Brent Clay's Blog

Biblical Errancy - Part Two: Peter Never Got It

2011-10-13T13:30:00.000-05:00

This post is part of a short series on Christianity. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the first post in the series, click here.

Before continuing I want to add a quick disclaimer. Hopefully I'm not belaboring the point; but this is something I like to keep clear and emphasizing it here will prevent the need for me to repeat it later.

I give very little credence to the Bible; meaning, I think it is a largely unreliable document. In this series of blog posts I discuss happenings and accounts from the Bible based on how they are portrayed. As to whether I regard the accounts as fact is an entirely different matter. Usually, the answer is no – although many of the accounts are at least accurate enough to provide a vague sense of events.

Having said this, I think the Bible is vitally important to Christianity, and in some ways, quite good. The point being that there is no malice in my statement. In fact, I sometimes miss the days when I believed the Bible to be so much more than it is.

Perhaps the only remaining question then, is why bother? What is the point of discussing something I believe to have only marginal value, and questionable reliability? The short answer is that I happen to think there is a core component to Christianity, which is very compelling. I'll get to that eventually.

We must know that, not only is the Bible itself imperfect, it is also a record of the acts of imperfect people. It is critical that we distinguish between what constitutes the Gospel message itself, and the behavior of those who act on behalf of the Gospel.

Consider the Apostle Peter. He exemplifies one of the most critical lessons we can learn about the importance of understanding biblical errancy. He is clearly a central figure within Christianity, especially given that the Catholic church, if I am not mistaken, regards Peter as essentially the first Pope. All this started when Jesus called Peter the rock in Matthew 16, and went on to give him "the keys to the kingdom of heaven."

Peter was a charismatic character – vocal and quick to show excitement. When he witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus, he wanted to build a monument to commemorate the event (Matthew 17:4). When Jesus revealed what was soon to befall him at the hands of Judas and the religious leaders in Matthew 16, Peter tried to talk him out of it. He cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus at Gethsemane (John 18:10). And, after Jesus' death, it was Peter who stood up to take center stage at Pentecost.

Yes, Peter certainly deserves notice, but if we look a little further into his life and deeds, we quickly see that he repeatedly demonstrated an inability to grasp the Gospel message – indeed, Jesus' message. Though he can certainly be forgiven for protesting when Jesus revealed the dark tides that were to come, which prompted Jesus' famous rebuke, “get thee behind me, Satan;” it also demonstrated that Peter did not grasp Jesus' larger agenda.

Hindsight is 20-20. Maybe Peter simply didn’t know enough about what Jesus was trying to accomplish to see the big picture at the time. That Jesus had to explain what was happening (and going to happen), seems to suggest this possibility. Not that it matters all that much, but I think all of this is perfectly forgivable. It shows only that Peter was human.

Peter's misconceptions, however, shortly began to have more serious consequences. Soon, he would begin to draw the entire Christian message off the track Jesus had set it on. Aside from the mistakes I mentioned above, Peter went on to make very serious blunders, which impact the Christian faith even today, two thousand years later.

Blunder at Pentecost
When Peter addressed the believers gathered at Pentecost, he proclaimed that the speaking in tongues, which everyone had just witnessed, was the fulfillment of the prophetic words of Joel.

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Well, that must have been an exciting moment, but why didn’t the other parts of Joel’s vision happen? The moon turning to blood and all that? Because Peter was wrong. This event actually marked the coming of the Comforter that Jesus had told the disciples to expect after his death - it was a fulfilment of John 16:12-15, not Joel (c. 2). Of course, Peter did not have a New Testament Bible, but the event was what Jesus had spoken of, nonetheless.

Was this error important? It was. It encouraged the people of the day to believe that Jesus’ return was immanent, which it was not. It also caused the event to be interpreted by all as part of some end-time script, rather than in the correct terms of the continuing work of God among the people.

Jesus had gone to a fair amount of effort to make it clear to the disciples that the "Comforter" would appear after his death. If Jesus could somehow have seen Peter's address to the upper-room crowd, I think his response would have been something akin to a palm to the forehead.

Peter didn’t get it.

Salvation to the Gentiles
This one is well known. Eventually, Peter had something of a dispute with the Apostle Paul because, in Paul's opinion, he had begun to pull away from the teachings of an open Gospel – one that does not impose the requirements of the Law upon the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-21). Paul adamantly believed that salvation and grace through Jesus Christ was the existential substitute and counterpart to the circumcision and observance of the Law (1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 3:1, 5:6).

In fact, this matter had been directly addressed by Paul and Barnabas with the Apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2), being of such critical importance that they had left Antioch and returned to Jerusalem for the singular purpose of considering this question. At that time, Peter agreed that the observance of the Laws of Moses and the prophets were not a requirement for the Gentiles (v. 7-11), saying in his own words:

Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are. (Acts 15:10-11, NIV)

Peter could have no doubt that this was correct since the Lord had emphasized this very point to
him in the vision of the cleansed food (Acts 11:4-18). Yet, Peter later began shying away from this
teaching. He had been meeting with Gentiles in Antioch (Acts 11:3), but later, when certain Jews came around who continued to hold to the belief that the Laws of Moses were still required for salvation, Peter seemed embarrassed to be seen with the Gentiles at all (Galatians 2:11-13).

Even in his vision, Peter was unwilling to let go of the traditions of acceptable foods despite being directly instructed to do so by the Lord, not once, but three times (Acts 10:9-16). In the end, Peter never ate the food as he was commanded, and only later understood that there was a broader lesson to be learned from it (Acts 11:1-18).

Peter didn’t get it.

Ananias and Sapphira
This one irks me a bit. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the church. They had apparently heard of another church member who had sold a plot of land and given the proceeds to the apostles (Acts 5:38). Since he also owned land, Ananias likewise sold a field with the intention of giving some of the money to the church.

However, unlike the other church member, Ananias and his wife agreed ahead of time to tell the apostles that they had sold the field for less money than they actually had. Their plan was to make the apostles believe that they were giving the full amount of money to the church, when in fact they had kept some of the money aside for themselves.

The entire ploy was to give the impression that they were giving completely sacrificially. Certainly, giving any sum is sacrificial, but their hope was to receive even more accolades and credit by pretending that they had kept nothing aside for themselves.

We are left to assume, according to Acts 5:4, that had Ananias and Sapphira simply been honest and told the apostles that they had decided to keep some of the money for themselves, that they probably would have been okay. Unfortunately for them, that is not what happened.

Anyway, in keeping to the story, when Ananias told Peter the incorrect sum, Peter recognized the deceit immediately and became extremely angry. He scolded Ananias and told him that by lying to him, he had effectively lied to God. Ananias immediately fell dead. It's too bad that someone wasn't there to reel Peter in a bit: "Uh, Peter, you're not God. Sorry."

About three hours later Sapphira also came to the church, where she was immediately confronted by Peter. Now, Peter didn't start by saying, "Sapphira, I have some really bad news. You way want to sit down." No, Peter was Peter - he set her up. Not knowing that her husband was already dead, she answered Peter's questions regarding the land as she and her husband had rehearsed. When Peter saw that she repeated the same untruthful story, and therefore knew that Ananias and Sapphira had conspired to deceive him, he scolded her as well and she also fell dead.

Harsh.

