Ackerman & Sands APC

FB.init(“e1a371ad022a27913445bdfae58c801b”);

Ackerman & Sands APC on Facebook

Guide to Kids’ First Amendment Rights in School

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/public-schools-first-amendment-guide.

More than Belief

Will you simply believe? Or, will you follow me?

Following in someone’s steps is an action of the will and conduct. The act(s) of “following” is not a passive belief, however fervent that belief might be. Believing in something higher than ourselves requires action that transcends the the merely original, average or expected. Without the acted-upon will to transcend, there can be no expectation of redemption from our base state of human be-ing.

Am I Married to Christ, Or Am I Having an “Affair”?

“Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair.” ~G.K. Chesterson

The above comment raises interesting questions. It easily brings up the meaning of what Christ intended when the Church was described as His Bride in a number of Biblical references. Psalms 19:5; Matthew 9:15 & 25:1; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelations 21:9.

This loving and sanctified relationship is best described at Ephesians 5:25-33. The description of the ‘marital relationship’ between Christ and His Church is not a mere theory, but is an objective description of what is expected of the person who loves the source of their Faith, and the relationship between these two ‘betrothed.’

The term ‘love affair’ almost doesn’t fit. It is almost tawdry, except to the extent that the author desired to think of religion as sanctified and one of solid covenant as opposed to an affair of sorts.

Moreover, the Chesterson quote introduces a vagueness and unnecessary subjectivity into the relationship between Man and God. It invites the error of unmet expectations into a relationship that is otherwise made clear by historical fact and by Biblical covenant.

In simpler terms, God does not always come through and give me the attention I want, or perceive myself to need, on any given day — nor should I expect Him to, for He teaches and disciplines me according to my actual needs and the covenant we made with each other. Sometimes, the relationship requires that I simply give my life up to Him and “repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42.

Considering myself to be in a “love affair” with Him will certainly not guide me in any truly objective way. The daily expectations of my wife or I can change as our moods change, life circumstances change, and in light of other external factors. Human love affairs are hardly consistent or predictable. What I can expect from God is that he will abide in the covenants made with me through the specific Words he chose to speak to all of us through the Bible. John 1:1-14.

If I do not believe in the covenant, I should not be in the relationship, much in the same way that those who are not willing to stick to their marital vows should not be married and bring judgment upon themselves for such failures. Matthew 5:31-32. But, that I should believe, I am required to bring my ship back to the safe harbor of His Love, Word and Compassion for me, as I would with my marriage and the love that it holds for me.

How can one please God if we do not know what to expect from him? Are His set of expectations merely “theory”? No, he expects us to keep his sayings/commandments and live by them much in the same way couples live out their vows. John 14:15-24.

When viewed from a humanistic stance, the expectation that one’s religion might be viewed as a “love affair” carries with it all of the potential for self interest as a governing force, the expectation of certain results, errors, false perception, and unmet expectations as with most “love affairs.” My love of, and servitude to, Christ must be submissive and humble. As I learn from my submission to His Church, I also learn patience, commitment and humility in my own human affairs. Ephesians 6:5-9. Acts 20:19; Colossians 2:18-23.

In fact, it is no secret that marriages, love affairs, and the entry into any covenant must be based on trust, honor, dignity and like factors. Conversely, such relations require much work, are not always perfect because of the people involved (regardless of the strength of the words of any covenant made between them), and relationships require an element of daily tolerance and forgiveness in order to work.

One of the other thoughts that comes to mind is one which relates to the definition of marriage and love. For me anyway, the purpose of marriage is so that the couple might become one flesh and so that they might put forth future generations. Often, we look to our parents, or at least want to look at prior generations, to learn about what makes for a good relationship. Perhaps this is why we were given the Commandment to honor our parents. Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:1-6. Indeed, we look for the “things that made it work” for our relatives and friends who have been married for decades. Psalm 45:16-17. Much the same can be said for religion.

