Friday, July 01, 2005
Africa Needs Help, Why Now?
Over the coming holiday weekend a number of big pushes for African aid will come to a head. The special concert series is being coordinated worldwide to raise publicity. President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have talked extensively about greatly increasing humanitarian aid. All of this comes with good reason. The African continent is filled with humanitarian crises. From the recurrent genocide in the Sudan to the abject poverty of the majority subsistence population the continent is in need of as much help as we can give it.
This comes as a bit of a puzzle, though, since the continent has been in revolving humanitarian crises for decades if not centuries. While many private groups have been working on these problems for a long time, Western leaders and governments have ignored it for the most part. There is no international threat from the African conflicts. The poverty and disease seem to be contained. The problem does not seem to affect western nations. Why have they turned their attention so suddenly?
The real question should be why has it taken so long? These crises have been around for a long time. Any intervention has always been almost half-hearted. These leaders have intervened in European crises, Asian crises, South American Crises, and Middle Eastern crises over this time. Did Africa have to wiat in line? Why did these governments, which are so eager to intervene elsewhere unwilling to intervene in Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Uganda, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the list goes on and on and on. We could give aid to every country on the continent if the truth were to be told.
Several influences have made the West unconcerned with African issues. Africa has a history of disrespect through colonial powers. Some see Africa as a wast of time because of the predominate skin color. The attitude prevails that a place so rich in resources and so unable to use them must be too inferior to be worth our time. Missionary work has been in operation there for centuries by Christians, but the major religions remain Islam and African Traditional Religions. This lack of change turns people off. Africa has not been a home for any of the major world influences.
Africa, like South America, has tremendous potential that remains unrealized. With its proximity to the Middle East, Africa is a huge potential for Islamic terrorist recruiters. The pressure has been raised by the music series. These have made for the present attention. I hope it will not be short lived. Africa will only change for the better through innovation, investment, and international aid. As a free market conservative, I would prefer the latter to come about privately, but it is good to see some attention from Western leaders after all this time.
This comes as a bit of a puzzle, though, since the continent has been in revolving humanitarian crises for decades if not centuries. While many private groups have been working on these problems for a long time, Western leaders and governments have ignored it for the most part. There is no international threat from the African conflicts. The poverty and disease seem to be contained. The problem does not seem to affect western nations. Why have they turned their attention so suddenly?
The real question should be why has it taken so long? These crises have been around for a long time. Any intervention has always been almost half-hearted. These leaders have intervened in European crises, Asian crises, South American Crises, and Middle Eastern crises over this time. Did Africa have to wiat in line? Why did these governments, which are so eager to intervene elsewhere unwilling to intervene in Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Uganda, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the list goes on and on and on. We could give aid to every country on the continent if the truth were to be told.
Several influences have made the West unconcerned with African issues. Africa has a history of disrespect through colonial powers. Some see Africa as a wast of time because of the predominate skin color. The attitude prevails that a place so rich in resources and so unable to use them must be too inferior to be worth our time. Missionary work has been in operation there for centuries by Christians, but the major religions remain Islam and African Traditional Religions. This lack of change turns people off. Africa has not been a home for any of the major world influences.
Africa, like South America, has tremendous potential that remains unrealized. With its proximity to the Middle East, Africa is a huge potential for Islamic terrorist recruiters. The pressure has been raised by the music series. These have made for the present attention. I hope it will not be short lived. Africa will only change for the better through innovation, investment, and international aid. As a free market conservative, I would prefer the latter to come about privately, but it is good to see some attention from Western leaders after all this time.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
President Bush
Nebraska Public Television is a Left Wing Propaganda Machine. Evidence number one, they refuse to carry any speech by the President. This night is not the first night. A recurring pattern of relegating major speeches such as this to secondary cable feeds and recaps by their left leaning news magazines. For the past several days these "journalists" have been attempting to speak for the president. They have outlined what they think he needs to say on issues from the war in Iraq to Social Security, to taxes, to even healthcare. They just finished hosting a push for socialized medicine reminiscent of "hillary care." In this series, they attempted to sway Christians like me with a patronizing reference to the fifth commandment. That could be a whole separate discussion. For the past several days the public broadcasting services have interviewed people who made claims of outrage from the idea that Sadaam treated the people better than the present Iraqi government to the idea that Al Qaeida will dissolve if the operations cease today. How unfair it is that they claim independence, yet without leaving the president opportunity to speak for himself! They carried more Bill Clinton, more Al Gore, and more John Kerry than they carry President Bush. This leftist trend in the Nebraska Educational Telecommunications system is a taint on what has been an otherwise great speech.
