Like any language, English is full of homonyms, which leads to - besides confusion in ESL Class - plays on words. The pun is derided by certain dour persons as the lowest form of humor (though certainly crass deserves that ignominious title). Others, such as my colleague and friend DM, take much pleasure in a good (and indeed, often in a lame) pun. What should we make of this lingual device? It is my opinion that the intent of the teller and the situation in which the telling happens determines the effect of a pun.
Puns become groaners for two reasons: 1) it's horribly constructed, or 2) the person sharing his gem of wit appears to be doing so to please his ego. When you get the feeling that the other person is simply flaunting his wit for our benefit, it hardly leaves one in a position to enjoy the pun. Pride ruins more than your standing with God, folks. Of course, it is possible to receive the impression of a self-centered pun when it is not at all intended that way. It happens.
Naturally, the timing of the pun is also important. Comic timing is an art that I don't pretend to know a lot about, but I can sense when it's not the right time to crack a joke. Better than I used to, at least. The same goes for puns.
Also, I believe that accidental puns can be some of the most enjoyable. What better way for a person to distance himself from his joke so that everyone can enjoy it in its purest form?
I may return to this post and revise for concision, but until thin, you'll have to diet. That would be an accidental pun, actually...
(And Patience really is an opera. Not making that up.)
Friday, November 12, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
The Wonder of Existence - Part I
While sitting on my bed reading The Canterbury Tales and listening to Gounod's Faust, I caught a draft of the wonder of existence. I do not know if it can be described, but I should at least try.
First, allow me to offer some philosophical musings.
First, allow me to offer some philosophical musings.
Yes, existence is a wonder in itself. Great the power to have invented it. And good as well, for any flawed being to gave given shape to such a reality would have long since taken a rage out on it and effected its destruction. And if not that, this being of power would, if sentient (how could it be otherwise?), make itself known and plunge us into a wretched servitude. For absolute power corrupts as surely as anything. And yet its power could not be absolute, for it would not have the power to be good.
(But, you may ask, what of a perfect power? Would have the ability to be evil? Possibly.)
So we exist. Without that postulate in place, nothing has meaning. And we cannot exist without something having initiated that state. Such a thing must be higher than we. After all, we cannot create something more clever than ourselves, or more powerful. Stronger perhaps, but not greater. Only intentionally could man invent a robot which would turn against him, unless there are strange, undiscovered physical principles which could alter this reality.
Therefore to create the wonder that is mankind, the higher power had to be just that: higher than the highest pinnacle of man's might and virtue. If this power still exists, it would seem advantageous to acquaint oneself with this force of good. Indeed, what else could be more important than in discovering what one's inventor designed him to be? We may form our own opinions concerning our fate, but until compared with something higher than mankind, how is one opinion to be judged better than another?
Then we exist and, at least at one time, a good higher power existed. If the power has expired since the beginning of the world, we may create our own purpose, since - beyond what we can determine from our genetic predispositions - we are unillumined as to our creator's purpose for us. But why would the inventor depart from our reality without leaving some missive for his children? He must have been capable, having brought into existence the greatest wonders we can perceive. Did he perish in the travails of creation? Yet still he could have left a mark even more easily deciphered than the grandeur of the work of his hands, unless his end took him by surprise, which is scarcely in keeping with the unsurpassed intelligence and power with which we have since credited him.
Suppose then that this power did survive the first act of his of which we are aware. If that is the case, the above concerning knowing him holds true.
I haven't quite decided what I'll write in Part II. Perhaps a combination of description and poetry - something to express emotionally this great wonder.
Anywho, feel free to comment on and correct the above.
I haven't quite decided what I'll write in Part II. Perhaps a combination of description and poetry - something to express emotionally this great wonder.
Anywho, feel free to comment on and correct the above.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Effect Effects
You know what really misplaces my modifiers? Watching a movie for its CGI effects.
Sure, the extreme geeks who do that sort of thing as a hobby are more or less off the hook, but the rest of us — come on, people. It’s like reading a book for its excellent grammar construction, eating something because it looks good (when you know it’s going to taste bad — like cheesecake), playing a boring video game for its graphics, or listening to a CD because the handsome booklet cover.
—Or listening to music for its chordal progressions. I don’t care about your clever chord combos if the other parts of your music are yucky! Sure, some of the best music contains excellent chord progressions, but they rarely draw attention to that sole aspect — but instead excel in most all aspects. Okay, got that out of my system. Moving on:—
None of these qualities are bad, but are instead generally pleasing. After all, we expect books to have good grammar, food to look good, video games to be fun, and CD covers to be tasteful — but what about when those are the only merits present?
Let’s stick with the grammar illustration: Like grammar, CGI is a fine thing which may be enjoyed in its own right, but when that is all that remains recommendable in a final product, then something is wrong. Take Avatar: Horrible plot-line, leftist propaganda, naked female aliens — however you slice it, a waste of time, money, and artistic sensibilities. Sure, it probably entertains, but so does reading the dictionary (something I need to do more often).
One good thing does not redeem everything else. Hm, reminds me of our music discussion... Anyway, am I off my nut here? Or am I simply missing something?
Sure, the extreme geeks who do that sort of thing as a hobby are more or less off the hook, but the rest of us — come on, people. It’s like reading a book for its excellent grammar construction, eating something because it looks good (when you know it’s going to taste bad — like cheesecake), playing a boring video game for its graphics, or listening to a CD because the handsome booklet cover.
—Or listening to music for its chordal progressions. I don’t care about your clever chord combos if the other parts of your music are yucky! Sure, some of the best music contains excellent chord progressions, but they rarely draw attention to that sole aspect — but instead excel in most all aspects. Okay, got that out of my system. Moving on:—
None of these qualities are bad, but are instead generally pleasing. After all, we expect books to have good grammar, food to look good, video games to be fun, and CD covers to be tasteful — but what about when those are the only merits present?
