(Warning: the following contains some spoilers.)
Tron: Legacy is a visually spectacular movie with strong links to the original and an interesting story. Sine a majority of the movie takes place inside a computer (in a place called the Grid), one would expect that the rules of life would be different from the real world. And indeed, it is, with light-cycles and aircraft being from a handlebar to programs regenerating lost limbs. However, some rules would still have to apply to both the Grid and the real world. The movie acknowledges this, primarily when a discovery made in the Grid was spoken of as potentially having an impact on science and religion for humans. Because of this connection, an examination of the events and characters in the movie can reveal interesting implications and comparisons to the real world.
There were three types of beings in the Grid: users, programs, and isos. Users is the name given to humans in the Grid. Programs are literally computer programs, but in the grid, they exist as a physical body. Isos are also programs living in the Grid but they were not created by humans. Rather, they arose spontaneously when conditions in the Grid were just right.
The relationship between the users and programs was a key element in the movie. Many times, the users were granted almost deity status because they created the Grid and the programs. Yet, the ruler of the programs, whose name was Clu, was in rebellion against the users because Clu was designed to create a perfect environment. However, Kevin Flynn, the original creator of the Grid and the creator of Clu, was fascinated by the isos when they showed up, because their existence challenged man’s understanding of reality. The isos were not perfect, so Clu regarded them as inferior, as not belonging in the Grid, so, he sought to destroy them which led Clu into rebellion against Kevin Flynn, his maker.
The creature being in rebellion against the creator is not a new concept: that is the natural state of man toward God. However, the similarity of Tron: Legacy to Christianity ends there. Unlike God who is infinite while His creation is finite, the users were in no way infinite compared to the programs. The users had some abilities that the programs did not, but in almost every other way (such as in strength, knowledge, power, and mortality), they were equal to the programs.
Not only is the equality of users and programs significantly different from Christianity, it is contrary to logic. Can a created thing be equal, much less superior to, its creator? No, it can not. As the Bible illustrates, what right or ability does a pot have to say to the potter, why have you made me so? (Isa.29:16, Rom. 9:9:20-21) But what about other things man has created? Many machines are far faster, stronger, precise, and have a higher endurance than any man. But man did not create the physical body of these machines: man took pre-existing parts and rearranged them into a new pattern. So the physical properties of a machine are not an ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) creation. Man can not claim to have created the physical matter of a machine. However, the design of a machine is ex nihilo. The design of a machine may copy a previous design and it may utilize physical properties of matter, but ultimately, the design is an arbitrary arrangement for an arbitrary function. No human creation comes close to matching the complexity of a human and none have genuine intelligence or creativity like a human has. So in terms of its design, all human creations are vastly inferior to humans.
Programs are an interesting type of human creation. A program must exist in a physical medium (usually, a circuit board) but a program itself is almost pure design: it is nothing more than a complexly organized series of commands. Programs can run through a series of commands faster than a human can, but their activity is limited to the commands given to them by people. So of all human creations, programs should be the most inferior to humans since programs involve very little rearrangement of pre-existing matter. The only way a program could be superior or equal to a human would be if a program were capable of improving its abilities beyond the capabilities a human gave to it. Such a self-improvement would be impossible since that would require a program to spontaneously generate new information in the form of novel commands that confer new functions on the program. This is an impossibility because information is ultimately arbitrary: while information has a function and purpose, information is only generated when an outside entity decides to make a change to something or someone else.
Returning to the movie, the only way Clu could prove to be a challenge to Kevin Flynn would be if the Grid existed in a world where new data was spontaneously generated. This is consistent with the origin of the isos, as they were living things created by spontaneous generation. So the Grid is a world that can not exist, as it allows the generation of information out of nothing without an outside entity. Furthermore, since the Grid must exist within the real world, the real world of Tron: Legacy must also be an impossibility. Thus, in the movie when Clu shouts, “Where are you, Kevin Flynn?” in mockery of the users’ power, there should be an impression of irony, for while that challenge may mimic the mockery of an atheist, Kevin Flynn is nothing like God. While God was incarnate, He still have power over His creation. Kevin Flynn, however, exists in a world where his equals can be created out of nothing with no cause. In such a world, nothing is a more powerful entity than any being.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Secular Conservatives and Charity
Ann Coulter had an interesting column this week titled, “Scrooge was a Liberal.” (Here is a link to the article: http://www.anncoulter.com/) The article was about how, despite the fact that liberals bellyache about providing for and taking care of the poor, they give far less to charities than conservatives do. However, I want to focus on one aspect of the article. Ann Coulter noted that, according to a study, while religious conservatives are the most generous group (in terms of dollars given to charities), secular conservatives are the stingiest. Coulter chalked this up, tongue in cheek, as she usually does, to secular conservatives being “mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.” However, I think that there is something else at work here.
What is conservatism based on? First, it might be helpful to define what “conservative” means. Based on what I have read and heard, I would define conservatism as the idea that freedom within the law is the birthright of all people, and therefore government should be restricted in order that it does not infringe on the people’s freedom. A key phrase in there is “within the law.” Freedom is not seen as a license that allows the bearer to commit any kind of activity without restrictions: there are restrictions based on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics represent a standard that some outside authority sets and enforces. Usually, a conservative’s morality is derived from Judeo-Christian thought, so ultimately, whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, conservatism rests on God.
If conservatism is based on God, then it makes sense that religious conservatives are the most generous group: their political philosophy is consistent with their religious philosophy (i.e. they acknowledge God in their religious life and their political life), so they behave as God instructs them to. Part of that instruction includes helping the poor. Now, a Christian does recognize that it is their business to assist the poor and not the business of government to force participation in charities or taxation of people in order to “help” the poor, as Ann Coulter points out in her article. But, the individual instruction to help a fellow brother or sister is in the Bible, and conservatives obey that commandment in their personal lives.
Now let’s look at the secular conservative. For these people, their religion (or lack of one) is inconsistent with their political philosophy: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious life but they do acknowledge God in their political life. Such a situation would lead to confusion. Moreover, why is a secular conservative conservative? Presumably, because they want more freedom. But why do they want freedom? A religious conservative may cite morals or ethics to say that freedom is right or good, but what reason can a secular conservative have for espousing freedom? None, unless it is a selfish desire to live his life as he wants. It would appear then that a secular conservative is, at his core, selfish. Such an attitude is not conducive to charity.
Does this sort of reasoning explain other groups as well? Aside from religious and secular conservatives, Ann Coulter also mentioned religious and secular liberals in her article. She pointed out that secular liberals are the second stingiest group. This makes sense based on their worldview. Liberalism sees it as the government’s duty to care for and protect people. When it comes to the poor, it is the government’s responsibility to provide for them. In this view, the government takes on a godlike aura: the government provides for, guides, leads, and protects its people. Ultimately, liberalism is atheistic (which, to mention Ann Coulter again, is the focus of her book, Godless, The Church of Liberalism). So secular liberals are consistent: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious or political lives. And what does this lead to? Stinginess, as they wait and lobby for the government to do something about all these poor people around them.
What of the religious liberals? This group is the second most charitable, coming in after the religious conservatives. Religious liberals are inconsistent, since they acknowledge God in their religious life but bow to government in their political life. These people would be confused, having the instruction to take care of the poor but also sitting around waiting for government action. The result? A mixed response resulting in a mediocre amount of charity.
So perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on secular conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) for being stingy. After all, their stinginess is simply a result of their beliefs. But that's the point, isn't it? Do people understand, or care, about the results of their ideas? Hopefully, they do, and based on the results of their beliefs, they can reconsider the foundations of their ideas.
What is conservatism based on? First, it might be helpful to define what “conservative” means. Based on what I have read and heard, I would define conservatism as the idea that freedom within the law is the birthright of all people, and therefore government should be restricted in order that it does not infringe on the people’s freedom. A key phrase in there is “within the law.” Freedom is not seen as a license that allows the bearer to commit any kind of activity without restrictions: there are restrictions based on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics represent a standard that some outside authority sets and enforces. Usually, a conservative’s morality is derived from Judeo-Christian thought, so ultimately, whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, conservatism rests on God.
If conservatism is based on God, then it makes sense that religious conservatives are the most generous group: their political philosophy is consistent with their religious philosophy (i.e. they acknowledge God in their religious life and their political life), so they behave as God instructs them to. Part of that instruction includes helping the poor. Now, a Christian does recognize that it is their business to assist the poor and not the business of government to force participation in charities or taxation of people in order to “help” the poor, as Ann Coulter points out in her article. But, the individual instruction to help a fellow brother or sister is in the Bible, and conservatives obey that commandment in their personal lives.
Now let’s look at the secular conservative. For these people, their religion (or lack of one) is inconsistent with their political philosophy: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious life but they do acknowledge God in their political life. Such a situation would lead to confusion. Moreover, why is a secular conservative conservative? Presumably, because they want more freedom. But why do they want freedom? A religious conservative may cite morals or ethics to say that freedom is right or good, but what reason can a secular conservative have for espousing freedom? None, unless it is a selfish desire to live his life as he wants. It would appear then that a secular conservative is, at his core, selfish. Such an attitude is not conducive to charity.
Does this sort of reasoning explain other groups as well? Aside from religious and secular conservatives, Ann Coulter also mentioned religious and secular liberals in her article. She pointed out that secular liberals are the second stingiest group. This makes sense based on their worldview. Liberalism sees it as the government’s duty to care for and protect people. When it comes to the poor, it is the government’s responsibility to provide for them. In this view, the government takes on a godlike aura: the government provides for, guides, leads, and protects its people. Ultimately, liberalism is atheistic (which, to mention Ann Coulter again, is the focus of her book, Godless, The Church of Liberalism). So secular liberals are consistent: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious or political lives. And what does this lead to? Stinginess, as they wait and lobby for the government to do something about all these poor people around them.
What of the religious liberals? This group is the second most charitable, coming in after the religious conservatives. Religious liberals are inconsistent, since they acknowledge God in their religious life but bow to government in their political life. These people would be confused, having the instruction to take care of the poor but also sitting around waiting for government action. The result? A mixed response resulting in a mediocre amount of charity.
So perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on secular conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) for being stingy. After all, their stinginess is simply a result of their beliefs. But that's the point, isn't it? Do people understand, or care, about the results of their ideas? Hopefully, they do, and based on the results of their beliefs, they can reconsider the foundations of their ideas.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Thoughts on Ezekiel's Temple
There is some dispute as to the identity of the temple described in Ezekiel chapters 40-47. Chapters 40-42 describe the physical structure of the temple, chapters 43-47 describes laws and activities associated with the temple. Here are some of the ideas as to the identity of this temple: it is 1) a literal temple yet to be built, 2) Zerubbabel’s temple, built after the return from captivity, 3) a figurative temple, and 4) an ideal temple that has not and will not exist. The identification of the temple is important, for not only does it pertain to eschatology, the description of the temple and its activities includes animal sacrifices (such as in Ezekiel 40:38, 43:18-27, 44:27, 45:18-25). The question then arises: if the temple in Ezekiel is a literal temple that will be built in the future, are sacrifices a necessary part of worship in the future? Some people cite these passages as evidence that ceremonial laws in the Torah will be followed in the future and so should be followed today as well.
Ironically, pointing out that Ezekiel’s temple involves sacrifices should be cited as evidence that it is not a temple that will be built in the future. Hebrews 10 compares sacrifices in the Old Testament law to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. Verses 10-12 compare the old sacrifices, which were performed every year because they could not take away sins, to Jesus’s sacrifice, which paid for sins once for all. Verse 18 sums it up, “Now where remission of these [sins] is, there is no more offering for sin.” The point is, because of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, there is no need, no purpose, for sin sacrifices. So rather than citing Ezekiel’s temple as evidence that sacrifices will be performed in the future, the fact that sacrifices have no purpose after Christ’s death and resurrection means that Ezekiel’s temple was not and will not be built after Christ’s death and resurrection.
There is another verse which also shows that Ezekiel’s temple could not exist after Christ’s resurrection. This is Ezekiel 44:9, which says that no one uncircumcised in the flesh can enter in the sanctuary of the temple. Yet, I Cor. 7:19 and Gal. 5:6, 6:15 all say that circumcision is nothing, it has no importance to Christ. If circumcision has no importance in Christ, and if there is only one way to God, and that is through Christ, then a temple to worship God can not exclude those who are uncircumcised.
Since the rules of worship for Ezekiel’s temple include sin sacrifices and exclusion of the uncircumcised, Ezekiel’s temple could not have been built after Christ’s resurrection, and so it will not be built in the future. What then is the identity of Ezekiel’s temple?
There is an interesting connection between Ezekiel’s temple and Zerrubbabel’s temple, the temple that was built after the return from captivity. Ezekiel says that the sons of Zadok shall be priests in the temple (Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15). Ezra was a priest restoring the law and worship in the temple after the return from captivity. Ezra is descended from Zadok (compare I Chr. 6:3-15 to Ezra 7:1-5), the same Zadok who was priest during David’s reign (I Chr. 18:16) and whose descendents were priests in Solomon’s temple (I Chr. 6:8-10) and were priests during Hezekiah’s reign (II Chr. 31:10), which indicates they were faithful to God up to the conquest of Judah.
The connection between the sons of Zadok being priests in Ezekiel’s temple and Ezra being a descendant of Zadok indicates that Ezekiel’s temple and Zerrubbabel’s temple are one and the same. There is an objection to this idea: the dimensions of Zerrubbabel’s temple does not match the dimensions given in Ezekiel. A partial answer to this objection may be derived from Ezekiel 43:10. In this verse, God instructs Ezekiel to give the pattern of the temple to Israel. Perhaps the dimensions given in Ezekiel are not a prophecy of a temple but a blueprint for a temple, a blueprint which was never fully obeyed by Israel. It should also be pointed out that not everything in Ezekiel’s description of the temple is literal. For example, Ezekiel 47:1-12 describes a river flowing from the temple that will heal anything it comes in contact with. So perhaps Zerrubbabel’s temple is Ezekiel’s temple in imperfect form with the figurative parts removed. Whatever Ezekiel’s temple is, based on the previous discussion of sacrifices and circumcision, we know that it not something that will be built in the future.
