Life / Religion / Philosophy / Science / Polictics

Category: Philosophy

Discussions about PHILOSOPHY. Because everyone needs to wax poetic every once in a while. This category will contain everything that interests me about PHILOSOPHY.

  • Caught My Attention …

    I was definitely NOT thinking about blogging this today – but I was double blind sided on the way home and I have not been able to get it off my mind since.

    What was I blind sided by?  Car emblems.  You know, those magnetic, chrome, cute and witty, little flashy things people like to stick all over their cars (but mainly on the trunk or rear bumper).

    So here I am on my way home and a warning light on my dash tells me I need gas.  So I head to the gas station, but as I get into the turn lane to turn into the station, another car pulls in front of me.  And that is when I noticed it, the emblem on the back.  This one:

    Evolve_Fish

     

     

     

    And I immediately thought, that is what the driver of that car should do, evolve.  Evolve into a caring, thinking, rational human being.  But perhaps I was being a little harsh.  I need to exercise some grace.

    So I turned into the station and pulled up to the pump, but before I could get out of the car, I noticed the car at the pump in front of me also had a car emblem on the back hatch of the vehicle.  This one:

    Darwin_Fish

     

     

     

     

     

    Now our area of the city has about 22,000 residents according to the 2010 census, and only a few of those actually have emblems on their vehicles.  Or to state that a little more accurately, it has been my observation, driving around town, that a small percentage of the vehicles have emblems on them (I contend that my Car/Emblem observation is at least as accurate as Global Climate Change Observations – probably much more so).

    And my not-so-scientific, really rough estimate, totally unregulated observations (Hey!  Exactly like the Global Climate Change data!) have detected that even fewer of the emblems that are on vehicles, are actually emblems promoting Evolution.  But those apparently do.

    And seeing these back-to-back, in the span of just a few minutes, on two totally different vehicles, of which my keen Global Climate Change like data collection abilities discerned had absolutely nothing to do with each other, over powered my attention and stuck with me all the way home and literally forced me to blog about them tonight (OK, so maybe that last part is a slight exaggeration, but trust me, those emblems have been a really, really strong image in my mind this evening).

    So here is the thing about those particular icons.  It is not that I don’t want people to have free speech, I do.  It is not that I don’t think that people shouldn’t be able to express themselves though different means, I do.  It is not even that I am offended or put off by people that drive around with those emblems on their vehicles, I am not.

    What is of amazement to me about people that drive around with those particular emblems on their vehicles is that they are not true to their ideals and they probably don’t even know it.

    Consider that the vast majority of folks that drive around with those emblems on their vehicles are probably not Scientist, Teachers, or Engineers.  I do not know either of the individuals driving the vehicles I found myself behind this afternoon.  And I may be totally wrong, but I would guess that neither one of them could properly define evolution or articulate Darwin’s theories.  But even if I am wrong about those two individuals, it is almost a sure thing that the vast majority of folks that have those on their vehicles could not properly and accurately describe the Science and/or Philosophy they represent.

    What is worse, the individuals most likely could not logically step through the conception of either of those two emblems.  And that is where the real tragedy comes in.

    Think about it.  What is the base foundation of both emblems?  An outline of a fish.  The same fish outline that has been used as a Christian symbol for hundreds of years.  Early Christians may have co-opted the symbol from the use of the day, but that use has died out and is no longer recognized today.  And I doubt that the pagan use of the symbol to represent fertility drew its roots from what the current atheistic crowd is attempting to use it for.

    Rather early Christians transformed the use of the fish symbol and applied meaning drawn directly from their faith: Matthew 4:18 – 20.  They transformed the symbol for their own use and most likely did not denigrate or ridicule its previous use.

    But here, in the forms used today, we have the symbol used to clearly demean, ridicule, poke fun at, or judge harshly, the currently accepted meaning as we know it.

    And it is targeted as well.  It is targeted at one particular group, one particular religion.  While you will find Jewish religious symbols, Muslim religious symbols, Hindu religious symbols, Buddhist religious symbols, etc. altered in a humorous or sharply biting way, you will not see those to the extent of the Christian fish nor in this particular form.  No, these are used in a form and to an extent as to make them bigoted and prejudiced.