It seems fortunate for Peter that Jesus was more tolerant of his shortcomings when Peter denied knowing Jesus on the night he was taken (Luke 26:69-75). In fact, Jesus had even warned Peter ahead of time that he would do so (Luke 22:33-34). Yet, not long after these very events, Peter, upon being lied to by Ananias and Sapphira brought swift and immediate judgment upon both of them.

Under the Old Testament law such heavy-handed punishments seemed almost typical, but under a new covenant of grace and salvation, it seems that Peter had lost his way. He denied Ananias and Sapphira the redemptive love of Christ and hearkened back to a more absolute and unyielding posture of law that Jesus had come for the very purpose of bringing to an end. The sacrifice of Christ was meant to free people from deceit and sin, not through death, but through the opportunity to depart from it in life.

What Peter did couldn't be more at odds with the message of Salvation by Grace that Jesus gave his life to share. I can't say how many times I've heard this account used as the basis for sermons as a cautionary tale. This story has nothing to do with the Gospel, nothing to do with Salvation by Grace, and nothing to do with Jesus' teachings. It is an account of a misguided man, and another example of how critical it is to understand the difference between what the Bible says, and its overarching message.

Peter, being (unfortunately) a central figure within Christianity, greatly damaged the faith with his inability to understand the new message of Salvation. According to Luke, Jesus said that he had "not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them (Luke 9:56)."

Peter just didn't get it.

Simon
In Acts 8:17-24, a man called Simon saw Peter laying hands on individuals who then received the Holy Spirit. Simon wanted this power as well, and so offered money to Peter so that he may have it. At this, Peter rebuked him very harshly, and Simon did actually repent (v. 24). But, Peter's response demonstrated the ongoing, unwavering lack of kindness that permeated his life.

Maybe there is more to this story than what made it into the text, which could impact my thoughts on the matter, but Simon’s desire to receive the Holy Spirit, though spoken in the wrong terms, was a good one as far as I can tell.

When the mother of two of the disciples, James and John, the wife of Zebedee, approached Jesus and asked that her two sons have a place at his right and left hand in the Kingdom of God, Jesus responded by saying that she had asked for more than she knew, and that such a thing was not his to give (Matthew 20:20-24). But, Jesus took no offense at the request. Though bold, he found no fault in the desire that this woman had to see her sons elevated within the Kingdom of God. Yet, the other disciples were indignant (v. 24). These were the very same individuals who would later become apostles and form the early New Testament church. The parallels between the reactions of the other disciples and those of the brothers of Joseph upon seeing the favor he received from Jacob are difficult to deny (Genesis 37).

Peter didn’t get it.

The Impacts
Having said all of this, I must now say that none of it constitutes the largest negative impact that Peter had on the Christian faith. That will be the subject of my next post. In fact, it is one of the primary reasons for all of these posts.

To be continued.

Biblical Errancy - Part One

2011-10-13T10:05:00.001-05:00

This post is part of a short series on Christianity. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the first post in the series, click here.

It is unfortunate that so many people continue to hold to the belief that the Bible contains – indeed, is – the perfect Word of God. It is detrimental to believers, and an insurmountable obstacle to unbelievers.

The message the Bible attempts to communicate cannot be fully understood without first accepting its many imperfections, and understanding them to be a simple part of its voice and identity. These imperfections are not only a matter of simple errors and contradictions (of which there are a staggering number), but that the Bible's very nature is one of imperfection; reflecting with clarity the storied paths it travelled from its earliest beginnings to the copyrighted, mass-printed form it takes today. Neither is it a matter of good verses evil, or right verses wrong, or faith verses unbelief; but a much simpler case of choosing to see something for what it is rather than what you may wish it to be.

I grew up in the Christian faith, and as far as I have seen, my opinions and goals on the matter differ from most other critics of the Bible in a few key respects. I am still a Christian and believe that the Bible is a central and critical part of the faith, but there are some very important things to consider. Notice that there are no web sites dedicated to exposing errors in the Webster’s Dictionary, or in the latest Tom Clancy novel, or Cornelia Funke’s novel, Inkheart? Why? My guess is that it’s because no one claims that any of them are perfect, or makes even grander claims about their messages or origins or inspiration, divine or otherwise, and then demands that people accept them.

So, in this way, I am less a critic of the Bible, and more a critic of how it is perceived, how it is regarded. As a conveyor of the message of Christianity, the Bible is darned good. As the inspired and perfect Word of God, if fails miserably.

The long-standing argument that the Bible can have no value unless it is absolutely flawless is completely without merit. I’m not aware of anything in the world that qualifies as truly perfect. The computer I’m using to write this blog certainly isn’t perfect. The car I drove to work today isn’t perfect. I’m not perfect, and you probably aren’t either. Virtually every novel in print has at least a couple typo's hidden within its pages. We usually don't see them, but they're there. The point is that simple imperfections rarely render things useless, and the Bible is not one of the cases where they do. The only reason errors in the Bible are an issue at all is because the very people who believe that they are defending the faith by claiming that it is perfect, have made it one.

On the darker side, if we insist that the Bible is perfect, then we cannot distinguish the errors it contains from the truths. This moves the question of errancy beyond the realms of doctrine and academics into something a bit more serious, since acting on false beliefs is a dangerous thing (think Fred Phelps).

First, I’ll list a few of the more basic errors that can be found in the Bible, just to show that they are there, abundant, and easy to find. Believe me, even a cursory foray into the subject of biblical errancy yields a compelling body of material.

In 2 Samuel 8, David is said to have taken 700 horsemen from Hadadezer, yet in 1 Chronicles 18:4 the number is 7,000.
Matthew 27:3-10 tells us that the chief priests and elders purchased the Field of Blood with money they had originally paid Judas for betraying Jesus after he returned it to them. Yet, Acts 1:16-19 tells us that Judas bought the field himself.
In Acts 9:7, we are told that the men with Paul on the road to Damascus heard the voice of the Lord, but in Acts 22:9, we are told that they didn’t.

These aren’t particularly earth-shattering issues, except in one critical respect (and I’m directing this statement primarily towards Fundamentalist Christians, of which I was once one): If you tell people that in order to be a Christian, they must believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, you are asking them to believe that these obvious errors aren’t there, or that there are creative ways to explain them away. That 700 and 7000 are the same number, and conflicting reports are a matter of interpretation. That is not a requirement that Jesus gave us, it is you who have made that requirement. And that (to borrow some Biblical terminology), is a heavy millstone to swim with.

So, even simple errors in the Bible become an enormous problem if we insist that it is perfect. They bar the gate of Christianity to any person of intellect, and relegate the very Faith itself to the realms of the ridiculous. I find that I no longer like to admit that I am a Christian. Most Fundamentalists would probably warn about this (well, condemn me, actually), for denying Christ, but that's not really what I’m denying; I simply don’t want to be identified with the ridiculous beliefs and claims that have grown like weeds to completely bury the true message of Christianity. I am a Christian in the sense that I subscribe to the teachings of Jesus, who I believe to have had only one true message: Treat one another kindly, as you would like to be treated, and stop with all the totalitarian, harsh and cruel ways of the Old Testament laws. Of course, the second part of that statement is only an aspect of the first, but given that it was the biggest challenge Jesus faced in his day, it bears calling out. As for the harsher teachings attributed to Jesus, well, I’ll touch on them later (but, I won’t try to explain them away).

