Thursday, February 16, 2006
What Can I Say?
Aftermath of a Shooting
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Every man a believer.
I am about to make a fool of myself by describing theories I have not fully studied, but I cannot move on to the next area without one more discourse over the manner of Moses' argument and its relevance to apologetics.
String Theory is a very controversial area of physics. Einstein is the most famous person who articulated it, but it is very popular now. Einstein formulated String Theory in his quest at the end of his life for a “theory of everything,” or his quest to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. String Theory is also based in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I do not want to give a huge lesson on it, but it is relevant to the current arguments over intelligent design and other ideas. At the expense of over-simplification, here is a summary. In physics, three main dimensions are known: length, breadth, and depth. Beyond this is the fourth, which is time. String theory in essence claims that there is a fifth dimension, if you will, that of energy, and made up of strings. These strings are ordered, so the reasoning goes, only according to a sixth dimension: information. My deepest apologies to the physicists out there, because I know that I really have not been fair to the subject, but I just want to point out that this theory is one large influence on the scientific world. It cannot be proved by experiments, and for this many scientists discount it as well.
String Theory really is unable to deal with one big problem, it is unprovable, and it falls short of its original goal: to explain everything. It really cannot explain this: if there was a big bang, from what did it originate? To remedy this, some modern string theorists added membranes. Membranes are practically infinite parallel universes, which can collide, causing the big bang. This theory really is on the fringe of acceptability on any convention, but it is an attempt to answer the fundamental question by adding an almost transcendent dimension to the material universe itself.
Why discuss this? It really seems quite silly. Furthermore, it really can serve to confuse. I just want to point out that these theoretical physicists are attempting to answer ultimate questions to which Christians have responded “God Created” for centuries. They really tend to look down their noses at guys like me for saying that. The fact of the matter is that theoretical physics has been a driving force of all science for a very long time. Physicists will know more names, but we have seen major innovations only rarely with men like Einstein and Newton. Now, the foremost name might well be Stephen Hawking, but I just have not studied the field well enough to know. These men still direct most of the science. The fact is that theoretical science has always directed the future study of experimental science. This presents a fundamental problem of logic. Is science to be based on theoretical reasoning or on pure experimentation? Now we have found the key question. Do we know things to be true by pure experience or by how we order our experience? In the end, they all conclude that reason proves experience and experience proves reason.
OOPS! That is a vicious circle, a destructive circle. It is compounded by the problem that if they say reason proves reason or experience proves experience, then they are still just reasoning in a circle. Beyond that, by taking a side, they are unable to explain how someone from the other side knows anything. Rather than prove any thing, they have now proved that they can really prove nothing. I like what one man wrote, “The accountant can give an account, but he cannot account for the account given.” In other words, these scientists have some very elaborate theories, which they cannot prove. These scientists also have some experimental data, which they cannot prove.
What can be proved? Here is where I begin to tie all of this meandering high brow stuff together. Moses was arguing that he was presenting the one, true God, as I mentioned in the last lesson. These theories are no less than attempts at the same thing. They are attempts to set forth a transcendent origin for all phenomena. Hmm, sounds like a god. In the end, these men, who are running as fast as they can to get away from faith are carrying it in their back pockets. In other words, instead of chasing their tail, their tail is chasing them. Sorry for the silly analogy, but it is true.
The evidence of God's having created is so clear that Moses and none of the other biblical writers attempted to prove it scientifically. David even went so far as to say that the declaration by the heavens of God's glory is clearly being heard regardless of language by all men (Psalm 19). Paul argued that this message gets through so effectively that it takes a constant and conscious effort to ignore it (Romans 1: 18-21). He later argued in Romans as well as many other books that this constant effort is destructive morally, intellectually, and ultimately spiritually. We as Christians, need to be careful not to compromise our faith by trying to prove its truth on the basis of other faiths, or by entering the philosophical framework of unbelieving men.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Cartoons Continue to Rock the World
1. The cartoons were in poor taste.
The images of Islam were clearly in poor taste for several reasons. They were in poor taste because of insensitive mockery.They were intended to mock terrorists and the general Islamic world from the start. The problem is that the insensitive mockery hurts too many people unnecessarily. There are better ways to get one's message across. They were in poor taste because of the ideas of Muslims regarding pictures. Examples of traditions of Islam with pictures have been found in history, but the clear opposition to any form of idolatry has resulted in the overwhelming idea that pictures of sacred people are off limits. It is insensitive and ignorant to think that in addition to that, a mocking picture will reach Muslims. I think it is clear from this that the newspapers always intended a level of offense. The level of condescension in rhetoric has been in poor taste. The journalists from around the world who have supported the newspapers have ridiculed the Muslim world as backward and incompetent for decades anyway. It is with no surprise that they continue to insult and lambaste Muslims with quite partisan rhetoric.
2. The response of the Islamic world has been in poor taste.
The response of the Islamic world has been in very poor taste. It has been marked by making the problem worse. The response was in poor taste because violent mobs are always in poor taste. The mob is fickle, and unpredictable. People get together and work themselves into a frenzy and do very foolish things. There was no reason for gunmen to surround embassies or for rocks to be thrown or fires started. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any society. Second, The response was in poor taste because linking one newspaper with all western people is in poor taste. Why should one man from Denmark be marked when he had nothing to do with the publication of another man from Denmark? That is just a racist and hateful way to view people. Finally, the idea that the press should not be free is in poor taste. If these people would just take a step back and hear what they are saying, it would be much clearer. They are saying that all of a people, economy, culture, and society should suffer until the government steps in and does something about insensitive people. That is just a tacky, at best, overreaction to a tacky cartoon.