    Now you may find it shocking that I would draw that conclusion, but clearly, the fabrication of the evolutionary folks is to:

    (1) Co-opt the symbol.  They start with the base Christian symbol.  One might ask why?  Can they not come up with a symbol of their own?  Can they not convey their message across a wide audience through their own branding?  If not, why not?

    (2) Denigrate and ridicule the symbol.  They clearly alter the symbol in such a way as to mock, or look down upon the previous use (and users) of the symbol.  The symbol they use is a mightier than thou symbol.  It is a form meant to shame the use from which they co-opted it.  One might ask the question: Can they not convey their message in a reasonable, logical, form without stooping to ridicule and mockery?  (That is a rhetorical question).

    (3) Target their use of the symbol.  As I mentioned, while you can find some example of other religious symbols altered in similar manners meant to mock, they are very few and far between and you will hardly ever find this particular symbol modification amongst other groups.  It is targeted in a laser like focus on Christians.  Not Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc.  But Christians are the ones that specifically bear the brunt of their ridicule.

    Obviously that is utterly intolerant of anyone’s belief other than their own.  Thus bigoted.  Thus I stand by my conclusion.

    Oh, but wait-a-minute.  Christians are bigoted as well, right?

    Well, not necessarily in the use of the symbol.  First of all, Christians haven’t denigrated the symbol for their own use and with the purpose of ridicule of others.  Sure, Christians may wear their Faith on their sleeve, but remember, in their World View, people are going to die and spend eternity in hell.  And since they care about their fellow man, they need to share the good news (Gospel) with others.

    Contrast that with the evolutionary viewpoint.  One might ask why they even care (obviously they don’t care when it comes to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)?  Why in the world would an evolutionist care about the fish symbol on a Christians car?

    In their world view there is no heaven, and there is no hell.  It shouldn’t matter what others think, they are just going to die and go away.  What is it that simply consumes them about the Christian World View and no other?

    Secondly, Christians do not use the symbol in a mocking or a way meant to ridicule others.  They did not denigrate the symbol in any way shape or form.  Others seeing the Christian use of the symbol would not be offended (reference the first century use of the symbol).  They do use the symbol to identify themselves as members of a particular group (Christians) and to identify themselves to other members of that same group.

    And once again, one might ask the question as to why this bothers the evolutionary crowd so much?  Why should they even care?  They are all going to pass away one day and (according to their World View) never, ever know the difference one way or the other.  Why they will probably be forgotten in a couple of hundred years and not even those left will care one way or the other as to the impacts of the symbol use.

    One form and use of the Christian fish symbol is out of love, while the other form is out of hate.  And don’t tell me it is a form of education or correction.  Because if that is the way you educate, I certainly don’t want what you are teaching (and neither will most other people as well).

    Perhaps if we all considered the symbols in our lives a little more carefully, the ones that bring us together, and the ones meant to divide, and we were all a little more tolerant of each others symbols, then we might have a little better communication and perhaps a little more understanding in our world today.

  • LRPSP

    LRPSP. com has been up for over a week now and I thought I’d step back and provide some foundation for the categories, my biases, and the general discussions.  The About page provides an overview of the Blog, however I thought that over time a little more detail might be provided.  This is a short introduction.

    The pillars of the site – Life / Religion / Politics / Science / Philosophy are the foundations we exist upon.  I have collapsed some of the categories for the sake of a short, catchy URL (at least I hope it is catchy), but for the most part the things that make up our world and make us who we are fit into these categories.  They are also the categories where the most passionate debates come from.  These are the discussions about who we are, how did we get here, why are we here, where are we going, what are we supposed to be doing, and what does it all mean?

    if you were to look at an apologetics course such as The Truth Project – hosted at Focus On The Family you will find pretty much the same core of pillars.  These pillars are also where apologists such as Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Del Tackett, or Josh McDowell might build their cases on.

    I am nowhere near as talented as either one of these three individuals, or others like them, but I do have an understanding of the basics, and I enjoy a heart-to-heart conversation.  And I’d like to invite anyone and everyone to join in the conversations.  Especially those that are dissenters, such as these folks that obviously take issue with Josh McDowell’s book Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

    Of course this is a family oriented site so the rules are somewhat strict.  Of course that doesn’t mean we cannot have adult discussions from time-to-time, but it does mean that a certain level of civility and a language code will be insisted upon.

