Parody of Skeptical NT Criticism

In my readings, I came across this article based on the death of the science fiction author Ray Bradbury.  It is a solid lampoon of skepticism that offers outlandish claims.  I only hope it is worthy of reading for the laughs, and learning from the insight.

Ponder.

Did Ray Bradbury exist?

Bradbury died Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his agent Michael Congdon confirmed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-ray-bradbury-20120607,0,5622415.story

Bradbury’s daughter confirmed his death to the Associated Press on Wednesday morning. She said her father died Tuesday night in Southern California.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/chi-author-ray-bradbury-dead-20120606,0,3340056.story

Legendary science-fiction author Ray Bradbury passed away Wednesday morning in Los Angeles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/ray-bradbury-movies-dead-fahrenheit-451_n_1574138.html

How do we account for discrepant reports regarding the death of Ray Bradbury?

“This is evidence that the obituaries for Bradbury were written decades later,” said Bart Ehrman, professor of religious studies at Chapel Hill. “Bradbury really died on Wednesday morning. The report that he died Tuesday night, but his death was confirmed on Wednesday morning, is an orthodox scribal harmonization of two contradictory traditions.”

“It's a telltale clue that Bradbury never existed,” said Richard Carrier, renowned author of Proving History. “If Bradbury really was the world-famous figure that legend imputes to him, it’s inconceivable that major news outlets would bungle the date of his death–especially in the information age.”

According to Robert Price, “The statement that ‘he died Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his agent Michael Congdon confirmed’ is a legendary embellishment, redacting the earlier tradition that he died Wednesday morning. The redactor is deifying Bradbury as an exalted, celestial figure. Notice that his agent is named after the Archangel Michael. Angels are “agents.” In the Bible, angels appear to people at night in dreams. And notice that the legendary place of his demise is the ‘City of Angels.’ So this represents the apotheosis of Bradbury, as a dying and rising god–like Hercules and Adonis.”

A "Resolution" of the Problem of Evil

In the recent Stand to Reason blog, in an article called the "Problem of Good," Gregory Koukl posted that the so-called problem of evil has more difficulties in promoting an atheistic mind-set than a theistic one.  He points out:  But the atheist must also take his turn offering his own explanation, and his task faces a complication the theist does not encounter. He must explain how evil itself could exist in the first place to make room for his complaint. He must account for the objective, transcendent moral standard that has to be in position before moral judgments of any kind can be made.

This difficulty signals an additional problem: The atheist must also solve the problem of good. How can anything ultimately be evil or good in a universe bereft of any standard to make sense of the terms?
The atheist does have a solution worth pondering, essentially depicting "good" and "evil" as human constructs each without ontological basis of reality.  One atheist comment raised the philosophical defense of skepticism: An atheist is under no obligation to develop a complex theory about why evil or good exist, because for him, the universe is ultimately meaningless. There is no need to explain something that does not make sense. It just is. How he deals with that in his day-to-day life results in the creation of a specific moral code. Many develop this code based on some version of Utilitarianism, in which the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences. It is not useful to have people murdering each other, so murder is 'bad.' It is useful to be able to trust other people, so honesty is 'good.' Good and bad are not absolutes, merely more or less effective ways of running society for the benefit of the largest number of people.

While a noteworthy response, it lacks substance in the fact that events of "good" and "evil" are easily demonstrable.  We could initiate a pogrom against a group of atheists, and after a season of persecution, we might survey them on the effects and validity of such treatment.  Base denial of evil would allow for a continuation of the pogrom for a longer time.  The issue of utilitarianism would be satisfied if a majority of citizens would see a useful employment of such a segment of society so that a perceived arrogance might be curtailed.  At any rate, after a season of abuse, all parties may come to a conclusion that such an approach to an atheistic community was too high handed and unworthy of consideration for any group for any perception of that group, correct as it might be deemed.

If evil does exist, then we remain with the problem that a world that is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity is incompatible with the reality of evil in the world.  For all the arguments that I have heard for and against the reality of a powerful, benign God in a world teeming with evil, I would approach this matter from what may be a novel position.  Let us posit both God and evil in the world, and imagine that God be granted the opportunity to remove the issue of evil or vindicate the reality of evil in spite of God.  To my mind, there would be two solutions, but would inquire toward more possibilities. 

1.  The world can be resolved from evil, but the present evil has some role for which God allows.

In my reasoning, I would imagine that God is given a chance to deal with the evil-problem as a landlord would deal with some plumbing or heating problem in his rentals.  If He is a responsible landlord, He would see to the problem.  If, however, He doesn't, are there attendant circumstances that would explain the matter?  Has the rent been paid, or has the rental show malicious vandalism to the rental that would make the landlord's simple fixing of the problem moot?  Does the renter damage the rooms as the repairs are made, making such repetitious repairs unreasonable?  Has the landlord some issue with the responsibilities of the renter that makes the obvious issue of making repair and restitution of the renter's needs?  Is it possible that repairs shall be initiated in the future once the renter has complied over some matter?  You see, a simple fix-job may not be simple as all that.

In extending the issue to the problem of evil, it can be maintained that the world of evil was initiated by man in defiance of God, that sin warps the perfect world so that the bad, the awful, the unspeakable does occur.  Most evil is inflicted man-to-man.  Natural events such as tsunamis may in the end be ultimately anthropogenic.  The Scriptures speaks of the world "groaning and sighing" under the weight of human consequence (Rom 8: 20-22).  Evil is a natural by-product of a world hijacked for human programs and humanistic appeals, which cannot sustain progress without digression into oppression.  Evil is what man has allowed it to become, and we pay the price of the mistake.  As a landlord cannot resolve an issue that the renter continues to sabotage, neither can God resolve the evil-problem, hardly as a favor to man, much less on human merit.

2.  A resolution to the evil-problem would be too radical for human security and safety.

To return to the landlord-belligerent renter metaphor, one option a landlord would be able to accomplish is the eviction of the renter.  Once removed, the problem is solved.  In this case, is the problem of evil a human construct itself, solved by the eradication of the human race?  We hold that such a solution is evil in itself.  Thus, this cannot be an acceptable solution, even if it might be argued that it would be ultimately fair.

The solution is settled in the concept that evil is always something that God can counter, being able to work for the good of those that love Him.  Evil remains a divine pronouncement on a human league that opposes divine intents, as evil is a human derivative.  But divine efforts can seek to ameliorate the decay, and faith trusts the ultimate goal is a restored world where evil is banished.

