Some time ago, a letter to the editor in the Watertown Daily-Times denounced a trend to view the news outlets Fox News and MSNBC as polarizing effects, and sought a solution, the moderate outlets as NBC. This was a sincere effort to key on the "coming together" at a compromised position featured as the default understanding of the American culture. It is an acceptable approach only if it is a legitimate method at ascertaining truth.
Unfortunately, it is not. It fights polarization with a blind surrender to a position that is hybrid, not an authentic arrival at a suitable solution. It closes down the arena of ideas for pseudo-thought.
In analyzing this notion of finding the central point acceptable to both, I am heavily influenced by Hegelian thought of historical shifts and the forces that motivate them. The essence of this philosophical view is the friction of thesis and antithesis, resolving into a middle position called synthesis. Graphically seen we have:
I. THESIS -----------------------------> SYNTHESIS <--------------------------------- ANTITHESIS
Centrism holds that this is a necessary historic flow of thinking and the cultures and political systems that develop from such shifts. Accepting this tenet removed the idea of intellectual fairness that once instructed informed individuals to subscribe to two newspapers, one liberal and one conservative, and to pursue a wide range of reading from all points of the spectrum of ideas. Acceptance of this premise fails in the one respect of a continuation of this dynamic, expanding itself beyond a second level, like thus.
II. THESIS -----------------------------> SYNTHESIS' <-------------------------------- ANTITHESIS
THESIS' ---> SYNTHESIS" <---- SYNTHESIS'
Note the drift of the original idea towards the original thesis. In the view of the antithesis, such drift alienates the original proposition of the antithesis. This could lead to a triple level of historic-cultural shift:
III. THESIS ------------------------------> SYNTHESIS' <------------------------------- ANTITHESIS
THESIS' ---> SYNTHESIS" <---- SYNTHESIS'
SYNTHESIS" -----------------------> SYNTHESIS"' <------------ ANTITHESIS'
In these variations to the original Hegelian scheme (I.), I would call II. Remodification and III. Retrofication. In the drama of history, these would be the components of revolution and counter-revolution. I hold American culture as whipping wildly between rapid shifts of II and III.
The key to taking a pragmatical application to what could become more complicated is in the view of Fox News as THESIS, MSNBC as ANTITHESIS. This would make NBC (or any "mainstream" outlets) as SYNTHESIS. The objection that soon arises is the perception that NBC is merely a reduplication of the same journalistic tone as ANTITHESIS. This would then be seen as concession, presented as:
THESIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------> SYNTHESIS=ANTITHESIS
Thus we have a closing of mind, the acceptance of a default view, all others to be "debunked" dogmatically.
The solution is standing ones ground, to demand the proof needed to accept a synthesized position. Centrism may lead to the semblance of contentment, but it would be the contentment of sheep.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
The Apocalyptic Motif
It was not all that long ago that images of the unshaven hippie-type bearing the banner "The End is Near" would have left us with the compulsion to snicker.
The "Left Behind" series has been put off as low theater of the Christian variety.
The imagery of Revelation is often seen as unsettling, and reduced to the level of propaganda presented to get the uncritical masses to get into line and join the Church.
But recently, science has chimed in on the same theme. Global warming alarmists are bent on positing a date for irreparable damage, 2054 if I'm not mistaken. The latest episode of Cosmos warns us that the environment is a fragile thing that would rage against its inhabitants given the proper circumstances. From time to time, we are alerted of million-mile misses of space objects that would have impacted negatively life as we know it. And, while there is in science voices of calm and assurance, there is an undercurrent that simply "carrying on" will imply necessary life-style changes, a secular form of repent or perish.
I have often wondered if there isn't some form of earth-weariness that society slips into from time to time. Uncertainty in economic factors and political progress leaves one spent and zealous to be done with it all. The end of the world (or Western civilization as we know it) seems to groan and sigh with the surge of advances and reversals in history's little march to somewhere.
If we could be assured this is not a Bataan Death March, we could endure. Unbridled optimism seems to be a slim cure, and sometimes more poison than medicine. We are hell-bent to make the world a better place, but in making strides we fail to move forward. For all our progress, we still would like to know our destination well before hand, and making progress to make more progress later seems like so much wheels spinning in the mud.
Perhaps "The End is Near" is just a hankering for a destination, after all.
The "Left Behind" series has been put off as low theater of the Christian variety.
The imagery of Revelation is often seen as unsettling, and reduced to the level of propaganda presented to get the uncritical masses to get into line and join the Church.