Would I look for a community of believers that had stayed together consistently for 2000 years, or would I want one that is unproven or shown to have splintered since its inception? I think that the building blocks for a marriage ought to be based on the objective history of what has kept other marriages together — regardless of whatever cultural, environmental, or financial challenges there were in those relationships.

Religion faces many of these same challenges and how the Faith responds to the challenges will either be honorable or dishonorable. The quality or reliability of the response, on the other hand, can only be looked at on a larger historical level. We often ask ourselves, “Did the couple last?” or we say, “Wow, that couple really made it. What a great marriage. They’ve been through a lot and still love each other.” What of us who have not forgotten the true love that we have for the Faith we had as children? What of that love that is rediscovered, but tempered with years of experience and life before coming back to the beloved?

As with all marriages, there are ups and downs and some of these peaks, separations of time, troughs, and plateaus last for varying periods of time. The issue then becomes more of a matter of assessing whether the “family” survived the challenges and made the most of them over the length of the relationship. As with marriage, the ability to maintain the relationship depends on my willingness to go back to the vows/commitment/covenant that I made in the first place, because I know that the words are objective and lasting — regardless of my own faults in keeping to the words at times.

Or, if I want to look for good or bad examples of relationships, what shall I say of the persons who continually switch love affairs or who are always trying to change their spouses? Is this not what Luther did? He didn’t love the spouse he married (i.e., the Catholic Church). Simply stated, Luther left his beloved for another. See generally, 2 Corinthians 11:1-2.

In a very strong sense, Luther seized upon the weaknesses of a long marriage and, instead of counseling and reforming, chose to be a home-wrecker of sorts. Such efforts were egged on by the likes of Zwingli and Calvin as well. Instead of looking to save the marriage, they tried to find new wives for Christ. Instead of reminding the cheaters (the religious leaders of the Catholic Church), of their vows, the “Reformers” focused on the destruction of the 1500-year-old marriage which had survived many an attack before Luther.

Luther, in a spiritual form of domestic violence, forcefully redefined his covenant and put in motion a view of the “love relationship” between Man and God that splintered, caused division, led to war, and resulted in a complete lack of unity between literally hundreds if not thousands of denominations. Prior to his “love affair” there was a solid bond among believers, and the unity had survived for more than 1500 years, not including the 3500-4000 years of lasting covenants between God and the People of Israel. These relationships and the example they set were not merely theoretical, they were confirmed by the annals of history and the happiness, sorrows, and challenges of the persons who lived in the relationships that form the basis even for our Faith today.

These things being said, it cannot be forgotten that couples need time alone, they often need time to heal spiritual wounds, they need time to reform their relationship so as to bring it into conformity with their original vows. Is a “date-night” not the time for ‘rekindling the fire’ and creating and enjoying memories as to why we love each other in the first place? Can these things not be said about the Church as well? God wants ‘date nights’ with us as well — it’s called prayer. Reform, however, cannot be confused with changing one’s vows. The vows remain the same, but are renewed through peace, reformation, and time.

The Chesterson quote also raises the question: What about the folks who find out that they fell in love, and found out the person/religion wasn’t what they thought they found? What if the beloved is dishonest? What if one spouse matures and the other remain stagnant? What about the spouse who suffers from a disease that inhibit the relationship? No true vow of marriage allows for its breaking through any of these ‘reasons.’ The strength of the relationship can only be defined by the willingness of those in it to remain true to themselves and to the relationship formed through their unique identities, overall purpose, and their complimentary reflections upon each other.

Isn’t Romanticism an ideal (i.e., theoretical)? To be loved, one must have all of the qualities necessary to be capable of being loved. For some, this is a history of honor, a definitive covenant, consistency, loyalty, appearance, accountability, depth, satisfaction, trust, and other such factors. These factors aren’t theoretical — either they exist as a matter of fact or not. Christ’s words and the history of His people are not theoretical. These Words tell us of what He expects of us for so long as we shall love each other, just as my vows tell me what I have promised my wife and she to me.

