Maybe the question above has occurred to every reader of this blog. Or maybe there are a sizable number of readers who never considered it. In fact, it would not surprise me if there are billions of people who are living their lives in a day to day, hand to mouth existence without raising their head above the trenches. In reviewing my own life I think that I wanted to live in ignorance: I did not want to be burdened with thinking any further than what was required (at least, in my mind) for daily existence. I grew up in "the Church" and even thinking about the possible non-existence of God was forbidden by all authority, including myself.
I vividly remember that time I first started questioning my beliefs. It was a knock on the door-literally. The Jehovah's Witnesses had come to town and decided I was worthy of salvation. Maybe I sound a little bit dramatic. I really don't mean to. Instead I sincerely believe this was the first time I was challenged to think about what I believe, and much more importantly, why did I believe it. I had had discussions with other people regarding general outlines of what we did and did not believe, but most of these discussions were between friends and therefore we felt very uncomfortable asking probing questions regarding others' beliefs. As you probably know, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not feel at all uncomfortable questioning your beliefs. It was just what I needed. As I have always said, in order to develop muscle you must work against a weight. It looks really impressive to lift dummy barbells. But in reality, that is simply going through the motions. It builds nothing.
We delved into issues that were both fundamental and esoteric. We both agreed as a starting point that there was a Jehovah. But was there any other being that could be described as a God? What was the nature of Jesus? Did he have a spiritual component? Did he even have a physical component? I realized as we started the discussion I had many opinions that were deeply held. What I did not have was, first of all, scriptures telling me whether those opinions were correct and how the facts I had fit into a philosophical framework that would organize my thinking. In approximately 8 weeks of intensive study with the man who I came to respect, but found I agreed with very little, I was able to find those scriptures (where they existed) and began an understanding that I continue to construct even today.
It's probably an overstatement to say we agreed on very little. Actually, we concentrated our discussion on those issues where we disagreed rather than celebrating the issues we agreed on. It seems to work that way in life, doesn't it? My wife and I probably agree on 99.9% of our worldview, but the best discussions, the loudest, most lively discussions, in fact almost all of the discussions are about the things we vehemently don't see eye to eye on. But after all, if you are attempting to learn new things, then continuing to repeat that which you already know, without applying it to those things you do not know, is really just slapping yourself on the back.
I hope that if I came away from those discussions with anything it was that other people do not believe the way I do: this is just the way the world works. It was only a short step from questioning whether my practices were logical to questioning whether a belief in God was logical. God has given me the power to consider, accept, or reject just about anything in this world. It is called passing judgment. But that judgment is only for myself: I can find no grant of power from God that even hints I can pass judgment on anyone else. Instead, God allows all of us to disagree with one another. In some cases we will disagree on almost everything, and in every case we will disagree on at least something. If we apply Aristotle's law of non-contradiction, it would appear at least one of us is wrong, if not both of us. My duty is to determine for myself if I am following
God's will, and if I'm wrong to change.
As I said, your mind is exercised if it is forced to reconcile two opposing positions in a logical, reasonable manner. But just like physical exercise, we have not increased our strength if we refuse to exercise. In the mental realm, this exercise is often deflected by tried and true methods. Some of us will say that this argument comes from a person or group that has been discredited in some manner. Or we will refuse to consider the contradictions by truisms that actually sound quite liberal and open minded, such things as, "If you believe it then it is true for you!" or, "We all come to God by different methods." Other people believe that the search for truth is only done by ordained people, and the rest of us are in the right if we follow whatever authority we have somehow accepted. In all of these cases, we have avoided having to do the work by closing our mind in some manner. And if all of us sin (I John 1:8) then we will remain in that sin if we close our minds to what may be the truth.
When I asked the question what universe do we live in, many people may have thought that I was going to discuss whether our universe was planar or elliptical, or other cosmological questions that have been asked through the ages. But the much more important universe is the universe of our mind. I am not saying that if we believe something is true it becomes true for us, or that all opinions are just as valid as any other opinions. I am saying that we are condemned to being wrong if we cannot respectfully and logically analyze opinions which we sincerely believe to be wrong. John said, in language that leaves little room for interpretation, that we all sin. If I cannot respectfully apply analytic tools to my opinions and contradictory opinions alike, how can I find and remove that sin from my own life? A world of closed minds must imprison us in a false universe, one which must fail in providing us with all the true comfort or necessities.
I work hard not to fall prey to the temptation that so commonly afflicts educated people: to believe that people with closed minds are in any way inferior to myself. Instead, they have been overtaken in a temptation of their own, and one that I understand so well having had that particular problem myself. It is natural that people seek comfort; comfort in living, comfort in working, and especially comfort in thinking. The reasons why we close our minds are varied and as complicated as any other motivation for something we do. Sometimes its like horses in a field. If one horse begins running, the other horses fall in behind it. Or we sometimes are so proud of having thought through a particularly difficult problem that our ego rebels at now saying that was wrong. Or we may give the solution of a problem to an authority figure without further examination. Of course these motivations apply to atheists as well as religious people.