3. A unique paradox
Strange companions. This world is now officially filled with them. President Bush condemns the articles, appearing to side with the Iranian government. His wife sides with the press, something she would never do. More than this, some very strange things have come out of Europe and the Middle East. More hatred of the West has been spawned by these articles than the war in Iraq. While French papers critique Bush for enraging the Arab street, they keep fomenting more anger by ridiculing Muslims. Furthermore, there is more xenophobia in Europe than they would have you believe. The violence in France back in December coupled with a discussion of its causes has revealed that there is little to no respect for legal, let alone illegal, immigration. Add that to an institutionalized secularism, and any religion finds itself in disregard, but especially Islam.
4. The arguments on both sides have been deeply troubling.
This entire debate has been characterized by ideological frameworks that are troubling. How can I say that a newspaper has made a moral error, without compromising my own right to freedom of speech? How can I critique protesters without doing the same? However, some arguments on both sides have been particularly troubling.
On the Islamic side, any attempt to claim moral integrity for violent protest is bad enough, but here are some really bad examples overheard last week. First, the desire is for the state to stop tasteless journalism. Where does that restriction end? The same power could be used to ban theism, atheism, and any other "ism," by citing exclusive language. Second, I actually heard people saying that people should be considerate of Muslims, because of the danger of terrorist responses. This argument is only coercive, and it bears no logical persuasive power. Third, there is the fallacy of linking of all westerners with secularists, or with hateful secularists. Secularism, like all religious systems has its crazy people. But the fact is that in the western world, there are many people. Some are Christian, others Jewish, Buddhist, secular, and a multitude hold to yet other ideas. But the fact is that we should judge each person individually and not hastily group them all together and sentence them to our wrath. Finally, there seems to be the idea on the Muslim side that they have a right to protest, but that the other side does not. This is clearly a double standard that wishes to silence by regulation all opposing viewpoints.
On the newspaper side, I have no more need to explain of what poor taste consisted their decision to publish the caricatures, but they have their own share of poor, defensive arguments. First, and very troubling is the advancement of the secular society as an ideal. These people argue that a "nonreligion," if that exists, should have authority over all other religions. This only results in a gathering hostility against religious communities and an eventual restriction of religions. Secondly, many have stated concerns over "self censorship." To be fair, I still do not know what that is; but if I understand it correctly, it is the moral imperative to always publicize even the most anti-aesthetic of ideas, whether or not they are well reasoned. I would rather hear one word of reason than a thousand obscenities from a tongue that feels rather than thinks. At any rate and thirdly, the enduring mockery with continued publishing and the argument that the Muslims are just intolerant fools, is just ignorant and intolerant itself. Do not forget that the great sciences, philosophy, arts, and academic schools were kept alive through the Middle Ages by the Byzantine (Muslim) Empire. These people are not idiots as a whole, and nothing is accomplished by such predications. The fourth foolish idea is the linking of all religion with terrorists. This is a foolish generalization because it is just not true. Compelling are the arguments that all men are faith oriented, and yet the overwhelming majority do not become terrorists. It is just this that the shrillest voices and the most violent are always the most easily heard. We just do not hear the people who quietly do their own business and live peacefully because they are not shouting in our faces. Finally, it is an equally double standard to claim a right to publish, but deny others a right to speak to the contrary, which has been set forth by some.
Conclusions:
1. Protect freedom of the press, even if it means allowing idiocy. I don't incarcerate my dog for chasing his tail, no matter how stupid he looks. I fear giving the state power to restrict the speech of others, because they will turn and use that same power to restrict my speech in turn.
2. Only provoke hostility if you are ready to face that hostility. Only jerks beat their dogs and keep them in cages to prevent response. Talk of dialogue is only useful if dialogue actually happens.
3. Society cannot answer these problems through government action. Men, like dogs, can only stand so much regulation. We are ignorant to think that government can keep us safe from offence from whatever source.
Monday, February 13, 2006
I Am Not Shooting Myself Or My Cabinet Members
Beside these colleagues, I really am grateful to God for giving me good Portuguese friends. I need them for practice in the language, but they are much more than this. They are a good opportunity to fellowship and study God's Word.
I still have no news on the grade of my exam, but as classes start, I received some good grades on some compositions that were handed in at the end of the last semester. The grading is a little different for this course. For example, we started the second semester with the exact same classes and courses as before, just some new students and some new verb tenses. However, the "final exam," by the account of the teachers, was for the purpose of informing them as to the focus of the second semester courses. The grade percentage will not be counted into the final grade, but the grade is necessary to complete the course. I am translating here, and some information is lost, but that is it more or less. At any rate, I am not as nervous about this exam, since my objective is not to get a piece of paper to hang on my wall, but to be able to speak fluently in any situation in a Portuguese speaking country. That is moving along. One man at the church services Sunday night reminded me of my first day here and how I could not really even say "Hi, my name is Arnie" without making errors, and now, we can talk and understand each other much better. Praise the Lord.
Here are some prayer requests from the Mozambique Field:
Please pray for the Rodgers family as they prepare to move to Mozambique soon.
Please pray for the Germann family as they travel to Portugal this week to share in our study.
Please pray for the tribal teams as they are studying tribal languages.
Please pray for those of us here studying Portuguese that we would have good understanding and desire to learn the language.