Ironically, pointing out that Ezekiel’s temple involves sacrifices should be cited as evidence that it is not a temple that will be built in the future. Hebrews 10 compares sacrifices in the Old Testament law to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. Verses 10-12 compare the old sacrifices, which were performed every year because they could not take away sins, to Jesus’s sacrifice, which paid for sins once for all. Verse 18 sums it up, “Now where remission of these [sins] is, there is no more offering for sin.” The point is, because of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, there is no need, no purpose, for sin sacrifices. So rather than citing Ezekiel’s temple as evidence that sacrifices will be performed in the future, the fact that sacrifices have no purpose after Christ’s death and resurrection means that Ezekiel’s temple was not and will not be built after Christ’s death and resurrection.
There is another verse which also shows that Ezekiel’s temple could not exist after Christ’s resurrection. This is Ezekiel 44:9, which says that no one uncircumcised in the flesh can enter in the sanctuary of the temple. Yet, I Cor. 7:19 and Gal. 5:6, 6:15 all say that circumcision is nothing, it has no importance to Christ. If circumcision has no importance in Christ, and if there is only one way to God, and that is through Christ, then a temple to worship God can not exclude those who are uncircumcised.
Since the rules of worship for Ezekiel’s temple include sin sacrifices and exclusion of the uncircumcised, Ezekiel’s temple could not have been built after Christ’s resurrection, and so it will not be built in the future. What then is the identity of Ezekiel’s temple?
There is an interesting connection between Ezekiel’s temple and Zerrubbabel’s temple, the temple that was built after the return from captivity. Ezekiel says that the sons of Zadok shall be priests in the temple (Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15). Ezra was a priest restoring the law and worship in the temple after the return from captivity. Ezra is descended from Zadok (compare I Chr. 6:3-15 to Ezra 7:1-5), the same Zadok who was priest during David’s reign (I Chr. 18:16) and whose descendents were priests in Solomon’s temple (I Chr. 6:8-10) and were priests during Hezekiah’s reign (II Chr. 31:10), which indicates they were faithful to God up to the conquest of Judah.
The connection between the sons of Zadok being priests in Ezekiel’s temple and Ezra being a descendant of Zadok indicates that Ezekiel’s temple and Zerrubbabel’s temple are one and the same. There is an objection to this idea: the dimensions of Zerrubbabel’s temple does not match the dimensions given in Ezekiel. A partial answer to this objection may be derived from Ezekiel 43:10. In this verse, God instructs Ezekiel to give the pattern of the temple to Israel. Perhaps the dimensions given in Ezekiel are not a prophecy of a temple but a blueprint for a temple, a blueprint which was never fully obeyed by Israel. It should also be pointed out that not everything in Ezekiel’s description of the temple is literal. For example, Ezekiel 47:1-12 describes a river flowing from the temple that will heal anything it comes in contact with. So perhaps Zerrubbabel’s temple is Ezekiel’s temple in imperfect form with the figurative parts removed. Whatever Ezekiel’s temple is, based on the previous discussion of sacrifices and circumcision, we know that it not something that will be built in the future.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Problem with a Government of the People
There has been a debate bout tuition going on in England. Apparently, Parliament has recently passed a low that has raised college tuition. As can be expected, college students were not happy about this decision. I heard a sound bite of one of these students giving her opinion of Parliament. She said something like, “They need to remember they work for us. Right now, they are making future voters mad.”
The idea that government officials work for the people, as expressed by this student, scares me. This student seems to think that it is the job of civil government to make her life easier. Now, in a broad sense, civil government is supposed to make life easier for people. Life is easier when criminals are caught and punished rather than being allowed to roam free and rob, steal, and kill. Business is easier when just commerce laws are enforced rather than deception and bribery ruling all transactions. However, the brunt of life, such as financial burdens incurred by higher education, are the responsibility of the individual. Responsibility implies freedom of choice, such as people being responsible enough to choose to go to college or not go to college, to go to a community college or to a four-year college. But responsibility also implies bearing the consequences of one’s actions, such as being responsible to pay for a four-year college’s tuition rate versus a community college’s tuition rate.
Unfortunately, I think many people let the idea that government works for the people cloud their understanding of responsibility. Government of the people stands in contrast to other ideas of government, such as the divine right of kings. But while a government where the citizens vote can be a check on the divine right of government officials, some citizens take their ability to vote and skew it to be a divine right of the electorate. “I vote, so officials have to listen to me, so they must do what I want them to do.” This view is simply incorrect. Rather, while civil government is subject, to a degree, to the people, the people are subject to government. Thus, a codependency exists between government officials and the electorate: officials write and pass laws which the people (including the officials) are subject to, and the people have the ability to remove officials as they see fit. Where in this loop does authority come from? The answer is: neither from the people nor from the government, but from God.
All authority comes from God. As Christ said after his resurrection: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). Civil governments are only one power of many on earth, and they are subject to Christ along with every other authority. God even makes specific claims to control and to have authority over government officials (John 19:11, Rom. 13:1-6, Ps. 2:10-12). So the codependency between civil government and the electorate is so both holds the other responsible to God’s Law. If officials and the electorate stray from God’s will, however, the codependency will devolve into a ring of mutual dependency. Then, the government buys support from the people with handouts and programs, and the people feed off the government, willingly accepting and demanding support and privileges. And in the end, you get college students protesting a tuition hike.
The idea that government officials work for the people, as expressed by this student, scares me. This student seems to think that it is the job of civil government to make her life easier. Now, in a broad sense, civil government is supposed to make life easier for people. Life is easier when criminals are caught and punished rather than being allowed to roam free and rob, steal, and kill. Business is easier when just commerce laws are enforced rather than deception and bribery ruling all transactions. However, the brunt of life, such as financial burdens incurred by higher education, are the responsibility of the individual. Responsibility implies freedom of choice, such as people being responsible enough to choose to go to college or not go to college, to go to a community college or to a four-year college. But responsibility also implies bearing the consequences of one’s actions, such as being responsible to pay for a four-year college’s tuition rate versus a community college’s tuition rate.
Unfortunately, I think many people let the idea that government works for the people cloud their understanding of responsibility. Government of the people stands in contrast to other ideas of government, such as the divine right of kings. But while a government where the citizens vote can be a check on the divine right of government officials, some citizens take their ability to vote and skew it to be a divine right of the electorate. “I vote, so officials have to listen to me, so they must do what I want them to do.” This view is simply incorrect. Rather, while civil government is subject, to a degree, to the people, the people are subject to government. Thus, a codependency exists between government officials and the electorate: officials write and pass laws which the people (including the officials) are subject to, and the people have the ability to remove officials as they see fit. Where in this loop does authority come from? The answer is: neither from the people nor from the government, but from God.
All authority comes from God. As Christ said after his resurrection: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). Civil governments are only one power of many on earth, and they are subject to Christ along with every other authority. God even makes specific claims to control and to have authority over government officials (John 19:11, Rom. 13:1-6, Ps. 2:10-12). So the codependency between civil government and the electorate is so both holds the other responsible to God’s Law. If officials and the electorate stray from God’s will, however, the codependency will devolve into a ring of mutual dependency. Then, the government buys support from the people with handouts and programs, and the people feed off the government, willingly accepting and demanding support and privileges. And in the end, you get college students protesting a tuition hike.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Real Men and Intrusive Pat-downs
A caller on the Rush Limbaugh Show asked a couple of questions, “Why aren’t real men doing anything about the pat-downs at airports” (implicit in the question was the idea that a real man would violently protect his family from an intrusive pat-down) and “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” (The questions given here are paraphrases of the caller’s questions simply because I could not remember them word for word.)
These sorts of questions bother me and they make me mad when they are asked in an air of condescension (as this caller did). The reason is because even though they are given in an air of authority, these questions are born of ignorance. Take the first question. The answer to the question is: real men don’t LET their families go through intrusive pat-downs. True, that may not be the aggressive, masculine man’s way of dealing with problems. But what good will aggression do? So a father gets mad as his child is being patted down, punches the TSA agent, and then promptly gets arrested for assault and carried off to jail. Yes, that took care of the problem, didn’t it? Miss your flight and get arrested all at once. While that may be the “masculine” man’s way of dealing with problems, the wise man would know that there is no way to get onto an airplane without going through some kind of intrusive screening, and simply stop flying. “But that doesn’t take care of the problem,” one might object. First of all, it might. If airlines have a severe drop in customers because of people avoiding the screening process, they might get rid of the intrusive screening so as to remain in business. Otherwise, they’ll lose customers to buses and trains, not to mention gas stains as people drive around the country rather than fly. Second, there are other ways to take care of the problem. The biggest is simply to have a general outcry over the procedures, something which is going on right now. The more people who are aware of the problem, the more people who will protest the problem, and unless the TSA and airports are completely tone deaf, they will change their rules. There might even be legal action that can be taken. So avoiding airports to avoid intrusive screening procedures is not wimpy, that is what wise men do. Wrathful men who feel they need to hurt someone to get their point across are those who go into the lion’s den (airport terminals, in this case) raring for a fight with no hope of victory.
And speaking of people who have a desire to do harm to others to get their point across, what about the idea that we are being complacent by not taking up arms against intrusive government? Our country has a built in function for removing corrupt officials who pass freedom-killing legislation: it’s called elections! “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” How about: we DID rebel against Obama on November 2nd and we did it WITHOUT guns. And the rebellion will be completed with the 2012 elections. It would be foolish to resort to violence just because we want an immediate, vengeful fix.
Now, I want to make it clear that I am not against violence. I think there is a place for a man to protect his family and loved ones with physical violence, and I also think that there are times when people should rebel against their government. However, like everything else in life, there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. In the case of intrusive pat-downs at airports and a freedom-grabbing government, that time is not now: there are still other options available. And like the founders of this country, who only rebelled against Great Britain when all appeals to the king and parliament failed, we should exhaust all legal means of change before we begin an open rebellion. Real men don’t put their families as risk by inciting unnecessary wars and fights.
These sorts of questions bother me and they make me mad when they are asked in an air of condescension (as this caller did). The reason is because even though they are given in an air of authority, these questions are born of ignorance. Take the first question. The answer to the question is: real men don’t LET their families go through intrusive pat-downs. True, that may not be the aggressive, masculine man’s way of dealing with problems. But what good will aggression do? So a father gets mad as his child is being patted down, punches the TSA agent, and then promptly gets arrested for assault and carried off to jail. Yes, that took care of the problem, didn’t it? Miss your flight and get arrested all at once. While that may be the “masculine” man’s way of dealing with problems, the wise man would know that there is no way to get onto an airplane without going through some kind of intrusive screening, and simply stop flying. “But that doesn’t take care of the problem,” one might object. First of all, it might. If airlines have a severe drop in customers because of people avoiding the screening process, they might get rid of the intrusive screening so as to remain in business. Otherwise, they’ll lose customers to buses and trains, not to mention gas stains as people drive around the country rather than fly. Second, there are other ways to take care of the problem. The biggest is simply to have a general outcry over the procedures, something which is going on right now. The more people who are aware of the problem, the more people who will protest the problem, and unless the TSA and airports are completely tone deaf, they will change their rules. There might even be legal action that can be taken. So avoiding airports to avoid intrusive screening procedures is not wimpy, that is what wise men do. Wrathful men who feel they need to hurt someone to get their point across are those who go into the lion’s den (airport terminals, in this case) raring for a fight with no hope of victory.
And speaking of people who have a desire to do harm to others to get their point across, what about the idea that we are being complacent by not taking up arms against intrusive government? Our country has a built in function for removing corrupt officials who pass freedom-killing legislation: it’s called elections! “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” How about: we DID rebel against Obama on November 2nd and we did it WITHOUT guns. And the rebellion will be completed with the 2012 elections. It would be foolish to resort to violence just because we want an immediate, vengeful fix.
Now, I want to make it clear that I am not against violence. I think there is a place for a man to protect his family and loved ones with physical violence, and I also think that there are times when people should rebel against their government. However, like everything else in life, there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. In the case of intrusive pat-downs at airports and a freedom-grabbing government, that time is not now: there are still other options available. And like the founders of this country, who only rebelled against Great Britain when all appeals to the king and parliament failed, we should exhaust all legal means of change before we begin an open rebellion. Real men don’t put their families as risk by inciting unnecessary wars and fights.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Things God did not Create
There is a “proof” of the non-existence of God that I have heard a couple of times. It goes something like this:
Person 1: Did God create everything?
Person 2: Yes, God created everything.
Person 1: Does evil exist in the world?
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: If evil exists, and if God created everything, then God must have created evil.
Person 2: But God is not evil nor the author of evil.
Person 1: Therefore, God did not create everything, and therefore God must not be the Creator of everything, thus God doesn’t exist.
The typical answer to this argument goes something like this: evil occurs when God’s rules are not obeyed. Evil is the absence of good, therefore evil does not exit. This is analogous to darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, darkness is not a thing in and of itself. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, evil is not a thing in and of itself.
I’ve found the argument that “evil does not exist” a little unsettling. First of all, how can “good” exist but not “evil”? Both words are used to describe actions: so and so did a good thing, or so and so did an evil thing. Both evil and good have the same origin (a person’s thought or will determines his actions) so how can one exist and the other doesn’t?
Second, the comparison to light and darkness doesn’t hold up. Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but darkness describes a physical phenomena, and God created the physical world. Look at Gen. 1:2. It describes the newly created world as being dark. Therefore, God did create darkness, and if God created darkness, then the analogy would indicate that God also created evil.
I think the solution to the opening “proof” of God’s non-existence is simply this: God did not create everything.
“Heresy! How can you say such a thing?”
Before the stake and firewood are brought out, let me explain. There is a slight of hand going on in the opening argument. When person 2 affirms that God created everything, what he means is that God made the whole universe. However, when person 1 categorizes evil as something that exists (and therefore, part of everything), he is using “everything” to mean the sum total of all things, events, and ideas. So there are two definitions of “everything” being used: “everything is the whole universe,” and “everything is all things, events, and ideas.” These two definitions may seem to be the same, but they are not. Allow me to elaborate by describing those things, events, and ideas God did not create.
First of all, God did not create Himself. He is eternal and has therefore existed from eternity past and will exist to eternity future. Besides, it is impossible for something to create itself. At its creation, something comes into existence, by definition. Yet, something must be in existence in order for it to create anything. So for something to create itself, it would have to be in existence (in order to create itself) and not in existence (it doesn’t exist prior to its creation) at the same time, breaking the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, God could not have created Himself.
