K mentioned last week how I feel very responsible for others. This is a good observation, and I've decided it's because deep down I think I'm smarter than them. This is how I try to rationalize my pride - by saying the outlet of feeling responsible is a good one.
It got me thinking about the best ways to remain dumb in life. I've come up with a few, but only 1 important one.
1. Only listen to people you agree with. I remember at Caltech (liberal central) there are many people who can't even stand to listen to conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. I'll go on record to say this is absolutley horrid. Grow a pair. Such insecurity, such dogmatic thinking, such closed-mindedness where one is simply incapable of listening to someone they disagree with. People like that are the reason for the anti-intellectual church. As an intellectual you should be listening to people you disagree with more than people you agree with. This means as conservative Christians we should be listening to Keith Olberman and Chris Hitchens, not shying away from them. After all, as intellectual Christians we have at least some handle on the arguments for our faith, so where is the threat? And as conservative intellectuals we have some handle on the reasons for our conservativism - how else can we grow?
2. Don't read, 3. Don't attend lectures or talk to people about anything of consequence, and other things that aren't that important - I was mostly thinking of talk radio.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Reading
My New Year’s resolution was to finish 15 books this year. In short, I want to be smart and smart people read. I remember talking to my mom once about how smart the Matthews were, and she simply said “they read.” It’s nice to go through times of little reading and more thinking as this last year, although on the whole reading is integral.
There was an article in the WSJ a few months ago by Karl Rove of the reading competition between himself and President Bush. Rove won all three years but the number of books they read was massive: from ~70 to over 100. I’m not in love with President Bush but my opinion of him went way up after reading this. Granted, this means time taken away from news, media, and other things which are also important. However, on the whole I respect readers’ opinions more than nonreaders. I want to be a reader.
There was an article in the WSJ a few months ago by Karl Rove of the reading competition between himself and President Bush. Rove won all three years but the number of books they read was massive: from ~70 to over 100. I’m not in love with President Bush but my opinion of him went way up after reading this. Granted, this means time taken away from news, media, and other things which are also important. However, on the whole I respect readers’ opinions more than nonreaders. I want to be a reader.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Federalism
So it's been a couple months since my last post. Sorry. Women have that effect of causing the mind to stray from what is most important in life.
I have been watching the HBO television series John Adams and thinking about this financial crisis (and living in California) has made me think about the role of the federal government vs. state government. There was an article in the WSJ a few months ago written by two governors about how our country has become all about the federal government with the state government having less responsibility. For example, all talk about bailout comes from the federal government, even bailouts for states. We have become a federalist government in this time of crisis.
I wonder if that is the best strategy. I remember this discussion coming up in “John Adams” where Adams is talking about the federal government taking over the debt of the states to develop federal credit. This caused them to be called “federalists” – in essence they believed in a very strong central government (as opposed to “republicans”). Also, California’s budget impasse has just caused their credit rating by S&P to drop to the lowest of any state and there is talk of the federal government loaning California some money (preferably at a low interest rate).
A part of me wants California’s budget problem to stay with California. I think there’s a lesson to be learned in fiscal responsibility for California to deal with this themselves, although that lesson is diminished because of the severity of the crisis. Also, I guess I see this as their responsibility so the default is they should figure it out themselves (it seems weird that New Yorkers should bailout Californians). Lastly, I have some emotional aversion to the federal government being so powerful, the “big brother” ready to bailout the states or help when needed. I simply like the idea of more independent states when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Now, this is not to say that the government shouldn’t give the states financial assistance; I’m simply wondering the extent of that assistance. I have no idea how California is going to get out of its budget crisis. I suspect tax increases and spending decreases are required, although it’s so interesting how there is so little compromise on either end, especially the Republicans. The ASSembly needs only 2-3 Republican votes to get the budget passed but the Republicans took a “no new taxes” pledge. One rep from ~Pasadena area rescinded and he’s taking massive heat for it. Ordinarily I would prefer almost all the changes to come from spending decreases, but in the California political climate and the urgency of the need I feel both are required. You can call me a lib if you want.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Posting
One more note: I really do enjoy the written dialogue from this blog so I encourage people to post. This is fun and helpful to everyone also but my motivation is mostly selfish. I am more of a thinker and sometimes I run out of things to think about. I especially love posts from those who think differently than me. I have heard some are intimidated or fearful, but....just don't be. We are all human and realize some of our positions are undoubtedly wrong. The more areas we have opinions on the more likely we are going to be wrong on something.