I think it is particularly sad that it is easy to find people in the religious world who have closed their mind to any alternate interpretation of the Bible, of God, or of doctrines surrounding them. They will discuss any number of topics, but when you find the door that is closed they will do their utmost to avoid analyzing that issue. Then every once in a while, just to make sure that you know where they stand, they will make a little joke that belittles people who oppose their favorite belief. If you attempt to use that as an opening to engage them on the merits of the position, they will deflect the discussion by saying it was a joke, or no one really believes that, or any number of other evasions. The argument they implicitly make is that all reasoned persons already accept their beliefs, and that discussing the opposite position is itself inherently unreasonable.
Jehovah, speaking through Isaiah, called on all of us to reason together. Even though we all live by faith, that faith must be examined through the lens of reason. This post has gotten rather long, but I hope that in my further posts, we can find where we have closed our minds, and summon the courage to examine the reasons which support the existence of Jehovah and His word, as well as reasons that may argue against any such God as Jehovah. As I said before, I hope you have good days in front of you.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
LIVING THE LIFE- temptation
Hello readers. I worry about people in America. Every night, I see commercials for items that are not remotely worth what is being asked for them. And those commercials persist, some for thousands of years (ok, maybe an exaggeration). Therefore, someone is buying enough of these items such that the advertiser thinks it will make a profit. The way commercials are paid for varies among the advertisers (or their agents) and the broadcasters (or their agents). Some commercials (especially infomercials) are paid on percentages of sales, rather than a fee per minute. So the broadcasters become partners (at least as to sales) with the advertisers. That means that two separate organizations have exercised their minds and hope that using this half-hour to sell this item will yield a profit. I don't think the TV station pays for losses Ron Popeil's successors may have, but they do share in the revenues. Actually, since Ron sold his company for an estimated $55 million, he probably didn't have much loss to share.
I have been the beneficiary of Ron's inventiveness. My father-in-law bought the Showtime Rotisserie. My wife and I had a chuckle, but he was quite insistent we use it. He bought a standing rib roast to prove this oven. Turns out his roast was too big to fit in the oven. So we bought a smaller roast and put it in for the specified time. "Set it and forget it!" The roast was perfect, very juicy and flavorful. While we were eating we admitted our first reluctance, but ended by saying we were wrong. However, when we began cleaning up, "set it and forget it" was what you wished for. No automatic clean setting here! We finally ferreted out all the congealed juices and used it many more times. All in all, it was a useful addition to our cooking options, and brought a lot of pleasure to all of us.
But overall, I have very little faith in TV salesmen. I had many clients who ordered a wide range of products from TV. (In some past lives I have been an attorney.) I know they did because they came to me to fix their problems. Chief was that they paid for a product and it never appeared. If you paid by credit card you could appeal to the card company and they will write it off your bill if their investigation agreed with you. But a lot of poor people do not have bank accounts or credit cards. They order by sending a postal order or other form of payment, but do not follow the procedures listed in the draft for protecting themselves. These people are left without the protection that most of us take for granted. A letter from me to the company sometimes solved the problem, but usually they could ignore me as well as my clients. You could file a small claims action, but if you won, how would you collect?
Getting something that was not ordered was the next most frequent problem, followed by products that did not work. The same problems applied to these transactions as well. And still, these people continued to see something on TV that caused them to try one more time, against all logic. Why? After a lot of thought it came to me. It was simple- the ads tempted them. But what is the power of temptation? I wondered what it is that resides in men and women that allows temptation to cancel out our experiences.
When I truthfully examined my mental state when I gave in to temptations, I began to see it. I don't like to admit this, but when tempted, I start to rationalize. My mind picks out the facts that make this situation unique from my experience. Its not the same company that defrauded me before. I can really use this product. It must be God who led me to be awake and watching when this commercial came on. Does this seem funny, given my vast experiences with infomercial marketers? As I write it, this seems schizophrenic: the imaginary Me finds reasons to believe that that the advice the real Me gives to clients all the time is stupid.
It brought to mind Mark Twains' musings on experience as a teacher. "A cat that sits on a hot stove lid will never sit on a hot lid again. And that is good. But it will never sit on a cold one either." Of course, people have reasoning beyond a cat and can define what lessons should be taken from our experiences. But isn't that the problem? That allows my mind to think that maybe this stove lid is also cold, or maybe I can touch it only a little, or maybe that lid is so close to something it makes the risk of the stove lid seem remote.
My mind can override my good sense. And not me only. We all know of situations where people have acted in complete defiance of their experience. People who have gone to Vegas and come back a winner only once in 38 times, and are in debt for obscene amounts. Yet they still book trips "only because of the climate." Sons and daughters who have seen what happens when people they love take drugs, but still they "experiment" with drugs themselves. People who have survived an IRS audit, but who still cheat on their taxes. And when that audit comes, the amount of money "saved" always seems insignificant. Temptation is that powerful.
In all of these cases, it did not begin with a full blown addiction or compulsion. Instead it was something little. They went to a party and the entire peer pressure process convinced them to take a puff. Their brief "experience" put in mind the idea that this wasn't so terrible. It was even pleasant. Inveterate gamblers who gamble again because they were "so close" to fabulous riches. Some of these people could not keep track of their bank account for one weekend because they forgot all the cash withdrawals they "needed." But it is an item of absolute certainty to them that they have won more scratch offs than they lost. Save your breath: there is no argument or proof that will convince them to the contrary.