While I’m using a logical argument, let’s touch on the fact that God did not create logic. The laws of logic are part of God’s nature, and therefore they also apply to His creation. The law of non-contradiction exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent. The principle of uniformity (not to be confused with the principle of uniformitarianism, the former being the idea that natural laws apply everywhere over time and space, the latter being an idea about the rate of geological actions) also exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent (for a further explanation of how logic is an expression of God’s nature, see “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle, pg. 196-198). God did not create wisdom for wisdom is an expression of God’s thoughts (Prov. 3:19, if God used wisdom to create the earth and heavens, wisdom must have been around before God began creation, before He created anything). God did not create ethics for all the moral laws He gave to man are an expression of His nature. All of these things are an expression of some part of the nature of God. If God did not create Himself, then He also did not create His nature, therefore He did not create those things that are an expression of His nature.
There are things that man created that God did not create. Since man was made in God’s image, we have creative abilities. If we have the ability to create things, then there must be things we created that God did not. For instance, God did not create the internal combustion engine. Now, man does not have the ability to create things out of nothing, so the physical matter that comprises the parts of an internal combustion engine was not created by man. However, the design was created by man. Some might argue that there are physical restraints that have to be met in order for an internal combustion engine to function, therefore man may have simply “discovered” how to build an internal combustion engine rather than actually designing one. While there are physical constraints (such as temperature, forces, available materials, and so forth) that dictate some aspects of the design of an engine, the exact design was created by man. Consider: there is the familiar piston engine and there is the Wankel rotary engine. Both are internal combustion engines, both function under the same physical conditions, but they have different designs, both of which were created by men.
So what can be concluded? There are three things God did not create: Himself, expressions of His nature, and designs made by humans. Therefore, God did not make everything if “everything” means all things, events, and ideas. So how does this relate to the existence of evil? God did not create evil. Man created evil when he rebelled against God in the Garden.
Person 1: Did God create everything?
Person 2: Yes, God created everything.
Person 1: Does evil exist in the world?
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: If evil exists, and if God created everything, then God must have created evil.
Person 2: But God is not evil nor the author of evil.
Person 1: Therefore, God did not create everything, and therefore God must not be the Creator of everything, thus God doesn’t exist.
The typical answer to this argument goes something like this: evil occurs when God’s rules are not obeyed. Evil is the absence of good, therefore evil does not exit. This is analogous to darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, darkness is not a thing in and of itself. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, evil is not a thing in and of itself.
I’ve found the argument that “evil does not exist” a little unsettling. First of all, how can “good” exist but not “evil”? Both words are used to describe actions: so and so did a good thing, or so and so did an evil thing. Both evil and good have the same origin (a person’s thought or will determines his actions) so how can one exist and the other doesn’t?
Second, the comparison to light and darkness doesn’t hold up. Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but darkness describes a physical phenomena, and God created the physical world. Look at Gen. 1:2. It describes the newly created world as being dark. Therefore, God did create darkness, and if God created darkness, then the analogy would indicate that God also created evil.
I think the solution to the opening “proof” of God’s non-existence is simply this: God did not create everything.
“Heresy! How can you say such a thing?”
Before the stake and firewood are brought out, let me explain. There is a slight of hand going on in the opening argument. When person 2 affirms that God created everything, what he means is that God made the whole universe. However, when person 1 categorizes evil as something that exists (and therefore, part of everything), he is using “everything” to mean the sum total of all things, events, and ideas. So there are two definitions of “everything” being used: “everything is the whole universe,” and “everything is all things, events, and ideas.” These two definitions may seem to be the same, but they are not. Allow me to elaborate by describing those things, events, and ideas God did not create.
First of all, God did not create Himself. He is eternal and has therefore existed from eternity past and will exist to eternity future. Besides, it is impossible for something to create itself. At its creation, something comes into existence, by definition. Yet, something must be in existence in order for it to create anything. So for something to create itself, it would have to be in existence (in order to create itself) and not in existence (it doesn’t exist prior to its creation) at the same time, breaking the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, God could not have created Himself.
While I’m using a logical argument, let’s touch on the fact that God did not create logic. The laws of logic are part of God’s nature, and therefore they also apply to His creation. The law of non-contradiction exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent. The principle of uniformity (not to be confused with the principle of uniformitarianism, the former being the idea that natural laws apply everywhere over time and space, the latter being an idea about the rate of geological actions) also exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent (for a further explanation of how logic is an expression of God’s nature, see “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle, pg. 196-198). God did not create wisdom for wisdom is an expression of God’s thoughts (Prov. 3:19, if God used wisdom to create the earth and heavens, wisdom must have been around before God began creation, before He created anything). God did not create ethics for all the moral laws He gave to man are an expression of His nature. All of these things are an expression of some part of the nature of God. If God did not create Himself, then He also did not create His nature, therefore He did not create those things that are an expression of His nature.
There are things that man created that God did not create. Since man was made in God’s image, we have creative abilities. If we have the ability to create things, then there must be things we created that God did not. For instance, God did not create the internal combustion engine. Now, man does not have the ability to create things out of nothing, so the physical matter that comprises the parts of an internal combustion engine was not created by man. However, the design was created by man. Some might argue that there are physical restraints that have to be met in order for an internal combustion engine to function, therefore man may have simply “discovered” how to build an internal combustion engine rather than actually designing one. While there are physical constraints (such as temperature, forces, available materials, and so forth) that dictate some aspects of the design of an engine, the exact design was created by man. Consider: there is the familiar piston engine and there is the Wankel rotary engine. Both are internal combustion engines, both function under the same physical conditions, but they have different designs, both of which were created by men.
So what can be concluded? There are three things God did not create: Himself, expressions of His nature, and designs made by humans. Therefore, God did not make everything if “everything” means all things, events, and ideas. So how does this relate to the existence of evil? God did not create evil. Man created evil when he rebelled against God in the Garden.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Efficiency of Common Sense Profiling
With full body scans and enhanced pat-downs being implemented at airport security checkpoints, the issue of the effectiveness (and intrusiveness) of screening procedures has been brought up again.
Since there is a general outcry over the body scans and pat-downs, some people have suggested that rather than being intrusive and ethically-questionable, airport security should simply use profiling. The arguments for profiling include, 1) it is used to great effect in other countries (such as Israel) and 2) it would be cheaper and quicker. The arguments is that it can be abused, and it is demeaning and contrary to a free society.
As for the argument that profiling can be abused, of course it can. So can full body scans (will scans of attractive women be saved?) and pat-downs (will men doing pat-downs give women extra attention?). For that matter, so can military powers, tax laws, judicial appointments, judicial rulings, bail outs, trade laws, medical laws, and so forth. What aspect of government can not be abused? So there is nothing special about profiling that makes it more abusive than other laws or procedures.
What about the argument that profiling demeaning and contrary to freedom? To answer this critique, a closer look at profiling is in order.
There are some people who hear the word “profiling” and perceive “black men have a predisposition to violence,” or “being of Middle East descent makes one a terrorist.” In other words, these people see profiling as attributing a behavior to a person because of a physical characteristic. This is not what is meant by those who advocate profiling by airport security. They advocate criminal profiling. Criminal profiling involves knowing who a criminal is and using the criminal’s characteristics to find him. For example, a witness at a scene of a robbery describes the suspect as a man, 6 foot 4 inches tall, with blond hair. Therefore, cops will profile all 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men as possibly being the robber, not because 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men have a predisposition to robbery, but because a known robber has those characteristics. The same strategy can apply to groups: members of one group (say, terrorists) have common characteristics (young men of Middle Eastern descent). So profiling young, Middle Eastern men at airports is not based on the theory that being a young man born in the Middle East makes a person a terrorist, it is based on the knowledge that other terrorists are young Middle Eastern men.
So, to use criminal profiling is not to say, “Because you have feature X, you are more prone to do Y,” rather it is to say that “Criminal A has feature X. You have feature X, therefore the possibility exists that you are criminal A.” The former statement is condescending, demeaning, and does not look at men as equals. The latter statement is good police work based on common sense. I should also point out that it is not sufficient: while profiling can focus attention on a specific type of person, highlighting who should be watched or scrutinized, it is not sufficient to convict a person. Still, it is more efficient to focusing attention on a selected group of people rather than treating every airplane passenger as a potential terrorist.
Since there is a general outcry over the body scans and pat-downs, some people have suggested that rather than being intrusive and ethically-questionable, airport security should simply use profiling. The arguments for profiling include, 1) it is used to great effect in other countries (such as Israel) and 2) it would be cheaper and quicker. The arguments is that it can be abused, and it is demeaning and contrary to a free society.
As for the argument that profiling can be abused, of course it can. So can full body scans (will scans of attractive women be saved?) and pat-downs (will men doing pat-downs give women extra attention?). For that matter, so can military powers, tax laws, judicial appointments, judicial rulings, bail outs, trade laws, medical laws, and so forth. What aspect of government can not be abused? So there is nothing special about profiling that makes it more abusive than other laws or procedures.
What about the argument that profiling demeaning and contrary to freedom? To answer this critique, a closer look at profiling is in order.
There are some people who hear the word “profiling” and perceive “black men have a predisposition to violence,” or “being of Middle East descent makes one a terrorist.” In other words, these people see profiling as attributing a behavior to a person because of a physical characteristic. This is not what is meant by those who advocate profiling by airport security. They advocate criminal profiling. Criminal profiling involves knowing who a criminal is and using the criminal’s characteristics to find him. For example, a witness at a scene of a robbery describes the suspect as a man, 6 foot 4 inches tall, with blond hair. Therefore, cops will profile all 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men as possibly being the robber, not because 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men have a predisposition to robbery, but because a known robber has those characteristics. The same strategy can apply to groups: members of one group (say, terrorists) have common characteristics (young men of Middle Eastern descent). So profiling young, Middle Eastern men at airports is not based on the theory that being a young man born in the Middle East makes a person a terrorist, it is based on the knowledge that other terrorists are young Middle Eastern men.
So, to use criminal profiling is not to say, “Because you have feature X, you are more prone to do Y,” rather it is to say that “Criminal A has feature X. You have feature X, therefore the possibility exists that you are criminal A.” The former statement is condescending, demeaning, and does not look at men as equals. The latter statement is good police work based on common sense. I should also point out that it is not sufficient: while profiling can focus attention on a specific type of person, highlighting who should be watched or scrutinized, it is not sufficient to convict a person. Still, it is more efficient to focusing attention on a selected group of people rather than treating every airplane passenger as a potential terrorist.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Ufology, the Bible, and Reason
I was listening to the radio program Coast to Coast the other night. The host was talking with Dr. Jacques Vallee about UFO’s, specifically about ancient UFO’s, such as those recorded in ancient documents found in Egypt, Rome, China, and in the Bible. That’s right, the Bible. The fact that ufologists seek to find UFO’s in the Bible was not a surprise to me, I knew they did that all the time. One of the passages in the Bible usually cited as a record of a UFO sighting is Ezekiel 1, which is the passage that describes Ezekiel’s vision of the four living creatures and the four wheels full of eyes. This “interpretation” of Ezekiel is fairly common, even appearing in popular media, such as the movie Knowing. Not only is Ezekiel 1 directly referenced in this movie, when the “alien craft” is finally seen, it resembles a wheel within a wheel, much like the description of the wheels full of eyes in Ezekiel.
Anyway, Dr. Vallee considers many records of UFO sightings to be authentic. His reason is, the recorded events must have made such an impression on people that they took the time to write a record of the event in stone, in some cases (isn’t mythology also recorded in stone?). What struck me is, wouldn’t an event such as a man dying, being buried for three days, and rising from the dead also make a huge impression on the people who witnessed it? Yet, Dr. Vallee does not take he Bible seriously, for he misinterprets Ezekiel 1 to be a record of an abduction (no exaggeration, he used the word “abduction” to describe Ezekiel 1). He even had the gall to say that Ezekiel was based on tradition handed down and written several years after Ezekiel’s death, therefore it was a less reliable record than UFO sightings recorded in ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Chinese documents. He discounted the Bible, not only the Word of God but also the most historically verified book in the world, as less reliable than poems written in ancient China (one specific example of a UFO record Dr. Vallee mentioned was just that: an ancient Chinese poem).
But probably the most outrageous thing Dr. Vallee said was when he disparaged religious explanations for UFO’s. That’s right: after misinterpreting Ezekiel 1 (a passage from the Bible, a religious book), Dr. Vallee considers a religious explanation of such an event as ridiculous. But more than that, Dr. Vallee deliberately steered clear of theorizing what the UFO’s actually are. So… he’ll leave what UFO’s are open to interpretation, but explaining them using religion is ridiculous? That’s not very open-minded.
That is why I occasionally listen to Coast to Coast: to remind myself that fringe ideas are poorly thought out and glaringly inconsistent (well, that and sometimes I am up late at night).
Lastly, do I think UFO’s are real? Some of them, yes. But I’ll take the religious explanation on this one. Most likely, they are demons or demonic activity designed to deceive people and create a hope and trust in UFOs and extraterrestrials as a substitute for a trust in God.
Anyway, Dr. Vallee considers many records of UFO sightings to be authentic. His reason is, the recorded events must have made such an impression on people that they took the time to write a record of the event in stone, in some cases (isn’t mythology also recorded in stone?). What struck me is, wouldn’t an event such as a man dying, being buried for three days, and rising from the dead also make a huge impression on the people who witnessed it? Yet, Dr. Vallee does not take he Bible seriously, for he misinterprets Ezekiel 1 to be a record of an abduction (no exaggeration, he used the word “abduction” to describe Ezekiel 1). He even had the gall to say that Ezekiel was based on tradition handed down and written several years after Ezekiel’s death, therefore it was a less reliable record than UFO sightings recorded in ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Chinese documents. He discounted the Bible, not only the Word of God but also the most historically verified book in the world, as less reliable than poems written in ancient China (one specific example of a UFO record Dr. Vallee mentioned was just that: an ancient Chinese poem).
But probably the most outrageous thing Dr. Vallee said was when he disparaged religious explanations for UFO’s. That’s right: after misinterpreting Ezekiel 1 (a passage from the Bible, a religious book), Dr. Vallee considers a religious explanation of such an event as ridiculous. But more than that, Dr. Vallee deliberately steered clear of theorizing what the UFO’s actually are. So… he’ll leave what UFO’s are open to interpretation, but explaining them using religion is ridiculous? That’s not very open-minded.
That is why I occasionally listen to Coast to Coast: to remind myself that fringe ideas are poorly thought out and glaringly inconsistent (well, that and sometimes I am up late at night).
