Friday, April 21, 2006
Left and Right
I grew up believing that the politics of the left tend toward communist totalitarianism and the politics of the right tend toward fascist totalitarianism. I also grew up believing that the fight between the two keeps both sides honest and keeps them from prevailing. As I have grown older, I have decided that this is wrong for at least three reasons.
First, it is wrong because the politics have misunderstood each other. Fascists and communists use the same language. They try to band a whole country or group of countries into one central state, which regulates everything, hence the word totalitarian. They are not polar opposites, but slight variations of the same thing.
Second, it is wrong because history has seen this polarity differently. In World War II, the alliances united governments with "polar" differences. The Soviet Union united with The Third Reich and El Duce and the Emperor of Japan. The Allies included dictatorships, constitutional monarchies, parliaments, republics, later the Soviet Union and more. The point is that there were communists and fascists on both sides, as well as other types of people.
Third, it is wrong from the point of view of current politics. The same mixed bag of alliances are spread across the world on many issues. Just take a look at the people and positions on Iran's nuclear program or China's economic role.
Furthermore, we can critique the hidden motivations, but the modern political language in the West is strangely inverted. In America, the Democrats are promoting more and more socialist programs. Some Republicans are as well. This is a more traditional left. But, President Bush, a "right winger," has done more than any president in my short lifetime to nationalize transportation, healthcare, education, law enforcement, disaster management, immigration, and more. Meanwhile, the Partido Socialista (traditionally left, note the unashamed name Socialist Party) here in Portugal is cutting taxes, privatizing industry, turning government functions more and more local, reducing regulation of businesses and making real cuts in the government budget to reduce the deficit--sounds like Steve Forbes.
Who is the left? Who is the right? I can no longer tell. What is more important to me is that I know what I believe. I will have a greater impact on society by speaking truth with my colleagues than I will ever have by trying to play political games.
First, it is wrong because the politics have misunderstood each other. Fascists and communists use the same language. They try to band a whole country or group of countries into one central state, which regulates everything, hence the word totalitarian. They are not polar opposites, but slight variations of the same thing.
Second, it is wrong because history has seen this polarity differently. In World War II, the alliances united governments with "polar" differences. The Soviet Union united with The Third Reich and El Duce and the Emperor of Japan. The Allies included dictatorships, constitutional monarchies, parliaments, republics, later the Soviet Union and more. The point is that there were communists and fascists on both sides, as well as other types of people.
Third, it is wrong from the point of view of current politics. The same mixed bag of alliances are spread across the world on many issues. Just take a look at the people and positions on Iran's nuclear program or China's economic role.
Furthermore, we can critique the hidden motivations, but the modern political language in the West is strangely inverted. In America, the Democrats are promoting more and more socialist programs. Some Republicans are as well. This is a more traditional left. But, President Bush, a "right winger," has done more than any president in my short lifetime to nationalize transportation, healthcare, education, law enforcement, disaster management, immigration, and more. Meanwhile, the Partido Socialista (traditionally left, note the unashamed name Socialist Party) here in Portugal is cutting taxes, privatizing industry, turning government functions more and more local, reducing regulation of businesses and making real cuts in the government budget to reduce the deficit--sounds like Steve Forbes.
Who is the left? Who is the right? I can no longer tell. What is more important to me is that I know what I believe. I will have a greater impact on society by speaking truth with my colleagues than I will ever have by trying to play political games.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Who Is Smart Now?
