government, people placed their trust in the courts, thinking (wrongly) that the courts would at least try to be just. What this court ruling has done -- along with hundreds of others like it -- has been to undermine people's trust in the courts.
We can't trust the elected officials and we can't trust the courts.
We have nowhere else to go.
People do not like feeling like they have no recourse. It plays to a basic insecurity in our hearts.
I'm not exactly sure how this will manifest itself in terms of damage to the two political parties. Probably through increasingly low voter turnout. Unfortunately all that does is empower the incumbant further.
This write-up has nothing to do with religion or meta-physics. And it's not so much the political aspect of this I'm focusing on. I do think there's a fundamental aspect of human nature at play at the core of this, and to the best of my knowledge it's not been written about.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Choice
I commend your "no guts" honesty sir. In that position, with the prospect of standing up and speaking to the congregation in Church, I could only tell them about what happened to me. I could not speak with any authority on The Bible, I don't know that it is the "word" of the creator of them and the Universe. I could only tell them that in my experience there is someone out there who answers to the name of "Jesus Christ" and this someone will sometimes give you things if you ask for them. I could not tell them why.
You wrote:
We are called to surrender our will to Christ, yet to do so requires a conscious act of the will.
I think this is about "who choses what I do?" isn't it?
I would say that you are the final arbiter in choosing what you do. You get up in the morning and choose whether you want toast or cereal. Now, you might pray, seek guidance, and believe that a message of "cereal" comes back. Then you might say .. hmmm.. but I really want toast! If you follow the cereal recommendation then you are following God's will. If you decide to eat toast then you are not submitting to God's will. Either way, it is your choice what you eat.
We have free will. Not sure what the closest example would be .... "if you love someone then set them free?"
The interesting thing is, how do I know the message that comes back is from God or Satan-masquerading-as-God? (or someone else? or me ?). And if no message comes back at all then what do I do?
Osama's people think it is God's will to fly planes into buildings, George W. thinks it is God's will to bomb Iraq .. it's worrying to me to give up my will. I'd rather work problems through rationally.
Those movie quotes brought back some great memories - thanks. They missed my favourite which is from "Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes" back in an exchange between Harrison Ford (Han Solo) and Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia), just as the gallant correllian-ship captain is about to be frozen in carbonite, with a good chance of dying in the process:
Leia: "I love You"
Solo: "I know"
In the making-of series it turned out that Ford just invented that off of the cuff! Brilliant.
Current song: "What if?" -- Coldplay
You wrote:
We are called to surrender our will to Christ, yet to do so requires a conscious act of the will.
I think this is about "who choses what I do?" isn't it?
I would say that you are the final arbiter in choosing what you do. You get up in the morning and choose whether you want toast or cereal. Now, you might pray, seek guidance, and believe that a message of "cereal" comes back. Then you might say .. hmmm.. but I really want toast! If you follow the cereal recommendation then you are following God's will. If you decide to eat toast then you are not submitting to God's will. Either way, it is your choice what you eat.
We have free will. Not sure what the closest example would be .... "if you love someone then set them free?"
The interesting thing is, how do I know the message that comes back is from God or Satan-masquerading-as-God? (or someone else? or me ?). And if no message comes back at all then what do I do?
Osama's people think it is God's will to fly planes into buildings, George W. thinks it is God's will to bomb Iraq .. it's worrying to me to give up my will. I'd rather work problems through rationally.
Those movie quotes brought back some great memories - thanks. They missed my favourite which is from "Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes" back in an exchange between Harrison Ford (Han Solo) and Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia), just as the gallant correllian-ship captain is about to be frozen in carbonite, with a good chance of dying in the process:
Leia: "I love You"
Solo: "I know"
In the making-of series it turned out that Ford just invented that off of the cuff! Brilliant.
Current song: "What if?" -- Coldplay
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
No Guts
I've more or less decided to pass on the opportunity to read a passage and speak at the informal church service on July 3rd. My reasons are as follows:
The second bullet is the flip side of that -- I could probably manufacture a charade of sincerity in what I say. But it's one thing to feign sincerity about something I'm selling; it's another to do so for the Christian faith. There's a tremendous sense of "ought not" in my heart about that. Whether or not my faith is truly sincere or not is open to debate, and only the Lord himself knows for sure. Sometimes I wonder if my perfectionist tendencies haunt me here.
But it's the third that frightens me the most. I'm not sure I can remain truly humble, truly softspoken and truly Christ-like in what I say. I fear climbing on my self-righteous horse and demanding others take to heart things I myself may not even truly believe.
I am, in a word, a mess.
I'd like to think this is God's way of telling me that such things are not yet my calling. I have many things I must learn to do before I stand upright and walk. Patience ... so difficult, yet so necessary.
* * *
It occurred to me the other day that may be a tension within the Christian faith regarding one's will. We are called to surrender our will to Christ, yet to do so requires a conscious act of the will. Is that a really a tension? Or is that perfectly reasonable -- that the act of giving something up may very well require the active and conscious exercise of that something? What would be a good analogy?
* * *
The passage you pulled from the web looks to me to come from "The Prayer of Jabez," a book written by Bruce Wilkinson. Have you read that book? I'm not a huge fan of it, but I suppose it brings comfort to some. The secretary at the G'burg facility is a wonderfully sweet woman of apparently simple yet sincere faith. She drew tremendous comfort and inspiration from the book. So perhaps I should suspend judgment. :-)
* * *
The "American Film Institute" ran a program on the 100 greatest lines from films. The number one was "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" (from Gone With The Wind). The number two line was "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse" (from The Godfather). The full list is here:
http://www.eonline.com/News/More/afi100quotes.html
There are lots of lines I like that aren't provided in this list. For instance, from the movie Dr. Strangelove they cite this line: "Gentleman! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" That's a fine line ... I wouldn't take it out. But my favorite is delivered by a young James Earl Jones, the bombadier of the B-52. "The auto-destruct mechanism got hit and blew itself up." Or Slim Picken's line: "Hell, a feller could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that."
From the movie Ocean's Eleven there's an exchange I find brilliant. Brad Pitt is at the dog track with Carl Reiner, trying to recruit Reiner to join the team. Reiner is peeling an orange.
Pitt: "What's with the orange?"
Reiner: "My doctor says I need more vitamins."
Pitt: "Why don't you just take vitamins?"
Did you ever notice that in that movie the character played by Brad Pitt is seen eating in almost every scene? That had to have been intentional, but why? What's the reference there?
- I'm a gutless wimp (first and foremost)
- I really question the sincerity of my faith
- I don't trust myself to remain humble
The second bullet is the flip side of that -- I could probably manufacture a charade of sincerity in what I say. But it's one thing to feign sincerity about something I'm selling; it's another to do so for the Christian faith. There's a tremendous sense of "ought not" in my heart about that. Whether or not my faith is truly sincere or not is open to debate, and only the Lord himself knows for sure. Sometimes I wonder if my perfectionist tendencies haunt me here.
But it's the third that frightens me the most. I'm not sure I can remain truly humble, truly softspoken and truly Christ-like in what I say. I fear climbing on my self-righteous horse and demanding others take to heart things I myself may not even truly believe.
I am, in a word, a mess.
I'd like to think this is God's way of telling me that such things are not yet my calling. I have many things I must learn to do before I stand upright and walk. Patience ... so difficult, yet so necessary.
* * *
It occurred to me the other day that may be a tension within the Christian faith regarding one's will. We are called to surrender our will to Christ, yet to do so requires a conscious act of the will. Is that a really a tension? Or is that perfectly reasonable -- that the act of giving something up may very well require the active and conscious exercise of that something? What would be a good analogy?
* * *
The passage you pulled from the web looks to me to come from "The Prayer of Jabez," a book written by Bruce Wilkinson. Have you read that book? I'm not a huge fan of it, but I suppose it brings comfort to some. The secretary at the G'burg facility is a wonderfully sweet woman of apparently simple yet sincere faith. She drew tremendous comfort and inspiration from the book. So perhaps I should suspend judgment. :-)
* * *
The "American Film Institute" ran a program on the 100 greatest lines from films. The number one was "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" (from Gone With The Wind). The number two line was "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse" (from The Godfather). The full list is here:
http://www.eonline.com/News/More/afi100quotes.html
There are lots of lines I like that aren't provided in this list. For instance, from the movie Dr. Strangelove they cite this line: "Gentleman! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" That's a fine line ... I wouldn't take it out. But my favorite is delivered by a young James Earl Jones, the bombadier of the B-52. "The auto-destruct mechanism got hit and blew itself up." Or Slim Picken's line: "Hell, a feller could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that."
From the movie Ocean's Eleven there's an exchange I find brilliant. Brad Pitt is at the dog track with Carl Reiner, trying to recruit Reiner to join the team. Reiner is peeling an orange.
Pitt: "What's with the orange?"
Reiner: "My doctor says I need more vitamins."
Pitt: "Why don't you just take vitamins?"
Did you ever notice that in that movie the character played by Brad Pitt is seen eating in almost every scene? That had to have been intentional, but why? What's the reference there?
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Request A Prosperous Life
The thing they taught me on sales school was to communicate with your customer in such a manner that they expect to be communicated with. We had a successful salesman who changed his appearance to look very much like the purchasing manager of a large financial institution (similar clothes, even grew the same goatee beard!) - he did very well and is now retired at the age of 40.
People undoubtedly listen if the message is coming over in a language that they can understand.
I'm not sure if there is a type of person that visits your island, but I would imagine that visitors/residents are more affluent than most and drawn to the finer things in life. After all, I don't see them driving up from their trailer park in New Jersey to Canada - but I could be wrong.
I think I would weave a "No man is an island" theme with something like the text below which I got off of the web.
In any event, if you decide to speak, I'm sure that God will speak on your behalf so don't worry, your faith and trust will see you through.
"In the middle of a very long list of genealogies, recorded in the book of 1 Chronicles, there are a few short verses about a man named Jabez who was a descendant of Judah. We never read about him again, but it appears Jabez was included in this list because of his bold request...and God's gracious response.
1 Chronicles 4:10
"Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, 'Oh, that You would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let Your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.' And God granted his request."
Passages on asking and receiving can be difficult to teach. For example: "How much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him!" (Matthew 7:11). These passages are full of truth, but those who preach a "prosperity" gospel have abused the scriptures to say God wants everyone to be financially rich and all we must do is ask or repeat some special prayer. Although this type of prosperity teaching receives a wide following, it is far from God's truth.
But God DOES want us to prosper: "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future'" (Jeremiah 29:11). And, He wants us to ask! "You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives" (James 4:2-3). God has a plan to prosper us, but we often do not receive His blessings because we are asking to satisfy our own selfish desires or cover worldly fears.
We also fail to prosper because we don't understand God's definition of prosperity. A Godly prosperity has little to do with finances or possessions, and a great deal to do with peace and contentment. A prosperous life is also one which bears much fruit and completes the work God has asked us to accomplish; "I have brought You glory on earth by completing the work You gave Me to do" (John 17:4). How petty to think that God's prosperity involves the riches of this world which rust and fade away.