Let’s stick with the grammar illustration: Like grammar, CGI is a fine thing which may be enjoyed in its own right, but when that is all that remains recommendable in a final product, then something is wrong. Take Avatar: Horrible plot-line, leftist propaganda, naked female aliens — however you slice it, a waste of time, money, and artistic sensibilities. Sure, it probably entertains, but so does reading the dictionary (something I need to do more often).
One good thing does not redeem everything else. Hm, reminds me of our music discussion... Anyway, am I off my nut here? Or am I simply missing something?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
A Musical Soapbox Revisited
Here’s the final outline:
1) Definition of Music
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
3) The moral nature of music
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
5) Rock music
6) The Biblical answer
The points I had before are still there. They just collapsed into different points. No use in discussing the same thing twice, is there? Most of the arguments here are stated in what I hope is a concise form — a sort of springboard for discussion. Well, here we go!
1) Definition of Music
Though we all probably have a similar conception of what music is, it would be advisable to arrive at a definite definition of music. I like what my dictionary had to say on the matter:
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
The bottom line question here is this: Is music relative or universal? If relative, music is a matter of preference; if universal, a matter of conscience. But even were the latter to prove the case, it cannot be denied that preference plays a part in the selection of any particular acceptable piece of music, leading us to a further question:
Are we hardwired for certain music, conditioned for certain music, or both? I have no definitive answer. (I wonder what my psychology textbook will say on the matter.) Let me give a stab at it nevertheless.
We are hardwired for certain music in as much as our personalities differ, but our experiences further temper those preferences to produce the tastes that we possess. But if music is universal — that is, if it is not merely relative to a person’s conceptions — then cannot music be right or wrong? I would say yes, leading me to a third point:
3) The moral nature of music
My first question: is absolute music moral in nature? By absolute music I mean “Instrumental music that is free of any explicit verbal reference or program.” Examples would be Bach’s Orchestral Suites, Grieg’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 13, and anything Vivaldi wrote that was non-vocal and non-Four-Seasons.
So, is it? I would say yes because music constructed in a given way produces a given emotion. That emotion may be elicited to different degrees based on the experiences and opinions of the persons involved. Person A has determined he hates flute music, Person B refuses to listen to opera with an open mind, Person C has decided Japanese music is not his thing. At the core, however, these people would be affected similarly if not identically by the same notes of music apart from associations.
You see, music does not change from person to person. The only thing that changes is the person himself. If there were no way of determining the moral value of a piece — if it were relative — you could get away with musical murder and no one could stop you! Who is to stay Piece A is bad? It doesn’t talk about anything bad. Well, that isn’t the only criteria for music, I dare say.
Something else that has colored this discussion is whether music can be inherently evil. Considering the above, it stands to reason that certain notes can inherently produce a certain reaction — perhaps even a reaction forbidden by God. That would make said arrangement of notes basically wrong for a Christian.
Sound, you see, carries meaning. Whether it is a tree falling down, someone screaming at you, or a door being slammed, sound conveys something to anyone who will listen such as information, a moral message, or a feeling. Music cannot be exempt from this principle.
Apart from the being inherently evil, it is even easier to prove a certain piece of music practically evil. If its use would cause other believers to stumble, then we are instructed to forgo that usage of our Christian liberty. (If the song is inherently bad, of course, then it would be practically evil as well.)
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
Should an entire song be discarded if part is flawed? Should an entire genre be discarded if it is flawed?
Let’s examine this issue on the level of a single song:
Do the words and the music have a direct relationship? Are the two inseparable? Good words certainly do not make up for a bad tune, just as a good tune do not make up for bad words. The use of the good words or good tunes could easily be hampered, however, by their association with their immoral counterparts.
Can this principle be extended to an entire genre? I would say yes, it is possible, if not as likely or as clear-cut.
5) Rock music
a. Definition and origins of rock music
WordNet gives this definition of rock music:
If this is not enough to condemn rock music, it certainly indicates that something is wrong. Very wrong.
b. Is rock music sensual? Permit my dictionary to define sensual:
I believe that rock music is a generally sensual thing. Recall the fellow above who defined rock music as “sexual energy expressed in sound.” Even if that is only half-true, it could not be denied that rock appeals to generally sensual feelings and drives.
If this is the case, then why bother with rock music? Personally, I find no reason to bother with it, as I find it generally repulsive. But what about as a general principle?
c. Why listen to rock music at all? I can see a number of possible reasons:
6) The Biblical answer (please list all the verses I've failed to remember)
As EK pointed out, we must ask the question is there a distinction between what music we listen to or perform for pleasure & recreation and what we use in a church setting?
It seems logical that music used to worship God must be held up to a higher standard than personal music. For example, humorous songs, while appropriate in many personal situations, are hardly apt for worship.
Does this mean that only serious music glorifies God? No, music can glorify God without being ideal for worship. There is a lot of amazing music that shows how great God is that is not constructed as sacred music. How could such wonderful sounds exist without Him? I have asked myself on more than one occasion when considering certain secular songs.
I quote for your consideration Colossians 3:16:
While some acceptable music may be sullied through some personal attachment according to a particular believe, the moral nature of music assures that there is doubtless some music which all believers should avoid. The key is discerning what that music is...which is why we’re here.
Is there anything in Exodus 32:17 that should influence our discussion? When the people of Israel worshiped the golden calf, their fervor deceived Joshua into thinking it something else:
1) Definition of Music
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
3) The moral nature of music
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
5) Rock music
6) The Biblical answer
The points I had before are still there. They just collapsed into different points. No use in discussing the same thing twice, is there? Most of the arguments here are stated in what I hope is a concise form — a sort of springboard for discussion. Well, here we go!