It isn't my purpose to analyze the mental states and processes or psychologies that move people, beyond what John said. "For all that is in the world- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life- is not of the Father but is of the world." I John 2:16 (NKV). I know that some people are more disposed by genetics to be obsessive or compulsive. But that concerns an action that has already started. What accounts for a person who knows alcoholism runs in the family, has suffered abuse by people who should have loved them, but who still decides to take a drink or to get drunk. That person has been tempted, and the mind's rationalizations have won out over real experience.
John has given us a very comprehensive, though general, list of the pleasures that motivate us to give in to temptation. I think this is why each person's temptations are unique to that person. Maybe alcohol is so very pleasant to one persons' taste or sensations (lust of the flesh). Another person gets drunk to deal with peer pressure (pride of life). Taking a pretty partner to bed may be satisfaction of the flesh to one person, but it satisfies the lust of the eyes for another. But for all the things that we know are not good for us, we find them just too pleasant to deny ourselves. Is that a function of our id, or ego or super ego? Or maybe of the pleasure centers in our brain? I do not pretend to know. I only look at what myself and others' minds do when tempted.
Even though I classify my self as a Christian, it doesn't mean that I am perfect or that all of my actions follow what I believe God wants from me. I'm just as prone to sin or temptation as anyone else. As John says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." I John 1:8. I may be different from other people, in that I have decided to fight against my sins and temptations. But the pull of sin is not lost on me. I think that sometimes it feels more powerful to me because I work so hard not to indulge.
I would agree that the temptation to buy the Greatest Hits of the 60's and 70's is not in a league with some people's compulsive attraction to drugs or alcohol or money. I personally see few instances where giving in to a temptation to buy TV products can be classified as sinful (an exception: when the compulsion to purchase things is harmful to yourself or another person). But giving in to any sinful temptation is sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant. After all, that is the classic rationalization, "This is too small to be a sin, or to matter to God."
The second classic rationalization is that God must think exactly like I do. I have heard too many times people who are in the throes of temptation say phrases like, "There is no way you can convince me that... " or, " I just cannot believe that God would want me to ... ." I find no reference in the Bible or other type of revelation that proclaims my beliefs or convictions are binding on God in any way, or that God has given me any special dispensation to clarify God's commands by telling people my personal beliefs. It appears that I will not find Jehovah's will for me by relying on myself for final confirmation.
In the following posts which are titled Living the Life, I want to discuss how other people have thought different things are sinful, or are not sinful. I do not want people to come to my way of thinking. Instead, I want all of us to come to Jehovah's way of thinking. If there are any people reading this, I hope they will chime in with their thoughts. Until my next post, I hope we all have a happy day!
I have been the beneficiary of Ron's inventiveness. My father-in-law bought the Showtime Rotisserie. My wife and I had a chuckle, but he was quite insistent we use it. He bought a standing rib roast to prove this oven. Turns out his roast was too big to fit in the oven. So we bought a smaller roast and put it in for the specified time. "Set it and forget it!" The roast was perfect, very juicy and flavorful. While we were eating we admitted our first reluctance, but ended by saying we were wrong. However, when we began cleaning up, "set it and forget it" was what you wished for. No automatic clean setting here! We finally ferreted out all the congealed juices and used it many more times. All in all, it was a useful addition to our cooking options, and brought a lot of pleasure to all of us.
But overall, I have very little faith in TV salesmen. I had many clients who ordered a wide range of products from TV. (In some past lives I have been an attorney.) I know they did because they came to me to fix their problems. Chief was that they paid for a product and it never appeared. If you paid by credit card you could appeal to the card company and they will write it off your bill if their investigation agreed with you. But a lot of poor people do not have bank accounts or credit cards. They order by sending a postal order or other form of payment, but do not follow the procedures listed in the draft for protecting themselves. These people are left without the protection that most of us take for granted. A letter from me to the company sometimes solved the problem, but usually they could ignore me as well as my clients. You could file a small claims action, but if you won, how would you collect?
Getting something that was not ordered was the next most frequent problem, followed by products that did not work. The same problems applied to these transactions as well. And still, these people continued to see something on TV that caused them to try one more time, against all logic. Why? After a lot of thought it came to me. It was simple- the ads tempted them. But what is the power of temptation? I wondered what it is that resides in men and women that allows temptation to cancel out our experiences.
When I truthfully examined my mental state when I gave in to temptations, I began to see it. I don't like to admit this, but when tempted, I start to rationalize. My mind picks out the facts that make this situation unique from my experience. Its not the same company that defrauded me before. I can really use this product. It must be God who led me to be awake and watching when this commercial came on. Does this seem funny, given my vast experiences with infomercial marketers? As I write it, this seems schizophrenic: the imaginary Me finds reasons to believe that that the advice the real Me gives to clients all the time is stupid.