President Bush has had the traditional verbal blunders. His delivery is not the greatest, but his message was great. He argued for the war on the basis of taking the war to the terrorists. He listed the gathering threat of a terrorist, Islamisist community. He outlined the objectives of seeing the process of Iraq's building through. He called on worthy and willing members of society to join the effort. His message was clear and forthright.
The basic tenet of the President's "War on Terror" is that we can win the war on terror in two ways. The immediate threat of terror is being dealt with as we see car bombings in Iraq, and the terrorists there are being rounded up or killed. The long term threat is managed through the spreading of freedom. As the elections took hold in Iraq, the threat to terrorists as a valid part of their society was given a look into their future—they have none.
President Bush has had the traditional verbal blunders. His delivery is not the greatest, but his message was great. He argued for the war on the basis of taking the war to the terrorists. He listed the gathering threat of a terrorist, Islamisist community. He outlined the objectives of seeing the process of Iraq's building through. He called on worthy and willing members of society to join the effort. His message was clear and forthright.
The basic tenet of the President's "War on Terror" is that we can win the war on terror in two ways. The immediate threat of terror is being dealt with as we see car bombings in Iraq, and the terrorists there are being rounded up or killed. The long term threat is managed through the spreading of freedom. As the elections took hold in Iraq, the threat to terrorists as a valid part of their society was given a look into their future—they have none.
Monday, June 27, 2005
The Foundation
In a recent speech, the president of the United States outlined his vision for the World. He used two key terms as a part of this vision: liberty and self-determination. This is not intended to be a political discussion, but this writer is philosophically skeptical of not of liberty, but of self-determination. If a foreign government has to secure liberty by military or diplomatic means, it stands to reason that though they may have liberty, and though they might have the capability to change rulers with peaceful elections, they are not self-determinate. This is because they are dependent on someone else for the at least the beginning, if not the sustenance of their freedom.
Self-determination
This leads the discussion to a deeper issue. If any level of dependency negates true self-determination, how can any one claim it? Self-determination seems to imply independence at a fundamental level. In a democracy, direct or indirect, the citizen is still dependent on a coalition of voters to accomplish anything. This implies that the citizen is not truly independent. The libertarians of this age would state that such a fact is proof positive that a national government is counterproductive to individual liberty.
But this is not a discussion of politics. The question remains in a larger sense, regardles of governmental systems. Who is truly self-determinant? As a devout Christian, I am certain that God is the only answer. Since all creation is by definition made, all creation is inherently dependent on God for both its origin and sustenance. God does not need His created order. He merely uses it as He made it: for His good pleasure.
As the sole Self-determiner, He is the foundation of all knowledge that mankind has. When asked concerning the underlying premise for any concept, the Christian must answer that God is the underlying premise. Thus giving Him the rightful place as Self-determiner.
A Problem
This poses a problem for all Christians. The Christian concept of God seems to have fallen into a trap. If God is the underlying premise for all knowledge, He must then be the underlying premise for His own existence. Any beginning logician who hears the argument that God Himself proves God Himself will recognize the circularity. Conventions of logic state that circularity begs the question, and therefore fails to answer the principle under question.
To respond to this problem, many Christian aplogetic giants have sought a path of arguing for Christianity from a different, linear principle in logic. This principle, briefly described here, starts with some basic principles of epistemology accepted by all, such as the law of non-contradiction, and the basic relability of the senses. This then moves to the causal necessity for God to explain the origin of all things, the need for a revelation of such a God, and proofs of the accuracy and origin of the Bible. From there, the Bible is exposited to prove the rest of Christian theology, such as trinitarianism, divine sovereignty, sin, salvation, etcetera.
But what is the fundamental problem here? This system of logic has also presented a foundation no less circular than the first. Its foundation is assumed to be self evident. Why is the law of non-contradiction worthy of this status, and not God Himslef? If God, and our knowledge of Him are subservient to outside forces (like logic and a nature), then He is no more self-determinant than the rest of us. His lofty place has been lost.
Do not misunderstand the point. Logic and the created order are set forth by God. They are derived from His nature and decrees. However, to base our knowledge of God Himself on anything other than God Himself as self-determinant undermines the assertion of God Himself as self-determinant.
Reason?