1) Definition of Music
Though we all probably have a similar conception of what music is, it would be advisable to arrive at a definite definition of music. I like what my dictionary had to say on the matter:
music n. 1. the art and science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds or tones in varying melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre, esp. so as to form structurally complete and emotionally expressive compositions 2. the sounds or tones so arranged, or the arrangement of these
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College EditionWhat do you think about these definitions? I didn’t take time to research them:
sacred music: Music used to worship God. Or does that require a qualifier?
secular music: Music not intended for the worship of God.
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
The bottom line question here is this: Is music relative or universal? If relative, music is a matter of preference; if universal, a matter of conscience. But even were the latter to prove the case, it cannot be denied that preference plays a part in the selection of any particular acceptable piece of music, leading us to a further question:
Are we hardwired for certain music, conditioned for certain music, or both? I have no definitive answer. (I wonder what my psychology textbook will say on the matter.) Let me give a stab at it nevertheless.
We are hardwired for certain music in as much as our personalities differ, but our experiences further temper those preferences to produce the tastes that we possess. But if music is universal — that is, if it is not merely relative to a person’s conceptions — then cannot music be right or wrong? I would say yes, leading me to a third point:
3) The moral nature of music
My first question: is absolute music moral in nature? By absolute music I mean “Instrumental music that is free of any explicit verbal reference or program.” Examples would be Bach’s Orchestral Suites, Grieg’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 13, and anything Vivaldi wrote that was non-vocal and non-Four-Seasons.
So, is it? I would say yes because music constructed in a given way produces a given emotion. That emotion may be elicited to different degrees based on the experiences and opinions of the persons involved. Person A has determined he hates flute music, Person B refuses to listen to opera with an open mind, Person C has decided Japanese music is not his thing. At the core, however, these people would be affected similarly if not identically by the same notes of music apart from associations.
You see, music does not change from person to person. The only thing that changes is the person himself. If there were no way of determining the moral value of a piece — if it were relative — you could get away with musical murder and no one could stop you! Who is to stay Piece A is bad? It doesn’t talk about anything bad. Well, that isn’t the only criteria for music, I dare say.
Something else that has colored this discussion is whether music can be inherently evil. Considering the above, it stands to reason that certain notes can inherently produce a certain reaction — perhaps even a reaction forbidden by God. That would make said arrangement of notes basically wrong for a Christian.
Sound, you see, carries meaning. Whether it is a tree falling down, someone screaming at you, or a door being slammed, sound conveys something to anyone who will listen such as information, a moral message, or a feeling. Music cannot be exempt from this principle.
Apart from the being inherently evil, it is even easier to prove a certain piece of music practically evil. If its use would cause other believers to stumble, then we are instructed to forgo that usage of our Christian liberty. (If the song is inherently bad, of course, then it would be practically evil as well.)
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
Should an entire song be discarded if part is flawed? Should an entire genre be discarded if it is flawed?
Let’s examine this issue on the level of a single song:
Do the words and the music have a direct relationship? Are the two inseparable? Good words certainly do not make up for a bad tune, just as a good tune do not make up for bad words. The use of the good words or good tunes could easily be hampered, however, by their association with their immoral counterparts.
Can this principle be extended to an entire genre? I would say yes, it is possible, if not as likely or as clear-cut.
5) Rock music
a. Definition and origins of rock music
WordNet gives this definition of rock music:
rock music (a genre of popular music originating in the 1950s; a blend of black rhythm-and-blues with white country-and-western) "rock is a generic term for the range of styles that evolved out of rock'n'roll."A gentleman who writes rock music puts it thus:
Rock and roll is sexual energy expressed in soundWhat about the phrase “rock and roll?” According to AllWords.com,
As a noun:Wikipedia has something similar to say about the verb meaning of the phrase.
1. The type of music
2. The dancing associated with the music
3. “An intangible feeling, philosophy, belief or allegiance relating to rock music (generally from the 1970s &1980s), and heavy metal bearing certain elements of this music, pertaining to unbridled enthusiasm, cynical regard for certain Christian and authoritarian bodies, and attitudes befitting some degree of youthful debauchery.”
As a verb:
1. “to start, commence, begin, get moving (Let’s rock and roll)”
2. “a euphemism for sexual intercourse.”
If this is not enough to condemn rock music, it certainly indicates that something is wrong. Very wrong.
b. Is rock music sensual? Permit my dictionary to define sensual:
sensual (adj.)It should be noted that a distinction must be made between sensual and sensuous:
1. Of the body and the senses as distinguished from the intellect or spirit; bodily [sensual pleasures]
2. a) connected or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures; voluptuous b) full of lust; licentious; lewd
3. resulting from, or showing preoccupation with, bodily or sexual pleasure [a sensual expression]
SYN. — sensuous suggests the strong appeal of that which is pleasing to the eye, ear, touch, etc. and, of a person, implies susceptibility to the pleasures of sensation [soft, sensuous music]; sensual refers to the gratification of the grosser bodily senses or appetite [sensual excesses]
(Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition)The word sensual therefore has general the connotation of lust and the “grosser bodily senses.”
I believe that rock music is a generally sensual thing. Recall the fellow above who defined rock music as “sexual energy expressed in sound.” Even if that is only half-true, it could not be denied that rock appeals to generally sensual feelings and drives.
If this is the case, then why bother with rock music? Personally, I find no reason to bother with it, as I find it generally repulsive. But what about as a general principle?
c. Why listen to rock music at all? I can see a number of possible reasons:
i. You find it enjoyableOne question I have: Should you find it enjoyable?
ii. You feel it can be used to effectively praise God
iii. Um, yeah.
6) The Biblical answer (please list all the verses I've failed to remember)
As EK pointed out, we must ask the question is there a distinction between what music we listen to or perform for pleasure & recreation and what we use in a church setting?