Would that mankind sees the role of evil in a blemished world under reconstruction.

The Adequacy of Fideism

Having reviewed the concept of understanding the idea of God totally by faith is not an accepted approach in the field of apologetics.  The core of the issue is proving the reality of religious experience which has been pursued on philosophical grounds.  The historical arguments of cosmological, ontological, moral, and teleological premises have indicated that belief in God is a possibly logical venture, but atheists have spoken against these issues, and the clear victories of William Lane Craig in his manifold debates came when his atheist opponents refused to counter these arguments.  Silverman, Law, and Kappel prove that a belligerent approach to the historic arguments reaps disaster, revealing a closed-mindedness to what could be strong ideas; Milligan performed far better in his British debate with Craig for this same reason.

To return to fideism.  The ability to find absolute proof for God's existence is just that, debatable.  And in the whole of all human experience, our ability to arrive at truth concepts is based on the opinion that such truth statements are attainable, or that the scientific dependancy on the observable can produce truth.  Such foundations is fideisitic.  I am confident that science can accomplish many positive things, heal diseases, offer convenience, fascilitate processes.  But is this the core of approaching truth claims?  I can by evaluating the observations I encounter daily to survive day by day.  I look both ways before crossing streets, scan my ever-changing driving environments to guarantee safe passage for myself and my family.  But in doing so, I must trust my eyesight and the ability of my brain to evaluate the present situations.  Truth seems to be a consious blend to evaluate and observe well, with the confidence that I am not being deceived in doing so.

In the matter of salvation, it does not depend on how many brain cells that have to be activated toward such a status salvus.  It relies on a pledge of divine sources compelled by divine assurances.  I may be able to offer demonstrations of this faith foundation as being valid in and of itself.  But it rests on faith alone.  If we examine this concept, how much of life is living in this realm of trusting what we have come to perceive, if not see?  Colin Tudge is entirely accurate:  Indeed, atheism—when you boil it down—is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye.

On the Explanation of Understanding

This event happened a long time ago, but it has been a point of great realization.

The glass of juice I was drinking from was extremely wet from condensation.  I had drawn a track of this moisture on the kitchen table and had placed the glass on the surface.  With a slight touch of the glass, I marveled at the fact that the glass rode the slick surface for a distance of about five inches.  A simple scientific stunt.  But a stunner to a young child.

I wished to explain this to my teacher at the time, so when I had gotten to school I went to my teacher and remarked in the best wording I could muster: "Teacher, I made a wet 'r' and the glass moved!"

I remember the puzzled look on my kindergarten teacher's face and probably figured (even for a five-year old) that my teacher didn't understand the phenomenon that I had witnessed at my breakfast.  I could only say, "I made a wet 'r' and the glass moved."  As a kindergartener, I didn't have the vocabulary to explain; I knew nothing of the words "condensation," "moisture," or even "phenomenon."  All I knew was that there was this slightly curved track of moisture that allowed my drinking glass to move a slight distance.  But it was something remarkable to my young mind, and I wished to explain it all with a childish "I made a wet 'r' and the glass moved."  But I grew up, gained the right words, and can easily explain what I had observed decades ago.  Now, where is that teacher today?

In dealing with the miraculous, we often feel we lack a command of the situation to explain.  Perhaps it is because in our intellectual vocabulary, we lack the adequacy of words, and not because we lose grip of the real.  It is definitely a response to the Humian challenge of the miracle.  Science cannot support it, but in time the right mode for understanding becomes available.  Perhaps science becomes the impediment to a raised sense of awareness.

A mere thought, easily dismissed.  But if we wed ourselves too much to the faith of scientism, we may lose too much.



In Defense of Slippery Slope: A Critique of a Postmodern Logical "Fallacy"

In examining two separate listings of recognized logical fallacies, I had noted each had declared the concept of the "slippery slope" as a bona fide error in reasoning.  Wondering that I may have missed something in my courses in logic (taken in the 70's and early 80's), I consulted my old textbooks (works by Irwin Copi and Richard Jeffrey).  I could not find references to this as a recognized logical fallacy, and thus wondered about its present inclusion.  The definition of the slippery slope fallacy is given as: Assuming that a relatively small first step will inevitably result in a series of several presumably negative results.  The example given as a classic misuse of the slippery slope:  Legalizing marijuana will inevitably increase the use of more serious drugs as crack and heroin, which will promote the further legalization of these substances as well.

I have studied this issue of the slippery slope as a legitimate fallacy and deem a few matters wanting.  The first point is the matter of believing the true error being that of false cause.  The process of causation is a complex one, and determining if a correct series of events can be surmised from a first cause is central to this issue.  In some instances, a series of cause-effect situations could be determined.  in making valid judgment decisions, we hope to see what would be affected from them.  The other matter is determining the flow of events that have occurred and the tendency of similar results being attained over similar matters.  In a classical ploy of foiled logic, an argument in the 1950's expressed the thought of allowing African-Americans to sit in any portion of the bus having the effect of conceding other considerations as eating in whites-only restaurants, living in any neighborhood, using the same schooling opportunities.  Happily, the intent of sharpening resolve to deny such advancements of human equality were rejected.  But did conceding one issue lead to the concession of others?  Many slippery slopes are worth the time to schuss down.

The novelty of this logical fallacy also has the difficulty of denying the premise of a "domino effect" recognized in other situations.  In the very point of this concept's introduction, the argument that deserting Vietnam would guarantee the conversion of the whole region of South East Asia to Communism had mixed results.  Laos and Cambodia, yes.  Thailand and Malaysia, no.  The sense that such a tipping of small states from democratic forms to Communism was achieved, but not to the fullest level.  Thus, an ability to offer some predictions is possible, and rejecting the appeal of a slippery slope causality demonstrates an unwillingness to ponder the possibilities or offer alternate results.

The idea of the slippery slope can be traced to one verse in the Psalms:

Surely you set them in slippery places.
You throw them down to destruction. (Ps.73: 18)

The sense of this verse is the psalmist's quandary over the apparent successes of the unbeliever, who thwarts the Deity, yet seems to prosper at every opportunity.  After much frustration over the matter, he comes to realize that having one's goals set on accomplishment and acquisition deprives that person from coming to fear God, and on failing to repent, face destruction at the judgment.  It is the very idea that actions have consequences that ought to make one pause over the decisions one effects. This is the intent of the slippery slope argument, and it should be valued.  Or if seen in this light:

If A occurs, then Z, an unpleasant circumstance will occur.
If A is performed on the hope that Z can be averted, A could be permitted.
But if Z occurs, then the original objection to A would be valid.  But then it would be too late.
Can the prospect of averting Z be justified?