A truly prosperous life begins by drawing near (and remaining near) to the presence of God. Without first abiding in His presence, we won't even know what will allow us to prosper; "Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Psalm 37:4). As we draw near to God, He places the desires on our heart which lead to true prosperity - then we must ask. It's in the asking, and in the expectation of the answer, that we exercise our faith and prove it to be real.
Let's ask God to increase our territory - to increase our realm of influence in His Kingdom. Let's ask Him to keep us in His protective arms, give us His abundance of peace, and accomplish great things in and through our life. Let's draw near to God and boldly request a prosperous life."
Americans have loads of funny sayings too ..
"Boondoggle"
"You all"
"Front and center"
"Did you get the number of that Mack truck?"
"What I want to say is ..." (Well ****** say it then!!!)
"Yo Adrian" (Rocky)
"George W for President"
etc
etc
Current song: "The Lebanon" -- The Human League
People undoubtedly listen if the message is coming over in a language that they can understand.
I'm not sure if there is a type of person that visits your island, but I would imagine that visitors/residents are more affluent than most and drawn to the finer things in life. After all, I don't see them driving up from their trailer park in New Jersey to Canada - but I could be wrong.
I think I would weave a "No man is an island" theme with something like the text below which I got off of the web.
In any event, if you decide to speak, I'm sure that God will speak on your behalf so don't worry, your faith and trust will see you through.
"In the middle of a very long list of genealogies, recorded in the book of 1 Chronicles, there are a few short verses about a man named Jabez who was a descendant of Judah. We never read about him again, but it appears Jabez was included in this list because of his bold request...and God's gracious response.
1 Chronicles 4:10
"Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, 'Oh, that You would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let Your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.' And God granted his request."
Passages on asking and receiving can be difficult to teach. For example: "How much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him!" (Matthew 7:11). These passages are full of truth, but those who preach a "prosperity" gospel have abused the scriptures to say God wants everyone to be financially rich and all we must do is ask or repeat some special prayer. Although this type of prosperity teaching receives a wide following, it is far from God's truth.
But God DOES want us to prosper: "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future'" (Jeremiah 29:11). And, He wants us to ask! "You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives" (James 4:2-3). God has a plan to prosper us, but we often do not receive His blessings because we are asking to satisfy our own selfish desires or cover worldly fears.
We also fail to prosper because we don't understand God's definition of prosperity. A Godly prosperity has little to do with finances or possessions, and a great deal to do with peace and contentment. A prosperous life is also one which bears much fruit and completes the work God has asked us to accomplish; "I have brought You glory on earth by completing the work You gave Me to do" (John 17:4). How petty to think that God's prosperity involves the riches of this world which rust and fade away.
A truly prosperous life begins by drawing near (and remaining near) to the presence of God. Without first abiding in His presence, we won't even know what will allow us to prosper; "Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Psalm 37:4). As we draw near to God, He places the desires on our heart which lead to true prosperity - then we must ask. It's in the asking, and in the expectation of the answer, that we exercise our faith and prove it to be real.
Let's ask God to increase our territory - to increase our realm of influence in His Kingdom. Let's ask Him to keep us in His protective arms, give us His abundance of peace, and accomplish great things in and through our life. Let's draw near to God and boldly request a prosperous life."
Americans have loads of funny sayings too ..
"Boondoggle"
"You all"
"Front and center"
"Did you get the number of that Mack truck?"
"What I want to say is ..." (Well ****** say it then!!!)
"Yo Adrian" (Rocky)
"George W for President"
etc
etc
Current song: "The Lebanon" -- The Human League
"Slightly doolally?"
I've known you for darn near seven years now, and in all that time I've heard only a few truly obscure British slang phrases from you. Then in this most recent post you drop two:
I find such phrases wonderful ... I love discovering them for the first time.
Perhaps it's just because I am from here, but I don't think of Americans having such colorful phrases in our speech. Is that true, or do I just not hear them since I'm so familiar with them?
* * *
The scene you mentioned from the Star Wars movie I recall in general, but that level of detail slipped right past me. Good catch!
* * *
Next week I go up to Canada to my cottage for the 4th of July. This year marks the 110th anniversary of the Club that owns the island. I am currently president of the Club and as such I must preside over the annual meeting ... my third straight year doing that. On Sunday, July 3rd they're holding an informal church service, and they're short a few passage readers. I received an e-mail asking if I'd like to contribute.
Here's where the rubber meets the road, my friend. My first inclination is to decline, simply because it's easier to stay anonymous. Or I could accept and try to spread the Gospel in a way some may not have heard or considered. If you could suggest a topic to focus on for a five minute talk, what would you suggest?
I can't help but think this was a test dropped in my lap. I really don't wish to fail.
- slightly doolally
- really taking the michael
I find such phrases wonderful ... I love discovering them for the first time.
Perhaps it's just because I am from here, but I don't think of Americans having such colorful phrases in our speech. Is that true, or do I just not hear them since I'm so familiar with them?
* * *
The scene you mentioned from the Star Wars movie I recall in general, but that level of detail slipped right past me. Good catch!
* * *
Next week I go up to Canada to my cottage for the 4th of July. This year marks the 110th anniversary of the Club that owns the island. I am currently president of the Club and as such I must preside over the annual meeting ... my third straight year doing that. On Sunday, July 3rd they're holding an informal church service, and they're short a few passage readers. I received an e-mail asking if I'd like to contribute.
Here's where the rubber meets the road, my friend. My first inclination is to decline, simply because it's easier to stay anonymous. Or I could accept and try to spread the Gospel in a way some may not have heard or considered. If you could suggest a topic to focus on for a five minute talk, what would you suggest?
I can't help but think this was a test dropped in my lap. I really don't wish to fail.
Solstice
And a summer one in the northern hemisphere, a shame that the days are getting shorter now.
Reading the first part of your post I assume that the heat down there has made you slightly doolally? :-)
I think my favourite part in Star Wars 3, was when Obi-Wan and Anakin were brought onto the bridge of General Grevious' ship. One droid squeezes past Obi-Wan to give a stolen lightsabre to his boss and says to Obi "excuse me" (what a polite droid!) Then the droid's boss, General Grevious, grabs the lightsabre out of the droid's hand upon which happenstance the droid sarcastically whispers "you're welcome"! He was quite put out by the bad manners of his evil captain! This is all done in such a quiet and low-key way, and so completely incidental to the plot, that I find it quite hilarious. Lucas really taking the michael. But that's just me.
To me the puddle post shows us how wrong we can "get it" -- depending on our point of view. Take non-Christians for example.
Current song: "Fight The Power" -- Public Enemy
PS. I really can't get into that type of "Ode to a dead wooden log in the sky" type of poetry either. I'm far too practical.
Reading the first part of your post I assume that the heat down there has made you slightly doolally? :-)
I think my favourite part in Star Wars 3, was when Obi-Wan and Anakin were brought onto the bridge of General Grevious' ship. One droid squeezes past Obi-Wan to give a stolen lightsabre to his boss and says to Obi "excuse me" (what a polite droid!) Then the droid's boss, General Grevious, grabs the lightsabre out of the droid's hand upon which happenstance the droid sarcastically whispers "you're welcome"! He was quite put out by the bad manners of his evil captain! This is all done in such a quiet and low-key way, and so completely incidental to the plot, that I find it quite hilarious. Lucas really taking the michael. But that's just me.
To me the puddle post shows us how wrong we can "get it" -- depending on our point of view. Take non-Christians for example.
Current song: "Fight The Power" -- Public Enemy
PS. I really can't get into that type of "Ode to a dead wooden log in the sky" type of poetry either. I'm far too practical.
Vaporizing Puddle
Ah ... but the puddle, upon being exposed to the sun, does not truly disappear, but rather changes form and becomes one with the atmosphere. It gives up its struggle and becomes one with the Force. Unfortunately, the puddle was a female, and the Force is a misogynist.
"Be gone, foul wench!" The Force said, which in itself is odd given that the Force is a vaporous concept without personality.
"I'm melting! I'm melting!" The puddle cried out. Of course, strictly speaking she wasn't melting at all since she had gone from solid state to liquid back in March of the year. She was merely transitioning from liquid into a gaseous state. But anyway, back in February she wasn't a puddle, but rather frozen slush stuck to the undercarriage of a car.
"You foolish woman," the Force spit back at the Puddle. "You should have said 'evaporating,' not 'melting'." Witnesses to this scene searched high and low for the source of this voice, since it was well known that the Force, if it had a voice at all, would have the voice of Sir Alec Guinness. This voice didn't sound like him. It sounded more like George Michael.
"Oh shut up." The Puddle sniped back. "I was doing a send-up of the witch from 'Wizard of Oz.' If you knew anything about movies you'd have known that. What kind of 'Force' are you that you don't even know that? And by the way, you're just a formless 'thing,' not a speaking entity. So shut up, will you?"
"Harlot." Said the Force.
"Shriveled old fool." Said the Puddle.
"Happy not, I am." Said Yoda.
* * *
I'll be honest ... I didn't fully understand the point of the story of the puddle. Is the puddle supposed to represent us humans, thinking that from our perspective we were made for this earth, or this earth made for us, when in fact we're all just meaningless dust in the great cosmic accident?
* * *
Years ago -- the 10th grade for me here in the United States; 1975 to be precise -- I had a literature class taught by a woman who was probably in her early 30's at the time. It being the tail end of the liberating '60's decade (which really ran from 1966 or so to 1975 or so), she was into meaningless psycho-pop drivel gleaned from stories. I recall her explaining that a scene from a book where a dream of sheets over the character's head was supposed to symbolize milk, and milk symbolize life, and thus the dream was about liberation unto life ... or something like that. I have almost no capacity to deal in those kinds of abstracts. I got poor grades in that class. She hated the boys anyway.
"Be gone, foul wench!" The Force said, which in itself is odd given that the Force is a vaporous concept without personality.
"I'm melting! I'm melting!" The puddle cried out. Of course, strictly speaking she wasn't melting at all since she had gone from solid state to liquid back in March of the year. She was merely transitioning from liquid into a gaseous state. But anyway, back in February she wasn't a puddle, but rather frozen slush stuck to the undercarriage of a car.
"You foolish woman," the Force spit back at the Puddle. "You should have said 'evaporating,' not 'melting'." Witnesses to this scene searched high and low for the source of this voice, since it was well known that the Force, if it had a voice at all, would have the voice of Sir Alec Guinness. This voice didn't sound like him. It sounded more like George Michael.
"Oh shut up." The Puddle sniped back. "I was doing a send-up of the witch from 'Wizard of Oz.' If you knew anything about movies you'd have known that. What kind of 'Force' are you that you don't even know that? And by the way, you're just a formless 'thing,' not a speaking entity. So shut up, will you?"
"Harlot." Said the Force.
"Shriveled old fool." Said the Puddle.
"Happy not, I am." Said Yoda.