The Arche of Christian Humanity

For a Christian, the words of Christ are principles in the first degree. They are not merely contextual or pragmatic. For this reason, they are rightly viewed as an extension of historical Truth and the basis for continuing Truth, which presents with six thousand years of daily inspiration and motivation to believers. The words of Christ form the arche of our humanity.

As an aside, the reasons for Luther’s decision to remove historical context from the Words of Christ and his followers are curious to say the least. It raises a number of questions.

1. Should 1500 years of canonical doctrine be ‘adjusted’ for the needs of one man in rebellion to that history of Faith and Truth?

2. Is apodeictic or Godly Truth subject to revision? Could the inspiration of the original authors have simply waned or been mistaken?

3. Who shall decide these matters of doctrine and Truth?

4. Should the source of alteration be those who stand in rebellion, or those who stood in the good counsel of those who formed the Church immediately following the death of Christ, or who were present and accounted for what they saw and heard?

5. Were those before Luther condemned to hell because they had not lived a life based on the a belief of “faith alone” as the key to their salvation?

6. Had Luther himself led people to hell and heresy because of his prior teachings whilst he was still aligned with the Catholic Church?

For example the Book of James remains in the New Testament, yet Luther maintained that it was an “epistle of straw” and did not want to accept the truth that works and faith are inextricably tied to each other.

By way of analogy, it seems to me that if someone gave you a fine gift of art, with powerful meaning, that you cherish and protect it.

Indeed, let us also presuppose that the artful masterpiece had been formed by many dedicated and honorable men, over a period of many millennia, through the counsel of each other and much prayer to God Almighty. You would not dishonor this masterpiece and its artisans. Neither would you be inclined to dispose of it simply because it had dust on it for lack of movement. Nor would you dispose of it simply because some persons of ill repute had simply touched it or been around it.

Rather, you would keep the masterpiece in its original form, protect it from thieves and vandals, and keep it clean so that it might be visible and meaningful as it was intended to be. You certainly would not allow it to be torn to pieces so that those who might be inspired by it could only imagine what the original masterpiece looked like. You would preserve its unique identify, original form, and the sacred legacy of its Creator.

So too should be our view of the historical canon that led not only to the beliefs of Christians for 1500 years before Luther, but which remains as the source of Christian belief for all.

Let Your Whisper Be Heard Eternally

Though a single voice may not be so much as an unheard whisper in the Universe, your voice has the capacity to bring about eternal change in one to whom you speak in compassion and love.

I Don’t Believe in a Personal Jesus …

Riders of the Apocalypse

I don’t believe in a “personal Jesus” ! Nor do I believe in your “personal Jesus” !

Believing in a “personal Jesus” is not the same as believing in what Jesus defined himself as and our relationship to that unique identity in Him. We can no more define what Christ is, for purposes of our belief in Him, than Christ could define or alter what His Father is. John 3:18-21; 5:14-18; 8:48-51; 12:47-50; 13:16-20.

Many of us believe that we are Christians because we “believe in Christ.” That works, if one does what a Christian does and believes what a Christian believes (as does the person who got me to think about these issues). John 3:16-21 (read the whole section).

However, what a Christian should do and say can only be figured out by reading the Bible and what it is that Christ did have to say about these elements of our faith. Indeed, he was rather clear about what he expected: He expects us to do the things he told us to do and that, if we fail to do them, we can expect our spiritual structure to be “ruined.” Matthew 7: 21-27.

In fact, He did tell us what to do in ordinary life and he did tell us how to specifically pray. It does seem unfortunate, to me, anyway, that all too many of us have justified our faith by simply reiterating that we have it. This cannot be so. If we do not pray in the manner set forth in the “Our Father” prayer, we have substantially deviated from his command. Matthew 9:8-15. If a Christian knew that he/she believed “in” Christ, this would presumably mean that they knew to pray in that manner. After all, if we do not do the “work” of forgiving others, we lose the person we believe “in.” Matthew 6:14-15.