Now, on to more abstract problems that are just as serious, if not more so...

To continue, click here.

The Platinum Rule

2011-09-13T08:39:00.000-05:00

The Platinum Rule is similar to the Golden Rule, but not quite identical:

The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you.
The Platinum Rule: Treat others as they like to be treated.

I think it can be improved. I propose usurping the title "Platinum Rule" and giving it a new definition:

Treat others as you would have your loved ones treated.

This definition seems less subject to the exceptions of greed, deviousness or evil.

Is the Bible the Word of God?

2011-06-29T17:26:00.038-05:00

This post is part of a short series on Christianity. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the first post in the series, click here.

Many Christians have not stopped to consider that although the ancient Hebrews believed that God had strictly commanded them to adhere to the Laws of Moses (Joshua 1:8; Ezekiel 20:19-20), no counterpart to this "commandment" was ever given regarding the New Testament.

The New Testament was volunteered by individuals who understood the Gospel message well enough to write what they knew for the benefit of those who would follow. As commands go, Jesus told the disciples only to continue testifying about him after his death, and to continue spreading the Gospel message. Luke summed this up rather clearly in the opening chapter of the book of Luke.

The takeaway here is that the words of the New Testament are simply a chronicle and exhortation given by early adopters of the Gospel message. In fact, the message of Salvation itself had not yet hardened by the time of Jesus' death, as clearly shown in the opening chapters of the book of Acts. The New Testament writings themselves were part of that hardening, but much more was to come. Once noted men and women (and their many impersonators) began writing letters, revelations and chronicles reflecting their impressions of the Christian message, the next big question became determining which of those writings should be declared authoritative and suitable for inclusion in a Biblical Canon. This seemingly inevitable task was anything but brief (it spanned many centuries) – and it was a mistake.

What was it that Solomon said? There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 16:25)? I refrain from quoting scripture when I can, but this one was necessary. Defining an authoritative Biblical Canon may seem as right as rain, but it was an enormous mistake. The words of the Bible have cost many lives over the centuries. If you take umbrage with this statement, then you are fortunate not to have been among them. I'm glad for that – I escaped the great inquisitions and most other tyrannies perpetrated in the name of religion myself, but we have progressive secular civilization to thank for it, not The Holy Bible, and certainly not the institutional church.

It's tough not to bloviate here. The Biblical Canon as it is now known was not even proposed until 367 A.D, by St. Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria. Even so, it would be much longer before the Canon would take a form recognizable to us today. The King James Version, which was printed in the early 1600's and is still fairly popular today, is one of the earlier forms of what could be regarded as a modern Bible, but even this was compiled from criminally substandard manuscripts – a product of compromise in the interest of being first to press after large-scale printing became possible (citation needed).

To sum this up, it is an anachronism of the worst sort to think that Jesus, at the time of his death, imagined a document that would later be called The Holy Bible, which would be regarded by so many people as the very Word of God.

As obvious as it is, it is still occasionally necessary to remind ourselves that Jesus did not own a copy of The Holy Bible. In the day, there were only the Books of Moses (or Torah, or Pentateuch), the prophets, chronicles and what not, and religious rulers and judges who interpreted those writings. It is also important to realize that, notwithstanding any other corruption that may have been in play among the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time, any high-profile judgments they carried out were largely in accordance with Scripture. When the Pharisees saw the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath and wanted to put them to death, they were doing just what the Laws and prophets had commanded.

Jesus clearly took issue with this. It was this very type of thinking that Jesus fought so hard against. Unfortunately, he had measured success. In the end, he was declared a blasphemer and put to death by rule of the very documents and practices he hoped to abolish (yes, I'll get to Matthew 5:18 in a bit). He sadly began realizing that he was losing this battle in the period leading up to his crucifixion – he had wept over Jerusalem, lamenting the inability of its people to grasp the new truths he had brought.

Now, roll the clock forward a couple thousand years.

Christians of today do pretty much the modern-day equivalent of the very things the Jews did then. In fact, worse. Even with the benefit of hindsight, most Christians seem incapable of seeing the point Jesus tried to communicate. Multitudes of people (a satisfyingly biblical term) swear by the words of the Bible, of which most are the very same that Jesus tried to bring to an end (the Old Testament laws and writings of the prophets), and the rest of which he had never sanctioned or approved – indeed, never saw (the New Testament).

Tell modern Christians that the writings of revered personages of antiquity are not the final word on how to know God, or who he is (or was), or what he wants - pretty much, what Jesus did - and guess what; you, not they, are the heretic. They will tell their friends and flood facebook with warnings that that yet another false teacher has arisen, spreading dangerous new doctrines to be avoided at the cost of eternal damnation.

Sound familiar?

The teachings of the Old Testament, and many of the New, are harsh, unforgiving and totalitarian. Many of the Ten Commandments (of which there were actually three separate, conflicting sets) carried penalty of death for anyone who violated them, as did many other laws. We don't want them posted in public places as reminders of the Christian heritage of the United States. Yes, despite what many secularists may claim, the United States was and is heavily influenced by Christianity (well, based on trends, for the next 18 minutes, anyway), but the Ten Commandments and other laws of the Old Testament aren't Christian – they predated Christ. We don't want them – not even the ones that sound good. Why? because they are rooted within an absolute and unyielding system that shows no regard for the sanctity or dignity of life – human or otherwise.

Let's take a quick respite. Why pick on the Bible? Maybe it does contain some questionable material, but it also contains lots of good stuff; so, eat the meat and spit out the bones, you may say. In many cases, this is great advice - but not this time. We'll dig deeper into this in upcoming posts, but for now I will say only that I am not against Christianity. I still consider myself a Christian (albeit, by the measuring rod of many of the Christians I grew up amongst, probably a heretical one), but we must – absolutely must – separate any belief we may have in God, from belief in the Bible. Despite how adamantly or loudly any person may claim it, belief in the Bible as the Word of God is not a prerequisite to faith in the Christian God. If faith in God has any merit at all, so be it, but the Bible deserves only carefully measured regard.

In the second chapter of John, Jesus, being unhappy with the goings-on within the religious circles of his day, made the statement that if the temple were destroyed he would rebuild it in three days. A couple verses later (v. 21), a clarifying note was added explaining that he was actually talking about his own body. I don't see that John had a basis for making this assumption. It makes better sense in context with the story, and indeed within the broader context of Jesus' life goals, to believe that he meant just what he said - it was probably still a metaphorical statement, but meant to apply to the religious establishment of the day rather than his own body. The message? It would be easier to start with nothing than to fix what was there. If he were alive today, I believe Jesus would say something similar regarding the Bible - and for the same reasons; Destroy this book, and I will rewrite it in three days.

The value of the Bible is in its overarching message, but rarely in its teachings. Yes, this statement requires more explanation, and it is forthcoming.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

The Message the Disciples Could Not Grasp

2011-05-17T17:54:00.062-05:00

This is the second post in a short series on Christianity. To view the previous post, click here.

Shortly before Jesus died, he gathered some of his disciples together for an important meeting. He told them that despite the few years they had spent together, there were many things he wished to share with them but couldn’t because they would be unable to bear his words. He then went on to reassure them, explaining that a new comforter (the Holy Spirit) would be sent to continue teaching them after his death (John 16).