* * *
I'll be honest ... I didn't fully understand the point of the story of the puddle. Is the puddle supposed to represent us humans, thinking that from our perspective we were made for this earth, or this earth made for us, when in fact we're all just meaningless dust in the great cosmic accident?
* * *
Years ago -- the 10th grade for me here in the United States; 1975 to be precise -- I had a literature class taught by a woman who was probably in her early 30's at the time. It being the tail end of the liberating '60's decade (which really ran from 1966 or so to 1975 or so), she was into meaningless psycho-pop drivel gleaned from stories. I recall her explaining that a scene from a book where a dream of sheets over the character's head was supposed to symbolize milk, and milk symbolize life, and thus the dream was about liberation unto life ... or something like that. I have almost no capacity to deal in those kinds of abstracts. I got poor grades in that class. She hated the boys anyway.
Anthropic principle
"Imagine you were a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up (you know all about hot don't you sir?! 106F oh my gosh, are you going to cope with this move to Tucson?) and gradually the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
That's from a Douglas Adams lecture and it makes me smile :-)
Yes I'd rather be hanging out on your porch with you, cigars and guinness old chap! Thanks for the offer I must sort out a visit. May be in Austin for a visit soonish (3Q?)
Current song: "Long Hot Summer" -- The Style Council
That's from a Douglas Adams lecture and it makes me smile :-)
Yes I'd rather be hanging out on your porch with you, cigars and guinness old chap! Thanks for the offer I must sort out a visit. May be in Austin for a visit soonish (3Q?)
Current song: "Long Hot Summer" -- The Style Council
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Revenge of the Sith
Just came back from the movie. If I went to see lots of cool special effects and to tie a bow around the story line ... then it was an okay movie. Otherwise, no. At least in my opinion.
I fell asleep part way through it.
I don't get the hoopla ... but then again, I'm not much a fan of the science/fantasy realm.
106 degrees F in Tucson.
Though hot, sitting on the back patio drinking cold beer and smoking cigars is a fine, fine way to spend an afternoon. Care to join me? :-)
I fell asleep part way through it.
I don't get the hoopla ... but then again, I'm not much a fan of the science/fantasy realm.
106 degrees F in Tucson.
Though hot, sitting on the back patio drinking cold beer and smoking cigars is a fine, fine way to spend an afternoon. Care to join me? :-)
Father's Day, Part 2
In a perfect world we would not have the kind of "family" structures like you described, where children by multiple parents are scattered about. It is a very, very difficult situation. Why things like this occur I can only guess ... and my guess would be along the lines you described. People marry for a lot of different reasons, most of which aren't good reasons. My first marriage was definitely done out of fear that I would have no other opportunity. The psychology behind all that runs deep and dark, and would require at least two cigars and a few Guinness to unravel.
In my second marriage I have a glimmer of recognition -- though still dimly seen -- that marriage is first and foremost a covenant made before God. The gravity of that gives me pause. I suspect if more could understand that, we'd have marriages entered into a bit more carefully.
I, too, pray that the Lord would watch over your daughter, and guide her to understand what she needs to understand to navigate this life. I'm sure the Lord will use you as an instrument in that process.
* * *
A few years ago when I stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon and looked across the 10 mile width and 1 mile depth, I thought it absolutely impossible that such a thing could have been created by natural forces in 5,000 years. So for me to hold to the supposed Biblical account of creation and the age of the earth, I would have to either believe that God simply made the Grand Canyon as it is, or against all odds the Canyon was eroded in such a short period of time.
The former is certainly possible, but it begs all sorts of questions as to "Why?" The latter is beyond my ability to accept. The probability of it being formed in 5,000 years is too remote. But 4.5 billion years? The probability becomes acceptable.
I think there is something akin to this in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The author of the PDF says that the odds are "vanishingly small" that the mechanism of natural selection could have produced some of the complexity we see. I don't know the equations they used to calculate those probabilities. I'm sure they're not total fiction, though I'm certain they're open to some debate. But as the mysteries and complexities of this world are better understood, I sense there's a growing awareness -- like me at the Grand Canyon -- that the random process of natural selection just could not have done it. The odds are just against it. Too many things would have to coincide in just the right way to provide even the smallest building blocks of life. That process would have to repeat over and over, without an intervening calamity to "reset" the process back to zero. Is the probability more than zero-point-zero? Yes. Is it anywhere near reasonably likely? To many, no.
You wrote, "but fails to appreciate that we do exist." I'm not so sure that's accurate. I think in going through the effort of arguing against the random chance probability of it all, he's pointing out the marvel of it all. As you say, "Intelligent life has arisen on Earth, somehow." To the intelligent design advocates, that "somehow" is provided through the guiding hand of a higher power. It sounds unscientific, but the whole of the supernatural is beyond science ... or science as we presently know it.
You ask two questions:
As to the second question, the only way it can be predictive is for us to make two broad assumptions: 1) what the random mutation will be, and 2) the chances of that mutation surviving and prospering. Both are sheer guesses. This is why I rail at those who "predict" that humans will evolve a certain way. First, we can't know what random mutation will come along, and second, in the complex realm of human interaction, marriage and procreation (see above), it's virtually impossible to suggest what features will provide reproductive advantage.
I'm not smart enough to follow all the arguments made in that PDF, and to know whether your critique of them is fair or not (though I'll say this -- I also didn't follow the "is a city irreducibly complex?" argument). But like when I stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and came to the conclusion that there's little chance it was created in 5,000 years, I read about the marvelous complexity of something as "simple" as one of our cells, and I come to the conclusion that chance could not construct that. It was that realization some six years ago now that made me, for the first time, start seriously considering the existence of a creator God.
To think of a God that can create all this -- the vastness of it and the complexity of it -- and all the while be completely and fully aware of every aspect of it at all times ... is humbling. And then to seriously think of making a marriage vow in His presence sets the whole of marriage in a different light. At least to me.
But I think we've lost sight of the awesome nature of God. He's really George Burns in a movie, don't you know. :-(
In my second marriage I have a glimmer of recognition -- though still dimly seen -- that marriage is first and foremost a covenant made before God. The gravity of that gives me pause. I suspect if more could understand that, we'd have marriages entered into a bit more carefully.
I, too, pray that the Lord would watch over your daughter, and guide her to understand what she needs to understand to navigate this life. I'm sure the Lord will use you as an instrument in that process.
* * *
A few years ago when I stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon and looked across the 10 mile width and 1 mile depth, I thought it absolutely impossible that such a thing could have been created by natural forces in 5,000 years. So for me to hold to the supposed Biblical account of creation and the age of the earth, I would have to either believe that God simply made the Grand Canyon as it is, or against all odds the Canyon was eroded in such a short period of time.
The former is certainly possible, but it begs all sorts of questions as to "Why?" The latter is beyond my ability to accept. The probability of it being formed in 5,000 years is too remote. But 4.5 billion years? The probability becomes acceptable.
I think there is something akin to this in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The author of the PDF says that the odds are "vanishingly small" that the mechanism of natural selection could have produced some of the complexity we see. I don't know the equations they used to calculate those probabilities. I'm sure they're not total fiction, though I'm certain they're open to some debate. But as the mysteries and complexities of this world are better understood, I sense there's a growing awareness -- like me at the Grand Canyon -- that the random process of natural selection just could not have done it. The odds are just against it. Too many things would have to coincide in just the right way to provide even the smallest building blocks of life. That process would have to repeat over and over, without an intervening calamity to "reset" the process back to zero. Is the probability more than zero-point-zero? Yes. Is it anywhere near reasonably likely? To many, no.
You wrote, "but fails to appreciate that we do exist." I'm not so sure that's accurate. I think in going through the effort of arguing against the random chance probability of it all, he's pointing out the marvel of it all. As you say, "Intelligent life has arisen on Earth, somehow." To the intelligent design advocates, that "somehow" is provided through the guiding hand of a higher power. It sounds unscientific, but the whole of the supernatural is beyond science ... or science as we presently know it.
You ask two questions:
- Why do things appear to build up from less complex to more complex?
- Is the theory of Natural Selection predictive?
As to the second question, the only way it can be predictive is for us to make two broad assumptions: 1) what the random mutation will be, and 2) the chances of that mutation surviving and prospering. Both are sheer guesses. This is why I rail at those who "predict" that humans will evolve a certain way. First, we can't know what random mutation will come along, and second, in the complex realm of human interaction, marriage and procreation (see above), it's virtually impossible to suggest what features will provide reproductive advantage.
I'm not smart enough to follow all the arguments made in that PDF, and to know whether your critique of them is fair or not (though I'll say this -- I also didn't follow the "is a city irreducibly complex?" argument). But like when I stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and came to the conclusion that there's little chance it was created in 5,000 years, I read about the marvelous complexity of something as "simple" as one of our cells, and I come to the conclusion that chance could not construct that. It was that realization some six years ago now that made me, for the first time, start seriously considering the existence of a creator God.
To think of a God that can create all this -- the vastness of it and the complexity of it -- and all the while be completely and fully aware of every aspect of it at all times ... is humbling. And then to seriously think of making a marriage vow in His presence sets the whole of marriage in a different light. At least to me.
But I think we've lost sight of the awesome nature of God. He's really George Burns in a movie, don't you know. :-(
Father's Day 2005
Well it was a lovely time this morning as I got to see my daughter, she bought me a Star Wars mug for daddy's day - now everytime I drink some tea I hear "Most impressive young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet" from a small speaker embedded in the bottom of the cup!
Not so nice was when her mother (Alice), with her new man in tow (who moved into Alice's house last night) turned up to take her to London to visit Ellen's (Alice's other daughter) father. "It's time for a family day out" says Alice to my morose and crying daughter as she is dragged off to the car.
As a result, this morning, I can't help but feel that something is wrong. Alice's new fellow has been banished from his house as his partner found out that he was having an affair with Alice. So he's leaving the two kids that he has there, plus the two kids from his original relationship, to go and live in the house my daughter spends most of her time in. So there is my ex-wife Alice, with two children by two different men, shacking up with a chap that has four children by two different women.
Ellen is seeing a child psychologist right now for emotional problems.
This isn't the way I was told it was going to be - I am accepting it, it's against my worldview, therefore I am being altruistic.
I pray that God will look after my daughter. I wish that I had the power to do so.
When looking for a root cause of this mess I wonder if people rush into relationships? Alice parted with me as I was not what she was looking for. She has now found something better than me and is "going for it", Tony (Alice's new beau) found something better than his partner and is "going for it" with Alice.
Could it be that people often rush into relationships out of fear, thinking "I dont want to be alone!" and then when we meet someone we actually want to be with, we leave a trail of emotional devastation to match any tsunami behind us?
Perhaps the best advice I can give to my daughter for her future relationships is to guard against this. Only settle-down and have children when you are very very sure, play the field for a bit and find out what doesn't work, etc. You will be afraid, but attempt not to act out of fear.
+++
Now young Bagwell, thank you for your views on The Theory of Evolution, ok I didn't realise your standpoint so thanks for taking the time to elucidate. In your last post you said on Natural Selection:
It is blind; not subject to guidance by some force of nature, selecting what is "good" based on some standard of nature, but rather selecting what survives.
