Penn says "Proselytize?"

Penn Jillette, well known for both his atheism and his star as an entertainer, shares a short story about his encounter with a kind man who gave him a Bible.  It is pretty convicting stuff if you actually hold to a belief in the biblical gospel.

His logic is pretty simple and straightforward.  If you believe in the offer of eternal life and that there is heaven or hell before us at our departure from this earth, you OUGHT TO care enough about others to tell them.  Makes sense to me...though I would want to give some concern to "how we go about telling people" we certainly need to be about the telling.

Jesus told his followers to proclaim the gospel to all...and even Penn sees the logic in true believers sharing good news. Some of Penn's stuff is not the most respectful, but this video is heartfelt, sincere and charitable.

Pray that those of us who believe would take the time to reach out to others as this man did with Penn. It seems this person understood how to approach someone with "gentleness and respect."

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Question of God - Part V

continued from Part IV

Morality

I am sure some of you over time have seen the bumper sticker that reads “mean people suck.”  Let me just be risky and go on the record with you that I indeed agree with the philosophy that mean people indeed sucketh.

We seem to all agree that there are right and wrong ways and these seem to be objective and universal in some sense.  We do not have any time here to discuss theories of ethics be they virtue, deontological, ordered by God, or consequentialist in view.  What I will say is the moral nature to life is extremely important clue to the nature of reality.

Even a large corporate juggernaut has as an official ethic of “Don’t be evil.” Surprisingly when asked what being evil was, Google CEO Eric Schmidt candidly replied “Whatever Sergei says is evil.” [1] Now this reveals both a clue and problem with our understanding of our world.

Who says what is right in this world?  Is it really up to Sergey? Or you? Not me!  It seems to me that if there is a standard, a moral law by which we might find our way, let me suggest a higher standard than Sergei Bryn is needed. Unless Sergey = God we have a massive problem on our hands. What is right or wrong? Who says? It might be easy to say “we do” but this sort of naivety, even if espoused by learned academics, simply ignores so much of the reality of human experience.  There are always many, many individuals who step out of the herd to define and do life their way.  To hell with the rest of you they say.  We might just say “Bad Hitler” but “good and bad” is what we are wrestling with in the first place.  It seems morality is not made up by Sergey Brn; so there may be a higher source which is needed to understand the moral nature of our universe.

A related clue is our obsessive realization that they world is broken and needs to be fixed.  This is the thought of every generation not simply those of our own.  Every politician feeds off of this reality.  She will fix it all for us if we elect her!!! This seems to indicate that we all see something wrong with humanity, something not quite right and that we ought to be different, that we need to change. Or we at least everybody else needs to get their act together.  This only seems to fit in a view of the world that teaches us that life is good but has gone bad and needs to be redeemed.  The view that says “life just is how it is” really has no resources to say that it is also “jacked up” and needs to change.  But there is a view that is in concord with our intuitions; listen to the 20th century journalist GK Chesterton:

And my haunting instinct that somehow good was not merely a tool to be used, but a relic to be guarded, like the goods from Crusoe’s ship — even that had been the wild whisper of something originally wise, for, according to Christianity, we were indeed the survivors of a wreck, the crew of a golden ship that had gone down before the beginning.[2]

The world seems to be a good place which has gone bad and needs to change.  Perhaps this is simply a deep truth about reality.  Ancient Christian writings teach us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and need to be changed and redeemeed…I find this to be true and in harmony with our acknowledged suckiness of mean people.   Just something to think about…

continued in Part VI - Destiny

---

[1] Afterall, when the chief executive googler, Eric Schmidt, was asked what was “evil” the reply was simply: Whatever Sergey says is evil.  (see 2003 Wired Mag piece Google vs. Evil)

[2] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Image Books ed. (New York: Image Books, 1959), 80.

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Question of God - Part IV

…continued from Part III

Meaning

Is life meaningless?  Much of 20th century thought has tended in this direction. From Beckett’s Waiting for Godot or Jean Paul Sartre’s Nausea or No Exit to Douglas Adam’s  A Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy paint a pretty empty picture for the meaning of life.  The Hitchiker’s of the galaxy learn that the world has no real meaning and perhaps the universe is just a game being run by a couple of mice.  It is really funny if you “get” British comedy. So the universe is a funny place, but when you think about it, meaninglessness is pretty depressing.

Listen to the words of Jean Paul Sartre, one of the great prophets of meaninglessness

I was true, I had always realized it - I hadn’t any “right” to exist at all.  I had appeared by chance, I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe. I could feel nothing to myself but an inconsequential buzzing. I was thinking…that here we are eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence, and that there’s nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing.[1]

The modern world has left us simply trying to construct meaning within a universe that has no overarching, higher purpose.  The brave peddlers of meaningless life tell us that there is simply no big purpose out there and you would be wise to get over it and maybe fill your meaningless lives with local meaning.  Local meaning is sexy of course because you can create it for yourself.  You can find meaning in sex, love or video games, just do whatever works for you and try to make yourself happy.  Of course our own meaning might infringe on someone else’s meaning so we are left scratching our heads for a way forward.  We might say we should live for “the common good” but this is no good if we have no good in common.  This seems to be the history of humanity; everyone looking to do good which seems to involve blowing other people up. 

Whether we do it for religious reasons (think jihads, crusades, emperor worship) or so called secular reasons (think Stalin and Mao - wonderful benevolent atheists) our meanings in life tend not to stay local.  This does not even mention all the pain and contortion that happen in everyday lives as we sexually abuse one another, steal from one another, lie to one another or simply ignore one another into an abyss of loneliness.  It seems all of this life on earth does mean something…it does seem to have some purpose as we seem to recognize when it is not being lived out. So here we stand dangling between hope and despair. You can choose hope and risk being thought naive or you can embrace despair, get over it and try to find a life. If you want to choose hope we must look for meaning and purpose in our existence.  Here are a few simple clues in that search.

Now whether we give love a bad name or not I will leave up to the prophet Bon Jovi, but whether love is a good thing I will simply go on the line for the affirmative.  It seems we are made for relationship, we are made to love and be loved, even by our Creator.  But let me take it one step further, it seems we were made to worship.  After all, we do all worship something - fans of sports teams, fans of money, fans of certain women/men, rock stars, movie stars etc.  We all do it you know; I don’t think we can help it.  We are made to worship and this is a great clue to the meaning of our existence.   The question of whom or what we worship is perhaps one of the questions in life.  God seems much better to adore and worship than Paris Hilton.  Our longing for meaning seems to find its home in a relationship or worship; one only a real God and a real relationship can satisfy.

…continued in Part V - Moral Reality

---

[1] Timothy J. Keller, The Reason for God : Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008), 127. It seems Keller has redacted several quotes from this work into this one selection.  See source material in Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea ([Norfolk, Conn.]: New Directions, 1964), 84, 112.

O Euthyphro Where Art Thou?

I wrote this a little while back and thought it might bore a few of you :) Enjoy.

