Phew. What a whirlwind. A 12-day trip, 2010 miles, dozens of meetings, missed turns, crowded rest areas, traffic jams and construction, and I finally get home Sunday night just to start packing for a move this weekend. My resolution is to make a schedule (and stick to it) in the new apartment that puts blogging front and center. Then I'll pick up some momentum, some regular readership, and start working on this book idea.
As if that wasn't enough, I was moved to start another blog, too. I know, I hear ya. If you can't spend the time writing on one blog, why write two? I'll fill you in later on the new blog.
We'll see if my resolution works for the new place.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
He died for our sins
Today, July 9th, the Baha'i world commemorates the Martyrdom of the Bab.
The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, teaches us that miracles are not to be used as proofs, mostly because they do not work. Do you know anyone who became a Christian because they were told that Christ walked on water, or a Jew because they were told that Moses parted the Red Sea? Miracles only convince the already convinced. They don't even convince eyewitnesses because the Bible is rife with doubters who saw Christ perform miracles.
I don't expect anyone to read the story of the Martyrdom of the Bab and then become a Baha'i. I simply want to share that to me it is one of the most compelling and moving stories of martyrdom I have ever heard.
It is easy to read it and say "Yeah, right, that story was concocted by Baha'is to add miraculous proof in order to gain converts." Well, that would go against the provision against using miracles as proofs, so if we know they don't work then why use them?
What is interesting is that this happened in 1850. As the link above points out, it was reported in newspapers around the world. There were roughly 10,000 witnesses gathered, some of whom recorded their observations. A bit of investigation can reveal non-Baha'i sources. This wasn't something that happened 2,000 years ago. This was something that happened just before the U.S. Civil War, as Harriet Tubman was leading the Underground Railroad. There were 30 States in the U.S. This was after Samuel F.B. Morse sent the words "What Hath God Wrought" across the telegraph lines from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. (If you want some other Baha'i synchronicity, look at what else happened the day before on May 23, 1844.)
So this story isn't irretrievably clouded in antiquity. It is just amazing. And it is about a pure-hearted youth who had a dangerous mission - to bring God's Word to humanity and prepare the way for one who was to come after him. He died for that in a most horrendous way: shot by a firing squad of 750 militia men.
And He died for our sins.
May my spirit be a sacrifice for the wrongs He suffered.
Read more here.
The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, teaches us that miracles are not to be used as proofs, mostly because they do not work. Do you know anyone who became a Christian because they were told that Christ walked on water, or a Jew because they were told that Moses parted the Red Sea? Miracles only convince the already convinced. They don't even convince eyewitnesses because the Bible is rife with doubters who saw Christ perform miracles.
I don't expect anyone to read the story of the Martyrdom of the Bab and then become a Baha'i. I simply want to share that to me it is one of the most compelling and moving stories of martyrdom I have ever heard.
It is easy to read it and say "Yeah, right, that story was concocted by Baha'is to add miraculous proof in order to gain converts." Well, that would go against the provision against using miracles as proofs, so if we know they don't work then why use them?
What is interesting is that this happened in 1850. As the link above points out, it was reported in newspapers around the world. There were roughly 10,000 witnesses gathered, some of whom recorded their observations. A bit of investigation can reveal non-Baha'i sources. This wasn't something that happened 2,000 years ago. This was something that happened just before the U.S. Civil War, as Harriet Tubman was leading the Underground Railroad. There were 30 States in the U.S. This was after Samuel F.B. Morse sent the words "What Hath God Wrought" across the telegraph lines from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. (If you want some other Baha'i synchronicity, look at what else happened the day before on May 23, 1844.)
So this story isn't irretrievably clouded in antiquity. It is just amazing. And it is about a pure-hearted youth who had a dangerous mission - to bring God's Word to humanity and prepare the way for one who was to come after him. He died for that in a most horrendous way: shot by a firing squad of 750 militia men.
And He died for our sins.
May my spirit be a sacrifice for the wrongs He suffered.
Read more here.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Them's fighting words!
Alright, I'm a little worked up this morning.
As I said a couple of posts ago I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am reading it because I have friends who question God's existence and I wanted to see what a popular and respected (these are my assumptions) scientist would say. I expected something along the lines of rational arguments about whether God exists. A large part of the book is basically an attack on religion of any kind and those who profess faith. Today was the last straw.
I have been keeping notes as I read it, both of things I disagree with and things I agree with. I have just finished his eighth chapter on What's Wrong With Religion? and his misguided attacks are going to provide the topics for an upcoming series of posts.