And that is in my opinion absolutely correct. That's what everyone should understand about Natural Selection. I thought that everyone did!
I guess I have two questions:
1) Why would things on Earth build up, become more complex (sludge-to-humans) rather than fall apart (humans-to-sludge) ? (ie. What powers Evolution to go in the direction that the Thoery claims it to be going in? In other words, why is Earth's biosphere becoming more organized?)
2) Does the Theory of Evolution possess the quality of a good theory, does it predict anything?
I read the article on irreducible complexity, my opinion is that the author does seem to display an ad hominem rejection of Natural Selection. My two points on that article would be that physics is always looking for irreducibly complex problems to attack. That led to the invention of the microscope. Mathematics on the other hand seems to be going the other way, and irrational numbers are certainly irreducibly complex. But on questions such as "is a city irreducibly complex"? I will say "no". For instance, there are streets and houses. Inside the houses are people, inside the people are genes, inside the genes are molecules, inside the molecules are atoms, inside the atoms are protons, neutrons and electons - now the electron may be irreducibly complex - but I doubt it. Inside the protons and neutrons are other things we call quarks and gluons, they may be irreducibly complex, but again I doubt it. To me, all matter is a result of a symmetry breaking.
He says that Darwinists get a great comfort from the fact that the Earth is 4.8 billion years old (thus allowing time for Evolution), but that this time is vanishingly small compared to the odds of us existing - but fails to appreciate that we do exist. Intelligent life has arisen on Earth, somehow. What is he basing his "the odds are vanishingly small that we should exist" argument upon?
In fact, one might think that the fact that life exists on Earth suggests that life is likely to evolve on most Earth-like planets. Would one not?
But that would be to overlook an observation selection effect. For no matter how small the proportion of all Earth-like planets that evolve intelligent life, we will find ourselves on a planet that did (or we will trace our origin to a planet where intelligent life evolved, in case we are not originated from Earth).
Knowing that intelligent life arose on our planet Earth is predicted equally well by the hypothesis that intelligent life is very improbable even on Earth-like planets as by the hypothesis that intelligent life is highly probable on Earth-like planets.
Our knoweldge that life exists on Earth therefore does not distinguish between the two hypotheses, provided that on both hypotheses intelligent life would have evolved somewhere. So is he saying the existence of life anywhere in the Universe is vanishingly small?
But, if the “intelligent-life-is-improbable” hypothesis asserted by the PDF author said that intelligent life was so improbable that is was unlikely to have evolved anywhere in the whole cosmos, then the evidence that intelligent life evolved on Earth would count against it. For this hypothesis would not have predicted our observation. In fact, it would have predicted that there would have been no observations at all.
I believe that Hawking refers to this as the anthropic principle.
Happy Sunday!
Current song: "Telling Lies" -- David Bowie
PS. Yes that's exactly what a chippy is.
Not so nice was when her mother (Alice), with her new man in tow (who moved into Alice's house last night) turned up to take her to London to visit Ellen's (Alice's other daughter) father. "It's time for a family day out" says Alice to my morose and crying daughter as she is dragged off to the car.
As a result, this morning, I can't help but feel that something is wrong. Alice's new fellow has been banished from his house as his partner found out that he was having an affair with Alice. So he's leaving the two kids that he has there, plus the two kids from his original relationship, to go and live in the house my daughter spends most of her time in. So there is my ex-wife Alice, with two children by two different men, shacking up with a chap that has four children by two different women.
Ellen is seeing a child psychologist right now for emotional problems.
This isn't the way I was told it was going to be - I am accepting it, it's against my worldview, therefore I am being altruistic.
I pray that God will look after my daughter. I wish that I had the power to do so.
When looking for a root cause of this mess I wonder if people rush into relationships? Alice parted with me as I was not what she was looking for. She has now found something better than me and is "going for it", Tony (Alice's new beau) found something better than his partner and is "going for it" with Alice.
Could it be that people often rush into relationships out of fear, thinking "I dont want to be alone!" and then when we meet someone we actually want to be with, we leave a trail of emotional devastation to match any tsunami behind us?
Perhaps the best advice I can give to my daughter for her future relationships is to guard against this. Only settle-down and have children when you are very very sure, play the field for a bit and find out what doesn't work, etc. You will be afraid, but attempt not to act out of fear.
+++
Now young Bagwell, thank you for your views on The Theory of Evolution, ok I didn't realise your standpoint so thanks for taking the time to elucidate. In your last post you said on Natural Selection:
It is blind; not subject to guidance by some force of nature, selecting what is "good" based on some standard of nature, but rather selecting what survives.
And that is in my opinion absolutely correct. That's what everyone should understand about Natural Selection. I thought that everyone did!
I guess I have two questions:
1) Why would things on Earth build up, become more complex (sludge-to-humans) rather than fall apart (humans-to-sludge) ? (ie. What powers Evolution to go in the direction that the Thoery claims it to be going in? In other words, why is Earth's biosphere becoming more organized?)
2) Does the Theory of Evolution possess the quality of a good theory, does it predict anything?
I read the article on irreducible complexity, my opinion is that the author does seem to display an ad hominem rejection of Natural Selection. My two points on that article would be that physics is always looking for irreducibly complex problems to attack. That led to the invention of the microscope. Mathematics on the other hand seems to be going the other way, and irrational numbers are certainly irreducibly complex. But on questions such as "is a city irreducibly complex"? I will say "no". For instance, there are streets and houses. Inside the houses are people, inside the people are genes, inside the genes are molecules, inside the molecules are atoms, inside the atoms are protons, neutrons and electons - now the electron may be irreducibly complex - but I doubt it. Inside the protons and neutrons are other things we call quarks and gluons, they may be irreducibly complex, but again I doubt it. To me, all matter is a result of a symmetry breaking.
He says that Darwinists get a great comfort from the fact that the Earth is 4.8 billion years old (thus allowing time for Evolution), but that this time is vanishingly small compared to the odds of us existing - but fails to appreciate that we do exist. Intelligent life has arisen on Earth, somehow. What is he basing his "the odds are vanishingly small that we should exist" argument upon?
In fact, one might think that the fact that life exists on Earth suggests that life is likely to evolve on most Earth-like planets. Would one not?
But that would be to overlook an observation selection effect. For no matter how small the proportion of all Earth-like planets that evolve intelligent life, we will find ourselves on a planet that did (or we will trace our origin to a planet where intelligent life evolved, in case we are not originated from Earth).
Knowing that intelligent life arose on our planet Earth is predicted equally well by the hypothesis that intelligent life is very improbable even on Earth-like planets as by the hypothesis that intelligent life is highly probable on Earth-like planets.
Our knoweldge that life exists on Earth therefore does not distinguish between the two hypotheses, provided that on both hypotheses intelligent life would have evolved somewhere. So is he saying the existence of life anywhere in the Universe is vanishingly small?
But, if the “intelligent-life-is-improbable” hypothesis asserted by the PDF author said that intelligent life was so improbable that is was unlikely to have evolved anywhere in the whole cosmos, then the evidence that intelligent life evolved on Earth would count against it. For this hypothesis would not have predicted our observation. In fact, it would have predicted that there would have been no observations at all.
I believe that Hawking refers to this as the anthropic principle.
Happy Sunday!
Current song: "Telling Lies" -- David Bowie
PS. Yes that's exactly what a chippy is.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Irreducible Complexity
Continuing with the discussion of Natural Selection, I came across this article:
http://www.evolutiondebate.info/ICReduced.pdf
In particular, I liked these two paragraphs, found on page 18 of the PDF:
Again, I'm perfectly happy to provide this model with a sentient guidance, provided that guidance is from God. When God is shoved out of the picture and some other unnamed deity is brought into the picture, then I feel compelled to either make the Darwinist admit the presence of the deity, or live by the strict standards of the proper understanding of the theory.
The PDF has lots of footnotes.
I didn't understand most of it.
I suspect the argument made in the PDF doesn't end the debate. Nothing will.
It's bedtime. :-)
http://www.evolutiondebate.info/ICReduced.pdf
In particular, I liked these two paragraphs, found on page 18 of the PDF:
I like those paragraphs because they seem to put into words the very thing I've tried to articulate about Natural Selection, properly understood -- that is, that it is entirely reliant on random mutations and, more important, the survivability of those random mutations. It is blind; not subject to guidance by some force of nature, selecting what is "good" based on some standard of nature, but rather selecting what survives.Darwinism is beset by gaping chasms of logical inconsistency. Noteworthy among them is that tiny little changes, what Darwin called the "slightest differences of structure or constitution," are the building blocks of evolution. Yet at the same time, natural selection, by definition, is only capable of selecting those attributes or changes that provide an actual survivability advantage, or in Neo-Darwinian terms, a reproductive advantage. Furthermore, these advantages must be significant enough not only to benoticed and selected by the invisible hand of natural selection, but significant enough to overcome the myriad vagaries and hazards of nature.
Natural selection is therefore in the unenviable position of having to select those changes that provide a competitive advantage, when in fact most of the changes, as evident in the real world and as acknowledged by Darwin, are insignificant. Darwin’s faith, however, was unwavering, and he proposed a solution to this conundrum by painting natural selection as a near-benevolent force, much wiser and more omnipotent than our limited faculties and "immeasurably superior to man’s feeble efforts." Natural selection, Darwin proposed, was "daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good . . ."
Again, I'm perfectly happy to provide this model with a sentient guidance, provided that guidance is from God. When God is shoved out of the picture and some other unnamed deity is brought into the picture, then I feel compelled to either make the Darwinist admit the presence of the deity, or live by the strict standards of the proper understanding of the theory.
The PDF has lots of footnotes.
I didn't understand most of it.
I suspect the argument made in the PDF doesn't end the debate. Nothing will.
It's bedtime. :-)
Chippy?
What's a "chippy?" Is that a phrase for carpenter? Is the reference to the wood chips that tend to fly when doing woodwork?
I can't tell you how often I've mis-cut a piece of wood. Often the result is only that I must cut another. But when I'm working with a $50 sheet of plywood, I very definitely measure and re-measure, just to be certain. Still, I've goofed more than once.
* * *
You wrote:
That's not strictly true. My complaints with the theory as presently held and practiced are really this:
The counter-argument I most frequently see from natural selection advocates is, "We have yet to discover the mechanics behind that." That's a convenient argument. The implication is that all unexplained things may one day be explained, so until then are we must assume there's a scientific explanation for it. The burden of proof is placed back on others to disprove the theory rather than proponents of it to prove it. "Until disproven, then assume true" seems to be the mantra.
With that established, then the problem becomes what constitutes sufficient evidence has been accumulated to disprove a theory? Natural selection -- as Darwin initially proposed it, not this contemporary notion of a sentient "natural force" directing things -- is a theory that has been placed on this pedestal of "Fact." Significant evidence is accumulating against the theory, but those who cling to the theory simply raise the standard for disproving it.
