Category Archives: family

family, friends, gender, interpretation, politics, rants, science

why doesn’t this old argument go away?

Leave a comment

Summary from GPT-3 at the end.

It is so hard for me to believe that the Republican party, relying on fear and intimidation, still holds the loyalty of any Christians in this nation.

So I wrote a post, a screed in FB arguing that voting for Republicans was equivalent to betrayal of our nation to authoritarians modeled after Nazis. To be fair, I know there are Republicans with a conscience, who have not betrayed their oath to the Constitution, and are not trying to overturn elections to stay in power. There are also many reasonable people who vote Republican, but it appears that they are few and far between, especially in Congress.

So let’s turn to Romans 13:1-7 and see what we have on offer. I respect the Scriptures and those who are dedicated to exposing them to the world, whether in evangelism or private devotion. But I steadfastly resist any notion that the Scriptures give us a right to rule over people. “The greatest among you will be the servant of all.”

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, whoever resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer.

Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Here’s what I posted, and if you want to you can read the comments. Surely, I made the extreme point, and overstepped my boundaries. That was noted by the commenters. But as rant and a screed it functioned perfectly well.

Are you going to vote for the party that is fully supported by the American Nazis? Are you going to vote for the party that has on its side, the white nationalists, including the white christian nationalists who have no respect for anyone but their own “white” group, and don’t believe that brown and black citizens are really American citizens and should not be granted the same rights and freedoms as themselves. Do you also believe that for political expediency, it is permissible to lie and misrepresent the truth, to invent “facts” in order to prove your point? Do you believe that the 2020 election was “stolen” from the criminal ex president? Do you believe it’s OK to break the law to get your way? If all or any of these things are OK with you, then go ahead and vote Republican. The end of our Constitutional democracy is in your hands.

https://www.facebook.com/dougolena/posts/10100736645839128?comment_id=445929701020526

The comment I note is by Julie Ray, a representative of an Evangelical minority that can’t see the forest for the trees: “How about we all vote our conscience, and then trust our Loving God with the results. He is the One who sets up kings and brings them down.” And before you think I’m picking on just her, you should know that I’ve heard this same argument from dozens of my fellow citizens.

So, I responded the way I normally do with:

So God set up Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, etc.? Why was there any resistance to them by Christians if God did that? The argument from conscience is weak because our consciences are fragile and unreliable. Conscience is developed by training not necessarily a voice from heaven. And should people who have no conscience be allowed to vote, or rule? The problem with the wide variety of Christian Nationalisms is that citizens of the United States are not Christian by definition and intention. A nation can, like the European ones of the last millennium allow the definition to include Christian as part of citizenship, but then do you want to repeat those mistakes? And which version of Christian would you like to have be in charge of all of us? One that looks like the criminal Lauren Boebert, or one that looks like Mother Theresa? I know the one I would pick, but I think that question arises from an authoritarian instinct, and that, not one I would choose to be governed by.

Would you, to keep the law of the land, hand over the Jews to Hitler? Or, would you round up everyone who disagrees with you and restrict their movements to prevent them from doing anything you don’t approve? That seems to be the modus of the Republican party. Use the moral card to treat people immorally.

Citizenship in the United States has nothing to do with religion, and encompasses all religions [and none at all], at least in theory. But would you prefer a theocracy with humans holding the reigns? I certainly wouldn’t. Let Jesus come back and do all the sorting out, but for God’s sake stop leaving the decision up to God, when God has given the government to people. Israel as a model nation for theocracy is a historical example not to follow, and there is neither biblical justification to use it or rational agreement on how it should operate. Remember that the Puritans in Boston hung a few Quakers for evangelizing before the British edict on tolerance forbad them doing so. But it is OK to hang Christian people when the law says you can?

Responding to the “God sets up Kings” thing. Thank God we have no kings in the USA. And whatever applied to kings in the Scriptures, does not apply to us in any way. Democracy, which I know for your Republican allies in Washington and many states, is not a popular mode of government. They are interested in achieving and keeping power at any cost. My conscience says it is a really bad idea to vote them in.