A few things have to happen first. I'm going to be moving soon, so between travel for work and packing I will be very busy in July. Look for my rebuttal starting in August. I also have to acquire the book since I am reading a library copy and it will take more than two weeks to say all I have to say. If Mr. Dawkins is reading, send me a copy. Otherwise I'll buy one. Although I don't agree and don't want to support your efforts with one more book sale, I'll gladly chalk it up to supporting dissenting voices because I believe we should engage in dialog and that we shouldn't feel threatened by opposing views.
I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is probably shaking in his boots at the thought of my response. (Actually I'm sure he'd be shaking from uncontrollable laughter.) Stay tuned as I take on Goliath... (Oh those useful religious allusions.)
On a strangely related note, I just got done also watching a video entitled The Islamic Connection which is a lecture by Walter Veith. To ruin the punchline, Islam was created and controlled by Catholicism to wage war against "true Christians" and to protect access to Jerusalem. This is "proven" through reference to various secret societies and use of symbols and testimony from secret Masonic texts. Sigh.
Needless to say I find both extremes, Mr. Dawkins anti-religiousness and Mr. Veith's anti-everything except his religion, to be equally misguided and lacking in spiritual insight. Of course by definition Mr. Dawkins would probably say there is no such thing as spiritual insight, but we shall explore that.
As I said a couple of posts ago I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am reading it because I have friends who question God's existence and I wanted to see what a popular and respected (these are my assumptions) scientist would say. I expected something along the lines of rational arguments about whether God exists. A large part of the book is basically an attack on religion of any kind and those who profess faith. Today was the last straw.
I have been keeping notes as I read it, both of things I disagree with and things I agree with. I have just finished his eighth chapter on What's Wrong With Religion? and his misguided attacks are going to provide the topics for an upcoming series of posts.
A few things have to happen first. I'm going to be moving soon, so between travel for work and packing I will be very busy in July. Look for my rebuttal starting in August. I also have to acquire the book since I am reading a library copy and it will take more than two weeks to say all I have to say. If Mr. Dawkins is reading, send me a copy. Otherwise I'll buy one. Although I don't agree and don't want to support your efforts with one more book sale, I'll gladly chalk it up to supporting dissenting voices because I believe we should engage in dialog and that we shouldn't feel threatened by opposing views.
I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is probably shaking in his boots at the thought of my response. (Actually I'm sure he'd be shaking from uncontrollable laughter.) Stay tuned as I take on Goliath... (Oh those useful religious allusions.)
On a strangely related note, I just got done also watching a video entitled The Islamic Connection which is a lecture by Walter Veith. To ruin the punchline, Islam was created and controlled by Catholicism to wage war against "true Christians" and to protect access to Jerusalem. This is "proven" through reference to various secret societies and use of symbols and testimony from secret Masonic texts. Sigh.
Needless to say I find both extremes, Mr. Dawkins anti-religiousness and Mr. Veith's anti-everything except his religion, to be equally misguided and lacking in spiritual insight. Of course by definition Mr. Dawkins would probably say there is no such thing as spiritual insight, but we shall explore that.
Friday, June 22, 2007
No Water Birds
So I get up this morning, still half asleep. I am making a copy of the lease we just signed on a new apartment and my sleepy eyes catch one of the sections and read "No Water Birds" which just didn't make sense.
I blinked a couple of times and looked more closely. Ah. No Water Beds.
As I started chuckling, I could just imagine the damage that could be done by flamingos.
Or storks.
Herons.
Pelicans.
Ducks.
Eww... Canadian Geese.
I know it isn't much, but I'm heading out of town this weekend to lovely Vermont on Saturday and lovely Maine on Sunday for work, so that is all you get until next week.
I blinked a couple of times and looked more closely. Ah. No Water Beds.
As I started chuckling, I could just imagine the damage that could be done by flamingos.
Or storks.
Herons.
Pelicans.
Ducks.
Eww... Canadian Geese.
I know it isn't much, but I'm heading out of town this weekend to lovely Vermont on Saturday and lovely Maine on Sunday for work, so that is all you get until next week.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Rodin's Snooze
Man, time is crazy! I can't believe how many days can go by in the blink of an eye. There is some reference to time-dilation or faster-than-light travel just waiting to happen, but instead I'll rely on other witticisms like playing with the name Rodin's Muse to find something appropriate to the recent dearth of posts.
Rodin's snooze.
Rodin's cruise.
Rodin's lose(r).
If we can't be self-effacing, we need a different line of hobby, eh?
So this blog is increasingly turning in to an exploration of science and religion. There are many ramifications to that. The reconciliation of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, logic and emotion, art and science, yin and yang, etcetera etcetera. It may not be a permanent thing, but it is certainly worthy of exploration. Here are some thoughts coming at you, stream-of-consciousness like.