Likewise, if we do not tend to the needs of the poor, widowed, and hopeless, we lose our own spiritual food and hope in Christ. Yes, that’s right, you get to hang out with the goats as it were. Matthew 25:29-46. It really is this simple. The goats, those who don’t do His commands, don’t get to hang out with Him. John 15:14.

When I say I believe in someone, it should mean I believe in what they have taught me to do or in what they have given me to adopt as a way of thinking/doing. The admired’s name represents much more than an identity, it should represent a distinct body of belief and action — one that I am willing to, and do, adopt in my own life. For a Christian, it seems that believing in Christ means that we have adopted His way, as set forth in writing, about how to live our lives. There could be a hundred people in history named “Jesus,” but only one provides a specific set of beliefs and ways worthy of “believing in.” It is true that “Blessed are they who come in the name of the Lord,” but this can only mean that they are coming at us with the body of beliefs and actions that are packed into the Lord’s name. See, Psalm 118.

For example, if one based a marriage on a simplistic John 3:16 analysis, without reading the remaining verses in the chapter, the marriage would be doomed to certain failure. The most important aspect of marriage is that the couple “knows” each other, not merely by name, but by the expectations that we have of each other. Those expectations are ordinarily most basely defined as trust, honor, respect, and loyalty. In practice, we must know and respect the person to whom we owe these things. John 8:48-51. Often, when one spouse finds out that the other is not what they seem, the provision of these base elements is cut off or severely rationed. If one knew the other truly, then perhaps these elements would never have been provisioned in the first place. On the other hand, knowing the person also allows for forgiveness, which really is the loving cycle of the reprovision of these elements of trust, respect, honor, loyalty, and love. Simply put, the couple must stick to the words of their vows to honestly say that they believe “in” their vows. See, John 15:10-17.

Much in the same way, salvation is a relationship that requires a back and forth about what is expected to be done to show our love and a reiteration of that verbal commitment (altar-call or confirmation) by conduct. Earning and deserving the unity of love in a relationship simply cannot be held on the notion that “I don’t know if I deserve his/her love, but I just know that they have already forgiven me for whatever I have done.”

Even if it were the case that I knew that someone had already forgiven me for something ahead of time, just as I know my own beautiful wife has on many an occasion, it does not mean that I get to stop the works that brought me to and through the relationship up until the point that complete Grace could be extended to me. It doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t look into whether the lover of my soul doesn’t expect more so that I may maintain my relationship with them. I must also understand that if I intentionally fail to do what is expected, then I may be separated from even the one person who loves me more than anyone.

In the case of Christ, it is an eternal separation and I ought to live my life as though an eternal separation from him is just as possible as if I hadn’t believe in Him in the first place. If I wanted to know my wife’s expectations, I am duty bound to communicate with her about that and then live it out. In the case of a Christian, I must read the instruction manual, if you will, and pray for the discernment that must occur as I try to apply the Word that I already have read to my life circumstances. Indeed, I may quickly find out that I do need to pray in a certain way, that I might need to do certain acts, that I may need to regularly confess of my sin, that I may need to remain in constant Communion in body and soul, that I may need to completely surrender my will to that of the other person to find complete freedom to enjoy a selfless relationship with the other person.

Storefront Christianity begins to flourish when each pastor or person starts defining their own “personal relationship” with Christ. The only problem with this is that He may not have defined the relationship the same way. One would have to look at His words to know what he expected(s) of someone who claims to believe in him. He did warn that many would come-a-knockin on his door, but would be denied entrance because they did not know him. Matthew 7:21-23. I think, in this context, that could only mean that He suspected that many would have a superficial understanding of what He was about, or simply just not listen to what he had to say in terms of the type of life and set of beliefs that He expects a believer to have. In fact, Matthew 7:22 makes it very clear that we will be denied admission to Christ because, in part, we “work iniquity.” Also see, John 10:7-21.

How much do I need to do in order to conform my identity, through conduct and practice, to reflect who or what I believe in? That is the question of faith.