Lastly, do I think UFO’s are real? Some of them, yes. But I’ll take the religious explanation on this one. Most likely, they are demons or demonic activity designed to deceive people and create a hope and trust in UFOs and extraterrestrials as a substitute for a trust in God.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Story of the Emerald Dragon
1684
“Hall thet thing up hare!” the sailor shouted. He was the first mate of the Emerald Dragon, a merchant ship. They were on a voyage across the Pacific, a trip the ship and crew has made several times before. This time was going to end differently.
“Naw don’t mangle thet thing!” the first mate yelled down at the crew. They were in boats surrounding the carcass of some huge creature. They were attempting to hook the carcass in order that it may be hauled on board. There was no real purpose for this activity. It was spurned on primarily by curiosity about the nature of the gigantic beast.
One of the crew climbed up the side of the ship and addressed the first mate. “We’ve hooked it as best we can, sir.”
“Wall, then, start hauling ‘er up. We’ve wasted enough time on this foolish endeavar.”
With all the crew back on board, they began to pull the great beast up onto the ship.
“Careful, she’s tearing!” someone called out. But the warning was too late. The carcass ripped free from the hooks and plunged back into the sea. All that was left was a single tentacle that had ripped free and was now dangling from a single hook.
The first mate growled in frustration. “Well, dan’t just stand thar watching ‘er sink. Haul that bit in ef you want it and get back to work!”
The first mate then turned away from the side of the ship and motioned for one of the crew, a seaman named Adaver, to come over. They spoke quietly together for a few minutes.
“Well Adaver, how’s the crew look’n?
“As ye know, we’re runnin’ with a light crew, since many of his favorites couldn’t make it on this trip. So most will side with us, though many will still remain loyal to ‘em.”
The first mate spat. “He’ll get whats comin’ to ‘em, and they’ll get the same ef thay stay with ‘em.”
Adaver lay on his back, with a knife in his chest. He felt his life ebbing away, but he still had enough strength to look around and consider his situation.
The mutiny had not gone as well as he though it would. More of the crew had sided with the captain. But the first mate was too stubborn to back down. It came to a fight, so fight they did, and now Adaver was the only one left alive. He smiled as he looked at all the dead bodies around him. All this, for what? The ship was now crewless, left to drift wherever it may. Then his gaze fell on a large tentacle in a corner of the kitchen.
“Who was the fool who put that thing in there?” was Adaver’s last thought.
1716
“Heav I ever told you ‘bout what happen’d to the Emerald Dragon?” and old seadog sitting on the pier asked a young lad who was busy unloading cargo from a ship.
Not getting a response, the old man continued. “Twasn’t mo’ then 32 years ago. I was on board the Sally Fey. Aye, she was a fine ship. We was en route across the Pacific, when all of a sudden, what does we see, but this ship come diften out o’ the mist. Wall, we calls out to the crew of the ship, so’s we don’t collide withs them, ya see. Now wouldn’t ya know it, we don’t get a reply. So, bein a might curious, we decides to board this ship. Wall wouldn’t ya know it? The crew all be dead! Ever last one o’ them. Worst carnage I ever did see. Never did quite figer out what ‘appened. Maybe it was a mutiny and both sides keeled themselves. That be odd though: you’d figer at least someone would survive a mutiny, the last man standing, ‘en all. But there was one other curious thing we found. A tentacle. Must ‘o been from a giant squid. Never could figer what that was doin’. May have somethun’ to so with the dead crew. Who knows.”
1835
“I heard a rumor that giant squid can be dangerous.”
The speaker was a tall, well dressed, young man named Thomas. He was speaking with two of his companions at the university. A large carcass had washed ashore at a nearby town, inspiring talk about sea monsters.
“I suppose they would be carnivorous, like other squid,” one of his companions considered. “So I imagine a giant squid would be dangerous, if you happen to be in the water when it was in the vicinity.”
“No, I mean I have heard a story about a group of giant squid devouring the entire crew of a ship.”
“Really?” Thomas’s other friend asked skeptically. “Where did you hear that from?”
“My uncle. He owns a fleet of merchant vessels and he has heard tale from his crew about a ship, the Emerald Dragon, which was found drifting aimlessly at sea. Much of the crew was missing, based on the size of the crew a ship that size should have, and those that they found on the ship were all dead. Those remaining bodies had parts, arms, legs, even heads, missing, and over the rest of their bodies, there were horrible scares left by suckers. They also found the severed limbs of giant squid on board, so apparently the crew had been fighting back.”
“That sounds like a tall tale to me.”
“That is what I thought at first, but I talked to several members of my uncle’s crew, and most of them have heard the story and confirm that it is true.”
2010
The radio host was speaking to his guest, George Calvert, an expert on the giant squid. They were on the air, and they were in the middle of a discussion about the physiology of the giant squid when the host decided to steer the conversation into a different direction.
“Now George, we talk about how big the giant squid is, and an animal of that size can be dangerous, right?”
“Oh, sure.”
“Now I have heard a story, and you tell me if this sounds plausible, a story about a ship way back in the 1600’s that was found drifting at sea. I believe the name of the ship was the Green Dragon. Anyway, the crew was gone, every one had disappeared, but they found a tentacle, a giant squid tentacle, on board the ship. Apparently, it had been hacked off by a sailor trying to defend himself.”
“Yes, yes, I know that story. Your description of the events is correct, though the ship was the Emerald Dragon, not the Green Dragon.”
“Oh, I knew it was green or some color like that,”
“Well, we want to make sure we get our facts correct, don’t we?”
“Oh, of course we do.”
“Anyway, the story of the Emerald Dragon is a dramatic example of how dangerous giant squid can be…”
George Calvert continued, telling other fascinating details about the mysterious giant squid, all of these details backed up with well documented sources.
“Hall thet thing up hare!” the sailor shouted. He was the first mate of the Emerald Dragon, a merchant ship. They were on a voyage across the Pacific, a trip the ship and crew has made several times before. This time was going to end differently.
“Naw don’t mangle thet thing!” the first mate yelled down at the crew. They were in boats surrounding the carcass of some huge creature. They were attempting to hook the carcass in order that it may be hauled on board. There was no real purpose for this activity. It was spurned on primarily by curiosity about the nature of the gigantic beast.
One of the crew climbed up the side of the ship and addressed the first mate. “We’ve hooked it as best we can, sir.”
“Wall, then, start hauling ‘er up. We’ve wasted enough time on this foolish endeavar.”
With all the crew back on board, they began to pull the great beast up onto the ship.
“Careful, she’s tearing!” someone called out. But the warning was too late. The carcass ripped free from the hooks and plunged back into the sea. All that was left was a single tentacle that had ripped free and was now dangling from a single hook.
The first mate growled in frustration. “Well, dan’t just stand thar watching ‘er sink. Haul that bit in ef you want it and get back to work!”
The first mate then turned away from the side of the ship and motioned for one of the crew, a seaman named Adaver, to come over. They spoke quietly together for a few minutes.
“Well Adaver, how’s the crew look’n?
“As ye know, we’re runnin’ with a light crew, since many of his favorites couldn’t make it on this trip. So most will side with us, though many will still remain loyal to ‘em.”
The first mate spat. “He’ll get whats comin’ to ‘em, and they’ll get the same ef thay stay with ‘em.”
Adaver lay on his back, with a knife in his chest. He felt his life ebbing away, but he still had enough strength to look around and consider his situation.
The mutiny had not gone as well as he though it would. More of the crew had sided with the captain. But the first mate was too stubborn to back down. It came to a fight, so fight they did, and now Adaver was the only one left alive. He smiled as he looked at all the dead bodies around him. All this, for what? The ship was now crewless, left to drift wherever it may. Then his gaze fell on a large tentacle in a corner of the kitchen.
“Who was the fool who put that thing in there?” was Adaver’s last thought.
1716
“Heav I ever told you ‘bout what happen’d to the Emerald Dragon?” and old seadog sitting on the pier asked a young lad who was busy unloading cargo from a ship.
Not getting a response, the old man continued. “Twasn’t mo’ then 32 years ago. I was on board the Sally Fey. Aye, she was a fine ship. We was en route across the Pacific, when all of a sudden, what does we see, but this ship come diften out o’ the mist. Wall, we calls out to the crew of the ship, so’s we don’t collide withs them, ya see. Now wouldn’t ya know it, we don’t get a reply. So, bein a might curious, we decides to board this ship. Wall wouldn’t ya know it? The crew all be dead! Ever last one o’ them. Worst carnage I ever did see. Never did quite figer out what ‘appened. Maybe it was a mutiny and both sides keeled themselves. That be odd though: you’d figer at least someone would survive a mutiny, the last man standing, ‘en all. But there was one other curious thing we found. A tentacle. Must ‘o been from a giant squid. Never could figer what that was doin’. May have somethun’ to so with the dead crew. Who knows.”
1835
“I heard a rumor that giant squid can be dangerous.”
The speaker was a tall, well dressed, young man named Thomas. He was speaking with two of his companions at the university. A large carcass had washed ashore at a nearby town, inspiring talk about sea monsters.
“I suppose they would be carnivorous, like other squid,” one of his companions considered. “So I imagine a giant squid would be dangerous, if you happen to be in the water when it was in the vicinity.”
“No, I mean I have heard a story about a group of giant squid devouring the entire crew of a ship.”
“Really?” Thomas’s other friend asked skeptically. “Where did you hear that from?”
“My uncle. He owns a fleet of merchant vessels and he has heard tale from his crew about a ship, the Emerald Dragon, which was found drifting aimlessly at sea. Much of the crew was missing, based on the size of the crew a ship that size should have, and those that they found on the ship were all dead. Those remaining bodies had parts, arms, legs, even heads, missing, and over the rest of their bodies, there were horrible scares left by suckers. They also found the severed limbs of giant squid on board, so apparently the crew had been fighting back.”
“That sounds like a tall tale to me.”
“That is what I thought at first, but I talked to several members of my uncle’s crew, and most of them have heard the story and confirm that it is true.”
2010
The radio host was speaking to his guest, George Calvert, an expert on the giant squid. They were on the air, and they were in the middle of a discussion about the physiology of the giant squid when the host decided to steer the conversation into a different direction.
“Now George, we talk about how big the giant squid is, and an animal of that size can be dangerous, right?”
“Oh, sure.”
“Now I have heard a story, and you tell me if this sounds plausible, a story about a ship way back in the 1600’s that was found drifting at sea. I believe the name of the ship was the Green Dragon. Anyway, the crew was gone, every one had disappeared, but they found a tentacle, a giant squid tentacle, on board the ship. Apparently, it had been hacked off by a sailor trying to defend himself.”
“Yes, yes, I know that story. Your description of the events is correct, though the ship was the Emerald Dragon, not the Green Dragon.”
“Oh, I knew it was green or some color like that,”
“Well, we want to make sure we get our facts correct, don’t we?”
“Oh, of course we do.”
“Anyway, the story of the Emerald Dragon is a dramatic example of how dangerous giant squid can be…”
George Calvert continued, telling other fascinating details about the mysterious giant squid, all of these details backed up with well documented sources.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
An Example of Neutrality
So, I kind of rushed through the postings of presuppositional apologetics because I read something today that inspired me to write a new post, and for consistency's sake, I didn't want to break up the presuppositional apologetics posts. So now to change gears midway through a thought...
There was an interesting article on World Net Daily recently. It was titled “You can’t advertise with us—you’re Christian” posted on October 1, 2010. The address for the article is http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210573. The article was about a Christian bookstore owner who paid for an ad to appear in the menu of a restaurant. His check was returned and he was informed that his ad could not be displayed because it had the word “Christian” in it, and that might be offensive to some people.
The owner of the Christian bookstore commented on how what happened to him is indicative of how political correctness has lead to fears about the term “Christian” may offend people, despite the fact that this country has a Judeo-Christian background. I agree, and I think it also illustrates the danger and outright error of political correctness.
One concept involved in political correctness is neutrality. It is apparent from the article that neutrality was the reason behind the rejection of the ad. According to the article, the advertising company has a policy of rejecting any expressly religious or political ads (interestingly, the Christian bookstore ad was not rejected because it was expressly religious, rather it was because someone in the advertising company misinterpreted the policy). This policy was put into place after the company was sued by a satanic group because its ads were rejected. So rather than creating a policy that ads for satanic groups be rejected, the company took the neutral approach and banned all religious or political ads. In attempting to be neutral, they threw out the bad (satanism) with the good (Christianity). That is the danger of neutralism. Being unable to take a stand on what is good or bad, neutrality ceases to be neutral and becomes is own arbitrary standard. That is the error of neutrality.
There was an interesting article on World Net Daily recently. It was titled “You can’t advertise with us—you’re Christian” posted on October 1, 2010. The address for the article is http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210573. The article was about a Christian bookstore owner who paid for an ad to appear in the menu of a restaurant. His check was returned and he was informed that his ad could not be displayed because it had the word “Christian” in it, and that might be offensive to some people.
The owner of the Christian bookstore commented on how what happened to him is indicative of how political correctness has lead to fears about the term “Christian” may offend people, despite the fact that this country has a Judeo-Christian background. I agree, and I think it also illustrates the danger and outright error of political correctness.
One concept involved in political correctness is neutrality. It is apparent from the article that neutrality was the reason behind the rejection of the ad. According to the article, the advertising company has a policy of rejecting any expressly religious or political ads (interestingly, the Christian bookstore ad was not rejected because it was expressly religious, rather it was because someone in the advertising company misinterpreted the policy). This policy was put into place after the company was sued by a satanic group because its ads were rejected. So rather than creating a policy that ads for satanic groups be rejected, the company took the neutral approach and banned all religious or political ads. In attempting to be neutral, they threw out the bad (satanism) with the good (Christianity). That is the danger of neutralism. Being unable to take a stand on what is good or bad, neutrality ceases to be neutral and becomes is own arbitrary standard. That is the error of neutrality.
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 3
As a hypothetical, consider that there is a person who holds to a unique religion and derives his worldview from this religious belief. Let’s say that in this religion, there is a triune, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god who created the world in eight days and rested on the ninth; this god created a good world that was corrupted by his crowning creation, man, who sinned by drinking from the pool of self-authority; the god chose the man Obadiah to be the father of his special people, Murima; the nation of Murmia continually fell away from this god, even though he sent many prophets to bring them back to him; and this god sent his son, the second person in the godhead, named Klitsmar, to be born of a virgin, grow up, be tempted, teach the people, and die the terrible death of being flayed alive to redeem his people from their sins. Would such a religion, and the worldview resulting from it, provide a foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility?
