A Testimony of Current Culture

Dr. Everett Piper presents a commentary on current culture. He is the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. If you would like the read the entire blog post click HERE. After reading the posts below I predict you will want to read the entire blog post. Enjoy!

"This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable."

"I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization."

"So here’s my advice: If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.
If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them."

I have read no greater commentary on current culture to date. This is where we are, like it or not! Blessings!

The New American Religion

This story regarding football and prayer should make Christians and non-Christians alike furious.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter asking Chancellor Roger Brown of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) about what group Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor described as "unlawful university sponsorship of Christian prayer." UTC ended up moving away from prayer and to a moment of silence, bowing to the pressure of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, but was this necessary?

A visit to the Freedom from Religion Foundation website will introduce you to the religion of atheism, with its own monuments and marquees. The website openly promotes the religion of atheism in all its glory.

A religion, by definition, is a system of organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems and worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence. Atheism is, by all accounts, a religion, and the proof is right there on the Freedom of Religion Foundation's own website. Atheism is a systematic organized collection of beliefs that related to an ordered existence. There are churches forming and monuments being built celebrating Atheists, and organizations like the Freedom form Religion Foundation are actively requiting converts to their cause.

If there is to be a true separation of church and state then is not that separation from all forms of organized religion? Or, are the Freedom from Religion Foundation and other groups like them merely discriminating against Christians? Either they have special considerations or atheism has become the new American religion.

Reactionary Science

We are a reactionary people living in a complex time, and scientists are no different.

The vacuum catastrophe and the response to it point to how our tendencies to react have become even part of science.

Mario Livio, a prominent scientist, refers to the vacuum catastrophe as embarrassing to science because of the  discrepancy between measured results and calculated results.

The story elaborates, " The embarrassment Livio referred to is sometimes known as the vacuum catastrophe. Truly empty space, sucked dry of any air or particles, still has an inherent energy to it, according to observations, Livio said. But when scientists use theories of quantum mechanics to try and calculate this vacuum energy, their results differ from the measured results by about 120 orders of magnitude, or the number 1 followed by 120 zeros."

So, what is science's response to this mistake in calculations? Is it to admit the mistake and examine calculation methodology? Well, not exactly. Read for yourself...

"With three other prominent astrophysicists on the panel, Livio delved into one of the most confounding (and embarrassing) problems in modern astrophysics, which led to a discussion of whether or not our universe might be just one of - an infinite number of multiverses - and whether a theory of the multiverse is good or bad for science."

And the explanation of multiverses is even more reactionary...

"The reason a multiverse might solve this problem is that it could suggest the vacuum energy is "a random variable," Livio said. Meaning, it isn't derived from a physical principle that scientists can figure out, but rather it was determined randomly. If there are many, many other universes in existence (perhaps an infinite number), then with the creation of so many universes, the variables could change a little for each one."

To suggest that vacuum energy is a random variable is, in essence, allowing anything and everything, reducing science to a mystical religion with no consistency or foundation. 

In essence, a theory of multiverses admits no mistake at all and creates a theory that offers a plausible explanation of why their calculations were wrong. This is the perfect snapshot of modern science and why it is as reactionary as everything else.

I encourage you to read the entire story HERE. It is fascinating! 

A Christian Lament: The World in Which We Live

The world in which we live is stranger than fiction; it is more bizarre than a nightmare.

It is a world where we value choice more than life, and fiction more than reality.

It is a world where truth is sacrificed for convenience, and honor has been all but forgotten.

It is a world where freedom has become equality, and where liberty has become illegal.

We live to be left alone, that is, at least enough, to be able to do what we want. Ignorance is bliss as we would rather not get involved in anything that will make us stand for something.

We crave the grey and avoid the colors. We fear questions as they demand answers. And, answers force us out into the sunlight when we would rather stay in the dark.

We are a people who test the wind to see which way it blows. We think the wind leads to the truth that we seek when it merely reveals the direction of the crowd.

We worship ourselves and call it real. We worship our ideas and call them new. We discard other ideas in favor of our own and call them better.

We like the future because we cannot be held responsible for it. We look to the future because it is unrealized. We worship the future because we think we have control of it.

We have become an entity to protect. We have become a commodity to sell. We have become our focus without even realizing it.  

We look at the world in which we live, and we are disgusted by it. Yet, we have become comfortable with being numb to it.

We think that we can live in our corner and avoid it, never realizing that our corner has become that which we have been trying to avoid.

We have become the world in which we live. We sacrifice people for programs. We give only if we get. We are the truth that we seek.

Who are we really worshiping? Who are we really serving? Who are we, really?

The world in which we live... is who we are!

If we do not like this world then we must start with... ourselves!

But, how do we change?

We are new creations. We are temples of the living God. We are a holy people and royal priesthood.

We are creation, created to serve and not be served, created to worship and not be worship and created to love and be loved by someone greater than ourselves.

We are lost, but we can be found. We are blind, but we can see again. We are dead, but we can be made alive.

The change that we seek in the world is really the change that we seek in ourselves.

We must first change.

We must surrender who we are.

We must submit to someone other than ourselves.

We must love everyone except ourselves.