Do you have any idea what the Republicans actually believe besides hatred for LGBTQ+, blacks, asians, and any other different sort of person? Besides harping on the bad state of the economy, then running the country into the ground financially and complaining that the democrats are not cleaning up their mess fast enough, do you have any idea what their fiscal policies would be besides defunding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defunding public schools, allowing our infrastructure to crumble around us, giving tax breaks to the 1%, and trying to take away the rights of citizen from anyone who disagrees with them? Can you still defend the “conscience” argument when the right to vote, enshrined in the Constitution, is being purposely curtailed by any means possible in Republican controlled states?

Do you still think conscience is enough when the rights of bodily autonomy for women are being seriously curtailed by law? Do you, as a woman, think it’s OK to take away the choices of women about how they live their lives, just because some moralist says they shouldn’t be able to decide (according to their conscience) what they should do?

I would like to think that some of my arguments here, supported by reason and evidence, were important to people like you, but I have lived in this nation for long enough to know that my beliefs about reality are of little consequence for those who have been deluded into thinking that one should vote republican just because they have always voted republican, because Christians are republican, and republicans are Christian?

?

So, let’s also look at the “tax” thing. The Scripture says we should pay them. OK, I agree. But what is it with Republicans giving tax breaks to the wealthy? Why shouldn’t they pay taxes like everybody else? Well they should, if the Scriptures are correct here. And how would these people have been able to become so wealthy without all the support of infrastructure, both legal and physical? They wouldn’t. But they prefer (al la Musk) not to pay taxes, and think it is bad for the economy. But how can this be sustained? It can’t and it shouldn’t.

But, all the single issue (“pro” life) voters don’t give one single crap about adult women even though those women are alive. In fact, they are using the very system that women fought for to curtail the rights of women. This is another example of rank hypocrisy by authoritarians who could care less about the people they are supposed to govern. And nobody is suggesting that abortion is a desirable decision, except the republicans that caricature pro-choicers. What’s at stake here is nothing less than personal autonomy, that of women, and dare I say it, eventually all of us.

It is hard and expensive for the government to collect taxes from the wealthy, because the law has been used to avoid that consequence for decades, perhaps in the modern era since Reagan when the average citizen’s wealth flatlined, and the wealthy rocketed into the stratosphere (literally), not to mention government policies that resisted black and brown people from accruing wealth, even owning a house.

Let me laugh a little bit. You remember Oz, not the great and powerful fraud of the Wizard of Oz but well, maybe the same one. Mehmet Oz has spent his adult life fleecing unsuspecting consumers. And the Republican party thinks it’s a good idea to offer him to Pennsylvania voters for the Senate of the United States? Well, at this point Oz the scammer does represent a sizable portion of the republicans in the nation, ones that have been deluded into thinking fraud is OK if it makes me more wealthy. These may not be the same people as the christian nationalists, but they will achieve the same end. Fraudsters running the legal rackets.

What is surprising to me is not the appeal to the Scriptures, but to appeal to the Scriptures from a little know-nothing bubble, with no interpretative maturity or consciousness of reality, is just as absurd as thinking that fraud will make me rich. I guess that’s why the fraudsters and white christian nationalists make appropriate bedfellows. Frankly, it makes me ill. No wonder I’m depressed.

GPT-3 Summary: This text argues that the Republican party is relying on fear and intimidation to maintain its loyalty from Christians in the nation, and is using the Bible’s Romans 13:1-7 as justification for their authoritarian policies. It then questions the “conscience” argument, suggesting that it is unreliable and can be used to justify immoral decisions. It also questions the Republican party’s policies, such as their desire to defund Social Security and Medicare, restrict the rights of women, and give tax breaks to the wealthy. It argues that the Republican party is driven by a desire to maintain power and is willing to break the law to do so. Finally, it states that appealing to the Bible from a know-nothing bubble is absurd, and that fraudsters and white christian nationalists make appropriate bedfellows.

family, friends, interpretation, philosophy, science, theology

Abandoning Friends

Leave a comment

It is with great regret that I have had to abandon some of my Christian friends. I have been a believer for most of my life, and have striven to make my faith in Christ and God central to my living even as many forces in our environment and in my own self have plotted and schemed against that. One tool I have found compellingly necessary is learning to decide what is reality and what is not. I call it discernment, but you may call it something else. All it implies is that when I have to make a choice between two seemingly equal propositions, the one that adheres to the real world is the one I choose. I choose it even though my softer self often struggles to follow along. Weakness both mentally and physically constantly pressure against the facts to force ignorance and non-compliance. Habits, both good and bad distract me from following what I know to be true. I am thoroughly embedded in the world I seek to clarify, that I may see the real world, myself, and others in it.