    The pillars cover the following:

    Life– Everything that animates us that we experience, know, and deal with on a day-to-day basis.  Life covers the physical, our bodies, our world and our interactions with it, our souls, our emotions, thoughts, and what makes us laugh, what makes us cry.  Life covers all the unique characteristics that make you – you and me – me.  These could be hobbies, sports, interests, studies, jobs, interactions, or anything else that makes us the unique creations we are.

    Religion– Everything within the Spiritual world and our connection with God.  Religion may encompass Theology, our innermost selves, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons, and all things of a Devine nature.

    Politics– Would cover our Governments, our laws, things that govern our social interactions, or even the application, adjudication, or interpretation of those laws.  Governments (and thus politics) do not necessarily exist at the Capitol buildings and no where else.  They generally permeate our entire lives.  Homeowners Associations are a form of Governance (and are generally found to be the bottom rung of government).  However, Politics may even extend into the home and the family structure.

    Science– Is all the sciences.  Biology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Geography, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc.  the Sciences are important because they facilitate our discovery and our understanding of the world around us.

    Philosophy– Our Philosophies are what define and establish our World Views.  They help shape how we see things and through what colored lenses we interpret things.

    Obviously by now, if you have followed any of my timeline, or read my blog posts from the beginning, you might surmise that my World View encompasses a God.  I believe Theology (I just grouped this under Religion) is the foundational study of all.  It is the foundation upon which everything else is built.

    It should be clear by now that my Theological Foundation is the ground floor that all other pillars sit upon.

    And I would like to point out that all great minds start out here (not that I am saying that I am a great mind, but rather that I am a good student and have learned from them).

    Even amongst our high level contemporary thinkers, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Stephen Hawking, and (of course) Dr. Ravi Zacharias, and Dr. Del Tackett, all of these start with Theology.

    What is it that consumes Dr. Dawkins completely?  Why it is to disprove the existence of God.  Dr. Stephen Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design, states “It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God.” (The Grand Design, pg. 165, 1st paragraph).  Dr. Carrier is certainly consumed by Christians (if not God), see part of his talk at Skepticon 3 (or just search YouTube for him).  All of these individuals are consumed with Theology, the study of God.  Granted, their study intends to disprove the existence of God, but you cannot disprove that which you do not study.

    Clearly all great minds agree that Theology is foundational to any other study we may pursue.  It provides us insight into other studies and (as Dr. Hawking points out in his book on pg. 164), it is a necessary study to answer the questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing?  Why do we exist?  Why this particular set of law and not some other?” just before he launches into a Theological discussion of God.

    But I hope you don’t think all of my Blog discussions will be some boring, unintelligible diatribe about Religion, or Politics, or Philosophy, or Science.  No, I’d like to discuss the fun parts, the sad parts, and the parts of life that interest you as well.

    It is sincerely my hope you will see the importance and value of these pillars, and that they will help  guide your input, but if not, don’t worry about it.  Either read for fun, or join in to share you opinion.

    But let’s have a conversation about: Life/Religion/Politics/Science/Philosophy!

  • Who Is Your Imaginary Friend?

    I’d like to stay with the comment of the individual who posted on Ken Ham’s FaceBook page (See yesterdays blog: MURDERER OR NOT?).  Specifically the end of his comment:

    “It saddens me that an adult could believe such things as fact. You are robbing your children of their lives and wonder by filling every unknown with an imaginary friend. Indoctrination is abuse.”

    I am extremely amused whenever I hear this argument from individuals who simply want to force their version of reality upon me.  It is not that they want to have an honest conversation about Life, Religion, Politics, Science, or Philosophy, rather they simply want to shut down any opposing point of view or any theory that doesn’t match their particular world view.

