"Come let us reason together, says The LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow..."
In thinking about Pascal's strengths and his personal experience well beyond and above that, besides all the logic (derivative) deductive and empirical, it is quite clear that more than logic is involved in our most central questions. Logic can help or hinder us in our relationships, all dependent on our wills. If one wishes to be in an intimate relationship especially, one has to give up a great deal in what I would call a Wholistic manner.
Logic is a tool with an expiration date. Like Mammon, it can be a potentially reasonable servant, but is always a terrible and vastly incompetent master or "god."
When I got married, I gave up many many possible worlds for the one, as it turns out, with the greatest potential to strengthen my better qualities and to let the others atrophy or be even ruthlessly omitted. So it is, but infinitely more so, with Christ the Bridegroom.
What Messiah Christ Jesus brings to us is in fact a much greater marriage proposal, a permanent and perfect marriage covenant. While this may offend us in some sensate ways, the offer stands, and is eminently reasonable, and more than reasonable. So if we are seeing ourselves as creatures of reason and more, we have to consider his perfectly reasonable proposal. So the question is:
"Is there any reason you would not want to take Jesus as your Lord and Savior right now?"
Let me say this: if Jesus were to stand before you today, and ask you this question directly, would you argue with Him? What would be your "perfectly reasonable reason," for rejecting his proposal from the stance of a Higher Reason than any or all of us can comprehend?
But the fact is, He is before you all the time, and asks this question every day. We use our worldly concerns to put Him off and to at times resort to binding and gagging him, lest He "contaminate" our hearts that we, for some "reason" are saving up for a rainy day!
Come let us consider: does reason come from anyone but God? See Job--no errors in Logic because Job's Interlocutor fashioned Logic and Law too for our benefit more than for His. Specifically, He invented man-sized logic for us alone; do we use it with "fear and trembling," as Kierkegaard would say; or with hubris and our secondary and too-much-vaunted and totally derrivative intellect?
"God wouldn't do it that way," says the Muslim. And who is he, and we, to tell God how He should proceed? (a strange statement for a follower of a supposedly ineffable god.)
As I mentioned recently, Pascal's conversion was the result of seeking Christ in the Scriptures, and praying for/wanting a personal revelation from a Very Personal GOD. What prevents us then from pursuing and asking God sincerely for, "FIRE?"
We have our reasons--but what do they look like from God's perspective? Do they not look incresingly foolish and frankly totally sensate and "bio-deradable" as we get older?; beside the very discomfiting fact that,"Man knows not his time?"
Isaiah knew, darkly, that the "set time" would come--and also that his own people would crucify their only real king. The "set time" came and went for them, and Christ wept that they, "knew not the time of their visitation." There is a set time for us--mine was Palm Sunday evening of 1979. "And then the end will come."
The question remains, a Proposal Not Modest: Is there any reason for you, the reader, to turn down Christ Jesus, or to refuse to even bother to ask Him if He is real? Having studied this, and science, for many years, and having explored all the major veins of philosophy, I have not seen one cogent, reliable reason to disbelieve anything Christ ever said or did. There is nothing better, or longer lasting, I can assure any reader, than a Covenant Marriage between two faithfu ones. Has Christ be unfaithful to any, when even Pilate said,
"I find no fault in this man." ?
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Logical errors viewed logistically
I have had two visits of interest lately; one to the Creation museum near Cincinnati; and a medical conference involving a speaker we heard 11 years ago; and whom the Pres. of CMDA has called a "medical C.S. Lewis."
Un-coincidentally, I picked up a book by Dr. Jason Lisle--a small handbook on logic and faith--at the museum; which turned out to be quite useful personally, at the conference, and beyond. Dr. Lisle asserts that, on most sides of any given debate, proceeding logically is a lost art--and that Christians have to use reasoned argument for the Christian faith, when dealing with matters on a fitting level. Not a consumer-friendly approach, but it is Biblical, see 1Peter 3:15.
The scientific researcher turned metaphysician is always a risky switch. Very often people long to go beyond the materialism of our age and all previous ages, so much so that they venture onto ground upon which they are ill-equipped to stand. A recent example would be Richard Dawkins, who is a skilled propagandist/teacher but a very amateur philosopher; and of course not a theologian at all by his own admission. And yet because he is from Oxford and has done some reasearch, we are not allowed to question his greatness or even methods. He actually believes, at some level, that he is so brilliant that he is not only competent but ultra-competent in the most ill-defined areas of human endeavor. An example of someone who was very literate and widely read and more honest and humble both was Stephen J. Gould, an opponent of not only creationists but ill-tempered scientists who publish and self-promote in unseemly ways.
I say that not only for its face value but to point out that I commit errors in logic all the time, as do we all. The foregoing would be a combination of ad hominem and appeal to authority errors--which most debaters violate with impunity because they have so little else to offer in the way of independent reasoning...I was on the debate team, I know how it's done--via a "quote box," and whoever had the best quotes, won. These are just barely contests of rhetoric, albeit using someone's else's out-of- context rhetoric; and our civilization is all about rhetoric and Sophism now; there is so little else left.
As a physician operating out of a scientific worldview, and I can pretty well conclude that, first, man is more than any animal or world or imaginary universes we'll ever know. But secondly, classic definitions of reason and logic are observed by us largely by their absence; that is we use it as a name-calling exercise rather than as a tool for self-evaluation, or even a comparative evaluation of abstract ideas and psuedo-pragmatic proposals. And third, the ability to reason is only a small part of us, it's a gift but rarely exercised and subject to rapid decay, and the most important decisions of life involve a great deal beyond reason. Those who have and use such a gift have many more reasons to be humble and to be humbled than those people in many other callings (perhaps.) As God said to Gideon in Paddy Chayevsky's (sp?) play of the same name, "Sometimes, Gideon, love is a little unreasonable." Not a Scripture but a hint about a Much Larger Love that we cannot earn or deserve.