What that means in most of my experience is very little. Even the most tainted and broken minds can drive between the lines painted on the street. I can get along with most people on the road because my interactions with them are based simply on physics and the real world which we are all viscerally attached to. If I’m going too fast, I feel it in my guts even as my neighbors do. If I took that turn too fast, I slow down the next time. Experience and practice are usually enough to make my way on the road. But when it comes to finer judgments, like whether the world is flat or not, or whether some ancient cosmology is true or not, there is more mental work that needs to be done.

Many of my old friends are not capable of the flexibility to choose which belief is of greatest value, which belief must be true, which belief must be adhered to. In the case of a cosmology, the factors that help make a decision are at a much higher level of abstraction than some people are capable of. Some people don’t have the resources (I’m being generous here) to evaluate the propositions laid out before them. And when it comes to independent thinking, they struggle to be responsible about abandoning beliefs and values that have long ago become moribund. On some account this is a struggle between loyalty and reality.

Reality is harsh and unforgiving, incapable of sympathy, requiring nothing so soft as belief but impinging on beliefs where they are incorrect, breaking values where they are mistaken, slicing through loyalties when they are misplaced. Loyalties, on the other hand, offer a comforting solidarity, a connection with like-minded persons, surcease in the face of a turbulent society. But there is no guarantee the views held in solidarity are true or real. And at threat, tests for truth and reality are shunned in a worldview that depends on solidarity.

Though the tests for truth and reality are not entirely friendly to my continuity and comfort, I am not ready to abandon them. I am assured that when the test and the resolution to my queries are fully undertaken, I will be vindicated, even though I may also be exhausted. The project of changing oneself is full of effort and sometimes incomplete. Like gravity, habit seeks to keep us on the same path we have always taken, but habit cares nothing for truth or reality. Making good habits, at best, means that we can escape the worst effects of our ignorance and carelessness.

So, why have I abandoned my friends? Why have I cut ties with people I was perfectly happy to associate with before. From within the turmoil I call my brain, I have to say that retaining truth is more important to me than retaining friends. I am happier to leave friends than I am to leave the truths they would denigrate by association. Their dismissal of the importance of facts means that they neither care for me as I am or the truths that make up my best self. Their adoption of “alternative facts” is a miserable ploy to undermine the very reality on which I live, on which I depend. I even wonder whether their inability to live in the real world extends to their faith in the very real God I hold to. I can little countenance that disruption to my faith.

Could these people for whom reality is a nuisance countenance the living God whom I worship? I’m not sure. I am glad I am not the one who will judge people in the final day. I hope always that their inability to discern their environment and their mistaken loyalties as such, will not exclude them in the final judgment from the very salvation they assure themselves about. I am in no position to judge them, but when I judge my capacity to live with the mental distortions they advance I have to leave their company. It is weakness, not strength that makes this decision for me. I just can’t live with them. I can’t pretend they are on my side. I can’t whitewash their foibles because I can’t see any innocence in them even as I can’t see innocence in myself. I see what they have done and are doing as a purposive and momentous decision, not entirely the result of an accident of birth, position, or habitual trajectory. I give up my friends because I can’t merge with their solidarities, their loyalties, their unfounded beliefs, even though they may in appearance look like mine.