This is a viewpoint I innately hold and try to encourage. I don't take the adversarial approach to argumentation but think of discussion as two people trying to come the truth together (like Plato). It's hard for me to interact with those who take the other approach - I don't understand the advantage and I am not that way. And it's weird to me that almost everyone takes the adversarial approach - I believe this is a effect of ignorance. I know enough to say I don't know - such confidence encourages the communal approach to discussion but most people don't know this much.
This is a viewpoint I innately hold and try to encourage. I don't take the adversarial approach to argumentation but think of discussion as two people trying to come the truth together (like Plato). It's hard for me to interact with those who take the other approach - I don't understand the advantage and I am not that way. And it's weird to me that almost everyone takes the adversarial approach - I believe this is a effect of ignorance. I know enough to say I don't know - such confidence encourages the communal approach to discussion but most people don't know this much.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Homosexual Marriage
SoCal had Prop 8 pass last week (~52.5%) that made a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Here are my reasons for and against gay marriage as state law
Against
1. Homosexuality is immoral. Morality does not determine law but does affect it. As in, we don't allow parents to beat their children not just because it's bad for society but because it's wrong. The trick is determining which moral to legislate.
2. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. This has been always been the definition, so it should be the default. It seems there should be a reason to stray away from the norm.
3. I'd rather live in a moral than immoral society. This stems from homosexuality as wrong, and given a choice I'd rather society encourage morality.
4. It devalues marriage. Allowing a more liberal/inclusive view of marriage cheapens or diminishes the traditional marriage.
For
1. It's not the state's roll to regulate a traditionally church-related institution. The state should take the position of most freedom and allow individuals the freedom to determine marriage as they see fit. Also, since this is such a religious view the state should be very careful about intervening in church affairs. Separation of church and state is good.
Incidentally, I don't see this as a discrimination issue as it is often postulated but a definition of marriage issue. It would be discrimination if we were not allowing gays to practice or allow people to hire based on sexual orientation. Those are already allowed; the issue is what does marriage mean? We have already allowed so much liberty in terms of homosexuality that I feel it is established by the state that homosexuality is ok; this is a little piece at the end of a long line of homosexual liberty.
Against
1. Homosexuality is immoral. Morality does not determine law but does affect it. As in, we don't allow parents to beat their children not just because it's bad for society but because it's wrong. The trick is determining which moral to legislate.
2. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. This has been always been the definition, so it should be the default. It seems there should be a reason to stray away from the norm.
3. I'd rather live in a moral than immoral society. This stems from homosexuality as wrong, and given a choice I'd rather society encourage morality.
4. It devalues marriage. Allowing a more liberal/inclusive view of marriage cheapens or diminishes the traditional marriage.
For
1. It's not the state's roll to regulate a traditionally church-related institution. The state should take the position of most freedom and allow individuals the freedom to determine marriage as they see fit. Also, since this is such a religious view the state should be very careful about intervening in church affairs. Separation of church and state is good.
Incidentally, I don't see this as a discrimination issue as it is often postulated but a definition of marriage issue. It would be discrimination if we were not allowing gays to practice or allow people to hire based on sexual orientation. Those are already allowed; the issue is what does marriage mean? We have already allowed so much liberty in terms of homosexuality that I feel it is established by the state that homosexuality is ok; this is a little piece at the end of a long line of homosexual liberty.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Temptation
There is a paragraph in Lewis' Screwtape Letters where the older demon tells the younger demon to convince his person that chastity is unnatural and the only way to make temptation go away is to give in to it (this belief is called "our best weapon"). This is absolutely true - one of the great lies of the devil that I constantly consider and it actually helps me deal with temptation, not just sexual as was inferred. When I want to say or eat something bad I think of how my desire would go away if I just did it.
This great lie is believed by many atheists and half-ass Christians as well in the realm of sex. They see supressing sexual desires outside of marriage as unnatural. The desires will only get stronger and eventually come out as something more perverse than simply giving in immediately. Sometimes it is thought of as impossible to preserve sex for marriage as the desires will become too powerful. What an ingenious lie - take some truth and twist it so maliciously. Again, the preversion of the best is the worst. Note any reference to Scripture is forgotten and one attempts to create morality with pure reason from one's own head. As with any such attempt, common sense is also forgotten and while one has confidence that they were reasoned into such a belief they actually forsook the real world in favor of the idealized reasonable world.