The problem is causality, and the importance (or possibility) of determining what may come versus what must come leads to a need to discuss the matter fully.  Thus the slippery slope argument is an invitation to verify our fears of what may come from thoughtless or inconsiderate choices.  The fallacy of false cause would be valid, but only after establishing the probable results.

Let us not condemn the so-called slippery slope as definite logical fallacy, but the need to pause and reflect.



Logical Fallacies and the Foundations of Truth/Reality

In studying the chart of the various logical fallacies, I was drawn to the listing of illegitimate appeals to the mind, such as appeals to popular belief, money, and established or assumed authority.  Two that caught my attention were the fallacies of appeal to novelty and appeal to tradition.  The examples of the zeal for the latest trend and the traditional conception of marriage as between man and woman were obvious examples of the perception of culture as a neutralizing agent for all presented arguments.  An innovation is merely new, not true.  The ideas that have passed some test of time may still be based on erroneous suppositions that could change with modern scientific discovery.  As I paused to take in this dissertation on what could make an argument fallacious, an intriguing application to this came up in the sports section of the local (Madison, WI) newspaper and television newscasts.

It appears that for the next two years, the boys and girls' state basketball tournaments will no longer be played at one site, the Kohl's Center of Madison.  In the next two years, the boys' event will continue to be held in Madison, while the girls' final round games will be played in Green Bay.  Thereupon, the reviewing body, the WIAA, will review the issue of placement.  The rationale of this move was based on site availability in an expanding use market in sporting events.  The newscasts were thorough and fair is assessing the situation, but felt a sense of loss, if not in tradition, at least in lost revenue.  The Wisconsin State Journal also reported the decision of the WIAA and the rationale behind this selection process, but also published an editorial on the need to return the WIAA boys and girls' basketball tourney to a single Madisonian site.  Again, the reference to lost revenue was echoed, along with a litany of a lost heritage of classic basketball battles in the capital city in the thrilling month of March.

Set side by side was the conflict of the novel and the traditional, the need for change with an impetus to accommodate future change to a traditional model.  It was maddening that Madison's personal loss was the underpinning of the whole matter, not the issue of availability, nor a site more central in the state to accommodate towns from the furthest northern section of the Badger State, nor an arena whose size could accomodate the several levels of competition in the huge structure of Wisconsin High School Basketball.  It pained Madison, and thus the issue runs large, never to be resolved until Madison monopolizes the tournament once again.

Is convenience and personal advantage the final groundings of what we are to accept as truth and reality?  On certain days I wonder, and remark that all the neccessary logical safeguards, the careful regard not to commit some logical fallacy, are being sacrificed to a central elite standard that determines what is acceptable as it benefits them and few others.  I would love to see the WIAA keep a tournament presence in Madison (tradition) but realize a need to impliment change (novelty).  A good solution would be a traditional construct that feels the impulse of adaptation and meets the needs as they arrive.  If traditions are to be maintained, work is in store to keep them valid.  And in that one sense, it proves the old French proverb, Le plus change, le plus reste.  The more things change ...





Critique of McCandless & Posavec's Left/Right Government Infographic

Before I move forward with this post, I wish to acknowledge the brilliance that this graphic has offered to my understanding of political systems.  I viewed this graphic after scanning the rhetorical and logical fallacies chart (another fine example of well-structured information).  But I noted that the vast array of examples of foggy reasoning leaned heavily on conservative thought, only once using Bill Clinton's example of the overt lie as bad logic.  It was then that I saw that one of the sites other displays was a graphic explaining the concepts of left-wing and right-wing political opinion.  I was curious, so I switched views and admired the depth of detail in explaining the major tenets of what it meant to be left and right in the political spectrum.

The graphic splits into two areas each employing red and blue ink to differentiate the major groups.  And yes, Democratic Party was found in the blue section, the Republican in the red.  For the most part it noted the emphases of each mindset fairly, with the leftist desire for equality matched by the rightist love for freedom.  It acknowledged the leftist approach of having government interfere with the structures of society and the rightist tenet of non-interference.  I agree that the leftist family would seek to promote the potential of their children while the rightist drives to form good character as their main goal.  I questioned the viewpoint of social evolution as the primary socialogical trend of the leftist while the rightist seeks the status quo; it seemed more of a matter of change and acceptance of same.  A conservative would acknowledge that change occurs, but wishes such change would impact society positively, and seeks towards a studied change.

Yet, I felt the diagram also injected unsubstantial dogma, which would easily lead to strawman argumentation (the promotion of the opponent's argument that clearly is a weaken argument, or a misconception of the argument.  In the political spectrum, the Democratic Party would match with the Communist Party, while the Republican would have the Nationalist Party as its kindred spirit.  This is an unnecessary pigeonhole.  Republicans have the ability to field candidates from a wide range of political viewpoints; thus the present Republican primary-debates seem to be a wrangling over who is the true conservative.  Indeed, several of the Democratic Party members would identify as conservative, whether fiscal or moral.  we always seem to fume over RINO's and DINO's.  The notion that the foundation of the leftist as scientific while the rightist is theistic is also inaccurate.  It begs to lead to the unfounded notion that rightists are Bible banging science haters; leftists as godless hooligans..  To suggest that the educational approaches of the leftist lean towards cooperation while rightists favor individualism belies the usage of cooperative learning strategies employed in conservative schools.  To indicate that the leftist tends to be urban while the rightist tends to be rural promotes the misconception that the urbanite can't be conservative, nor the farmer a liberal.  In fact, I am a conservative and a teacher.  This occupation is deemed an exploit of the left-leaner.  I am said to be better suited-for business.  I personally can't fathom economics.

In short, while the info gram tends to be a fine compendium of political concepts, it can never be a 100% fool-proof indicator of each and every person's political assessment.  To bandy about that leftists are pacifists and rightists are militarists could be simplistic, and slanderous.  Even a leftist has been known to throw a punch, a rightist to offer philanthropic gestures.

I offer the infographic below.  Examine and ponder.