Even for a book as full of oddities as the Bible, this seems strange. As a young man, I wondered what this secret message could have been. What words, what knowledge could be so revealing, so powerful and full of mystery that a person would be unable to bear them? What did it even mean to be unable to bear words?

Well, it has now been roughly 2000 years since that meeting and there is good news: We no longer have to guess what Jesus was unable to share, or the reasons – we know. No, I'm not going to launch into a silly, pseudo-scholarly attempt to guess at the very words Jesus chose not to say that day; but believe it or not, the message itself is no longer a mystery – or shouldn't be.

As most of us know, Jesus came bearing a new message of salvation (we’ll look at what that message actually was in another post). During the short years of his ministry, he did his best to impart this new message to a group of men (the disciples), who were instructed to continue preaching it even after his own death (Mark 16). To a certain degree, that's what happened.

The problem was that the Jewish culture, even then, was a product of thousands of years of conditioning. The many traditions, Laws of Moses, and the words of the ancient prophets were so deeply ingrained within them that any new message, anything that did not agree with the traditions that had been taught among them for generations, was grounds for a fight.

Fight, they did.

As a result, this new message of salvation had to be divided into two parts. Jesus knew that to the Jewish people of the day, learning about grace and salvation was not only a matter acquiring new knowledge, but also about abandoning long-held, outmoded beliefs and traditions. Killing people for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), for example, was something Jesus saw as a good candidate for reconsideration (Matthew 12). Of course, there were other good candidates as well. Things like, say, not killing people for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), or cursing their parents (Exodus 21:17), or using the Lord’s name in vain (Leviticus 24:16), or otherwise showing signs of being human. But, I digress.

These radical new notions, brought by this blasphemous man called Jesus, were a challenge to a culture that had excused themselves from the weight of these injustices for hundreds of years through the miracles of religion. If a man is put to death for breaking the laws of the prophets, that was that. No one had to feel bad (or think at all) about killing someone if a law that everyone plainly accepted said to do it. Sadly - more than sad, really - this kind of thinking is still a common disease among many cultures around the globe today. Were it not for the gravity of these ridiculous tenets, they would almost be comical.

Still, we must understand that these ideas were not considered controversial or blasphemous based on whether they were good or bad. That had little to do with it. In fact, the merits of salvation and grace (think, tolerance) weren't the problem. The question wasn’t whether they were morally good or bad, but whether they aligned with the law. No one presumed to question whether the law was right - those laws were (sadly) thought to be the very words of God. Morality was not the issue; adherence to the Law was everything. Period. Get caught working on the Sabbath and you were dead. No one would stand up to defend you, since doing so would be, in itself, an act against the words of God.

So, we see that Jesus was incredibly bold when he came along and arrogantly proclaimed that the emperor was wearing no clothes. Intermixed within the message of Salvation was the implication that the ancient Hebrews had had it wrong. People could not be reconciled to God by sacrificing animals, or vainly attempting to abide by harsh, unyielding and unforgiving strictures that were admittedly impossible to keep (Ezekiel 20:25). Jesus said that treating others as you would wish to be treated was the summation of the laws and the prophets; and that he didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it - to end it. His message was a cool breeze of reason. Jesus knew that the laws had to go, and he was willing to die for the cause.

Things didn’t end well for him. Tell a powerful and high ranking official that the basis of his authority should be dissolved, and the only thing left to do is verify that he has your correct name and address so he can send yearly birthday cards to you. Indeed, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, whose very stations of authority were built upon the ancient Hebrew laws, were not on the short list to become early adopters of Salvation by grace. Jesus was declared a blasphemer deserving of death, and eventually received it.

What is just as interesting about the horribly difficult task that Jesus and his disciples undertook, is the blatant hypocrisy they encountered among those who opposed them. These people saw their own opposition to Jesus as the moral high-ground. They were defending the Law and the very Jewish ways of life. Yet, when the Apostle Paul returned to Jerusalem from his tour de force of taking the Gospel message to the Gentiles some years after Jesus’ death, it wasn’t the breaking of any particular law that almost got him strung up; it was his claim that not only was Salvation true, but that it had now been extended to the Gentiles.

Whew! Things were clearly out of control and getting worse. Jesus, that trouble maker, was finally put down, and now other rouges and their free-thinking followers were continuing the outrage. They were claiming that others (non-Jews) could become followers of the God of Israel just like them.

This proved to be too much. Paul had to run for his life (again).

These same people who were incensed at Paul's message seemed willing to overlook the detail that according to the very same laws and texts that they claimed to revere so deeply, God had reached out to other peoples many times before. Ruth had not been a Jew. Nebuchadnezzar was not a Jew, but had a relationship with God (despite the fact that most modern-day Evangelicals try to play it down). Jonah was sent to save the Assyrian empire, who were clearly not Jews.

What gives? If the God of the prophets had reached out to the Assyrians, why couldn’t he reach out to the Gentiles? The reason was simple. By that time, the words of the prophets had had more than ample time to harden into concrete, beyond the possibility of change or question. Nothing new, on the other hand, could be tolerated. Who was this Jesus character, or this John the Baptist, or Saul who now called himself, what, Paul? Who could be crazy enough to listen to any of them?

In that day, not many.

So, what was it that Jesus couldn’t tell his disciples that day? Well, here's part of it, and more will follow.

Jesus knew that to fully embrace Salvation, any person must be willing to abandon everything. Today, we sometimes can’t get past thinking of these kinds of things in monetary terms, but that’s not it at all. Jesus was trying to say, you’re gonna have to learn a new way of thinking. You have to know that morality is fluid - but not entirely subjective. It is the guiding imperative of creatures of conscience, not the writings of men centuries dead who sacrificed animals to their God before going into battle (I Samuel 13:9-12). Who stupidly wrote words like, “do not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18),” not knowing, and probably incapable of caring, that those unforgivable words would, centuries later, cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent women during the years of the Church’s inquisitions. That a man is far too valuable to put to death because he makes a mistake, even if we give in to the notion that working on the Sabbath is sin.

To view the next post in this discussion, click here.

Christianity is broken. Perhaps I can help.

2011-05-14T16:30:00.002-05:00

In what may be my most presumptuous blog so far, I've decided to write about something that I've silently watched from the sidelines for quite a long time. I'm having a bit of trouble putting a finger on the reasons I feel compelled to wade into this topic, but in the end, it probably boils down to simply growing weary of seeing so many people struggle with something that has such a clear explanation.

Over the past 20 to 30 years, Christianity has taken quite a beating in terms of public opinion, and even tolerance. Every person is entitled to an opinion, of course, regardless of whether it happens to be favorable towards religion and Christianity or it isn't. But something bothers me about the whole thing, which is that Christianity seems to be losing its public relations battle for the wrong reasons.

Unless I have completely abandoned myself to paranoia, Christianity is now an object of disdain to mainstream media. Beyond this is the even more perplexing problem that Christianity itself is so often mischaracterized, and even misunderstood, by many of the very people who proclaim it.

This has forced me to realize that much of the ire that Christianity seems to draw from the media, and even large segments of the population, is justified. It is justified because it is directed towards a poorly constructed effigy of what Christianity actually is, or should be.

If ever increasing numbers of people turn their backs on the Christian faith, feeling as though they have somehow outgrown it - so be it; but they should do so with benefit of a clearer understanding of what they are rejecting.

To view the next post on this topic, click here.