    So what saddens me is that there are adults that actually believe (a) The U.S. did not successfully land men on the moon and return them safely rather it was all a hoax.  (b) That aliens crashed into the Earth at Area 51 or Roswell NM and the U.S. Military is keeping it a secret.  (c) That the U.S. Government was involved in bringing down the World Trade Centers on 9/11/2001.  (d) That this doll in Key West is actually possessed by evil spirits.  (e) That some Government Agency knows more about you than your closest friend or relative.  (f) Almost any of the wacky stories that I am entertained by nightly on Coast To Coast AM.  (g) That Cuba is a much better place to be than America because of their healthcare.  (h) Anything at all Michael Moore says.  (i) That President Barrack Hussein Obama has a high approval rating.  I could literally go on and on and on.

    I certainly do not know the individual who posted on Ken’s FaceBook page, but I do know other individuals who have made the same ridiculous statement.  And the vast majority of the other individuals I know only care about one fantasy world and one only.  And that is the one they believe I live in.

    I am willing to bet whatever fortune I do not have that this particular individual has no problem whatsoever with (a) Santa Clause.  (b) Easter Bunny.  (c) Tooth Fairy.  (d) Jack Frost.  (e) Cupid.  (f) Loch Ness Monster.  (g) Big Foot.  (h) Swamp Thing.  (i) Paul Bunyan and Babe.  (j) Teddy Bears.  (k) Any imaginary childhood friend other than a God.

    Is it not somewhat interesting that the only imaginary friend/fairy tale these people want to stamp out is the one labeled Christianity?  All the rest are perfectly fine.  Just not this one.

    And he seemingly wants to stamp it out for the children.  Why we are robbing the children of their very lives and wonder by propagating some imaginary friend on them (yes, a fairy tale).  What our FaceBook posting friend never considers is that I am obviously a victim also.  I must have had my life and wonder robbed as a young child.  Balderdash!  Is it not of some wonder that every child that has ever succumbed to the allure of Santa Clause eventually outgrows it.  I have many friends who were brought up in the Church who haven’t set foot in one in years.  I have friends whose parents are Christian and yet they profess to be atheist.  And I also have friends whose parents are anything but Christian and yet they profess Jesus Christ.  It would seem that there is this one imaginary friend who stretches across the boundaries of a lifetime, and that is decided upon on a case by case basis with each person making an individual choice.  Our FaceBook posting friend conveniently ignores all the evidence and inserts his own world view in order to interpret the data as he sees fit.

    Why would any right thinking individual outgrow Santa Clause, yet not outgrow the person of Jesus Christ?  Why is Santa Clause such a good and healthy imaginary friend and fantasy, yet the person of Jesus Christ is not?  Why is there one particular person, one particular set of followers, and one particular book that is so threatening to people?

    And I have a question for our FaceBook poster.  After removing prayer from schools, the study of creation from the classroom, and Nativity scenes as a form of Christmas decoration,  who in the world is he afraid of?  It is not Christians who are pushing their religion on the simple minded as we our led to believe, rather it is the strong minded (I might say close minded) who are attempting to rip Christianity from the fabric of our very lives.

    Indeed, a little imagination is a good thing.  But when I start defending my imaginary friend, one must conclude that that I am either delusional or else there is more to my imaginary friend than meets the eye.

    I am a huge admirer of Dr. Ravi Zacharias.  I was privileged to be at a session once where he was answering questions and I heard him say “It’s my fantasy and I’m perfectly happy with it, so leave me alone”.  Indeed, the one fantasy that no one wants to leave alone, is Christianity.

    My world view has an answer for this.  It says we wrestle, not with flesh and blood, but with principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  What is strange is that those that would shut down my world view would even care.

    So my  friend is more than just imaginary.  He is quite real.  His name is Jesus Christ and he is the Son of the Most High God.  Who is yours?

  • Murderer Or Not?

    Amanda Knox is once again in the news and once again has been convicted of murder in Italy.  Some have suggested that this is double jeopardy (tried for the same crime twice) and that if Italy were to request extradition of Ms. Knox that the request might be denied based upon those grounds.

    However, I’ll admit I do not have much of an opinion (or an interest) in Ms. Knox one way or the other.  It is simply an interesting tidbit on the news.  What I am interested in is murder itself.  And by that I mean more of the legal aspect of murder and not so much the act of murder.

    You see, as Ms. Knox discovered herself, murder carries a very specific legal definition with it that must be proven in a court of law.  Specifically that definition says that it is: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.  It is also rendered this way: the crime of unlawfully killing a person.