Then, and only then, will we change the world.

The world in which I live is me, and I do not like it.

Therefore, I begin changing the world by changing... ME!
 

The Destruction of Right and Good

W.D. Ross, in What Makes Right Acts Right, presented an analysis on "right" that was utilitarian in nature; although, the utilitarian he referenced had a marked difference as his tendency was to compare it to hedonism. My point in quoting him is not the contrast but the statement he is making on what is "right." 

Ross wrote regarding right, "The real point at issue between hedonism and utilitarianism on the one hand and their opponents on the other is not whether 'right' means 'productive of so and so'; for it cannot with any plausibility be maintained that it does. The point at issue is that to which we now pass, viz. whether there is any general character which makes right acts right, and if so, what it is. Among the main historical attempts to state a single characteristic of all right actions which is the foundation of their rightness are those made by egoism and utilitarianism."

How can anyone even make a claim that there is such a things as "right" in regard to anything today? With the promotion of individualism for capitalistic purposes, any idea of "right" becomes more generic mixing with ideas of what is "good." This leads to preference and tends to evaporate all ideas of right and good. There will be those who try to convince others that "right" is "good" and that which helps the most. Ross addressed that point in the following passage:

"The first form this attempt takes is the attempt to base rightness on conduciveness to the advantage or pleasure of the agent. This theory comes to grief over the fact, which stares us in the face, that a great part of duty consists in an observance of the rights and a furtherance of the interests of others, whatever the cost to ourselves may be. Plato and others may be right in holding that a regard for the rights of others never in the long run involves a loss of happiness for the agent, that 'the just life profits a man'. But this, even if true, is irrelevant to the rightness of the act. As soon as a man does an action because he thinks he will promote his own interests thereby, he is acting not from a sense of its rightness but from self-interest."

Every action without a moral agent is, in essence, a selfish action, which removes it from qualifying as a "right" or a "good" act because, in one way or another, it is a selfish act. Ross pushes the idea of pleasure from a hedonistic position as a product of utilitarianism, but that, for me, does not work either. It merely contributes to the destruction of any kind of good as pleasure is good for the individual only and thus preference. And, that is where I find culture currently... on a path towards the annihilation of those things that are "right" and "good." For that which is truly "right" and "good" is not that which is for self but that which is for others.

Looking at culture today, how hard is it to label something wrong? I would suggest that to label something of substance as wrong is difficult at best in today's culture. Labeling minor things as wrong is much easier but also problematic as the tendency defaults to an apathetic attitude which is a lazy form of preference.

What is good and right? The issue has become an issue of hyper-preference which cannot possibly be considered good or right yet has really become today's "good." And, if that is what good is then true good is already extinct, leaving preference as king and nothing right under the sun. 

 

The Supreme Court

As the concrete was poured in 1935, a court waited for a place to reside. The court was no ordinary court; it was the highest court in the land: the Supreme Court.

Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court; it convened for the first time in 1790 in New York City.

Prior to 1935, the Supreme Court met in New York City, Philadelphia and Washington D.C., always in various buildings or homes, never having a home to call its own.

The Supreme Court was finally given a building of its own in 1935. The building has its own police force, a gym and even a basketball court. It was first known as the court of last resort and has had a hand in shaping the country's history as it rules on constitutionality.

But, one wonders if having a home has changed the court in some way. The home is certainly no ordinary home. It is a spectacular building of concrete and granite, a building fit for a king, if you will. Which begs the question, is the court still a court of justices seeking to determine what the founding fathers would say through the constitution, or have they become royalty, ruling as kings?

Kings rule on high and determine decisions based on their own intellect, reason and feeling. A king is the norm by which he or she rules. Justices seek to rule in a humble and contrite way, desperately struggling to reach a decision that aligns with the founding fathers and the constitution.

Who currently resides in the Supreme Court: kings or justices?

The court is petition by no less than 10,000 cases per year, but they only actual rule on around 80 cases. On first glance, that appears to be quite a variance, but let's look at it in another way. If the court heard 80 cases a year then that would mean they took, on average, 4.5 days for each case.

The question then is this: does it take 4.5 days to rule as a king or to search for constitutionality? You decide.

David Hume and the Power of the Statement

"All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas and matters of fact."

Such a simple statement, yet the power contained in this seemingly innocuous statement is far reaching.

Hume wrote, regarding the first kind (relation of ideas, in reference to sciences and maths. Regarding the second kind (matters of fact), Hume presupposed that all are found in the relation of cause and effect.

Hume used this reasoning as evidence that we can go beyond our memory and senses when it comes to matters of fact but not too far. Hume stayed close enough to memory and the senses so as not to severe ties with both, but ventured far enough away to justify testing the boundaries of both.

Hume assumed that knowledge of this relation is not obtained by reason but instead through experience. By reason, he was referencing a priori knowledge: knowledge that is innate and not marked by experience. Hume proposef that "every effect is a distinct event from its cause." He was stating, quite emphatically, that every effect was rooted in experience because, for him, every effect was an event, and an event began as an experience and ended as one.