It brought to mind Mark Twains' musings on experience as a teacher. "A cat that sits on a hot stove lid will never sit on a hot lid again. And that is good. But it will never sit on a cold one either." Of course, people have reasoning beyond a cat and can define what lessons should be taken from our experiences. But isn't that the problem? That allows my mind to think that maybe this stove lid is also cold, or maybe I can touch it only a little, or maybe that lid is so close to something it makes the risk of the stove lid seem remote.
My mind can override my good sense. And not me only. We all know of situations where people have acted in complete defiance of their experience. People who have gone to Vegas and come back a winner only once in 38 times, and are in debt for obscene amounts. Yet they still book trips "only because of the climate." Sons and daughters who have seen what happens when people they love take drugs, but still they "experiment" with drugs themselves. People who have survived an IRS audit, but who still cheat on their taxes. And when that audit comes, the amount of money "saved" always seems insignificant. Temptation is that powerful.
In all of these cases, it did not begin with a full blown addiction or compulsion. Instead it was something little. They went to a party and the entire peer pressure process convinced them to take a puff. Their brief "experience" put in mind the idea that this wasn't so terrible. It was even pleasant. Inveterate gamblers who gamble again because they were "so close" to fabulous riches. Some of these people could not keep track of their bank account for one weekend because they forgot all the cash withdrawals they "needed." But it is an item of absolute certainty to them that they have won more scratch offs than they lost. Save your breath: there is no argument or proof that will convince them to the contrary.
It isn't my purpose to analyze the mental states and processes or psychologies that move people, beyond what John said. "For all that is in the world- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life- is not of the Father but is of the world." I John 2:16 (NKV). I know that some people are more disposed by genetics to be obsessive or compulsive. But that concerns an action that has already started. What accounts for a person who knows alcoholism runs in the family, has suffered abuse by people who should have loved them, but who still decides to take a drink or to get drunk. That person has been tempted, and the mind's rationalizations have won out over real experience.
John has given us a very comprehensive, though general, list of the pleasures that motivate us to give in to temptation. I think this is why each person's temptations are unique to that person. Maybe alcohol is so very pleasant to one persons' taste or sensations (lust of the flesh). Another person gets drunk to deal with peer pressure (pride of life). Taking a pretty partner to bed may be satisfaction of the flesh to one person, but it satisfies the lust of the eyes for another. But for all the things that we know are not good for us, we find them just too pleasant to deny ourselves. Is that a function of our id, or ego or super ego? Or maybe of the pleasure centers in our brain? I do not pretend to know. I only look at what myself and others' minds do when tempted.
Even though I classify my self as a Christian, it doesn't mean that I am perfect or that all of my actions follow what I believe God wants from me. I'm just as prone to sin or temptation as anyone else. As John says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." I John 1:8. I may be different from other people, in that I have decided to fight against my sins and temptations. But the pull of sin is not lost on me. I think that sometimes it feels more powerful to me because I work so hard not to indulge.
I would agree that the temptation to buy the Greatest Hits of the 60's and 70's is not in a league with some people's compulsive attraction to drugs or alcohol or money. I personally see few instances where giving in to a temptation to buy TV products can be classified as sinful (an exception: when the compulsion to purchase things is harmful to yourself or another person). But giving in to any sinful temptation is sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant. After all, that is the classic rationalization, "This is too small to be a sin, or to matter to God."
The second classic rationalization is that God must think exactly like I do. I have heard too many times people who are in the throes of temptation say phrases like, "There is no way you can convince me that... " or, " I just cannot believe that God would want me to ... ." I find no reference in the Bible or other type of revelation that proclaims my beliefs or convictions are binding on God in any way, or that God has given me any special dispensation to clarify God's commands by telling people my personal beliefs. It appears that I will not find Jehovah's will for me by relying on myself for final confirmation.
In the following posts which are titled Living the Life, I want to discuss how other people have thought different things are sinful, or are not sinful. I do not want people to come to my way of thinking. Instead, I want all of us to come to Jehovah's way of thinking. If there are any people reading this, I hope they will chime in with their thoughts. Until my next post, I hope we all have a happy day!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Hello, Readers.
When I finished my last post, I found a number of thoughts juggling in my head, so many that I was unsure what to write first. So, I have started several of those thoughts on paper, and will post them when they are polished.
I just read my first post. It is my pledge that in the future I will write the post, edit it, then let it sit for a day or two before I come back to finish edit and post it. Maybe some time away will give me distance and lead to thoughts that can be understood.
Some people view faith as a sacred part of "religion." It is the final answer to anyone who disagrees with their view of the natural or the supernatural. Like my myth of a world arranged to deceive me, their is no evidence that can be proof against that argument. We have fossilized remains of animals and plants that are nowhere to be found alive on earth today. By observing natural processes, we can make educated guesses of the age of most of these fossils. But some people, of all stripes of religious belief or unbelief, will not even consider those facts. I have heard people state that this was done by God to mislead those who should not be saved (isn't the point of John 3:16 that Jesus's love brought him to us to save all the world?); or that these fossils cannot be believed because they saw one skeleton in a museum and a card next to it that said it was reconstructed by use of only one bone (does this mean these people will believe the fossils when they see a complete skeleton found in situ?); or that we can't trust what God has created since He could have created this world 6,000 years ago and built in all these seemingly ancient processes to deceive us about the age (if He could have created our world 6,000 years ago, are you sure He did not create it 60 seconds ago, and given us a memory that makes us feel it was 6,000 years ago, or 13 billion years ago? Maybe because God does not deceive?).
