Romans 1:22 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
Also, I should note my distaste for the term "religion." In any case, its use served my point previously in showing that religion could become something other than spiritual, given man has the time to work reason into it, or imagination out of it.
But what I'm driving at isn't really imagination, its something higher than that. Its a divine organ which transcends the planes.
My spirit.
Listening to NPR and at the moment an interview with the author of The God Delusion. He makes good points, but fails to recognize the value of philosophy on western thought. In fact, I'm not sure what philosophy he subscribes too.
He makes the following comment (paraphrased) "The only answer up until this point was that everything was so elaborate and magnificent that it must have been designed by some Creator."
Aristotle came to this conclusion as well, he as a man of science for his times. By studying the order of things in nature, particularly details such as the order of teeth in a lions mouth, he reasoned that since everything is the way it is, it is that way because it cannot be what it is not.
Simply put, the lion whose teeth are out of order will die of malnutrition. This may seem to support Darwinism at first...
BUT--
What right do Darwinians have in claiming that the lion's teeth were wrong in the first place, and then evolved into their correct order? To put it another way, what right does anyone have to say that nature is inherently chaotic?
The fact that it favors chaos tells me that anything appearing with natural order must have received that ordered form independently. Whether its a Designer, Prime Mover, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, or your God, science simply cannot "disprove" that which scientists themselves marvel at.
Thanks to the indexed blog for the inspiration.
Walking through campus the other day, I spotted the following message chalked all over our brickyard:
A) SCIENCE > RELIGION
B) RELIGION > SCIENCE
C) BOTH
D) NEITHER
This was followed by some pitch-line to attend a lecture or debate of some sort.
The real scary part about it is how quickly I came up with a retort. I've been so deep in theory for the past few weeks my mind started to work in notation, and before you know it, I had imagined the following answer:
D) NEITHER
Because SCIENCE ∈ ℝ and RELIGION ∈ ℂ and are therefore not directly comparable. Also, note that ℝ ⊆ ℂ. As such, ℝ ⋚ ℂ ⇔ any number z in ℂ has form α + βi where β = 0.
Simply stated, the two cannot be compared as they are in different sets. However, SCIENCE is contained in the subspace of RELIGION and the two are comparable iff the imaginary part is removed. Therefore, SCIENCE is a rational RELIGION that ignores the complex case presented by our own imagination.
After all, one has to imagine how imaginary numbers operate, it isn't intuitive. Ergo cognito et sum. My belief is based on faith. I visualize God and man in much the same way scientists imagine the real-complex plane. That is, a unit circle that is incomplete in the absence of i but that makes magical things happen when i is utilized.
Have some faith. Use your imagination, and realize you'll never fully understand with reason alone.
We're a social animal. That means we more or less operate in societies. It increases our wealth and well-being, diversity of diet and thought, exchange of ideas. Societies facilitate the most tremendous gift we have, when viewed secularly--communication.
Yet we toil against one another. Our greed hides in social interaction only to remanifest itself in national identities. Nations, economically speaking, are macroed micros. Its a collective, in a mild sense, and acts as one.
Our cooperative societies form anti-cooperative nations.
We are simultaneously the most cooperative and self-destructive animal on the planet.
A poem by REH, whose insights are refreshingly liberal and always well-thought-out. Rational opinions, if you will.
============
There once was a loudmouth called Newt,
who treated his wife like a brute.
When cancer her struck,
he passed on the buck,
to laymen at church, ain't it cute!
Rex
No, this isn't spam. Clicking on the title will take you to Economist.com, where you may receive a message similar to the following:
"Try The Economist for 4-weeks, risk-free!"
The magazine is called The Economist. They should know better than to advertise something as risk free.
By subscribing, I run the risk of forgetting to unsubscribe, in which case I'm charged for a full year. And I'm risk averse.
Because I'm rational.
And because I already have a subscription. That is all.
Heard about a new movie Jesus Camp and anyone can view clips of the movie on YouTube &c. Read the article, watch the clips, to get the gist of what people are saying about the movie.
I have not seen the movie, nor do I plan to. But as a rational believer, I would like to state my opinion. The children portrayed in the movie have been indoctrinated, brainwashed or "abused" as some critics would suggest. They spout evangelical nonsense and an irrational fear of science. These kids are turned off to learning in order to be turned on for the Lord.
No, that isn't right.
But atheists indoctrinate their kids, too. And not in the way this movie portrays... I seriously doubt there is an Antichrist Camp in the making. EVERYONE indoctrinates their child. It's called EDUCATION!
Every person is brainwashed. You believe things. Any thing. Things that make sense, things that don't. You comprehend what happened on this rock before you began your luxurious stay. That's called history. You explain reality through trial and error. That's called science. You explain epistemology by way of philosophy.
And I bet you teach it to your kids, too. I know I will, and I can't wait.
You see as humans, I bet we're not only willing and interested in furthering our lineage, but our knowledge and world view as well. The victors write history, after all. And, I would just bet that if rationality and the desire to continue our thoughts and opinions are big concerns to us, there is a natural reason for it.
Pride. Narcissism. Hell, the only reason I'm posting this is in the vain hope that someone will join my side. We're selfish. And we're manipulative. I'll spare you the Fall Speech.
If you walk away with nothing else, then think this: How is it that philosophy is heralded even after modern advances in science, and religion is smeared yet, as proven by the commenters on the linked article?
The reason is simple, and it applies to every world religion: radicalism. Radicalism is never good, and never carries a good context. However, moderation is to be heralded by society.
That is why I will be fervent in my love of my Lord in private and with selected friends, and you will be unsure if I am a believer or not in public, unless the subject comes up. Moderation is a virtue. Properly define any spectrum of opposites and you will find humans are happiest, or most willing to work together, when we exhibit the traits in the middle of the spectrum... when we're average.
When we're average, we're non-threatening. Hence, non-average is threatening. I leave the rest of my proof to current events.