The rejection of creationism is not just a factual issue. It is a very religious one. I challenge Christians to read this refutal of creationism. If you get bored with the details, at least read the conclusion. "Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair." He is making claims so strong, so emotionally invoking that he had better have absolute certainty to back them. Absolute certainty is something that no philosopher/scientist can achieve. In fact, it is conventionally unacceptable. That is precisely why people are afraid of Christians and creationism, which claim to know the truth with certainty. I heard a sociologist say last week that faith is the one thing that has caused wars and genocide most consistently through history. The reason being that people are motivated to act, not by intellect or respect to the greater good of society, but by faith and the motivation of eternal recompense for failure in this life. He has a fair point. However, he does not realize that we may have an even greater disagreement than we originally realized. We do not agree on the nature of faith. We have this idea that faith is one thing, logic is another, and the two always fight: may cooler heads prevail. This is not true from any sense, and perfectly untrue from a biblical perspective. The Bible speaks of faith as being evidence based, substantive, and persuasive. Paul speaks of those apart from God as being without an apologetic. This idea that faith is something that does not make sense is a wrong idea within Christianity. "Our faith" is not a feeling of devotion or closeness to God, but being persuaded of the truth of the entire system of Christian theology.
Likewise, the evolutionist has this type of faith. He hates this allegation, but he has to accept it. He has to accept it because he really does not know what happened ten years ago, let alone ten billion. He is a presuppositional creature. I tire of reading these debates, not because of the terms mechanical naturalism, irreducible complexity, intelligent design, etc. The problem is that these people focus the debate on the wrong location. Why does the evolutionist look at a molecule and see something, while the creationist looks at the same molecule and sees something else? I think it is because the molecule is actually irrelevant to the debate. What is in question is the entire philosophical system, the presuppositions, the world view, the interpretive grid. We could debate the integrity of a "faith" as such by comparing it to molecules, but the best way to examine the integrity of that faith is by comparing the entire systems as structures.
Likewise, the evolutionist has this type of faith. He hates this allegation, but he has to accept it. He has to accept it because he really does not know what happened ten years ago, let alone ten billion. He is a presuppositional creature. I tire of reading these debates, not because of the terms mechanical naturalism, irreducible complexity, intelligent design, etc. The problem is that these people focus the debate on the wrong location. Why does the evolutionist look at a molecule and see something, while the creationist looks at the same molecule and sees something else? I think it is because the molecule is actually irrelevant to the debate. What is in question is the entire philosophical system, the presuppositions, the world view, the interpretive grid. We could debate the integrity of a "faith" as such by comparing it to molecules, but the best way to examine the integrity of that faith is by comparing the entire systems as structures.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Férias da Páscoa
A week without class does not mean a week without learning. It does not mean a slow or empty week. This past week was, in fact, very busy. This past weekend was especially full. Some good friends of mine, the Rodgers, are leaving this week for Mozambique. They were really helpful in getting me settled here in Portugal. We "New Tribers" got together for one last time with them. After that, I went to a farewell party at the Portuguese church. After that, I had a choir practice (that is right, I sang in the choir, missed several words, but had a great time doing it). After a very short night, I went to a sunrise service and breakfast, after which came sunday school and church. The services tend to be long anyway, but since this was a special day, the services went extra long. I stayed a little longer to say one last goodbye to the Rodgers, and the afternoon was almost gone. I went to the evening service, and by the time I got home from that, I was tired.
I realize something this morning that is very encouraging. I spent just about the whole weekend immersed in Portuguese. The encouragement is that comprehension is going up. Six months ago, I did not get anything out of the church services or conversations, unless they were in English. It was very intimidating. Now, I have to ask sometimes for a repeat or an explanation, but it is possible to get the conversations and so forth around me. I praise God for this. Never satisfied however, I ask you to pray that I will be able to get more than this out of my studies. I want to be able to speak like a Portuguese speaker and think in Portuguese as well as I do in English. That is the highest level of fluency, and that is my target.
Até logo.
I realize something this morning that is very encouraging. I spent just about the whole weekend immersed in Portuguese. The encouragement is that comprehension is going up. Six months ago, I did not get anything out of the church services or conversations, unless they were in English. It was very intimidating. Now, I have to ask sometimes for a repeat or an explanation, but it is possible to get the conversations and so forth around me. I praise God for this. Never satisfied however, I ask you to pray that I will be able to get more than this out of my studies. I want to be able to speak like a Portuguese speaker and think in Portuguese as well as I do in English. That is the highest level of fluency, and that is my target.
Até logo.