But recently, science has chimed in on the same theme. Global warming alarmists are bent on positing a date for irreparable damage, 2054 if I'm not mistaken. The latest episode of Cosmos warns us that the environment is a fragile thing that would rage against its inhabitants given the proper circumstances. From time to time, we are alerted of million-mile misses of space objects that would have impacted negatively life as we know it. And, while there is in science voices of calm and assurance, there is an undercurrent that simply "carrying on" will imply necessary life-style changes, a secular form of repent or perish.
I have often wondered if there isn't some form of earth-weariness that society slips into from time to time. Uncertainty in economic factors and political progress leaves one spent and zealous to be done with it all. The end of the world (or Western civilization as we know it) seems to groan and sigh with the surge of advances and reversals in history's little march to somewhere.
If we could be assured this is not a Bataan Death March, we could endure. Unbridled optimism seems to be a slim cure, and sometimes more poison than medicine. We are hell-bent to make the world a better place, but in making strides we fail to move forward. For all our progress, we still would like to know our destination well before hand, and making progress to make more progress later seems like so much wheels spinning in the mud.
Perhaps "The End is Near" is just a hankering for a destination, after all.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The Christian Landscape: Modernism vs. Fundamentalism
I am a fan of the Phil Vischer Podcast, and have followed the career of the creator of Veggietales through his formation of Big Idea picture group, his lost of the company, and continuance in Big Idea while forming his new venture Jelly Telly. I own the entire set of What's In the Bible? videos and had given a review of one of them. While I appreciate his efforts to defend and expand the Christian faith, I am put off by the general tone his podcast has toward conservative elements in the Christian Church. He points out the wild-eyed "crazy Christians," and notes the off-hand comments of Westboro Baptists (deserved) and Phil Robertson (undeserved). Concepts of power-bases and cultural adaptation of the faith are difficult concepts to use as filters for authentic Christianity, but I have this disdain for those who label the fundies" as rabble-rousers who distort the faith.
I hold to conservative Christianity, but would strain at the "conservative" label. Too politically charged in these Political Correctness days. I would hold to the concept of "confessional." To me, Christianity is creedal, a fellowship of believers in the "one true faith." Mr. Vischer lays a great deal of importance to the "personal relationship in Christ. Important, but equally solipsistic. To cast dispersions on those who don't wish to conform but be transformed, the cultural issues are quickly reduced to a matter of loving the world and those things in the world. We must debate between the doomed present world (the Titanic version) and the world to be restored in Christ (a true version of Christian utopia). But to his credit, Mr. Vischer does his thing with a sufficient amount of tact, if it does get laced by humorous quips (and perhaps too many of these, as they tend to break into the comments of his fellow hosts and infrequent guests).
Mr. Vischer's criticisms of the fundamental branches of the faith needs to be tempered with maybe one thought. This past Sunday, one of the hymns was "It is Well with My Soul," by Horatio Spafford. The fellow was part of the conservative evangelistic movement of Dwight Moody. The hymn was written in response to a horrible tragedy that took the lives of his four daughters in the sinking of the Ville du Havre (which is the name of the hymn's melody). Mr. Vischer suffered the lost of his original business venture Big Idea, much in the same way Spafford endured much financial and personal loss in 1871. Whatever one may feel towards the doctrinal tenets of the other, each has walked in the shadow of despair, but overcoming same.
Modernists may lampoon fundamentalists views on literal interpretation. Fundamentalists may question the modernists' definition of omnipotence. Both sides need to grow firmer in the faith, and life's blows may be divine impulsions to bury the rancor and appreciate the views the other may hold and express.
I hold to conservative Christianity, but would strain at the "conservative" label. Too politically charged in these Political Correctness days. I would hold to the concept of "confessional." To me, Christianity is creedal, a fellowship of believers in the "one true faith." Mr. Vischer lays a great deal of importance to the "personal relationship in Christ. Important, but equally solipsistic. To cast dispersions on those who don't wish to conform but be transformed, the cultural issues are quickly reduced to a matter of loving the world and those things in the world. We must debate between the doomed present world (the Titanic version) and the world to be restored in Christ (a true version of Christian utopia). But to his credit, Mr. Vischer does his thing with a sufficient amount of tact, if it does get laced by humorous quips (and perhaps too many of these, as they tend to break into the comments of his fellow hosts and infrequent guests).