    And thus it is the legal aspect of murder that interests me.  But before I get to that, there is another rather interesting event coming up in a few days.  Bill Nye (The Science Guy) will be debating Ken Ham at the Creation Museum on February 4th, 2014.  I’ll recommend the debate (if you are free) now, but I am currently more intrigued by this exchange about the coming debate from Ken Ham’s FaceBook page.

    If you read the posters accusations carefully (from the above link), you would have discovered this at the end: “God if He existed is a murderer, and stands idly by as his “good” creations rape and murder each other and does nothing because free will. It saddens me that an adult could believe such things as fact. You are robbing your children of their lives and wonder by filling every unknown with an imaginary friend. Indoctrination is abuse.” (Excerpt of post in response to Ken Ham on his FaceBook page).

    Ken (rather aptly if I do say so myself) addresses the concerns laid out in this statement.  I would like to repeat one though.  The accuser claims here that God stands idly by as his “good” creations commit all kinds of crimes.  And yet the Bible is the one book that not only defines Good and Evil, but also explicitly states that mankind is NOT good:

    10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Romans 3:10-12 KJV

    The “good” creation the poster refers to is from the book of Genesis 1:31 where God calls everything he has made “very good”.  And indeed, God was pleased with his work.  But I note that this was before the fall of man and God was referring to the state of his creation, not whether or not that creation would end up doing good or evil things.  God’s creation is good, it is also seeped in sin and thus there is evil in the world.

    However I digress.  The point I wanted to address is the posters opening few words.  Where he pointedly accuses God of being a murderer.  This is not a new concept put out by this particular poster either.  No, it has been used time and time again by those attempting to show inconsistencies between a loving God and the God described in the Old Testament of the Bible.  Some go as far as to even add up all the deaths in the world attributable to God.  As if some really large number will make God all the more evil than just a single, solitary, murder.

    However this is a completely disingenuous accusation on the part of these people.  Firstly and foremost they completely destroy the definition of murder.  Remember murder is a legal term and it specifically refers to a human taking another human’s life unlawfully.  God is Creator, and is definitely not human (although God did take on the form of a human – but that is a thought for another time).  Think of it this way, if a bear kills a person in the woods, do we then arrest the bear and put it on trial for murder? No, of course not.  The bear is no more subject to the laws of man than the fish in the sea are.  So why then do we attempt to ascribe our laws to God?  Because he first gave the law to man?  And how is that fair?  Perhaps our children should be subject to the exact same set of laws we are subject to.  If so, I imagine there would be a lot of parents standing in the corner tonight.  We are the creation, he is the creator, it is not we that get to apply the laws to him, but rather he who applies them to us.

    These folks that shake their fists in the face of God and call him a murderer are unaware of the great atrocity they have just committed by flipping the roles of God and Man around.  Would they put God on trial?  Who would be the jury of God’s peers?  Who in the world would be judge?  And how in the world do these folks expect to prove that the lives God took, he took unlawfully?

    However even more disingenuous than the destruction of the terminology for murder, is these folks can’t even ascribe the correct number of deaths to God.  If they bothered to understand God for who and what he is, they would soon realize God is the only being responsible for any human death.

    There are far too many references for me to look up and link to tonight.  So I leave some of these as an exercise to the reader.  But God is clearly established as the giver of life, and the deliverer of death in Genesis.  God tells Adam and Eve that if they disobey him they will surely die.  When Satan challenges God over his servant Job, God clearly tells Satan that he may not take his life.  Why?  Because only God may take a life.  The scriptures also clearly state that it is appointed unto every man once to die.  How can it be appointed unto man to die unless it is God who is the arbitrator?

    No, God is clearly the holder of life and death and as Creator is that not clearly his prerogative?  It is absolutely amusing to me that so many people want to defend abortion as a woman’s right over her own body.  Sure!  She can do with that fetus anything she wants to!  And yet if God takes a life, suddenly he is a murderer?  Why?  Doesn’t God get to do anything he wants to with HIS creation?