I want to think with you about God and see what new insights you can give, or that I can work through. But in any such discussion, there must be some ground rules to keep it honest. Logic seems to be the first requirement. I think God agrees. "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the Lord,... . Is. 1:18. If Jehovah commanded the Israelites to reason together, He must be interested in our using reasoning skills today no less than in ancient times. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Heb. 13:8.
Second, Aristotle's law of noncontradiction is the first basis of logic. It propounds that a statement regarding any thing in this world, or at least our four dimensions ( length, width, height and time) cannot be both true and false at the same time when all circumstances are the same.
An example. In a courtroom,we on the jury have listened to two witnesses who testified for either side. A car went off the road and rolled onto its roof, killing one person. The question is, who was driving, and therefor liable for the damages. The first witness said the person with the red shirt was not driving the car. The second witness is a police officer who responded, and said that he arrived, went to the left side of the car and pulled the person with the red shirt out of that side of the car. Even though the judge has ordered you not to come to any conclusions before hearing all of the evidence and not to discuss the case, at lunch you find that six jurors believe a police officer's word, and six jurors thought the other witness sounded better. But not one juror thought that both the witnesses were correct. On summation, the lawyer for the red shirt pointed out that the the left side of an overturned car is the passenger side. When put right side up, the left side becomes the right side, the passenger side. Red shirt was the passenger, and the jury voted in his favor. Belief in the law of noncontradiction led the lawyer to analyze the testimony more intensely.
But Aristotle's law must be tempered by Plato's analogy of a cave. Plato claimed that when it comes to observation of the world, we are like men chained in a cave such that we can see only the back wall. When a man passes the mouth of the cave, we see a shadow on that wall that has a shape influenced by the real man. But it cannot be the actual image of that man. So too with a tiger, a lion, a table or a car as they pass the mouth of the cave and cast their shadow. We are chained by our imperfect senses to only observe a partial outline of the real world. Modern scientific advances support Plato. Humans can only see a limited band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We now have machines that can help draw images of what is in the larger spectrum, but we are not sensing those radiations. We can only hear a limited range of vibrations. We smell with the nose but our sense of smell is 100 times less than a good dog.
When we are born, if we are normal, the computer inside our head begins writing programs that will determine how we view the world. But the programs are limited because our senses are limited. Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican is listed as having a diameter of 137 feet, +/-. I have been told that if you imagine a hydrogen atom at that size (in other words, a sphere with a diameter of 137 feet), the size and weight of the nucleus of the atom would be a speck of dust, small enough that it floats in the air directly in the middle of that atom. The electron would be another speck of dust racing around the edge of the sphere. My simple programs compare the relative hardness of things around me. Water is not hard, because I can put my hand right through it. Stone floors, on the other hand, do not give at all when I trip and fall on them. Now add to that program the information above. What is it that does not allow the huge spaces in my atoms to slip right through the huge spaces in the atoms of the floor? Do those specks of dust make enough of a difference to prevent my body from walking through a wall? Even in the water, I know my hands do not go through the atoms of the water, but rather run up against each other. That's why when I play canoe in the bath tub, the water sloshes back behind me, rather than lying still in the tub. The solution to the problem is the electromagnetic energy that binds the atom into a solid entity. The electromagnetic energy of my atoms push against the electromagnetic energy of the stone, and canceling each other out, neither allows invasion by each other.
We solve this possible contradiction by our fast faith that contradictions do not really exist. Another program we have written in our head says the world works according to some logic, or design, or program or whatever term you want to put in here. We learn more about the complexities of our world when we research and investigate the seeming contradictions. My daughter was given a test asking which would freeze first, boiling water or cool water when placed in ice cube trays in a freezer. We know boiling is an opposite of freezing, so my immediate answer is that the cool water will boil first. But if you place both trays in your fridge, you find that the tray with boiling water freezes first. My daughter explained that evaporation was the factor I did not consider. Even though I was deeply puzzled until the explanation, it never entered my mind to suddenly believe that the world was not ordered but was random chance, and boiling water was just a proof of that lack of controlling principles. Instead, I learned something more of that complexity. My faith in the logic of the cosmos was rewarded.
Yes, I have decided to have a faith that the world works in ordered, designed ways. If the world works according to logic, it is natural to me to seek the foundations of that order. I wished you a good day at the end of my last post. Of course, I know that any unit of time is not good or evil or bad or nice. What I meant was that I hoped your experiences for the remainder of the day would be good ones. I still hope it. Even in the event of the loss of dear family or friends or other reverses, believing that good does co-exist is a benefit of believing in an overriding logic. Accordingly, it is one of the first benefits of searching for Jehovah.