Safer Nuclear Reactors

2011-03-17T19:40:00.030-05:00

If I understand the problem of nuclear meltdowns correctly, they are essentially just what they seem. Some breakdown in a cooling system causes the fuel rods within the reactors to heat up, spiraling out of control until they become too hot for the containment systems designed to hold them. Once containment fails, radioactive contamination spills from the reactor into the surrounding atmosphere.

Not good.

I've learned that in 2009, BP drilled the deepest oil well in the world, at 35,055 feet (more than 6 1/2 miles). I'm wondering if it would be feasible to include, beneath all new nuclear reactors, a shaft into which out-of-control fuel rods could be ejected in the event of a meltdown. Certainly, doing so would be a last resort, but when I think about which I would prefer; melting fuel rods in my backyard or those same fuel rods more than six miles under it, the answer comes to me with remarkable clarity.

I don't know how much it would cost to drill such a shaft, but I'm inclined to think that it would be far less expensive than drilling an actual oil well for a couple reasons. First, there would be no need to worry about locating and eventually recovering oil from it. Second, although I imagine that a non-trivial amount of effort would go into finding suitable locations for them, drilling the actual shafts would not require the accuracy of an oil well (maybe this is just an aspect of the first point).

Although I haven't heard of it, the idea may not be new - it seems obvious enough. Either way, here is an overview of how it might work.

1) All new nuclear reactors would include an underlying fuel rod ejection shaft as shown below. A plug made of concrete, lead (shielded from the heat in some way) or other suitable material would be placed at the bottom of the shaft. But, then again, maybe no plug is necessary. Maybe the hot fuel rods would just melt through the concrete too, and if they keep melting their way downward, probably all the better.

2) If the reactor threatens to meltdown, the out-of-control fuel rods would be ejected into the shaft by some automated means. Maybe the automation could be nothing more sophisticated than the rods simply melting through the bottom of the reaction chamber as shown below.

3) Finally, additional concrete (or other material) is pumped into the shaft to seal in the rods after they cool (if they ever cool).

Christina Aguilera's National Anthem at Superbowl XLV

2011-02-07T14:32:00.024-06:00

If I have the date right, it was on October 29, 1993, that I heard Stephen King on National Public Radio speaking as a guest for the National Press Club. Not surprisingly, King turned out to be a good speaker, so before I knew it I was listening with interest.

Somewhere around the mid-point of his talk he began recalling an event from earlier in his life, which he later recognized as a pivotal moment in his writing career – the point at which he first accepted the possibility that he may be typed as a horror writer. What was just as interesting is what he went on to say about that moment – not necessarily about becoming a horror writer, but how he viewed the moment itself. Hopefully, I'll get close to what he said:

There are times that come in a person's life that are watershed moments, which come and go fairly quickly, but change everything after them. In most cases we don't realize it when they happen. They come and go with the same kind of humdrum quality as the rest of our lives, and it is only later that we recognize them for what they were.

I've had a few of those, as I suspect you have too. When I was a teenager, I overheard my dad talking with my mom about something that happened to him at work one day. He was a plumber, and while working on a job a supervisor told him to slow down, presumably, so the company could charge the customer for more time. My dad's response was, “I've got one speed.”

That statement impacted my life more than an awful lot of Sunday School lessons ever did. I didn't realize it at the time, of course, I just chewed on it for a while – I guess I still am.

Another one happened at a basketball game during my senior year in high school. Back then, I played saxophone in the school's pep band, which performed at most of the home games. A balcony tucked conveniently behind one of the basketball goals made a perfect place for our small group to play.

One evening our team was getting trounced. So, part way through the first half one of the band members found a newspaper, and each of us took a section out of it and lined up along the front of the balcony, papers open, to show that we weren't happy with our team. My band teacher was a wise man. He didn't get onto us, he simply came over and said, “Just remember this when people start doing it to you.”

Those words found their mark much faster than a berating ever could have. In seconds, the papers were gone.

So, now we have Christina Aguilera, who missed some words while singing the national anthem at Superbowl XLV. Yes, it's news worthy. What has surprised me, though, is how many harsh comments I've heard about it.

The same thing always comes to mind when I hear people overreact to things like this: We're all just one mistake away from being the next person in their crosshairs. If they'll attack another person for an honest mistake, they'll do it to me, and they'll do it to you.

This page has been relocated to my physics blog

2010-12-28T13:17:00.135-06:00

I've moved this post to my new physics blog. Click here to view.

Choices and Gates

2010-04-22T12:28:00.001-05:00

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of morality and philosophy. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

To understand the concepts of truth beyond the most superficial level requires something of an appreciation for subtlety. Not just a grasp on the notion of subtlety, but the ability and willingness to peer into it.

The very same poem that brings one person to tears can be unceremoniously dismissed as nonsense by someone else. Who can say then, whether there is value in the poem? Clearly, at least one person believes there is. The point here is that even a person who does not care for poetry limits himself if he unwilling to accept that poetry has value, even though he himself does not value it.

Few things are more startling or final than the haste with which a person who does not understand or appreciate a thing can dismiss it. That people do this is beyond common. Essentially, these decision points, the places where we make these choices, are gates that we either choose to pass through or ignore. They are the moments we either decide that we are satisfied with what we know, or admit that there may be worthwhile things that we do not.

At any point along the path of understanding, a person can easily decide that anything beyond the point where he stands is nonsense, and then simply step off of it. Indeed, one of the perils of this road is how easy it is to leave it. Often there is little penalty in doing so beyond the forfeiture of the rewards of the journey itself.

The choice to ignore opportunities of learning is a bold thing - it is a statement of sorts, that the knowledge we have is sufficient. We can do this, sometimes even unknowingly, for many reasons. If we think we know better than what we imagine to lie beyond a particular gate, then we do not believe we are turning away from a legitimate gate at all, we are only filtering out nonsense. If the gate offers evidence that disagrees with our beliefs, then we can dismiss it merely as a conflicting view. If we think we already know what lies beyond a gate, then we can even feel a rush of superiority in dismissing it.

The reasons can go on and on. Maybe a lifetime of privilege has led to a sense of entitlement, which has then led to the belief that all knowledge is to subject to the rule of authority. There is even the complication that sometimes these scenarios are valid (some of them, anyway). But, we must know that even in cases when they are, they are only valid as instances, not as overarching attitudes of living.

All of us have passed through gates. Some are behind us and others are ahead of us. Once we pass through them, we are then faced with questions of doubt and certainty. We must arrive at some assessment of what we have actually gained. Have we learned something or haven't we?

Absolute certainty is a product of a made-up mind, a conclusion reached at the end of thought. When we are certain of something, we believe we know it. What could seem more natural or correct than this? Learning is a big part of the journey of life. We accumulate experiences and knowledge, and our lives improve as a result.

But, there is a complication in this, and it happens to be the very kind of complication that can be easily brushed aside. It is a gate of the very type that I spoke about in the opening paragraphs of this post.

To be continued.

Law and Theory, Certainty and Doubt

2010-04-19T14:08:00.000-05:00

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of morality and philosophy. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

Having droned on (in my previous posts) about the necessity of finding the basic laws upon which the tenets of logic and truth are based, I must now clarify what I mean by the term law. After all, the term can mean a few different things.