This great lie is believed by many atheists and half-ass Christians as well in the realm of sex. They see supressing sexual desires outside of marriage as unnatural. The desires will only get stronger and eventually come out as something more perverse than simply giving in immediately. Sometimes it is thought of as impossible to preserve sex for marriage as the desires will become too powerful. What an ingenious lie - take some truth and twist it so maliciously. Again, the preversion of the best is the worst. Note any reference to Scripture is forgotten and one attempts to create morality with pure reason from one's own head. As with any such attempt, common sense is also forgotten and while one has confidence that they were reasoned into such a belief they actually forsook the real world in favor of the idealized reasonable world.
Self-awareness
I have also started to think of how much I value self-awareness. For instance, knowing the type of person you are and also the type of people your friends/family are. This helps with relations and in moderating expectations, but I value it highly not because of its efficacy but simply as an attribute. This attribute is actually fairly easy to determine in someone, especially by their humor. Sarcastic comments require a more intimate knowledge of people and situations and thus I tend to gravitate toward sarcastic and witty people and view them as smarter. I love the quote in V for Vendetta (which everyone should join me in watching Nov 5): "Is everything a joke to you?" "Only the things that matter." As a side note, self-awareness becomes markedly easier with age.
It's interesting to note too that who you feel intimidated by has the attributes you value. For instance, I am not intimidated by Caltech professors even though they have so much science knowledge and experience. However, I am intimidated by a successful businessman because he has the self-awareness and business savvy that I value. This is a problem in my field since I only care what my professors think of science; in other areas they are as smart as Joe the Plumber. And they definitely are not self-aware or think of how to encourage a productive work environment; this is of course weird to me since I think of those things a lot. I have to actualy consciously remind myself that these people are smart but they just don't have the attributes I value.
It's interesting to note too that who you feel intimidated by has the attributes you value. For instance, I am not intimidated by Caltech professors even though they have so much science knowledge and experience. However, I am intimidated by a successful businessman because he has the self-awareness and business savvy that I value. This is a problem in my field since I only care what my professors think of science; in other areas they are as smart as Joe the Plumber. And they definitely are not self-aware or think of how to encourage a productive work environment; this is of course weird to me since I think of those things a lot. I have to actualy consciously remind myself that these people are smart but they just don't have the attributes I value.
Best - Worst
I have been thinking recently about how the perversion of the best is the worst. Perhaps God wants me to learn something since it seems like this concept keeps coming up. In the Dark Knight, family, relationships, work, Satan, Halloween, etc for some reason I see many examples.
I have been thinking about how God made these great things that could be so awesome which means they could also be so horrid. When confronted with such evil (or potential evil) I think it is reasonable to ask whether the risk is worth it. Not whether God was right in making such great things, but whether as individuals we choose to pursue those great things. I do not believe this is an excuse to give up on life but rather a contemplative decision on which path we pursue and which risks we are willing to take.
For instance, in desiring to be close to someone, such as family, does the joy from knowing that person outweigh the pain of rejection or of them passing? Most would say yes and I tend to agree, but I do not believe it to be a forgone conclusion that the answer be yes. This is a morbid train of thought but not so much so that it does not warrant consideration. At least I hope not since for some of us such thoughts are unavoidable.
I have been thinking about how God made these great things that could be so awesome which means they could also be so horrid. When confronted with such evil (or potential evil) I think it is reasonable to ask whether the risk is worth it. Not whether God was right in making such great things, but whether as individuals we choose to pursue those great things. I do not believe this is an excuse to give up on life but rather a contemplative decision on which path we pursue and which risks we are willing to take.
For instance, in desiring to be close to someone, such as family, does the joy from knowing that person outweigh the pain of rejection or of them passing? Most would say yes and I tend to agree, but I do not believe it to be a forgone conclusion that the answer be yes. This is a morbid train of thought but not so much so that it does not warrant consideration. At least I hope not since for some of us such thoughts are unavoidable.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Politician's money
Apparently Biden has given more more than 0.5% of his income to charity over the last 10 yeras. Last year was his most generous year - $1000 to charity. I give more than that and he makes 12x as much money as me. Obama gave ~5% the last couple years once they started making some money. Before that it wan't much because they still had debt and apparently couldn't afford to give much away. This kind of solidifies for me how politicians aren't really Christians. Come on, they are the half-ass people who go to church for tradition or social reasons. All this makes the Clintons seems really generous - they gave ~10% of their massive incomes away since the presidency.