Obviously, all I did was base this religion (let’s call it “Klitsmaranity”) directly on Christianity, only I changed many of the historical details. All of the ideas from Christianity that are necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility (a transcendent creator god who is just and requires a penalty for sin, a creation corrupted by the creation itself, and a substitutionary death by the son of god for his chosen people) remain intact. So while Klitsmaranity is not Christianity, like Christianity it would also be capable of providing a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. Therefore, based on presuppositional apologetics, wouldn’t one have to conclude that Klitsmaranity is or could be true?
Obviously, Klitsmaranity is not a religion, and it isn’t even a particularly novel religion. So it would be rejected as truth because there is no evidence that a book detailing Klitsmaranity exists, that anyone follows Klitsmaranity, or that any of the events or people described every happened or existed.
I made up Klitsmaranity to illustrate why I do not think that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate apologetic method. Klitsmaranity can not be discredited because it is self-contradictory or is arbitrary: the only thing that can is an examination of physical and historical evidence. To put it another way, I do not think that the Bible can be treated merely as a book with a collection of words, phrases, sentences, and statements in it, whose words, phrases, sentences, and statements alone are significant to prove itself true. The Bible came to mankind over time in history, and as such, we have to look at where the Bible came from. In similar fashion, Klitsmaranity is discredited because of where it comes from (a goofy theory put forward in a blog).
I think Klitsmaranity illustrates that there are other possible worldviews that are also capable of accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility and the way to discriminate between these worldviews is using something other than presuppositional apologetics. To reiterate, I am not suggesting that man can discriminate between religions autonomously, I am saying that the ability to discriminate comes from God to begin with, whether that is recognized or not. So a Christian would not have to appeal to worldly assumptions to show that something such as Klitsmaranity is false, he would only have to appeal to the preconditions of intelligibility, which the world holds to not knowing where they come from.
Obviously, all I did was base this religion (let’s call it “Klitsmaranity”) directly on Christianity, only I changed many of the historical details. All of the ideas from Christianity that are necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility (a transcendent creator god who is just and requires a penalty for sin, a creation corrupted by the creation itself, and a substitutionary death by the son of god for his chosen people) remain intact. So while Klitsmaranity is not Christianity, like Christianity it would also be capable of providing a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. Therefore, based on presuppositional apologetics, wouldn’t one have to conclude that Klitsmaranity is or could be true?
Obviously, Klitsmaranity is not a religion, and it isn’t even a particularly novel religion. So it would be rejected as truth because there is no evidence that a book detailing Klitsmaranity exists, that anyone follows Klitsmaranity, or that any of the events or people described every happened or existed.
I made up Klitsmaranity to illustrate why I do not think that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate apologetic method. Klitsmaranity can not be discredited because it is self-contradictory or is arbitrary: the only thing that can is an examination of physical and historical evidence. To put it another way, I do not think that the Bible can be treated merely as a book with a collection of words, phrases, sentences, and statements in it, whose words, phrases, sentences, and statements alone are significant to prove itself true. The Bible came to mankind over time in history, and as such, we have to look at where the Bible came from. In similar fashion, Klitsmaranity is discredited because of where it comes from (a goofy theory put forward in a blog).
I think Klitsmaranity illustrates that there are other possible worldviews that are also capable of accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility and the way to discriminate between these worldviews is using something other than presuppositional apologetics. To reiterate, I am not suggesting that man can discriminate between religions autonomously, I am saying that the ability to discriminate comes from God to begin with, whether that is recognized or not. So a Christian would not have to appeal to worldly assumptions to show that something such as Klitsmaranity is false, he would only have to appeal to the preconditions of intelligibility, which the world holds to not knowing where they come from.
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 2
I have a couple questions about presuppositional apologetics. First, what is the reason why every other worldview, aside from the Biblical worldview, illogical? I have heard or read explanations for why some worldviews are illogical (materialism says only material things exist yet logic and reason are non-material, empiricism says only things that can be tested can be true yet it is impossible to test the preconditions of intelligibility), but there are lots of worldviews and probably many more possible worldviews that have not yet, or may never be articulated.
As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.
Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.
My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.
But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.
As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.
Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.
My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.
But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 1
This post, and the next few following it, will be centered around presuppositional apologetics. To summarize, presuppositional defends the Biblical Christian faith by starting with the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible is consistent while all other worldviews are illogical. Yes, this is circular reasoning, but it is necessary. A person’s metaphysics (criteria they use to judge something as true) and epistemology (things regarded to be true) are inter-related: you can’t take get one without the other. Therefore, any determination of the truth of a person’s metaphysics and epistemology must be judged on the metaphysics and epistemology itself. The question then is whether this circular reasoning is consistent or not. In practice, presuppositional apologetics is accomplished by showing how Christianity is the only worldview that provides a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. The preconditions of intelligibility are those assumptions every person must make in order for thinking to occur. For instance, the laws of logic are preconditions of intelligibility: they are assumptions that are made in order to make sense of the world. Other preconditions of intelligibility are reliance on senses (the assumptions that one’s senses actually convey real, consistent information) and the principle of uniformity (the idea that the same laws of logic and nature apply everywhere in the world in time and space). Christianity provides a support for these preconditions of intelligibility in the nature of God and His act of creation. Since God is eternal, omnipresent, and unchanging, we can be assured that His creation will also be consistent. Since God made us to have dominion of His creation, and since God does not lie (is not deceptive), we can trust the senses He gave to us. Since God is eternal, wise, and just, we can rely on the unchanging nature and consistency of the laws of logic. In contrast, all other worldviews are either unable to account for the preconditions of intelligibility (and thus must adhere to these preconditions arbitrarily) or are contradictory to the preconditions of intelligibility, the resulting conclusion being that all other worldviews are inherently illogical.
That is a very brief summary of presuppositional apologetics. Of course, there is a whole lot more that can be said about it. If you are interested in learning more about presuppositional apologetics, I would recommend the book The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate by Dr. Jason Lisle, published in 2009 by Master Book. This is a fairly easy read. A more in depth book is Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Joel McDurmon, published in 2008 by American Vision Press and Covenant Media Press. Also, there is a CD series, Defending the Christian Worldview Against all Opposition by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.
As you may notice from some of the titles that were given, presuppositional apologetics is presented as the end-all to all apologetics: presuppositional apologetics is unassailable and capable of defeating all other worldviews. In addition, it appears that presuppositional apologetics is presented as the only apologetics that a Christian should use; that all other apologetic arguments end up defeating Christianity, rather than supporting it. I am unclear as to the extent of this latter statement. For instance, I do not know whether a design argument for the existence of a Creator is seen as a faulty argument that should be rejected or is merely a weak argument that can only be supported by presuppositional apologetics. The unassailability and singular usage of presuppositional apologetics is the topic of the following posts.
That is a very brief summary of presuppositional apologetics. Of course, there is a whole lot more that can be said about it. If you are interested in learning more about presuppositional apologetics, I would recommend the book The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate by Dr. Jason Lisle, published in 2009 by Master Book. This is a fairly easy read. A more in depth book is Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Joel McDurmon, published in 2008 by American Vision Press and Covenant Media Press. Also, there is a CD series, Defending the Christian Worldview Against all Opposition by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.
As you may notice from some of the titles that were given, presuppositional apologetics is presented as the end-all to all apologetics: presuppositional apologetics is unassailable and capable of defeating all other worldviews. In addition, it appears that presuppositional apologetics is presented as the only apologetics that a Christian should use; that all other apologetic arguments end up defeating Christianity, rather than supporting it. I am unclear as to the extent of this latter statement. For instance, I do not know whether a design argument for the existence of a Creator is seen as a faulty argument that should be rejected or is merely a weak argument that can only be supported by presuppositional apologetics. The unassailability and singular usage of presuppositional apologetics is the topic of the following posts.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Why is this a Land of Plenty?
Last week, President Obama made this statement:
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared this same land.
Obama has been rightly mocked for saying that Mexicans were here before America was, but I am most offended by the implication that this land is naturally plenteous, we just happen to be the ones living here. Americans MADE this land plentiful. The founders of America, starting with the Pilgrims, did not come over here and find a land bursting at its seams with plenty. They found a land of opportunity and they mde the most of that opportunity to make this land prosperous. But will Obama ever credit the prosperity of this land to American ideals? Of course not, because that runs counter to his ideology, which sees America as robbing resources, not creating resources.
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared this same land.
Obama has been rightly mocked for saying that Mexicans were here before America was, but I am most offended by the implication that this land is naturally plenteous, we just happen to be the ones living here. Americans MADE this land plentiful. The founders of America, starting with the Pilgrims, did not come over here and find a land bursting at its seams with plenty. They found a land of opportunity and they mde the most of that opportunity to make this land prosperous. But will Obama ever credit the prosperity of this land to American ideals? Of course not, because that runs counter to his ideology, which sees America as robbing resources, not creating resources.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Predictions and Consequences
If someone predicts the unexpected and it comes about, he’s a genius.
If someone predicts the unexpected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the expected and it comes about, he’s doing his job.
If someone predicts the expected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the unexpected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the expected and it comes about, he’s doing his job.
If someone predicts the expected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
Four Political Groups and their Views on God
People can be categorized according to their view of government. As a person’s view of government is affected by their view of God, these categories can be characterized by their view of God. Here are four of them:
To conservatives, God is God.
To liberals, society is god.
To libertarians, the individual is god.
To the ruling class, they are god.
Notice that none of these groups are characterized as seeing government as god. This is because all four ideologies accept a role of government: their god simply defines the limits of that government. Also notice that the last three are all variations on the same thing: liberals, libertarians, and the ruling class all see man as supreme, they only differ as to which man or group of men is supreme.
To conservatives, God is God.
To liberals, society is god.
To libertarians, the individual is god.
To the ruling class, they are god.
Notice that none of these groups are characterized as seeing government as god. This is because all four ideologies accept a role of government: their god simply defines the limits of that government. Also notice that the last three are all variations on the same thing: liberals, libertarians, and the ruling class all see man as supreme, they only differ as to which man or group of men is supreme.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Are Men Socialized for Murder?
There was a report on the front page of the Wichita Eagle on Sunday titled “Far more men kill women than vice versa,” by Hurst Laviana and Tim Potter. The article centered around a statistic which showed that in Kansas, between 1985 and 2006, 63 women ages 12 to 21 were the victims of murders. Of these 63 victims, in 42 cases, men were the suspect, in one case, a woman was the suspect, and in 20 cases, the gender of the suspect was unknown. I thought it interesting that the article pointed out that in the same time period, 157 men age 12 to 21 were murdered, in 120 cases, the suspect was a man, in 6, the suspect was a woman, and in 31, the gender of the suspect was unknown. So maybe a better title for the report would be, “Men kill other men far more than they kill women,” or something, rather than insinuating that there was some sort of sexist bias among murderers.
The report went on and quoted Kathy Williams, the director the Wichita Are Sexual Assault Center, as saying, “Unfortunately, we socialize men to be big and strong and not show emotion.” Basically, it is society’s fault that men kill women, therefore Williams suggested that men need to be womanized (she actually said that “men need to learn to love and care in the broad sense, and they need to learn to respect the dignity of others.”).
There were so many flaws in this article, it is astounding. First of all, society doesn’t make men big, strong, and emotionless, men are big, strong, and emotionless by nature. It is therefore stupid to think that “training” men will help stop the murder of women.
Second, the fact that we men are big, strong, and emotionless is actually an advantage. If men were all womanized, who would defend society by fighting foreign enemies and catching criminals (and I don’t mean determine the identity of the criminal using amazing forensics, I mean, chase, catch, knock down, slap on handcuffs, and throw in a patrol car)?
Some might say, if all men were womanized, there would be no wars to fight or criminals to catch (and if pigs flew, bacon transportation costs would go down). The premise of this idea is ridiculous. What are we going to do, womanize terrorists at the same time we womanize America? And what if a few men slip through the cracks and are not successfully womanized? It isn’t even remotely feasible to train every single man on the planet at the same time.
Aside from protection against foreign and domestic enemies, the strength and aggression of men has other benefits. Roads, tools, furniture, and machines, to name a few things, need physical strength to be built. Aggression benefits men who are exploring the edges of a dangerous frontier. And competition driven by aggression can be beneficial as well. To put it simply, being size, strength, and aggression are not negative qualities, they are qualities that can be beneficial to the individual and the society the individual belongs to.
Third, and most important, blaming the aggression and strength of men for the murder of women is like blaming baseball bat manufacturers for busted kneecaps. While men may be more capable of committing murder, murder never occurs without a motive. That is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter: one is driven by a motive, the other is an accident. Murder happens because men (and occasionally women) break laws (both God’s and man’s) in order to kill someone out of anger, to solve a problem, or for fun. The disregard for laws is a problem all humans face and can only be solved by Jesus Christ. So the strength and lack of emotion in men isn’t even the root problem.
The report went on and quoted Kathy Williams, the director the Wichita Are Sexual Assault Center, as saying, “Unfortunately, we socialize men to be big and strong and not show emotion.” Basically, it is society’s fault that men kill women, therefore Williams suggested that men need to be womanized (she actually said that “men need to learn to love and care in the broad sense, and they need to learn to respect the dignity of others.”).
There were so many flaws in this article, it is astounding. First of all, society doesn’t make men big, strong, and emotionless, men are big, strong, and emotionless by nature. It is therefore stupid to think that “training” men will help stop the murder of women.
Second, the fact that we men are big, strong, and emotionless is actually an advantage. If men were all womanized, who would defend society by fighting foreign enemies and catching criminals (and I don’t mean determine the identity of the criminal using amazing forensics, I mean, chase, catch, knock down, slap on handcuffs, and throw in a patrol car)?
Some might say, if all men were womanized, there would be no wars to fight or criminals to catch (and if pigs flew, bacon transportation costs would go down). The premise of this idea is ridiculous. What are we going to do, womanize terrorists at the same time we womanize America? And what if a few men slip through the cracks and are not successfully womanized? It isn’t even remotely feasible to train every single man on the planet at the same time.
Aside from protection against foreign and domestic enemies, the strength and aggression of men has other benefits. Roads, tools, furniture, and machines, to name a few things, need physical strength to be built. Aggression benefits men who are exploring the edges of a dangerous frontier. And competition driven by aggression can be beneficial as well. To put it simply, being size, strength, and aggression are not negative qualities, they are qualities that can be beneficial to the individual and the society the individual belongs to.