Mr. Vischer's criticisms of the fundamental branches of the faith needs to be tempered with maybe one thought. This past Sunday, one of the hymns was "It is Well with My Soul," by Horatio Spafford. The fellow was part of the conservative evangelistic movement of Dwight Moody. The hymn was written in response to a horrible tragedy that took the lives of his four daughters in the sinking of the Ville du Havre (which is the name of the hymn's melody). Mr. Vischer suffered the lost of his original business venture Big Idea, much in the same way Spafford endured much financial and personal loss in 1871. Whatever one may feel towards the doctrinal tenets of the other, each has walked in the shadow of despair, but overcoming same.
Modernists may lampoon fundamentalists views on literal interpretation. Fundamentalists may question the modernists' definition of omnipotence. Both sides need to grow firmer in the faith, and life's blows may be divine impulsions to bury the rancor and appreciate the views the other may hold and express.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The Fraudulent Hermeneutic
About two years prior, in a running exchange of posts dealing with the reliability and inspiration of Scriptures, after a series of salvos centered on perceived Biblical errors (and their resolutions), one atheistic post remarked, almost in an accusatory tone, "You have answers for everything." Shortly afterwards, I was introduced to the concept of "confirmation bias," a trend to find rationale for details of belief. We hold to our faith and are willing to draw up elaborate defenses to preserve what we hold to, leading to circular paths of reasoning.
I considered the concepts, but rejected them for what I determined was the ground of failure to diminish claims of reliability in the Bible.
The whole hermeneutical scheme that atheists use to devalue Scriptures is flawed.
The premises behind such a method hinge on two basic beliefs, 1) a dismissal of God as real, and 2) the rejection of the supernatural as possible. In some respects, this methodology resembles much of an idea of journeying to France with a feeling that knowing French is unnecessary.
The approach to view Scriptural content and teachings from a secular eye has met with a series of disastrous results since the initial studies of the German schools in the late 1800's. The concepts of the documentary hypothesis (remember JEDP?) have been proven inadequate, the forces of late-dating are approaching dating of the Gospels much closer to the conservative estimates (another twenty years and they will be ours!) than the original second century estimates. The trend to link Christian developments toward a Gnostic base are still looked on as ludicrous. With a core understanding of the Bible producing extreme and extremely inaccurate suppositions, it isn't unusual that a "you have answers for everything" response to such ill-formed claims to be difficult. Scriptural quotes addressed to me seem forever out of context and radically applied to situations completely unreal.
Bart Ehrmann once questioned the approaches of conservative scholarship over against secular research. But his latest book, How Jesus Became God, was duly and quickly answered by a team of Biblical scholars with their How God Became Jesus. Ah yes, an answer for everything. It is important to relate to media sources the ease in which wild speculations, drafted for popular consumption and financial remuneration, are trumped. But only in a land were both sides are offered, where strawman arguments cannot exist.
I considered the concepts, but rejected them for what I determined was the ground of failure to diminish claims of reliability in the Bible.
The whole hermeneutical scheme that atheists use to devalue Scriptures is flawed.
The premises behind such a method hinge on two basic beliefs, 1) a dismissal of God as real, and 2) the rejection of the supernatural as possible. In some respects, this methodology resembles much of an idea of journeying to France with a feeling that knowing French is unnecessary.
The approach to view Scriptural content and teachings from a secular eye has met with a series of disastrous results since the initial studies of the German schools in the late 1800's. The concepts of the documentary hypothesis (remember JEDP?) have been proven inadequate, the forces of late-dating are approaching dating of the Gospels much closer to the conservative estimates (another twenty years and they will be ours!) than the original second century estimates. The trend to link Christian developments toward a Gnostic base are still looked on as ludicrous. With a core understanding of the Bible producing extreme and extremely inaccurate suppositions, it isn't unusual that a "you have answers for everything" response to such ill-formed claims to be difficult. Scriptural quotes addressed to me seem forever out of context and radically applied to situations completely unreal.
Bart Ehrmann once questioned the approaches of conservative scholarship over against secular research. But his latest book, How Jesus Became God, was duly and quickly answered by a team of Biblical scholars with their How God Became Jesus. Ah yes, an answer for everything. It is important to relate to media sources the ease in which wild speculations, drafted for popular consumption and financial remuneration, are trumped. But only in a land were both sides are offered, where strawman arguments cannot exist.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Interpretation and "Filters"
One recent read, That's a Great Question by Glenn Pearson, has much to reveal about a recent post in Stand to Reason blog. In the article concerning five erroneous ideas about the celebration of Easter, one blogger rejects the nativity narrations of Matthew and Luke due to the lack of inclusion of such stories in Mark, credited as the first drafted gospel.