Note: this was my trick when arguing with my brother about "Lighties." He'd bring up every scientific refutation of my theory -- all of which decimated my theory, of course -- and I'd simply say, "No, you're not taking into account ..." and I'd make something else up.
This is why I come across as opposed to the notion of natural selection and evolution. Not because I think it by definition rules out God. But because those who cling to it do so primarily because they want so desperately to rule out God. Evolution has become for them very much a secular religion. They just won't admit it.
In many ways, the contemporary environmentalism movement has fallen into the same trap. I've known more than a few of them, and almost to a person they ascribe a kind of supernaturalism to the idea of the environment. (Which, by definition, is absurd: if anything is "of nature" it is ... um, nature.)
For the record, I see no theological problems with the idea that biological change occurred over time, and that God was the original creator and the guiding hand. I don't subscribe to the literal view of the earth being created in six days some 5,000 years ago. I also don't think Jesus is a literal door, or that heaven is literally a mustard seed. But I do believe that God is the omnipotent creator of all, and is sovereign over all things.
I can't tell you how often I've mis-cut a piece of wood. Often the result is only that I must cut another. But when I'm working with a $50 sheet of plywood, I very definitely measure and re-measure, just to be certain. Still, I've goofed more than once.
* * *
You wrote:
"I know that you personally do not subscribe to natural selection/evolution"
That's not strictly true. My complaints with the theory as presently held and practiced are really this:
- It is held as fact by many, though there are considerable scientific reasons for doubt.
- It is often used as a means to deny God. This is done by setting up the false choice of either evolution or God. I see no theological reason why both can't apply.
- It is widely misunderstood. Too many feel that natural selection/evolution and the changes wrought by it must make sense, as if there's a reasoning behind it. If God is that reasoning, then it works. But if the God-less notion of pure random mutation is the mechanism, then sense -- particularly forward-looking sense -- plays no role.
- The role of "Lighties" is too often overlooked. :-)
The counter-argument I most frequently see from natural selection advocates is, "We have yet to discover the mechanics behind that." That's a convenient argument. The implication is that all unexplained things may one day be explained, so until then are we must assume there's a scientific explanation for it. The burden of proof is placed back on others to disprove the theory rather than proponents of it to prove it. "Until disproven, then assume true" seems to be the mantra.
With that established, then the problem becomes what constitutes sufficient evidence has been accumulated to disprove a theory? Natural selection -- as Darwin initially proposed it, not this contemporary notion of a sentient "natural force" directing things -- is a theory that has been placed on this pedestal of "Fact." Significant evidence is accumulating against the theory, but those who cling to the theory simply raise the standard for disproving it.
Note: this was my trick when arguing with my brother about "Lighties." He'd bring up every scientific refutation of my theory -- all of which decimated my theory, of course -- and I'd simply say, "No, you're not taking into account ..." and I'd make something else up.
This is why I come across as opposed to the notion of natural selection and evolution. Not because I think it by definition rules out God. But because those who cling to it do so primarily because they want so desperately to rule out God. Evolution has become for them very much a secular religion. They just won't admit it.
In many ways, the contemporary environmentalism movement has fallen into the same trap. I've known more than a few of them, and almost to a person they ascribe a kind of supernaturalism to the idea of the environment. (Which, by definition, is absurd: if anything is "of nature" it is ... um, nature.)
For the record, I see no theological problems with the idea that biological change occurred over time, and that God was the original creator and the guiding hand. I don't subscribe to the literal view of the earth being created in six days some 5,000 years ago. I also don't think Jesus is a literal door, or that heaven is literally a mustard seed. But I do believe that God is the omnipotent creator of all, and is sovereign over all things.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
You wrote:
I think the general view on altruism is that it's a admirable thing ... but is that good, bad or neutral?
I'm at a loss to answer this. It should be a good thing, but I know too well that what I think is a good thing another person will think is a bad thing.
I agree that it should be Fellows of The Royal Society. Tsk Tsk.
Interesting article on cancer, I may need that information one day!
On the wonders of the human body, I know that you personally do not subscribe to natural selection/evolution, but do you think that (given the environmental conditions on Earth since its inception) collections of cells becoming more complex (eg. sludge to humans) is just as likely as collections of cells becoming less complicated (eg. humans to sludge)?
(Regardless of them both being incorrect or not!)
Current song: "How many lies?" -- Spandau Ballet
PS. No idea on the mitre! A chippy once told me "measure twice and cut once". Dunno if that helps.
I think the general view on altruism is that it's a admirable thing ... but is that good, bad or neutral?
I'm at a loss to answer this. It should be a good thing, but I know too well that what I think is a good thing another person will think is a bad thing.
I agree that it should be Fellows of The Royal Society. Tsk Tsk.
Interesting article on cancer, I may need that information one day!
On the wonders of the human body, I know that you personally do not subscribe to natural selection/evolution, but do you think that (given the environmental conditions on Earth since its inception) collections of cells becoming more complex (eg. sludge to humans) is just as likely as collections of cells becoming less complicated (eg. humans to sludge)?
(Regardless of them both being incorrect or not!)
Current song: "How many lies?" -- Spandau Ballet
PS. No idea on the mitre! A chippy once told me "measure twice and cut once". Dunno if that helps.
Nanotechnology
Another interesting article:
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2005/nanoparticles.htm
These two paragraphs in particular caught my eye:
And no, such things don't diminish my sense of the wonder of God and his creative works. If anything, it enhances it. He created the very stuff that makes up the molecules of folic acid, and he created the laws of chemical interaction that makes "receptors" possible. I am reminded of the Star Trek episode where Kirk is fighting the Gorn (large lizard-like being) on a planet stocked with all the necessary raw materials for offensive and defensive combat. Kirk stumbles upon a cache of sulpher, saltpeter and charcoal -- the makings of gunpowder. The crew of the Enterprise looks on, unable to intervene or help. Mr. Spock, seeing that Captain Kirk understands what he has at his disposal, says to Dr. McCoy: "Yes ... yes. He gets it, Doctor. He gets it."
There is no element of human endeavor that hasn't already been addressed in a Star Trek episode.
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2005/nanoparticles.htm
These two paragraphs in particular caught my eye:
I'm fascinated by the notion of a cancer cell being "tricked" like this. I know the cell itself is not a sentient being, but at the very low chemical level, the idea that its "hunger" for folic acid would provide a means of enhancing the transport of lethal medicine is just fascinating.Folic acid, or folate, is an important vitamin required for the healthy functioning of all cells. But cancer cells, in particular, seem to need more than average amounts. To soak up as much folate as possible, some cancer cells display more docking sites called folate receptors on their cell membranes. By taking advantage of a cancer cell's appetite for folate, U-M scientists are able to prevent the cells from developing resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs.
“It's like a Trojan horse,” Baker explains. “Folate molecules on the nanoparticle bind to receptors on tumor cell membranes and the cell immediately internalizes it, because it thinks it's getting the vitamin it needs. But while it's bringing folate across the cell membrane, the cell also draws in the methotrexate that will poison it.”
And no, such things don't diminish my sense of the wonder of God and his creative works. If anything, it enhances it. He created the very stuff that makes up the molecules of folic acid, and he created the laws of chemical interaction that makes "receptors" possible. I am reminded of the Star Trek episode where Kirk is fighting the Gorn (large lizard-like being) on a planet stocked with all the necessary raw materials for offensive and defensive combat. Kirk stumbles upon a cache of sulpher, saltpeter and charcoal -- the makings of gunpowder. The crew of the Enterprise looks on, unable to intervene or help. Mr. Spock, seeing that Captain Kirk understands what he has at his disposal, says to Dr. McCoy: "Yes ... yes. He gets it, Doctor. He gets it."
There is no element of human endeavor that hasn't already been addressed in a Star Trek episode.
The Lancet takes Heat
Interesting article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1658807,00.html
I think back to our "unethical scientists" discussion. Here we have one group, the editors at Lancet (presumably scientists, but not necessarily) being opposed by another group, the 30 fellows from the Royal Society.
Question: is the use of the term "fellow" there meant to suggest a title, or just a term of familiarity? If a title, I would have thought it would be capitalized.
I think the 30 from the Royal Society represent "science" as you view it -- striving to remain objectively neutral. Like altruism, I wonder if objective neutrality is achievable?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1658807,00.html
I think back to our "unethical scientists" discussion. Here we have one group, the editors at Lancet (presumably scientists, but not necessarily) being opposed by another group, the 30 fellows from the Royal Society.
Question: is the use of the term "fellow" there meant to suggest a title, or just a term of familiarity? If a title, I would have thought it would be capitalized.
I think the 30 from the Royal Society represent "science" as you view it -- striving to remain objectively neutral. Like altruism, I wonder if objective neutrality is achievable?
Altruism: Morally Neutral?
As I read your last post, it occurred to me that one thing we haven't established is whether altruism is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing. I think the general view on altruism is that it's a admirable thing ... but is that good, bad or neutral?
* * *
We have reached summer here in the desert southwest. Daily temperatures commonly hit the century mark (100 degrees Fahrenheit; 38 degrees Celcius). It's 10:45am and it's already 90F. But, surprisingly, it's not really that uncomfortable.
* * *
Imagine a room, with four walls and a ceiling. Assume the walls are plumb vertically, and square to each other and the ceiling. Now imagine a piece of crown molding set at 45-degrees to the wall and the ceiling to which it attaches. That piece of crown molding runs up to a corner formed by two walls and the ceiling. On the adjacent wall is also a piece of crown molding, of the same size and dimension, also set at 45 degrees to its wall and ceiling.
Question: what is the mathematical function that defines the relationship of the compound mitre cut that is required make the two pieces of molding match perfectly at the corner?
I've never been able to figure that out. Which explains why I've always shied away from installing crown molding. It gets even more complicated when the walls and ceiling are not plumb and square. The next time you see a finish carpenter, tip your hat ... those folks do amazing things.
* * *
We have reached summer here in the desert southwest. Daily temperatures commonly hit the century mark (100 degrees Fahrenheit; 38 degrees Celcius). It's 10:45am and it's already 90F. But, surprisingly, it's not really that uncomfortable.
* * *
Imagine a room, with four walls and a ceiling. Assume the walls are plumb vertically, and square to each other and the ceiling. Now imagine a piece of crown molding set at 45-degrees to the wall and the ceiling to which it attaches. That piece of crown molding runs up to a corner formed by two walls and the ceiling. On the adjacent wall is also a piece of crown molding, of the same size and dimension, also set at 45 degrees to its wall and ceiling.
Question: what is the mathematical function that defines the relationship of the compound mitre cut that is required make the two pieces of molding match perfectly at the corner?
I've never been able to figure that out. Which explains why I've always shied away from installing crown molding. It gets even more complicated when the walls and ceiling are not plumb and square. The next time you see a finish carpenter, tip your hat ... those folks do amazing things.
Altruism
You asked:
Do you think there is such a thing as pure or true altruism?
I would define "pure or true altruism" as something that one did to move the world in such a way that did not conform to that individuals view of how the world should be.