When I finished my last post, I found a number of thoughts juggling in my head, so many that I was unsure what to write first. So, I have started several of those thoughts on paper, and will post them when they are polished.
I just read my first post. It is my pledge that in the future I will write the post, edit it, then let it sit for a day or two before I come back to finish edit and post it. Maybe some time away will give me distance and lead to thoughts that can be understood.
Some people view faith as a sacred part of "religion." It is the final answer to anyone who disagrees with their view of the natural or the supernatural. Like my myth of a world arranged to deceive me, their is no evidence that can be proof against that argument. We have fossilized remains of animals and plants that are nowhere to be found alive on earth today. By observing natural processes, we can make educated guesses of the age of most of these fossils. But some people, of all stripes of religious belief or unbelief, will not even consider those facts. I have heard people state that this was done by God to mislead those who should not be saved (isn't the point of John 3:16 that Jesus's love brought him to us to save all the world?); or that these fossils cannot be believed because they saw one skeleton in a museum and a card next to it that said it was reconstructed by use of only one bone (does this mean these people will believe the fossils when they see a complete skeleton found in situ?); or that we can't trust what God has created since He could have created this world 6,000 years ago and built in all these seemingly ancient processes to deceive us about the age (if He could have created our world 6,000 years ago, are you sure He did not create it 60 seconds ago, and given us a memory that makes us feel it was 6,000 years ago, or 13 billion years ago? Maybe because God does not deceive?).
I want to think with you about God and see what new insights you can give, or that I can work through. But in any such discussion, there must be some ground rules to keep it honest. Logic seems to be the first requirement. I think God agrees. "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the Lord,... . Is. 1:18. If Jehovah commanded the Israelites to reason together, He must be interested in our using reasoning skills today no less than in ancient times. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Heb. 13:8.
Second, Aristotle's law of noncontradiction is the first basis of logic. It propounds that a statement regarding any thing in this world, or at least our four dimensions ( length, width, height and time) cannot be both true and false at the same time when all circumstances are the same.
An example. In a courtroom,we on the jury have listened to two witnesses who testified for either side. A car went off the road and rolled onto its roof, killing one person. The question is, who was driving, and therefor liable for the damages. The first witness said the person with the red shirt was not driving the car. The second witness is a police officer who responded, and said that he arrived, went to the left side of the car and pulled the person with the red shirt out of that side of the car. Even though the judge has ordered you not to come to any conclusions before hearing all of the evidence and not to discuss the case, at lunch you find that six jurors believe a police officer's word, and six jurors thought the other witness sounded better. But not one juror thought that both the witnesses were correct. On summation, the lawyer for the red shirt pointed out that the the left side of an overturned car is the passenger side. When put right side up, the left side becomes the right side, the passenger side. Red shirt was the passenger, and the jury voted in his favor. Belief in the law of noncontradiction led the lawyer to analyze the testimony more intensely.
But Aristotle's law must be tempered by Plato's analogy of a cave. Plato claimed that when it comes to observation of the world, we are like men chained in a cave such that we can see only the back wall. When a man passes the mouth of the cave, we see a shadow on that wall that has a shape influenced by the real man. But it cannot be the actual image of that man. So too with a tiger, a lion, a table or a car as they pass the mouth of the cave and cast their shadow. We are chained by our imperfect senses to only observe a partial outline of the real world. Modern scientific advances support Plato. Humans can only see a limited band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We now have machines that can help draw images of what is in the larger spectrum, but we are not sensing those radiations. We can only hear a limited range of vibrations. We smell with the nose but our sense of smell is 100 times less than a good dog.
When we are born, if we are normal, the computer inside our head begins writing programs that will determine how we view the world. But the programs are limited because our senses are limited. Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican is listed as having a diameter of 137 feet, +/-. I have been told that if you imagine a hydrogen atom at that size (in other words, a sphere with a diameter of 137 feet), the size and weight of the nucleus of the atom would be a speck of dust, small enough that it floats in the air directly in the middle of that atom. The electron would be another speck of dust racing around the edge of the sphere. My simple programs compare the relative hardness of things around me. Water is not hard, because I can put my hand right through it. Stone floors, on the other hand, do not give at all when I trip and fall on them. Now add to that program the information above. What is it that does not allow the huge spaces in my atoms to slip right through the huge spaces in the atoms of the floor? Do those specks of dust make enough of a difference to prevent my body from walking through a wall? Even in the water, I know my hands do not go through the atoms of the water, but rather run up against each other. That's why when I play canoe in the bath tub, the water sloshes back behind me, rather than lying still in the tub. The solution to the problem is the electromagnetic energy that binds the atom into a solid entity. The electromagnetic energy of my atoms push against the electromagnetic energy of the stone, and canceling each other out, neither allows invasion by each other.