Of course, McCain is hard to compare since his wife is worth so much. He gave ~20% of his income away the last couple years but he and his wife file separate returns and his wife is worth ~$100 million. It still looks a lot better than a grand though.
Of course, McCain is hard to compare since his wife is worth so much. He gave ~20% of his income away the last couple years but he and his wife file separate returns and his wife is worth ~$100 million. It still looks a lot better than a grand though.
Biola ID
I went to a Biola event with Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe showing a Docudrama "Dual Revelation" with a Q&A session afterward. I thought Dual Revelation sucked and the Q&A was lame, but I got to talk to Dr. Bloom for a bit afterward. The film and Reasons to Believe like the "old-earth creationism" or as I think of it "progressive creationism," meaning the creation account speaks of long periods of time instead of days. They say they have a good balance between science and the Bible - 6-day creationism regards the Bible too high against science and evolution regards science too high against the Bible. This is a good talking point and would convince the masses but is intellectually empty political crap. I was the only one laughing when he said that though.
I came out of the event believing more strongly in theistic evolution. Of course they think the creation account is historical narrative which I don't, so evolution isn't really an option for them. But the underlying antipathy toward theistic evolution is how that belief could be abused. The main arguments are that it could lead to a deistic God or one can have too low a view of the Bible. Apparently the famous theistic evolutionists are deists. In talking to Dr. Bloom I got somewhat frustrated because he said that theistic evolution as I veiw it is fine but most theistic evolutionists (at least the popular ones) don't have the moderate view I do. Of course the entire theme of the night had a very low view of evolution as all Christian events do. This actually miffed me a bit. It seems our goal is no longer truth but only truth that is not easily abused. We have become fascist in allowing only certain views to be considered, and with this mindset of course old earth creationsim is the most likely. The thing I love most about Christianity is our love for truth and use of common sense, but in this arena that's forgotten in favor of intellectual fascism. I consider myself a theistic evolutionist partly out of spite.
I came out of the event believing more strongly in theistic evolution. Of course they think the creation account is historical narrative which I don't, so evolution isn't really an option for them. But the underlying antipathy toward theistic evolution is how that belief could be abused. The main arguments are that it could lead to a deistic God or one can have too low a view of the Bible. Apparently the famous theistic evolutionists are deists. In talking to Dr. Bloom I got somewhat frustrated because he said that theistic evolution as I veiw it is fine but most theistic evolutionists (at least the popular ones) don't have the moderate view I do. Of course the entire theme of the night had a very low view of evolution as all Christian events do. This actually miffed me a bit. It seems our goal is no longer truth but only truth that is not easily abused. We have become fascist in allowing only certain views to be considered, and with this mindset of course old earth creationsim is the most likely. The thing I love most about Christianity is our love for truth and use of common sense, but in this arena that's forgotten in favor of intellectual fascism. I consider myself a theistic evolutionist partly out of spite.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Biden on abortion
So 2 weeks ago Pelosi was on Meet the Press and Biden was on last week. I thought Pelosi sucked and Biden did ok. However, on the abortion thing they both made some mistakes. Pelosi said the Catholic Church's position was always been quenstioned and people give differing opinions on the church. I think she cited Augustine and Biden cited Aquinas. Woops! There was a big backlash on that of course. The Church's position is clear, but some (especially half-ass) Catholics that believe differently.
Biden believes that life begins at birth but he doesn't want to impose his views on others. I don't understand this. We impose our moral beliefs on others all the time in government; it seems a baby's life is important enough for us to do it here too.