It seems logical that music used to worship God must be held up to a higher standard than personal music. For example, humorous songs, while appropriate in many personal situations, are hardly apt for worship.
Does this mean that only serious music glorifies God? No, music can glorify God without being ideal for worship. There is a lot of amazing music that shows how great God is that is not constructed as sacred music. How could such wonderful sounds exist without Him? I have asked myself on more than one occasion when considering certain secular songs.
I quote for your consideration Colossians 3:16:
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (NASB)So, what about Christian liberty? Aren’t we just making sure the weaker brother doesn’t stumble when we choose are music? I would say it is not impossible, but that it is not necessarily the case.
While some acceptable music may be sullied through some personal attachment according to a particular believe, the moral nature of music assures that there is doubtless some music which all believers should avoid. The key is discerning what that music is...which is why we’re here.
Is there anything in Exodus 32:17 that should influence our discussion? When the people of Israel worshiped the golden calf, their fervor deceived Joshua into thinking it something else:
Now when Joshua heard the sound of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a sound of war in the camp.”I leave you with Psalm 150:
1 Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
2 Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
3 Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
4 Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD! (NASB)
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sovereign Show-Down
You know what really rumbles my thunder? People who challenge God's purpose in the universe. In no way am I referring to the innocent "why" questions of those who humbly seek for answers. I by all means refer to those who attempt to pridefully justify themselves... almost like an atheistic Job.
Everything that happens, happens because God is over all. Regardless of how you view God, He is sovereign. I can accept this. I am willing to accept this. I can't seem to comprehend how all things work together for the good of those who love Him, but I certainly would not want to take responsibility for such a task. I can hardly please several people at once! He is infinite, I am finite. He is sovereign, I am not; and I am okay with this.
Now, when people challenge God's purpose in certain events in humanity (i.e. 9/11, Haiti earthquakes, etc.) as well as in individual lives (i.e. personal troubles, health issues, etc.), a problem turns up. You see, the moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we try to out-holify God. The moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we hold up a standard to God. Where does this standard come from? How does it persist? If it exists, it must exist apart from God; but that is an absurdity, for there is no other standard that is independent of God. We basically assert ourselves as persons who know more, who know better than God.
The problem with that is that we attempt to assert our finite self over a sovereign, infinite Deity. Do you really think that's a good position to be in?
Draw!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Apologizing with Miracles
Lately I have been evaluating the debate between Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. Evidentialism lays claim to God's miracles as in its arsenal of proofs to be used by the evidential apologist. It attacks Presuppositionalism for not using miracles as proofs in that particular apologetic system.
I would like to know what the other madmen/women around here think of this: I think Evidentialism is off base here because, in my mind, it shouldn't consider miracles as evidence. The creation is constantly before us and can be appealed to as a proof that the existence of a creator is necessary (much more could of course be discussed on this issue.) Miracles, however, cannot be duplicated and referred to as evidence. Moreover, and this is my thrust, miracles are a part of the testimony of Scripture and the appeal Scripture is that to which Presuppositionalism is based on in the first place. Presuppositionalism appeals to the testimony of Scripture out of a belief that only it can conquer the suppressed knowledge of God in the fallen man's mind - miracles fall in the category of the testimony of Scripture, not of empirical evidence.
Therefore, Evidentialism is wrong to even consider miracles as proofs in apologetics and certainly wrong for attacking Presuppositionalism for failing to use them.
What say you? Do miracles belong in the category of a) the testimony of Scripture, b) empirical evidence for today's use, or c) both?
I would like to know what the other madmen/women around here think of this: I think Evidentialism is off base here because, in my mind, it shouldn't consider miracles as evidence. The creation is constantly before us and can be appealed to as a proof that the existence of a creator is necessary (much more could of course be discussed on this issue.) Miracles, however, cannot be duplicated and referred to as evidence. Moreover, and this is my thrust, miracles are a part of the testimony of Scripture and the appeal Scripture is that to which Presuppositionalism is based on in the first place. Presuppositionalism appeals to the testimony of Scripture out of a belief that only it can conquer the suppressed knowledge of God in the fallen man's mind - miracles fall in the category of the testimony of Scripture, not of empirical evidence.
Therefore, Evidentialism is wrong to even consider miracles as proofs in apologetics and certainly wrong for attacking Presuppositionalism for failing to use them.
What say you? Do miracles belong in the category of a) the testimony of Scripture, b) empirical evidence for today's use, or c) both?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Go Play Outside
It is expected of the younger generation of the masculine gender to play (at least on occasion) some form of electronic game. And why not? These games make supreme conversation starters, set an agenda for meetings with new friends, and are—after all—eminently diverting.
Whenever I consider this matter, I recall what I wrote in my journal on March 3, 2007. I was not wholly easy on the pastime:
How easy it is to find oneself among the strongest advocates for scheduling the next LAN Party — but those have one redeeming factor. That of course is the social aspect, without which they would be the pinnacle of imprudence. (Another benefit is being able to listen to opera, but I’m afraid I am among the few who fully take advantage of this.)
What can you show for a single hour spent before the computer playing [game title] with friends? How much less from playing alone! Certainly we have all realized this at one point — generally when some other obligation has conflicted with our gaming habits so that we are forced to make a decision between the two. We initially act upon our disapprobation thus:
Of course, you should talk, you say. I don’t pretend to be unaffected by this phenomenon. Once I figured out how to run in single player mode a particular game left over from a LAN party, I proceeded to waste more time than I care to recall on it. I finally took out a righteous rage on it and deleted it completely.
If other things seem less enjoyable, perhaps it is on account of the dulling of our senses rather than their realization of something better. Banging your head on a mattress won’t seem quite as painful once you bang your head on a door a few times, though perhaps baning your head on the mattress was far better. (Lame illustration, but that’s what came off the top of my head.)