That is not to say that I have not gained a wide variety of new acquaintances and friends with whom I am in solidarity with, but the scientific proposal in this cabal, that every thesis is testable, and new evidence should adjust old beliefs is alive and well. This is fresh air, not constrained by old ignorance, religious or not. Also, the effort, tempting though it might be for some, to toss out the old signposts (true by their endurance in humanity like the Golden Rule) is without interest. My people now wish for and hope for the endurance of all true value, the values of Jesus, and Socrates alike, Aristotle and Heraclitus, St. John and Voltaire*, St Paul and Francis Collins. (*Lois made a fair criticism, that Voltaire wrote anti-Semitic things, and so he should not be included. I am not here justifying all of the things my small sample of actors have said or done, but the breadth of possibly useful information and argument these actors have made. To refine my examples to faultless persons would only allow Jesus. Antisemitism, whether in Henry Ford, Luther, or Voltaire is a breach of truth and good value on par with the worst behavior of humans whether their disvalue is in service to capitalism, Christianity, or freethinking.)

This calls into question the value of the Bible. Let me state without much elaboration what the Bible is to me to avoid endless wranglings and disputes. It is not the direct dictated words of God. We do not have the original texts, so let’s not be so obtuse as to say that it’s infallible. It is not a scientific text. It is data on the reports of interaction of ancient people with God and other people. My argument is not with the Bible, but with the skewed and mistaken interpretations of it that neither square with the Bible itself (in literalism) or the real world as exposed by science. Nobody believes precisely what has been written. We all believe an interpretation of what was written. So I argue for a broader base of interpretation of the data than merely the text itself. Every science should have its say. Every theology should have its say. Every political theory should have its say. And when everybody has had their say, evaluate to discover the ones that must or might be true. Continue the query, even when it is unlikely that we should come to the end of it. Reject out of hand those views that contradict what we already know (the earth is ancient, not flat, not the center of the universe, etc). There is not a minute to waste on failed theories or interpretations. Those opinions are of no value in forwarding knowledge or the truth because they rely on ideas that have long been abandoned because they are false.

I am asking not for a new dogma but a new human and humane rationality to guide our interpretation of any and all the texts we have produced. I am sorry if some people miss me as a companion, I can’t survive their worldview, either what it implies or the travesty they wish to impose on the rest of us.

family, philosophy, politics

response to an opinion

Leave a comment

Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts

Times Opinionator by Justin McBrayer

This is a video of his explanation of the problem presented at Evangel University.

My response to the written piece in the NYT Opinionator

I have always maintained that the equation between truth and proof is fallacious. We’ve moved on past the simplicity of a logical proof to statistical correlations between facts, truths, and opinions. The nice thing about that is that irrespective of whether you are judging opinion or the real world, a statistical correlation gives corroboration and even warrant to the best of our moral intuitions, even as it does to our measurements of the material properties of the universe.

In this way we have learned to judge the negative value of divorce, except in the case of spousal violence. And divorce is a great example because any blanket proscription against divorce because it is “morally wrong” fails to rescue women (or men) from abusive relationships that may, and too often, result in death. Statistical correlation does give warrant for divorce. It is the moral solution in the case of abuse. It is not an opinion. (Or, if it is an opinion, it is also more than that.)

Yes, this judgment relies on the belief that all people are created equal and deserve equal judgment under the law. But even that belief has statistical warrant. It is a negative warrant, but one that has proved to be true over the many centuries when different values have been held. Other grounds for social values all end by breaking social bonds and result in logical, legal, and moral contradictions, subjecting one group to the will of another, and performing unjust actions upon them. This is not strictly a biblical value either, except by derivation. There was no proscription against slavery in the Bible, something that southern landowners knew very well.

Yes the very concept of justice relies on a belief that equity and fairness must be preserved, and that there must be redress for wrongs done, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

To think that values are simply opinions that can be dismissed because they are opinions is the shallow end of the gene pool, both intellectual and biological. They choose this path because it is deterministically simple, and no more complex thought is required, and whether they would be able to perform that complex thought is in question.

The only disappointing thing about relying on statistical correlations is that they must be worked out through arduous research. Logic is much simpler. But can we require certainty? There are plenty of examples where incomplete reasoning, false certainties, or open-ended absolutes are the cause of much abuse and damage to God’s children and the earth he has placed them on. Under which justification can a king claim divine right, the absolute rule over a subject’s life without appeal?

family, friends, rants

public space, private space

Leave a comment

My discussion of this issue, at least the inner dialogue that takes place whenever my private bubble is breached, is foremost an internal one. I wonder how people think of their spaces when they live in an obviously public space. So this discussion about public and private space revolves around the psychology of living in public with other people.