I don’t believe in a “personal Jesus.” I believe in the Jesus as he represented Himself, through his words, commands, and deed. (i.e., the truth, the way, and the light). I want Him to define the relationship because of my love and honor of Him. It is not my place to define who He ought to be for me. John 3:16-22; 31-36.

The Center of Perception is the Middle of the Universe

I’ve been giving some thought to the objections that have been raised by those who see anthropocentricity as an objection to creationism or even theism. The epistemological gap is fundamental and cannot be avoided. I can only see the universe through my perceptions and then rely on my perceptions of others to come to what really amounts to a perception-consensus about what truth is. Nobody in the RichardDawkins.net forum seems to account for the fact that even a unity of thought, as to what scientific observations/perception mean, does not warrant the conclusion that the issue of how the universe or Man came to be is resolved.

Name one scientific rule that is wholly infallible and which can never be changed. Does evolution theory get a special dispensation from its believers? Why not admit that evolution may very well be only a partial answer, a best answer, but certainly not the final answer? Until one ‘gets off the dime’ on the position of absolutism, there cannot be the possibility of argument. If either the the evolutionists or the creationists have the absolute final answer, there is nothing to talk about. If there are, among them, those who are willing to come off the absolutism platform, at least for purposes of argument, a discussion can be had.

As Denish D’Souza points out, for example, it may very well be that is has been accepted as a rule that light travels at 186,000 mph. However, no scientist knows whether that is true in all places in the universe or near wormholes or blackholes, assuming these exist. If there is a background noise, we don’t know what happens to light at the ‘edge of the universe.’ The law of physics as they apply to light, for example, are subject to revision. In several places in the God Delusion, and in Dawkins’ Darwin Lecture at Stanford, he does unequivocally claim that natural selection and evolution are the only plausible answer(s) for all that is — thereby allowing him to eliminate one more god from the list of others who have fallen at the hands of intellectualism and science. Nevertheless, he has not, and cannot, defeat the human conception that there is something higher than genetic destiny and that higher thing sits outside of our personal/human condition.

The response that I see to the anthropocentricity objection is essentially as follows:

I am the center of my perception as you are to yours. The further we look into the world the more we come to an understanding of the atomic universe and the principles that govern it. Incredibly, microbiology seems to be coming up with many of the same findings or observations that the astrophysicists are (i.e., as to the atomic structure of all that is and the rules that govern it).

Similarly, the further out we look into the universe, we revert to a principled view of the atomic universe. Under either analysis, we come back to the same place and remain the center of our universe. We are the center of our universe and we always come back to the same place — as we must. Can you separate yourself from your perceptions? What is it that you know about the universe that has not come through and by perception?

Just think about it — at any given time, you are at a center of Earth since it is a sphere. (unless there is a desire to get into a discussion about the earth’s magnetic fields and pole alignment). Indeed, you can begin measuring away from yourself in any direction and will reach the same infinitude in terms of space and time. Prove otherwise. Until the astrophysicists can measure from Earth to the ‘background noise’, the presumption seems to be in favor of treating the Universe as though it is infinite in any direction.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that we are so anthropocentric and limited by our human condition. My own anthropocentric perception is unique and cannot be the mere byproduct of a genetic destiny and yet be so vastly different from the perceptions of others. Again, animals seem to have a limited sense of self and the ability to change the self. Humans seem to be created by evolution, or otherwise, as something completely different as to function and purpose (or lack thereof).

We are each undeniably the center of the universe known for us. Separate yourself from your perception and you might have the opportunity to live the life of an animal. Our awareness of our own perception dictates our ability to strive for change in the self, environment, and a glimpse of something higher than ourselves. Our perception is the beginning of freewill. The question seems to be whether our ability to engage in freewill (moral behavior by ‘choice’) is the result of being created/evolved from something higher or different than the general animal kingdom. In any event, the anthropocentric position is equally applicable to evolutionists as well as the creationists. Self loathing by either side doesn’t seem to fix this fundamental problem.

Absolutism has absolutely no place in human existence where it has to be admitted that human perception, even in groups, is subject to revision.