I was watching a show I taped from EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting station. (DVR Rocks!) It was called "Has Science Discovered God?" I was pretty impressed with the premise and arguments despite the horrible quality of the video. It seems to be based on evidence described in the book "The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God" by Roy Abraham Varghese who briefly shows up in the video. I'll share more of the specifics later. I found it very thought-provoking. Just look up "cambrian explosion" to get an idea of what they are talking about.
In order not to too loudly proclaim the death of atheism I thought I'd give "The God Delusion" a whirl to see what Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, has to say. I'm only part way through it, but I have to say that the condescension, over-generalization and smarmy nature of the book are off-putting to say the least. It is similar to my complaint about the "debate" between Kirk Cameron and "anything-but-rational response squad." If you can't debate and postulate without trying to humiliate, if you can't engage in dialogue with respect, how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously? Dawkins makes many good points, but they are lost amongst his strident disrespect which stems, ironically, from his feeling of being disrespected as an atheist. Come on. What happened to the golden rule? Or is that too religious to be of value?
I apologize for the lack of substance in this post. I thought with five days off of work I'd be able to post before this, so this is the best my tired brain can do tonight because I just couldn't tolerate another day without offering my two cents to the universe.
Ah, Rodin, forgive me.
Rodin's snooze.
Rodin's cruise.
Rodin's lose(r).
If we can't be self-effacing, we need a different line of hobby, eh?
So this blog is increasingly turning in to an exploration of science and religion. There are many ramifications to that. The reconciliation of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, logic and emotion, art and science, yin and yang, etcetera etcetera. It may not be a permanent thing, but it is certainly worthy of exploration. Here are some thoughts coming at you, stream-of-consciousness like.
I was watching a show I taped from EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting station. (DVR Rocks!) It was called "Has Science Discovered God?" I was pretty impressed with the premise and arguments despite the horrible quality of the video. It seems to be based on evidence described in the book "The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God" by Roy Abraham Varghese who briefly shows up in the video. I'll share more of the specifics later. I found it very thought-provoking. Just look up "cambrian explosion" to get an idea of what they are talking about.
In order not to too loudly proclaim the death of atheism I thought I'd give "The God Delusion" a whirl to see what Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, has to say. I'm only part way through it, but I have to say that the condescension, over-generalization and smarmy nature of the book are off-putting to say the least. It is similar to my complaint about the "debate" between Kirk Cameron and "anything-but-rational response squad." If you can't debate and postulate without trying to humiliate, if you can't engage in dialogue with respect, how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously? Dawkins makes many good points, but they are lost amongst his strident disrespect which stems, ironically, from his feeling of being disrespected as an atheist. Come on. What happened to the golden rule? Or is that too religious to be of value?
I apologize for the lack of substance in this post. I thought with five days off of work I'd be able to post before this, so this is the best my tired brain can do tonight because I just couldn't tolerate another day without offering my two cents to the universe.
Ah, Rodin, forgive me.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Coming soon to a Rodin's Muse near you
Sorry again for the long delay. I have some posts stewing in my mind. I just need to clear my schedule to make time. This is a priority, so soon my patient friends...
Friday, May 11, 2007
A logic-antilogic explosion
A friend sent some links to some articles "proving" the existence of God. (I put the word in quotes not because I doubt it, but because others will.)
One story was about Frank Tipler, a mathematics professor at Tulane University who uses Einstein's theories of general relativity and theories of quantum mechanics to come to the conclusion that God must exist.
The other is a debate between Kirk Cameron (yes, that Kirk Cameron) and another evangelical friend who use three arguments to "prove" God exists and the rebuttal from two atheists who come across as equally fanatical in their arguments.
For the record, I think it is a travesty when people refuse to use their ability to critically think about something and instead trot out trite, emotional, vapid arguments either for or against. There were several good points from both sides, and several arguments that just made me cringe with their silliness.
Here is a suggestion. If you are going to use logic, then use it correctly.
Several of the points atheists often use to refute the existence of God were used in all their "originality." Please pardon my smarminess as I share them with you so you can revel in their illogic.
This last is my favorite. We learned in logic class on day one that
(If A Then B) does not infer that (If B then A)
(If it is a car then it has wheels) does not infer (If it has wheels it must be a car)
Every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but not every step leads to a journey of a thousand miles.
I would not have any problem if instead they said "Because horrible things have happened in the name of God I choose not to follow or worship that God" because that is logical. I believe in God and subscribe to that statement. To say that God doesn't exist because I choose not to follow Him is not logical. (Isn't the English language fun!)
I also love seeing people in opposite corners engaging in silly accusations and definitive statements.
Here is an interchange between evangelists and atheists with some of my comments interjected.