I would like to investigate this a little more, and I probably will be appalled by my/our "strange devices" of thought in a post modern mileu. Maybe our de-vices will be like Screwtape's; vices indeed and more akin to addiction (idolatry) than we have dared to think yet.
In any event, the Bible is not threatened and I fail to see how it can ever be. God's Word has on the surface suffered severe mangling and a continual 60-cycle hum of, "Yea hath God said?" for millenia, and still comes out cleaner or more durable than anything in history. More later on its standing and "nothing works unless everything works."
Un-coincidentally, I picked up a book by Dr. Jason Lisle--a small handbook on logic and faith--at the museum; which turned out to be quite useful personally, at the conference, and beyond. Dr. Lisle asserts that, on most sides of any given debate, proceeding logically is a lost art--and that Christians have to use reasoned argument for the Christian faith, when dealing with matters on a fitting level. Not a consumer-friendly approach, but it is Biblical, see 1Peter 3:15.
The scientific researcher turned metaphysician is always a risky switch. Very often people long to go beyond the materialism of our age and all previous ages, so much so that they venture onto ground upon which they are ill-equipped to stand. A recent example would be Richard Dawkins, who is a skilled propagandist/teacher but a very amateur philosopher; and of course not a theologian at all by his own admission. And yet because he is from Oxford and has done some reasearch, we are not allowed to question his greatness or even methods. He actually believes, at some level, that he is so brilliant that he is not only competent but ultra-competent in the most ill-defined areas of human endeavor. An example of someone who was very literate and widely read and more honest and humble both was Stephen J. Gould, an opponent of not only creationists but ill-tempered scientists who publish and self-promote in unseemly ways.
I say that not only for its face value but to point out that I commit errors in logic all the time, as do we all. The foregoing would be a combination of ad hominem and appeal to authority errors--which most debaters violate with impunity because they have so little else to offer in the way of independent reasoning...I was on the debate team, I know how it's done--via a "quote box," and whoever had the best quotes, won. These are just barely contests of rhetoric, albeit using someone's else's out-of- context rhetoric; and our civilization is all about rhetoric and Sophism now; there is so little else left.
As a physician operating out of a scientific worldview, and I can pretty well conclude that, first, man is more than any animal or world or imaginary universes we'll ever know. But secondly, classic definitions of reason and logic are observed by us largely by their absence; that is we use it as a name-calling exercise rather than as a tool for self-evaluation, or even a comparative evaluation of abstract ideas and psuedo-pragmatic proposals. And third, the ability to reason is only a small part of us, it's a gift but rarely exercised and subject to rapid decay, and the most important decisions of life involve a great deal beyond reason. Those who have and use such a gift have many more reasons to be humble and to be humbled than those people in many other callings (perhaps.) As God said to Gideon in Paddy Chayevsky's (sp?) play of the same name, "Sometimes, Gideon, love is a little unreasonable." Not a Scripture but a hint about a Much Larger Love that we cannot earn or deserve.
I would like to investigate this a little more, and I probably will be appalled by my/our "strange devices" of thought in a post modern mileu. Maybe our de-vices will be like Screwtape's; vices indeed and more akin to addiction (idolatry) than we have dared to think yet.
In any event, the Bible is not threatened and I fail to see how it can ever be. God's Word has on the surface suffered severe mangling and a continual 60-cycle hum of, "Yea hath God said?" for millenia, and still comes out cleaner or more durable than anything in history. More later on its standing and "nothing works unless everything works."
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Pascal's Law vs his Wager
I've been asked recently--by Dennis--to review some sites that try to discredit Pascal's wager. What I'd like to see is someone railing against Pascal's LAW!
Before I review these "angry birds" websites, I think it will help to review where I am at with Pascal's Betting Parlor.
First of all, one must see that the methods of arriving at his wager are very similar to those used to arrive at his Law; which is to say, statistics.
In a Newtonian scheme, one works on the law of averages. One is not concerned with outliers; one is not concerned with individuals, be they particle, wave, or magnificently complex being.
Boyle's Law and Pascal's are configured as the result of the aggregate behavior of the majority of gas molecules in relationship to various conditions of volume, pressure, and so on. Pascal is still honored in scientific nomenclature, as in Pressure measured in Pascal Units, as in the partial pressure of oxygen in the blood, SPO2. So the scientific impact of these Laws remains unbroken over the centuries. Very useful in my biz.
In a purely physical sense-in theory that is- there may be no such thing as the purely physical at the very least because of entropy. Materialism, like pragmatism, swallows its own tail.
The wager, on the other hand, is an attempt to reduce the metaphysical to the realm of scientifically derived statistical analysis. At the very least, it does outline the seriousness of God's Modest Proposals to man found in the Bible. But the fit is ultimately a poor one, rather like some one's project, "Reasons to Believe." For believers who may be gifted in math or science, these are very interesting and perhaps comforting. But if God could be proven by such technical means, He could also be disproven by similar techniques at some point. Such is not the case, of course. God, by definition, cannot be "found out," nor is He bound by any law, scientific or other.