 

The Hyper-Skeptic, Descartes, and Traveling to Town

In a recent posting from Apologetics 315, Bill Pratt offered an investigation to the question, "Is There Ever Enough Evidence for the Hyper-Skeptic?"  Critiquing the view of an atheist James Croft who had disputed the Resurrection on the Unbelievable? broadcast of April 7th, he had disagreed with the criterion to gain such a flat refusal.  He concluded, " Anybody who would say that no amount of eyewitness testimony from the past should ever convince anyone that a person came back from the dead is arguing not from a position of neutrality, but from an extreme philosophical skepticism in the tradition of David Hume. "

The seed of skepticism that permeates modern thought had its initiation in the writings of Rene Descartes, who came to disbelieve the whole of reality up to the famed maxim Cogito Ergo Sum.  I think, therefore I am.  From this, Descartes could broaden the realms of what is possible, real, and substantial.  But it centers on ones perceptions based on rationalistic grounds.  A form of Cartesian doubt should guide such perceptions.

While Descartes laid a foundation in skeptical doubt which Hume could exploit in matters non-physical, it is at the core not too pragmatic.  There is a degree of invalidity to a foundational doubt.  I would attempt to explain such in this brief analogy.

THE ANALOGY OF THE DRIVE TO TOWN 

I live a distance of six miles from the town where I tend to conduct my affairs, shop, visit, and the like.  I tend to motor to town by the same route.  Over the years, I have come to be so used to the route that I tend not to note those things I have passed frequently.  Anything novel would be noticed.  It was such a structure, a stable, that I came to notice at one point.  Where did it come from, or, thanks to Descartes, was it truly there?  How could its existence be verified?  I pondered the issue and thought that if I were to drive my car off the road and collide with the building, that might well accomplish that test.  So I mused, but passed by on the road to town.

The issue rests.  But, if such a diverted route would have been attempted and followed through to impact, would this actually satisfy philosophical doubt, or would the effort be deemed as illusory and subject to further doubt?  All skepticism aside, such an effort would be rash, insane, presumptive, and most likely fatal.  Still, whether the action had been taken or not, the stable still stands at the side of the road, and is available for viewing as I pass by on my journeys to and from town.  To be seen or ignored, to be precise.

Thus it is with skepticism, as Pratt further noted: The critical point to take home is this: hyper-skeptics are usually only skeptical about a small number of select topics, and are thus hopelessly inconsistent in their skepticism. Their skepticism is, in most cases, just a philosophical cover for being anti-whatever-they-don’t-like.

There is another term for the matter:  closed mindedness.  If this be the case, shall society persist in its pursuit of fashionable skepticism, or see it for what it truly is?



The Strawman Argument: The Liberal Arsenal

I found this You Tube offering in my frequent searches for ideas in exploring the strawman argument.  I found that the conservative is as apt to use the fallacy.  One logic fallacy site noted the work of Dr. James Dobson and his tendency to misunderstand the opposing side.  So, I'm not too biased in presenting this clip of the strawman used by the President.

View and ponder.

Gospels, Q-theorie, and the Analogy of the Classroom Assignment

In the most recent reading of the Christian Apologetics UK blog site, I came across the article entitled, "John's portrayal of Jesus is so different from the Synoptics that some scholars have no confidence in its historicity."  It moved from this premise to examine four schools of opinion on the nature of John's Gospel over against the Synoptic Gospels.  They see John as 1) independent of, 2) interpretive of, 3) substitute for, and 4) supplementary to the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

In a discipline that endured Bart Ehrman's "Telephone Theory" of manuscript transmission and the dissecting of paganizing influences in the Gospel accounts, I enjoy the rebuffs as Christopher Price's assessment of the scholars who refuse to assert the historicity of Jesus due to the Christ Myth theory:

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.

I grew up with the theories and trends of the liberalizing scholars who have examined the four Gospels to death, questioning the construction, authorship, and integrity of these four separate accounts of the ministry of Jesus simply by stating that we don't have four separate accounts of Jesus ministry.  Just a core document, developed from a oral collection of Jesus episodes (Q or Quelle) which developed into a proto-gospel (Ur Mark, if not Mark itself), from which the other synoptics drew up their accounts.  I grew up in a time when the Documentary Hypothesis (remember JEDP?), late-dating of the Gospels, redaction criticism, and Formgeschichtemethode came and waned into scholarly oblivion.  I have not sought out the kerygma for quite a while.  I am confident that the furor over Ehrman's quandaries of today will follow the pathway of its liberal predecessors into the scholastic version of the "Twilight Zone."

It is not that I haven't an interest in the Synoptic Problem, three accounts of Jesus career expressed with both clear agreement and possible discrepancies due to viewpoint.  To a certain degree I have resolved it as the most obvious solution: four independent histories of the same three-year ministry of Jesus.  To explain it further, I offer this analogy.

THE ANALOGY OF THE CLASSROOM ASSIGNMENT

The teacher, Ms. Truman, offered the class a special assignment.  They were to write an essay about the day's proceedings.  However, she was to have the class go at it in a remarkably different manner.  In the end, there would be four complete essays.  She would be sure to assign the task to four special students.  Here would be her procedure:

1.  The first writer would be a special pick, a good wordsmith who would enjoy the writing assignment.  This fellow would be picked in light of a specific quality, being one of the more unpopular students.  This student would examine the day's proceedings in the viewpoint of one who enjoys the routine of the school day, and would be likely to insert reasons why the day would go swimmingly, even if others would not agree.

2.  Ms. Truman noted one student had hurt both hands in a recent accident.  She knows him to be capable of talking up the events of the day, and knows that if he could dictate them, a fine essay could be drafted.  She had enlisted the help of this student's mother, who agreed to help her child.  She is a fine amanuensis, and even injects a few comments based on her similar activities in a classroom.

3.  Ms. Truman's third writer is not from the classroom, but is brought in from another room to talk to the students of the classroom and carefully formulate the proceedings of the day through the various eyewitnesses that he speaks to and records.  The student is a fine practitioner of writing style and is quite capable of presenting an adequate account of the day.

4.  Ms. Truman's final writer is allowed one privilege not granted the other three.  This fellow is allowed to read the first three essays and is instructed to draw up an account of the day's activities that he felt were not touched upon.  Of course, he should make mention of some of the events of the others if it is a necessary part of the telling.

What will be the result of this assignment?  Exactly what one will expect in a comparative reading of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  You will have the retelling of the day, not with an exactitude of copying, but with the similarity of witnessing the same actions, hearing the same words, expressed in accordance to the personal style and point of view of four distinct individuals who were allowed to write under specific circumstances.  Each Gospel writer gathered and used events to their liking and predilections.

It is a simplistic explanation to the Synoptic Problem, although it could easily be expanded on if we understand the differing backgrounds of each writer.  It is at best a natural explanation, one that need not be bolstered with attendant theories to explain production.