I fully admit I have had several days to ponder on the arguments made by both sides. I have picked more on the atheists only because they were so darn condescending and self-righteous and because we have pretty much heard all the evangelical arguments before. I would have made mistakes in the debate format because I am a ponderer, not a rapid thinker. I have to cogitate.
The point I am trying to make is that they would have had much more effect in uncovering the truth by engaging in a dialog rather than a competition. By critically thinking we can uncover the truth. In order to do so we must be detached from the outcome, be committed to finding the truth, and expect to find clues in the most unusual places. No question is absurd. To find the truth is to ask questions.
I got a little worked up about this one. I find that exploring truth works with just about anyone, and it is usually those with the least amount of faith who feel most threatened, whether they believe in God or not. I'd love to hear what you think.
One story was about Frank Tipler, a mathematics professor at Tulane University who uses Einstein's theories of general relativity and theories of quantum mechanics to come to the conclusion that God must exist.
The other is a debate between Kirk Cameron (yes, that Kirk Cameron) and another evangelical friend who use three arguments to "prove" God exists and the rebuttal from two atheists who come across as equally fanatical in their arguments.
For the record, I think it is a travesty when people refuse to use their ability to critically think about something and instead trot out trite, emotional, vapid arguments either for or against. There were several good points from both sides, and several arguments that just made me cringe with their silliness.
Here is a suggestion. If you are going to use logic, then use it correctly.
Several of the points atheists often use to refute the existence of God were used in all their "originality." Please pardon my smarminess as I share them with you so you can revel in their illogic.
1. Horrible things have been done in the name of religion, so God does not exist
2. Different religions cannot agree on what God is, so God does not exist
3. People have believed in gods such as Poseidon who we know does not exist, so God does not exist
4. The Bible tells you that you can do anything and be loved by God, so God does not exist.
5. God wouldn't invent cancer or evil, so there must not be a God.
6. Every journey of 1,000 miles begins with the a single step. Micro-evolution exists, so therefore macro-evolution must exist.
This last is my favorite. We learned in logic class on day one that
(If A Then B) does not infer that (If B then A)
(If it is a car then it has wheels) does not infer (If it has wheels it must be a car)
Every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but not every step leads to a journey of a thousand miles.
I would not have any problem if instead they said "Because horrible things have happened in the name of God I choose not to follow or worship that God" because that is logical. I believe in God and subscribe to that statement. To say that God doesn't exist because I choose not to follow Him is not logical. (Isn't the English language fun!)
I also love seeing people in opposite corners engaging in silly accusations and definitive statements.
We can't trust science because science has been wrong (flat earth, sun revolves around the earth).
We can't trust the Bible because it contradicts itself and advocates slavery, stoning, polygamy (therefore God doesn't exist).
Scientist: We cannot prove God with science because science is about the natural, not the supernatural. To even ask the question is absurd.
Priest: God cannot be proven by math. He can only be proven by faith.
Me: We learned in Biology class that you can prove that spontaneous generation never has occurred, but not that it can never occur.
Here is an interchange between evangelists and atheists with some of my comments interjected.
Believer:
I see a painting, I know there was a painter.
I see a house, I know there was a builder.
I see a universe, I know there was a creator.
Atheist:
You know there was a painter because you can call him.
You know there was a builder because you know he had to get building permits.
You can't call God to verify He exists.
Me: If you found a painting, but there was no historical record of the painter, wouldn't you still believe there was a painter? Have you called the builders of Stonehenge, the heads on Easter Island, the Nazca lines, or the sphinx?
Believer:
Micro-evolution is one thing. We know each species evolves. That doesn't mean species evolve into other species (macro-evolution).
There is no fossil record of these missing links. Darwin himself said if we didn't find evidence within 100 years the theory would be suspect.
Atheist:
We don't need to see no stinking fossil records to believe in evolution.
Me: We don't need no stinking painter, either. You can't have it both ways, dude!
I fully admit I have had several days to ponder on the arguments made by both sides. I have picked more on the atheists only because they were so darn condescending and self-righteous and because we have pretty much heard all the evangelical arguments before. I would have made mistakes in the debate format because I am a ponderer, not a rapid thinker. I have to cogitate.
The point I am trying to make is that they would have had much more effect in uncovering the truth by engaging in a dialog rather than a competition. By critically thinking we can uncover the truth. In order to do so we must be detached from the outcome, be committed to finding the truth, and expect to find clues in the most unusual places. No question is absurd. To find the truth is to ask questions.
I got a little worked up about this one. I find that exploring truth works with just about anyone, and it is usually those with the least amount of faith who feel most threatened, whether they believe in God or not. I'd love to hear what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)