We’re Stirring the Cosmic Soup: A Quick Retort to the Religion of Pure Atheism

While it may very well be that all that we are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.

As of late, I have given some thought to the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Edward Wilson, Peter Singer and a number of other players in the current debates about God, morality, and evolutionary biology.  Their basic premise seems to be that what it means to be human or a part of nature can only be explained by evolutionary theory.  Moreover, this theory leads the to the inexorable conclusion that all can be reduced to an explanation as to how atomic physics have played out in the last however many billion years or so. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe ). Nary a thought is given to the real fact that all of us have an epistemological gap between us and the beginning of time, such that no present explanation of our world can suffice to explain it entirely.  God does readily fill that epistemological void.

While it may very well be that all that we (and the universe we have our be-ing in) are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.  This ability is seen nowhere else in the ‘natural world.’  Indeed, it is this very deviation from cosmic destiny, evolutionary theory, or even simple neuro-psychology, that uniquely defines what it is to be human.

Unlike the natural world, we are not dependent on the synchronicity of our coexistence with/in  the many moving and interactive elements of the earth’s evolved environment.  Ostensibly, we are readily able to defy what nature might otherwise dictate.  Singer and others have, rather oddly, concluded that behavior which defies nature is somehow ignoble or immoral.  Isn’t everything “natural,” in the sense that all that is must be derivative of evolutionary processes and atomic destiny?  What possible moral difference could stirring the pot of cosmic existence make, if we can only have derived our ability to stir the pot from the very substance found in the pot?  There has to be a clear distinction made between the subject and objects confronted by human existence.

As an aside, this does not mean that morality would have to be completely dependent on some traditional notion of God. It is simply a matter of distinguishing a difference between intentionality, conscious acknowledgment and the human experience of what is “moral,” from that which is simply a byproduct of evolutionary necessity and atomic structure. Whether these aspects are distinguishable from each other is the question that Professor Dawkins raises. The conceptual parsing done by Dawkins is actually quite admirable and necessary to the understanding of either side’s argument.

Moreover, it seems readily apparent that the process of evolution for the ‘natural world’ moves at the same pace as it has from the beginning of time (barring any natural disasters).  Animals and plants are not dependent on us for their existence in a natural state.  They only evolve at certain scientifically definable rates in accordance with the environmental variables which govern the process.

Simply put, humans command the ability to even deprive ourselves of the natural synchronicity with nature.  It is indeed arguable that we sometimes separate from nature and defy it.   At a minimum, we stand out from nature.  For example, a lion cannot simply redefine itself or make claim to an existence other than that which it has at its essence. A view toward’s Heidegger’s philosophy on death would also underscore the reality that humans are perfectly capable of  experiencing “unnatural” deaths.  Most lions and other creatures will die substantially the same way and of the same causes.  Humans, however, bear a capacity for defining even the parameters of our own deaths.  Certainly, our nearest alleged “relatives,” chimpanzees, can hardly lay stake to such abilities.  In other words, there is something about the human experience that can be completely differentiated from that of the animal experience.  Indeed, this statement can be made even without accounting for the unique capacity of humans to conceive of [a] God, to understand beauty, and to engage in the fine arts.

Nevertheless, we can rightly claim that humans engage in unnatural acts.  They engage in acts that defy natural selection and the otherwise undisturbed progression of the natural world outside of humanity.  Animals are not generally self destructive in any real way.  Humans, on the other hand, are completely competent to destroy themselves and everything else around them.  Indeed, humankind is readily able to change its environment quickly and drastically.  And, in so changing, it becomes apparent that we are the only creatures on earth that are capable of self-directed evolution, even to the point of destroying ourselves.   Seemingly, evolutionists are ready to deprive of humankind of this sacred and distinct attribute shared by no other living creatures.

Frankly, it seems inconsistent to stand by an evolutionary biology explanans for why things are the way they are, and yet complain about the seemingly out of control, or even allegedly  immoral, progress of humanity.  Morality simply has no place in a universe driven only by the predisposed nature of atomic structures and the rules of physics to which they are bound.  In a very important sense, the effect of human existence on the environment is no less evolutionary or atomically driven than any other process that is claimed to have arisen from a purely evolutionary beginning.  That is, if one believes that all must have come from simple existence which led to a graduated complexity.