This churning of my soul may just be a private dialogue, but it comes when people stick their bodies, voices, cars and other things that they have some control over into the space that I should have control over but don’t because of them. So this begins by thinking that my preferences are just pet peeves. It continues when I think that it can’t just be me who has these thoughts. It becomes an obsession when traffic of all sorts gets backed up around their preference, or failure to form one.

I believe that society would be a better place without these transgressions, but I also think negatively that serendipity and chance acquaintance would suffer from the lack of accidental contact brought about by a less strict adherence to Doug’s rules of order, or even a complete ignorance of them altogether. That said, and I do believe my own self criticism, there is much that people could do to make the lives of those around them less arduous. But a good bit of this only resolves itself in negotiation between competing interests. However most of the necessary groundwork has already been done.

The first principle of space, is being aware of other’s needs for space. And this involves use of the golden rule. Let’s start with an example. Our architecture sometimes attempts to mollify the effect of this particular breach of public space.

After a meeting of some kind, people often gather in small groups and talk. This seems perfectly normal and good as far as it goes. But when people stand in the doorway or the only available aisle to do this talking they breach the public space if people want to get by. Heaven forbid that the conversation is broken up, but frequently the only way to get these transgressors out of the way is to say something and interrupt the conversation. If it is rude to breach the conversation, it is far ruder to force the breach of the conversation by inhabiting the public space as if it were private.

What is private space? Even though every culture has its own constraints on private space, private space is defined as the boundary that should not be crossed by another person unless explicitly obtaining consent. The way people keep their private space is various in different cultures but it remains a sphere that cannot be breached casually without offense. Each culture has a combination of rules either formal or informal that determine the circumstances under which one person may touch another. Breaking those conventions between equals is seen as too friendly, pushy, overly familiar, domineering, abusive, assault, or even rape.

For example, in the US, pregnant women almost get used to affectionate (male or female) strangers touching their pregnant belly without eliciting great offense. It may be uncomfortable, and the touch can be resisted without offense, but it is also an introduction into a world where breaches of private space by the child will be the norm for the expectant mother. But for a stranger to touch the belly of a non-pregnant woman is an offensive breach of private space. Why the difference between the two events?

If we can learn what that difference is, I believe we can obtain a clue to the character of the difference between public and private space.

family, foucault, philosophy

one ring to rule them all

Leave a comment

I’ve been thinking about the rings I wear. I have worn a wedding ring for over 32 years. What does it symbolize? Why can’t I, shouldn’t I take it off; is it possible to take it off without calling into question the commitment it represents? Marriage is complicated by every revelation, every intention, every act. Acts of faith and acts of passion, acts of love and acts of desire, known acts and hidden acts. Then there are moments of grace, moments of anger righteous and otherwise, prejudice and overlooking offense. The breadth of any relationship is extremely broad, and mostly unfathomable.

An old Jewish proverb curses by saying, “May you live in interesting times.” Marriage is clearly one of the most interesting times. As a man, I have one woman, and she is a fabulous complexity that though known, is almost entirely beyond comprehension. Human freedom accounts for most of this, but there is a matter of nature and limits, and genetics, and everything that limits freedom. Little cruelties don’t go unnoticed. Slights and offenses build up. Unintentional misfires of language set the stage for explosive anger and hunger for reattachment, forgiveness and a pledge to do better next time. We are together because we want to be and because we need to be. More than anything else the ring is evidence of that, but not its means.

It is the endearing and enduring quality of hope that makes living together the luxury that we can’t do without. And, occasionally we grow through the trials of our relationship into better people than we were before.

I have worn a few rings besides my wedding ring. The first that was important to me was my high school ring. East Aurora High was a place of profound change for me. I got a ring (I can’t remember whether I paid for it or my parents), you know, with a blue glass jewel and an EAHS inscription around it, standard fare for the 18 year old.