Pearson notes in his book that readings of the Bible is unduly charged with presumptions that color the interpretation of Scriptures. He calls these foundational approaches to literature filters, and cites five key ones:
This approach to interpretation is pattently dishonest. The Bible attests the content of its own material as difficult to follow, difficult to accept. This content is not to be deemed therefore being illogical. The concepts of God need to be shaped by logic (the doctrine of the Trinity comes to mind). Thus those people who must follow all things logical may have a difficulty with a full understanding of Biblical concepts.
But to deduce that a portion of the Scriptures must be removed due to a perceived lack of logic is a huge assumption to accept. Scriptures say that the ways of God transcend the thinking patterns of men. It also has been a historical fact that alterations to the concept of the Godhood come frequently, all in a quest that is on-going, never accepting for a fact that many truth have been expressed about God from material insisting on its divinely guided origins.
Man is foundational idolatrous, seeking a deity that resembles himself. Noting this, acceptance of ideas that pursue this quest for understanding God results in understanding a god made in our own image.
Pearson notes in his book that readings of the Bible is unduly charged with presumptions that color the interpretation of Scriptures. He calls these foundational approaches to literature filters, and cites five key ones:
- The Filter of New Revelation
- The Filter of Outlandish Speculation
- The Filter of Atheism
- The Filter of Anti-Supernaturalism
- The Filter of Selective Christian Theology
This approach to interpretation is pattently dishonest. The Bible attests the content of its own material as difficult to follow, difficult to accept. This content is not to be deemed therefore being illogical. The concepts of God need to be shaped by logic (the doctrine of the Trinity comes to mind). Thus those people who must follow all things logical may have a difficulty with a full understanding of Biblical concepts.
But to deduce that a portion of the Scriptures must be removed due to a perceived lack of logic is a huge assumption to accept. Scriptures say that the ways of God transcend the thinking patterns of men. It also has been a historical fact that alterations to the concept of the Godhood come frequently, all in a quest that is on-going, never accepting for a fact that many truth have been expressed about God from material insisting on its divinely guided origins.
Man is foundational idolatrous, seeking a deity that resembles himself. Noting this, acceptance of ideas that pursue this quest for understanding God results in understanding a god made in our own image.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The "Aura" of Science
In the recent "Skeptical Enquirer," Bill Nye recounted his version of his debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. As could be expected, he crowed over the victory in the arena of his opponent. He recalled the array of scientific evidences that concluded that the earth could not possibly be 6000 years. He relished the thought that the statified limestone formation on which the museum was constructed was definitive proof. He also claimed that the scope of the debate on which both parties agreed made creationism, not evolution, the concept under consideration. While granting that the debate was not scored, most observers gave Nye the victory.
I have watched a fair portion of the debate. While Nye offered ample evidences, Ham returned with the idea that most evidences would preclude an old earth as well. Nye could respect Ham for his defense of Biblical creationism, but conclude science would trump Bible.
On this premise alone, Nye would have not fared well. His claims of victory would be awkward. To discount one form of evidence would question his own evidence, derived from natural sources without annotation, other than annotations that would be assumed or contrived. If Nye's evidences could be interpreted to support young earth creationism (which Ham aseerted and proved), then science if guilty of refusal to examine such interpretations, opting for their own versions unquestioningly.
This is the fatal flaw of science. It is the basis of credibilty of science that it bears a degree of falsifiability. It relishes skepticism, but if focused on falsifiability of some concepts andnot others, a disingenuous science develops. This is displayed in the area of climatology, where those who question the tenets of global warming or climate change would be called "deniers," not "skeptics." Data can be submitted that shows the tenuous support of evidence for the theory. But "extreme weather" (aka storms) have been manifested throughout history. The tragic weather events of the year have been repeated through the decades, matching the vicious 1880's and 1930's. Those climatologists who bewailed the coming cataclysm in the 1980's (2004) have reacted similarly today, positioning 2047 as the new maelstrom.
The results are predictable. Only 34% really believe in the alarmist notions of environmental disaster. This is down from 36%. Trust in big science, which draws from grants from government agencies, is starting to waver. This in a time when the media would trumpet the area of the sciences, promoting careers in some branch of human inquiry. Perhaps such efforts is now seen as "protesting too much."
But the bloom is off the rose. If we perceive science as the pursuit of knowledge through discovery, we can preserve a noble endeavor. If science becomes the search of what we desire to find, then we can soon experience the source of fraud and deception.
I have watched a fair portion of the debate. While Nye offered ample evidences, Ham returned with the idea that most evidences would preclude an old earth as well. Nye could respect Ham for his defense of Biblical creationism, but conclude science would trump Bible.