-------------------------------------------------------

In Plato's dialogue the Euthyphro, Socrates asks his confident interlocutor, for whom the dialogue is named, for a definition of piety.  The answer offered, after some refinement, is that piety is what is loved by all the gods.  The dialogue shifts to the ancient, but ever contemporary question, of whether an action is pious (or good) because the gods love them or do the gods love them because they are pious (or good, from this point forward, the source of ethical good will be used in place of piety).  The problem that emerges is arriving at the very definition of ethical good - is there an answer to the question, what is the source of ultimate ethical value?  In this paper I will defend a sensible theistic moral realism, the view that ultimate, objective ethical value lies within the essential nature a transcendent, personal, moral being which is referred to as God.  I will defend this view by first examining the two options offered in the dialogue between Socates and Euthryphro and demonstrate the problems with each.  Finally, my thesis of a sensible theistic realism will be offered and some objections to this view will be answered.

Options from the Euthyphro

The timeless question of what makes an action good or bad, right or wrong, surfaces in the Euthyphro as Socrates questions a man (Euthyphro) who is taking his own father to court for the accidental killing of a murderer.  The culture of ancient Greece placed a high value on honoring one's parents, so Socrates is shocked at how Euthyphro could know that this is the right thing to do.  Sensing that he may be talking to a very wise man, one who could discern right and wrong in such circumstances, Socrates begins to ask Euthyphro to teach him what it means for an action to be good.   What emerges from the questioning is the definition that good is that which is loved by all the gods (or a monotheistic God, for the gods were said to be in complete agreement, from this point forward, the singular God will be used).   This is not satisfactory to Socrates as it surfaced for him yet another question.  Is an action good because it is loved by God or does God love them because they are good in and of themselves?  From this question we have two possible answers for where ultimate ethical value is found in the universe.  Option one, which will be referred to as Universe A, says the good is what God loves or wills.  Option two, which will be referred to as Universe B, claims actions are good independent of God, and God loves these actions for the qualities that make them good actions.  Each of these possible worlds will be evaluated as the source for ultimate ethical value. Before turning to this task it should be noted that in Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro a few premises, underlying assumptions, were involved in the discussion.  The assumptions are as follows:

1. Certain things are objectively right and wrong.

To say moral values are objective is to say that something is right or wrong apart from whether human beings believe it to be so or not.  It is to say that the Holocaust was morally wrong, even though the Nazis thought it was good.  Even if Nazi Germany had won World War II and killed or brainwashed everybody who disagreed with them, their actions would still have been wrong. [1]

1. God exists.
2. God is good and wants all and only good actions from us.

It is noted that Universe A only makes sense if God actually exists, but Universe B does not necessarily require the existence of God for the objective good to exist.

Universe A

In Universe A, the good is defined as what God loves/wills/commands.  This view, known as voluntarism, has merit for two main reasons.  First, in this universe ethics are grounded in the will of a transcendent being who is the creator of all things.  If God created the universe, then God would also be the creator of moral values.   Second, if moral values are actually objective, then where else but God could morals be grounded but in such a transcendent creator?  Voluntarism, however suffers from a central flaw, as its definition of the good appears arbitrary.  What is good?  Whatever God wills.  What does God will?  Whatever is good.  If ethics appear arbitrary in Universe A, our quest for the source of ultimate ethical value must be turned towards Universe B.

Universe B

In Universe B actions are good for some quality other than them being the will of God.  In Universe B, the good, just somehow exists whether God exists or not.  The question in Universe B however remains - what is it about an action which makes it good?   It seems that in Universe B, we simply have no definition as to what makes something objectively right or wrong.  It then can be argued that the existence of truly objective moral values requires the existence of God as their source, a requirement that would then refute the main claim of Universe B...that the good exists apart from God.  A simple argument for this position may be stated as follows:

• If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 
• Objective moral values do exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

To reject premise 1, a sort of atheistic moral realism must be affirmed.   By this I mean that objective moral values must just exist somehow hanging in the universe as mere abstractions without any foundation.  The atheistic moral realist must affirm that goodness or justice just exists, independent of persons, without further definition.  It may be readily understood when someone is called a good or just person, but it is difficult to understand what is meant when one says justice simply IS.  Additionally, atheistic moral realism does nothing to explain the nature of ethical duty.  Even if one can somehow show that goodness just is, why ought anyone do what is good tomorrow?[2]  Many subjective answers may be offered at this point (for the greater good of society or the species, to make me happier, so I do not go to jail etc) but these are in no way objectively binding on anyone.  I am by no means saying that you need to believe in God to live a moral life or to recognize objective moral values.  What I am saying is this, in a universe without God, where matter is all that exists, barbarous acts (such as torturing babies, rape, etc) may not be useful for the species or they may not be preferred by large numbers of people, but this merely shows that it is not useful or not liked, not that it is in some way objectively wrong.  If values cannot be shown to be actually objective apart from the existence of God, then perhaps the only recourse to maintain atheism is a rejection of premise 2 by embracing relativism.  Philosopher of science Michael Ruse exhibits such a rejection:

Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and has no being beyond or without this. Why should humans be thus deceived about the presumed objectivity of moral claims?  The answer is easy to see.  Unless we think morality is objectively true, a function of something outside of and higher than ourselves - it would not work.  If I think I should help you when and only when I want to, I shall probably help you relatively infrequently.  But, because I think I ought to help you - because I have no choice about my obligation, it being imposed upon me - I am more likely, in fact, to help you...Hence by its very nature, ethics is and has to be something which is, apparently, objective, even though we now know that, truly, it is not. [3] (emphasis mine)

As stated prior, in the Euthyphro the argument between Universes A and B is framed with the assumption that values are objective, so we will save any arguments against relativism for another time.   Universe B appears to fail to provide the source of objective moral values, because it is not possible to ground what is objectively good without a transcendent creator.  Therefore Universe B also fails us as an explanation of the reality of ultimate ethical value as it exists, for in this universe one could never have any confidence that she was actually living in a good manner.

If both Universes A and B have failed us in our quest to find the ultimate source for ethical value, perhaps another description of the universe is needed which solves the dilemmas presented by voluntarism and atheistic moral realism.  I offer a universe C, which we could call a sensible theistic moral realism, as a solution to these difficulties.

Universe C - Sensible Theistic Moral Realism

In our investigation of A and B we have surfaced several weaknesses.  In Universe A ethics were possibly arbitrary in that the good was based only in the will of a transcendent God.   In Universe B ethics were not grounded, as the good remained firmly planted in mid-air.  A solution may be found in divine essentialism (from the Latin esse "to be"), which I see to be a sensible theistic moral realism.[4]  It is realist in that it holds that objective moral values exist apart from human minds. It is theistic in that it recognizes that ethical value must be grounded in God, with God being ontologically necessary for their existence. It is sensible because it does not claim that the apprehension of objective values is simplistic or the application thereof infallible.  C.S. Lewis gives support to this sensible nature in an essay entitled "On Ethics":

Who could ever have supposed that by accepting a moral code we should be delivered from all questions of casuistry?  Obviously it is moral codes that create questions of casuistry, just as the rules of chess create chess problems.  The man without a moral code, like the animal, is free from moral problems.  The man who has not learned to count is free from mathematical problems.  A man asleep is free from all problems.  Within the framework of general human ethics problems will, of course, arise and will sometimes be solved wrongly.  This possibility of error is simply the symptom that we are awake, not asleep, that we are men, not beasts or gods.[5] 

Historically, there are two main types of essentialism, platonic, where God wills all things according to an external Good, and theistic, where God wills things in accordance with his own unchangeably good nature/essence.  This view claims that the ultimate source for ethical value is found ultimately in God, not simply in God's will.  It is not the same as Universe A which holds that something is good only because God wills it; in Universe C God wills something because it is good, it is according to his own unchangeably good nature.