Third, and most important, blaming the aggression and strength of men for the murder of women is like blaming baseball bat manufacturers for busted kneecaps. While men may be more capable of committing murder, murder never occurs without a motive. That is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter: one is driven by a motive, the other is an accident. Murder happens because men (and occasionally women) break laws (both God’s and man’s) in order to kill someone out of anger, to solve a problem, or for fun. The disregard for laws is a problem all humans face and can only be solved by Jesus Christ. So the strength and lack of emotion in men isn’t even the root problem.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Labels are Helpful
There was a letter to the editor in the Wichita Eagle this Sunday (Aug. 29) titled “Vote for Person,” and the letter was a lament that some people were complaining that Raj Goyle, 4th Congressional District candidate in Kansas, is not saying in his ads that he is a Democrat. The author of the letter concluded that it would be nice is all candidates dropped labels so that the people would vote for the person, and not the party.
While I agree that the candidate himself should be as, if not more, important than his party affiliation, I still think party affiliation is important. While a label may not tell you everything, and may even be deceptive, it does provide a starting point by which a candidate’s statements can be analyzed. For instance, the statement, “I want to balance the budget,” can mean, “I want to raise taxes,” if spoken by a tax-and-spender (usually located in the Democratic Party) or “I want to cut spending,” if spoken by a fiscal conservative (usually located in the Republican Party and some third parties).
As for as Raj Goyle goes, it was ironic that right above the previously mentioned letter was another letter to the editor titled “Who is Goyle?” This letter pointed out that not only is Goyle’s party affiliation not mentioned anywhere on his website, neither is the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. See, if Goyle let everyone know that he is a Democrat, we wouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. So labels can be helpful.
While I agree that the candidate himself should be as, if not more, important than his party affiliation, I still think party affiliation is important. While a label may not tell you everything, and may even be deceptive, it does provide a starting point by which a candidate’s statements can be analyzed. For instance, the statement, “I want to balance the budget,” can mean, “I want to raise taxes,” if spoken by a tax-and-spender (usually located in the Democratic Party) or “I want to cut spending,” if spoken by a fiscal conservative (usually located in the Republican Party and some third parties).
As for as Raj Goyle goes, it was ironic that right above the previously mentioned letter was another letter to the editor titled “Who is Goyle?” This letter pointed out that not only is Goyle’s party affiliation not mentioned anywhere on his website, neither is the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. See, if Goyle let everyone know that he is a Democrat, we wouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. So labels can be helpful.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Probing the Mind of an Evolutionist
I ran across an interesting passage in a journal article that nicely illustrates how the bias of an evolutionist can blind them to the very thing they are studying. The article is titled “Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina,” written by Sereno et al., published in the journal PLoS ONE, volume 3, issue 9, on September 30, 2008.
To give some background information, one of the important differences between birds and other vertebrates is in the structure of their lungs. Other vertebrates have lungs like we do: bellow-type lungs where the air is drawn into the lungs and then pumped out, mimicking the action of a bellows. Birds, in contrast, have a series of air sacs around their lungs. These air sacs act as the bellows, drawing in and pumping out air. The lung itself does no pumping at all. Rather, it is only acts as a site for gas exchange, and the air sacs pump air through the lungs. The bird type of lung is called a flow-through lung, and it is the most efficient type of lung found in vertebrates.
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is the consensus among evolutionary paleontologists, then there must have been some point when a bellows-type lung evolved into a flow-through lung. The question they are now interested in is when. Did the flow-through lung begin evolving in early theropods (the group of dinosaurs birds are thought to be descended from) or did they appear latter, closer to the origin of birds?
Now look at what the previously cited article has to say. I am going to quote from it rather extensively.
"Two general models have been proposed for lung ventilation in nonavian [including theropod] dinosaurs. The first infers the presence of compliant lungs with crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation, based in part on stained areas in two theropod skeletons purported to represent a diaphragm separating thoracic and abdominal cavities. The stains and their interpretations have been contested, and the evidence for their arguments refuted by several authors. A second model infers avianlike flow-through lung ventilation with a rigid dorsally-attached lung and compliant air sacs. This hypothesis is based mainly on the morphology of the ribcage and on pneumatic sculpting in the axial column attributable to air sacs. Although more plausible, the second hypothesis actually consists of a collection of inferences about (1) pulmonary morphology and function and (2) the mechanics of aspiration respiration in nonavian dinosaurs." (italics for emphasis)
The crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation referred early on is a bellows-type lung. The stained areas in two theropod dinosaurs refer to a couple of small dinosaur skeletons that preserve traces of internal organs. The stains are thought by some to be traces of the liver. I might also add that these two theropod skeletons are the only theropod skeletons that have any significant traces of internal organs.
Here is where the interpretation bias comes shining through. Sereno et al. calls the second hypothesis (the idea that dinosaurs had flow-through lungs) “more plausible,” in spite of the fact that they immediately point out that that interpretation “consists of a collection of inferences”! Matter of fact, earlier in the article, they point out that the presence of pneumatic sculpting in the axial column gives no direct evidence for the existence of either a bellows-type or flow-through lung, and they also say that the morphology of the ribcage also gives no direct evidence for the existence of either bellows-type or flow-through type lungs. So they reject the hypothesis that is based on disputed interpretation of an actual piece of evidence (the stains in two small theropods) in favor of the hypothesis they acknowledge is based entirely on inference! Why then might they consider the flow-through hypothesis more plausible? Quoting from the article again:
"Tracking pneumatic patterns [of theropods] in the fossil record is complicated by the one-sided nature of outgroup comparison, which is restricted to birds among extant vertebrates, and the ambiguous meaning of the absence of a soft structure that only sometimes leaves an osteological imprint." (italics for emphasis)
An outgroup is a species that is known (or presumed) to share a common ancestor with the animals being studied. So what the authors are saying is that all they have are theropods’ closest relatives (birds) and ambiguous, absent, soft structures to determine what kind of lungs theropods have. As already shown, they acknowledge that there is no physical evidence that theropods had flow-through lungs, but there is disputed evidence that they had bellows-type lungs. Yet they go for the hypothesis that is based on no physical evidence because birds are supposed to be related to dinosaurs. This is a beautiful example of a presupposition affecting a person’s interpretation in spite of what evidence actually exists.
To give some background information, one of the important differences between birds and other vertebrates is in the structure of their lungs. Other vertebrates have lungs like we do: bellow-type lungs where the air is drawn into the lungs and then pumped out, mimicking the action of a bellows. Birds, in contrast, have a series of air sacs around their lungs. These air sacs act as the bellows, drawing in and pumping out air. The lung itself does no pumping at all. Rather, it is only acts as a site for gas exchange, and the air sacs pump air through the lungs. The bird type of lung is called a flow-through lung, and it is the most efficient type of lung found in vertebrates.
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is the consensus among evolutionary paleontologists, then there must have been some point when a bellows-type lung evolved into a flow-through lung. The question they are now interested in is when. Did the flow-through lung begin evolving in early theropods (the group of dinosaurs birds are thought to be descended from) or did they appear latter, closer to the origin of birds?
Now look at what the previously cited article has to say. I am going to quote from it rather extensively.
"Two general models have been proposed for lung ventilation in nonavian [including theropod] dinosaurs. The first infers the presence of compliant lungs with crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation, based in part on stained areas in two theropod skeletons purported to represent a diaphragm separating thoracic and abdominal cavities. The stains and their interpretations have been contested, and the evidence for their arguments refuted by several authors. A second model infers avianlike flow-through lung ventilation with a rigid dorsally-attached lung and compliant air sacs. This hypothesis is based mainly on the morphology of the ribcage and on pneumatic sculpting in the axial column attributable to air sacs. Although more plausible, the second hypothesis actually consists of a collection of inferences about (1) pulmonary morphology and function and (2) the mechanics of aspiration respiration in nonavian dinosaurs." (italics for emphasis)
The crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation referred early on is a bellows-type lung. The stained areas in two theropod dinosaurs refer to a couple of small dinosaur skeletons that preserve traces of internal organs. The stains are thought by some to be traces of the liver. I might also add that these two theropod skeletons are the only theropod skeletons that have any significant traces of internal organs.
Here is where the interpretation bias comes shining through. Sereno et al. calls the second hypothesis (the idea that dinosaurs had flow-through lungs) “more plausible,” in spite of the fact that they immediately point out that that interpretation “consists of a collection of inferences”! Matter of fact, earlier in the article, they point out that the presence of pneumatic sculpting in the axial column gives no direct evidence for the existence of either a bellows-type or flow-through lung, and they also say that the morphology of the ribcage also gives no direct evidence for the existence of either bellows-type or flow-through type lungs. So they reject the hypothesis that is based on disputed interpretation of an actual piece of evidence (the stains in two small theropods) in favor of the hypothesis they acknowledge is based entirely on inference! Why then might they consider the flow-through hypothesis more plausible? Quoting from the article again:
"Tracking pneumatic patterns [of theropods] in the fossil record is complicated by the one-sided nature of outgroup comparison, which is restricted to birds among extant vertebrates, and the ambiguous meaning of the absence of a soft structure that only sometimes leaves an osteological imprint." (italics for emphasis)
An outgroup is a species that is known (or presumed) to share a common ancestor with the animals being studied. So what the authors are saying is that all they have are theropods’ closest relatives (birds) and ambiguous, absent, soft structures to determine what kind of lungs theropods have. As already shown, they acknowledge that there is no physical evidence that theropods had flow-through lungs, but there is disputed evidence that they had bellows-type lungs. Yet they go for the hypothesis that is based on no physical evidence because birds are supposed to be related to dinosaurs. This is a beautiful example of a presupposition affecting a person’s interpretation in spite of what evidence actually exists.
Friday, August 20, 2010
On Religious Freedom
The issue of religious freedom has been brought up in regards to the issue of the mosque that is planned for construction at Ground Zero in New York. Some have made the argument that the construction of the mosque should be allowed because in America, people are free to worship as they see fit.
Is this argument valid? The Imam behind the planning of the mosque is being deliberately provocative, wanting to use the mosque not just as a center of worship, but also as a means to introduce Muslim law to America. This casts doubt on the idea that the construction of this mosque is merely religious. But another to look at this issue is to consider: what is the extent of religious freedom?
As an extreme example, suppose there was a cult whose worship practices included murdering a victim to make a human sacrifice. Would such as cult practice be acceptable as a matter of religious freedom in the United States? I would say it most definitely shouldn’t. The taking of a human life in such a manner is unacceptable, even if it is claimed to be a ritual of a religion.
But hang on. Why is the taking of a human life (in other words, murder) wrong? Most people would agree that murder is wrong. They may say that it violates God’s Laws, they may say it deprives the victim of freedom, they may even argue it decreases the reproductive potential of the human species. There may be different reasons given for why murder is wrong, but all these reasons have something in common: they are derived from a person’s worldview. A person may regard God, freedom, or reproductive potential as the ultimate standard or authority in determining moral issues, but regardless, an ultimate authority does exist.
Here comes the catch: acknowledging an ultimate authority signifies a religious view. In other words, any reason for judging murder to be wrong would be founded in a religion. (Some people may have a hard time accepting libertarianism and evolutionism as religions, but if these ideologies are not religions themselves, they are certainly derived from the religion of humanism.) So the result is that one religion (which views murder as wrong) ends up banning the practice of another religion (the hypothetical cult). The conclusion of the matter should be that while there is a separation between church and state (a separation of a specific body of believers and the civil governing body), there can be separation of religion and state, for in order for a state to enact laws (in other words, decree something to be right or wrong) it must appeal to some ultimate authority (a religion).
How does this apply to a mosque being built on Ground Zero? Ground Zero is a reminder of the capabilities of Muslim terrorists. The Imam behind the mosque proposed for Ground Zero knows this and is being deliberately provocative in setting up a Muslim place of worship where 3,000 Americans were murdered by Muslim terrorists. There are those who may want to distinguish between moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims. However, consider that: do we want Sharia law practiced in America? From what I know, Sharia law is derived from Islamic teaching. Some moderate Muslims may say that it isn’t or that there is disagreement as to the particulars of the law, but that only leads to a further question: will moderate Muslims whose morality mimics Christian ethics (the ethics that our nation was founded on) be the face of Muslims in America, or will be Muslims who espouse all parts of Sharia law? Unless we want to exchange the religion our government was (and still is, in many ways) founded on for Sharia law, we must be careful about mosques and Imams and the things they symbolize and teach.
Is this argument valid? The Imam behind the planning of the mosque is being deliberately provocative, wanting to use the mosque not just as a center of worship, but also as a means to introduce Muslim law to America. This casts doubt on the idea that the construction of this mosque is merely religious. But another to look at this issue is to consider: what is the extent of religious freedom?
As an extreme example, suppose there was a cult whose worship practices included murdering a victim to make a human sacrifice. Would such as cult practice be acceptable as a matter of religious freedom in the United States? I would say it most definitely shouldn’t. The taking of a human life in such a manner is unacceptable, even if it is claimed to be a ritual of a religion.
But hang on. Why is the taking of a human life (in other words, murder) wrong? Most people would agree that murder is wrong. They may say that it violates God’s Laws, they may say it deprives the victim of freedom, they may even argue it decreases the reproductive potential of the human species. There may be different reasons given for why murder is wrong, but all these reasons have something in common: they are derived from a person’s worldview. A person may regard God, freedom, or reproductive potential as the ultimate standard or authority in determining moral issues, but regardless, an ultimate authority does exist.
Here comes the catch: acknowledging an ultimate authority signifies a religious view. In other words, any reason for judging murder to be wrong would be founded in a religion. (Some people may have a hard time accepting libertarianism and evolutionism as religions, but if these ideologies are not religions themselves, they are certainly derived from the religion of humanism.) So the result is that one religion (which views murder as wrong) ends up banning the practice of another religion (the hypothetical cult). The conclusion of the matter should be that while there is a separation between church and state (a separation of a specific body of believers and the civil governing body), there can be separation of religion and state, for in order for a state to enact laws (in other words, decree something to be right or wrong) it must appeal to some ultimate authority (a religion).