    And before you try and throw a “we’ve reached the point of viability” argument on me, go back and re-read your Scriptures.  Our very breath of life is sustained by God.  He literally holds his Creation together.  He sustains it moment by moment.  You are no more viable without God than a child in the womb is without its mother.

    Abortion rights are apparently OK except when God allows the life to be taken.

    So murderer or not?  I, unlike the gentleman who addressed Ken Ham over his upcoming debate with Bill Nye, cannot find it within myself to be quite so naïve as to address God as a murderer.  That is rather shallow thinking.  It also gives me pause to consider whether or not the legality of murder might apply to God’s laws and not just man’s.  We might want to consider that when granting the woman’s right to choose.

  • Life Isn’t Fair

    There is a philosophy of fairness gripping our world today.  Governments speak of inequities that exist between rich and poor, healthy and sick, happy and sad.  The have’s and the have not’s.  It is unnerving to some that so few could have so much and so many could have so little.  They want to right the wrongs, spread the wealth around, and build one great big happy utopia.  It has been tried time and time again through philosophies such as socialism, communism, or collectivist activism.  And each time it has failed.  And yet it is strived for.

    The amazing thing to me is that no one ever asks the question as to why the inequities exist in the first place.  If your world view embraces a God you might ask the question as to why God allows some to be rich and some to be poor.  If your world view does not embrace a God you might ask the question as to why we cannot make things equal across the board.  We struggle with the fact that Life just isn’t fair.

    Something that might be considered is that if your world view encompasses a God, then he might be the arbitrator of fairness in life.  Perhaps it is God who rewards and who takes away.  And all of our shuffling, and redistribution, and efforts cannot alter the plans of a God.

    If your world view does not encompasses a God, then you are fighting the great cosmic entropy and the randomness of the Universe itself is beating down upon your very efforts.  Of course if your world view does not encompass a God, one might ask where your compassion comes from anyway or why you even care.

    Either way it is an impossible task and the question then becomes why does it consume us so?

    There is one world view that embraces, understands, and works within the great divides in life.  And that world view is the Christian world view.

    For me, inequities in life are understandable and are readily worked with.  My world view of a God is not only liberating in this sense, it is also practicable in helping me deal with and change the inequities that touch me on a daily basis.

    This is because the very definition of God is infinite in every direction and all encompassing of everything.

    Recently I saw the question: why would a perfect God allow bad things to happen to good people?  And the answer was (and is) very plain to me.  Could a God build a perfect world?  Of course he could.  But if he did, where would my choice come in?  Where would my opportunity come from?  Or where would I be tested and proven to be true.

    I love the quote of former Congressman J.C. Watts who said his grandmother used to tell him that true character was doing the right thing in the woods when no one else was around to see or to record the events.

    The “world” is our woods.  And our “woods” is full of unfairness and challenges.  It is up to each and every one of us to do the right thing even if no one records it.  Why?  Because that is our test of character.

    The Marines have a slogan: Do the Right Thing, At the Right Time, For the Right Reason.  If everything were equal across the board, there would be no measure of character, because everyone would always act the same way.

    So why would a God allow such a system to exist?  Why would a God test us in such a way?  Well for me it goes back to my God’s infinite nature.  All of the myriad of differences in the world (and indeed the Universe) are all tiny reflections of an infinite God.  They are an expression of who, what, and why he is.  The inequities in life allow God to work.  The system allows God to be God.  Not for himself, God cannot suddenly stop being God, but rather for us.  It allows us to see God for who he truly is.

    You see, from my world view, without sickness we would not know healing, without pain we could not know relief, without poverty we could not measure wealth, without suffering we could not measure joy, and without disobedience there could be no Grace.  It is the very antitheses of the system that allows us to see the beauty on the other side.  We make the mistake of believing that we may know beauty without ever having experienced ugliness.  But if all you had ever known in your entire life, from birth, was beauty, and you asked me to describe something other than beauty, how would I do that?  And how would you conceive it?  I contend it would be impossible.  And if the only thing you ever knew in life was beauty, where would your sense of appreciation come from?  And from what standpoint would you experience accomplishment?

    No, Life isn’t fair, and I’m afraid you can do everything in your power to change that and you will find that it will always be that way during this age.