I was proud of it and wore it all the time, until I almost lost my finger to it hanging from it on the back of a stage prop in a play. I can’t tell you how scared I was or how grateful I was that I didn’t lose my finger. But I lost the ring after that.

The next ring I wore was my wedding ring. I was 27 years old and happier than I could have imagined. I told that story. I have never been threatened by my wedding ring like I was by the EAHS ring.

I felt I wanted another ring, and I didn’t want just any old ring. Why should I be happy with a ring that fit if it didn’t represent what I thought it should?

When our family traveled out west to explore and see the sights, we stopped off at an old voleano caldera and in the gift shop I found a silver ring. I found out later that it was a Hopi story ring. It had figures on its surface that told of Hopi life. I thought I would wear it in solidarity with Native American (even though they call themselves Indian) rights. I wore it on my right-hand ring finger. In a couple years I lost it while I washed my car. I replaced it with a silver spoon handle ring that didn’t represent anything.

The next ring I bought was also on our western trip. It was also a Hopi story ring but smaller and I wore it on my right pinky finger. I lost it about a year earlier than I lost the other Hopi ring, also at a car wash. But I went back and found it on the ground. Yea!

When my family and I went to Britain to celebrate me finishing my doctorate in philosophy, my wife and girls bought me a celtic ring. I took off the silver spoon handle ring and put the celtic on my right ring finger. I decided after that to remove my Hopi ring, since I really didn’t need or want to represent Native American rights any more. So Now I am wearing my wedding ring and my philosophy ring. But I went through a time after our Britain trip that I couldn’t wear my philosophy ring. So I didn’t I just had my wedding ring.

Through thick and thin, my wedding ring has stayed on my finger. Later, I don’t quite know the moment, but I felt as if I had both earned my doctorate, and that I had become the philosopher, and I could again wear my celtic ring. So I wear the two as symbols of the enduring relations I have in my world, my wedding ring and my philosophy ring. But my wedding ring, has endured all changes and is preeminent over all the others in importance and time.

digital world, family, philosophy, theology

drupal

1 Comment

Gosh, the installation was easy. My server offers it as an easily installable option. Click . . . done! I find that I need to update and advance my web mojo to keep up with one of my clients. So I am spending hours and hours learning how to do stuff I shied away from before.

That’s OK. It is the pathway now between fear and trembling on one hand and dread on the other.

I finished two projects this week that were sort of looming over my head. They were obligations to the academic community I am a part of and had been ignoring. The first, a review of Amos Yong’s book The Spirit of Creation for a journal that included comments about the book and Amos’ response to them. Dread kept me from that one. I couldn’t face the knowledge of that subject for a while, after I had thoroughly indulged myself in it. The second project was reading a book on theology for Brill, title and author’s name were withheld from me so I could review fairly. Good book, interesting thesis, but I don’t know when it will come out. I had forgotten to do it, and an email from the publisher reminded me. So fear and trembling pushed me to finish it.

Drupal, an open source web development system, a CMS. Interesting, simple structure. I am just beginning my journey.

Today I am going to the movies with my Alpha unit in the afternoon, and pick up my spouse from the airport in the evening.

family, philosophy, rants, theology

a better ethos

Leave a comment

I grew up in a house where respect for science was common currency, not unlike many houses in the United States. My mother, before marrying my father, was a research chemist. Both my parents took it as gospel that science and reason give us useful access to the world and its wonders. I grew up believing the earth was ancient and the universe even older. As readers of National Geographic, we all followed the exploits of the Leakey family as they fleshed out a plausible narrative of ancient paleontology. Louis Leakey was both a follower of Darwin and a devout Christian, not an unusual combination in the circles my parents traveled in.

When I became a believer in the early 1970s I began a long and sometimes tortuous relationship with the evangelical church. I had no problem with Jesus, but some of his followers weren’t so happy with me. God, however, saved me in many ways by the blood of Christ and fellowship of the saints. I needed the church and devoted my life to serving God.