Let me back up on that.
To explain, let me get back to motivating emotions, perhaps we do things, as you say ...
a) through fear
For example, we get up and go to work in the morning because we are scared that we cannot pay the mortgage and feed the kids otherwise. We have a worldview that we want to achieve- in this worldview we pay the mortgage and feed the kids.
Another example, Osama's man flies an aircraft into a building because he is scared that his way of life, his ideals, his religion is being threatened by America. He has a worldview that America is "wrong" and should "pay" for this, he wants to achieve his worldview and crashes the plane.
b) through hope
For example, we get up and go to work because we hope that something will happen to make us happy. Whether the happiness is obtained by helping ourselves or others is irrelevant. We have a worldview in which "happiness" is good and we want to achieve this state - the state that our view of the world says we should be in.
Osamas man crashes the plane as he hopes that this will instigate fear in the American populace, thus conforming to his worldview that the American people should feel fear.
+++
What I'm getting it at here is that we people are motivated to try to conform the world to some internally held view we have of how the world should be. It's like we all have this ideal state imagined in our minds of how things should be, and we are motivated to move the world to this ideal state. (Unfortunately these ideal states don't always coincide!)
So to me, "true altruism" is where one does something that one knows is against the ideal state one has in one's own mind of how things should be.
So the examples you gave are not "pure or true altruism", for the very reasons that you pointed out.
I'm not sure human beings are capable of "pure or true altruism" by my definition .... I cannot believe that the Pope would sincerely pray to Allah, or that a non-religious person would sincerely pray to any deity.
Current song: "Ironic" -- Alanis Morissette
Do you think there is such a thing as pure or true altruism?
I would define "pure or true altruism" as something that one did to move the world in such a way that did not conform to that individuals view of how the world should be.
Let me back up on that.
To explain, let me get back to motivating emotions, perhaps we do things, as you say ...
a) through fear
For example, we get up and go to work in the morning because we are scared that we cannot pay the mortgage and feed the kids otherwise. We have a worldview that we want to achieve- in this worldview we pay the mortgage and feed the kids.
Another example, Osama's man flies an aircraft into a building because he is scared that his way of life, his ideals, his religion is being threatened by America. He has a worldview that America is "wrong" and should "pay" for this, he wants to achieve his worldview and crashes the plane.
b) through hope
For example, we get up and go to work because we hope that something will happen to make us happy. Whether the happiness is obtained by helping ourselves or others is irrelevant. We have a worldview in which "happiness" is good and we want to achieve this state - the state that our view of the world says we should be in.
Osamas man crashes the plane as he hopes that this will instigate fear in the American populace, thus conforming to his worldview that the American people should feel fear.
+++
What I'm getting it at here is that we people are motivated to try to conform the world to some internally held view we have of how the world should be. It's like we all have this ideal state imagined in our minds of how things should be, and we are motivated to move the world to this ideal state. (Unfortunately these ideal states don't always coincide!)
So to me, "true altruism" is where one does something that one knows is against the ideal state one has in one's own mind of how things should be.
So the examples you gave are not "pure or true altruism", for the very reasons that you pointed out.
I'm not sure human beings are capable of "pure or true altruism" by my definition .... I cannot believe that the Pope would sincerely pray to Allah, or that a non-religious person would sincerely pray to any deity.
Current song: "Ironic" -- Alanis Morissette
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Fear and Hope
Several years ago I was speaking with a gentleman for whom I had considerable regard. He said that there are two primary emotions: fear and hope. All other emotions are secondary to those. I didn't really understand that statement at the time, perhaps because at that time I did not have the same awareness of hope as I do now. Fear I understood then as now, and much of my life is still geared to my responses to basic fear.
I recall that conversation on fear being the primary driver of human behavior. If I'm not mistaken, that conversation took place in a restaurant in Poughkeepsie, NY. I forget the restaurant now ... it was not the Hyde Park Brewery, that I know.
As I think more about the question you posed, I wonder if most of our immediate actions are based on fear, but what generates our fear is a lack of hope. I say with fair certainty that I fear the future and what it may hold for me. The question I need to ask myself is this: is my fear based on a lack of hope for the future? By hope I do not mean some kind of wishful thinking, but rather a settled trust that what will become of me is what is ultimately best for me. That's a hard, hard thing to really believe.
Is there such a thing as true altruism? Maybe ... I think of cases where people sacrifice themselves so their children may live. But might there be a shred of selfishness in that -- wishing one's DNA to live on in one's children? How about soldiers who throw themselves on live grenades? True altruism, or perhaps heroics tainted with a degree of desire for glory? I honestly don't know.
What are your thoughts? Do you think there is such a thing as pure or true altruism?
I recall that conversation on fear being the primary driver of human behavior. If I'm not mistaken, that conversation took place in a restaurant in Poughkeepsie, NY. I forget the restaurant now ... it was not the Hyde Park Brewery, that I know.
As I think more about the question you posed, I wonder if most of our immediate actions are based on fear, but what generates our fear is a lack of hope. I say with fair certainty that I fear the future and what it may hold for me. The question I need to ask myself is this: is my fear based on a lack of hope for the future? By hope I do not mean some kind of wishful thinking, but rather a settled trust that what will become of me is what is ultimately best for me. That's a hard, hard thing to really believe.
Is there such a thing as true altruism? Maybe ... I think of cases where people sacrifice themselves so their children may live. But might there be a shred of selfishness in that -- wishing one's DNA to live on in one's children? How about soldiers who throw themselves on live grenades? True altruism, or perhaps heroics tainted with a degree of desire for glory? I honestly don't know.
What are your thoughts? Do you think there is such a thing as pure or true altruism?
Motivation
Kind sir you wrote:
"Is there anything in which we can truly place our trust?" That, I think, is what animates virtually all human endeavors.
This reminds me of a discussion we had years ago. I seem to recall us coming to some kind of tacit understanding that it was fear that motivated the majority of human behaviour.
Looking at it today, what would you say are the fundemental motivators behind human behaviour? I would say firstly that it depends on you stage in life, as children tend to be motivated by different things compared to old age folk.
Certainly a child is seeking to trust someone, but by the time they get to a ripe old age they are very wary about trusting anyone, but perhaps they still want to?
What are the fundamental drivers of why we humans do things?
To lower our fear or to avoid fear?
Pleasure seeking?
Is there such a thing as "true altruism"? Or do we always gain some pleasure from our sacrifice?
Something else?
Your thoughts kind sir!
Current song: "Tubthumping" -- Chumbawumba
"Is there anything in which we can truly place our trust?" That, I think, is what animates virtually all human endeavors.
This reminds me of a discussion we had years ago. I seem to recall us coming to some kind of tacit understanding that it was fear that motivated the majority of human behaviour.
Looking at it today, what would you say are the fundemental motivators behind human behaviour? I would say firstly that it depends on you stage in life, as children tend to be motivated by different things compared to old age folk.
Certainly a child is seeking to trust someone, but by the time they get to a ripe old age they are very wary about trusting anyone, but perhaps they still want to?
What are the fundamental drivers of why we humans do things?
To lower our fear or to avoid fear?
Pleasure seeking?
Is there such a thing as "true altruism"? Or do we always gain some pleasure from our sacrifice?
Something else?
Your thoughts kind sir!
Current song: "Tubthumping" -- Chumbawumba
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Questionable Texts
Probably more than we realize. Ultimately this brings us back to the foundational question of our times: "Is there anything in which we can truly place our trust?" That, I think, is what animates virtually all human endeavors. We humans seem to be creatures who long for a place to return; as if in our present existence we are adrift.
Unethical scientists
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/10/1243222
Seems to be quite prevalent. I wonder how many other texts have been changed to fit "the facts"?
Seems to be quite prevalent. I wonder how many other texts have been changed to fit "the facts"?
Friday, June 10, 2005
What is ...
If your last post was a "Jeopardy!" answer, then I'll respond in the form of a question:
What is the British alt-rock band from the 70's and 80's who produced stylish yet utterly undanceable music?
:-)
Believing It True; Therefore, Believing
I often ask people if they believe there is an "absolute truth." It's quite amazing how many people -- even people who claim to be Christians -- find it difficult to say yes. Now proving that Truth and believing that it exists are two quite different things.
If I thought that the Christian worldview was just one of many from which I might choose, I would never have settled upon it. If in fact all religions were indeed equally valid, in my heart I'd sense the common untruth of all and probably continue in an agnostic way.
I'm really not trying to sound combative or boastful or anything like that here ... I'm just trying to express what my mind and heart has latched onto. It's the equation I've written about before: If the central claims of Jesus are false, then Christianity is a worthless religion; but if they are true, then the implications are enormous. I choose to believe they are true; therefore, the implications are enormous.
Of late I am sensing an enormous something in my heart, as if God is nudging me to go in some direction. There is an elevated sense of the Truth of Christ, and this has come about without a concerted effort on my part to "believe more" than I did before. My mind has moved past some of the nagging doubts from the recent past and they are now in the "settled" category. There is a powerful sense to not debate or argue about it any more. It's almost as if the Lord is telling me, "Your path is not that way, come this way." I am, of course, resisting because of the unknown. But the change is there. It is real.
The other night I was visiting with friends back in Virginia, and as we sat out in the garage drinking bourbon and smoking cigars (in the garage because it was raining), the wife of the couple opened up and was expressing some painful and deeply personal things to me. From what I know of her, that was a difficult thing to do. This is not an uncommon occurrence: I frequently find people telling me things like this. Perhaps there is an awareness of trust, or empathy, or something. But it got me wondering ... could this be my calling? Am I being asked to pursue a path of pastoral counseling, or something like that? I have no training in that area, and my listening skills are weak. I'm not rushing to make this decision, but I am wondering.
May the blessings of our Lord Jesus be upon you, my dear friend.
If I thought that the Christian worldview was just one of many from which I might choose, I would never have settled upon it. If in fact all religions were indeed equally valid, in my heart I'd sense the common untruth of all and probably continue in an agnostic way.
I'm really not trying to sound combative or boastful or anything like that here ... I'm just trying to express what my mind and heart has latched onto. It's the equation I've written about before: If the central claims of Jesus are false, then Christianity is a worthless religion; but if they are true, then the implications are enormous. I choose to believe they are true; therefore, the implications are enormous.
Of late I am sensing an enormous something in my heart, as if God is nudging me to go in some direction. There is an elevated sense of the Truth of Christ, and this has come about without a concerted effort on my part to "believe more" than I did before. My mind has moved past some of the nagging doubts from the recent past and they are now in the "settled" category. There is a powerful sense to not debate or argue about it any more. It's almost as if the Lord is telling me, "Your path is not that way, come this way." I am, of course, resisting because of the unknown. But the change is there. It is real.