If one looks at Pascal himself, not as a cipher or an errant molecule, but as an ordinary individuated human being; you will find that Pascal's belief was rather nominal until he had his direct and supernatural Pauline-style Damascus Road experience, which was written in short form, happened in an instant one night, and sewed into his coat, only to be found fortuitously after his death. (One only finds hints of it even in the Pensees. I sometimes wonder why he hid it in his coat--scientific pride and unwillingness to be embarrassed in front of his Renaissance colleagues? So much; in so little; is the rule still for most Christian practitioners of science, in spite of science's inherent limits which can be outlined in a few minutes, or reasoned with a few minutes of real thought induced by a trace of real humility.)
One of the things that makes Quantum Mechanics so fascinating is that it IS concerned with outliers--with particles being inside the box and outside of it at the same time. It's still statistical; but the difference is that it is different on different levels. Making it, for instance, quite possible to go through material walls as Jesus did. However, proof is more of a mechanical device and it is quite easy to speculate with the Uncertainty Principle always hanging around. "Plenty of room for miracles." as Robert Spitzer SJ has said (Dr. Spitzer is a physicist and mathematician who was recently president of Gonzaga U. You should check him out Dennis; his lectures have been compared to the opening of a fire hydrant full blast. I have listened to one or two of them and they are very good if you can keep up with him.)
( I might add that the soft sciences including biology still operate in a Newtonian mechanistic thought-universe.) Last man standing?
In sum/in some, Pascal's belief was not based on a scientific conceit but a direct touch from God--provoked perhaps by Pascal's honest pursuit of Jesus. It is best to read all of the Pensees' to put into perspective the inherently speculative nature of his wager. If one has not read it in the original--English, not French unless one is fluent in both--one cannot appreciate the fact that his wager is a very technical one, and not that easy to understand the way he writes it. But other Pensees are full of "proofs"--by the supernatural nature of God and His Christ. He realized that God is the Ultimate Outlier yet owns everything we can know and infinitely more. His evaluation of the more materialistic and sensuous Montaigne reflects Jesus more than any statistical analysis.
I look upon it the same way I look upon "maps" of the known universe. It should be a humbling experience, not a "religious" one. Spiritually, yes, however, one can derive much wonder. But if God were in the reach of final proofs, He could also be disproven and would not be God at all.
Never put your life in the hands of statisticians (I'm not sure why I have to point out the bleeding obvious)--this is more of an evasion of personal responsibility to our Creator and avoidance of the needed personal response to a Person--Elohim/Jehovah--who requires of us not only general holiness--which is not to be attained by human effort but may be helped by personal intent--but also requires personal assignments; these two areas of responsibility form the backbone of the Testaments, the Law, and Grace. Pascal's human responsibility was to be a scientist not first but earlier in life; then a testament to God's Grace in Christ. Those who are gifted in logic should never feel that God is beholden to bow down before what is ,after all, His Property...logic is a bit like time itself, it is a tool of measurement-- subject to be broken anytime anywhere and in any Holy manner--when God breaks into the tiny worlds of science and the truly limited selves that power it. Even or especially in this world, we are servants, never masters. Even logic will tell us that...
Before I review these "angry birds" websites, I think it will help to review where I am at with Pascal's Betting Parlor.
First of all, one must see that the methods of arriving at his wager are very similar to those used to arrive at his Law; which is to say, statistics.
In a Newtonian scheme, one works on the law of averages. One is not concerned with outliers; one is not concerned with individuals, be they particle, wave, or magnificently complex being.
Boyle's Law and Pascal's are configured as the result of the aggregate behavior of the majority of gas molecules in relationship to various conditions of volume, pressure, and so on. Pascal is still honored in scientific nomenclature, as in Pressure measured in Pascal Units, as in the partial pressure of oxygen in the blood, SPO2. So the scientific impact of these Laws remains unbroken over the centuries. Very useful in my biz.
In a purely physical sense-in theory that is- there may be no such thing as the purely physical at the very least because of entropy. Materialism, like pragmatism, swallows its own tail.
The wager, on the other hand, is an attempt to reduce the metaphysical to the realm of scientifically derived statistical analysis. At the very least, it does outline the seriousness of God's Modest Proposals to man found in the Bible. But the fit is ultimately a poor one, rather like some one's project, "Reasons to Believe." For believers who may be gifted in math or science, these are very interesting and perhaps comforting. But if God could be proven by such technical means, He could also be disproven by similar techniques at some point. Such is not the case, of course. God, by definition, cannot be "found out," nor is He bound by any law, scientific or other.
If one looks at Pascal himself, not as a cipher or an errant molecule, but as an ordinary individuated human being; you will find that Pascal's belief was rather nominal until he had his direct and supernatural Pauline-style Damascus Road experience, which was written in short form, happened in an instant one night, and sewed into his coat, only to be found fortuitously after his death. (One only finds hints of it even in the Pensees. I sometimes wonder why he hid it in his coat--scientific pride and unwillingness to be embarrassed in front of his Renaissance colleagues? So much; in so little; is the rule still for most Christian practitioners of science, in spite of science's inherent limits which can be outlined in a few minutes, or reasoned with a few minutes of real thought induced by a trace of real humility.)
One of the things that makes Quantum Mechanics so fascinating is that it IS concerned with outliers--with particles being inside the box and outside of it at the same time. It's still statistical; but the difference is that it is different on different levels. Making it, for instance, quite possible to go through material walls as Jesus did. However, proof is more of a mechanical device and it is quite easy to speculate with the Uncertainty Principle always hanging around. "Plenty of room for miracles." as Robert Spitzer SJ has said (Dr. Spitzer is a physicist and mathematician who was recently president of Gonzaga U. You should check him out Dennis; his lectures have been compared to the opening of a fire hydrant full blast. I have listened to one or two of them and they are very good if you can keep up with him.)
( I might add that the soft sciences including biology still operate in a Newtonian mechanistic thought-universe.) Last man standing?