Hume was the empiricist whose arguments awoke Immanuel Kant from his slumber. Kant sought to confront Hume's arguments, but Kant, too, was a philosopher, and philosophy, well, what is it really? Why, I believe it is akin to religion without the supernal dimension.

After all, Hume confined reason to the human being by label and by division. He labeled it, as do most, as "human" reason, which, as a label, was fairly solidly tied to the human being. Second, he divided reason into two distinctly human areas: ideas and facts.

We can use Hume's strategy as applied to human reason to do the same in our understanding of philosophy. While Hume proposed two kinds of human reason, he was really only proposing one kind of reason... human. While there are five categories of philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics and esthetics, all are really an approach rooted in mankind as the pinnacle and solution of all.

Statements, whether they are made by the likes of David Hume, who I think has a lot to say on human understanding, or by you and me are powerful. It is my contention that we are all philosophers of sort. We look at the world and make statements about our view of the world by the way we live in response to the world. We may not put these statements in written form, but, just the same, we make statements of meaning that affect others. As Christians, we must be sure of our statements, and we must never under-estimate the power of the statement.

Philosophers understand this better than most. Each is taught to carefully and methodically examine the life and the statement as both are to be connected in consistent ways. Both should reflect each other in the same way a mirror reflects an accurate image of who you are. If you grab another mirror and hold it up while standing in front of a mirror and reflect the image in the mirror, it is going to be you from a different angle. The angle may have changed, but the reflection will, for the most part, be consistently you.

Our statements should be of the same consistency... from different angles but an accurate reflection of who we are, and as Christians, that reflection should be Christ. Yesterday, I did a general survey of Facebook posts. I wanted to see how consistent posts where with the worldviews behind them. I chose four labels for the posts I examined: judgmental, measured, negative and positive. I deemed the labels measured and positive as those I should find from those responding according to worldview, and the labels judgmental and negative as those I should find from those responding according to the situation. Again, not very scientific, but this was just to satisfy my own curiosity.

I spent only an hour looking at posts. At the end of that hour, I tallied my results; I then went to examine the worldviews behind the posts. What I found was that almost every post was a response and a reflection of the situation and NOT of the worldview of the person behind the post. In most situations, if the original post was negative most of the responses, whether in agreement or not, followed that negative path.

Again, not very accurate, but this was only to satisfy my own curiosity, and to make the following point: the power of our statements reflect who we are to others and to us. We tend to become who we consistently are, and Facebook allows us more power in the presentation of who we are than every before.  I personally think it makes us all a bit more egocentric and adds to our already overwhelming addiction to ourselves.

This whole exercise was convicting to me, but it was also confirming that Christ is still hammering away at me each day as I become more like Him. In the gospels, Christ is always a reflection of the Father. At times we get different angles, but He is always reflecting His Father in some way. We, too, must always reflect Christ no matter our angle, our situation or our statements.

Freedom

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."

 

Thomas Sowell

Intolerance

The idea of tolerance is, at best, a slippery slope, but to be honest, I am not even sure it is a slope.

Any idea seeking to deem any other idea as intolerant is, itself, a situation of intolerance or, a situation of exclusion.

There is absolutely no way to define anything exclusionary as tolerant, even if it is only excluding those who are intolerant.

Several years ago Vanderbilt University created a policy that prevented Christian groups from being granted official club status by the university on the basis of their Christian beliefs, which Vanderbilt deemed as intolerant. So, what makes Vanderbilt tolerant and these Christian groups not?     

I will go ahead and admit that I do not think there is such a "thing" as general tolerance. According to progressive thought, to be a "thing" is to be generally empirical, interactive and experienced. Today's tolerance cannot be a thing because it is not consistent or stable in any of those. Instead, it is an attempt at establishing a standard, a temperature or a fever, if you will, and then judging everyone else accordingly, which disqualifies it from being tolerant. It equates to trying to legislate love. That would be impossible because love is not a universal absolute, and neither is general tolerance.

Today's tolerance is really the concealing, disguising and denying of a certain perception while intentionally elevating all others. It is a separation of a certain subject and a certain object from all others, and an exaggeration of all other features and all other qualities over and in response to that certain subject and certain object.

What does it really mean to be tolerant? How do you teach someone to be tolerant? The answers vary according to who is defining the term. Tolerance is discussed and promoted as if it is a universal truth, but is it? I am not convinced that anyone is truly tolerant in the general sense. To be tolerant is to be inclined to tolerate all the beliefs and behaviors of others. It is to be marked by forbearance.

Do any of us possess these abilities on our own? Are you tolerant of all other beliefs and behaviors? Christians are always being accused of being intolerant, but are Christians any less intolerant than anyone else? Every person taking a breath right now is intolerant in some way.

Do you believe that everyone should be tolerant? Congratulations, you are intolerant. If you believe in something then you do not believe in something else. Vanderbilt believes in something, but that means they do not believe in something else. That is not tolerance.

The idea of tolerance, in retrospect, is a cliff and not a slope. There is no sliding; there is only falling. As soon as you believe in something, you cease to believe in something else. You have jumped of the cliff of tolerance and landed in the land of intolerance. And, there is really nothing wrong with intolerance; everyone lives there. The issue becomes a problem when we take our intolerance and use it to discriminate and oppress others that we deem as "intolerant."