On this premise alone, Nye would have not fared well. His claims of victory would be awkward. To discount one form of evidence would question his own evidence, derived from natural sources without annotation, other than annotations that would be assumed or contrived. If Nye's evidences could be interpreted to support young earth creationism (which Ham aseerted and proved), then science if guilty of refusal to examine such interpretations, opting for their own versions unquestioningly.
This is the fatal flaw of science. It is the basis of credibilty of science that it bears a degree of falsifiability. It relishes skepticism, but if focused on falsifiability of some concepts andnot others, a disingenuous science develops. This is displayed in the area of climatology, where those who question the tenets of global warming or climate change would be called "deniers," not "skeptics." Data can be submitted that shows the tenuous support of evidence for the theory. But "extreme weather" (aka storms) have been manifested throughout history. The tragic weather events of the year have been repeated through the decades, matching the vicious 1880's and 1930's. Those climatologists who bewailed the coming cataclysm in the 1980's (2004) have reacted similarly today, positioning 2047 as the new maelstrom.
The results are predictable. Only 34% really believe in the alarmist notions of environmental disaster. This is down from 36%. Trust in big science, which draws from grants from government agencies, is starting to waver. This in a time when the media would trumpet the area of the sciences, promoting careers in some branch of human inquiry. Perhaps such efforts is now seen as "protesting too much."
But the bloom is off the rose. If we perceive science as the pursuit of knowledge through discovery, we can preserve a noble endeavor. If science becomes the search of what we desire to find, then we can soon experience the source of fraud and deception.
Monday, April 14, 2014
The "Grounded" Ontological Argument Part Three: Beyond Imagination
A quick review. The previous lines of posts dealt with the thrust of the Ontological Argument and the view of the definition linked to reality. With a quick undetstanding of the ontological argument, we examined briefly the historical background of how the imaginary entities gained definition, a uniform understanding of things unreal. Events in history lead to conceptions of things that were legendary, events that were reconstructed or embellished.
But now it comes to the issue of God. What is the basis of a historical defining of God-hood? It is a simple case of what we have noted in all things else. We saw short people. We conceived dwarfs and embellished to fairies. We saw large lizards. We conceived dragons. We were deluded in conclusing so.
But in God, we have such difficulty, as God in His attributes is transcendent. But in the case of theophany, such impossibility becomes improbable at best. Theophanies are rare, but only one proves the Deity. Such phenomena would be awesome in presentation. But we cannot handle it as a unicorn. (That was a horse and a branch that you saw in a strange agle making it look like a horn in the forehead). To say, "Thunderstorms are awesome, but merely natural displays of power ..." misses the point. We aren't speaking of thunders crash and lightnings flash, but an appearance with conversation. What occurred to Abraham, Moses, Jesus can't be reduced to meteorology.
We can cull out phony theophanies as certain micickings of desirable events. The crude appearance of gods to copulate with young women is nothing compared to the assuming of the role of chariot driver to talk over the role of warfare. We may note the varieties, but must conclude the likelihood of the theophanic situation.
God can be defined from historical grounds. These occasions can be reasonable assumed to be probable. If God has been presented to anyone, such can be historically true. The fact the God is definably uniform hold this case together.
But now it comes to the issue of God. What is the basis of a historical defining of God-hood? It is a simple case of what we have noted in all things else. We saw short people. We conceived dwarfs and embellished to fairies. We saw large lizards. We conceived dragons. We were deluded in conclusing so.
But in God, we have such difficulty, as God in His attributes is transcendent. But in the case of theophany, such impossibility becomes improbable at best. Theophanies are rare, but only one proves the Deity. Such phenomena would be awesome in presentation. But we cannot handle it as a unicorn. (That was a horse and a branch that you saw in a strange agle making it look like a horn in the forehead). To say, "Thunderstorms are awesome, but merely natural displays of power ..." misses the point. We aren't speaking of thunders crash and lightnings flash, but an appearance with conversation. What occurred to Abraham, Moses, Jesus can't be reduced to meteorology.
We can cull out phony theophanies as certain micickings of desirable events. The crude appearance of gods to copulate with young women is nothing compared to the assuming of the role of chariot driver to talk over the role of warfare. We may note the varieties, but must conclude the likelihood of the theophanic situation.
God can be defined from historical grounds. These occasions can be reasonable assumed to be probable. If God has been presented to anyone, such can be historically true. The fact the God is definably uniform hold this case together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)