In sum/in some, Pascal's belief was not based on a scientific conceit but a direct touch from God--provoked perhaps by Pascal's honest pursuit of Jesus. It is best to read all of the Pensees' to put into perspective the inherently speculative nature of his wager. If one has not read it in the original--English, not French unless one is fluent in both--one cannot appreciate the fact that his wager is a very technical one, and not that easy to understand the way he writes it. But other Pensees are full of "proofs"--by the supernatural nature of God and His Christ. He realized that God is the Ultimate Outlier yet owns everything we can know and infinitely more. His evaluation of the more materialistic and sensuous Montaigne reflects Jesus more than any statistical analysis.
I look upon it the same way I look upon "maps" of the known universe. It should be a humbling experience, not a "religious" one. Spiritually, yes, however, one can derive much wonder. But if God were in the reach of final proofs, He could also be disproven and would not be God at all.
Never put your life in the hands of statisticians (I'm not sure why I have to point out the bleeding obvious)--this is more of an evasion of personal responsibility to our Creator and avoidance of the needed personal response to a Person--Elohim/Jehovah--who requires of us not only general holiness--which is not to be attained by human effort but may be helped by personal intent--but also requires personal assignments; these two areas of responsibility form the backbone of the Testaments, the Law, and Grace. Pascal's human responsibility was to be a scientist not first but earlier in life; then a testament to God's Grace in Christ. Those who are gifted in logic should never feel that God is beholden to bow down before what is ,after all, His Property...logic is a bit like time itself, it is a tool of measurement-- subject to be broken anytime anywhere and in any Holy manner--when God breaks into the tiny worlds of science and the truly limited selves that power it. Even or especially in this world, we are servants, never masters. Even logic will tell us that...
Thursday, October 18, 2012
HOPE IS NOT A VACUUM
It becomes clearer each day that Sarte's contentless and terminal "hope" is more a manner of vanity and pride of place and (baleful) influence than anything else. It in fact qualifies on every level as, "strongholds...arguments and every pretension that sets itself against the knowledge of God..." (2 Cor 10:5) Not to mention denial and self delusion. (But as for the alcoholic, misery loves company and social proof.)
I have come to the conclusion that, as I do weaken with aging, I really have too many opportunities of a worldish nature, and less and less time to fool around with them. "Look, it's really quite simple...
..."
The simplicity of the Gospel leads to The Basic Axiom, which is summed up in some of today's reading from the book and chapter noted above: referring to such plain wisdom as, "set no wicked thing before your eyes." Because if you do, you see, you will be left with Sartre's empty thought and nothing else--but still the Specific Content of God will not, and never, go away. Pascal's wager keeps popping up--but with this difference, as Lewis said: this particular story happens to be true--I might add, on every possible level.
Let it never be forgotten that Sartre from age 7 up, hated God. His reasoning is/was sensate. The resentment of being one-upped in wisdom or authority or autonomy is probably the chief weapon (besides surprise) of all who hate God and need some kind of tangled rationale to dispose of Him. In that case, the philosopher can't even count on luck; supposing there is such a thing, which I cannot assume on any level. The power of self-deception is amazing--but it cannot move mountains and remains in the valley of decision like Godot's clueless tramps and Beckett himself.
Recently I have been quite discouraged--but I realized I was putting my nature and well-being at the disposal of almost anyone or anything besides God. Like a true Pharisee, I was focusing on the superficiality of evil as if it alone had any substance. But as noted above, in the end its substance is the null set. And this is entirely the opposite of life in and through and with Christ. Rather than focusing on legions, I find there is too much fermentation and mindless froth in the world to be taken up with it, or with people's weak points--I have too many of my own.
Aside: The matter of Entertainment has reached the king of boiling point of fecundity noted in Chapter 10 of "A Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek"--unsupportable at its present level, having only a faux influence but it's enough for the majority, all right. We certainly prefer a fiddle and the spectacle of Rome burning.
I also realized that there is plenty of Philippians 4:8 at my disposal that can be readily accessed if I will take even a little time to, "think upon these things," and to leave all the rest behind. It is as Jesus said about the little man who swept and garnished his little home, only to end up 7x worse than before, and without a proper exterminator --but Christ. It's not a matter of hosing the place down but doing as the Marys did--sitting at His feet while the opportunity--soon in the past--presents itself.
Hope...has a face. Hope...is a Person. Hope is open and ready for "whosoever will." I can be stubborn and end up with a "handful of pebbles," as one despondent "higher critic" noted, looking back. (And I have enough to criticize within myself to have time to serve it up it up for others who don't want it in the first place; much less judging God's Word and Spirit according to my faintness and ever- dimming sight.) Or one can arrange for a meeting...
I have come to the conclusion that, as I do weaken with aging, I really have too many opportunities of a worldish nature, and less and less time to fool around with them. "Look, it's really quite simple...
..."
The simplicity of the Gospel leads to The Basic Axiom, which is summed up in some of today's reading from the book and chapter noted above: referring to such plain wisdom as, "set no wicked thing before your eyes." Because if you do, you see, you will be left with Sartre's empty thought and nothing else--but still the Specific Content of God will not, and never, go away. Pascal's wager keeps popping up--but with this difference, as Lewis said: this particular story happens to be true--I might add, on every possible level.
Let it never be forgotten that Sartre from age 7 up, hated God. His reasoning is/was sensate. The resentment of being one-upped in wisdom or authority or autonomy is probably the chief weapon (besides surprise) of all who hate God and need some kind of tangled rationale to dispose of Him. In that case, the philosopher can't even count on luck; supposing there is such a thing, which I cannot assume on any level. The power of self-deception is amazing--but it cannot move mountains and remains in the valley of decision like Godot's clueless tramps and Beckett himself.