With respect to social conduct, laws are rules by which our behavior is governed - we abide by them or face consequences. But there is a rather obvious and fundamental difference between this type of law and the basic physical laws that are the goal of our pursuit, which is that the laws of government can be broken. They are, in a way, artificial - they are creations of humankind. We can, for example, choose to break the laws of the land (if only to a small degree) by driving faster than the speed limit, but we cannot simply decide to break the laws of gravity.

In context with these blog posts, my use of the word law is in reference to the physical laws of nature. Physical laws are not very much like social laws at all, they are more like descriptions of physical attributes of nature - they explain why things are as they are, why the Universe behaves as it does. But oddly enough, this discussion is not about physics, it's about philosophy - the philosophies of truth, logic and morality. This means that even more clarification is needed.

Most people of science know that we no longer declare our observations of physical phenomena to be laws (I am not a scientist). In the past, when some new or important concept of science was discovered and finally understood well enough to be thoroughly described, that description was framed in the form of a law. As a result, we now have the Newtonian Laws of Gravitation, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, and so on.

In more recent years the field of science has learned that it is a bit presumptuous to proclaim anything we believe we understand about nature to be a law. Instead, we now produce theories, such as the Theory of Relativity, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Theory of Evolution. Had Newton lived today (purposely overlooking the various complications with the notion), the Law of Gravitation would most likely be known as the Theory of Gravitation.

What happened?

Surprisingly, we'll see that this seeming change of attitude by the men and women of science is not only a matter of humility. In fact, it is at this very juncture that our discussion begins to tend back towards philosophy. Like the rays of colored light that converge at a single point of white within a prism, the principles of physics and philosophy intersect where the absolute certainties of law rise to the even more powerful realization of doubt. The absolutes that were previously considered to be the most affirmative notions of fact are now seen as the far weaker and more ignorant of the two. This can seem counter-intuitive to say the least.

I must quickly point out that this insight, that certainty is lesser to uncertainty, is not mine, it was recognized long ago. But, we must take a few moments to understand it before moving on. It really is quite fascinating.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

Elemental Philosophy

2010-04-01T08:17:00.000-05:00

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of morality and philosophy. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

How can we postulate something new and do it in a way that allows us to know, or at least reasonably conclude, that our premise is valid? Surprisingly, there may be a way. If we return to the initial premise of truth and morality that I outlined in the first post of this series, we can see that some questions need not be entirely subjective. There is, in fact, a non-subjective foundation beneath us. We all share it.

Remember, the premise of what I am calling the Truth Model, is that truth is a logical expression of the very same laws that underlie and govern the physical properties of the Universe. This means that, although our conclusions may be subjective, the laws upon which they are ultimately based are not. The question then, is where and how notions of truth (and even morality) connect to those laws.

It turns out that the answer to this question is not as abstract as we may first imagine.

What are the most fundamental elements of the Universe? This question could be answered in many ways - all of them correct. What can be termed elemental with respect to matter is bound to be different than what qualifies as elemental in, say, music, or writing. Maybe atoms, quarks, or strings are elemental forms of matter, but in the end, we find that they are not elemental enough. What are atoms made of? What are quarks and strings made of? Why do they behave as they do?

These questions tell us that there always seems to be something else, something more elemental, more basic, that holds the secrets that explain the more complex structures that are formed from them. So we look at a grain of sand and know that it is made of something more basic: molecules, and then atoms, and then protons, and then, what? In the end we find that our search becomes abstract, we have come to the end of the physical expression of a law (or laws) and must now attempt to understand the law itself.

This is fascinating stuff. We know that the forces and influences of nature can, if they follow certain courses, produce butterflies and flowers, people and elephants. They also produce rocks and water, planets and stars, but what are the similarities? What properties do they possess that give evidence to the common underlying influences that produced them. Furthermore, can we throw abstract notions into this mix? Can we say that the forces of nature can lead to the existence of butterflies, rocks, planets and truth?

A butterfly's design demonstrates principles of flight, some measure of aerodynamics, and even thought. These are highly evolved attributes, and none of them seem the least bit alien to us. We simply identify them as reasonable evolutionary adaptations - products of environment and nature.

Living creatures produce organs that are sensitive to light (eyes) as a result of having evolved in the presence of light. Some creatures evolve to leverage the wind for travel by developing wings, while others grow stronger legs that can carry them more effectively across the ground. Furthermore, we know that the intellectual capacity of a creature verses its purely instinctive behavior is often (if not always) a function of the demands of the environment in which it evolves.

So, now we reach the crux of the matter. Just as creatures can exhibit diverse physical attributes, even when they evolve in similar environments, there are also various shapes and forms of intellect. There are even different degrees of aggression. Predatory animals tend to have forward-looking eyes, while their prey tend to have eyes pointing away from one another, allowing them to survey larger areas for threats. But, these differences are not so great that we become unable to identify all of them as animals - we are not likely to confuse any of them with rocks or trees.

Let us now leap forward to consider more intelligent creatures like humans. Having finally separated ourselves from many of the natural concerns of survival that so greatly impact evolution, cultural influences rise to serve as the counterparts to the prior environmental impacts. But, like the ability to identify both predator and prey as animals, can we also see common notions of morality beneath the impacts of culture? Can we peel away cultural influences sufficiently to expose a fundamental basis upon which all moral dispositions rest. Furthermore, is there a basis that is so fundamental as to be truly universal?

There very well may be, but to find it we have to think in basics. The differences between mammals and reptiles, for instance, are distinct, but they are not a good window into the fundamental type of influences we are looking for because they occur at too high a level. They are expressions of higher states of mingling between fundamental laws and the complex, highly evolved environments in which they took shape.

We may even wonder whether these basic laws could be more philosophical. How about the very notion of existence itself? This quickly breaks down as well. The understanding of existence as a philosophical concept is far down the chart in much the same way as our understanding of mammals and reptiles. The ability to arrive at any understanding of existence requires many prerequisites that prove not to be elemental at all. Same goes for things like love, or thought.

No, we need something far more basic. What set of laws constitute the indivisible, non-reducible blueprint underlying everything we see? And of those laws, which are the most basic?

It may be surprising to know that one very familiar law does fill this role. It lies at the heart of all that we see (physical), and all that we know (logical)^*. Arguably, it is the fundamental hinge around which physical and moral truth turn. And what may be even more surprising is that our connections to it are not as abstract as may appear on first blush. There are fairly concrete connections between this law, this fundamental behavior and nature of the Universe, and all logic, objectivism, morality, truth and logic.

And what is this law? Gravitation.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

* This space is actually shared by other fundamental elements as well, but we'll get to them in a later post.

Morality: Who is Qualified to Think?

2009-12-18T12:54:00.000-06:00

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Morality. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

Among the principles we must recognize early on is that knowledge itself can be characterized, perceived and handled in an infinite number of ways. Indeed, the subject is vast and complex enough to have consumed the lifetimes of more than a few philosophers.

When we look back through history at the contributions of some of the great men and women who have contemplated the depths and complexities of life, from Aristotle's Causality to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, we can wonder whether it is presumptuous to even consider approaching the subjects ourselves. But in the end, we must each resolve never to defer to others, or confer upon others, the exclusive right or privilege to contemplate this world and its deeper meanings; the inclination to do so is its only qualification. Yet, we must also know that although this statement seems somewhat general and non-binding, it is actually quite specific; a proper inclination is essential.