You see, there is really no way to be truly tolerant in a general sense. The semantics suggest that tolerance is a situational state that is to be applied to each situation. Somewhere along the way... the term was hijacked and used in a general sense. Now, everyone hears it as a general term, and thinks it is good to be tolerant in the general sense. There is only one problem... it is impossible.

Today's tolerance goes beyond behavior and into belief. Now, if you are tolerant you not only have to be tolerant in action and deed but belief as well, which means the tolerance we are talking about is no longer tolerance, but a deep indoctrinating enculturation that does not allow competing factions. That is not tolerance. That is blatant intolerance.
 
So, congratulations, you are intolerant, and so is everyone else. 

Difference

What is so great about being equal?

Have you ever thought about this whole push towards equality, and how it is really discrimination against difference.

If you are for equality then you are against difference. There is no other way to look at the issue.

Let's forget about equality and promote difference instead! That, for me, is the better way to go.

Equality is a fallacy. It is not reality; it is not even a pipe dream. It is an impossibility.

Difference celebrates everyone because... you guessed it; everyone is different. Difference eliminates racism, elitism and privilege because there is no preference or norm. Difference is the new norm, and everyone meets the norm just as they are.

Equality celebrates no one. Anyone great is pulled down as is anyone different because different might one day be great, and both offer no path to equality.

Equality will only push the norm down. Everyone cannot be great, but everyone can be average. A push towards equality is a push towards mediocrity.

What is so wrong with difference? Are you against difference?

Do you get uncomfortable around people who are not like you? Do you immediately disagree with new ideas? Are you threatened by those who have different gifts than you do?

Do you avoid change? Do you let others do your thinking for you? Are you part of the status quo?

Embrace difference because you are different... just like everyone else!

Judgement

Have you noticed how so many are so quick to judge others these days.

Jim Kelly knows, without a doubt, that Tom Brady is a cheater. John Stewart is certain that Fox News lies about everything. And, Bill O'Reilly has no doubt that everyone at CNN is liberal and biased. 

How do these people know these things? Are they brighter? Did they learn this skill in college? Are they from another planet? Sadly, I fear that judgement is just a symptom of a greater social sickness from which we all suffer: we are addicted to ourselves. There is no fear, trepidation or concern for others; only concern for self.

And, those of us in Christ are not immune to this sickness. Scripture is somewhat absolute on the whole, "only God knows the heart" thing; yet, we still think we possess an ability to know the hearts of others. There is no concern for truth or someone's reputation; there is only an all-consuming concern for self.

This sickness seems to be everywhere and has reached an epidemic state. It can be found in churches and in Christian business, in ministries and inside Christian schools. It seems like everyone is so busy judging everyone else that there is little time to left to be concerned about one's own spiritual state.

Is that the issue? Do we judge others because we do not want to see what a mess our lives really are? Are we still playing king of the hill? Are we still knocking people down so we can climb higher? Scripture makes such succinct statements regarding judgement. We are not to judge or risk being judged by the King yet, we continue to judge.

I must confess that I, myself, am a recovering judge. I lived, worshiped and worked inside a vortex full of this judgement mentality. Judgement comes in all flavors when you live by it. It is found in your humor, your faith, your relationships and your spirit. It is sprinkled in your comments. You tend think your better than others. You make fun of what others believe.And, others, well, they become expendable.

Judges live to judge. Anyone who disagrees is discarded. Conversations are laced with gossip, and alliances are drawn up. Judges tend to be paranoid and insecure. Judges never admit to being wrong, and they never ever utter the words, "I am sorry." Judges enjoy conversations with those who agree with them, but avoid those people who disagree. Differences of opinion and thought are not welcomed in the kingdom of a judge.

Thankfully, I was saved from this life, but my salvation was not clean nor easy. It was hard and rough with jagged deep cuts to my soul. It was filled with harsh realities, broken relationships and isolation. At times, I did not know if my faith would survive the process, but here I am, thanks to a Holy God who did not forsake me.

I awake each morning with new eyes. I have discovered that judging others blinds you to everything else. When you judge others you really only see one thing... yourself. You only worry about yourself. You only think about yourself. It is a dreadful addiction, and one from which every person suffers in one way or another. When you are addicted to yourself you miss what God has put in front of you in order to help you grow in Him... others. 

When others are subservient to you, as they inevitably will be when you judge them, you miss out on what God has for you. It is often others that God uses to minister to us. Judgement robs us of others and, ultimately, robs us of God.

What we do not realize is that when we make ourselves a judge we are trying to become like god, and that never ends well. There is only one judge who can discern the heart. There is only one judge who can judge without hypocrisy. There is only one judge whose judgement will stand for eternity, and that judge is not confined to a celestial body. That judge is coming again... soon.   

So, climb to the top of the hill, if you must;but, as for me, I have a growing fondness for bottom of the hill. 

The Real Issue

I am stunned at the attention being given to whether a football was inflated or not. Reading the Wells Report and the science behind the report is like reading a science fictions comic book... most of the science is bad.