Biden believes that life begins at birth but he doesn't want to impose his views on others. I don't understand this. We impose our moral beliefs on others all the time in government; it seems a baby's life is important enough for us to do it here too.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Joe Biden
I learned this week that Joe Biden has a net worth of ~$100,000, one of the lowest in the Senate. He has been a senator for 25 years and makes $300,000+ per year. I don't understand how he can only be worth that little. He's 65 years old - no wonder he's so interested in keeping social security well funded b/c he's going to be dependent on it! He has a mortgage and loans for his kids college and such - why doesn't he listen to Dave Ramsey and pay those off? Some have said that this goes against the elitist attack from McCain's campaign. Perhaps they should attack him on how he's a bad money manager.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Palin
I like the Sarah Palin pick for VP. I like that she was a governor and a woman and from Alaska; she seems so American. She doesn't seem like the politicians that everyone else is. She's a member of the NRA, has 5 kids, hunts moose, and lives more of a normal life. It seems like conservatives really like her too, especially after the pro-choice scares. I thought her speech was good too - seems authentic and un-Washington. She's conservative to bring in the base. She's a woman which is a slap in the face to the libs and Hill-dawg. She's young to contrast McCain. She's un-Washington to enforce McCain's change message and excite the party.
The one thing that makes me a little nervous is that she has a 4-month old baby who has Down Syndrom and 4 other kids at home. I'm afraid that she wouldn't "be her kids' mom." She seems very involved with her kids - she was a member of the PTA at her kids' schools so maybe that wouldn't be an issue.
Rush Limbaugh had a montage from Obama's speech Thursday where he said "I ...." a million times. It was a few minutes of "I see...I will....I make....etc" and then at the end "it's never been about me..." I laughed out loud - Rush is clever like that. As a side note, people didn't like Obama's speech as much as I did or as much as I thought they would.
The experience issue is not a big deal to me - I actually like it (Sean Hannity welcomes the debate too). I like governors more than senators because it seems like a governor's job is more like the president's than senator's. I like how they have to run something and are responsible for their state. Being on a city council, then mayor, then governor seems like just as good if not better qualifications than being a state then federal senator.
The one thing that makes me a little nervous is that she has a 4-month old baby who has Down Syndrom and 4 other kids at home. I'm afraid that she wouldn't "be her kids' mom." She seems very involved with her kids - she was a member of the PTA at her kids' schools so maybe that wouldn't be an issue.
Rush Limbaugh had a montage from Obama's speech Thursday where he said "I ...." a million times. It was a few minutes of "I see...I will....I make....etc" and then at the end "it's never been about me..." I laughed out loud - Rush is clever like that. As a side note, people didn't like Obama's speech as much as I did or as much as I thought they would.
The experience issue is not a big deal to me - I actually like it (Sean Hannity welcomes the debate too). I like governors more than senators because it seems like a governor's job is more like the president's than senator's. I like how they have to run something and are responsible for their state. Being on a city council, then mayor, then governor seems like just as good if not better qualifications than being a state then federal senator.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
I could have been a Democrat, but they found out my parents were married
I was watching Biden and Obama this weekend and I was thinking how growing up in privilege has become a liability. I could never run for a democratic position because I didn't grow up in a poor, broken home. Obama and Biden both grew up poor and lived the American dream to get to where they are now (well, I heard Biden has a negative net worth, but whatever), and they were touting that all day. I'm in the minority, but I don't care about whether they were brought up poor or wealthy. Gosh, Biden's like 65 now - who cares whether he had a wealthy elementary experience?
California has a major budget crisis: ~15 bil under for a ~100 bil budget. We are pretty highly taxed now and sounds like our sales tax will go up 1% for 3 years to raise revenue. Californians sure like to spend money...sometimes I wish I didn't live in a democratic state. Although, Californians shouldn't have to spend so much time in purgatory because of how much they love the poor.
Sex
I've been thinking about sex lately.
It's not a subject I think of much, mostly because I ain't gettin' any and don't plan to for a looong time. But being surrounded by people of a more promiscuous nature has made me think of it more. I've been thinking of what I would think of it if I was going to Hell .
It seems like Christians have a much higher view of sex than others. We think of it as intimacy and how it creates a bond between partners that's sacred to marriage. If I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't buy that; I think because I would never think of a philosophy of sex. Who does? Even if one did in passing it would be so tainted by how much they wanted it. It's weird to me how so many (especially half-ass Christians) have come to the persuasion that sex is good if they are in love, regardless of marriage. Thus many partners are inevitable and the eventual bond between spouses is cheapened (think of 40 Year Old Virgin). It's weird for me to even think of that because I have had no such experiences and don't plan to. But, even if I wasn't Christian I think I would still be a virgin because I have no balls.