In order to speak of “moral” behavior, one must first believe that there is some constituent part of the universe which can be moral or act in a moral way.  If we rely simply on the synaptic firing of our neurons, coupled with a genetic destiny, it simply does not make sense to incorporate a moral lexicon into human existence.  However, if one believes that moral behavior is a step above, or uniquely differentiated from, the coldness of evolutionary survival of the species, it must follow that one believes that there is a higher arche to the human existence.  Whether this is attributable to God or a higher being/be-ing (a template for higher being or a more complex nature outside of the natural rules that apply to all other creatures), or not, seems to be the real question.

There are a good number of evolutionary biologists and philosophers of our time who readily conclude that all of human existence can simply be explained by reference to the primordial atomic soup from which all has evolved.  They do not explain where the atomic structure/fabric came from, they do not explain the source of the energy driving all that is, they ignore or gloss over the origins of art and beauty, and they completely ignore the obvious fact that the human line of species significantly deviates from otherwise predictable genetic destinies or even basic natural evolution of the rest of nature and its evolving complexity.

At first glance, the basic problem with evolutionary biology is that it rests upon what appears to be a purely linear view of the time-space continuum.  This purely linear view adds an unnecessary viscosity to the stream of the cosmos and nature itself. The evolutionists view does not account for the fact that all matter, or representations of matter, derive from an admittedly common source and theoretical moment of being put in motion.  That is, all things that can be perceived in the real world are the same age by reference to atomic matter, interactivity, and movement of the cosmos.

The only difference between one atomic structure and another is the ‘present’ constituency of the thing perceived.  Under a non-linear view of time, it may just be the case that the “age” of things is a function of where they are in the movement of the “cosmic swirl.”  An evolutionist should not confuse the properties of age with actual age — if time can even be said to be a good structure for cosmology.  If there was a single moment of creation, moving forward, differing “ages” of the atomic world’s constituents are not so obvious as to merit the conclusion that the universe actually is 13.7 to 37 billion years old or any other specific age for that matter.  If, at the time the cosmos was put in motion, certain aspects of reality were given characteristics in their atomic structure that give off the impression of being “older,” it may simply be that the evolutionist has been fooled in much the way a purchaser of art might be fooled by the acquisition of a good faux painting.  The thing acquired or perceived has all of the characteristics, but is lacking in the need of its original creator and an understanding of the process leading up to the perceived masterpiece.

In other words, the moment of creation may simply have been a stirring of the pot by an Omnipotent and wholly self sufficient Primary Mover.  A cyclical or interwoven time structure is not the same as a linear structure which starts from a given point and brings us to something called “today.”  The ’swirl’  of the cosmic mass we call reality should not be confused with a purely linear view of reality, upon which evolution must rely (i.e., reliance on a Big Bang, primordial soup, then various periods of evolution/advancement of varying species).  Obviously, if linear time is the framework for the edifice of evolution, there is a strong likelihood that evolutionary theory is defectively constructed.

Additionally, it seems that the atheist opposition confuses their perceived improbability of God with ultimate exclusion from the range of all possibilities.  In the view of Dawkins and his company, it is nearly an absolute truth that God does not exist.  Were it the case that Dawkins could overcome the long standing objections that might be made by George Berkeley as to the importance of human perception in all of this, perhaps a better argument could be made.  However, Dawkins and his crew presuppose the validity and concrete values of their perceptions and just assume that a consensus gentium argument will carry the day because a vast number of other evolutionary biologists happen to agree on the notion that God, Creationism or Intelligent Design are improbable or altogether wacky.  Solipsism remains a strong enemy of confidence in the truth values of our own perceptions.  In fact it does seem that the utility and efficacy of certain “memes” bears out this very problem.  Cultural evolution is a product of passed on perception, without necessary regard to or of principles deriving from mathematics or physics.