• 

Critique of Neo-Skepticism

This idea was inspired by a recent entry on the Apologetics 315 site dealing with an Easter campaign by Dr. Michael Licona's Credo House Ministry.  It is a collection of ten short videos called The Case for the Resurrecton of Christ.  What caught my attention was Licona's proposal of these episodes as responses to ten "myths" raised by those who reject the Resurrection, such as hallucinations, apparent death theory, contradictions within the four resurrection accounts, allusions to materials in the lost gospel, etc.

I took some time to ponder the idea of the contributions of the skeptic being reduced to the realm of mythology, until I made a mental distinction between a true skeptic (one who will demand evidence) and what I term the neo-skeptic (those who persist in doubt not only after evidence is offered, but also continue to present the same argumentation even after their key proposals are shown to be ill-conceived and proven false).  I had once remarked the the legacy of the New Atheism is an introduction of an Age of Misinformation, and now I see my ideas are not misplaced.  We all need to know when skepticism is a natural approach to many situations that need to be explained and expanded upon.  We also need to acknowledge when such skepticism flies in the face of logic, being not less a non-intellectual temper tantrum to be firm in refusal to concede a point.

I offer here one of Licona's videos I thought especially appropriate for this season of Easter.  To see the entire list of ten, do take time to visit Apoplogetics 315.  Watch and ponder.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/39315039?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/39315039">Myth #8: Science Proves that Resurrections Cannot Occur</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user6820541">Credo House</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

The Crux of the Matter: The Foundations of Political Correctness

A thought came to me as I was reading Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator.  At the time he was declaring that science was locked into a philosophical strait-jacket called naturalistic materialism (which causes a defense of the evolutionary theory even against evidence to the contrary), I was hearing in the background a news brief about some matter of censorship based on political correctness.  This was a moment of revelation for me for all the changes of view and opinion that I had observed in the last two decades.  The phenomenon of political correctness had started out as a recognized whim of liberal-minded individuals to allow a greater range of thought to enter the circles of society.

In the atmosphere of highly-charged tolerance for almost anything short of absolutism in morals and ethics, it occurred to me that the criterion of political correctness had a grounding in multicultural thought, naturalistic materialism, and moral relativism.  Any notion that is out of sync with any of these three aphorisms is at onset an unacceptable tenet in neo-American public.

Multiculturalism has a basic truth in the fact that America is derived from many ethnic backgrounds, a world influx of immigration.  But the concept of melting pot has been given over to the ideal of a mosaic, a work that is constructed of many different tiles and colors.  Perhaps apt, but it loses in essence an understanding of a core American culture, a typical "what every American must know" to truly understand the American condition.  Thus no grounding in the earliest history of the American Revolution with its founding fathers and documents.  Promote a course in basic history of America and intense study of Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and there will be complains that no time is given to African-American issues, Islamic cultural studies, or affirmation of women's rights.

Naturalistic materialism narrows the range of human knowledge as to only what science can affirm, if it is able to affirm anything.  Giving no account of God, it cannot delegate a moral code that is applicable to all ranks.  Moral confusion as to what we can determine beyond the dictates of the scientifically proposed elite class of social autocrats is in the offering. A neutral state of anyone deters the moral code for self is the best resolution, but it would need to be enforced by tolerance police.

It can be defended that political correctness once was established by moral absolutes and a Biblical worldview.  It wasn't called political correctness at the time, but it makes for a reasonable request.  If it is possible, if a positon that we must allow as PC is derived from these two counter-philosophies, how can it best be advanced?  The present climate would not allow for such, even though a code of tolerance is advocated by political correctness.  This is the ultimate weakness of PC; it cannot present what it proposes, but must expurgate concepts in opposition to it, though in a PC society such should be impossible.

The ability to disagree diplomatically would sooner be lost than one tenet of political correctness be abandoned.  It could well be that the new revolution that would reshape society would be a PiC (political incorrectness) movement, a revolt against a hypocritical political philosophy that cannot accept criticism.  Such rebuffs could well be vulgar, brutal, and perhaps violent.  We need not divide into PC and PiC factions, but if it ever came to such -- I shutter to think of the consequences.  We are uncivil enough as is.



Strawman at the Reason Rally

The atheistic sponsored Reason Rally has come and gone.  The much vaunted non-event is an indication that the ultimate defense of an atheistic position is a perception that they and they alone are entitled to be identified as rational people, and that all opposition to their purposes are consequently irrational.  Tom Gilson in the Washington Post disagrees.  Atheists do not own reason, thus a parade to demonstrate the rational foundations of atheism is defeated at the onset.  Gilson explains the facade:  For years, though, knowledgeable critics have been calling attention to new atheist’ rational fallacies, emotionally loaded rhetoric, and illegitimate, selective use of evidence. It’s time now to add that up together and recognize what it means: the new atheists have no business proclaiming themselves the defenders of reason, simply because they don’t practice it competently.

It has been of great benefit to allow the rally to be attended, if to show the paucity of the claims of being the defenders of reason if they resort to mob activity to declare their programs.  Tom Gilson did attend, but not as a disruptor.  Threatened by Reason Rally organizer David Silverman that such party crashers would be escorted away by "plentiful security," Gilson attended, to discourse calmly and politely.  He explains: We handed out lots of free water, which many people gratefully accepted, even though the weather was cool and rainy. We handed out excerpts of the True Reason book. We had the quiet, respectful conversations we said we were going there to have: person-to-person, recognizing that we are all human beings interacting with fellow human beings on matters of great importance. We did exactly what we said we would do, and we’re glad we went.

Thus, avoiding a brutish (and obviously irrational) encounter, the theist demonstrated that the ad hominem presentation of those whose opinions are in opposition are not following reasonable practices themselves.  Their arrogant supposition was scuttled.  Bravo to Mr. Gilson.

The whole concept that atheism is a practiced form of reason flies in the face of reason itself.  Note the following syllogism:

1. Faith is at its foundation an irrational act.

2.  Atheism, with its rejection of God, expresses an opinion of faith.

3.  Atheism is at its foundation an irrational act.

The first premise is a standard tenet of atheism.  The second would be questioned however.  But their allegiance to science (scientism, actually, which is a faith in the advancements of science as world's deliverer) can make no definitive statement on God, thus validating the second premise.  The issue of reason in this case is best explained in the role of the boy in Waiting for Godot.  The character of Godot never appears, but a boy is always sent to excuse his absence.  With all apologies to the characters of Vladimir and Estragon, those who expect and suspect the missing character of Godot must be in a form of waiting.  Unless Becket himself resolves the play with a third act, we move slightly beyond agnosticism, fully expectant but not fulfilled, incapable of a certain yes or no.