My evangelical adoption came with many things as a package deal. Short hair (no big deal, I was in the Air Force anyway,) a literal interpretation of the Bible, and a deep devotion to God. I’m sure you can guess where we are going with this. I adopted with my new family a literal interpretation of the Bible, itself a very modern method, and struggled to reinterpret the world in those terms. I have to say that in my euphoria of early salvation, I glossed over the troubling consequences of literal interpretation and because of my grateful reaction to God I rebuilt my world with a young earth view.

None of my education at Valley Forge Christian College prepared me to face the consequences of such a naïve view of the scripture, though I was learning that not all scripture could be read literally. I did adopt an old earth view during that time, seeing that it was one reasonably supported view in Christianity. The curious thing was that I defended it with a strange logic of scripture. God perceived that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. So, if time was relative to God, then I also would count the six days of creation to be relative. This realization did nothing to dissuade me from literalism, if I could import a reasonable argument to defend what, on the surface, appeared to be true, that the earth looked like it was very old.

I discovered later that the young earth creationists, many of them my brothers and sisters in Christ, also believed that the earth appeared to be very old. What seemed strange to me was that they spent most of their time proposing arguments more gimmicky than mine to prove that the earth was actually very young. I rebuffed their nuances when I realized that they were not as interested in doing science as they were in discrediting it. I started to see those people as one would see a dull witted uncle who still argues that the New Deal of Roosevelt’s era was a bad idea. You still invite him to Thanksgiving dinner but hope nobody brings up politics. My problem is that I like to get him going and ride the excitement, even though sometimes it turns sour. I don’t think he gets it.

When I was doing my doctoral studies at Temple University, I became interested in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. I discovered that within these disciplines, a critique of science was emerging that at once acknowledged the middle state of our knowledge and the embeddedness of the scientific enterprise within human limitations. Science, on this view, could not declare its findings with certainty, even though it had mastered technologies of many kinds. I found comfort in the realization that unlike the young earth creationists, the scientists, with many exceptions, were able to critique their own work. That seemed to be a much more honest way of engaging the world, and I adopted that ethos wholeheartedly. I hadn’t abandoned Christ, but believed that he would prefer this sort of humility against the principled dishonesty of the young earth creationists. I call it principled, because it resides within a tradition of biblical interpretation that had for a large part been a profitable means of exploring scriptural truth. I call it dishonest because its participants were not interested in the truth of the world any longer, but building a rational citadel against infidels. Their method had become naïve propositional logic and not faith in God.

In order to enter the kingdom of God one must become like a little child. Between the scientists and the young earth creationists, the scientists were more like little children being guided by wonder, beauty, and curiosity. I am not suggesting that scientists are blameless and more holy than the young earth creationists, but rather that they model an ethos that leads to the kingdom of God. They are also continuing to obey the command of God to subdue the earth.

family

great nephews

Leave a comment

I now have two great nephews on the east coast on my family’s side. On my wife’s side, I have a huge pile of great nephews and great nieces. But shortly I will upload a couple pics of Owen, the son of my nephew Chris and his wife Bronwyn, and Finley the son of my niece Allison and her husband Dan. Owen is one month younger than Finley.

family

it’s been over a week

3 Comments

since my cat died. I tried to get on with my life, but in so many ways I recognized that mourning for him took over my free mind, my social consciousness, my connection to my wife, my celebration of our wedding anniversary. When I prepared to speak on Sunday at a church north of town, I could see the words I wrote on the page, but I was not connected to them. I think that is why I put it off so long, until Saturday, hoping that I would connect. Speaking was OK, and I think it helped me reintegrate, but it didn’t seem natural at first.

I saw my wedding anniversary coming all week long, but I just didn’t do anything about it. It was too distant from my self. All you married boys know how big a problem it is for us if we don’t remember our anniversary. Well, I watched it coming all week long like a drugged person placed on the railroad tracks waiting for the train.

Why is it that a cat commanded such complete connection with me that losing him would disconnect me from my world? I don’t know, but I suspect that it has something to do with euthanizing him instead of just waiting for him to die. I think it took something out of me to do it. I am usually opposed to taking life of any kind, and this has really wrenched me from my self.

To my wife, I am sorry for being such a klutz. I am not using the cat as an excuse for neglecting us, it is just that I have been broken from my normal self by this event.