Phrases like "most likely" and "should have" liter the science portion of the report. The Ideal Gas Law is extensively used even though it is, at best, a "good approximation" with "several limitations" of three components, pressure, volume and temperature. The relationship of these three is somewhat complex. For instance:

In Boyle’s law, Charles’s law, and the general gas law, the equations indicate the nature of the interrelationship of the pressure, the volume, and the temperature of any gas.There are many relational aspects of all three, but here are three that are the most common.

1. When TEMPERATURE is held constant, increasing the pressure on a gas causes a proportional decrease in volume. Decreasing the pressure causes a proportional increase in volume.
2. When PRESSURE is held constant, increasing the temperature of a gas causes a proportional increase in volume. Decreasing the temperature causes a proportional decrease in volume.
3. When the VOLUME is held constant, increasing the temperature of a gas causes a proportional increase in pressure. Decreasing the temperature causes a proportional decrease in pressure.

Another important point is that a temperature change normally occurs in a gas WHILE the pressure is being changed. Compressing a gas raises its temperature; allowing a gas to expand lowers its temperature.  

These issues make this report sort of like jello when it comes to the issue: if you believe they cheated then it supports your belief, but if you believe they did not, then it also supports your belief. The report made multiple implications with little objective factual evidence to support any of its claims; it even implied that this issue has been used as an advantage for at least two years, with little to no evidence to support such a claim.

To me, the most ignored aspect of this whole issue is the performance factor; it was never addressed. For instance, if this issue of inflation is as the report says, a distinct competitive advantage, then the easiest way to prove this advantage would be to look at what happened to the performance of the culprit in question, Brady and the Patriots, after the advantage was clearly removed.

The only pure samples we have are the second half of the Colts game and the Super Bowl. Both performances, at first glance, do not contribute to any part of the theory. First, there is no drop off in the team's performance, which would question whether the practice has been going on for two years, as the report implies. Taking away a clear advantage that has been in use for an extended period of time would result in a drop off in performance, especially between two halves with no opportunity to compensate for what was taken away. The advantage of a less inflated football would be part of the normal performance matrix and result in a clear period of adjustment when removed. The first half of the Colts game was close, but the second half was not. Also, if this was a clear advantage then taking it away would prove the power of the advantage, and result in the Patriots performing at a level well below the level of performance with the advantage. The fact that there is no drop off in performance is problematic on both fronts.

Does Brady like his footballs on the lower end of the inflation index? Yes! Did he, with a sinister smile and malicious heart, seek to undermine the integrity of the game by gaining an advantage in making sure the footballs he throws are to his liking? I doubt it. Is it any different than wearing an extra set of pads that protect one's ribs? Is there a difference in swinging a lighter bat in baseball? What about wearing gloves in cold weather? Athletes are always looking for any advantage to keep their edge. I think that was his intent, but I also think it matters little in light of the big picture, which I believe the NFL is intentionally trying to get us to forget. 

The issue is that the NFL has, once again, pulled one over on the general public. Most people are so busy hating on the Patriots or defending the Patriots that they have all but forgotten the real issues in the NFL. Steroids, concussions and domestic violence are all real issues that the NFL refuses to address. Retired players are dying earlier, concussions are still an issue that the NFL refuses to address and players with domestic issues continue to play. Does anyone doubt anymore that most NFL players are on steroids? In the last several years, there are have been many prominent retired players who have committed suicide who had known issues with concussions in the past. The Dallas Cowboys just signed a free agent with a past full of domestic violence issues and drafted another with the same issues, and the headline in the NFL right now is about the air in a ball. These are real issues worthy of attention, study and investigation, yet here we find ourselves... arguing over whether or not 1.5 psi matters in a ball used to play a game.

The Future of Religions

There is an absolutely fascinating article produced by the Pew Research Center on world religions. It is worth your time, I promise.

According to the Pew Research Center, the religious profile of the world is changing; this change is driven primarily by differences in fertility rates and the size of youth populations among the world’s major religions. Interestingly, it is also driven by people switching faiths. Keep these things in your mind as you read the statistics below.

Over the next four decades, Christianity will remain the largest religious group, but Islam will grow at a faster rate than any other major religion during that time. If current trends continue, the following can be expected by 2050 …

• The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
• Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.
• The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.
• In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.
• India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.
• In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.
• Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.

According to the Pew Research projections, by the year 2050, there will be as many Muslims (2.8 billion, or 30% of the population) as Christians (2.9 billion, or 31%) in the world. However, the religiously unaffiliated segment of population is projected to shrink as a percentage of the global population. In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify themselves by any religious affiliation. By 2050, this unaffiliated segment is projected to exceed 1.2 billion, but, as a percentage of world population, that is a decline from 16% in 2010 to 13% by the middle of this century.

From where does population growth come, and how does it affect religions? Pew Research Center states the following regarding growth rate:

Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5). Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children per woman) also is above replacement level. All the other groups have fertility levels too low to sustain their populations: folk religions (1.8 children per woman), other religions (1.7), the unaffiliated (1.7) and Buddhists (1.6).