This view has merit for several reasons.  It maintains that God's nature does not change; therefore morals are in no way whimsical or arbitrary.   It explains that actions do have an objective property of rightness or wrongness apart from human opinions.  It explains the nature of moral duty, as duty is owed to persons.  It is our duty live and act according to the way God is and would like us to be. God loves things that resemble his own nature, especially if God creates certain things for this very end (telos).

Objections To A Sensible Theistic Moral Realism

Some objections may be made to this solution to the Euthyphro problem.  First, someone may ask why the good has to be found in God's nature and that the statement "God is good" makes no sense in this universe.  It is as if one is saying God is God, which brings no useful additional knowledge.   This objection is noted, but the objection confuses the order of knowing something to be good and the order of it being good. [6]  We apprehend or come to understand what is good and bad through various means; moral and/or religious education and personal experiences help us begin to grasp moral concepts.  This however is much different than the ontology of goodness.  Goodness, and in this universe God, exists ontologically prior to our apprehension of it.  One may argue the possibility of knowing ideas of moral goodness prior to knowing of God, but objective goodness itself cannot just exist prior to its source.  In this universe, God is the necessary source of ultimate ethical value.  Ethical value begs for an explanatory stopping point, a point from which objective values can measured, and if objective values do not exist apart from a transcendent source, then they cannot be grounded in anything but God.[7]   Finally, as in the case of Universe A, one may say you cannot be good in this universe for the right reasons; you must simply cower and obey a powerful creator.  This is unfortunately a gross misunderstanding of the theistic ethos.  In Universe C, motivation to do what is good comes from love, arguably the highest of ethical virtues.  One does what is good because she loves God; one does what is good in order to fulfill her purpose, to partake in and reflect the divine nature.  These two things, love for God, and bearing the image of God, culminate in the holistic experience of worship.  In this Universe C, all of life can be seen as a loving moral response to a creator who is truly good.

Conclusion

Socrates puts forth to us the challenge: "Are pious actions pious because the gods love them or does he gods love them because they are pious?"  I have demonstrated that in Universe A, where actions are good because they are willed/loved by God, found unstable ground due to the arbitrary definition of good.  I demonstrated in Universe B, where God is not necessary, the implausibility of objective moral values just existing apart from God as mere abstract concepts apart from persons.  I then offered a divine essentialism as sensible theistic moral realism, which answered the flaws of Universes A and B.  It is noted that any a priori rejection of a metaphysical system such as theism could dissuade acceptance of Universe C; if metaphysical open-mindedness is possible, then Universe C, divine essentialism, seems to be the most reasonable source for ultimate ethical value.

---

[1] This definition and example is a paraphrase abbreviated version from the that found in

William Lane Craig "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality." Foundations 5 (1997): 9-12 - Article available online at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html [accessed 9/10/2001]

[2] Ibid - Craig argues that an atheistic account of ethics offers no explanation for moral duty/accountability.  If life simply ends in the grave, to the individual, it will make no difference whether one lived as a Stalin or a Mother Teresa.

[3] Michael Ruse "Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics" in The Darwinian Paradigm - Essays on its history, philosophy, and religious implications 268,269

[4] It is noted that this is not a novel position.  Plato and Aristotle followed an essentialist view of the good and theistic thinkers such as Augustine, Aquinas, and more recently by William P. Alston, Divine Nature and Human Language (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989) and Robert Adams Finite and Infinite Goods - a framework for ethics (New York: NY Oxford University Press, 1999) have equated the good with God.

[5] C.S. Lewis "On Ethics" Christian Reflections ch 4, 56.

[6] William Lane Craig God, Are You There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons It Makes a Difference (Norcross: GA, RZIM, 1999) 37.

[7] Ibid, 38.

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Question of God - Part III

…continued from Part II

Is God Real?

We could go various directions in our hitchhiking and wanderings about the question of God but the first question we ask is rather simple. As we look towards the heavens we must ask if we are alone in the universe or whether there exists a being of a superior intellect and power. People have approached the existence of God through several big existential questions.  We ask questions of Origin; from where did we and this universe come?  We ask questions about the meaning or purpose of life?  We ask questions about justice, right and wrong and scream for various flavorings of morality.  Finally, we wonder about the end of our short lives and ask whether there is anything more?  I find these questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny great clues as to whether God is real. 

I intend no great philosophical and scientific proofs or discussions here; you may find that many places on the net and through books over at Amazon.com. I’ll make some suggestions for you at journeys end, but here I only offer these questions as clues.

Origin

Almost everyone who asks the question of God tends to begin with the fact that we are here and were not always here.  Every view of life and the world offers some account of where we come from and the answers are a bit of a smorgasbord.  We either came from the back of a turtle, from the magical exploding of nothing, from a higher power or from a personal creator.  How you answer determines how your road unfolds.  It seems to me that life is very personal rather than non personal so I ask you, could it be that the reason we exist is that someone wanted us to? I have found in my own travels that current understandings in astrophysics, cosmology and the ancient Hebrew Scriptures seem to agree.  There was once a time when matter/space/time and conscious beings did not exist.  Then there was a time “after” [metaphysically or logically “after” as time itself was created here] in which they did.  What happened?  I think this is a great clue to the question of God.

…continued - Part IV - The Search for Meaning

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Question of God - Part II

…continued from Part I

An Invitation to Open Roads

Now some questions have answers, yet there are many which will remain unanswered.  Here I only I want to interact about one of the most important questions which has been asked in every culture, place and time. In bringing to you such a pesky idea as the Question of God, I invite you for a few moments to allow your mind to step free of your concerns.  You know getting a job, the wonderful achievements of the Dow Jones, getting a date, your fantasy football team, Facebookery or watching The Office can wait.  

As we begin I want you to think about hitchhiking for a minute.  Any hitch-hiker worth his salt has a few important characteristics. First he has a free spirit and an open mind.   I am concerned that some of you reading might just have a closed minded to the question of God. I want to ask you why?  And hope you might at least open your mind to the question.  Furthermore, a hitchhiker is always heading down a somewhat open road.  In other words, I want you to be able to ask the question “is God real” and then be courageous enough to follow what emerges from the question.  Hitchhiking is not for cowards you know.

So the guide at this point is simply to ask you two questions.  Two rather big ones…

• Is God Real?
• Has God ever shown up in our world in tangible way?

As the road is open to all travelers and sojourners let us open the hitchhiker’s guide and get to work.

…continued - Part 3 - Is God Real?

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Question of God - Part I

Last month I wrote a short message entitled “A Hitchhikers Guide to the Question of God” for some of the students at Princeton University.  I gave the message to encourage and help others along who are wrestling with the question of God.  The title of a message really has two sources that I will share with you briefly.