But even if gaming doesn’t conflict with school, family, church, or anything else—if we have an hour of the day which need not be spent in any particular pursuit—even then, is it not a waste? Squandering precious hours on what is less than nothingness.
Ich opene y-floore to expoundynge!
Whenever I consider this matter, I recall what I wrote in my journal on March 3, 2007. I was not wholly easy on the pastime:
The actual time playing blew by even faster than the day—how worthless video games are! The time was wonderful, yet horrible. I was sickened by […] the waste of time in which we were all engaged. And yet it was so terribly fun. They have all been poisoned by it, none less willing than the last. I am tainted, but not taken. These golden years will be spent, but not in that. I will die before I let something so trivial ruin my life. Every time I concede to the open arms of that unclean thing, I shall remember—“not in whole.” The game is Free? No! I have not the time. All who are taken in are fools—and yet I am the greatest fool of all, who knows the evil, yet still returns to the beautiful fiend all to often. Why must it all be so? He who has not tasted of it desires it all the more—to know, to see. He who has tasted is not satisfied. He hungers more, and just when he thinks he has mastered it—it returns. We are all fools! What can be done? I can pray, and He will answer. How, I cannot tell, but the Lord is Holy and Just: every minute wasted in this life shall be held to him [who wasted it]. None shall escape. Dear, that felt good.Though I’ve never held fully to the sentiments in this tempestuous narrative, I must admit that I had a point.
How easy it is to find oneself among the strongest advocates for scheduling the next LAN Party — but those have one redeeming factor. That of course is the social aspect, without which they would be the pinnacle of imprudence. (Another benefit is being able to listen to opera, but I’m afraid I am among the few who fully take advantage of this.)
What can you show for a single hour spent before the computer playing [game title] with friends? How much less from playing alone! Certainly we have all realized this at one point — generally when some other obligation has conflicted with our gaming habits so that we are forced to make a decision between the two. We initially act upon our disapprobation thus:
Death to the invader!And often continue thus:
Strike a deadly blow,
As an old Crusader
Struck his Paynim foe!
Let our martial thunder
Fill his soul with wonder,
Tear his ranks asunder,
Lay the tyrant low!
Thus our courage, all untarnish’d,Sometimes, I get the sense that we almost fear what life would be without them—is our happiness contingent on them? Are there not thousands of things supremely better? Sitting on the couch thinking is a better occupation than sitting before a computer gaming.
We’re instructed to display;
But to tell the truth unvarnish’d,
We are more inclined to say,
“Please you, do not hurt us.”
“Do not hurt us, if it please you!”
“Please you let us be.”
“Let us be, let us be!”
Of course, you should talk, you say. I don’t pretend to be unaffected by this phenomenon. Once I figured out how to run in single player mode a particular game left over from a LAN party, I proceeded to waste more time than I care to recall on it. I finally took out a righteous rage on it and deleted it completely.
If other things seem less enjoyable, perhaps it is on account of the dulling of our senses rather than their realization of something better. Banging your head on a mattress won’t seem quite as painful once you bang your head on a door a few times, though perhaps baning your head on the mattress was far better. (Lame illustration, but that’s what came off the top of my head.)
But even if gaming doesn’t conflict with school, family, church, or anything else—if we have an hour of the day which need not be spent in any particular pursuit—even then, is it not a waste? Squandering precious hours on what is less than nothingness.
Waste:Wuld my argumentes sond moore connyncynge in Middel Englyssh? Ywis, Ich finde the thoght yeveneth me gret plesire. Yf shreuehede ist too seveere, these games shoud lest-wis be consydered unadvisede.
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.
Ich opene y-floore to expoundynge!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Naturalism vs. Values
You know what really crumbles my cookie? Naturalists who hold to any value – whatsoever. Values are completely antithetical to pure Naturalism. (I just may break some sort of record for question marks in this post.)
We have all considered the ultimate problem for the naturalist: the origin of morals. What is right and what is wrong? Some hold that the society or community is the authority on what is right and wrong. The problem is then, how does the community decide what is right and what is wrong? Some hold that right behaviors are those which aid in the continuation of the propagation of the human species. Okay. We have arrived at another problem the naturalist cannot sufficiently answer.
Why is the propagation of the human species a good thing?
For a naturalist to say that the human species should even continue is odd. It is odd because they are ascribing value to a merely physical process. They are saying that the physical process of a human being begetting another human being is a good thing. If the universe is merely physical, if everything is just chemical, then who cares if a human organism lives or dies? Who cares if the all the planets in the universe contain life or not? I would challenge a pure Naturalist to give a reason why anyone should live or die.
People generally love their children. Why? Is emotion merely a chemical reaction? Do I love my daughter because she shares a certain chemical I do and those similar chemicals are attracted to each other and the chemicals in our bodies express themselves as what we interpret as love? Why do I love my wife? Do we have similar chemicals? We are not blood-relatives, after all. Would the Naturalist say that since we share a common ancestor way back, that is why we may share a similar chemical? Why then would I hate one member of the human species and love another? Why do some people hate their children or their parents? What about preference? Why does someone like the color red and another like the color blue?
A true naturalist says that everything in the universe is merely physical. Should I care if a rock is moved from place to another? Should I care if water evaporates? I may care about that because I enjoy moisture returning to the sky so it can rain again, water some crops, and ultimately allow food to be put on my table. But why should I care if I eat? What does it truly matter if a person lives or dies, if everything is merely natural? I cannot for a second care whatsoever that Jupiter is constantly blasted by violent storms; it doesn’t affect me. If something affects a human toward a positive benefit, then the human must be valuable. How can anything be valuable in pure Naturalism?