According to the Pew Research Center, the number of youth within each religion also has a drastic effect of growth. Pew Research Center stated,

In 2010, more than a quarter of the world’s total population (27%) was under the age of 15. But an even higher percentage of Muslims (34%) and Hindus (30%) were younger than 15, while the share of Christians under 15 matched the global average (27%). These bulging youth populations are among the reasons that Muslims are projected to grow faster than the world’s overall population and that Hindus and Christians are projected to roughly keep pace with worldwide population growth.

Fascinating statistics regarding religion. Again, the entire article is well worth your time.

Idealism: Part III: German Idealism

German idealism is the name given to the movement in Germany that began in the 1780s and extend through the 1840s. As far as philosophical movements, its impact was felt throughout the world, especially in the United States.

The movement was a collective commitment to idealism, but it was to an idealism that was more absolute than abstract. Kant's transcendental idealism was a doctrine that exposed the difference between appearances and things, and claimed that objects of human cognition are appearances and not things in themselves, fitting philosophically inside idealism. But, it was this idea that was transformed by other German idealists like Fichte, Schelling and Hegel who pushed Kant's transcendental idealism into a more absolute idealism by contending that things in themselves are contradictions because things must be objects of our consciousness if they are objects at all.

German idealism brought a systematic application to idealism that was missing from general idealism and a push towards a first idealist principle for all aspects of philosophy. This first principle was known as "the absolute;" it was considered unconditional in that it must precede all principles, which are conditioned by the difference between principles. German idealism began with Kant's ideas of human cognition; he held that objects of human cognition are ideal and empirically real. Kant called them "transcendentally ideal" because he believed we could only know objects to the extent that are objects to us.

Kant posited that we could have objectively valid cognition of empirically real objects because we are affected by things outside of our beings; he recognized that our sensations confirmed this state. Kant believed that sensations constituted judgement, which, for Kant, demonstrated the conditions of possibility of objective valid cognition. The synthesis found in judgment produced, for Kant, objective valid cognition of empirically real objects, moving the impact of idealism from the consciousness of the mind to external points outside the mind.

Kant's idea of contradiction was the mechanism used by other German idealists in developing a more absolute idealism, allowing idealism to now extend beyond ideas of the mind. The idea of a thing in itself was used by another German idealist, Fichte, who maintained that a thing, which is not an object for us but does exist independently of us, is a contradiction. Fichte claimed that there can be no thing in itself because a thing was only a thing when it becomes a thing for us. So, for Fichte, the thing in itself is, in fact, a product of our consciousness, which to Fichte, completes the process of a thing becoming a thing. Fichte concluded that everything occurring in our mind can be explained by our mind. This aspect of German idealism closed the circle, if you will, by explaining everything in accordance with consciousness. A thing is a thing only if it is recognized as a thing, and a thing is only recognized as a thing by the mind, which makes the mind determinant of all things.

This circulatory line of thinking presented life as an existence totally dependent on the mind of men and women (which Fichte refereed to as the I) because recognition was necessary for existence. Fichte held that consciousness was a circle in which the I posited itself and determined what belonged to the I and what belonged to the not-I (that area outside the circle). Schelling, another German idealist, defended Fichte by maintaining that the I was the unconditional condition of being and thinking because the existence of the I precedes all thinking; this I was consciousness and not God. For Schelling, the I must exist in order to think, which was necessary because thinking, for Schelling, determined all being.

German idealism provided a means of pulling sensation and external matter into its closed system. Its systematic "natural" approach provided German idealism with a new-found ability to defend itself and respond to all areas philosophical in nature. The first principle concept certainly made it more compatible with Christianity as God would certainly qualify as that first preceding principle. Yet, at the end, it was still a worldview that rooted itself, for the most part, in mankind, which presents a dilemma of sorts. If nothing exists except that which is in the mind of men and women how would we ever know that there are things that do not exist? Can that thought even be possible in an idealistic environment?

George Berkley, and some past idealists, thought that idealism was the best way to prove God's existence for one simple reason... there is an idea of God in culture. Can one be truly rooted in idealism and still doubt God?  As far as ideas go, the idea of God is one of the oldest and most populated ideas (If God were only an idea.), so to dismiss it, even as an idea, seems rather inconsistent with idealism as a whole.

As far as ideas go, God is not one for if He were then His existence would depend on the mind of mankind, and we know it does not. Ideas depend on past thoughts on which new thought are built. God depends on no one. He has been found to be present in all cultures and civilizations. His thoughts are not our thoughts nor our ideas.

Idealism Part II: Can Idealism and Christianity Coexist?

Idealism, one might say, is mind over matter or thoughts over things or even ideas over reality. In each instance, it is the idea or the ideal that takes precedent over physical and material reality.

The danger of idealism is not the idea itself but the priority given to the idea in the scheme of living. To prioritize an idea not yet realized to the extent that one lives as if it is realized is the danger of idealism.

Plato's world of forms was one of the earliest examples of idealism. According to Plato, a form was an abstract property or quality of an object that was separated from that object and considered by itself. These forms existed independently from the things of which they are part. The form was not just the idea of the thing, but an independent thing all together.

Plato was clear; forms were pure and undefiled. Each had the purest of properties. A material object, like a ball, had several forms that completed it. It had the form of round, the form of bounce, the form of ball and even the form of color. Each form was needed to make up the composite known as ball. A ball without the form of round would hardly be considered a ball. Plato posited that each form was transcendent and pure, which separated it from all material objects located in space and time.