Perhaps an illustration is in order. Let us meet three men, Mr. Empirical, Mr Rational, and Mr. Mixed up. Mr. Empirical tells us that all knowledge is derived from sense perception. When asked to prove that sense perception is the foundation of all truth, he is under a bind. If he tries to prove his point through rationalism, he has undermined his ultimate presupposition and turned into a rationalist. If he tries to use sense perception to prove it, he has reasoned in a circle. The rationalist faces similar problems. Using reason to prove reason is circular, and using sense perception to prove reason only proves that he is not a rationalist after all. Mr. Mixed Up has seen the problem of these two men and has decided that he will not follow them into the traps of their exclusive conventions. He attempts to combine their styles of thinking. Unfortunately, he fails in his attempt to miss the traps. He reasons in a circle by saying in essence that the rational proves the empirical, and the empirical proves the rational. In so doing, he also undermines both as a source of truth.
At the heart of this difficulty is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of truth. All of these men have an ultimate standard of truth. That ultimate standard of truth, in order to be ultimate must be self-determinate. Proof of that status (self-determinate) is dependent on the integrity of the would-be self-determinate entity. Because of this fact, all ultimate standards of truth will appear to be cirular on the surface.
In order for linear reasoning to be sound, it must have a beginning at some point. If there is no beginning for linear thought, then it is in itself finally circular. Choosing the beginning of this line is the point of self-determinancy. The point of this discussion is not to undermine linear thought. The piont of this discussion is not to establish circularity as a valid thought pattern. The point is that ultimate standards of truth are ultimately difficult. That standard of truth which is undermined by a lack of self-determinancy is not a valid point from which to start all thought. This is a test that does not apply to all thought. It applies only to the foundation of all thought.
Circularity
Having said that, the question of circularity must now be studied. Because of the fact that ultimate standards of truth must be self-determinate, they will be without a need of further proof. This creates a certain level of circularity. However, there are stringent rules governing this type of circularity. First, it must be a coherent circle. Incoherence is destructive.
An example of a destructive circularity is the false standard for dating geological layers, which states that a layer is a certain age because of the fossils contained in that layer and that they fossils are a certain age because of the layer in which they were found. This standard is destructive because it calls on two entities, each of which proves the other. Because of this, the circle is incoherent. It is reminiscent of Mr. Mixed up.
The second rule is that it must deal with the foundational. That is the second problem with the above example. It is using circularity to prove something. It is not using circularity to explain the foundation or pre condition of knowledge itself. It is not even outlining pre conditions for a specialized area of knowledge. This factor adds to the destructive nature of the example.
The third rule states that the circle must be all encompassing. The buzz of the scientific community these days is a renewed interest in Einstein's "theory of everything." The essential point is to find that foundational principle that can account for all things. So it is with our search. We are seeking for that foundational principle that can account for all knowledge. Mr. Rationalist, were he to claim rationality as self-assertive would have passed the first test of coherence and the second test of the ultimate. He fails in that he cannot account for the knowlelge of Mr. Empiricist. Mr. Empiricist fails in the same regard. Mr. Mixed up failed the first test and the second.
In a recent speech, the president of the United States outlined his vision for the World. He used two key terms as a part of this vision: liberty and self-determination. This is not intended to be a political discussion, but this writer is philosophically skeptical of not of liberty, but of self-determination. If a foreign government has to secure liberty by military or diplomatic means, it stands to reason that though they may have liberty, and though they might have the capability to change rulers with peaceful elections, they are not self-determinate. This is because they are dependent on someone else for the at least the beginning, if not the sustenance of their freedom.
Self-determination
This leads the discussion to a deeper issue. If any level of dependency negates true self-determination, how can any one claim it? Self-determination seems to imply independence at a fundamental level. In a democracy, direct or indirect, the citizen is still dependent on a coalition of voters to accomplish anything. This implies that the citizen is not truly independent. The libertarians of this age would state that such a fact is proof positive that a national government is counterproductive to individual liberty.
But this is not a discussion of politics. The question remains in a larger sense, regardles of governmental systems. Who is truly self-determinant? As a devout Christian, I am certain that God is the only answer. Since all creation is by definition made, all creation is inherently dependent on God for both its origin and sustenance. God does not need His created order. He merely uses it as He made it: for His good pleasure.
As the sole Self-determiner, He is the foundation of all knowledge that mankind has. When asked concerning the underlying premise for any concept, the Christian must answer that God is the underlying premise. Thus giving Him the rightful place as Self-determiner.