How does this apply to a mosque being built on Ground Zero? Ground Zero is a reminder of the capabilities of Muslim terrorists. The Imam behind the mosque proposed for Ground Zero knows this and is being deliberately provocative in setting up a Muslim place of worship where 3,000 Americans were murdered by Muslim terrorists. There are those who may want to distinguish between moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims. However, consider that: do we want Sharia law practiced in America? From what I know, Sharia law is derived from Islamic teaching. Some moderate Muslims may say that it isn’t or that there is disagreement as to the particulars of the law, but that only leads to a further question: will moderate Muslims whose morality mimics Christian ethics (the ethics that our nation was founded on) be the face of Muslims in America, or will be Muslims who espouse all parts of Sharia law? Unless we want to exchange the religion our government was (and still is, in many ways) founded on for Sharia law, we must be careful about mosques and Imams and the things they symbolize and teach.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Imagine: a Short Story
Jason lay on his bed. He tried to sleep, but there was too much on his mind. He began thinking about the events of the past several years. They were events that changed his life, and more than that, the course of the whole nation.
It started with a man. His name was Lucius Sanforton. Exactly where Lucius came from was a bit of a mystery. But wherever he got his start, he appeared on the national scene as a philosopher. His debut on the nation front was book, entitled “Imagine What the World Would Be Like.” It wasn’t a very long book, it wasn’t very deep, and it really didn’t talk about what the world would be like. But it had an appeal. It was an appeal for people to stop imagining. Strange, how the title implied that we should imagine something but the point of the book was to stop imagining.
The book focused on specific topics that Lucius argued needed to be stricken from our imagination. Things that would not exist were it not for our imagination. Things for which there is no proof. Things like religion.
Lucius’ argument was not new. Nor was it particularly strong. But for some reason, his words were appealing. He pointed out that there was no scientific evidence for God. No one could show you on a map where Heaven was. And how could Hell be the underworld if the world rests in space and the direction of “under” depends on which side of the planet you are standing on? Because no one could point to it, or produce it, or even touch it, he claimed that they could not really exist. Not that they don’t, but they couldn’t. How could we know what reality was if we could not verify it ourselves?
Jason read the book when it first came out, but he was unsure about the thoughts that were presented. Then Lucius began to appear on talk shows, promoting his book.
Even though he became a popular figure, Lucius remained mysterious, and there was only one thing that everyone agreed on about him: he had charisma that could stop the tide. Suave described his shadow. Lucius was the real thing.
When Lucius began appearing on the radio and on television, his popularity began to rise, and it carried his philosophy along with it. More and more people bought his book and bought into his ideas. It didn’t take long before he had a large following that continued to grow every day. That was when his second book came out, “I Have Imagined.” This book was more substantive, it described how his philosophy should be implemented. If there is no Heaven and no Hell, there are no rewards or punishments in the hereafter. If there is no God, there is no judge, no standard. What then should our standard be? The same as was used in the first book: what we can feel, touch, and verify. Namely, ourselves. It is our lives, we should live it for us, for humanity. Individualism is dangerous, because it sets one man against another. When that happens, who is right? Who is to judge between them? No, the focus of every person should be everyone. It was wrong, therefore, for some to have more than others. This denied some people the opportunity to live their life to the fullest. Things would be much better if everyone had everything in common. Then mankind could prosper, and not just materially, but developmentally.
It surprised Jason at first, but one by one, people began to renounce their possessions. It seems easy for those that have little to renounce the few things they have, but the rich began renouncing their possessions as well. These possessions were then pooled into large resources that were available to anyone and everyone.
At first, only a few people renounced their possessions. Then more began. Then still more. Soon, it was hard to find a man in the country who was still clinging to things they claimed were their own.
The effects of this transition were phenomenal. Everyone had everything! No one lacked anything. Those who had been poor now had everything and those who had been rich still had all and more. Everyone lived in bliss.
Then some people began to consider, what about other people? Sure, everyone in this country was benefiting, but there were other countries with other people. What about them? They were humanity, they should take part in this grand experiment. So some people volunteered to gather resources and transport then to distant countries, so that this equality may spread. Everyone acted enthusiastically to this plan, even Lucius, who, unexpectedly, seemed surprised, but at the same time, delighted, at the suggestion. So the volunteers set off, even though there were fewer of them than most people expected, given the groundswell of support for the plan.
Things continued in bliss for a time. Then something new occurred. It happened in isolated cities at first, and there were those who thought it was a passing phase of the immature, but this new phenomena began to spread. People would get together for large parties. Perhaps that is not so strange: people did that before all goods became common. The difference with these parties was that they occurred every night. Why not? the partiers asked. All goods are common, and at these parties everyone is welcome. Eat, drink and enjoy yourselves. Live life for today.
This party phenomena spread and grew. It grew in the number of people who attended the parties. It grew in the number of places the parties took place at. It grew in the length of the parties. And it grew in what went on at the parties. Soon, they lasted all day so that life became one giant party. It spread across the country so that everyone was doing it. And besides the food, drink, and music, love was made and given whenever and wherever.
Those who had went to deliver goods to other countries returned to find everyone enjoying themselves. At first, they were shocked. How could they be wasting resources, rather than sharing them with others? They tried to express their concern to the people, but the response of the partiers was simple: we are not preventing anyone from using these goods. If you want to spread them, by all means, do so. So some volunteers set off to distant countries with more goods. But the number of volunteers was much smaller than during the previous journey.
Jason enjoyed these parties. Orgies had never been so enjoyable. There were no responsibilities to wake up to in the morning. For more food and drink, the general pool of resources was visited.
Things changed once again. But this time, the change was different. It was for the worse.
It happened slowly at first, in isolated places. Things began to become scarce. It happened first with the drinks. Beers, wines, and martinis became harder to find. The general pool ran out, so people began searching buildings and houses for any caches that may have been forgotten when everyone was renouncing possessions. Some were found, which eased the strain a little. But it also came with a new problem. Those who found the caches sometimes did not return them to the general pool. Instead, they horded them for themselves. Other things began to become scarce as well. Food. Plates. Cups. Even electricity became scarce. No one was manning the power stations, everyone was at the parties. Partners also became scarce. With a one to one ratio of men and women, you would think that wouldn’t happen. But some people are desirable, and they could only fulfill the pleasures of so many people in one day. It was probably here that the first blows were struck. One man thought another was with a woman too long, so he decided to interrupt them. Then people began to fight over the drinks and food. Those who horded things were attacked. As more and more food and goods became scarce, the parties developed into brawls.
The more fighting went on, the more things were destroyed and the less anyone had. It didn’t take long before everyone was fighting for their life and anything they could get their hands on. Many people were killed in the process. The dead were not attended too. Instead, they were ransacked. Finally, the fighting stopped. There was nothing more to fight over. Everyone stopped fighting and began panicking. There was nothing left. In desperation, they turned to the only man they could think of who could help them: Lucius Sanforton. His wisdom was desperately needed.
Lucius had a plan. He seemed ready to help. The solution was simple: the general resource pool needed to be filled, and since everyone had access to it, everyone needed to contribute to it. So he began assigning tasks to people. Everyone was desperate to do what he told them. They began to work in the duties assigned to them.
At first, everyone worked willfully. But some began slacking. Jason knew they were slacking, because their production dropped. It didn’t take long for it too happen. As soon as the general pool began to get some resources, people stopped panicking, and so they stopped working as hard. Some people may have stopped working altogether if Lucius had not swiftly implemented a solution to this growing problem. He appointed supervisors to oversee production. These overseers made sure people worked.
The appointment of the supervisors only partially took care of the problem. Everyone worked, it was true, but many people did not work hard. Jason saw it happen, and he had to admit, he began to slack as well. There did not seem to be a reason to work once there was enough for everyone to survive. Once no one was starving or thirsty, why exert yourself? The problem was this was extremely shortsighted. What were to happen if a catastrophe occurred? A store of resources was needed to allow for the recovery from disasters. But no one wanted to work longer than enough to get his immediate needs fulfilled. And if someone happened to be one of the few who had foresight, his motivation for work dropped precipitately when those around him lacked foresight and worked as little as possible.
Lucius had a solution for this as well. The supervisors now implemented quotas. The idea seemed good, but it didn’t provide motivation. So the supervisors were given the authority to punish those who failed to meet their quota. The initial punishment, a drop in rations, an increase in work time, and other things, motivated many people, but some still skated by doing as little as possible, even to the point of taking a punishment or two. So the punishments gradually became harsher. Eventually, beatings were given to those who failed. Claiming sickness was called into suspicion. Was it real, or were they faking it to get out of work? Some sick were beaten for desertion of duty, some sick went to work to avoid beatings.
This continued, for what seemed an eternity. It had been a long time since Lucius implemented the supervisors. It was at least twelve years ago. And yet, things did not seem better than they were at the time when the people first came to Lucius begging for help.
All of this went through Jason’s mind as he lay on his cot. He tried to sleep, knowing that his shift began in only three hours, even though he had only got to bed two hours ago. He glanced over at the man in the cot beside him. The man was lying still. Not because he was asleep. Jason knew this because he had seen the man slit his wrists just an hour ago.
Jason turned away from his neighbor and stared at the ceiling. He understood why the man had taken his own life. There seemed to be no end. They were slaves, ironically, to each other, as Lucius still claimed to be working to help everyone. And though he harbored no hope of things getting better, Jason could not bring himself to follow his neighbor’s example. He was afraid. What happened after death? Jason began to imagine again, and it kept him awake at night.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
On the Decline of Bison in America
I was at the zoo a few weeks ago, and I read one of the signs near the bison exhibit. The sign described, and lamented, the decline of the bison, talking about how there used to be herds numbering in the millions that used to roam across the prairies of the Midwest, but now, there are small herds restricted to a few, isolated areas. I must admit, it would have been an awesome sight to have seen a massive herd of bison traveling across the prairie, and in a sense that such as sight can not be seen today, I am sorry for the decline of the bison.
On the other hand, I am glad that there are no longer huge herds of bison dominating the Midwest. Imagine what our country would be like if the middle of the country was a prairie dominated by a flowing tide of living bison. Would the vast fields of corn, wheat, soy, and other crops that are grown in the Midwest exist if farmers had to worry about a herd of bison migrating across their lands and trampling their crops underfoot (to say nothing of consuming the crops)? What about ranchers, who would have to worry about herds of bison being able to wreck their fences by shear power of numbers? What would travel across the Midwest be like if a solid wall of bison flesh moving across the highway could stop traffic dead in its tracks? It is not that I have no concern whatsoever for bison, but we as human are able to utilize the Midwest for our own benefit and advancement, and I consider the quality of human life enabled by the utilization of the former prairies of the Midwest a greater boon than the loss of herds of bison that number in the millions.
On the other hand, I am glad that there are no longer huge herds of bison dominating the Midwest. Imagine what our country would be like if the middle of the country was a prairie dominated by a flowing tide of living bison. Would the vast fields of corn, wheat, soy, and other crops that are grown in the Midwest exist if farmers had to worry about a herd of bison migrating across their lands and trampling their crops underfoot (to say nothing of consuming the crops)? What about ranchers, who would have to worry about herds of bison being able to wreck their fences by shear power of numbers? What would travel across the Midwest be like if a solid wall of bison flesh moving across the highway could stop traffic dead in its tracks? It is not that I have no concern whatsoever for bison, but we as human are able to utilize the Midwest for our own benefit and advancement, and I consider the quality of human life enabled by the utilization of the former prairies of the Midwest a greater boon than the loss of herds of bison that number in the millions.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
How Transitional Forms are Identified Pt. 3
Maybe, in the fossil record, we can look for patterns. Let’s look at our hypothetical chain of interbreeding. Species P can interbreed with species D1, which can interbreed with D2, which can interbreed with D3. While physical similarities themselves may not be a reliable indicator of relatedness, closely related organisms will look similar to each other. So, P will look the most like D1, D1 will be similar to P and D2, D2 will be similar to D1 and D3, and D3 will be most similar to D2. So while we may not be able to find an interbreeding chain in the fossil record, if an interbreeding chain were to exist, there will be a progressive chain of similarities from the parent species to the final daughter species.
There are a few considerations that need to be taking into account at this point. First of all, while a progressive chain of similarities implies that there is progress being made, and thus, the parent species would be primitive while the daughter species would be more advanced, modern evolutionary theory does not accept the ideas of primitive and advanced. Evolutionists don’t like these terms because it implies that later descendants are necessarily better than their ancestors. So the terms ancestral and derived are used. Ancestral condition simply means whatever features the parent species had while derived simply refers to new features that the daughter species have. The terms ancestral and derived are used because there are no connotations of “worse” or “better” associated with them. Still, the concept of a progressive chain of similarities is valid, since a chain of interbreeding would start with ancestral conditions in the parent species with more and more derived characters (a progression of new characters) arising in the daughter species.
The second thing to consider is what this progressive chain of similarities would look like in terms of side branches. If you look at a cladogram, which is a chart purporting to show the heritage of a group of organisms, the chart branches off repeatedly. It may appear at first that there is no linear progression. Rather, everything appears to be a complicated web or bush. However, despite all of the branches, a single, linear progression can be picked out. If you start with the common ancestor (which would exist at the base of the cladogram) and then pick one of the final species as your target daughter species, you will be able to traces a single path from the common ancestor to the final daughter species. Many side branches will have been passed by, but if these are ignored and you focus on just the line of descent from the common ancestor to your chosen daughter species, a single, linear progression can be traced. So while there may be a multitude of side branches and transitional forms for other lines of descent muddling up the picture, a single progressive chain of similarities can be found.
The last thing to consider is how this progressive chain of similarities will relate to time. Time in the fossil record is about as controversial, as far as the theory of evolution verses creation science goes, as whether or not transitional forms exist. In the theory of evolution, the fossil record represents a huge amount of time and each layer of rock represents sediments that were accumulated over a long time period. In creation science, the majority of the fossil record is thought to have been laid down by the worldwide deluge (Noah’s flood), which lasted about a year. So the fossil record represents a very short amount of time (compared to the evolutionary view). However, since transitional forms would exist only if the theory of evolution where true, we will have to consider how the progressive chain of similarities would look in the fossil record assuming that the fossil record represents a long period of time.
Obviously, you can not have the descendant before you have the ancestor. That would be like saying that the son is older than the father. So the first thing to note about the chronological progression of a progressive chain of similarities is that the ancestor should be the oldest, and the descendant should be younger. This does not mean that the ancestor and descendants must exist at different times: it is very possible that the ancestor may exist alongside its descendants for a time. For instance, if species P were in existence, then it gave rise to species D1, species P need not necessarily go exist: species P may persist for a time after it gave rise to species D1. Matter of fact, it is even theoretically possible that species P may remain in existence long enough that is descendent, species D1, actually goes extinct before it does. So we can not look for when an ancestral or a descendent species lived, we have to look for the first occurrence of each species, since that will tell which was first in existence.