We solve this possible contradiction by our fast faith that contradictions do not really exist. Another program we have written in our head says the world works according to some logic, or design, or program or whatever term you want to put in here. We learn more about the complexities of our world when we research and investigate the seeming contradictions. My daughter was given a test asking which would freeze first, boiling water or cool water when placed in ice cube trays in a freezer. We know boiling is an opposite of freezing, so my immediate answer is that the cool water will boil first. But if you place both trays in your fridge, you find that the tray with boiling water freezes first. My daughter explained that evaporation was the factor I did not consider. Even though I was deeply puzzled until the explanation, it never entered my mind to suddenly believe that the world was not ordered but was random chance, and boiling water was just a proof of that lack of controlling principles. Instead, I learned something more of that complexity. My faith in the logic of the cosmos was rewarded.
Yes, I have decided to have a faith that the world works in ordered, designed ways. If the world works according to logic, it is natural to me to seek the foundations of that order. I wished you a good day at the end of my last post. Of course, I know that any unit of time is not good or evil or bad or nice. What I meant was that I hoped your experiences for the remainder of the day would be good ones. I still hope it. Even in the event of the loss of dear family or friends or other reverses, believing that good does co-exist is a benefit of believing in an overriding logic. Accordingly, it is one of the first benefits of searching for Jehovah.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Getting started.
Dear Readers,
I have never written a blog before. I don't know if anyone will find this blog interesting, but even if its only value is to organize my thoughts, it seems worth trying. I do not know how long I can do this, but now seems a good time to try.
When starting such a monumental undertaking as a search for Jehovah, I start with where my search began. I attend worship services with a specific group of believers, but I will not name them (at least now). I do not accept everything they believe as a matter of doctrine, and it would give a false impression of myself and that group to tie us together without some good explanations.
The first thing I come to was the role of faith. As a philosophical base, everything I know is by faith. I think we all should meander in the mazes of thinking about whether we really exist, what we are, and how we know these things. I speculated very early in my life. that my family was part of an experiment. I wondered whether my interactions with the world outside my family was an unreal play, with everything scripted and staged by someone (or something) that wanted to see how a little boy would behave under these controlled conditions. Trips to the grocery store meant people had to have been called first and told to be on the road, or in the store, or somewhere that would convince me that this was reality. But the dark secret my family held was that this was unreal, and I was being sent onto a stage in each of these encounters. The Why was not nearly as interesting to a daydreaming little boy as the concept of something so vast and captivating. Is that person on the sidewalk supposed to be there? Is that car coming over the centerline to provoke a reaction from me?
Of course, daydreams like this naturally occur in some form (if this be insanity, at least we all participate). Little kids are a world unto themselves, and when introduced to the big world, they first want to comprehend it in way such that they are still the center of the world. Little girls dream of being a princess, little boys become pretend kings of the world or maybe president. The dreamer is contemplating a world where the comforts of the crib are enforced on the scarier unknowns of the real world. But the logic of my little daydream cannot be refuted. Every "proof" that this is the real world can be answered: it is only staging. People dying? Just stage acting. The Holocaust? Well, I really didn't see that, and neither did you. Those pictures are staged. No argument can trump this simple"view" of reality.
But of course, in real life we throw off all such doubt because survival requires it. Consider a problem that is sometimes batted around offices and break rooms: A meteor is on a direct line to impact Earth. Due to its great speed and its track from seemingly empty space, first knowledge was three days from impact, in the American Midwest. It is of such size that impact will leave nuclear winter over the entire surface of Earth, with dust in the atmosphere to block 80% of sunlight, for at least 10 years. The astronomer who made the find comes to you at the White House and gives you the information. The White House Science Advisor confirms the calculations and observation with out involving anyone else. Essentially three people know that all human life will end two days from now. Do you announce it generally? Do you give other governments a tip, so they can prepare for the riots and civil unrest that must come (information this juicy cannot be confidential when more than the original three persons are involved)? Or do you limit the information to the three persons and isolate them so that no leaks or statements can occur? Do you have the internal strength to watch puny struggles for 48 hours, waiting for the impact to speak for itself?
First, all of this is not information: it is faith. You could learn calculus and how to operate a telescope. But not in two days. So your decision must be made on faith. Furthermore. you have unshakable faith that objects will always move in accordance with observed data when explained by human mathematics. We all do. So, by faith, you "know" the meteor will impact exactly the same way you know the sun will rise tomorrow. (Hebrews 11:1-Now faith...is the evidence of things not seen.)
What benefit comes of announcing the impact? Almost nothing. Two days of preparations will not move the meteor; no umbrella will shelter us from it, no greenhouse will sustain any life from the winter that will descend after the impact. Some wild ideas of underground nuclear powered farms abound in science fiction, but no human government has had this foresight in the face of budgets that are never large enough. In day-to-day life, we firmly believe, without stating it, that no change will occur that will require drastic preparation.
The only benefit from announcing the impending impact is to give humans a chance to make peace with their Deity. But the law of nonpreparation applies here too. If life has been lived without concern for one's God, how will the large knowledge and practice base (much more than learning calculus) be acquired in only two days?
Against that uncertain benefit, weigh the panic, riots, wars and other forms of destruction that such an announcement would generate. If our faith in the men and sciences that predict an impact should somehow be wrong, damage to innocents and the destruction of the social fabric that would occur following such an announcement would likely be only slightly less catastrophic than an actual impact. If such information can be kept confidential, expect the government to not give full and truthful information to the country in such a situation.