It's weird to me too how many Christians get involved with non-Christians. Obviously it can work out, but it seems very dangerous. Of course the hope is that the other will be converted and you'll both go to Heaven. I can see good things come from this, as in you get a better understanding of non-Christians and save a soul. The danger is in assuming you will influence them and they won't influence you. It could be my upbringing, my lack of initiative toward women, or my Christian bubble but I am not drawn toward non-Christians. I find the whole "you are going to burn in Hell for all eternity" kind of a turnoff.
It's not a subject I think of much, mostly because I ain't gettin' any and don't plan to for a looong time. But being surrounded by people of a more promiscuous nature has made me think of it more. I've been thinking of what I would think of it if I was going to Hell .
It seems like Christians have a much higher view of sex than others. We think of it as intimacy and how it creates a bond between partners that's sacred to marriage. If I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't buy that; I think because I would never think of a philosophy of sex. Who does? Even if one did in passing it would be so tainted by how much they wanted it. It's weird to me how so many (especially half-ass Christians) have come to the persuasion that sex is good if they are in love, regardless of marriage. Thus many partners are inevitable and the eventual bond between spouses is cheapened (think of 40 Year Old Virgin). It's weird for me to even think of that because I have had no such experiences and don't plan to. But, even if I wasn't Christian I think I would still be a virgin because I have no balls.
It's weird to me too how many Christians get involved with non-Christians. Obviously it can work out, but it seems very dangerous. Of course the hope is that the other will be converted and you'll both go to Heaven. I can see good things come from this, as in you get a better understanding of non-Christians and save a soul. The danger is in assuming you will influence them and they won't influence you. It could be my upbringing, my lack of initiative toward women, or my Christian bubble but I am not drawn toward non-Christians. I find the whole "you are going to burn in Hell for all eternity" kind of a turnoff.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
God's Will
I started this out by railing on how people say "God's Will" all the time and I don't like that term and don't know what it means, but upon further consideration this is what I think.
First, I think of will as desire or wanting. To say God's will is saying what God wants, as in "it's God's will that I don't fornicate." I think there are 2 ways to view "will:" one as moral decisions and another as not moral decisions. For the former, his will is that all be perfect or as close as possible to perfection and that's the end of that. The latter is for decisions without moral considerations such as where to live or work. The former seems clear so I'll deal with the latter.
It seems to me that these decisions have various degrees of "good." If I am undecided about whether to live in city A or B, there may be a place I would be happier and more useful but it's probable I can't know it. Plus, my happiness and efficacy are largely dependent on my moral decisions so the 2 forms of will are joined. I often get distracted with "God's Will" because I think of the morality form of will and think that if I was perfect the non-moral decisions wouldn't matter much because I would be hugely effective wherever I was. However, maybe there is a form of God's will that makes sense - where I can be most efficient for God. So for specific questions it's good to seek God's will.
But then what about my whole life? Does God have a "plan" for my life?
First, the wordplay of "how can an omni...God have a plan?" messes me up, especially the time-dependence part. A plan is sequential whereas God sees all time at once. But I don't know what to say to that so I'll move on.
It's not useful for me to think of God's "plan" for my life because again I think of his moral plan or how I think he wants us to figure it out more on our own and not do the "if it's God's will it will happen so I'll stop thinking" bit. Thinking of "plan" as made up of many little decisions all dealing with efficacy makes more sense to me - just an extrapolation of the God's will part. But then is it really a plan because depending on moral decisions the plan can change? It's not a plan if God sees it as we see history.
In short, the "God's plan" part is very confusing to me - I need to think of it more. At this point I don't think God has a plan for my life because it seems like a nonsensical question. (Good thing the sermons at my church are boring so I have half an hour every Sunday to do nothing but think because I sure ain't listening.)
First, I think of will as desire or wanting. To say God's will is saying what God wants, as in "it's God's will that I don't fornicate." I think there are 2 ways to view "will:" one as moral decisions and another as not moral decisions. For the former, his will is that all be perfect or as close as possible to perfection and that's the end of that. The latter is for decisions without moral considerations such as where to live or work. The former seems clear so I'll deal with the latter.