First, I think life is more like a journey than a thought experiment in that it is lived on a road to somewhere, rather than a road to nowhere.  Second, I am a bit of a science fiction geek, so of course there is some reference to the Radio/Book/Movie British Comedy franchise A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.  Furthermore my own spiritual journey has felt a bit like a winding eclectic road.

I grew up in Virginia Beach, VA the son of an ex-Irish Catholic Naval Officer who in his own story became a bit of an agnostic during college.  I know that should qualify me enough for some therapy.  I was a bit of a the classic high school overachiever in that I straddled both a world of academic and athletic accomplishment.  I was an All-American in wrestling winning my high school state championship and took home several freestyle state titles as well.  On the side I played a little football captaining our team and getting honorable mention all district at Quarterback.  On the other side of life I was vice president of the honor society and was one of the “starters” for our Its Academic Quiz bowl team.  You know, the thing that is sort of like Jeopardy where schools compete one another.  We actually were pretty good making the final four of our 64 high school regional tourney (mainly because we had one spooky smart guy named Mike Heffner on our team - shout out to Mike).

In my world the question of God had a very small place at the table.  I didn’t attend church and to be honest really didn’t care about God.   The closest I got to the almighty was declaring myself a deist for about a week in the 11th Grade after Reading some Voltaire.  As an aside, you know your are somebody in history if you get mentioned with one name…you know, Aristotle, Voltaire, Prince, or any of a few Brazilian Soccer Players.

So I had some suspicion from my involvement in mathematics and science that perhaps there might be some sort of higher power out there but this could not have any possible connection to my life.  My life at this time consisted of getting good grades, attempting to roll with the ladies and trying to be an all around good guy. 

I ended up taking a scholarship to wrestle at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (represent) and I moved south to study physics and continue my amateur wrestling career. As a freshman at UNC Chapel Hill I ended up competing and doing pretty well in my beginnings as a student of science.  So my worlds were a bit odd and I liked it that way.  I had Physics friends who liked stuff like Dungeons and Dragons, eastern Kung Fu techniques, computers and discussing Schrödinger’s Cat.  My wrestling friends were guys who liked to fight, chase women and break lots of commandments on Thursday nights. 

During this time I actually began to hear some things about this guy named Jesus. Now, at first glance you cannot grow up in America without hearing something about Jesus.  As a teenager I had cable TV which came with the painted crying ladies talking about Jesus and jumping up and down. In America you hear the word “Jesus”, but I really didn’t know too much about him. So my journey arrived at Jesus when a new friend on campus stopped by my dorm room to take the time to explain to me who Jesus is and what God had done for us through him.

So at this time I became a sort of spiritual hitch-hiker because I had what seemed like a million questions which kept me out on the road of learning.  I had philosophical questions, historical questions, questions about religions, questions about Jesus, questions about how we could know anything about an unseen God.  To be honest, some of my questions were simple and straightforward enough that I want to just share a few of them as a Hitch-hikers Guide to the Question of God.

to be continued…Part 2 - An Invitation to Open Roads

Mapple Fans Unite

Some of you must be deeply disappointed in the Simpsons...how could they...how could they get it so wrong?! We all know that Steve Jobs gives us overpriced computers, phones and MyPods because he loves us and has our good in mind.  Afterall, he gave us the greenest laptop EVER!

Simpson's Poke Fun at Apple

By the way, Jacob's Well bought one of those overpriced MacBook Pros this week to run media here in the future.  We even paid extra to have a real warranty called "AppleCare" and extra dongles so that we could actually hook it up to a video projector! To be honest, every PC I bought had a warranty and I can plug my Dell laptop up to a VGA or HDMI projector or TV without any 30 dollar dongles. But we are thankful to have our MacBook Pro on the way!

OK, I am just about bored with Mapple discussions...but one good piece of news came out this past Week...Logos for Mac is ready to go. 

(HT - Brian Lowe on the Simpsons and Zach Harrod on Logos)

Umberto Eco, Religion and Macintosh Computers...

As I am on the record as being quite a fan of Windows Vista (SP1) and being in the company of and in  friendship with many Mac users, I felt compelled to write.  I have long feared my Mac friends tend towards conformity and in the extreme I fear many stoop into odd forms of Idolatry. In light of this troubling technological sojourn I have found a profound mind which has given voice to my feelings.

The eminent linguist, philosopher and critic Umberto Eco has a very insightful comparison in the ancient Mac vs. PC debates of yore.  Though his writing was more to the DOS/WIN era vs. MAC I find the echos of Eco's thoughts quite relevant today. What is his thesis?  Mac is much more like Roman Catholicism and the PC much more like Protestantism.  Oh yes...now before my Mac using, uber cool Protestant friends tear thy garments go on over to read Eco's essay - The Holy War Mac vs. DOS.

I find the comparison quite revealing and interesting...

• Protestants have long cobbled together their faith with an independent spirit, willing to read Scripture, write doctrine and even go against the standard rule of religious orthodoxy of the day.  With a PC you can choose your hardware manufacturer, choose the software you run on it, choose all sorts of peripherals and configurations you would like.  For instance, my laptop has several crazy things on it that you can't get on a Mac - you just have to take what they give you.  I have a fingerprint login, SD card drive, VGA and HDMI ports to hook up to video - no dongle even...all built in!
  
• Catholics offer a highly controlled doctrine and environment...there is one view of the church, it comes down from the Vatican and the Holy Father turns the ship.  Much like Apple computers...you must trust that Steve Jobs is the most awesomest ever and always gives us what we need.  So with the MAC you get a wonderful, high church experience with beauty and transcedence "given" to you from One Infinite Loop (the Mac Vatican).

Of course all is lost today in the spin and noise.  Mac's are cool - PCs are stodgy, nerdy people who are just not hip.  Just watch the switcher ads - Mac...young, cool with it.  PC is...well, a lovable nerd...great advertising which gives great laughs...but far from the truth. 

Only Mac people can feel "unique, rebellious and special" for using laptops that are sold in preconfigured bundles with little to no individual customization. It is a profound social phenomena the uniqueness of Mac users.  I think perhaps the blog "Stuff White People Like" describes this phenemona best.  I'll give Christian Lander the last words here today:

...Apple products tell the world you are creative and unique. They are an exclusive product line only used by every white college student, designer, writer, English teacher, and hipster on the planet...

...Apple products also come with stickers. Some people put them on their computer, some people put them on windows, but to take it to the pinnacle of whiteness, you need to put the Apple sticker in the rear window of your Prius, Jetta, BMW, Subaru 4WD Station Wagon or Audi. You then need to drive to a local coffee shop (Starbucks will do in a pinch) and set up your apple for the world to see. Thankfully, the Apple logo on the back will light up! So even in a dark place, people can see how unique and creative you (and the five other people doing the exact same thing) truly are!

Oh you just have to love Stuff White People Like...You can read the entire post in context here: Stuff White People Like #40 - Apple Products.  Carry on my Mac brothers - you are cooler than me and Mac's are a fine computer - just like Steve Jobs wants it.  He always knows best!

(PS - this is humor for all the especially zealous Mac religious devotees who might be very angry with me - it is meant to promote laughter, not flame mail in the comments...but if you must, give it back to me below.  Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day!)