Recently I have been quite discouraged--but I realized I was putting my nature and well-being at the disposal of almost anyone or anything besides God. Like a true Pharisee, I was focusing on the superficiality of evil as if it alone had any substance. But as noted above, in the end its substance is the null set. And this is entirely the opposite of life in and through and with Christ. Rather than focusing on legions, I find there is too much fermentation and mindless froth in the world to be taken up with it, or with people's weak points--I have too many of my own.
Aside: The matter of Entertainment has reached the king of boiling point of fecundity noted in Chapter 10 of "A Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek"--unsupportable at its present level, having only a faux influence but it's enough for the majority, all right. We certainly prefer a fiddle and the spectacle of Rome burning.
I also realized that there is plenty of Philippians 4:8 at my disposal that can be readily accessed if I will take even a little time to, "think upon these things," and to leave all the rest behind. It is as Jesus said about the little man who swept and garnished his little home, only to end up 7x worse than before, and without a proper exterminator --but Christ. It's not a matter of hosing the place down but doing as the Marys did--sitting at His feet while the opportunity--soon in the past--presents itself.
Hope...has a face. Hope...is a Person. Hope is open and ready for "whosoever will." I can be stubborn and end up with a "handful of pebbles," as one despondent "higher critic" noted, looking back. (And I have enough to criticize within myself to have time to serve it up it up for others who don't want it in the first place; much less judging God's Word and Spirit according to my faintness and ever- dimming sight.) Or one can arrange for a meeting...
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Living on Burrowed Holiness
Pilate's Cave, anyone?
Calvin's Dad: " It takes about 100,000 dollars to raise a child. Now, (to Calvin) you have to ask yourself; is that a Gift? Or a loan?"
The laws of men are by their very derivative and unoriginal nature, reactionary. Not only that, they are like a horde of bank robbers; like Willie Sutton, they go to the branch banks where the money is. They, like even the laws of the OT, are so intertwined with, and actually dependent on, evil, that sooner or later it is hard to tell the difference, and laws themselves become agents of evil--c.f. Animal Farm, Brave New World, Nazi and Leninist philosophy and purges, and so on. Our own laws--which we seem disinclined to change because, above all, we fear the fussy and loud media Lords who can lead to our being shunned and disenfranchised.
Maybe that's a good thing.
What I do not want is to retreat into a Plato's cave of obscurantism and self-righteousness, like the evil dwarves of Narnia, always retreating from the light and in particular from Aslan. Their mantra is, "The dwarves are for the dwarves."
But all that is not of Christ will pass away. Many of our laws are becoming unenforceable because no one has time to follow them all much less read them all. Hence we are all criminals unawares, continually, every day transgressing against McState. (And their banks and all their lawyers too).
And again, "What's done for Christ will last." And I add,"all else dies in the past." He does expect us to endure; but not to change what can't be changed.
Calvin's Dad: " It takes about 100,000 dollars to raise a child. Now, (to Calvin) you have to ask yourself; is that a Gift? Or a loan?"
The laws of men are by their very derivative and unoriginal nature, reactionary. Not only that, they are like a horde of bank robbers; like Willie Sutton, they go to the branch banks where the money is. They, like even the laws of the OT, are so intertwined with, and actually dependent on, evil, that sooner or later it is hard to tell the difference, and laws themselves become agents of evil--c.f. Animal Farm, Brave New World, Nazi and Leninist philosophy and purges, and so on. Our own laws--which we seem disinclined to change because, above all, we fear the fussy and loud media Lords who can lead to our being shunned and disenfranchised.
Maybe that's a good thing.
What I do not want is to retreat into a Plato's cave of obscurantism and self-righteousness, like the evil dwarves of Narnia, always retreating from the light and in particular from Aslan. Their mantra is, "The dwarves are for the dwarves."
But all that is not of Christ will pass away. Many of our laws are becoming unenforceable because no one has time to follow them all much less read them all. Hence we are all criminals unawares, continually, every day transgressing against McState. (And their banks and all their lawyers too).
And again, "What's done for Christ will last." And I add,"all else dies in the past." He does expect us to endure; but not to change what can't be changed.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
LIVING ON BORROWED HOLINESS
In his acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize, Alexander Solzhenitsyn quoted at the outset the "pithy" Russian proverb, "Men have forgotten God, that is why all these things have happened. The Bible makes it plainer yet:"There is no Fear of God in their eyes." Hence, "every man does what is right in his own eyes." (Until the tyrannies arrive in force, or outside forces conquer)
There are I suppose two general sources of fear; the seen and the unseen. I'll let the reader decide which is scarier. In our world we treat ourselves to fear, as an entertainment. But in reality it is no different than it ever has been. We fear circumstances and people. We fear death, pain, suffering that has no meaning or purpose that we can see (the unseen again, and the "why?") and we fear separation from or disapproval of, loved ones, culture, society, institutions of approbation or cursing, and the list goes clear across all of Creation.
But as Jesus told Martha about her sister: "One Thing is needful and your sister has chosen the better part."
I am suspecting that, even with Jesus' friendship, Mary knew she was in the Presence, something which Martha also would confess later at Lazarus' tomb. She knew a Person inspiring Intense Fear and Fascination conmingled with Tenderest Mercies. Complete in One Person in front of her: Martha and Mary have seen the Face of Incarnate Love and Justice, and not only survived, but thrived.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe." (So there, Thomas!) "My Lord and my God!" (So there, us!!!)
to be continued, "should anybody ask..."