Plato's world of forms was an exercise in spirituality. Plato rooted them in a pseudo-spiritual realm that was other-world like. Each was the epitome of perfection for that particular form and served as the ultimate standard for that form. The form was the top priority of things in need of that particular form. But, we have to ask, is not a form merely the highest idea in regard to a particular form?

One might ask, does not Christianity and Christian thought adopt a similar position? God's word is our ultimate standard, and Christian thought and idea should flow directly from His word. God's word should assume a position of priority when it comes to our cognitive processes. There is no question that God and His ideas are not ours, but it is for precisely this reason that we are not to elevate our own ideas to a state that defines how we live, even when our ideas are about Him. Our goal is to learn more about God and His ideas through His word and live lives reflective of Him. Our ideas should flow out of our study of His word and out of His influence in our lives.

Idealism argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (mankind's consciousness), and that we can never be sure that anything outside of our consciousness exists. At least Plato, in his theory of forms, provided a distinction between man and his forms. There is no such distinction in today's Idealism. An Idealist believes that the only real things are mental entities (ideas which exist in the mind), but there is a problem with this line of thinking, especially today. Today, we live in the age of self. Everyone is equally important, and all ideas are of value. In this current state, whose ideas define reality? What makes one idea better than other ideas? What do we do with opposing ideas? Certainly, every idea cannot be real? Or, can it?

In sum Idealism, as defined as a philosophical position, adheres to a view that nothing exists except as it is in the mind of man, the mind of God, or in a super – or supra-natural realm. The idealist believes that all material things are explainable and definable in terms of a mind. But modern idealism, as I referenced earlier, has shifted away from ideas of God or ideas of the supra-natural realm and towards only those ideas of man. It is mankind's ideas that define reality, and it is this shift that has made Idealism all but incompatible with Christianity.

As Christians, we are taught that it is God that defines man and his or her ideas. Today, modern Idealism elevates mankind, or at least his mind, to the status of god-like. Idealism has shifted to an extreme position: the position that the mind of mankind defines reality. As Christians, we know differently. As Christians, we know that our minds are fallen like the rest of our being. Our thoughts and ideas are tainted with as much sin as the rest of our bodies. Paul, in II Corinthians 10:5, implores us to be wary of even our thoughts as he wrote, "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Our thoughts are not God's thoughts, even on a good day. Idealism is really nothing more than a dualistic view of the world with the mind and all cognitive thinking somehow separated from the material and physical world. This separation elevates the mind to a higher status than everything else, therefore, allowing it to define everything else. Yet, there is no explanation on how this division works. The mind is an organ much like the heart; how is it able to define reality while the heart is not?

With a cultural shift towards pragmatism that is practically applied every where we look, Idealism is doomed to be tainted with that same pragmatic brush. As Christians, we cannot define ourselves as Idealists because that is not who we are. We are Christians, and any other label we use to define ourselves would not be appropriate. God created the world in which we live and defined every aspect of it. We, including our thoughts and ideas, are part of that creation, and it is all of creation that is defined by a Holy God.

Can Idealism coexist with Christianity if it takes a back seat to Christianity? I will explore this line of thinking in my next post. Stay tuned...






 

Mystery Solved?

Well, it appears one of the world's greatest mysteries has been solved. A fragment of metal from Amelia Earhart's plane has been identified.

The evidence presented is fairly compelling. Read the story HERE!

Apparently, according to the story, Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, landed on a distant atoll due to running out of fuel. The atoll was some 350 miles of course.

Earhart and Noonan apparently spent their remaining time as castaways on this tiny atoll, hoping to be found before starving to death or succumbing to the elements.

All that was left was that tiny scrape of metal, which has been identified as coming from Earhart's plane. But, mysteries, no matter the evidence, die hard, especially ones as old as this one. Don't expect this to be accepted by everyone. I predict there will be quite a few who reject the evidence and continue the promotion of their own theories.

As for me, I am crossing this one of my list. I am convinced that this is as much as we will ever know about Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.

Orville Wright

Silence is golden, or is it?

Silence is golden; it is better to be unheard than heard. If you have nothing good to say then, say nothing. Is silence the new golden rule? Should we avoid speaking truth? Is it better to just remain silent?

It is a really hard thing to speak the truth. There could be consequences to speaking the truth.

I believe Jack was right, most of us "can't handle the truth!" We do not want to hear the truth because then, we have to do something with it.

The truth will bring you down, and it will almost always be something you just do not want to hear. You know... a habit you have to break, an apology you have to make or sin that must be confessed. The truth will also reveal what we believe to others, and our beliefs could be different. And, that could be... a bit uncomfortable.

I mean, really, who speaks the truth anymore. The news no longer speaks the truth. You can hear the same story from three different perspectives depending on your channel preference. No truth there.

Our politicians no longer tell us the truth. They pass bills without even reading them and tell us how much better off they will make us. They tell the same lie over and over at election time (see my post on coincidence) and... well, you know the story.  Democrat... Republican... it does not matter; they do not even pretend to speak the truth anymore.