It is certainly no secret that in virtually every case throughout history where knowledge has advanced, or where outmoded beliefs have been abandoned, it is because certain brave individuals ventured to set themselves apart from the crowds (often at great personal risk). In many cases, these people suffered ridicule for doing so, for being brash and bold enough to call established and cherished precepts into question. Even more unfortunately, very often it is only later generations, armed with the benefit of hindsight, that are able to see the full worth of their contributions to humanity and the world.

Unfortunately, all of this leads to a bit of a quandary. If some new idea or concept is rejected by the greater populous, it can be difficult, or even contemporarily impossible to know whether it is because its promoter is too progressive, or whether his ideas are simply without merit. Once we notice that a common hallmark of progress includes the willingness to venture away from conformity, we can then mistakenly ascribe more weight to it than we should.

We cannot reject conformity only for the sake of doing so and expect that the result will be progress, or believe that simply abandoning accepted precepts makes any person a creative contributor of anything. In fact, society has already devised an apt label for any such individual: a rebel without a cause.

The distinction between those who reject any form of conformity as a matter of personality, and those of true creative capacity can often be identified in a specific way: Creativity does not generally lie in the act of rejecting anything, but rather in embracing something new or true. Individuals who refuse to give up on a truth only because others cannot see it, or because it contradicts the accepted notions of the day, are the very same who change the world.

But there is also a danger here, which is somewhat opposite of the question of simple rebellion; it is the question of competence. Even if the inclination to ponder this life is the only qualification required to attempt it, the capacity to do so is another story altogether. Some may not be of a rebellious nature, but have a great deal of tenacity. In this, such a person can persist in driving his ideas forward on the strength of his character, but error in his inability to objectively evaluate his own motives or the merits of his cause.

Indeed, the greatest problem of incompetence is not that some of us are incompetent, but that the incompetent do know know who they are (or, perhaps objectivity demands that I reword this as, who we are). When competence is coupled with tenacity it is a great thing; but incompetence, when it is coupled with that same tenacity, can be treacherous.

The view the next post in this series, click here.

Morality: Forward Thinking

2009-12-18T12:39:00.001-06:00

What are social laws? What do they attempt to express? What are they an expression of? What attributes of nature do they attempt to articulate? Are they the attempt to write in words, the implied nature of truth and morality. Are they attempts to express instances of the innate wisdom inherent to physical nature?

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to these questions.

Each person must resolve never to defer to others, or confer upon others the exclusive right to observe and draw conclusions. Read and think – all of us are fully qualified to do so.

Oddly, the very notion of identity is subjective. An object is what it is. Then we arrive on the scene and recognize that it has certain unique characteristics. To help us identify it, we then declare that it is A. This is convenient, we can now refer to it as A from that point forward. Then in our arrogance, we further stipulate that A can never be B, and that A is A. But these are only the semantic constructs of the very language we use to identify it. They are only the rules of our language of logic, and the object we are subjecting to our conclusions are neither bound by them or aware of them.

But all of this is shortsighted. By saying that A is A, Ayn Rand was clearly choosing not to declare a specific identity for anything, but only to declare a principle of types that can be equally applied to virtually anything. A can be a man or a cat.

Yes, a rose is a rose is a rose. The true identify of a thing can only be established by itself. It is what it is. When we fail to distinguish between the subjective identifications we ascribe to things and their true self-established natures is where our objectivism breaks down.

I believe that among the loftiest achievements of enlightenment is to acquire the rare ability to ask oneself a simple question, regardless of how cherished a belief or conviction: Could I be wrong? Asking this question does not mean that we will always be wrong (in fact, hopefully we will rarely be wrong), but the ability to recognize, and not succumb to the weakness of refusing to accept the possibility of being wrong is a sign of enlightenment.

I find that, like religious fundamentalism, every work of merit immediately becomes encircled by groups of people who adopt a posture that the measure of any person's enlightenment is the extent to which he learns and adheres to some great body of truths that have been established by a revered person.

I have been exposed to more than a few people who profess objectivisim, but then come near berating others who disagree with them in terms that are strikingly similar to the way fundamentalist Christians condemn anyone who disagrees with them. Many people speak of Ayn Rand in the same dogmatic tones that Christians speak of the Apostle Paul.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand, and I largely agree with her philosophy. But, each person must resolve never to defer to others, or confer upon others the exclusive right or privilege to observe and draw conclusions about this world, or about life. Read and think – all of us are fully qualified to do so. We will not always agree.

I have found that the most dogmatic believers in anything also believe themselves to be the most enlightened. In fact, the opposite most often seems to be true. Unfortunately, there is only one person in the world who will ever be able to convince him otherwise, if he is lucky, and that is the older, wiser version of himself that will surface at some point in his future.

The statement that there is a God is a grand one.
I agree (with what I think you are saying). I believe that among the tenets of any enlightened philosophy, one of the most important is to achieve the ability to always consider the possibility of being wrong.

What is good, and what isn't?

Most of us can answer questions like this rather easily. Surprisingly, although it may not seem so on the surface, the question of how we arrive our conclusions is actually far from simple. In fact, this question is among the most basic of morality: how can we say when something is good or it isn't?

Religion based on truth, verses religion based on declarative absolutes.

Indeed, a defining characteristic distinguishing the enlightened from those less so, is a departure from the search for facts, and the further knowledge that the greatest pinnacle of insight is the search for the patterns of understanding. This is dogmatism verses wisdom. Purpose over law. Insight over mere fact.

Dogmatists looks to the writings of the insightful for tangible and concrete laws to follow, which they assume to be meant to govern all behavior. What he does not see is that those instructions are the products - expressions of insights, they are not themselves, insight. Wise teachings are like sitting at the mouth of a river; one can see the product of the river and gain many insights from it, but can never understand the ways and paths of the river by seeing only its end. Their purpose can only serve as guideposts for other of insight to follow on the path to achieve illumination of their own, nothing more.

In fact, these insights are not even windows through which we can pass; they are only guideposts along the path.

Facts may not be fluid, but knowledge is. So, most writings of the insightful are known by their writers to be transitive.

Philosophies based on idealism verses experience.

Morality: Truth Model Fundamentals

2009-11-06T09:50:00.000-06:00

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Morality. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here.

The structure of the Truth Model is simple, yet its implications and lessons are exhaustively far-reaching. Just as a simple hand-held calculator possesses a bounded set of capabilities (addition, subtraction, etc.), but is nonetheless able to apply those capabilities to an infinite number and variety of problems, the Truth Model also has wide applicability. We clearly understand that the calculator's manufacturer did not explicitly build every possible solution into the device, but instead constructed it with mechanisms that implement established principles of mathematics in ways that can be applied to any applicable set of arguments. So, although the circuitry and physical aspects of the calculator itself can be described in finite terms, its potential applications are entirely unbounded.

The Truth Model establishes a fabric of knowledge that is similarly unbounded. But, just as the calculator guarantees correct answers to any specific mathematical problem, but nonetheless cannot guarantee that its user correctly applies those answers to any larger problem, the Truth Model can also give answers within a bounded scope that are ultimately incorrect within a larger one. Success in applying the model ultimately boils down to the observer's objectivism, agenda and breadth of knowledge.

The Truth Model approaches the perception of reality from three fundamental dispositions; factual, moral and spiritual. However, these should not be regarded as different subjects within the model, but instead, simply as perspectives from which it can be viewed. The model presents differing, but not conflicting solution sets to an observer based on the emphasis and contexts that the observer brings to bear upon it.