There are I suppose two general sources of fear; the seen and the unseen. I'll let the reader decide which is scarier. In our world we treat ourselves to fear, as an entertainment. But in reality it is no different than it ever has been. We fear circumstances and people. We fear death, pain, suffering that has no meaning or purpose that we can see (the unseen again, and the "why?") and we fear separation from or disapproval of, loved ones, culture, society, institutions of approbation or cursing, and the list goes clear across all of Creation.
But as Jesus told Martha about her sister: "One Thing is needful and your sister has chosen the better part."
I am suspecting that, even with Jesus' friendship, Mary knew she was in the Presence, something which Martha also would confess later at Lazarus' tomb. She knew a Person inspiring Intense Fear and Fascination conmingled with Tenderest Mercies. Complete in One Person in front of her: Martha and Mary have seen the Face of Incarnate Love and Justice, and not only survived, but thrived.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe." (So there, Thomas!) "My Lord and my God!" (So there, us!!!)
to be continued, "should anybody ask..."
Saturday, October 13, 2012
THE PERMANENT THINGS
This of course is a phrase from T S Eliot, my middle namesake, although I do not know the context. Mr. Sherwood Sugden, Dennis' friend and publisher, published at least two books on Eliot, including one by this title; written by one of Eliot's best American friends, Russell Kirk. (CAPTAIN Kirk to you my friends!)
Both Sherwood and Eliot were purveyors of the "moral imagination," and conservative moral philosophers. To say they were intellectuals would be an understatement. But as such, they tend to treasure ideas as being, well, above beings. They find the concept of God helpful, but the "idea" of a personal intimate relationship with God they find, well, unimaginable--perhaps by the token of it being, well, uncontrollable! Ideas per se may have some permanent roots in someone beyond our capacity to imagine (insert Heaven here)--but on the other hand, they may only have the appearance of permanence, like the worldwide presence of various forms of pyramids (not to forget their schemes!) whose original has been erased at Babel.
Ideas, like computers, may seem to have a life of their own, beyond the scope of man or God--yet God says quite clearly, "Stop judging by appearances, and use right judgement." That is from Jesus, by the way, the Prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:14. "Ideas have consequences," true--but do we really think our perception of "good" ideas is more important than, say, God's Laws? Which in the NT become the schoolmasters of desperation to bring to us the futility of both law and imagination, culture and society, and all our attempts to redeem ourselves by reinterpreting what has been said ever-so-clearly by Christ? "Effrontery" would also be an understatement in this context.
(As if to prove my point, my computer shut me out after the first sentence of the preceding paragraph as it needed to "re-interpret" Windows for me. Thank God for Autosave!)
The point being, as I have always averred in these pages, is that materialism dictates that ideas, morals, ethics especially, outlast any given person. Which is like saying we have only One Real Culture, if we would just admit it. The Bible throughout, but most clearly in Christ, says quite the opposite. So that our responsibilities are Permanent Things and of eternal import. We can be forgiven of our many flawed ideas and icons--if we can put Christ and even our souls above and beyond their reach. It is called, "surrender," not to philosophy and the love of rhetoric, but to an Actual Ever-Persistent Person. And this can only begin and end with The Person of God Himself.
In Deut. 18 for instance Moses says not that God will raise up new and better laws and concepts and I-Deals, but that He would raise up a prophet, precisely because the people at Sinai protested that they no longer wanted to experience God directly--as if they actually had, since they experienced only manifestations, not the Fullness of the Godhead as such; and Moses experienced much more than they did, and he wasn't complaining! (Please also note that Sinai is not a pyramid!)
"I will put My Words in His Mouth (caps mine) and He will tell them everything I command Him."
"I come to do My Father's will."
To say that intellectuals, conservative or other, cannot countenance such "ideas" i.e. what I call the Whole Person, whose brain cannot even imagine his own self, much less his own soul or spirit; is to me stating the obvious, again and again. It gets rather tedious, or would be if the Trinity were not so Infinitely Interesting and Deep. My attempts to put this on paper, or be convincing, is merely evidence that I left parts of my heart and soul in San Francisco at the City Lights bookstore. Sad to say. Pray for me, "now and in the hour of my death..."
Both Sherwood and Eliot were purveyors of the "moral imagination," and conservative moral philosophers. To say they were intellectuals would be an understatement. But as such, they tend to treasure ideas as being, well, above beings. They find the concept of God helpful, but the "idea" of a personal intimate relationship with God they find, well, unimaginable--perhaps by the token of it being, well, uncontrollable! Ideas per se may have some permanent roots in someone beyond our capacity to imagine (insert Heaven here)--but on the other hand, they may only have the appearance of permanence, like the worldwide presence of various forms of pyramids (not to forget their schemes!) whose original has been erased at Babel.
Ideas, like computers, may seem to have a life of their own, beyond the scope of man or God--yet God says quite clearly, "Stop judging by appearances, and use right judgement." That is from Jesus, by the way, the Prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:14. "Ideas have consequences," true--but do we really think our perception of "good" ideas is more important than, say, God's Laws? Which in the NT become the schoolmasters of desperation to bring to us the futility of both law and imagination, culture and society, and all our attempts to redeem ourselves by reinterpreting what has been said ever-so-clearly by Christ? "Effrontery" would also be an understatement in this context.
(As if to prove my point, my computer shut me out after the first sentence of the preceding paragraph as it needed to "re-interpret" Windows for me. Thank God for Autosave!)