The other night I was visiting with friends back in Virginia, and as we sat out in the garage drinking bourbon and smoking cigars (in the garage because it was raining), the wife of the couple opened up and was expressing some painful and deeply personal things to me. From what I know of her, that was a difficult thing to do. This is not an uncommon occurrence: I frequently find people telling me things like this. Perhaps there is an awareness of trust, or empathy, or something. But it got me wondering ... could this be my calling? Am I being asked to pursue a path of pastoral counseling, or something like that? I have no training in that area, and my listening skills are weak. I'm not rushing to make this decision, but I am wondering.
May the blessings of our Lord Jesus be upon you, my dear friend.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
In the name of God
But as the assertion becomes more specific ("God is 5'9" tall and has a pet schnauzer named 'Max'") then the probability of none being correct elevates
Lol! Or that God has a name, for example "YHWH". I agree :-)
The same holds for scientific theory, does it not? All the theories about the origins of the universe may be wrong.
Almost definitely are wrong. I would assert that the real "truth" of the matter cannot be found out by the software running in the ram. The software will see what you (the thing outside the Universe) tells it is there.
I fear is two aspects of death: what happens on the way to death (suffering)
Yes me too, and the suffering of those that love you.
, and what happens after death.
After death you might just go back into the state you were in before birth, you have no complaints about a rainy tuesday in the pre-Cambrian period about 500,000,000 years ago do you? (Maybe I assume too much!)
The prospect of being held accountable for all my thoughts, deeds and actions is what I fear.
Then you fear the Christian religion my friend. Become a Buddhist and you won't have this fear any longer!
Current song: "My Death" -- David Bowie (originally a Jacques Brel song)
My death waits like an old roué
So confident I will go his way
Whistle to him
And the passing time
My death waits like a Bible truth
.. Jolly old number !!
Lol! Or that God has a name, for example "YHWH". I agree :-)
The same holds for scientific theory, does it not? All the theories about the origins of the universe may be wrong.
Almost definitely are wrong. I would assert that the real "truth" of the matter cannot be found out by the software running in the ram. The software will see what you (the thing outside the Universe) tells it is there.
I fear is two aspects of death: what happens on the way to death (suffering)
Yes me too, and the suffering of those that love you.
, and what happens after death.
After death you might just go back into the state you were in before birth, you have no complaints about a rainy tuesday in the pre-Cambrian period about 500,000,000 years ago do you? (Maybe I assume too much!)
The prospect of being held accountable for all my thoughts, deeds and actions is what I fear.
Then you fear the Christian religion my friend. Become a Buddhist and you won't have this fear any longer!
Current song: "My Death" -- David Bowie (originally a Jacques Brel song)
My death waits like an old roué
So confident I will go his way
Whistle to him
And the passing time
My death waits like a Bible truth
.. Jolly old number !!
I Fear the Probability of Proof
You asked:
Isn't it more likely than none are correct?
I'll grant that the possibility of none being correct is there. I can't venture a guess as to the probability of it. I suppose that would depend on what exactly is the assertion of each. The more generic the assertion ("A higher being created the universe") then the probability of none being correct is low. But as the assertion becomes more specific ("God is 5'9" tall and has a pet schnauzer named 'Max'") then the probability of none being correct elevates.
The same holds for scientific theory, does it not? All the theories about the origins of the universe may be wrong. Well, except my "Lighty" theory, of course. :-)
What do I fear? Death, of course ... but if I really think about it what I fear is two aspects of death: what happens on the way to death (suffering), and what happens after death. I've never in my life been a true atheist. Rather, I've always assumed that I'd somehow be shown mercy. But I was never completely convinced of that; rather it was a hope. The prospect of being held accountable for all my thoughts, deeds and actions is what I fear. That fear is accentuated when I consider the standard by which I might be judged. A low bar provides little fear; hence the desire to think that post-death judgment is lax. But a high bar strikes terror. And a bar set at "perfect" is what brought me to Christ.
Fear
Yes - agreed that religion assumes that God exists and builds from there. But each religion has a different God, so each religion has built something different. As you pointed out, only one can be correct. Isn't it more likely than none are correct? That is a purely probabilistic question for you.
When you write:
But science cannot save us from what in our hearts we fear the most
What do you in your heart fear the most? Do you know?
Current song: "Acquiesce" -- Oasis
When you write:
But science cannot save us from what in our hearts we fear the most
What do you in your heart fear the most? Do you know?
Current song: "Acquiesce" -- Oasis
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Proof
You wrote:
I'm not going to dispute the central point here. In general science does not rest on its current discoveries; it continues to assert hypothesis and test those to see if they yield new results. Theology does not operate in that manner -- it does not set out to disprove itself.
There's a fundamental difference here. The basic assumption of science is that all things are subject to potential disproving. Theology is based on a cornerstone that cannot be disproved -- the existence and nature of God. At the very core of Theology is a belief that God exists, based on an understanding of his general and specific revelation. The focus is fundamentally different.
Science is an important part of this world. But science cannot save us from what in our hearts we fear the most. I cannot prove that. But I know it.
Science looks for things to disprove current theory, Religion looks for
things to re-inforce its current theory.
I'm not going to dispute the central point here. In general science does not rest on its current discoveries; it continues to assert hypothesis and test those to see if they yield new results. Theology does not operate in that manner -- it does not set out to disprove itself.
There's a fundamental difference here. The basic assumption of science is that all things are subject to potential disproving. Theology is based on a cornerstone that cannot be disproved -- the existence and nature of God. At the very core of Theology is a belief that God exists, based on an understanding of his general and specific revelation. The focus is fundamentally different.
Science is an important part of this world. But science cannot save us from what in our hearts we fear the most. I cannot prove that. But I know it.
The long and winding road
Ok I get what you are saying about the logical links between the Christian Faith and the tenet of a sovereign God.
When you say:
The faith can only be made stronger by searching out such vulnerable spots and understanding the possible arguments that might be made.
This is what I was saying earlier about the difference between science and religion (something that I heard someone else say by the way, but that struck a chord).
Science looks for things to disprove current theory, Religion looks for things to re-inforce it's current theory. If this is so, which approach will best lead to "the truth"?
Current song: "What if" - Coldplay (well in my head anyway, at work!)
When you say:
The faith can only be made stronger by searching out such vulnerable spots and understanding the possible arguments that might be made.
This is what I was saying earlier about the difference between science and religion (something that I heard someone else say by the way, but that struck a chord).
Science looks for things to disprove current theory, Religion looks for things to re-inforce it's current theory. If this is so, which approach will best lead to "the truth"?
Current song: "What if" - Coldplay (well in my head anyway, at work!)
Monday, June 06, 2005
Tumbling Faith
No, I'm not trying to say that our theological structure needs to be built only on provable things. Ultimately that would be impossible -- God himself has chosen, apparently, to hide from us things that would irrefutably prove his existence. So by necessity we must build our faith structure on just that ... faith.
What I was trying to get at was that the theological structure is held together by certain logical constructs. For instance, it should go without saying that if God does not exist, then whether Jesus was the messiah or not is entirely moot. Therefore, a necessary precondition for the Christian theological structure is a stipulation that God does in fact exist. If that matter is unsettled, then there's little reason to explore more minute details of the faith, such as whether Jesus really did feed the 5,000.
Similarly, I'd argue that the total sovereignty of God is another such precondition, though it's a less obvious precondition than the one I used in the previous paragraph. But if God is not entirely sovereign, then it's hard to hold the rest of the logical structure together. I suppose one could argue that he has sufficient authority, but not complete. But what a mess that creates if God has some authority but not complete sovereignty. Questions then boil to the surface: where does his authority start and end? What can he do and what can he not do? Etc., etc.
Note: that's precisely the position of "Open View Theism," which believes that God is not completely sovereign, and that he is learning as he goes along, making mistakes and trying to do better next time. I find the concept of that just silly. Why bother with a god that's little better than ourselves?
I'm more convinced of God's existence and sovereignty than ever before. I can't prove a lick of it, but to my mind and my heart, it makes no difference. I believe it.
But ... it sure is a fascinating mental exercise to map out the logical construct and see where the vulnerable spots are. "If X is not true, then Y occurs ... " Some might brand me a heretic for even considering such things, but that's precisely what theology is. The faith can only be made stronger by searching out such vulnerable spots and understanding the possible arguments that might be made.
What I was trying to get at was that the theological structure is held together by certain logical constructs. For instance, it should go without saying that if God does not exist, then whether Jesus was the messiah or not is entirely moot. Therefore, a necessary precondition for the Christian theological structure is a stipulation that God does in fact exist. If that matter is unsettled, then there's little reason to explore more minute details of the faith, such as whether Jesus really did feed the 5,000.
Similarly, I'd argue that the total sovereignty of God is another such precondition, though it's a less obvious precondition than the one I used in the previous paragraph. But if God is not entirely sovereign, then it's hard to hold the rest of the logical structure together. I suppose one could argue that he has sufficient authority, but not complete. But what a mess that creates if God has some authority but not complete sovereignty. Questions then boil to the surface: where does his authority start and end? What can he do and what can he not do? Etc., etc.
Note: that's precisely the position of "Open View Theism," which believes that God is not completely sovereign, and that he is learning as he goes along, making mistakes and trying to do better next time. I find the concept of that just silly. Why bother with a god that's little better than ourselves?
I'm more convinced of God's existence and sovereignty than ever before. I can't prove a lick of it, but to my mind and my heart, it makes no difference. I believe it.
But ... it sure is a fascinating mental exercise to map out the logical construct and see where the vulnerable spots are. "If X is not true, then Y occurs ... " Some might brand me a heretic for even considering such things, but that's precisely what theology is. The faith can only be made stronger by searching out such vulnerable spots and understanding the possible arguments that might be made.
Faith
Man your email to the lighty had me laughing, in the words from the movie Goodfellas ... "you're a funny guy!"
When you write:
If that's the case, then the entire theological structure comes tumbling down.
But that is exactly what faith means. We build our theological structure on unprovable things and we have faith that they are true. We cannot know 100%. You think perhaps we should not build our theological structure on unprovable things? Or in other words, should we only build it on things that we know to be 100% true?
Current song: "Fix you" -- Coldplay
PS. The new Coldplay album c'est magnific, marrying a real-life Hollywood Princess and becoming a father does not seem to have dented Chris Martin's edge.
When you write:
If that's the case, then the entire theological structure comes tumbling down.
But that is exactly what faith means. We build our theological structure on unprovable things and we have faith that they are true. We cannot know 100%. You think perhaps we should not build our theological structure on unprovable things? Or in other words, should we only build it on things that we know to be 100% true?
Current song: "Fix you" -- Coldplay
PS. The new Coldplay album c'est magnific, marrying a real-life Hollywood Princess and becoming a father does not seem to have dented Chris Martin's edge.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Eternal Universe
First, let me tackle the proof that a "Lighty" caused the Big Bang. Recently, during some research on the web, I came across this e-mail:
* * *
You see the thing I'm grappling with, right? If the universe is eternal -- exploding, expanding, collapsing, exploding -- then by definition it could not have been created by God. That means one of two things: God doesn't exist, or God is not the supreme being we have come to believe. At best he would be co-eternal or co-created by a still-higher power. If that's the case, then the entire theological structure comes tumbling down.