    Rather than engaging in some vain fight to change something that we cannot, why not take it for what it is?  The opportunity to Do the Right Thing when no one else is around to see you do it.  Literally the opportunity to Do the Right Thing, At the Right Time, For the Right Reason.

    If we all did this, we might all just be surprised at the growth of our Character,  and the changes in inequities that it just might effect within our world.

  • Is There A God?

    One of the harder hitting and more intriguing questions asked in Life, Religion, Science, and Philosophy is: “Is there truly a God?”   I might suggest here that the question ought to be asked within Politics as well, but alas, it would seem that most of our Governments today have either convinced themselves that it makes no difference whether or not they explore this question, or that the answer to it has no bearing on their functions or actions (as if they are outside of the impacts of the question).

    To some, it might seem as if this is an unanswerable question, although the vast majority of the world has already answered it for themselves.  Some have let others make the determination for them, essentially giving them the answer.  Some pursue this question relentlessly day-in and day-out.  And a few don’t have the time or effort to pursue it.

    Others may ask why it even matters.  For a segment of the population there will be those that will understand why I would start with such a question, the rest may be confused or otherwise surprised that I would jump out of the box with this question.

    But for me (and many others) this is a foundational question.  It is one that shapes your world view.  It directly effects how you view Life, Religion, Politics, Science, and Philosophy.  It is a life-changing question and its impacts are far reaching.  And it is a question that is current and relevant today (Reference this news story for a list of Celebrities whom you might think believe in a God since they claim to be religious).

    It also is a question that bares ones biases.  And since I am desiring an honest and sincere pursuit of the interesting things in Life, Religion, Politics, Science, and Philosophy, it is a question that I must start off with.  It is a question that is seminal to any really interesting discussion of Life, Religion, Politics, Science, or Philosophy.  It is not a question to which everyone will agree upon an answer on, but it is a question that we should all agree has far reaching effects on our day-to-day lives.  And so, as for myself, I begin with: “Is there a God?”

    Obviously there are three distinct answers to this question.  There are those that would say “No.  Absolutely not.”  Those that would say “Yes. Absolutely there is.” and then there is everyone else.  I put ‘everyone else’ in the category of “I don’t know”, “I don’t care”, “Maybe there is or maybe there isn’t”, or “It doesn’t really matter one way or the other.”  But however you answer this one question will shape the way you approach everything else in life.

    Consider Dr. Stephen Hawking or Dr. Richard Dawkins for example.  They have absolutely stated that there is no God.  Their answer to the question is “No.”  And that answer shapes their world view and their pursuits in life.  In the case of Dr. Hawking it has been an almost continual life time goal to establish the fact, once and for all, that there is no God.  They state rather emphatically that there is no God (and seemingly, have done little to persuade the list of Celebrities referenced in the news article above).

    Secondly consider Dr. Billy Graham, or Dr. Rick Warren.  They would assuredly answer the question “Yes.”  And that answer in turn shapes their world view and pursuits in life.  And they have very different foundation they build upon than those which Dr. Hawking or Dr. Dawkins build upon.

    The third category I will not discuss at this time other than to say that anyone who believes the question has no bearing on their life or that the answer to the question does not affect their lives one way or the other, are people who are blinded to the effect that one simple choice has already had upon their lives.  In other words, their choice of apathy has just as much a profound impact on their foundational life beliefs, and does the choice of those who say “Yes.” and those who say “No.”  I suppose I could throw Dr. Richard Carrier in here as an example skeptic, except he really is not.  He is as much of a “No.” person as any of the other “No.” persons out there.  Unfortunately I tend to believe that by the time one has risen to enough prominence level to be used as an example, they are no longer in the third category but are rather firmly ensconced in either the “Yes.” or “No.” categories.

    So this is a good place to start, it is interesting to me, and it broadly sweeps all aspects of Life / Religion / Politics / Science / Philosophy.  It is a question to end all questions.  Is there really and truly a God?

    My answer is YES.  Absolutely there is.  For me, it is the only model that makes sense.  For me, it is the only model the evidence supports.  For me, it is the only model that answers all the other questions that life throws at you from any category.  Of course there is a God and he is the foundation for understanding all other pursuits in Life / Religion / Politics / Science / and Philosophy.