The point being, as I have always averred in these pages, is that materialism dictates that ideas, morals, ethics especially, outlast any given person. Which is like saying we have only One Real Culture, if we would just admit it. The Bible throughout, but most clearly in Christ, says quite the opposite. So that our responsibilities are Permanent Things and of eternal import. We can be forgiven of our many flawed ideas and icons--if we can put Christ and even our souls above and beyond their reach. It is called, "surrender," not to philosophy and the love of rhetoric, but to an Actual Ever-Persistent Person. And this can only begin and end with The Person of God Himself.
In Deut. 18 for instance Moses says not that God will raise up new and better laws and concepts and I-Deals, but that He would raise up a prophet, precisely because the people at Sinai protested that they no longer wanted to experience God directly--as if they actually had, since they experienced only manifestations, not the Fullness of the Godhead as such; and Moses experienced much more than they did, and he wasn't complaining! (Please also note that Sinai is not a pyramid!)
"I will put My Words in His Mouth (caps mine) and He will tell them everything I command Him."
"I come to do My Father's will."
To say that intellectuals, conservative or other, cannot countenance such "ideas" i.e. what I call the Whole Person, whose brain cannot even imagine his own self, much less his own soul or spirit; is to me stating the obvious, again and again. It gets rather tedious, or would be if the Trinity were not so Infinitely Interesting and Deep. My attempts to put this on paper, or be convincing, is merely evidence that I left parts of my heart and soul in San Francisco at the City Lights bookstore. Sad to say. Pray for me, "now and in the hour of my death..."
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Compare and Contrast
Deuteronomy 16 and Isaiah 29 esp:1-4. "Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth." "Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel."
Gal. 1--"You began well--what happened?" Being blessed is a massive responsibility...which becomes harder and greater as time goes on. (Non-entropy here)
Gal. 1--"You began well--what happened?" Being blessed is a massive responsibility...which becomes harder and greater as time goes on. (Non-entropy here)
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Beyond the Pale...
Dr. Stephen J. Gould the prime mover of evolutionary theory of his time, recent head of Harvard dept. of paleontology:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils...yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."
Dr. Colin Patterson former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, private correspondence: "If I knew of any, fossil or living, (transitional forms) I would certainly have included them...yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Dr. Mark Ridley, Oxford zoologist: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist (Gould), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Dennis, I can tell you this--I have always been fascinated by the fossil record, showing as it does incredible life forms all the way through. But when I started, I was only barely aware of the theory of evolution. I can say during my days of study, I was impartial in regards to origins. In fact, I found the question of origins irrelevant even to my deepest study of the fossil record. I knew little of Darwin, and had little use for him, until long after medical school. So I was never a Darwinist, at least not a socially and culturally committed one such as populate our airwaves today. I actually started to study the Bible in 1979, and after that it became an issue; and I immediately became aware of the fatal flaws of Darwinism shortly after that. Although the seeds were planted by my Shimer college "hard science" professor of chemistry who was also our pre-med adviser. He was a great fan of both Dobzhansky and more so of Michael Polyani. But he gave me an article called: "Heresy in the Halls of Darwin: Mathematicians Question Evolution." Not only are there no transitional forms, there is not nearly enough time to transition from one species to another by any proposed or known mechanism. At least nothing under the rubric of purely material causes, which "science" supposedly requires.
got to go, more later perhaps
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils...yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."
Dr. Colin Patterson former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, private correspondence: "If I knew of any, fossil or living, (transitional forms) I would certainly have included them...yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Dr. Mark Ridley, Oxford zoologist: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist (Gould), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Dennis, I can tell you this--I have always been fascinated by the fossil record, showing as it does incredible life forms all the way through. But when I started, I was only barely aware of the theory of evolution. I can say during my days of study, I was impartial in regards to origins. In fact, I found the question of origins irrelevant even to my deepest study of the fossil record. I knew little of Darwin, and had little use for him, until long after medical school. So I was never a Darwinist, at least not a socially and culturally committed one such as populate our airwaves today. I actually started to study the Bible in 1979, and after that it became an issue; and I immediately became aware of the fatal flaws of Darwinism shortly after that. Although the seeds were planted by my Shimer college "hard science" professor of chemistry who was also our pre-med adviser. He was a great fan of both Dobzhansky and more so of Michael Polyani. But he gave me an article called: "Heresy in the Halls of Darwin: Mathematicians Question Evolution." Not only are there no transitional forms, there is not nearly enough time to transition from one species to another by any proposed or known mechanism. At least nothing under the rubric of purely material causes, which "science" supposedly requires.
got to go, more later perhaps
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Rachel, Rachel, I've been thinking...
Reading an article about Seward and Lincoln, and how America elected a President that had virtually no foreign policy experience--still often true--and how "Seward's Folly" turned out to be a wise investment, etc.
But it brought to mind how much the Republican party was brought to life as a response to pro-slavery Democrats. The Whig party, and the Know-Nothings, were not enough by any means; yet we seem to have reverted to the same sort of policies that characterized the pre-Republicans. (pre-abolitionists as well)
Democracy per se always falls on its own sword, because it panders to impulses of the moment. Schoolchildren were taught this in the past, via the Greek and Roman experiments, as showing the need for a balance of powers. But recall (and this is even recapped in Star Wars!) that Rome's strength was predicated on intact family systems to oppose the will of the general public, and that their Republic was undone by the idea of democracy which quickly and as always devolved into the Imperium. "A Republic, if you can keep it." Ben knew his history, obviously; but we have forgotten it in our rush towards bread and circuses. In fact, it could well be argued that our politics now center around entertainment; and the party of Hollywood, which specializes in instant gratification, is now the de facto ruling party of the nation--and it is unlikely that anything but the hand of God could reverse it. (which of course he is doing--but will it take another 2000 years?