These are not the words of a man frightened by the prospect of some invalidation of the Christian doctrine. I am quite sure there'll be no definitive proof of "infinite universes" and the like. This is just me mulling the logical framework of the doctrine of God as presented in the Bible. Either he is the creator of everything, or he's not God. It's really that simple. At least to me.
From: Random ChanceThere you go ... proof positive. :-)
To: Head Lighty
Date: (meaningless tag; time not yet invented)
Subject: Big Bang
This weekend, do me a favor, okay? There's a big red circuit breaker in the breaker box. It's labeled "Big Bang." Pop that sometime next Tuesday. There'll be a bright flash and a loud noise, but not to worry. Just cover your ears.
Thanks.
* * *
You see the thing I'm grappling with, right? If the universe is eternal -- exploding, expanding, collapsing, exploding -- then by definition it could not have been created by God. That means one of two things: God doesn't exist, or God is not the supreme being we have come to believe. At best he would be co-eternal or co-created by a still-higher power. If that's the case, then the entire theological structure comes tumbling down.
These are not the words of a man frightened by the prospect of some invalidation of the Christian doctrine. I am quite sure there'll be no definitive proof of "infinite universes" and the like. This is just me mulling the logical framework of the doctrine of God as presented in the Bible. Either he is the creator of everything, or he's not God. It's really that simple. At least to me.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Causality
You wrote:
What caused the Big Bang?
The Big Bang didn't need a cause. The Universe "before" the Big Bang was collapsing to a point. The Universe is in fact like a ball inflating and shrinking to zero radius, over and over. It never needed to start, it always was, it is eternal in it's activity. This is true, I read it in a book.
Let's assume that the above sentence is not true because it seems pretty pointless and if anything we like to have a point.
Let's assume that the Universe was caused, and that before the Big Bang there were a set of conditions that changed state over time to cause the Big Bang.
So what did cause the Big Bang? Anything I say is conjecture but I will offer three of them:
1. The one true Christian God YHWH (not Allah or Vishnu or any other God) caused the Big Bang. He did this so that we could have a relationship with Him. Some folks don't like this reason, but at least it is a reason -- a point.
2. Another single intelligent being or race of intelligent beings caused the Big Bang (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1497195,00.html for an example, a nice article published yesterday). Their point in doing so, I would like to know. Perhaps they were trying to find out about their Universe? Perhaps they did it for the Truman-show-esque entertainment they get out of observing the beings in this Universe?
3. A "lighty" did it (prove me wrong!)
Current song: "Because" -- The Beatles (Anthology 3 Version -- a cappella).
PS. Try chicken wire around the dryer, excellent EM shield.
What caused the Big Bang?
The Big Bang didn't need a cause. The Universe "before" the Big Bang was collapsing to a point. The Universe is in fact like a ball inflating and shrinking to zero radius, over and over. It never needed to start, it always was, it is eternal in it's activity. This is true, I read it in a book.
Let's assume that the above sentence is not true because it seems pretty pointless and if anything we like to have a point.
Let's assume that the Universe was caused, and that before the Big Bang there were a set of conditions that changed state over time to cause the Big Bang.
So what did cause the Big Bang? Anything I say is conjecture but I will offer three of them:
1. The one true Christian God YHWH (not Allah or Vishnu or any other God) caused the Big Bang. He did this so that we could have a relationship with Him. Some folks don't like this reason, but at least it is a reason -- a point.
2. Another single intelligent being or race of intelligent beings caused the Big Bang (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1497195,00.html for an example, a nice article published yesterday). Their point in doing so, I would like to know. Perhaps they were trying to find out about their Universe? Perhaps they did it for the Truman-show-esque entertainment they get out of observing the beings in this Universe?
3. A "lighty" did it (prove me wrong!)
Current song: "Because" -- The Beatles (Anthology 3 Version -- a cappella).
PS. Try chicken wire around the dryer, excellent EM shield.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Science and Religion, Part Deux
The "deux" part is my clever way of making reference to the EU Constitution issue. I would agree that in theory it would be nice if everyone "just got along," but I don't for a minute believe it'll ever happen. There seems to be a natural inclination of the human heart to form up affinity groups, even where physical differences don't exist.
Note: and this is apropos of nothing I've written before, or likely will again -- my computer terminal is on the other side of a wall from my clothes dryer. When the dryer is on the electric motor must put out a wave field that distorts my CRT image. The dryer is a gas dryer, so I know it's not the heating element. Oddly, the washing machine, which also has an electric motor, and which also is across the wall from my computer, does not generate this effect.
* * *
Look at that! Fancy large red asterisks!
* * *
Okay, in a perfect world the scientist sits in his laboratory and exercises complete neutrality -- neither for or against a particular theory, but rather considers all options with equal and uniform prejudice.
Does the same hold true if they have a $1M grant riding on their theory being sustainable? Does a scientist in the employ of "Greenpeace" also exercise equal and uniform prejudice? I would argue not. There is a whole study of what's called "junk science" -- science intentionally exploited to achieve a certain result. And in the world of politics and law, where this form of science is most frequently employed, the outcome can be devastating. The banning of DDT was based largely on junk science and Rachel Carlson's "The Silent Spring." Malaria rates are way up in the undeveloped world. Millions die.
I think the human condition enters into all we do, scientists being no exception to that. I do not believe any human is capable of pure objective neutrality.
But then again, I'm a complete cynic. :-)
* * *
Here's a basic, fundamental set of questions for you:
Note: and this is apropos of nothing I've written before, or likely will again -- my computer terminal is on the other side of a wall from my clothes dryer. When the dryer is on the electric motor must put out a wave field that distorts my CRT image. The dryer is a gas dryer, so I know it's not the heating element. Oddly, the washing machine, which also has an electric motor, and which also is across the wall from my computer, does not generate this effect.
* * *
Look at that! Fancy large red asterisks!
* * *
Okay, in a perfect world the scientist sits in his laboratory and exercises complete neutrality -- neither for or against a particular theory, but rather considers all options with equal and uniform prejudice.
Does the same hold true if they have a $1M grant riding on their theory being sustainable? Does a scientist in the employ of "Greenpeace" also exercise equal and uniform prejudice? I would argue not. There is a whole study of what's called "junk science" -- science intentionally exploited to achieve a certain result. And in the world of politics and law, where this form of science is most frequently employed, the outcome can be devastating. The banning of DDT was based largely on junk science and Rachel Carlson's "The Silent Spring." Malaria rates are way up in the undeveloped world. Millions die.
I think the human condition enters into all we do, scientists being no exception to that. I do not believe any human is capable of pure objective neutrality.
But then again, I'm a complete cynic. :-)
* * *
Here's a basic, fundamental set of questions for you:
- God created that which was the source of the Big Bang
- God did not create that which was the source of the Big Bang
If #2, then:
- God does not exist
- God and that which is the source of the Big Bang were created by something else
- God and that which is the source of the Big Bang both have no origin and have coexisted for eternity
If #3, then:
- God had sovereignty over that which was the source of the Big Bang
- God did not have sovereignty over that which was the source of the Big Bang
If #2, then:
What caused the Big Bang?
Science and Religion
When you wrote:
I don't believe it can be said that all scientists act with equal humility.
Similarly, some people of faith are more than happy to admit they don't know it all.
I realised that I had not fully made my point clear. Let me have another go:
The scientific community primarily (in general) looks for things that dispute their theories. Do you recall all the kerfuffle about cold fusion in the late 80's? It was soon found to not work as others could not recreate the results in their labs around the worlds.
Religions on the other hand primarily (in general) look for things that validate themselves and find reasons to explain away things that do not fit (for example the Barnes commentary on the Bible, certainly the bits about Jesus bearing witness on himself - but don't get hung up on this one example - in general this seems to be the case (to me)).
This is a key difference between science and religion, along with my point earlier that good scientific theories predict things. (What have the various religions predicted? - things that have actually come to pass I mean?)
I believe that a scientist can change his/her belief in a theory but I believe that a Muslim is unlikely (>99%) to turn to Christianity and vica versa.
So religious people seem to be more sure of themselves, and to me seem to be more arrogant. So when I see discussion that science folks are just as blinkered as religious folks - something about that does not ring "true". For this reason I do not believe that religious folks should attack scientific folk (or vica versa - but the latter rarely happens in my experience. Live and let live, and a scientist is never sure that he is "right"). That was my point I guess.
Love ya!
Current song: "The Righteous & The Wicked" -- Red Hot Chili Peppers
I don't believe it can be said that all scientists act with equal humility.
Similarly, some people of faith are more than happy to admit they don't know it all.
I realised that I had not fully made my point clear. Let me have another go:
The scientific community primarily (in general) looks for things that dispute their theories. Do you recall all the kerfuffle about cold fusion in the late 80's? It was soon found to not work as others could not recreate the results in their labs around the worlds.
Religions on the other hand primarily (in general) look for things that validate themselves and find reasons to explain away things that do not fit (for example the Barnes commentary on the Bible, certainly the bits about Jesus bearing witness on himself - but don't get hung up on this one example - in general this seems to be the case (to me)).
This is a key difference between science and religion, along with my point earlier that good scientific theories predict things. (What have the various religions predicted? - things that have actually come to pass I mean?)
I believe that a scientist can change his/her belief in a theory but I believe that a Muslim is unlikely (>99%) to turn to Christianity and vica versa.
So religious people seem to be more sure of themselves, and to me seem to be more arrogant. So when I see discussion that science folks are just as blinkered as religious folks - something about that does not ring "true". For this reason I do not believe that religious folks should attack scientific folk (or vica versa - but the latter rarely happens in my experience. Live and let live, and a scientist is never sure that he is "right"). That was my point I guess.
Love ya!
Current song: "The Righteous & The Wicked" -- Red Hot Chili Peppers
European Constitution
Yes the French voted "non" and perhaps the Dutch will do so today also. Which means Britain will probably delay any referendum, but as you say, an EU Constitution is most probably inevitable.
I believe in a United States of Europe, followed by a United States of the World - this would be a great idea. Plus if we all spoke the same language, and were the same colour that would help. Modern travel will hopefully ensure this, wiping out the groups created by natural selection enclaves. I do believe in tension between people however, this is how improvements in technology and the like happen.
It would be great to reduce reasons for people to hate eachother. If people hold different opinions (and I believe that they should - it is good for the survival of our species) then let them hold those differences for "good" reasons, rather than how people look or speak.
Current song: "Low" -- Coldplay
I believe in a United States of Europe, followed by a United States of the World - this would be a great idea. Plus if we all spoke the same language, and were the same colour that would help. Modern travel will hopefully ensure this, wiping out the groups created by natural selection enclaves. I do believe in tension between people however, this is how improvements in technology and the like happen.
It would be great to reduce reasons for people to hate eachother. If people hold different opinions (and I believe that they should - it is good for the survival of our species) then let them hold those differences for "good" reasons, rather than how people look or speak.
Current song: "Low" -- Coldplay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)