To avoid the argument, a naturalist may quickly say, “It doesn’t really matter.” But deep down, they don’t really believe this. They don’t really believe a random person should be murdered and they wouldn’t be bereft of grief if their mother died. Naturalists are incredibly contradictory to their worldview and they don’t even know it; this is my lament.
Just like the creationist’s argument that there has to be an unmoved mover somewhere upstream, there has to be an author of morality somewhere upstream. We cannot create our own values if Naturalism is correct. In fact, the mere concept of values should be considered ridiculous. Just as spontaneous generation of organic life is impossible, so is spontaneous generation of morality. There really are very few pure Naturalists because those who consider themselves as Naturalists do not understand what that worldview necessitates – a complete lack of values of any kind.
So to reword my assertion – values cannot exist in pure Naturalism. In fact, the existence of values held by humanity is a proof against Naturalism.
Excursus
Keep in mind that most evolutionists seem to assume they are Naturalists.
A member of PETA might go so far as saying that humans should just up and die so the animals can have reign of the earth. But if it would be good for humanity to die, it would also be good for the animal kingdom to die. After all, animals kill far more animals than humans do. I know they would say we are less worthy of life because we are the only species who kills for sport. But this does not get around the problem of pure Naturalism because killing for sport would not be bad at all if everything is merely physical. This same member of PETA would be distraught if a human loved-one of theirs dies. This would be inconsistent with a Naturalist worldview.
A staunch environmentalist might say that the human race should be severely decreased so the earth can be saved from “global warming.” But yet again, what does it matter which climate the earth is saddled with if everything is merely physical?
I ask so many questions in this post because I challenge the pure Naturalist to answer them without being contrary to their own worldview.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A Musical Soapbox
This is truly a rant. Your indulgence is humbly craved.
If you know me much, you know the soundtrack of my life consists of symphonies, operas, oratorios, string quartets and other delicious things. But for the life of me I can’t quite see why that isn’t the case for everyone else — and that’s what I’m going to rant about.
Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.
How I Discovered Classical Music
I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.
At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.
My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.
Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like
In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,
The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:
What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?
But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.
What They Give Up
What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!
I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.
The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.
The Biblical Approach
What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:
Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.
Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.
Tapering Off
I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:
Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.
How I Discovered Classical Music
I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.
At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.
My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.
Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like
In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,
Which is worse, listening to rock CCM or watching football? The former, naturally, as the latter, rather than making you want to commit a mild act of violence, prompts the desire to do something that in some way stimulates the brain. This last desire is a good one, better [however] without such inducement.It doesn’t take a psychologist to divine that I do not take a sanguine view of rock music. Dear me, I still have problems appreciating Stravinsky, let alone the far less sophisticated writings of various rock (and jazz) artists, as they are so quaintly termed. Gladly would I endure 15 minutes of a football broadcast if it meant forgoing 15 minutes of hoarse women, incorrigible drum players, and screaming “Are those men?”-quartets. (Those of you who have magnanimously deferred to my obstinate predilections have my heartfelt thanks — I do notice.)
The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:
Richard Bonynge: If [audiences] want something modern, they’ll go to Broadway, but even the Broadway pieces that have success are as old-fashioned as they can possibly be. The idiom is almost 19th century with a bit of beat behind it, that’s all.My feelings align more with Joan Sutherland than Richard Bonynge, but the latter does have a point. He must, or else 90 percent of radio stations would be playing classical music (which, by the way, in its widest sense makes up the vast majority of music in existence).
Interviewer: Is “rock” music?
Joan Sutherland: Don’t ask me that.
RB: I don’t think we’re in much of a position to say because we don’t know much about it. It doesn’t appeal to us very much, but it certainly appeals to a great many people, so there must be something about it. It’s primitive and very easy to listen to.
JS: Not for me it’s not! It’s taxing, sort of bang, bang, bang, bang...
What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?
But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.
What They Give Up
What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!
I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.
The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.
The Biblical Approach
What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:
But all things should be done decently and in order. (ESV)However, as unpleasant as rock music is, it cannot be denied that it has some sort of order. There’s the guilt by association argument, which I think holds some water. Though we often forget it (unlike some rock artists — eek), a fair number of classical composers were less than saints, which opens up a whole new can of worms (which I won't open here).
Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.
Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.
Tapering Off
I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:
- I’ve come to love classical music without being prodded
- I don’t understand rock, pop, jazz, rap, country (did I mention how little I can stand country music?)
- I don’t understand why people don’t like other kinds of music
- I’m frustrated that I can’t formulate a satisfactory Biblical answer in either direction (or another direction I have not considered)
In truth I could pursue this painful theme much further, but behold, I have said enough.
Self-Evident Truths Vs. Self-Defeating Lies
You know what really churns my butter? People who challenge truths we hold to be self-evident. One of these recent challenges (which really isn't so recent, so much as it is prevalent today) is against knowledge. We can't really know anything for sure. Truth is what we make it to be.
Okay. But if that's the case, how can we know that we can't know anything for sure for sure? (i.e. how can we know for sure that we can't know anything for sure?) How can we know if that is true? Is the statement "truth is what we make it" true or false? It seems it matters no longer, because it has become something that it isn't.
That is, these challenges have become lies we hold to be self-defeating.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Al A. Gore-ically Speaking...
We have a problem on our hands. Consider the following fable:
A DOG, used to eating eggs, saw an Oyster and, opening his mouth to its widest extent, swallowed it down with the utmost relish, supposing it to be an egg. Soon afterwards suffering great pain in his stomach, he said, "I deserve all this torment, for my folly in thinking that everything round must be an egg."
