On Enabling Poverty

Yesterday, I yelled at a bum. And I felt like a complete jerk. I was on the phone with customer service, trying to get an RMA for something I had to return, when the guy walks up to the bus stop on the university-side of the street (which they nearly never do) and asks the guy next to me to buy one of his ball caps.

I was looking for a sheet of paper to write down what the customer service rep was saying, when the guy started his spiel on me. I let him have it: "Sir, I'm on the phone, you're going to have to take that somewhere else." I think he muttered some curses and went off.

There I sat, realizing I wasn't practicing good Christian ethic, and feeling like a general scumbag. There that guy was, obviously trying to do some good. I mean, he went through the effort to find (or steal) those hats. He wasn't asking for a hand-out (per se). But I treated him just like dirt.

It occurred to me, as I was reading an article posted yesterday over at City Journal, titled "In the Heart of Freedom, in Chains" by Myron Magnet (thanks to Betsy's Page for alerting me to this), this poor black man might have given up trying to get a "real job." He probably felt like the white man was keeping him down. But that's just it. Too many black Americans feel that way, whether or not its the truth. Its a cop out, a way of living a lifestyle that's been glorified by popular culture.

Well, I refuse to keep any black man down. Its just not right. So what am I going to do next time one asks for for change, or tries to sell me a hot item?

I'll hand 'em a business card with the following on it, and repeat aloud, while maintaining good eye contact:

"I refuse to keep you down. By giving you something for nothing, I take away your dignity. You are an important, dignified person. You are valuable to society. You were created with a purpose. The only thing keeping you down is lost direction. You can succeed. I know it."

Last Thought for the Evening

CS Lewis writes in "Mere Christianity" his thoughts and rationales for growing in his faith after being a proclaimed atheist. My understanding of his writings:

As humans we judge what is right-or-wrong based on our morals. Morals vary widely individually but from culture to culture, "moral threads" or "truths" constantly reoccur. So we judge, with our rational mind, consequences and morality or a decision. And those without faith still label that which is right, right and that which is wrong, wrong. But those with faith find a reason why they do that.

By what standard does man judge something moral? Something that must be above morality, something that must be above right-and-wrong, a universal truth. Something super-real. The apple is not judged red because red is an inherent property of the apple. Red is a, albeit arbitrary, fact, and exists outside the realm of the apple.

Something judged as (im)moral must be judged by something outside its own realm.

Brain Damage Rationalizes Morals?

A short excerpt:

"Philosophers have a name for this calculating logic: utilitarianism. They've been debating it for 200 years. Some says it's sensible; others say it's ruthless. Lately, however, the debate has been overrun by neuroscience. According to the neuroscientists, philosophers on both sides are wrong, because morality doesn't come from God or transcendent reason. It comes from the brain.

Three years ago in the journal Neuron, the neuroscientists illustrated their point. Using brain scans, they showed that utilitarian decisions involved "increased activity in brain regions associated with cognitive control." From this and other data, they surmised that the moral debate "reflects an underlying tension between competing subsystems in the brain." On one side are "the social-emotional responses that we've inherited from our primate ancestors." On the other side is a utilitarian calculus "made possible by the more recently evolved structures in the frontal lobes." The war of ideas is a war of neurons."

Whirlwind synopsis:

A social-emotional being has everything needed, then chooses rationality as a substitute for providence, leading to the evolution of a utilitarian part of our brain that removes moral considerations from decisions. Normal people have both... people like Paul, who struggled. Why would something evolve unless it was need for survival; if we weren't created with a rational organ, we didn't need it; something in our environment changed. A Fallen World creates a socio-economic system whereby those that are dumb (lack common sense) but emotionally and morally sound die. Natural selection a la brain. Those that can think rationally flourish. Rationality is the byproduct of a Fallen World where pure morality is a liability (see post on science). Rationality is the Knowledge of Good and Evil, as opposed to experiencing the former by default.

A long-winded, arrogant and smarter-than-thou rant:
So morality doesn't come from God? And we inherited social-emotional responses from distant ancestors, compared with more recently-evolved utilitarian frontal lobes? So taking that to be true, as I've never been one to dispute good science I know nothing about...

As my faith leads me to believe, our distant ancestors lived in harmony with God. They needed nothing more than their providence, and sought nothing more than God... eeeeeexcept for that whole fall thing.

Jive-check to this point: Social-emotional beings? Check. Reasoning? Not yet.

So the creation is fallen... its made imperfect by the presence of a being antithetical to the perfect nature of God. Our earliest ancestors buy into this... they decide God's providence isn't enough, so they seek knowledge (read: rationality). God? He's pissed. Revokes providence. Now humans form societies because they can't do as well on their own. They rebuild wealth, enjoying the fruits of their own success (read: they become secular humanists).

Jive-check: Social-emotional? Check. Reasoning? It appears so.

Flash forward thousands of years into the future. Now they don't know if God exists. But where does moral behavior come from? The brain! Aha, so moral behavior is a vestige of ancient ancestors more closely connected with God. Uh-oh... that means we must have been that way by default.

Science-Religion Redux

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.

Reviews of Jesus Camp: A Call for Moderation

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.

An Open Question

Why is it that narcissistic secular hedonist feel the need to mock the Holy Bible? I ask this not out of frustration, but out of sheer sadness.

Are they really that ignorant? Do they mock the works of Plato, Aristotle, and (what we know of) Socrates? Or is it just contemporary transcendental contemplation they make their target?

There is something to be gained from the contemplation of that beyond ourselves. Some of the aforementioned ignoramuses may, in fact, find themselves terribly clever and witty. It's a shame the greatest gift of intelligence should go to such a waste.

"I should've been a philosopher..."