Found online and posted without further comment

Deep Thought of the Day: Is Global Warming real or a product of cultural narrative?

Fair warning, this post will NOT address the science of Global Warming at all. I am not arguing for or against it here, just making an observation about human nature. Feel free to argue the science elsewhere.

I was watching several DVDs from the "Walking with Dinosaurs" series - a "comfort food" of DVDs for me - when I noticed something. The theory of Evolution has driven us to look at history as a series of responses to events greater than ourselves. Over and over again, Evolution is seen being driven by global events larger than any particular species of ecosystem: ice ages, comet strikes, volcanic activity, etc. Each challenge brings out a different set of evolved characteristics to cope (thick fur, keen eyes, large size, etc.) This narrative - of individuals and groups driven by forces beyond their control - has become a deep part of our cultural psyche.

At the same time, there is a different narrative that is a deep part of our cultural psyche which has arisen from the Industrial Revolution. This narrative looks at the transformations of societies, ecologies, and landscapes of the 20th century, and proclaims that there is nothing that humans can not do. There is nothing that we can not modify to meet our own needs. The individual, in this view, is not a helpless reactor to events, but a DRIVER of events as he or she molds the world around them to fit themselves.

Is it any surprise then that a theory like Global Warming has gained ascendance at the moment? It is the perfect synthesis of these two cultural narratives. Are we at the mercy of forces beyond our control? YES! The planet is warming around us, changing the climate, the delicate balance of ecology, weather systems, etc. We are due to be flooded at the coasts, subjected to droughts inland, and expect a rise in disease at the periphery. But are we also the masters of our world? YES! Humans made this disaster by environmental modification, and humans have the ability to head off this disaster (if we act quickly). The warming is due to the emissions of man-made machines and the deforestation of man-made agriculture. Global warming gives us both narratives in a single story, allowing us to view our world thru a lens that perfectly matches 21st century thinking.

Of course, this does raise a question. Have humans ever been good at doing long-term planning based on an idea that happens to match the current cultural narrative? At some momenta, we may say yes. The American founders created a Republic where none had existed before, because of the ideas of their particular moment in history. But at other moments in history, the ascendant syntheses gave us Communism, Fascism/Naziism, Crusades, Empires, and more. We need to take a step back and look at this idea to be sure that we accept or deny it based on its merits, and not merely because it fits the cultural synthesis we have at the moment.

Deep Thought of the Day: A Universe of Laws

It is not uncommon when talking with my athiest friends for them to use the lawlessness of nature as one evidence against God's existence. They point to the randomness and seemingly immoral interaction of predator and prey, rot and decay, death and destruction as evidence that a legalistic God like the one shown in the Bible simply can not be the one in charge. If He were, the argument goes, things would be a lot more orderly.

So it has stricken me recently, while watching some programs on the Discovery and History channel, how profoundly ordered, consistent, and - if you will excuse the expression - legalistic our universe is. Consider animal behavior. As scientists look more and more at extinct animals like dinosaurs, the more they recognize what they see as being consistent with the behavior of animals alive today. Predators act like predators (aggression, territoriality, ambush over long chases, etc.) and herbivores act like herbivores (herd behavior, size over aggression for protection, etc.) Or consider stellar phenomena. While we are recognizing more and more kinds of stellar events, we are seeing more and more how they fit into existing laws of gravitation, nuclear fusion, entropy, etc. The fact is that while there is a huge number of possible phenomena to observe, they are all governed by a small number of "laws" whose interaction produces them.

This seems absolutely consistent with the Biblical God who "spoke" the universe into existence. It is not proof of God, but it is consistent.

Deep Thought of the Day: Is it okay to teach choose a lie?

This article is coming off of viewing the film BE KIND, REWIND on DVD. Some of these comments may be construed as spoilers. So if you are concerned about that, you may wish to skip this post.

Watching the movie this week, it ends off with a short section whose basic point is, "When a lie is more beautiful than reality, choose to believe the lie." This reminds me of another movie which essentially had the same moral: HOUSESITTER with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn. Both showed people living in a less-than-ideal society and seeking to escape despair by embracing a lie. They are shown, in fact, triumphing by rejecting truth and reality.

While I guess this is somewhat in line with a Hollywood philosophy, where the whole industry is based on creating fantasies and fictions. It seems like a fairly dangerous and insidious way of thought. It encourages us to have contempt for truth, to actually have a contempt for any idea or situation which is contrary to our preferences. It is narcissism to think that our desires have anything to do with truth. True science and philosophy is seeing the world as it is, and analyzing it that way.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? Is it wrong to think it better to embrace a lie when the truth is undesireable?

Deep Thought of the Day: Human Idols and Heroes

Recently, a man in our church has been in the papers and charged with acts that shed serious doubt on his good standing. This man was an Elder of the church, a former pastor, and currently the head of a major charitable organization. The papers have certainly exaggerated the charges, bringing out rumors as well as facts, but it appears at least some of the charges are true.

It has reminded me of the importance of NOT trusting in human idols or heroes.