Moral: They who act without sufficient thought, will often fall into unsuspected danger.*
Since when have scientists ceased to think—actually think—through their claims on Global Warming? Have they stopped checking themselves and begun assuming that it must be so? Since when have scientists ceased to have their "findings" cross-checked by other acclaimed scientists? Is this science? If so, abandon your posts you biologists! Flee for your lives you physicists! Run while you still can you astronomers! Your foundations have been utterly shaken by the earthquake of reason! The wind of reality has toppled the towers of your lofty ideas! The tide of truth has overtaken the walls of your "evidence"!
The inconvenient moral: scientists who do not incorporate thoughtful philosophy into their worldview will ultimately find themselves in a fix—a fix far worse than if global warming were real.
*http://aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?1&TheDogandtheOyster
Wisdom or Wackiness?
Welcome to the first edition of Wisdom or Wackiness, the game where one raver posts a questionable quotation and every raver critiques it, labeling as Wisdom, Wackiness, or Both.
Have a go at this one:
“All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.” – Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Have a go at this one:
“All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.” – Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Friday, March 26, 2010
When Zombies Attack the Naturalist
You know what’s worse than beating a dead horse? Beating a dead human being that just won’t die.
Okay, okay. So the zombie fetish hasn’t quite had its fill in Hollywood just yet. However, what’s quite interesting is that zombie’s do exist. Consider: “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.”* Isn’t it odd? We are dead. We are living. We are dead and we are living. Sounds like a zombie to me. But that’s a simple answer for the Christian. The naturalist just won’t bring himself to admit it.
So this begs the question: are we truly what the naturalist says we are? Are we truly nothing but a blob of complex grey matter, a simple intricate collection of cells and bone? Are all our logical thought processes the simple result of electrical impulses crossing over synapses? If so, how can it be that it is so complex, intricate and logical?
C.S. Lewis is quoted as having stated that we are not a body. We do not have souls. We are souls. We have bodies.
No, we cannot see souls. No, we cannot see spirits. And that is the bane of the naturalist. His sense experiences will carry him only so far. He cannot see what the super-naturalist sees. And he cannot experience what the super-naturalist experiences. But he insists we are unscientific! He thinks he is beating a dead horse.
I like to think that he’s beating a dead zombie that just won’t die. It makes me feel better….
*Romans 8:10
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Aliens
You know what really grinds my gears? People who believe in aliens. I will approach this topic from three different worldviews: Biblical, Evolutionist, and Agnostic.
A Biblical Worldview
For a Christian, the belief in extra-terrestrial life (in reference to other intelligent beings, a.k.a. little green men, not simple microorganisms on Mars or wherever) is unnecessary. If there are any sort of extra-terrestrial beings out there in the wide universe, they do not have souls; they are not created in the image of God. They cannot be saved and live with us in heaven.
This is because God's plan of the fall and redemption of mankind is for just that - mankind. The Bible makes no reference whatsoever to any life outside of the planet earth and in understanding the panoply of Scripture, God is concerned with human life on this planet. I am not saying that He is not concerned with anything else besides human life on this planet, but in terms of the fall and redemption, He only works with human life on this planet.
A view which would see alien life as sinless (so they too could participate in heaven) would be ridiculous. Angels fell, man fell, why would aliens not? If a sentient being is not God, that being is fallible and will fall. God's justice would then demand a price to be paid for the sins of aliens. Some do theorize that Jesus went to other planets to be a sacrifice for other beings as well, but this is a complete twisting of Scripture. Even more, it is an absolutely nonsensical addition to Scripture which is completely without merit.
If there are alien beings out there, they are animals - lesser creatures than man. And I do not see God's revelation to us making room for the existence of life on other planets. If God wanted to make microorganisms or animals on other planets that's His business (although I hold this is unrealistic.) Regardless, it would take a fanciful imagination to assume that God is dealing with life outside planet Earth.
An Evolutionist Worldview
This is actually the least likely worldview to allow the existence of aliens. The evolutionist first has to say that life can spring from non-life. Even though they do unfortunately hold this assumption, they then have face the astronomical odds against this happening naturally. (Setting aside the fact that the odds of this happening are simply zero, they at least have to face the overwhelming odds against this happening, regardless of how much time the universe has provided this opportunity.)
Even though it happened to come about on this planet, as they claim it has, it would have to happen again on another planet for alien life to be possible. If life originated on some other planet and the organisms were somehow hurtled through space to earth and other planets, and that is why beings can exist on multiple planets, then evolutionists would say that the common tendency is for simple organism to evolve and adapt to their environments - in a universe which all things tend toward chaos.*
Simply, if there are aliens on another planet, life sprung from non-life on that planet as well, defying even more astronomical odds, and the beings evolved. The concept of there being aliens on other planets, especially little green men which can travel to ours, the possibility that the unbelievably impossible odds of spontaneous life were defeated multiple times, is thoroughly laughable. Going several steps forward, things like Star Trek and Star Wars which have multiple intelligent races have to be kept strictly as science fiction. That this would have to even be said in today's world is regrettable.
*The craziness of a species adapting to environments toward greater complexity is another topic entirely - maybe someone else here would want to tackle it some day. How many generations of dogs thrown into the ocean will it take for them to finally figure out how to grow gills? I know the evolutionist would say that gradual adaptations into gradually changing environments is how it was done, but simple reason can still shoot down the concept of macro-evolution. That, however, is not the purpose if this post.
An Agnostic Worldview
For the purposes of this topic, I will consider an agnostic as one who believes that there could be divine out there, but not necessarily the God of the Bible. The general belief in mysticism, ghosts, angels, gods, and such - this way, anything is possible. Everything from the world resting on the back of a turtle, the Greek pantheon of Gods meddling in human affairs, Scientology, a careless creator who set evolution into order, etc.
It is in this view that the possibility of aliens is actually completely reasonable. Not only is it reasonable, it would be unreasonable to figure we humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe. Star Trek and Star Wars might as well be possible. This is obviously because the gods could go on creating new life to their hearts' content.