Thus its best to have called the whole affair the Faith in Reason Rally.  Or better, called it off.



The Strawman and the Strange Case of "Circular Reasoning"

Over the past month in my readings and Internet investigations, I was amazed at a rather narrowness of thinking that I found quite ironic.  In a quandary over the opinions about young earth creationism, I noted a tendency on both sides, evolutionist and creationist, to reduce the whole argument to a matter of circular reasoning.  The creationist denounced the evolutionist position by remarking that a reiterated referral to scientific principles in regard to the cosmological argument as engaging in the fallacy.  The evolutionist rejoinder was dismissing creation as a dogmatic response to evidence apart from scientific evidence.  In short "God made the universe because God stated as much in His Scriptures" was doing battle with "The big bang theory must dismiss a divine agent because in links to causality, God needs to be caused to effect the big bang."

I propose that both sides must admit to something quite shocking: in the expression of our individual worldviews, we have not gathered much substance to advance the ideas of such view without an apparent recurrence to a position we have stated was to be defended.  The hardcore proponent of any position that purports to any notion that surmises universal importance must caution himself of being so sure of the whole of the matter under discussion.  In short, too complicated to offer a simple response.

Attached to this post is a video that I noted was amazing in offering information on design within the universe, and how simple reflective, critical thinking might alter our understanding of the role of science, not because science is flawed, but just now becoming enlightened of the fullness of what must constitute life.  A contemplation of what DNA involves may endanger much of what Darwinism may have led us to comprehend.  Programming of Life offers an investigation of this matter over which we may have argued long and hard.  But it presents no simple resolution to the question about which we have accused the other side of reasoning in circles.

It is an awesome display of scientific thought. Watch and ponder.

The Politics of Apologetics

Attached with this post is a fascinating You Tube video from Dr. John West from the Discovery Institute dealing with the initiative from the scientific community in dealing with religious expression centered around an accepting disposition towards Darwinian evolution.  As you view it, you note a trend that such religious expression is confined to liberal theologians that would agree with a theistic evolutionary process, declaring the compatibility of science and religion.  That is, if science has the final say on what is true religion.  Dr. West makes a statement that such contacts with liberal Christian denominations would be welcomed, but there would be warnings if the neighborhood would be defined as a religiously conservative bloc.  Then such a welcome to religious expression on evolution would be forbidden.

The hypocrisy is thick.  The listing of religious organizations that Dr. Eugenie Scott would promote might just as well double as a listing of the apostate church.

It is the nature of the viewing of areas of life as liberal and conservative that makes me wonder about the nature of the field of apologetics.  In the defense of the faith, is there a degree of liberalism and conservatism, and if so, to what degree does it hamper the study of this discipline?  I acknowledge that there are apologetes that embrace theistic evolution (William Lane Craig) and old earth creationism (Dr. Hugh Ross).  As a young earth creationist, I would disagree with these fine men on this issue.  But their understanding of the nature of Christ's ministry of substitutionary atonement is a basic area of agreement.  I laud Dr. Craig's efforts in debating (and decisively!) the panoply of the New Atheists.  I respect Dr. Ross' work in his field of science.  I would never hold a candle to them in their areas of expertise.  Still, I humbly consider the matter as the efficacy of macroevolution as ill-defined.  The Question Evolution Movement has cited fifteen hardcore questions that show that evolution has not, and possibly will never, explain the origin of life, sexuality, intriquate celluar structures, etc.  I hold to a simple line of argument.

Premise 1:  The origin of the universe is either explained by natural or supernatural causes.

Premise 2:  The naturalistic explanations have been found wanting, particularly in the light of discrediting possible supernatural agencies.

Conclusion:  The origin of the universe could plausibly be caused by supernatural agencies.

This could be as conservative a position as one can imagine.  Does this lead to a rupture between liberal and conservative apologetics.  No.  I value the classical apologetical approach of Dr. Craig, but I assume an evidential approach, even though by rights my Lutheranism would make me a fideist.  But I understand I could produce rationale for faith, based on evidence.  I find myself disagreeing with some of the points raised by apologists as Lane, Licona, and even McDowell (Josh and Sean).  But the essentials of the faith we defend are consistent.  The brilliancy of apologetics is a well-defined "agreement to disagree" on matters.  The code of all apolgetes is found in 1 Peter 3: 15 after all: 

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear. (WEB)

Now for Dr. West.  Watch and ponder.

On Also-Rans and the Issue of "Electablity"

The recent victories of Rick Santorum in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri, coupled with Ron Paul's improved showings in Maine and the CPAC Convention leads to a gratifying feeling that the remaining four Republican candidates will have an engaging campaign through the remainder of the season.  The complacent world of journalism tends to generalize too soon, and a failure of producing a string of endless Mitt Romney victories has put the pre-presidential campaign of Barack Obama vs. Republican contender into a desirable limbo.  We are far from electing a president at this time, and straw polls and surveys are lame substitutes for the reality of November 2012.  We have four candidates, and all have made token remarks to win over the conservative element of their party.

The general misgivings on Santorum and Paul has been the idea that they would not fare well in a theoretical showdown with the President at this time.  Voters have been given the specter of some entity called "electability."  This quality is presented as a sine qua non for candidacy.  As these two have not done well in the early primaries, it has become a foregone conclusion that Paul or Santorum are not qualified to run.  A campaign of two candidates would be more appealing than one with four, especially if the two definitely present something of a widened political spectrum, a moderate versus a conservative.  Too many conservatives seem to be superfluous.

However, the argument could be expressed that the standing conservative, with his unsavory marital history, has unyieldy baggage, allowing the moderate (aka, a conservative's liberal) a decided advantage.  Even I, whom I would label as "conservative," would have difficulty pushing Newt over Mitt.  I am delighted that the other two candidates have persisted in their efforts, and that some success has come of it all.  I am against the candidate that too soon becomes a "media darling" or the expressed choice of the party's "powers-that-be."   As a veteran of last year's Walker vs. Neumann primary, I hold especially any favored status promoted by the party (e.g. "electability") to be an insult to the voting populace.  As a "Neumann backer," my friendly advice would forever be "find the man the party proposes, and vote for the other fellow."  After all, I remain of the opinion that the man (or woman) I would back must hold to the fundamental positions I support.