POC Bundle 11.26.2008

Philosophical Musings

• William Lane Craig answers a question, asked on separate equations by an atheist and a believer, about the nastiness and "uncivil tone that predominates among popular level atheists today." A very interesting read that can be found here.
• Interesting new work is being done by philosophy professor Bradley Monton of the University of Colorado at Boulder.  Dr. Monton is not a theist (he refers to himself as an atheist) but still finds some of the arguments for intelligent design interesting if not persuasive.  This manuscript looks very interesting.
  

Theological Reflection

• An Eastern orthodox theologian's reflection on God and evil (HT - Ben Vastine)

Technology

• Apparently there has been a steep and recent decline in the percentage of women majoring in computer science in Universities.   The Times has an interesting article about the phenomena entitled What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science? The title I find a bit odd as it seems to assume something or someone is "driving" people out. I agreed with the sentiment expressed by Ellen Spertus - “Women choosing not to go into computer science is fine,” she said, “if there aren’t artificial barriers keeping them out.”

Just for Fun

• How did the financial crisis happen? Now this may be a little simplistic and not take into account all factors...but I found it quite amusing. A visual guide to the financial crisis.
  

Everything he sends...

I read this quote in a forum digest I received last night.  A pastor on the west coast shared a quote from a man named John Newton who died in the early 19th century. He is well known for his hymn Amazing Grace and his investment in the life of men such as William Wilberforce. This quote reminded me of some central truth...

Everything is necessary that he sends. Nothing can be necessary that he withholds

It is a great assurance for the follower of Christ that all that lands in our life, through out lives and comes to our lives has been deemed a necessary part of our transformation.  It is hard to live out the calling in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 - 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

I find it hard to thank God for things which are difficult and painful...even devastating. Yet over the years our family has tried to practical say thank you to God for even the hard things.  Around the dinner table our family has found an engaging way to catch up with one another, engage our hearts and follow the teaching of Scripture together.  We call it our "family prayer."

First, someone is a note taker – at first it was always me (Dad) but now my oldest daughter takes the roll at times as well.  We list all the family members’ names and make two columns by each name.  One space is to write down something positive we are thankful for that happened in our day.  Something that made you happy, felt like a blessing, made you laugh, smile and feel pretty good about God and life.  The other column is for something negative, painful, disappointing…something we typically would not be saying “Thank you God may I have another” about.  So we go around the table and share at least one positive deal and one negative deal.  We even write stuff down for our two year old, even though he doesn’t have much to say about it at this point. After we finish one of us will weave together and pray a family prayer actually thanking God for ALL OF THIS. “God, thanks for the good, the bad, the ugly.  We know these specific things you brought into our lives for your purposes. We thank you that even the hard stuff can work for good in our lives because we are called by you as your children.” 

Again, we don’t do this every night but we do it regularly, at least once a week.  We are teaching our kids, and reminding ourselves of some great truths.  First, God is sovereign over good and evil and works all things together for good for those who love him (Romans 8:28).  Second, it reminds us that the bad stuff in life many times shapes us into the image of Jesus as much as the good stuff (usually more).  Finally, it unites our family in trust of God and lets us know each others hearts a bit.  In fact, I love to hear what pains my kids as it brings my heart to a state of compassion for them.   Foster an attitude of honesty, even when what pains or disappoints them is you.  I have actually had my girls say “Daddy you not being here for dinner much this week makes me sad.”  Hello! What a gift from God, from my daughters to remind me of what is valuable in life.   Family prayer is one of our favorite practices in our home and very simple to lead as parents.

Some would see the world as a chaotic stew of random events of human produced triumphs and failures. I tend to see the world as a purposeful arena where God brings about his purposes. In my life, through failures and difficulties, he seems to work the most.  Maybe I am just too hard headed to learn any other way.

I Love Trees...

...but not like this

Uhh...not sure what to say. There is some real sadness in all this...an example of worshiping creation rather than Creator. Bring me to this rock that has this incredible life? Steward the rocks and the trees and care for our resources...but worship not a rock...unless it is the rock.

(HT - David)

I Love and Hate Brain Scanning

For those of you who know me realize that I maintain a keen interest in both science and technology as well as related philosophical issues surrounding both.  This morning I wanted to comment a bit on both Love and Hate as it is the subject of some recent research regarding the brain and brain scanning technology in particular.  Of such technology I am both a lova and a hata...let me explain.

On October 29th, Reuters UK reported the following story - Thin line between love and hate? Science knows why. The article shows how reductionism tells us little or nothing useful for our lives.  The article recounts some research of the brain activity of people who are looking at images of people they hate.  The subjects brains were active in an area similarly active when you have that loving feeling. Here is a quick excerpt that summarizes the research.

Brain scans of people shown images of individuals they hated revealed a pattern of brain activity that partly occurs in areas also activated by romantic love, Semir Zeki and John Paul Romaya of University College London reported on Wednesday.

"This linkage may account for why love and hate are so closely linked to each other in life," the researchers wrote in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS One.

I found this article to profoundly communicate nothing that is actually useful to human beings.  The subject of brain scanning is interesting because it demonstrates what parts of our brains are active when we experience certain thoughts, emotions, etc.  Now, if you were to simply watch brain activity over time you would know absolutely nothing about the human condition.  What this sort of research relies upon is real world configurations and information from human persons.  If you just watched electrical activity in the cortex, you would not know jack unless a person said - "I'm really angry right now."  With such feedback, or stimuli (showing you pictures that really hack you off) the researcher sees the resultant brain state and then makes a ridiculous error in reductionism.  Just a side note, the philosophy of naturalistic reductionism has been covered here before so I'll just refer you to that little ditty, but what I want to get at today is that there is much more to love, hate than brain chemistry.   

The scientist looking only at brain chemistry eliminates all human elements to his subject by making an identity statement between the brain state and that which is described by the human being.  If someone is praying and a certain brain circuit is firing the reductionist thinker says "That is God" - of course the "That" is nothing but biochemical reactions and surely not "God."  Similarly we think that a brain circuit = hate or love for that matter.  This is a profoundly hollow view of human experience. 

In fact, resultant brain states give no real useful information to a human person. For someone to know that their brain chemistry corresponds to certain emotions gives them zero help in understanding, controlling, guiding, shaping their own minds and souls.  For instance, the reductionist view sees the human person only as a material being which is subject to cause and effect relationships in matter.  Love or hate just are responses to external stimuli like seeing pictures of people you despise.  What are you going to do about it? When you think about it, this view eliminates the existence of a separate "YOU" altogether. You are your brain and that is it.  Contrary to this view, the mind has demonstrated a perplexing ability to act upon its material substrata.  This is true in our self-conscious reflective experience and fleshed out in recent studies in neuroplasticity which show that the mind can actually change the brain's physical make up by mere thinking.  Furthermore, as a theist I might add, it is also interesting that the mind of God influences our thoughts and brains as well.

Back to the reductionist view. I remember in college I had a professor in a class on information transmission who made what I found to be a very obtuse statement.  He said something like "What is love - it is nothing, nothing but I/O" - in other words "love" was not real, but rather a material phenomenon of sensory inputs and glandular outputs. I remember thinking - there is more to love and life than that.  Now, philosophically I believe that the soul is inextricably joined with the body; so I reject a harsh dualism in favor of a more holistic one.  So it seems to me that the mind plays out in the medium of the brain/body and their exists a correlative power that minds may have over "brain matter" and a reciprocal power that the body has on the mind.

By simply saying that brain patterns = SOME MOOD, EMOTION does really nothing for me.  It is fascinating technology to be able to watch neuron behavior - I do love that. It is great science in and of itself.  Yet to say that hate/love/prayer/joy/compassion IS JUST a brain state is profoundly ridiculous based on an assumed philosophical leap into the darkness of naturalistic faith.  It has so little information to actually help anyone with the way they live (save the case where someone may need to temporarily and artificially alter brain states through drug therapy to stabilize a person). I for one find there is much more we can say about love and hate but this requires us to venture into the world of objective values, ethical truths and human agents which can reflect and act upon them.  This sort of thing my friends, you simply will not find in your own brain, but they are indeed found in the mind and character of God.

A Savior and King

Mark Driscoll posted a non political, political commentary a few days ago.  If you are more Christian left or more Christian right...or maybe just more Christian purple and don't want to take colors...this is worth the time to read. It points to Jesus as the source of our longings for a savior and king.

 

In God We Do Not Trust

Also, if you are a Christian conservative...I have a question for you.  It seems your Facebook updates, blogs, etc. focused quite a bit on "How God is still sovereign" and "God sets up rulers" etc.  I'm cool with that and understand why you say that in your disappointment.  But I do have a question - if McCain would have won would your reaction and quotation of our holy texts have been the same?  Just asking.  The truth of those texts is truth no matter who won, but it has bothered me a bit that some quote them when they think things went "bad" politically, but probably would have been dancing in the street in their guy won.  Maybe I am wrong.

Anyway, I am a pastor with both Red, Blue and Purple in our small church plant - so this is as close as I am going to get to political banter.  I like Mark's article because he points out something real in the hearts of all of us when engaging political hopes and dreams.  We are looking for a king who will defeat all our enemies and we are looking for a savior who will rescue us from the sins of our own hands.  I know of only one.  The color that mattered most to him was red, and not because he was a republican, but because with his blood he ransomed men for God from every tribe, tongue, people and nation (Revelation 5:9,10).  Truly, his Kingdom and rule shall have no end (Isaiah 9:1-7).

Finally, rejoice with those who rejoice about this election...not for certain policies that you may or may not agree with, but for the wonderful fact that America, with freedom, and overwhelming support elected our first African American president. You don't have to agree with our new President elect and you certainly should not worship him (slow down Oprah) but you should be thankful for the progress of race relations and bigotry in our lands.

OK, that is as political as the POCBlog will ever get.

A Better Mouse Trap

Proverbial wisdom says that you can always build a better mousetrap...I think I found proof that this is indeed true.

Poor little mice...their brains are just to small to know what hit them. One more reason to believe that their is a vast distance between man and beast. Those with soft hearts towards mice, Kleenex available here.

(HT - Engadget)

Gospel Diamond

To visually represent the broad story of the good news Jesus last week I started scribbling before going to speak at Rutgers Cru. One of the core values/identities of Jacob’s Well is that we desire to be a gospel centered people.  That our lives, our community, our flow as people would be found in the story of a redeeming God pursuing people and bringing them back into relationship with himself and all things. The centrality of Jesus life, teaching, death on a cross for sin and resurrection for our justification (declared forgiven before God) should be the core reality that we live.  This story of redemption is one of the great clues to the fabric of reality in the universe. 

Anyway, I wanted to represent this story visually in a way that shows both the darkness and glory of the cross of Christ, that honors the full historical and futurical sweep of redemption and to show mad love to the visual learners.  Because I think it is sad that people make them read and don’t provide enough pictures.  So here’s to you Mr. downcast visual learner guy, this pics for you…

To be honest this diagram sort of happened while scribbling and then I “saw” after the fact some cool things which could be communicated using this.  Anyway, I’ll explain as we traverse through the diagram.  It reads left to right, no offense to the right to left readers…

To see a slightly larger version of this diagram, you can click here

Creation

We begin by drawing a dot which represents the beginning of all space and time.  The Scriptures teach and scientific reasoning accords that the universe began to exist in the finite past.  God spoke the world, the stars, galaxies, plants, animals, all the elements into existence.  As the crown of creation he creates men and women in his image and likeness to rule creation with him as his stewards.  The creation was in rhythm and God and people were in harmony and order.

Fall

The next line is drawn downward and dark.  The Old Testament teaches us that the first human beings, in direct contradiction to their creator, disobeyed him and reaped the consequences on the world and the human race.  The Christian teaching of the fall of humanity is established in the Old Testament in the first three chapters of Genesis.  As a result of our rebellion, God brought a state of decay upon creation and human beings.  The results are devastating.  Each person sins against God by nature and by choice.  We are guilty before our creator for our rebellion and as a result of sin, all people die, though we act like we will live forever. The consequence of human sin has translated into a world which is not a paradise, but rather a war zone full of disease, human atrocities, natural disasters, and our separation from God and each other.   Yet God did this in hope, (Romans 8:18-30) for his plan was just beginning.  Though we had sinned, in love God set about to forgive and restore.  He would win back a people from the curse and vindicate his name which had been dishonored by the very creatures he had created.

Covenant

Even though things had grown dark, the promise of God redeeming the world was given just after the sin of the first human beings. A promise was made that the offspring from a woman would one day crush the head of the serpent and restore the broken world.  This blue dotted line is the line of redemption that God began to weave into creation.  Even though at times it seems a bit dark in this world, God is constantly at work in the course of redemption. The plan included many people and nations, many hundreds of years and a complex matrix of events and signposts.  His plan would find its fullness when God himself, incarnate as the second Adam, the person of Jesus of Nazareth, would pay the final price for sin and bring us back into relationship with God.   This drama unfolded throughout the Old Testament and was ultimately fulfilled in the New Testament.  It unfolds on various continents, centered in the Promised Land, through various covenants by which God invited people back into relationship with himself.  This was all extended by grace, a free gift from God who offers peace to those who now live at war (either passively or aggressively…or passive aggressively) with him.

As God worked to redeem a people throughout history, he did so by making promises, or establishing covenants with people.  Seeing the whole of redemptive history, particularly the Old Testament, through the grid of the unfolding of the covenants is very helpful.

History marched forward under the direction of God until the arrival of what the Scriptures describe as the fullness of time.  Of this time, the book of Galatians tells us a beautiful truth:

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Yes, the fullness of time had come.  God the Father had sent God the Son into the world as a fulfillment of all of God’s covenant promises over the ages.  His coming was foretold by prophets, his work unfolded in the covenants, and his love would fulfill the hearts of his people.  And a cross was waiting for him.

The Cross - The Paradoxical Jewel of our Faith

It was a fortuitous event of providence that I drew lines “UP” for the work of God in promising to save his people and a line “DOWN” to indicate the fall.  For both arrive at a cross, both the brightest moment and the darkest hour of history.  For in the one event God the Son saves the world and at the same time, the Roman government murders him.  Acts 2:22-24 shows this complexity of the crucifixion of Jesus:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

This simultaneous paradox is the crown jewel of our faith and the lines will soon form a diamond, the most precious of jems. The Kingdom of Jesus came with the crucified King and now continues through all the people that he saves and redeems.

Redemption

From the darkness of Jesus’ abandonment and execution comes his resurection whereby life is proclaimed to forever conquer death.  Our own lives that are stained with sin and separation from God can be transformed when we hear the gospel message.  When we hear of the love of God expressed towards sinners through Jesus’ death on the cross we are called to repent (change our minds and turn away from) of our sin and receive his forgiveness by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8,9). The gospel teaches us that Jesus died a death that we deserve, his death for sin.  Additionally, he lived the life we cannot live, a life without sin.  By placing our trust/faith in him we receive forgiveness and pardon from God for our sins and are counted righteous before God in him. In Jesus we are brought back into relationship with God and given eternal life as the gift of a gracious and loving God. We are then transferred from a dark path into the path of redemption and mission in the world. We intersect with eternity on Jesus’ mission which is manifesting and ultimately bringing into fullness the Kingdom of God.

Mission

Jesus is constantly on mission in the world to seek and save the lost and manifest his rule and reign on the earth through his people.  We join this two fold mission by proclaiming good news so that people, sinful people like ourselves, experience the saving power of Jesus as he saves people and places them in his church.  The church then represents and manifests a different Kingdom than the Kingdoms of the earth serving as a display of God as a counter cultural community of hope and love.   Redeemed people on mission in the world…heading towards an ultimate and final consummation of the Kingdom awaits.

Kingdom 

[Quick TheoNote: The diagram here represents a person’s existential connection to the Kingdom, not when the Kingdom begins “in time” - the appropriate temporal “beginning of the Kingdom” would be during the incarnation.  See Mark 1:14,15 - “The Kingdom is at hand” - the diagram here shows how the mission of Jesus through the church connects people to the Kingdom - this happens when someone is redeemed and transferred from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of Jesus (See Colossians 1).  I am also using “simple” eschatology and making no comment on those issues…only that the Kingdom comes with Jesus and people are connected to it through his mission and the redeeming work of the cross.]

The final destination for the people of God is the coming fullness of the Kingom of Heaven, the kingdom where the rule and reign of Jesus is full and final.  All sin and evil will ultimately be eradicated and we will live eternally in a realm sans disease, war and death.  It will be a reality where God wipes away all tears and his presence will illuminate existence fully for all time. The feeling we have in this age of things not being quite right will surprisingly be lifted and the souls of men will finally be at peace.  All those who repent and believe and follow the resurected Jesus will live forever with him, those who refused to believe, chose themselves as their own god, who did not trust and follow him will remain in their sins outside of his Kingdom forever.

This view has a few things which I find commendable. First, it has the cross of Jesus central to the gospel.  Second it has redemption occupying the scope of all history not simply a few moments.  Third, it acknowledges the church’s role as an in-breaking of the Kingdom into this present reality with good works and doing justice manifesting that reality.  Finally, it keeps the short gospel, Jesus died in the place of sinners as their substitute, to save us from sin, death and hell as the central message the church proclaims. At the same time that message is proclaim from the church who live as servants to the world, fellow sinners and sojourners on the road to the heavenly city…a Kingdom which will be realized fully by God and not human beings.

All is made possible by the cross of Christ, the diamond of our faith.  Whereby God is seen most clearly by suffering and giving his life for those he loves and saves.  This diamond, much like an engagement ring, declares God’s promised love for his people, which will end on a great wedding day where Jesus the bridegroom, and his bride the church, will party together to enter into eternal communion at the end of this age.

Thoughts?

The Gospel

Over the past several years I have been thinking through how the term gospel is used in the Bible.  It has a narrow form and a broad meaning in the Scriptures.  The narrow, and very true form, is represented by texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 which reads:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures...

This is clearly the gospel of the church that followed Jesus on his mission into this world after his resurection.  However, the gospel has a broad form that requires much more context of understanding that a mere few sentences, points or laws.  One rather jarring passage in the New Testament that points to the broader story in Scripture being called "the gospel" is found in Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Now don't misunderstand me, the gospel Paul preached, and the Galatians are reminded not to abandon, is the apostolic preaching summed up in 1 Corinthians 15.  Yet in Galatians three we find a wonderful indication that this gospel has a much more looming history (and future) than some acknowledge:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

So in some very true and profound way Abraham had the gospel preached to him in the Abrahamic covenant; the promise God made to Abraham that in him, all the nations should be blessed. So the gospel holds as its pinnacle jewel, the death, burial and resurection of Jesus for sinners.  This jewel is the center of the gospel and the center of history; but the good news has a much broader historical and futurical (future history) scope.

In communicating this story many have taken the tact to present the gospel in a narrative form. Something which does not talk very long to communicate. Here is my simple attempt...if you read it aloud you will find that it does not take very long at all:

I would summarize the gospel as the story of the one Creator God, making all things, space, time, matter, energy in order to display his nature to his creatures.  God created human beings in his own image and likeness to know him, love him, and reflect his character in the world to one another for their joy and his glory.  Our first parents then gave God the proverbial Heisman, choosing to live life their way rather than God’s way.  They turned away from God and his provision for them, disobeying his commandments and thereby bringing fracture in their relationship with God, one another, and creation.  God in his grace set about to redeem a people back to himself and has pursued us throughout history to this end.  He promised in the very early days to send a human being, a seed of a woman to bring people back to God, reconciling them to himself and all things (Gen 3:15).  Throughout history he communicated with us and connected with us through prophets, men called to speak God’s message to humanity.  He made covenants with his people that would culminate the in his sending of his own Son to the earth.  He would be a Jewish person, the offspring of Abraham (Gen 12, 15).  He would fulfill God’s commandments perfectly satisfying the demands of the law completely and live without sin (Heb 4.15).  He would be a king to his people (2 Sam 7) guiding them into a life of love, joy and peace.  He would teach us the truth, show us perfected humanity, and ultimately die to pay the penalty for our own rebellion and sin.  This person, Jesus, gave his life for us in what Martin Luther called the great exchange.  Our sin was placed on him as he took our deserved judgment and punishment by dying on a cross.  We then receive his righteousness, a favor and good name before God the Father (2 Corinthians 5.16-21).  We are thereby forgiven, brought back into relationship with God, our guilt is removed, God’s wrath no longer is upon us, and we now become his followers and agents of reconciliation in the world.  We receive all of this by his grace; none of it is earned by our works or actions.  God will someday bring his kingdom in fullness where Jesus will completely and finally bring an end to all evil and usher in an eternal age of life and peace for all who follow him.  Those who persist in rebellion against God will face his justice for all which was done in this life.  

Of course more could be said than I have here, but the essence of the broader gospel story is there.  As a guy who did not come to faith until I was almost 20, seeing the big picture of God's work in the gospel has been very helpful to me understanding what God has done, has promised, is doing and will do in the eschatology.

In my next post here I will share a little diagram we came up with last week when speaking to college students and our little church here in New Jersey.  I hope it may give you great appreciation for the gospel and a compassion to connect God's story with others who may be interested in the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).

Signs of a Committed Core Group...

A good sign that our core group is fired up about our church plant...see pumpkin on the far right...very nice. 

 

Much love the Jacob's Well peeps...Here is the final completed, full logo version.

 

POC Bundle 10.27.2008

On Science

• It seems associating lonely/cold and sinful/unclean is now the focus of some psychological research...Now go read Psalm 51 - God has been using this metaphor with us for hundreds of years...
  
• Seriously, I didn't make this one up - 'Fart gas' link to blood pressure - this one if from the BBC. Odd title indeed. 

On Philosophy

• I am very sad that this book is 95 dollars.  I am even more sad that I really want to buy it.  Just say no, Just say no...Consciousness and the Existence of God A Theistic Argument
  
• An interesting British piece on a return to virtue ethics rather than mere assertions of rights and individual volition.  Yet one problem remains for the virtuoso of virtue ethics - how do you ground goodness?  Aristotle grounded it in "the good man" - but there seems to be a circle he runs into there...unless the "good man" really exists.  Jesus and virtue ethics do go hand in hand.  Virtue is grounded in the being of God who became incarnate and demonstrated true virtue in Jesus Christ. Yes?  Interestingly enough this essay ends with describing environmentalism as a religion - I agree with such an assessment - worship of creation rather than creator has indeed become the case for many.
• More "brave atheism" stuff over at the NY Review of Books.  You know that it is a virtue to some to believe in meaninglessness...if only you can be "brave" about it. The end of this article has this good news offered to us all: Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions. At our best we live on a knife-edge, between wishful thinking on one hand and, on the other, despair.  What a great worldview that offers wishful thinking and despair as two great options! Wonderful news...the gospel solution offered? Well just try and laugh a bit, look at pretty flowers and go to the ballet!  OK, I feel better now.  

Gospel and Culture

• Looks like some brewmasters have gotten religion- CNN - Beer Lovers: What Would Jesus Brew?

The Church

• Bob Kauflin gives his Top 10 ways to write a bad worship song (Hint - don't do this and you might write a good one)

Technology

• Sprint may be getting better with customer support.  If you are like our family, and stuck as a Sprint customer, there may be hope for us yet. 
• If you are young...the Internet may be turning your brain to mush.  Short attention spans, lack of ability to focus...etc.  Yet for older people - it may help out old brains...
  

Brains and Technology - Two Mini-Reviews

I have just finished listening to two interesting books in the last week.  One is about our brains and their function the other is about the brains behind Google and their plans to "organize all the worlds information."  Both deal with the future extensively in different ways.  The first speculates and wrestles with technology that will be created to make intelligent machines, the second looks at one ambitious company and its plans to make all information (yes, all) indexed and searchable for the common man.  I'll cover each only briefly and in turn.

On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee, 2004 Times Books

Some people will find the name Jeff Hawkins familiar.  He was the inventor behind the first Palm Handheld computers in the mid 1990s, went on to found HandSpring and its modular handhelds and Treo smartphones and finally came back home to Palm to extend and kick start the smartphone category in the market for cell phones.  What many do not know is that Hawkins is extremely interested in human brains and has written a book about.

On Intelligence is Hawkins discussion and framework for how the brain works and how insights into brain algorithms might help us create intelligent machines.  Like the terminator...just kidding, not exactly like that.  Hawkins book begins with his frustrations with what he considers the misguided thesis of strong AI (artificial intelligence).  Strong AI considers your brain to be a computer and that when we have enough computing power in computers we simply arrive at intelligence or consciousness.  Hawkins discusses this primarily through the failures of strong AI both in its brute force and neural network flavors.  He also delves into the philosophy of consciousness by highlighting one of my favorite philosophical illustrations - John Searle's Chinese Room.  I won't get into that sort of discussion here, that is found elsewhere on the POCBlog.  Hawkins then goes into his own (or rather a commentary on the scientific work of others - particularly Mountcastle) theory of intelligence as it relates to the cortex and its functioning. What is found is fascinating writing on memory systems and prediction as the key to intelligence.

The book offers some facinating discussion about how our brains work as a wonderful processor of patterns by what he refers to as a broad neocortical algorithm.  There was one glaring drawback for me in reading Hawkin's work - he is a physicalist who does not speak like one.  Now, I do not hold this against Hawkins as I believe it impossible to explain human consciousness in physicalist (you are your brain, matter is all there is) terms.  Our language will not even permit it.  For instance the book is filled with discussions about how sensory signals enter various portions of our cortex and then give "you" an experience of sight, hearing etc.  The brain is there, but even in talking about this Hawkins maintains a "you" as well.  Perhaps our brains cannot talk about themselves in a way that is consident with there being "nobody in there." Of course it is a philosophical and religious matter to state you are only a brain and nothing more.  But it seems to me that my brain processes and presents "to me" sights, sounds, etc. Also how "new thoughts" emerge from Hawkins empirical physicalism remains a mystery to me as it seems he is reduced to a framework where no thought can be thought of as such.

With that said, Hawkins book was a fascinating read that I greatly enjoyed.  It seems that Hawkins is passionately interested in the subject and has even founded a company to research application of these ideas. He believes that within our life time (if we give up on the dead end of AI) we may just create intelligent machines that are aware and thinking in the sensory environment of the world.  Or...perhaps a large network of computers simply "becomes" aware on a certain date...like SkyNet of Terminator lore. Or perhaps such a network of computers is already in place organizing all of the world's information.  Or maybe there is just Google - the company that "does no evil" but seems happy for its computers to know everything about all of us. 

Planet Google - One Companies Audacious Plans to Organize Everything we Know by Randall Stross, 2008 Free Press.

Planet Google is a recent book written by author and New York Times journalist Randall Stross.  There are several books about Google which have been written.  Some works, like The Google Story, focused on the founding and expansion of Google from the early days of Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Standford University.  Stross' book takes a more recent tact focusing primarily on Google's forays toward its goals of organizing all the worlds information. I really enjoy technology and reading about the companies which create it.  This book was no exception. 

Particularly enjoyable was the treatment of Google's moves into new territory such as book scanning and video.  The chapter on video is interesting for its history on YouTube which was going to become a very famous Google acquisition. I also enjoyed discussion of Google's move from search Goliath into a company which desires to usher in a new era of cloud computing whereby you allow Google to host all your e-mail, documents and digital history on its computers rather than your own.  

Finally, the brief and non technical view of Google data centers (dark, mostly unmanned and automated rooms full of pulsating computers and voracious appetite for electricity) was quite interesting indeed.  How many Google computers does it take to organize the world's information?  Many more than the amount of pro wrestlers needed to change a light bulb.  Will Google become "the man" or "big brother"?  Time will tell I suppose...but I for one do not trust a company whose motta is "do no evil" yet is run by mere human beings.  Afterall, when the chief executive googler, Eric Schmidt, was asked what was "evil" the reply was simply: Whatever Sergey says is evil.  (see 2003 Wired Mag piece Google vs. Evil) Unless Sergey=God...which I am pretty sure that equation is false...I am just going to be crazy and guess that Google may be doing some evil along way. 

Great book though - recommended.