What about the reverse? If species P and species D1 may be coexistent for a time, what are we to do about instance where the earliest specimen of the supposed parent species is found in rocks that are younger than, or of the same age as, its descendent? Since the fossil record is incomplete, it is possible that the first occurrence of the parent species is missing, or has not been found yet. While it is theoretically possible that the daughter species may be found in rocks that are older than the parent species, we must remember what we are looking for: we are looking for evidence of transitional forms. Thus, only when the parent species is found in rocks older than the daughter species will there be any actual evidence for transitional forms, since that fits the anticipated pattern. While the reverse pattern (parent younger than species in the fossil record) can be accounted for, that will not provide evidence that the two species in question actually form a chain of interbreeding. Rather, that would be fitting the data to the theory. We want to test the theories and see which one already fits the data.
The last thing to consider about a chain of similarities is, how much of a difference is acceptable between each link in the chain? For instance, if we were looking for the transitional forms between a reptile and a bird, would the sudden appearance of feathers be an acceptable jump from one species to the next, or would we expect to see more gradual changes? In the case of feathers, we would expect to see more gradual changes. It would be difficult to put an exact limit on how dissimilar two species can be before the gap between them is considered to be too large to be reasonably explained as an evolutionary jump. Certainly, the measure of change will be different between an evolutionist and a creationist. The evolutionist might consider the presence of legs on a whale as evidence that it is a transitional form while a creationist might question, so where is the whale with half-legs, half-flippers? In this point, the burden of proof is on the theory of evolution. It claims that transitional forms must be there, and it claims that the evolutionary process occurs in increments (even punctuated equilibrium must occur in increments: the rapid jumps are not the sudden acquisition of brand new features, they are the rapid accumulation of minor changes in a short amount of time). In the theory of evolution, the chain of interbreeding must have existed at some point. Whatever differences exist between two species in a chain of interbreeding, they are not enough to prevent the species from interbreeding. That fine of a scale must also be applied to the chain of similarities: the differences between adjacent species on that chain must be slight enough that they could almost be mistaken for the same species.
Evolutionists may complain at this point, saying that I am relying on the absence of evidence to prove that there are no transitional forms. This is not the case. Rather, I am saying that the theory of evolution can not be excused with the absence of expected transitional forms. Small differences in physical appearance can not be extrapolated into tiny differences in physical appearance without any evidence that such an extrapolation is valid. To say, “Species A is very similar to species C, so we may assume from the progression from A to C that a species B must also have existed” does not lend credence to the idea that transitional forms exist. Rather, such an extrapolation is based on the assumption that transitional forms must exist.
Granted, searching for tiny increments in the chain of similarities is by far the hardest proof needed to demonstrate that transitional forms exist. But that is what the theory of evolution predicts so if the theory of evolution is true, then such a chain must be shown to exist, otherwise known species will just be placed in an order so as to fit the theory.
Here is the final score then: transitional forms can not be identified by physical similarities, as it is acknowledged by both evolutionists and creationists that there are instances where physical similarities do not indicated relationship. Cladograms do not constitute proof of transitional forms, as they are constructed with the assumption that transitional forms exist. The only definitive proof of transitional forms would be a chain of interbreeding, where the parent species can interbreed with the first daughter species, and the first daughter species can interbreed with the second daughter species, but the second daughter species can not interbreed with the parent species. There are no known chains of interbreeding in living organisms, rather there are groups of interbreeding organisms, which is consistent with creation science. The last place to look for chains of interbreeding is in the fossil record. Since only physical similarities can be drawn out of the fossil record, physical similarities will have to be used in conjunction with other features. The chain of interbreeding would appear as a chain of similarities, with the parent species most similar to the first daughter, the first daughter more like the second, and so on. These species would have to appear in the proper chronological order. Lastly, the differences between adjacent species in the chain of similarities must be tiny: the chain should show small, incremental changes, rather than broad jumps.
The preceding criteria can be applied to species that are claimed to be transitional forms, to see if that claim is valid or whether the claim was made in order to fit the data into the theory of evolution.
There are a few considerations that need to be taking into account at this point. First of all, while a progressive chain of similarities implies that there is progress being made, and thus, the parent species would be primitive while the daughter species would be more advanced, modern evolutionary theory does not accept the ideas of primitive and advanced. Evolutionists don’t like these terms because it implies that later descendants are necessarily better than their ancestors. So the terms ancestral and derived are used. Ancestral condition simply means whatever features the parent species had while derived simply refers to new features that the daughter species have. The terms ancestral and derived are used because there are no connotations of “worse” or “better” associated with them. Still, the concept of a progressive chain of similarities is valid, since a chain of interbreeding would start with ancestral conditions in the parent species with more and more derived characters (a progression of new characters) arising in the daughter species.
The second thing to consider is what this progressive chain of similarities would look like in terms of side branches. If you look at a cladogram, which is a chart purporting to show the heritage of a group of organisms, the chart branches off repeatedly. It may appear at first that there is no linear progression. Rather, everything appears to be a complicated web or bush. However, despite all of the branches, a single, linear progression can be picked out. If you start with the common ancestor (which would exist at the base of the cladogram) and then pick one of the final species as your target daughter species, you will be able to traces a single path from the common ancestor to the final daughter species. Many side branches will have been passed by, but if these are ignored and you focus on just the line of descent from the common ancestor to your chosen daughter species, a single, linear progression can be traced. So while there may be a multitude of side branches and transitional forms for other lines of descent muddling up the picture, a single progressive chain of similarities can be found.
The last thing to consider is how this progressive chain of similarities will relate to time. Time in the fossil record is about as controversial, as far as the theory of evolution verses creation science goes, as whether or not transitional forms exist. In the theory of evolution, the fossil record represents a huge amount of time and each layer of rock represents sediments that were accumulated over a long time period. In creation science, the majority of the fossil record is thought to have been laid down by the worldwide deluge (Noah’s flood), which lasted about a year. So the fossil record represents a very short amount of time (compared to the evolutionary view). However, since transitional forms would exist only if the theory of evolution where true, we will have to consider how the progressive chain of similarities would look in the fossil record assuming that the fossil record represents a long period of time.
Obviously, you can not have the descendant before you have the ancestor. That would be like saying that the son is older than the father. So the first thing to note about the chronological progression of a progressive chain of similarities is that the ancestor should be the oldest, and the descendant should be younger. This does not mean that the ancestor and descendants must exist at different times: it is very possible that the ancestor may exist alongside its descendants for a time. For instance, if species P were in existence, then it gave rise to species D1, species P need not necessarily go exist: species P may persist for a time after it gave rise to species D1. Matter of fact, it is even theoretically possible that species P may remain in existence long enough that is descendent, species D1, actually goes extinct before it does. So we can not look for when an ancestral or a descendent species lived, we have to look for the first occurrence of each species, since that will tell which was first in existence.
What about the reverse? If species P and species D1 may be coexistent for a time, what are we to do about instance where the earliest specimen of the supposed parent species is found in rocks that are younger than, or of the same age as, its descendent? Since the fossil record is incomplete, it is possible that the first occurrence of the parent species is missing, or has not been found yet. While it is theoretically possible that the daughter species may be found in rocks that are older than the parent species, we must remember what we are looking for: we are looking for evidence of transitional forms. Thus, only when the parent species is found in rocks older than the daughter species will there be any actual evidence for transitional forms, since that fits the anticipated pattern. While the reverse pattern (parent younger than species in the fossil record) can be accounted for, that will not provide evidence that the two species in question actually form a chain of interbreeding. Rather, that would be fitting the data to the theory. We want to test the theories and see which one already fits the data.
The last thing to consider about a chain of similarities is, how much of a difference is acceptable between each link in the chain? For instance, if we were looking for the transitional forms between a reptile and a bird, would the sudden appearance of feathers be an acceptable jump from one species to the next, or would we expect to see more gradual changes? In the case of feathers, we would expect to see more gradual changes. It would be difficult to put an exact limit on how dissimilar two species can be before the gap between them is considered to be too large to be reasonably explained as an evolutionary jump. Certainly, the measure of change will be different between an evolutionist and a creationist. The evolutionist might consider the presence of legs on a whale as evidence that it is a transitional form while a creationist might question, so where is the whale with half-legs, half-flippers? In this point, the burden of proof is on the theory of evolution. It claims that transitional forms must be there, and it claims that the evolutionary process occurs in increments (even punctuated equilibrium must occur in increments: the rapid jumps are not the sudden acquisition of brand new features, they are the rapid accumulation of minor changes in a short amount of time). In the theory of evolution, the chain of interbreeding must have existed at some point. Whatever differences exist between two species in a chain of interbreeding, they are not enough to prevent the species from interbreeding. That fine of a scale must also be applied to the chain of similarities: the differences between adjacent species on that chain must be slight enough that they could almost be mistaken for the same species.
Evolutionists may complain at this point, saying that I am relying on the absence of evidence to prove that there are no transitional forms. This is not the case. Rather, I am saying that the theory of evolution can not be excused with the absence of expected transitional forms. Small differences in physical appearance can not be extrapolated into tiny differences in physical appearance without any evidence that such an extrapolation is valid. To say, “Species A is very similar to species C, so we may assume from the progression from A to C that a species B must also have existed” does not lend credence to the idea that transitional forms exist. Rather, such an extrapolation is based on the assumption that transitional forms must exist.
Granted, searching for tiny increments in the chain of similarities is by far the hardest proof needed to demonstrate that transitional forms exist. But that is what the theory of evolution predicts so if the theory of evolution is true, then such a chain must be shown to exist, otherwise known species will just be placed in an order so as to fit the theory.
Here is the final score then: transitional forms can not be identified by physical similarities, as it is acknowledged by both evolutionists and creationists that there are instances where physical similarities do not indicated relationship. Cladograms do not constitute proof of transitional forms, as they are constructed with the assumption that transitional forms exist. The only definitive proof of transitional forms would be a chain of interbreeding, where the parent species can interbreed with the first daughter species, and the first daughter species can interbreed with the second daughter species, but the second daughter species can not interbreed with the parent species. There are no known chains of interbreeding in living organisms, rather there are groups of interbreeding organisms, which is consistent with creation science. The last place to look for chains of interbreeding is in the fossil record. Since only physical similarities can be drawn out of the fossil record, physical similarities will have to be used in conjunction with other features. The chain of interbreeding would appear as a chain of similarities, with the parent species most similar to the first daughter, the first daughter more like the second, and so on. These species would have to appear in the proper chronological order. Lastly, the differences between adjacent species in the chain of similarities must be tiny: the chain should show small, incremental changes, rather than broad jumps.
The preceding criteria can be applied to species that are claimed to be transitional forms, to see if that claim is valid or whether the claim was made in order to fit the data into the theory of evolution.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Unicorns and the Absence of Evidence
Do unicorns exist? I mean simply, do they live somewhere in the world?
Of course not, one might say. They are a mythological creature. They don’t really exist.
How can you know that? Some real creatures exist in mythology, so the fact that unicorns exist in mythology doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in reality. And unlike some other mythological creatures, such as the multi-headed hydra, or the six-limbed Pegasus, the unicorn has a conservative body plan, one that would not cause a person to think that it is biologically impossible. So there aren’t any reasons to think that a unicorn can’t exist. Why then would one insist that it is a mythological animal, and not an actual animal?
Well, because no one has ever seen one.
Up until 1976, no one had seen a megamouth shark, either. Did the megamouth shark not exist before 1976? Does knowledge of a creature make it real, or can a creature exist apart from our knowledge of it? Obviously, an animal exists apart from our knowledge of it, since finding an unknown creature is called a discovery, not a creation. So the megamouth shark illustrates that creatures can, and likely, still do, exist even when we have no knowledge of them. Could the unicorn be one of these still unknown creatures? The answer we would be forced to give at this point is, yes.
What I have illustrated here is the problem of absence of evidence. There is no evidence that unicorns exist, but neither is there any evidence that they do not exist. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that they may exist somewhere, we just don’t know where. This argument is sound, but let us go one step further. So we establish that it is possible for unicorns to exist somewhere in the world. What applications can be draw from the statement that unicorns may exist? Nothing. True, we may not be able to say definitively that unicorns don’t exist, but because we do not know if they exist, there is nothing we can say about unicorns. They may be there, but because no one has seen them, it is impossible to know about their diet, habits, longevity, or anything about them. So the absence of evidence argument is a double edged sword: if there is a lack of evidence, we can not say that something does not exist. On the other hand, with no evidence, no knowledge about a subject can exist. The result is, since no one has seen a unicorn, we act as if they don’t exist. They may exist, but since we know nothing about them, they have no impact on our lives or our knowledge.
Of course not, one might say. They are a mythological creature. They don’t really exist.
How can you know that? Some real creatures exist in mythology, so the fact that unicorns exist in mythology doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in reality. And unlike some other mythological creatures, such as the multi-headed hydra, or the six-limbed Pegasus, the unicorn has a conservative body plan, one that would not cause a person to think that it is biologically impossible. So there aren’t any reasons to think that a unicorn can’t exist. Why then would one insist that it is a mythological animal, and not an actual animal?
Well, because no one has ever seen one.
Up until 1976, no one had seen a megamouth shark, either. Did the megamouth shark not exist before 1976? Does knowledge of a creature make it real, or can a creature exist apart from our knowledge of it? Obviously, an animal exists apart from our knowledge of it, since finding an unknown creature is called a discovery, not a creation. So the megamouth shark illustrates that creatures can, and likely, still do, exist even when we have no knowledge of them. Could the unicorn be one of these still unknown creatures? The answer we would be forced to give at this point is, yes.
What I have illustrated here is the problem of absence of evidence. There is no evidence that unicorns exist, but neither is there any evidence that they do not exist. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that they may exist somewhere, we just don’t know where. This argument is sound, but let us go one step further. So we establish that it is possible for unicorns to exist somewhere in the world. What applications can be draw from the statement that unicorns may exist? Nothing. True, we may not be able to say definitively that unicorns don’t exist, but because we do not know if they exist, there is nothing we can say about unicorns. They may be there, but because no one has seen them, it is impossible to know about their diet, habits, longevity, or anything about them. So the absence of evidence argument is a double edged sword: if there is a lack of evidence, we can not say that something does not exist. On the other hand, with no evidence, no knowledge about a subject can exist. The result is, since no one has seen a unicorn, we act as if they don’t exist. They may exist, but since we know nothing about them, they have no impact on our lives or our knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