Conclusion
I know more reasons can be given by others to support my view. But in summary, it is unreasonable for a Biblical worldview to entertain the existence of aliens. It is also unreasonable in an evolutionist worldview. Only in an agnostic worldview is the existence of aliens any shade higher than practically impossible.
A Biblical Worldview
For a Christian, the belief in extra-terrestrial life (in reference to other intelligent beings, a.k.a. little green men, not simple microorganisms on Mars or wherever) is unnecessary. If there are any sort of extra-terrestrial beings out there in the wide universe, they do not have souls; they are not created in the image of God. They cannot be saved and live with us in heaven.
This is because God's plan of the fall and redemption of mankind is for just that - mankind. The Bible makes no reference whatsoever to any life outside of the planet earth and in understanding the panoply of Scripture, God is concerned with human life on this planet. I am not saying that He is not concerned with anything else besides human life on this planet, but in terms of the fall and redemption, He only works with human life on this planet.
A view which would see alien life as sinless (so they too could participate in heaven) would be ridiculous. Angels fell, man fell, why would aliens not? If a sentient being is not God, that being is fallible and will fall. God's justice would then demand a price to be paid for the sins of aliens. Some do theorize that Jesus went to other planets to be a sacrifice for other beings as well, but this is a complete twisting of Scripture. Even more, it is an absolutely nonsensical addition to Scripture which is completely without merit.
If there are alien beings out there, they are animals - lesser creatures than man. And I do not see God's revelation to us making room for the existence of life on other planets. If God wanted to make microorganisms or animals on other planets that's His business (although I hold this is unrealistic.) Regardless, it would take a fanciful imagination to assume that God is dealing with life outside planet Earth.
An Evolutionist Worldview
This is actually the least likely worldview to allow the existence of aliens. The evolutionist first has to say that life can spring from non-life. Even though they do unfortunately hold this assumption, they then have face the astronomical odds against this happening naturally. (Setting aside the fact that the odds of this happening are simply zero, they at least have to face the overwhelming odds against this happening, regardless of how much time the universe has provided this opportunity.)
Even though it happened to come about on this planet, as they claim it has, it would have to happen again on another planet for alien life to be possible. If life originated on some other planet and the organisms were somehow hurtled through space to earth and other planets, and that is why beings can exist on multiple planets, then evolutionists would say that the common tendency is for simple organism to evolve and adapt to their environments - in a universe which all things tend toward chaos.*
Simply, if there are aliens on another planet, life sprung from non-life on that planet as well, defying even more astronomical odds, and the beings evolved. The concept of there being aliens on other planets, especially little green men which can travel to ours, the possibility that the unbelievably impossible odds of spontaneous life were defeated multiple times, is thoroughly laughable. Going several steps forward, things like Star Trek and Star Wars which have multiple intelligent races have to be kept strictly as science fiction. That this would have to even be said in today's world is regrettable.
*The craziness of a species adapting to environments toward greater complexity is another topic entirely - maybe someone else here would want to tackle it some day. How many generations of dogs thrown into the ocean will it take for them to finally figure out how to grow gills? I know the evolutionist would say that gradual adaptations into gradually changing environments is how it was done, but simple reason can still shoot down the concept of macro-evolution. That, however, is not the purpose if this post.
An Agnostic Worldview
For the purposes of this topic, I will consider an agnostic as one who believes that there could be divine out there, but not necessarily the God of the Bible. The general belief in mysticism, ghosts, angels, gods, and such - this way, anything is possible. Everything from the world resting on the back of a turtle, the Greek pantheon of Gods meddling in human affairs, Scientology, a careless creator who set evolution into order, etc.
It is in this view that the possibility of aliens is actually completely reasonable. Not only is it reasonable, it would be unreasonable to figure we humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe. Star Trek and Star Wars might as well be possible. This is obviously because the gods could go on creating new life to their hearts' content.
Conclusion
I know more reasons can be given by others to support my view. But in summary, it is unreasonable for a Biblical worldview to entertain the existence of aliens. It is also unreasonable in an evolutionist worldview. Only in an agnostic worldview is the existence of aliens any shade higher than practically impossible.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Constant Cause of the Cosmos
What is it exactly that holds the universe together? Well, evolutionists and naturalists will claim “Not God.” Christians and theologians will say “God.” From a scientific point of view, we know that the world, the universe, and everything in it is made up of elements. My body is made up of smaller objects known as cells. What keeps those cells together? “Well,” says the naturalist, “Those cells are made up of molecules.” Okay, so what holds those molecules together? “Well,” says the evolutionist, “Molecules are held together by smaller particles known as atoms.” Interesting. But still, what keeps those atoms (which are mainly filled by empty space) from flying apart and dispersing in the air? “Well,” says the nuclear physicist, “Atoms are held together by smaller particles called quarks.” Fascinating! And what holds those quarks together? “Well,” says the astronomer, “We don’t actually know. We speculate that there is something called Dark Matter which holds the universe together.” Hmm…. Okay, given the assumption that Dark Matter exists, what is it made up of and how does it hold everything together and how is it held together?
We are met with silence. We don’t know.
But it certainly is not God.
Professing to be wise they become fools, for it is the one who says in his heart that “there is no God” who is the fool. Whatever means by which the universe is held together, from the largest super-cluster filament of galaxies to the smallest particle in the visible universe, God is in that means! And no, it is not ridiculous to say that God holds everything together by the word of His power. It is more ridiculous to say that everything is held together by its own power. We cannot explain what holds the smallest particles together, but instead of being convinced by the power of God we advocate for smaller particles that hold those particles together, and those particles are held together by smaller particles, which in turn are held together by even yet smaller particles…
And then somewhere down the line, we find turtles….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)