In order for anyone’s argument to work with respect to great cosmological arguments, it does seem that the veil of basic human perception must first be torn and put aside in favor of an unobstructed view of reality.  Humanity has proven itself quite incapable of divesting itself from its condition as a status which depends purely on the senses and humanized logic.  Professor Dawkins and his ilk may be assured that just as great a number of scientific theories have fallen, after ready acceptance by consensus, as have arguments for the existence of particular gods or ontologies.  In large part, it seems that the human defect of limited perception is the cause of a great number of these many failed scientific theories throughout history. Indeed, it seems apparent that our singular or collective experiences limit the conclusions to which we may arrive.  Experience naturally limits the parameters of what we can actually know.  Admittedly, the breadth of one’s “experience” can be widened with knowledge/exposure to mathematics, physics, chemistry, theory of biology, philosophy, and other areas of learning.  However, the expansion of theory is dependent on the limits of our own personal knowledge and that of our colleagues in thought.  The limits of humanity do not give way simply because one believes in evolutionary biology.

Father Time has proven himself to be a bitter enemy to the life span of most scientific theories.  As human perception ‘evolves,’ scientific theories die.  Sometimes they die by the weight of their own complexity or the simply are shown to be inconsistent with the collective perceptions of an advanced humanity.  Oddly, however, the explanatory value of a higher cause or higher being has not died since the conceivable beginnings of human thought about the source of our being and the reasons for our existence.  This may be simply because a belief in God does provide a fabric to all that is.  Or, it may just as well be that the vast majority of humans have perceived something that can only be described as God.  For as many scientists and theologians as there have been in history, there have probably been nearly as many fools among them.

The pervasive perception of God, or the empirical basis for the use of a word such as “God,” cannot be simply disregarded.  Simply because Dawkins has not personally perceived something that might be called God does not allow him to summarily dispense with any Wittgensteinean objections as to the limits of our language and ability to articulate what we experience.  It is undeniably the case that the Judeo-Christian view of the world has rather successfully sufficed to unite an advancing/progressive group of humans, indeed the entirety of Western Culture, of which Professor Dawkins would be a participant.  The “memes” of, or which are, Christianity have proven to be a rather powerful force by any account.  See generally, John 1:1-4 (KJV).

It seems to me that the evolutionists of our time ought to give some minor consideration to the thought that the theoretical explanans and the actual explanandum of human existence are conceivably different.  If truth be the sum of its complete, necessary and agreed upon conditions, the evolutionary biologists/theorists have plenty of agreement, but could not possibly have a complete or necessary epistemological basis for the ultimate truths they espouse.  Admittedly, the same applies for a strict historical or epistemological view of Christianity.

In the case of both Evolutionary Theory and the belief in God, there is indicia of pure religion.  Religion requires certain elements, which appear to be:  1.)  A redemptive or explanatory story for what is;  2.) An explanandum/definiendum which outside of complete human perception or experience;  3.) Preachers and prophets of the truth or content contained within the explanans/definiens; 4.) A body of the faithful who simply may have no epistemelogical basis for a belief in what is explained or the explanation itself; 5.) A desire to operate by explanatory fiat or ultimatum.  Zealotry on behalf of any such religion can lead to discord and unnecessary viscosity in the stream of otherwise valuable arguments.  Certainly, both sides of the Intelligent Design argument seem perfectly capable and willing to lift the sword toward the other.

Or it may very well be that the enemies of God are simply asking the wrong questions even about their own existence and be-ing (Dasein) in the Heideggerian sense.  Perhaps it is just that they think it important to “stir the pot” in the proverbial sense.  But what sense does it make to stir the pot if you’re in it?

 

 

<a href=”http://www.forexchecklist.com”>forex trading online</a>

Evolution: Why aren’t we singing about it?

If the story of evolution is so explanatory as to the human condition, why aren’t more people singing about it? Music, art and theology uniquely/consistently express the definition of what it is to be human (under just about any historical analysis).