As children - and even as adults - we are all tempted to pick heroes whom we attempt to model our lives after. For some, it is a great historical figure like George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt. For some, it is a family member - Mom or Dad or a grandparent. For others, it is a mentor - a pastor, a teacher, a counsellor. We look up to these people, and pattern ourselves after them.

But the reality is that very few humans can stand up to the pressure of this kind of idealization. Historians have an obsession with taking heroes off of their pedestals - as seen more recently in the obsession with Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. And even the best men have feet of clay and weak moments. Martin Luther - who stood strong against the Catholic Church under the threat of execution - was an ardent anti-semite. We now know that Mother Theresa often had deep doubts about the existence of God.

Remember, only God can stand up to the intensity of human expectations. One of the reasons He gave us Jesus was so that we could see one perfect human. For all the others, be kind when judging their frailties. Be just, but also be kind.

Deep Thought of the Day: Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Well, I started off my day reading Ward's critique of James Dobson, so why not fan the flames of theology a little more? While driving home from work the other day, I came across an interesting bumper sticker. (Photo is not mine, but looks similar.)



Clever, right? Turns the "What Would Jesus Do?" thing on its head, and makes you consider the apparent irony of a "Christian" nation attacking another country. I respect a good slogan.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it really misses something else about Jesus. Yes, He is the "Prince of Peace" and he raised a hand against no one at his trial. But this is the same Jesus who overturned the moneychangers tables and whipped them out of the Temple. It is the same Jesus who said...

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

This Jesus is no pacifist. And in the imagery we see of Him in Revelation, it is even more stark.

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
Revelation 19:11-15

Now, I am not saying diplomacy is not generally preferable to combat, or that war is not something to be avoided, when it can. But I am saying that we need to always be careful of our stereotyped, narrow views of Jesus as either the perfect pacifist, the glowering judge, the liberal activist, the conservative avenger, or anything else. He is bigger than our prejudices, and bigger than our assumptions.

So, let the warmongers fear calling for blood in His name, and let the peaceniks fear calling for retreat in His name.

Deep Thought of the Day: Abortion and Gay Marriage

I may have posted this before, but the situation in California has brought it back to mind. In American history there have been a series of great compromises: the Connecticut compromise which created a proportionally-chosen House and a 2-per-state Senate, the compromise that cut off slavery at the Mason-Dixon line, etc. I am wondering if one more could be possible:

What if we were offered a compromise which would allow individual states to ban abortion, in return for allowing individual states to allow gay marriage?

Could it ever have a chance? Could a "new face" like Obama or a "maverick" like McCain propose such a compromise? Or would this simply radicalize both the Right and Left to make later compromise harder?

Okay, now it your turn to tell me how naive I am.

Deep Thought of the Day: What happens when a Democray is "Wrong?"

If there is anything that has amazed me in the debate over the Iraq War, it is has been how many people are ready to declare our government "lost and broken" if they do not get their way. The Antiwar Faction of the Democratic Party has been howling for months that we are in a dictatorship, because the war goes on despite the election of a Democratic congress in 2006. And the Prowar Faction of the Republican Party has now begun howling that if Obama is elected and he pulls us out of the war, that our government will be "irretrievably damaged and perhaps lost." Both sides seem convinced that if a Democratic Republic like our own makes a decision OTHER than what they consider "correct", that it is by definition "broken" and the implication is that it is illegitimate.

Can we PLEASE get a grip? Can we PLEASE examine our rhetoric?

Democracy is not about a government which is never wrong. It is about a government which reflects the Will of the People at any moment in time. And the People have been "wrong" a whole lot. The "People" of our nation embraced slavery, and half of them tried to break away over the issue. The "People" denied the vote to women and to non-whites, until forced to face the error of their ways. The "People" of Germany elected Hitler. The "People" of ancient Greece voted to kill Socrates for the crime of asking questions. Democracy is wrong a lot.

The virtue of Democracy, and especially our Republican form of it, is that unlike other forms of government democracy tends to be self-correcting. The "People" eventually did the right thing on slavery, on secession, on equal rights, etc. The only cases where there are no chances for self-correction are where democracies become dictatorships or where "final" moves are made (like killing Socrates, no way to repeal that).

Please, both sides, calm down and accept that democracy is not "broken". Give it time to self-correct, whether you think "correction" is to get out of Iraq or to stop the current rush to get OUT of Iraq. Calling our government "broken" only encourages those who are ready to dissolve it in favor of something far worse.

Deep Thought of the Day

How, when Congress's approval rating is at the lowest ebb in recorded history, did we wind up with both of the major Presidential Candidates coming out of Congress?

It seems like the fat man who says "Wow, fast food is making me fat. I'd better order another few Big Macs to get me on a diet."

Deep Question of the Day

This one is not about philosophy, but annoyance. Why is it every time I finally pay off a credit card, I immediately get an e-mail telling me about "more ways to use your credit card" or have my credit limit automatically raised? The credit companies more and more these days act like drug dealers. "Oh, you're trying to get clean? How about one more free sample?"

And I say that as a bank employee. When I pay down my car loan, the bank doesn't try to get me to buy a boat on loan!