Thus a field of four offers more hope for those who believe that the 2012 must field two candidates of varied political positions, the classic liberal vs. conservative showdown.  Two moderates lacks a feel for entirety.  The victory that Obama secured over John McCain four years prior could easily have been a mandate to elect the first African-American to demonstrate progress towards  a noble goal.  It could also easily be seen as the Republican Party's effort to offer a candidate that has qualities similar to the Obama juggernaut.  But that smacked too much of a "me-too-ism" that was featured in the Kennedy-Nixon debates, a series of encounters that showed two candidates, one young and dynamic, one young and haggard, with similar positions.  The aura of dynamism that Kennedy held was the edge in that election.  My hope is to allow a real choice in this year's election.  But to do this, any weight that a strawman argument such as "electability" has to be seen as the smokescreen that it is.  The country should vote its conscience according to the issues that guide the nation, not political opportunism.

Rob Bell, Hell, Thin Ice, and the "Scare 'Em" Strawman Fallacy

What prompted this line of thought was a recent news item that declared the ice on Lake Winnebago to be dreadfully thin at this season when the annual sturgeon run was at hand.  The yearly ice-shanty villages that dot the northern edge of this sizable lake seem threatened.  Those 100-200 lb. brutes of the depths seem to have been spared the fate of the spearer.  Growing up living near this lake had been my fondest boyhood memories, including fishing its shorelines, swimming its beaches, skipping stones onto its surface, and walking the ice.

I have considered the work of the evangelical Rob Bell in his recent book Love Wins, and his rationale for dismissing the realms of eternal punishment.  Hell, to Bell, seems inconsistent with the idea of a loving God, and even faced with the necessity of dealing with a perfectly just God, Hell would be overkill.  To many who flinch at the concept of Hell, the notions of annihilation or a temporary stay in the Inferno are palatable options.  The insistence on the reality of Hell is touted by some to be a loveless message, a strategy to hold people fear-bound in the pews or scare them into fellowship.  It is in treating this misconception that I turn to this topic, and neatly try to explain what the first paragraph of this blog has to do with the second.

I stated that I grew up near Lake Winnebago, the proud resident of Neenah, Wisconsin.  Check Google Earth to get the lay of this land.  This wonder of a lake is 30 miles north to south, six miles at its widest stretch, and is remarkably shallow for its dimensions, 21 feet at best.  Near my section of Lake Winnebago flows the Fox River south and north of Doty Island.  For me, it was a trick to be walking on the ice near this confluence of river and lake.  We had to be very wary in reading the ice.  The whiter, the thicker.  And never, ever go near sections of "black ice."  It had "thin" written all over it.  It had gotten to be a simple matter to determine how many inches of ice by viewing the particular shade of white, and we were quick to notice the graying of ice, an indication that warm weather was beginning to decay the ice.  We noted the evenings when the winds were strengthening in the transitional months of February and March, and we marveled at the heights of the ice jams that forced themselves on the western shores of the lake, 15 to 20 feet high.  Armed with that knowledge, it was rather safe for an ice savvy person to walk the ice.  As a boy, I swung far away from the suspicious ice near the entrance of the Fox River at Kimberly Point to walk to Doty Island.  Could one go through the ice on Winnebago?  Certainly, but such a one would not have been able to read the ice at that moment.

So what does this have to do with the fear factor in dealing with Hell?  Much.  To a Texan or a Floridian, the idea of walking on areas where there may be thin ice may be a fearsome concept, but perhaps also an idea that would not simply cross the mind.  To one uninfomed of walking on ice covered lakes, such people who do would appear to be terrible risk takers.  Except to the knowledgeable, such walking has no risks.  We become alert to the situations, and are safe.  In the same way, Hell is a reality to the one who takes Scriptures seriously, but not much of one.  Hell is a doctrine that the Bible teaches, and it should be taught.  But not as a scare tactic or to prompt stable and increased membership in the Church.  But as a truth with consequences, a fair warning, a lesson in walking the ice.  A danger that is there, but not threatening to the initiate.  To the Christian, Hell is for those who wish separation from God, a logical consequence for choosing poorly.  But what type of fellow would choose poorly if s/he would acknowledge a better option? If we all worry about getting to Heaven, the simple answer is to find out how one gains access there. 

Finding that answer may be the most pleasant one has in life.  No one fears going through the ice if they are smart about it.

Law's "Evil God Challenge" and the Problem of Limited Vision

Bernard Law's concept of the identification of God as essentially evil has been limping from the first day.  Plagued by the ontological basis of God being good as a logical consequence of a functional designed universe, the difficulties in the moral argument as being divinely founded over against a core of moral initiatives that lack positive authority apart from natural consequences, Law's premises lack substance.  Suspicious of having the capability to understand God well enough to establish His ways as evil, it is equally possible to fail to appreciate His activities to the point of determining their motives.  To this I offer the following analogy.  Read and ponder.

THE ANALOGY OF THE "EVIL" BANK

You have been led to conclude that the financial entity called "the bank" is evil because of the following facts:  It has 1) foreclosed on your home, 2) led to legal proceedings that caused the repossession of your car, and 3) refused to lend you money for your plans and projects.  You rail on the deficiencies of the bank to all your friends and colleagues.  They sympathize with you, and this heartens you in the knowledge that their disapproval of the bank's actions against you has become their shared viewpoint.  But some of your friends have made inquiries on the motivations of the bank, and have discovered that 1) you have refused to make the necessary payments, 2) have made actions that have worked against the reclamation of property purchased through bank money, and 3) have shown a tendency to be reckless with funds and funding procedures.  In short, there is a basis for the bank to conclude that dealing with you would not be in their best interests.  However, you have personally blocked these reasons from your mind and have warmed yourself with the notion that such banking transactions were founded on a core concept that all bank activity is essentially "evil."  In short, it is coming to a grip on the idea of personal responsibility with bank officials that is lacking, and the declaration of "evil" is a rationale that satisfies you, in spite of the factors that you feel must be dismissed from the equation.

Such a declaration of evil is based on anecdotal evidence, a refusal to contemplate the full array of information that would settle the true nature of banking and its way with men and society.  A quick estimation of banking as "evil" is adequate because you deem it adequate, and further review of the topic would lead to uncomfortable premises that would soon unravel your position.  All factors are not weighed, only the ones you hold.  God is far beyond the complexities of economics, and gathering all indicators of His nature would be a perplexing task, much in the same line of comtemplating the universe.  Science, for all its achievements, is no closer to that level of understanding.