It seems to me that these decisions have various degrees of "good." If I am undecided about whether to live in city A or B, there may be a place I would be happier and more useful but it's probable I can't know it. Plus, my happiness and efficacy are largely dependent on my moral decisions so the 2 forms of will are joined. I often get distracted with "God's Will" because I think of the morality form of will and think that if I was perfect the non-moral decisions wouldn't matter much because I would be hugely effective wherever I was. However, maybe there is a form of God's will that makes sense - where I can be most efficient for God. So for specific questions it's good to seek God's will.
But then what about my whole life? Does God have a "plan" for my life?
First, the wordplay of "how can an omni...God have a plan?" messes me up, especially the time-dependence part. A plan is sequential whereas God sees all time at once. But I don't know what to say to that so I'll move on.
It's not useful for me to think of God's "plan" for my life because again I think of his moral plan or how I think he wants us to figure it out more on our own and not do the "if it's God's will it will happen so I'll stop thinking" bit. Thinking of "plan" as made up of many little decisions all dealing with efficacy makes more sense to me - just an extrapolation of the God's will part. But then is it really a plan because depending on moral decisions the plan can change? It's not a plan if God sees it as we see history.
In short, the "God's plan" part is very confusing to me - I need to think of it more. At this point I don't think God has a plan for my life because it seems like a nonsensical question. (Good thing the sermons at my church are boring so I have half an hour every Sunday to do nothing but think because I sure ain't listening.)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Religion and Truth
I was chatting with a barely-understandable postdoc at Caltech and somehow started talking about religion. They were saying that raising their kid with religion (Buddhism, Christianity, whatever) is good because it encouraged good morals. All I could think of was "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." I really wanted to go Dr. Cox on them. Of course I didn't and tried to explain how I don't know any Christians who are in it for good morals or some crappy reason like that but because we think it's true. Somehow it doesn't even occur to people that religion can be true and knowable. That's why I love Christianity - it is at its heart a historical religion, meaning it is historically reliable. It's hard for me to have patience for people who disconnect religion and truth.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Creation Account
I've seen some aversion to the idea that the creation account in Genesis is not historical narrative. They say, "If you say that's not historical narrative where does it end? It's got to be all or nothing." Obviously it would be easier to say it's all or nothing, but I think that idea's retarded. The answer I always want to giveto their response is, "Well, you have to use your brain." They also say "literal" which I hate. I don't know what that means - I use historical narrative because literal also has an importance connotation. As in, if you don't take it literally you don't take it seriously.
I don't think Gen 1 to 2:3 is historical narrative. 1) I don't think the Israelites took it as such, 2) it wasn't eye-witnessed but a special revelation from God, and 3) the message/purpose doesn't require it to be historical narrative. It seems like people do a cursory reading and assume it's historical narrative and/or are afraid of going down that slippery slope so they don't even think of it.
But if we didn't have the info we have from science about the universe's origins, I wonder if we wouldn't take it as historical narrative. I take the equal position of science and the Bible (the Book of Nature and the Bible), so science does influence my biblical interpretations. I think that's also a deterrence.
I'm also skeptical of people trying to make the creation account fit into the scientific account. It's a kind of progressive creationism, as in people say the days were long periods of time and the order of creation is consistent with science. I don't think the Israelites would have seen Genesis as such.
I don't think Gen 1 to 2:3 is historical narrative. 1) I don't think the Israelites took it as such, 2) it wasn't eye-witnessed but a special revelation from God, and 3) the message/purpose doesn't require it to be historical narrative. It seems like people do a cursory reading and assume it's historical narrative and/or are afraid of going down that slippery slope so they don't even think of it.
But if we didn't have the info we have from science about the universe's origins, I wonder if we wouldn't take it as historical narrative. I take the equal position of science and the Bible (the Book of Nature and the Bible), so science does influence my biblical interpretations. I think that's also a deterrence.
I'm also skeptical of people trying to make the creation account fit into the scientific account. It's a kind of progressive creationism, as in people say the days were long periods of time and the order of creation is consistent with science. I don't think the Israelites would have seen Genesis as such.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Never mess with the night shift at Waffle House
1=28102&vv=600">http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx/?news=323992>1=28102&vv=600
I love how Kid Rock's real name is Robert Richie. I'm going to refer to him as Bob from now on.
I love how Kid Rock's real name is Robert Richie. I'm going to refer to him as Bob from now on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)