The categorizations of factual, moral and spiritual perceptions then, are not part of the Truth Model knowledge base itself, but constitute the rules by which knowledge is interpreted. But, even these categorizations are not precisely defined; they are only approaches that can be applied according to varying judgments by any given observer. In the end, the only validation that any observational disposition is correct is that its conclusions may differ, but not conflict with other conclusions.

This brings to light the paradox of validation. Conclusions can only be validated against other conclusions, but there can be no guarantee that the entire model has not drifted into incorrectness. Although this is a possibility, the conclusions drawn though the course and pull of different perspectives upon the model will naturally tend towards a center that could only be sabotaged through a concerted effort, or by reason of a pervasive bias among all observers.

In the end, the rules of interpretation then, are established by the observer, but the knowledge upon which his observations are based is shared by all. For example, a simple factual perspective of a given observer may be as follows:

Sample Philosophical Perspective

Reality becomes fact through observation (analog to logical state).
Fact becomes knowledge through understanding (declarative).
Knowledge becomes theory through experimentation (predictability).

Another Example

Reality becomes fact through observation (knowledge, analog state to logical state).
Fact becomes truth through assertion (understanding, logical state, declarative)
Truth becomes right and wrong through subjection.
Right and wrong become morality through wisdom (experience, subjection).
Morality becomes religion through tradition.
Religion becomes practice through interpretation.
Practice becomes faith through insight.

These suppositions need not be agreed upon by any two observers, since their validation is borne out in the conclusions they reach. So, the model becomes the basis upon which the concept of morality can be defined. It will either validate a philosophical perspective if its suppositions are fit, or invalidate it if its conclusions conflict with others to too large a degree.

The next step then, is to understand how decisions are reached - what are the rules that govern how rules are applied?

To view the next post in this series, click here.

Morality: A Universal Foundation

2009-11-05T18:32:00.003-06:00

Having read Ayn Rand's, Atlas Shrugged recently, I now feel compelled to express some of my own concepts of morality, which I have been musing over for many years now.

My search for a fundamental basis upon which all moral judgment and behavior ultimately rests began several years ago, in the late 1990's. All along, my approach has been to first attempt to understand whether the notion of universal morality, and even truth, is possible at all.

The concept of Universal Truth certainly is not new, but what the term means to me seems to be slightly different from the definition that has formed beneath it over the past few centuries - since the days when the church first decided that, like virtually any other expression of intellect, Universal Truth is essentially evil.

In a nutshell, the premise upon which most of my assertions rest is that the elemental building blocks of morality and truth can be identified, and that they constitute an alphabet of sorts, with which the concepts of morality and truth can be spelled out. I call this elemental alphabet, the Truth Model.

I am sometimes less fond of the label Truth Model, than I am at other times. I've experimented with other labels here and there, considering terms such as Logic Graph, or even Alphabet of Truth; but as you may be gathering for yourself at this moment, Truth Model seems to be the lesser of all these evils.

So, here is the ultimate basis of my philosophical approach, which I will expound upon in upcoming posts.

The Truth Model is a structured body of knowledge, which is based upon the premise that the very Universe itself is an expression of a fundamental, identifiable and immutable set of characteristics that together, form the basis of everything we can know and understand about its nature.

Unlike mainstream science, which looks to ever smaller constituents of the Universe to understand its construction and makeup, the Truth Model asserts that (metaphorically) beneath even the smallest physical elements are governing laws of which those physical elements are only an expression. And, like physical elements whose behavior we understand and predict based on our knowledge of those laws; the general body of truth itself is also a symptom, or projection of the same underlying laws seen not in terms of the physical, but the logical.

To view the next post in this series on morality, click here.

Thought Process

2009-10-07T14:41:00.001-05:00

Over the past few years I've put together, and tweaked from time to time, a high-level diagram of the thought process. Diagrams of this sort can be found here and there on the Internet, but I don't agree with any of the ones I've seen.Here's my go at it (click on the image to enlarge):

Somewhere Over the Rainbow

2009-09-20T12:04:00.008-05:00

Sometimes I look online for chords to songs, but usually find that although fake books and online sources give passable chords, they are often the vanilla versions (major chords, a seventh here and there, maybe a minor). So, I usually come up with my own.

Somewhere Over the Rainbow is a particularly interesting tune when played with the right chords, but surprisingly mundane otherwise. I've seen it listed in many places, but never like the chord progressions posted for it. So, for anyone interested, here's how I play the verse of the song, which is where the most interesting chord progressions are.

Fingerings for some of the less-obvious chords that I use are shown below.

Although I listed the C7 as a C7 for clarity (above), it is probably more accurate to call it an Am7/Bb in context with the song.
Note that on the Bb 9, I generally cover the 5th and 6th strings with my thumb because the nut makes it difficult to get a clear ring otherwise. In fact, when there's time within a song, I tend to finger any 9th chord using my thumb where possible, because it is usually easier to get a clean sound over using the more common fingering shown in the C9 chord above. For this, I'll cover the 5th and 6th strings with my thumb (T), the 4th string with my index finger (1) and the first through 3rd strings with my ring finger (3).

As a matter of taste, sometimes it works well to omit the C7 on the first verse, and save it for emphasis on the later ones. To omit, just stay on the C.

Bass walk down on the A string (5th string): C → B → A. A simple Am works too.
Bass walk up on the E string (6th string): E → F# → G.
A simple Am works well here too. I tend to mix them up.
A Dm works here as well, but I prefer the Dm7.

Even more spice...

For a fuller sound, play the C chord as C/G as your taste dictates.
Replace the Dm7 over the word Once above with a regular Dm, but move to Dm7 on the next beat for an interesting transition into the G7.

By the way, it is important not to rush. The song should have a very slow, steady cadence with no up-strums.

If anyone has suggestions to make this even better, I'd like to hear about them.

Waxing Poetic

2009-08-04T17:31:00.018-05:00

Quotes I've written over the years.

A grievance is often greater than the sum of its parts.

May your destination be as pleasant after you arrive.

The true king of beasts is the dog, for having befriended man.

Adding good deeds to our behavior does not change our nature.

Adding good deeds to our behavior does not change our nature, but a purified nature bears out in every deed.

In the deepest places of fear, loneliness and regret, where one can only go alone, there is a great company, also there alone.

A lifetime of humility earns subtle rewards. A moment of arrogance brings tangible correction.

No one’s hunger pains are as bad as our own.

If you are an enlightened individual, you are not necessarily the most representative example of humanity.

There is no joy in giving to a selfish person.

Write a sentence or correct a sentence every day.

There is an emptiness, a remorse for things that could have been or should not have been, that the human heart can only look upon in silence.

If all goes well, the joy is in the moment, otherwise the joy is in the memories.

Don't give me what I ask for, give me what I want.

Do not rely too heavily on prior conclusions. Rethink often.

I watched my small dog chase a rabbit from my backyard on a brutally cold winter's night. The rabbit darted away, easily passing between the narrow fence boards.

Lucky was much too large to follow; he stood sniffing after it, the picture of health, up to date on his shots and medications, knowing he would soon return to the warmth of his home.

How must it feel to be unencumbered with the plights of others, or never to notice that the white sheen of your coat clashes with the realities of this world?