I guess it is better if we just remain in the shadows and silent, at least that will keep us out of trouble, right? Well, there is only one minor problem... 

Ephesians 4:25
"Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another."

The Complexity of the Lie

Jean-Paul Sarte wrote, in Being and Nothingness, regarding lying, "Lying is a negative attitude, anyone will agree." But, will they today?

Sarte posited that the essence of the lie implies that the liar is actually in complete possession of the truth. One cannot lie unless one first knows the truth. Sarte said the essence of the lie is that the truth is hidden intentionally. Sarte wrote, "A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of; he does not lie when he spreads an error of which he himself is the dupe; he does not lie when he is mistaken." In fact, none of these are lies according to Sarte (Of course, as a Christian I have a different standard than Sarte.).

Sarte wrote regarding the liar, "The ideal case of the liar would be a cynical consciousness, affirming truth within himself, denying it with his words, and denying the denial to himself." Sarte is clear; the liar intends to deceive and does not hide this intention from himself even though he hides it from all others. The lie, according to Sarte, does not involve the inner structure of present consciousness; it does not require special ontological foundations. Sarte stated that the lie is "a behavior of transcendence."

This is where the crux of this issue lies for me (no pun intended). When the lie becomes a behavior of self transcendence it becomes something more. Self transcendence defined is the capacity to reach out beyond oneself and discover or make meaning of experience through perspectives and behavior. Is this what we have become? Do we now reach beyond ourselves through the lie? Is the lie how we make meaning and behave?

Sarte writes of the lie inside his theories on self negation as experienced through "bad faith." While it is impossible to communicate his ideas concerning self negation in this space, I believe this is part of the idea Sarte was communicating regarding the lie. It falls inside his ideas concerning consciousness. Sarte wrote, "Consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to be conscious of the nothingness of its being." This is where the power for man to deny himself rests... to say no to himself. However, the lie redirects the consciousness inward to self instead outward and the denial moves away from self and outward to external elements. The lie then becomes part of self transcendence... part of how we experience the world... part of who we are in the world.

I am, by no means, perfect, but I do try to tell the truth, and at times, I tell the truth to a fault. Over the course of my life, I have been astounded by the lie. I have struggled to understand how it could be used without a thought. I have found it to be embraced as if it were truth, and in my studies, I have always keep the topic at hand in case I run into something some day that helps me understand the lie a little better. After reading a little Sarte, I think I have more of an understanding of the lie than I did before I read Sarte. Is my understanding complete? Not even close.

Common Core

The Common Core curriculum push is being felt in most public schools, many private schools and even in many Christian schools. Is it evil? Is it good?

I would say that it is neither evil nor good. It is a response to the growing concern over the increasing failings of the American educational system. As a country, our international literacy and math scores have been in decline for years. The common core is the first collective response to this issue.

The elements of common core all find their home in tougher standards and rigor. The example in this post is an example of that rigor. It is also an example of asking the student to think in different and higher categories. While I applaud the idea... we do need students to think in higher categories and to work harder, I have some concerns.

In an article in the New York Times, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus wrote,

"It is the uniformity of the exams and the skills ostensibly linked to them that appeal to the Core’s supporters, like Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Bill and Melinda Gates. They believe that tougher standards, and eventually higher standardized test scores, will make America more competitive in the global brain race. “If we’ve encouraged anything from Washington, it’s for states to set a high bar for what students should know to be able to do to compete in today’s global economy,” Mr. Duncan wrote to us in an e-mail."

Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, is an avid supporter of the Common Core along with Bill and Melinda Gates. But, what they do not understand, in my humble opinion, is the complexity of culture and the place of education in that complexity.

Students step out of culture (by way of the family) into a school. The school then molds the students into the adults the culture desires. The common core is a radical change in objectives, and that change came suddenly with little to no communication. Yet, the culture has continued to go in the opposite direction. Now, we have a school system asking students to become accountable, hard working and higher categorical thinkers while those students step out of a culture demanding less and less from its adults in respect to those same three objectives. Government grows and so does the number of adults on government programs. More is being asked of our students than of our adults. So, of course there is going to be a disconnect.

Hacker and Dreifus wrote concerning the motivation behind the common core push,

"The answer is simple. “College and career skills are the same,” Ken Wagner, New York State’s associate commissioner of education for curriculum, assessment and educational technology, told us. The presumption is that the kind of “critical thinking” taught in classrooms — and tested by the Common Core — improves job performance, whether it’s driving a bus or performing neurosurgery. But Anthony Carnevale, the director of Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce, calls the Common Core a “one-size-fits-all pathway governed by abstract academic content."

Hacker and Dreifus ask the question, "In sum, the Common Core takes as its model schools from which most students go on to selective colleges. Is this really a level playing field? Or has the game been so prearranged that many, if not most, of the players will fail?" While I do not think common core is a malicious attempt to fail students collectively, I do think it was a good idea that received support and funding quickly which produced a gathering growing movement that could not be stopped.

What will come of it? I have no idea. But, before judging it too harshly, gather your information, first, before you listen to all pundits who offer their views, and then, arrive at your own view.