In line with this disertation on the "Evil God Challenge," I offer this selection from Paul Washer and his defense against the so-called "evil god" supposition.  Watch and ponder.

Regionalism, Presidential Politics, and the Pedastaled Argument

In the realm of strawman arguments, the political process is the main consumer.  I have found the debates of the Republican candidates a refreshingly different game of "king on the mountain."  As political promises shift, the game of perceive the front-runner as prime target deals out re-examinations of the proposals and policies of the most recent winner of any primary, caucus, or debate.

As the primaries shift from state to state, I have noted the winner as representative of a region.  Santorum's slender victory in Iowa deprived Romney of a triumph in the Heartland.  No tears for the Massachusetts governor, as he crushed all comers in the New Hampshire primary.  In his euphoria of victory, his momentum was throttled in South Carolina, where Gingrich eclipsed all comers.  Thus I began to wonder if there would be a trend where Romney would fare better in liberal states, Gingrich in Southern states, and Santorum, if he has a ghost of a chance, in the mid-section of the nation.  Especially in the light of the radically changing fortunes of the Republican "leader du jour."  Could it be possible in a nation that the populace could easily tire of the two main contenders and scan the field for what is left?  Time will tell, but in the too easy to ponder milieu of the scarecrow argument, we've been stuck with a choice between a Mormon and a philanderer.  Unenticing menu that.

I look forward to primaries that will move towards the West, and definitely in the mid-section of the country, particularly the northern and southern prairie states.  A few sorties in the "rust Belt" around the Great Lakes may be an eye-opener.  California, with its expansiveness, would contrast its rustic north with its urban south.  It could well be that Texas could be Ron Paul's only hope for recognition.  It all leads one to ponder why one would wish to vote for a particular person.  His region could be the reason.  We in the Midwest can't understand the background of the Northeast, and vice versa.  We all wonder at the temperament of the Red Staters if we are Blue Staters, and vice versa.  But it is from these regions that Americans as a rule pronounce our wishes for leadership, a sense of "one of our own" even if he is not from the neighborhood.

I have written of the pedestaled argument, the position that wins by default due to political pressures on society that would like to establish settled absolutes.  The foundation for such acceptance, even downright obedience, is declaring a core group as elite sources of proper behavior, tolerant understanding, and trends to incorporate into the socio-economic community at large.  It is a thinly veiled argumentum ad verecundiam, a yield all counter-argument in light of allowing society to function smoothly without dissent.  The concept of election is based on the republican idea of representation of the electorate's desire for leadership to be derived from a mandate of voters who have sought a candidate much in line with their own political viewpoints.  This is extremely hard in a nation that has become more and more divisive and divided.  In the world of politics, compromise recognized the truth that no political solution is easy, but based on a sea of factors that cannot simply be balanced by any social calculus.  And yet we persist, happy in the lingo of "neo-cons" and "tree hugger libs" that tends to consolidate a feeling of us vs. them in the political arena, sanctioning negative political ads, seemingly pointless questions aimed to savage political careers, and a general feeling that America will never find its Cincinnatus that will come in, lead well, retire humbly.  A career politican may well be our best bet, or our worse nightmare.

The strawmen are fast becoming busy.

One Point About Tolerance

Below is a You Tube Video from the One-Minute Apologist.  In it, Greg Koukl makes a very wise point about the argument of declaring one side intolerant, as if this strawman strategy is viable.  On viewing, one will see the vaprous lack of substance such a blanket statement makes, and the rather invalid contribution to the discussion of ideas.

Watch and ponder.

Perceptions and the Creation of the Strawman

The topic under discussion is the creation of the strawman that shortcuts all possible intercourse that could seek to resolve issues.  To do this study in a reasonable approach, I needed to create the situation that I am dealing fairly in this project and not creating the strawman concerning something I disagree with and defeat the purpose of this post.  What would be the point of dealing with the creation of the strawman if in doing so I have fully engaged in the mindset that creates the fallacy?  It would be no more a demonstration of the fallacy by committing it myself.  A type of "watch me screw something up in the field of logics."  I wish to examine this unhealthy phenomenon critically.

In doing this, I wish to present two political movements that are poles apart on the key issues, acknowledging that I will tend to lean towards one position, but also pointing out the shabby tendency to vilify the opposition.  These movements are the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement.  In the study, I would first show images that would positively present the position of the activists with brief commentary, and then images that promote strawman disemblance of the movement.  But without commentary.  After showing both positions, I would critique the common fallacy committed by both, with a plea for understanding of these contrasting views.

1.  THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT

Positive images








In review of the pictures, the movement sees as the problem over-sized government, with a zeal to tax excessively. It sees the role of such government as socialism, which has been a noted failure as a system of regulations of nations, economics, and social structure.  It holds such government to be tyrannical, unsympathetic to the citizenry, and wasteful of resources.  Such government is incapable of sustained growth and management.  This is what the Tea Party movement sees as what the nation must fear.

Negative images:

2.  THE OCCUPY ... MOVEMENT

Positive images





The Occupy Movement sees that failure of capitalism as the foundation to all the wrongs of America.  They seek to define a method of a reasonable and fair redistribution of wealth to alleviate social injustices that have been mandated by a portion of society that controls the economics of the country.  The role of government is to establish the necessary programs that would see to the material needs and equivalent rights that a failure to resolve the effects of poverty had for the most part had caused.

Negative images:




THE POWER OF PERCEPTION IN THE CREATION OF THE STRAWMAN

In examining the negative images of each, it is clear that no effort is made to see the reasonings of a given movement if one happened to disagree with the premises of the movement.  To the Occupyan, the Tea Party advocate is a pawn of the corrupt 1%, or inconsistent in the basic positions of the movement.  To the Tea Partier, the Occupy protester is an unprincipled slacker who is secretly working for enemy governments that would transform America into a socialist state.  We have seen all things in the filter of our own perceptions.  The opposition is not a disenting view, it has become a hostile enemy that must be destroyed.  It is too easy to point out the tacky signs that label Pres. Obama as fascist, or the wealthy individual as a narcissic drain upon the strength of the American worker.

Bottom line.  Both are concerned for the future of their country, but at this point, we have not alerted each other to our visions, our fears, our passion for the continuance of democratic systems and the common welfare of the citizens.  Until we have this ability to hear we drives our political viewpoints, our desitny is best expressed in one last image: