Thoughts for the big game...

I was directly involved for about 12 years with a ministry called Athletes in Action. I first became a Christian through involvement with AIA and was on staff 8 years with the ministry in various different capacities. I recently began to volunteer time to AIA here in New Jersey at Rutger's University.  Ministry with college athletes has been part of my life for many years and I always try to keep up with that scente in some fashion.

Surrounding the upcoming national championship AIA has put together a web site called "Beyond the Ultimate" featuring the stories of Tim Tebow, Sam Bradford and several other D1 football guys.  One of which, Orion Martin at Va Tech, is a friend that I have kept up with through text messages over the last few years (What's up O). I thought with all the buzz surrounding the big game this week that some of you might be interested in some guys who are living a victory beyond the competition.

You can hit the site up here: www.beyondtheultimate.org

MacBook Wheel - Shiny and Made by Apple

The Onion News Network just scooped what Apple will be releasing at MacWorld tomorrow. Here is the video featuring the breakthrough device.

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

My favorite quotes:

• "Nothing is more simple than a single giant button"
• "Everything is just a few hundred clicks away"
• "I'll buy almost anything if it is shiny and made by Apple"

You won't be able to find a user replaceable battery on this one either...

Note: POCBlog does not support or endorse everything on the Onion News Network

Sojourning in Babylon - An Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Introduction

Woven into the spiritual DNA of human beings and impressed upon us by popular proverbs is the reality that there is no place like home.  However, we as a people can feel as if we are in perpetual exile, never quite finding the deep rest of truly being home.  Life is a journey, a short stay, a passing through...a sojourn.  We travel from birth to the grave through various places and times heading towards an ultimate and final home.  We all long for a place "where everybody knows your name...and they're always glad you came" - a place where we are truly home.  Yet how do we live in a world that does not love God, does not worship him and is at times hostile to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Long ago God's people were in what they considered to be their permanent home.  It was called the land of promise and it would be where God would dwell among them.  Yet they found themselves conquered by a foreign power and taken away into exile in a land known as Babylon.  In this exile, Daniel and a faithful group of God-followers realized that God himself was to be their home and they were to be faithful to him even in a strange land.  Their example is given to us in Scripture to teach us how we too may follow faithfully even when sojourning in our own time and place.

The book of Daniel is at once a fascinating and intoxicating piece of ancient Scripture. It is a blend of compelling narrative and prophetic predictions of the rise of men and nations over time.  Its stories of a few men holding fast to their faith and convictions amidst an exile in a foreign nation do not fail to inspire.  Furthermore, some of the almost psychedelic visions in the second part of the book could make the uninitiated postulate that Daniel was smoking something.  It is a book considered to be Holy Scripture by both Jewish and Christian communities and its stories have gripped both throughout history.  It has something to say about our past, our present lives and the future of the earth.

In this essay we have some very modest goals.  First, we hope to provide a small historical introduction to the book of Daniel.  I want us to wrestle with questions of authorship, origin, literary genre and composition in hopes that we would better grasp the book's message.  Secondly, we want to see Daniel as it lives in the whole of sacred Scripture. The Bible is a large book made of many smaller books; in fact, you might want to see the Bible as a small library of holy writings.  Each book has a place in the grand story of the Bible and we want to see how Daniel "fits" into the big picture of the narrative of redemption.  Third, I want us to examine some of the ever relevant mega themes of the book.  In looking at these themes our final goal for this introduction will become evident; I want us to see clearly that we are looking to the prophet Daniel to find our own bearings for life and ministry in 21^st century, central New Jersey.  So before we look forward to how Daniel will call us towards God's future, we must look back into sands of the ancient near eastern societies that gave birth to this inspired writing. 

A wise person once said that those who are forgetful of what is past are doomed to repeat its failures. In like manner, those who ignore the faithful of the past are doomed to wander without their guidance into God's ordained future.  Paul, one of the early leaders of the Christian movement, once said this of the Old Testament: For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.¹ So with that in mind, let's begin our look at the book of Daniel.

Historical Setting

All biblical scholars are in agreement that the historical setting of the stories from the book of Daniel is the Babylonian exile of the Jews during the 6^th century before Christ. Yet there is a bifurcation of opinion as to whether or not the book was actually written in the 6^th century or at a later time.  As with many issues in biblical studies the opinion seems to break along the line of thought regarding the Bible's inspiration. Those who hold to a high view of Scripture's divine origin have defended the 6^th century dating of Daniel in accord with what the text actually says.  Those who hold a critical view of Scripture, those who do not see the Bible as a divinely inspired book, tend to date Daniel to the 2^nd century.  Usually the date assigned is in the time of trial for the Jews in Palestine around 167 BC. 

Though the arguments for the early or late date are beyond the scope of this introduction I will briefly summarize them for you here.  If interested in more, the love found in the endnotes is just for you.  You're welcome.

Arguments for a 2^nd Century Date²

The arguments for dating the work to the 2^nd century usually proceed along two major lines: historical and linguistic.  We will handle each in turn.

First, the book clearly exhibits an accurate view of the progression of world affairs and the rise and fall of empires in the ancient near east.  The visions Daniel interprets seem to exhibit the quality of predicting the future quite accurately.  In fact, too accurately for the unbelieving mind to bear; if one does not believe that God can prophetically "give" the future to a person, the author he must have written the account "after the facts" of history had been laid down. John Collins summarizes this line of argument well: the correspondence between Daniels predictions, especially in chap. 11, and the events of the Hellenistic [Greek] age is most easily explained by the supposition that the prediction was made after the fact.³ If Daniel got his historical facts right in his "prophecy" then it must not be a prophecy at all.  Rather, the accuracy is explained by a human writing it after the historical events took place. 

Secondly, some scholars have made the argument that the book's languages reveal it to be a composition of a later time.  It is well known among scholars that the text of Daniel is in Hebrew from Dan 1:1-2:4a, Aramaic from 2:4b-7 and then returns to the Hebrew tongue for the final five chapters. There are many speculations as to the reason behind this with one of the most prominent being that the book is a collection of various traditions and writings during the 2^nd century period. During this time, when the Jews were resisting the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus,⁴ someone compiled a collection of stories in an attempt to inspire God's people. This of course assumes the later date based on the aforementioned historical skepticism about predictive prophecy and then creates possible scenarios for the linguistic composition of the work.  Furthermore, an argument that the language shows Greek influence and some Hellenisms is also made though the argument has recently lost force as more has been learned about 6^th century Babylon.  This is acknowledged openly by those still holding to a second century date.⁵

Arguments for a 6^th Century Date⁶

While most of the 20^th century scholarship held to the later 2^nd century dating for the composition of Daniel, recent scholarship has given weight to the ancient Jewish and Christian traditions holding to sixth century origin for the work.  The arguments for the earlier Babylonian date are textual, historical and theological. 

Textual Argument

The text of the book clearly sets Daniel's lifetime to the Babylonian exile of the 6^th century.  The narratives explicitly represent events taking place in the capital of the ancient Babylonian empire. Additionally, the visions given in the latter parts of the work are delivered out of the mouth of Daniel in the first person indicating they came forth during his lifetime.⁷ The prophecies are clearly presented as 6^th century.  This raises an important issue for those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture. If we date the prophecies to the 2^nd century we must then assume that the author/editor assumed to dupe his audiences to believing his work to be a prophecy that had been given earlier when in reality he was just doing historical staging.  Tremper Longman summarizes this difficulty for a 2^nd century date well:

In other words, in prophecy given after the fact (vaticinium ex eventu) the idea was to convince the audience that the prophet was a true prophet to whom God had revealed the future.  After showing that by predicting events that already passed, then there was an attempt at a real prophecy.  This is more than a literary device, and one must question whether such a textual strategy would find a place in God's Word. ⁸

In summary, the text shows both narratives and prophecy exhibiting an origin of sixth century BC.  The prophecies in particular would be the work of a "false prophet" if they were of 2^nd century origin and of course this in no way fits the reality of an inspired Bible or the manner in which a Jewish prophet was thought to be speaking for God.

Historical Argument

The sixth century date of the book also has a long history in faith communities.  The community at Qumran, who gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls, counted Daniel among their canon.  If the book was a 2^nd century production it is very odd for it to so quickly appear as canonical at the time of the Qumran community.  Some of the documents in the Qumran library historically date to 150BC right on top of a 2^nd century composition of Daniel.  Additionally, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote extensively of Daniel both in a historical recounting of the exile and his thoughts of Daniel's writings to be prophecies.⁹ Finally, the Latin church father Jerome affirmed the Hebrew/Aramaic form¹⁰ of Daniel and that the exiled man to be the author of the book.  This position was held by the scholars of the Protestant Reformation as well.

Theological Argument

The main reason for us taking some time to discuss the dating of the book of Daniel is theological in nature.  We find no problem with the creator God uttering predictive prophecy through one of his servants.  It is no problem for a God who knows all of time and history to reveal what is to come to one of his people appointed for this very purpose.  Only an ingrained anti-supernatural bias would lead one to reject God-given prophecy.  We find such bias unwarranted and arguments flowing from such presuppositions unnecessary. 

So we find good reason to believe that both the stories and prophecies of Daniel have come from the period of exile and sojourn in the Babylon. Here are a few facts that we can deduce for our study¹¹:

• From Daniel 1:1 that the time frame for the book seems to be an early incursion into Judah by Nebuchadnezzar after he led Babylonian forces in their triumph over Pharaoh Neco of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish - 605 BC.
• Nebuchadnezzar completes conquest of all Egyptian held territories including the Egyptian backed King Jehoiakim, ruling in the land of Judah (2 King 23:34) at the time. Jehoiakim becomes a servant of Nebuchadnezzar, rebels and then is taken captive according to 2 Kings 24.
• Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar dies and Neb returns to Babylon to be crowned King.
• Daniel and his friends were taken along with others back to Babylon after this early incursion into Judah.
• Babylon completes conquest and utterly devastates Jerusalem in 587 BC
• The captivity ends with the decree of Cyrus the Persian King. His decree gave official permission for the Jews to return to their land and restore their temple in 539 BC

Literary Features

Unlike many books of the Bible, Daniel is not simply one genre of literature.  While some books are mainly narrative or poetry or law codes, Daniel does not have one primary genre.  It actually contains historical narratives, prophetic literature and it also contains apocalyptic¹² sections as well.  Furthermore, Ronald Wallace also argues that Daniel contains much of what has been called wisdom literature in that the stories and examples show how one lives wisely in deep devotion to God. ¹³ 

One unique feature of the book is that it is a book of twos.  It can be seen as having two parts, it is written in two languages and the time frame spans two empires.  First, the book is easily broken down into two sections; one section is mainly narrative and the other visions/prophecy.  In fact, Joyce Baldwin structures her excellent commentary on the book in two parts: Part I - Stories, Part II - Visions.¹⁴  Second, as we already noted the book is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic reflecting members of the Jewish community living and breathing in the world of the Babylonian royal court.  Finally, the book begins with the empire of Babylon as the major Ancient Near Eastern power and it ends with this empire falling and the Media-Persians having taken center stage on the world scene.

The book of Daniel continues to spark interest and inspire awe today.  Its accurate prophecies of world events have convinced some of the divine origin of the Bible.  It's bizarre visions and cryptic symbolism has inspired prophecy hacks in every age.  Ask any of these types about Daniel's "70^th week" and be ready to grab a seat for a couple of hours. Though the precise fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies is rightly of interest, we have an even greater interest in the work.  We desire to see how it fits in the unified message of Scripture that reveals the actions of our saving God to bring Jesus Christ to the earth as the savior for all people.

Redemptive Historical Context

There are several striking passages in the New Testament which come from the mouth of Jesus himself.  They give us great insight to the purpose of the Old Testament, including the book of Daniel.  If we miss this teaching from our Lord we could make Daniel merely a series of nice inspiring moral stories. 

In the closing of Luke's account of Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection he records the following interaction Jesus has with some of his followers after he rose from death. 

²⁵And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! ²⁶Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" ²⁷And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself...⁴⁴Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." ⁴⁵Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...

Luke 24:25-27; 44-45 (ESV)

Here we find Jesus definitively teaching us that all the Scriptures of the Old Testament were about him.  Graeme Goldsworthy conveys this point well:

In doing biblical theology as Christians, we do not start at Genesis 1 and work out way forward until we discover where it is all leading. Rather we first come to Christ, and he directs us to study the Old Testament in the light of the gospel.  The gospel will interpret the Old Testament by showing us its goal and meaning.  The Old Testament will increase our understanding of the gospel by showing us what Christ fulfills.¹⁵ 

In the Bible we find a cyclical pattern in the lives of God's people.  The biblical story line is one where God makes a promise to his people to rescue them and use them for blessing in his world.  He will bring them to a land of promise where he will dwell with them and they will live in peace.  Yet the people turn from him in unfaithfulness and wander away.  As a judgment upon them God then exiles them from the land where they await his deliverance at his appointed time.  When God's redemption comes they return back to the land, the place of God's promised covenant blessing.

In this storyline we find our own lives.  We are restless sojourners living in exile until we find our home in God.  God himself will come and be our redemption, our rest, our great exodus into freedom and our final hope.  This story is the story of the gospel throughout Scripture. 

• God promises, we disobey
• God loves and pursues his people in grace
• People cry out to God for deliverance from bondage to sin and death
• God leads people to freedom through redemption and the conquering of his enemies

This message is in essence the flow of good news.  That God saves sinners and he acts on their behalf.  Despite sin and rebellion God still forgives and sets people free.  This has been ultimately accomplished by Jesus who in his life, death and resurrection is the pinnacle of the redemption story.  God sends his only son into the world to conquer the enemies of sin, death and hell and bring his people out of exile home to his Kingdom.

As we read and study the stories of Daniel they ultimately teach us about Jesus and the Kingdom of God. As we travel through the book of Daniel we will see that the message is walking faithfully with God among a foreign power; this is echoed in the New Testament as we now live in a world that is fallen, broken and under the rule of Satan (John 16:11; Ephesians 2:1-10).

In this world it is our calling, like it was of Daniel, to follow God and represent him right in the middle of Babylon.  So when we read the story of Daniel and the Lion's Den I pray we will not think if we are brave like Daniel and then God will work for us! Rather, we must see that Daniel was thrown to the Lions and he trusted God.  Then someone else fought and won the battle on his behalf. 

As we struggle to walk faithfully, to influence our world, to resist the domination of a culture that is hostile to God and to proclaim the good news that Jesus died for sinners we too must remember that someone else has prevailed on our behalf. 

Major Themes

There are several major gospel themes in the book and we will cover just a few here in our remaining time .  I have summarized them under four major headings: 1) God Rocks and Rules 2) God is With Us 3) God wants us to Resist and Cause Sanctified Trouble and 4) Jesus Saves.

God Rocks and Rules

The absolute sovereignty of God over people and nations is on full display in the book of Daniel.  Even when it appears the kingdoms of men have triumphed over the Kingdom of God, the book of Daniel assures us that God is the one on the highest throne of history.  He is the one who allowed the Babylonian victory and the exile.  He is the one who place Daniel and his friends in a place where they might influence others and take heat for their love of God. Both in the small affairs of our everyday lives and in the major turns of history Daniel teaches us that God has got his people's back and will some day return to establish his eternal Kingdom which will have no end.

God is With Us

In the narrative sections of the book we see over and over again that God is with his people and has not abandoned them.  He sent them into exile, but he also went with them.  He was gracious to his followers in Chapter 1 by giving them success in their studies and leadership ability.  He was with Daniel and gave him the ability to interpret visions to teach a world ruler that God is the God of all gods.  He was with the three fellas thrown into a fiery furnace to display his power through their humble trust and obedience. He was with Daniel when he maintained his regular practice of solitary prayer.  He was with him when he was falsely accused and thrown in to be fresh meat for the Lion king.  He was with his people throughout their captivity and eventually judged the proud nations that held them fast.  In our own struggles to plant Jacob's Well in New Jersey he does not want us to forget what he teaches us in the New Testament: Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you. (Hebrews 13:5)

God wants us to Resist and Cause Sanctified Trouble

The programs of the Babylonian empire sought to reprogram Daniel and his friends to adopt Babylonian truths, Babylonian values and Babylonian practices .  At the same time God called his people to live faithfully as a resistance community against the inroads of empire into their hearts and lives.  This is true in every age for God's people.  In our own sojourn we are to live as non conformists within a culture as we walk a different path.  We are called to be rebels for love, mercy and the good news of Jesus Christ as a resistance community within the cultures of the world. Every resistance community must have certain practices by which it renews its mind and maintains its identity.  We are to hold fast to the Word of our leader, live together as a family on mission and then engage an active resistance by invading the dominant culture with the light of gospel.  We must live a counter-cultural story to hold forth light and life in a hostile world.  Others will join us as Jesus works in people's lives to bring them to saving faith.  This brings us to our final theme from Daniel...

Jesus Saves

Whether in the fiery furnace, or shutting the mouths of lions, or coming on the clouds as the glorious Son of Man, the book of Daniel reveals to us Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves to save his people.  Though in this sojourn on earth we will have trouble, he tells us "take heart, I have overcome the world" and "do not fear the one who can only destroy the body" and "my sheep hear my voice, I know them, they follow me... I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."  Jesus forgives the exile who will humbly turn away from sin and self  and follow him.  Finally, Jesus will return to bring forth a final Kingdom of righteousness, justice and peace.  It is this kingdom which the stories and visions of Daniel point towards with great hope.

O Daniel Where Art Thou? Why Daniel, Why Now?

God has not called us to Babylon in our time and place; he has called us to start sanctified trouble in New Jersey. Our hope and practice as a resistance community needs to be strengthened by God's Word so that we may hopefully and boldly live for the glory of God, the good of the City by extending the gospel of Jesus to others.   The writer of the New Testament book of Hebrews once told us that we are surrounded by a great cloud of people who have lived faithfully for God in ages past (Hebrews 12).  Let us look now at the lives of rulers and kings among whom lived some young men who embraced a sojourn in Babylon.  By doing so they exalted the God of Scripture who leads us in our own sojourn today.  Let us go and do likewise in the twists and turns of 21^st century New Jersey.

Stoked for the Journey ahead,

Pastor Reid S. Monaghan

Notes

1. Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Romans 15:4

2. For a thorough view of the 2^nd century view on the composition of Daniel see John Joseph Collins, Frank Moore Cross, and Adela Yarbro Collins, Daniel : A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). For an evangelical perspective that holds to a 2^nd century composition of the book, see John Goldingay, Daniel (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1989).

3. Collins, Cross, and Collins, 25.

4. For a brief outline of this period in history see Louis Ginzberg, "Antiochus Epiphanes," Jewish Encyclopedia  (2002). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_friendly.jsp?artid=1589&letter=A [accessed January 2, 2009].

5. Collins, Cross, and Collins, 20.

6. For the view of a 6^th century setting and composition see Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel : An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries ([Downers Grove, Ill.]: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 35-46. and  Tremper Longman, Daniel : The Niv Application Commentary from Biblical Text ... To Contemporary Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999).

7. Longman, 22.

8. Ibid., 23.

9. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1987), Antiquities 10.10-11.

10. There are apocryphal portions of Daniel which were written in Greek and were not considered by Jerome to be part of the original Hebrew Bible.  Furthermore they are absent from the Masoretic text, the best Hebrew manuscript tradition we have. These are found in the Roman Catholic canon. 

11. Summary of excellent historical reproduction in Baldwin, 20.

12. Apocolyptic literature points forward to what the end times of the earth will be like. 

13. Ronald S. Wallace, The Message of Daniel, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 22.

14. Baldwin, 75.

15. Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan : The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 55.

Bibliography

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel : An Introduction and Commentary The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. [Downers Grove, Ill.]: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978.

Collins, John Joseph, Frank Moore Cross, and Adela Yarbro Collins. Daniel : A Commentary on the Book of Daniel Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Ginzberg, Louis. "Antiochus Epiphanes." Jewish Encyclopedia  (2002). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_friendly.jsp?artid=1589&letter=A [accessed January 2, 2009].

Goldingay, John. Daniel. Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1989.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan : The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Josephus, Flavius, and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1987.

Longman, Tremper. Daniel : The Niv Application Commentary from Biblical Text ... To Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999.

Wallace, Ronald S. The Message of Daniel The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Virgin Births...

Apparently, a shark in my home time of Virginia Beach, VA has undergone a process known as parthenogenesis. Apparently once in a very rare blue moon some animals who reproduce sexually have a baby without a male involved.

See article Shark "Virgin Birth" Confirmed National Geographic online. Apparently the Komodo dragon has been known to go solo a few times as well. Both weird and interesting stuff...

Merry Christmas from the POCBlog

(Image re-created from Disney's THE SMALL ONE
HT - Animation Backgrounds)

Splendor

Splendor beyond all imagination
Ruler of every heart and nation

Founder of faith and searcher of minds
Lover and pursuer of all mankind

Forever apart we will not remain
As a baby was born through trial and pain

Darkness does seep in earth's current days
Yet joy and light was sent to fragile hay

To reconcile strangers, to rejoin them as friends
To resurrect hope and bring life again

The strange Christmas story marches onward today
As God brings forth splendor in unmeasured ways

-- December 24th 2008

Merry Christmas friends, foes and fraternizers of the POCBlog. Grace and Peace to you and yours this holiday season,

Reid S. Monaghan 

Palm fans...holding on to hope

Many of us have been using devices from Palm Inc for some time. Personally, I have owned many Palms, some Handsprings and most recently a cheaply priced Centro. Palm is known today as almost an also ran that did not keep up in the smartphone race where Apple, Blackberry and recently Google Android seem to be racing forward.  Yet Palm was the pioneer and is still in the game though its market share is shrinking.

Modern Marvels, a delightful history channel staple, recently featured Palm in a show called RetroTech.  A video segment is below:

The new Palm OS, code named NOVA, is on its way to be rolled out after the first of the year at the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES).  Whether this will be Palm's phoenix moment or whether it joins the world of dead zombie tech that did not survive the market...only time will tell. Personally, I am pulling for Palm. Its new Treo Pro running Windows Mobile and the new NOVA platform may be steps in the right direction. The palm faithful may yet rise again.

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

…continued from Part V

Destiny

Blaise Pascal was another hitchhiker that lived long ago.  He was a French philosopher and ground breaking mathematician who tended to ask some pesky questions along the roadways to the question of God.  The question of our ultimate destiny made his thoughts often.  I’ll quote him at length:

I know not who put me into the world, nor what the world is, nor what I myself am. I am in terrible ignorance of everything. I know not what my body is, nor my senses, nor my soul, not even that part of me which thinks what I say, which reflects on all and on itself, and knows itself no more than the rest. I see those frightful spaces of the universe which surround me, and I find myself tied to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am put in this place rather than in another, nor why the short time which is given me to live is assigned to me at this point rather than at another of the whole eternity which was before me or which shall come after me. I see nothing but infinites on all sides, which surround me as an atom and as a shadow which endures only for an instant and returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I know least is this very death which I cannot escape.

“As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go. I know only that, in leaving this world, I fall for ever either into annihilation or into the hands of an angry God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be forever assigned. Such is my state, full of weakness and uncertainty. And from all this I conclude that I ought to spend all the days of my life without caring to inquire into what must happen to me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but I will not take the trouble, nor take a step to seek it; and after treating with scorn those who are concerned with this care, I will go without foresight and without fear to try the great event, and let myself be led carelessly to death, uncertain of the eternity of my future state.”[1]

Many wise people from the past have encouraged us to think about the destination of life as we set about living it. Soren Kierkegaard once said life should be understood backwards but it must be lived forward and many a business leader has echoed the sentiment that we must begin with the end in mind. If the journey has a destination, we are wise to live in light of this. 

However, many of us would rather just be distracted than to think about our destiny.  We are all pretty much on our way towards our own funeral; but that is a bit heavy to think about while reading your RSS feeds.  It is much easier to reach for the remote control than to contemplate dying.  Yet death seems to be a clue to me as well.  It is a constant to life but it also seems like a constant enemy.  It should be the most natural thing in the world, but when it visits life around us we are shocked, perplexed, angry and wounded.  Perhaps death is actually an alien invader to life and that we are supposed to live forever. If this is true, we need to take it seriously and give some concern to our destination.

Continued with Has God Shown Up?

---

[1] Blaise Pascal, Penses, SECTION III: OF THE NECESSITY OF THE WAGER - you can read this online at - http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION-3.html

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.