Well, this is much longer than I planned. Our lives are filled with faith. I want, in the course of this blog, to scrutinize my faiths very carefully, identify what I accept on faith, decide if it is important or trifling in the grand scheme of things, and coonsider why do I accept that on faith.
I am trying not to use this blog as a Bible thumper. Maybe some of my thoughts track with other people's journeys, or maybe someone else has gone through this and wants to give something of their conclusions to people reading this (I think this is that kind of blog). Regardless, have a good day.
I have never written a blog before. I don't know if anyone will find this blog interesting, but even if its only value is to organize my thoughts, it seems worth trying. I do not know how long I can do this, but now seems a good time to try.
When starting such a monumental undertaking as a search for Jehovah, I start with where my search began. I attend worship services with a specific group of believers, but I will not name them (at least now). I do not accept everything they believe as a matter of doctrine, and it would give a false impression of myself and that group to tie us together without some good explanations.
The first thing I come to was the role of faith. As a philosophical base, everything I know is by faith. I think we all should meander in the mazes of thinking about whether we really exist, what we are, and how we know these things. I speculated very early in my life. that my family was part of an experiment. I wondered whether my interactions with the world outside my family was an unreal play, with everything scripted and staged by someone (or something) that wanted to see how a little boy would behave under these controlled conditions. Trips to the grocery store meant people had to have been called first and told to be on the road, or in the store, or somewhere that would convince me that this was reality. But the dark secret my family held was that this was unreal, and I was being sent onto a stage in each of these encounters. The Why was not nearly as interesting to a daydreaming little boy as the concept of something so vast and captivating. Is that person on the sidewalk supposed to be there? Is that car coming over the centerline to provoke a reaction from me?
Of course, daydreams like this naturally occur in some form (if this be insanity, at least we all participate). Little kids are a world unto themselves, and when introduced to the big world, they first want to comprehend it in way such that they are still the center of the world. Little girls dream of being a princess, little boys become pretend kings of the world or maybe president. The dreamer is contemplating a world where the comforts of the crib are enforced on the scarier unknowns of the real world. But the logic of my little daydream cannot be refuted. Every "proof" that this is the real world can be answered: it is only staging. People dying? Just stage acting. The Holocaust? Well, I really didn't see that, and neither did you. Those pictures are staged. No argument can trump this simple"view" of reality.
But of course, in real life we throw off all such doubt because survival requires it. Consider a problem that is sometimes batted around offices and break rooms: A meteor is on a direct line to impact Earth. Due to its great speed and its track from seemingly empty space, first knowledge was three days from impact, in the American Midwest. It is of such size that impact will leave nuclear winter over the entire surface of Earth, with dust in the atmosphere to block 80% of sunlight, for at least 10 years. The astronomer who made the find comes to you at the White House and gives you the information. The White House Science Advisor confirms the calculations and observation with out involving anyone else. Essentially three people know that all human life will end two days from now. Do you announce it generally? Do you give other governments a tip, so they can prepare for the riots and civil unrest that must come (information this juicy cannot be confidential when more than the original three persons are involved)? Or do you limit the information to the three persons and isolate them so that no leaks or statements can occur? Do you have the internal strength to watch puny struggles for 48 hours, waiting for the impact to speak for itself?
First, all of this is not information: it is faith. You could learn calculus and how to operate a telescope. But not in two days. So your decision must be made on faith. Furthermore. you have unshakable faith that objects will always move in accordance with observed data when explained by human mathematics. We all do. So, by faith, you "know" the meteor will impact exactly the same way you know the sun will rise tomorrow. (Hebrews 11:1-Now faith...is the evidence of things not seen.)
What benefit comes of announcing the impact? Almost nothing. Two days of preparations will not move the meteor; no umbrella will shelter us from it, no greenhouse will sustain any life from the winter that will descend after the impact. Some wild ideas of underground nuclear powered farms abound in science fiction, but no human government has had this foresight in the face of budgets that are never large enough. In day-to-day life, we firmly believe, without stating it, that no change will occur that will require drastic preparation.
The only benefit from announcing the impending impact is to give humans a chance to make peace with their Deity. But the law of nonpreparation applies here too. If life has been lived without concern for one's God, how will the large knowledge and practice base (much more than learning calculus) be acquired in only two days?
Against that uncertain benefit, weigh the panic, riots, wars and other forms of destruction that such an announcement would generate. If our faith in the men and sciences that predict an impact should somehow be wrong, damage to innocents and the destruction of the social fabric that would occur following such an announcement would likely be only slightly less catastrophic than an actual impact. If such information can be kept confidential, expect the government to not give full and truthful information to the country in such a situation.
Well, this is much longer than I planned. Our lives are filled with faith. I want, in the course of this blog, to scrutinize my faiths very carefully, identify what I accept on faith, decide if it is important or trifling in the grand scheme of things, and coonsider why do I accept that on faith.
I am trying not to use this blog as a Bible thumper. Maybe some of my thoughts track with other people's journeys, or maybe someone else has gone through this and wants to give something of their conclusions to people reading this (I think this is that kind of blog). Regardless, have a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)