I thoroughly believe that God put Lincoln in place, not merely to save the Union and Federalism, but to preserve us from, "every man does what is right in his own eyes." I have quoted Ibsen before in these pages, who said that, "The minority is sometimes right; but the majority is always wrong." This idea is the only way--by the grace of God--that Lincoln, a depressive, could endure his maximally strident opposition from virtually all sides--the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herods and Caesar's of his own day--as it is in ours--but Lincoln could never be elected in our day. These four powers hold absolute and de facto cooperative sway in USA Today--and worldwide....knit together inseparably by gross materialism. They may fight over ownership of their "things," but otherwise they are all disciples of Darwinian Mechanisms, hence philosophically irreducibly linked.
And let it be pointed out that it was the vast majority in Judah that killed the One Person sent who could have been, at the very least, their Lincoln, who indeed, as Isaiah said, came to set the captives free. This analogy does not go very far--but it does suggest that pure democracy can never be anything but an enemy to truth--especially hard and ugly and inconvenient truths, which it "suppresses in unrighteousness." (c.f. Judges)
It is small wonder that both our politics and our godz are like Molech-worship, anti-family, anti-natal, and known best for their advocacy of, shall we say, "free love." That this is prone both to despotism and self-destruction should be obvious, but no matter hoTw many historical examples, and no matter how many "Professor Gadget godz" we go through with constant disappointment yet always clamoring for more (and fewer sacrifices for children, and the more sacrifices OF children); the more we ignore the silent cries of those we persecute to death, and the millions more of oppressed peoples we ignore become, "legion"--and more and more legions against us and our self righteous ways.
I do not make excuses for the present day Republican Party; neither party could be the party of Lincoln, because both are parties that pander to our basest emotions, and both are largely reactionary in the worst sorts of ways.
Neither party will stop the slaughter.
And because of this, we will diminish not only in stature and reputation, but will be considered worldwide as a hypocritical example of mass degradation and living for ourselves. "Imperial Washington" is upon us, Samson, as Delilah sniggers behind the arras.
We forget that "the greatest generation," was raised in almost always intact families, both nuclear and extended-- yet one that betrayed itself by asserting free and easy divorce in the free and easy post war years--hence devouring not only themselves but selling their children and grandchildren down the river for a bowl of red stew. Not funny, McGee.
Jer 31:15: fulfilled by Herod and the Imperiums of today: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
But it brought to mind how much the Republican party was brought to life as a response to pro-slavery Democrats. The Whig party, and the Know-Nothings, were not enough by any means; yet we seem to have reverted to the same sort of policies that characterized the pre-Republicans. (pre-abolitionists as well)
Democracy per se always falls on its own sword, because it panders to impulses of the moment. Schoolchildren were taught this in the past, via the Greek and Roman experiments, as showing the need for a balance of powers. But recall (and this is even recapped in Star Wars!) that Rome's strength was predicated on intact family systems to oppose the will of the general public, and that their Republic was undone by the idea of democracy which quickly and as always devolved into the Imperium. "A Republic, if you can keep it." Ben knew his history, obviously; but we have forgotten it in our rush towards bread and circuses. In fact, it could well be argued that our politics now center around entertainment; and the party of Hollywood, which specializes in instant gratification, is now the de facto ruling party of the nation--and it is unlikely that anything but the hand of God could reverse it. (which of course he is doing--but will it take another 2000 years?
I thoroughly believe that God put Lincoln in place, not merely to save the Union and Federalism, but to preserve us from, "every man does what is right in his own eyes." I have quoted Ibsen before in these pages, who said that, "The minority is sometimes right; but the majority is always wrong." This idea is the only way--by the grace of God--that Lincoln, a depressive, could endure his maximally strident opposition from virtually all sides--the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herods and Caesar's of his own day--as it is in ours--but Lincoln could never be elected in our day. These four powers hold absolute and de facto cooperative sway in USA Today--and worldwide....knit together inseparably by gross materialism. They may fight over ownership of their "things," but otherwise they are all disciples of Darwinian Mechanisms, hence philosophically irreducibly linked.
And let it be pointed out that it was the vast majority in Judah that killed the One Person sent who could have been, at the very least, their Lincoln, who indeed, as Isaiah said, came to set the captives free. This analogy does not go very far--but it does suggest that pure democracy can never be anything but an enemy to truth--especially hard and ugly and inconvenient truths, which it "suppresses in unrighteousness." (c.f. Judges)
It is small wonder that both our politics and our godz are like Molech-worship, anti-family, anti-natal, and known best for their advocacy of, shall we say, "free love." That this is prone both to despotism and self-destruction should be obvious, but no matter hoTw many historical examples, and no matter how many "Professor Gadget godz" we go through with constant disappointment yet always clamoring for more (and fewer sacrifices for children, and the more sacrifices OF children); the more we ignore the silent cries of those we persecute to death, and the millions more of oppressed peoples we ignore become, "legion"--and more and more legions against us and our self righteous ways.
I do not make excuses for the present day Republican Party; neither party could be the party of Lincoln, because both are parties that pander to our basest emotions, and both are largely reactionary in the worst sorts of ways.
Neither party will stop the slaughter.
And because of this, we will diminish not only in stature and reputation, but will be considered worldwide as a hypocritical example of mass degradation and living for ourselves. "Imperial Washington" is upon us, Samson, as Delilah sniggers behind the arras.
We forget that "the greatest generation," was raised in almost always intact families, both nuclear and extended-- yet one that betrayed itself by asserting free and easy divorce in the free and easy post war years--hence devouring not only themselves but selling their children and grandchildren down the river for a bowl of red stew. Not funny, McGee.
Jer 31:15: fulfilled by Herod and the Imperiums of today: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)