A Problem
This poses a problem for all Christians. The Christian concept of God seems to have fallen into a trap. If God is the underlying premise for all knowledge, He must then be the underlying premise for His own existence. Any beginning logician who hears the argument that God Himself proves God Himself will recognize the circularity. Conventions of logic state that circularity begs the question, and therefore fails to answer the principle under question.
To respond to this problem, many Christian aplogetic giants have sought a path of arguing for Christianity from a different, linear principle in logic. This principle, briefly described here, starts with some basic principles of epistemology accepted by all, such as the law of non-contradiction, and the basic relability of the senses. This then moves to the causal necessity for God to explain the origin of all things, the need for a revelation of such a God, and proofs of the accuracy and origin of the Bible. From there, the Bible is exposited to prove the rest of Christian theology, such as trinitarianism, divine sovereignty, sin, salvation, etcetera.
But what is the fundamental problem here? This system of logic has also presented a foundation no less circular than the first. Its foundation is assumed to be self evident. Why is the law of non-contradiction worthy of this status, and not God Himslef? If God, and our knowledge of Him are subservient to outside forces (like logic and a nature), then He is no more self-determinant than the rest of us. His lofty place has been lost.
Do not misunderstand the point. Logic and the created order are set forth by God. They are derived from His nature and decrees. However, to base our knowledge of God Himself on anything other than God Himself as self-determinant undermines the assertion of God Himself as self-determinant.
Reason?
Perhaps an illustration is in order. Let us meet three men, Mr. Empirical, Mr Rational, and Mr. Mixed up. Mr. Empirical tells us that all knowledge is derived from sense perception. When asked to prove that sense perception is the foundation of all truth, he is under a bind. If he tries to prove his point through rationalism, he has undermined his ultimate presupposition and turned into a rationalist. If he tries to use sense perception to prove it, he has reasoned in a circle. The rationalist faces similar problems. Using reason to prove reason is circular, and using sense perception to prove reason only proves that he is not a rationalist after all. Mr. Mixed Up has seen the problem of these two men and has decided that he will not follow them into the traps of their exclusive conventions. He attempts to combine their styles of thinking. Unfortunately, he fails in his attempt to miss the traps. He reasons in a circle by saying in essence that the rational proves the empirical, and the empirical proves the rational. In so doing, he also undermines both as a source of truth.
At the heart of this difficulty is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of truth. All of these men have an ultimate standard of truth. That ultimate standard of truth, in order to be ultimate must be self-determinate. Proof of that status (self-determinate) is dependent on the integrity of the would-be self-determinate entity. Because of this fact, all ultimate standards of truth will appear to be cirular on the surface.
In order for linear reasoning to be sound, it must have a beginning at some point. If there is no beginning for linear thought, then it is in itself finally circular. Choosing the beginning of this line is the point of self-determinancy. The point of this discussion is not to undermine linear thought. The piont of this discussion is not to establish circularity as a valid thought pattern. The point is that ultimate standards of truth are ultimately difficult. That standard of truth which is undermined by a lack of self-determinancy is not a valid point from which to start all thought. This is a test that does not apply to all thought. It applies only to the foundation of all thought.
Circularity
Having said that, the question of circularity must now be studied. Because of the fact that ultimate standards of truth must be self-determinate, they will be without a need of further proof. This creates a certain level of circularity. However, there are stringent rules governing this type of circularity. First, it must be a coherent circle. Incoherence is destructive.
An example of a destructive circularity is the false standard for dating geological layers, which states that a layer is a certain age because of the fossils contained in that layer and that they fossils are a certain age because of the layer in which they were found. This standard is destructive because it calls on two entities, each of which proves the other. Because of this, the circle is incoherent. It is reminiscent of Mr. Mixed up.
The second rule is that it must deal with the foundational. That is the second problem with the above example. It is using circularity to prove something. It is not using circularity to explain the foundation or pre condition of knowledge itself. It is not even outlining pre conditions for a specialized area of knowledge. This factor adds to the destructive nature of the example.
The third rule states that the circle must be all encompassing. The buzz of the scientific community these days is a renewed interest in Einstein's "theory of everything." The essential point is to find that foundational principle that can account for all things. So it is with our search. We are seeking for that foundational principle that can account for all knowledge. Mr. Rationalist, were he to claim rationality as self-assertive would have passed the first test of coherence and the second test of the ultimate. He fails in that he cannot account for the knowlelge of Mr. Empiricist. Mr. Empiricist fails in the same regard. Mr. Mixed up failed the first test and the second.
