Jesus told a story about a farmer. If we forget for a moment that Jesus is a spiritual teacher and look at the story just as a story it might seem rather unremarkable. A farmer is doing a chore. He’s doing his job. Jesus observes that some seeds fall in places that they do not grow well for various reasons. On hard-packed ground, on weedy ground, on rocky ground. He points out however that the seeds that fall on the good soil produce a crop that makes up for all the wasted seed. This is a common sense story.
The disciples ask Jesus what it means. They feel like there must be more to the story than a day in the life of a farmer. I wonder if they had not asked, would Jesus have explained the story? He doesn’t bother explaining most of his parables. In this case he points out that his disciples are a special group of people who are being given special insight into the Kingdom. But why? Why can’t Jesus just explain it to everyone? He has a good crowd going. If it is simple enough for the disciples, it is simple enough for everyone.
There is an important principle I would like to here insert. God enlightens us how and when He wants to. I am an not saying that we have no responsibility in seeking and learning and growing, but if we find it impossible to learn something, we can be sure God does not want us to learn it. He has his reasons, and we can trust that they are good ones. Perhaps we are not ready yet. Perhaps we have not finished the last lesson he had for us and cannot advance without mastering it. Perhaps it will be better learned under new and unforeseen circumstances. Maybe we will know why we had to wait or maybe we won’t. That is in God’s hands as well.
When Jesus told the disciples that they would be given understanding, when exactly did that understanding come. Jesus goes on to explain some of the parable, but not the whole thing. Why was the farmer so extravagant with his seed? Why did the seed produce ten times the normal amount? Jesus explains the seed and the soils but neither the sower nor the harvest. Also, this explanation only refers to this one parable. Jesus said they would understand the Kingdom. For the disciples this understanding would come much later (if ever).
But isn’t that just like God? He is always giving us glimpses. Whether we know it or not, we’ve only just had a peek at all there is. Just when we think we’ve begun to master something about God He shows us that we’ve only just learned the alphabet. When we think we’ve come to the end of our ability to know him a new world of understanding opens to us.
Then there’s this difficulty of the reference to Isaiah. Jesus says the people will be seeing but not understanding and listening but not hearing-- or something like that. Is God hiding from people? I guess another way to read it is to assume Jesus is referring to the fulfillment of prophecy. In other words, some people don’t understand what I say and this is expected. It was foretold by Isaiah himself. Still, it seems that Jesus is avoiding the “plain truth” by talking in riddles. Even in answer to the disciples he doesn’t come out and just say what he is getting at.
Sometimes when I wonder why Jesus or God didn’t do something I try to imagine what would happen if he actually did do what I expected. In this case it might have gone like this...
“Jesus, what does that parable mean?”
Sigh* Ok, fine, I’ll just spell it out for you. The Word of God is such a potent and powerful thing that those who are sharing it don’t need to hold anything back. Any kind of person can hear the word. Now what you can’t control is how they respond. There will be all kinds of responses. Much of the preaching of the word will fall on deaf ears or uncommitted ears or fickle ears. It isn’t because the Word is weak. It is because those who heard it were not able to allow it to take root and bear fruit. Those who do accept God’s word and have the opportunity to let it take root in their lives, they will outweigh the good of all the others. You see, it is a principle of God’s nature that quantity does not necessarily reflect value, and things seen are not always equivalent to things that are and will be. You may not know how people will respond when you share the word, but God wants you to share it anyway because he is able to produce a yield that will overcome any amount of apparent waste. In fact much of what I’m saying to you right now will not sink in and take root in your heart because you are not ready to hear it yet. So even the truth that parables are reflective of deeper truths that sometimes must be left to speak for themselves is something that you will not be able to accept at the moment, and even when you do start to discover the truth of it you will only just be seeing a blurry shadow of the high definition reality of an infinite God with unspeakable depth.
“Oh. So like. Farmers and...you know, birds and thorns are like...um. Yeah, we think we understand.”
Laughing* Do you remember the story as I told it?
“Yes. Totally. More or less.”
Ok, that’s enough for now. Make sure someone writes it down.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Imaginative Eisegesis: Luke 7:37,38
She did not care that they were eating. She had not been invited or expected. She knew, in fact, that she would not, under normal circumstances, have been welcome at all. She did not care. This was her first--perhaps her only--chance to do something. Her life had been changed. How could she deny her heart this chance to express the gratitude she felt? So, she did not care that they were eating.
His head could not be reached. All the better, for what right did she have to approach his head? His feet would do. Yes, it would be fitting that she would exalt the humblest part of him. It would illustrate perfectly how much she valued, honored, loved him. The humblest and filthiest part of his body is worthy of her anointing and tears and more!
She stood observing for perhaps half a moment. Afraid to tarry lest she loose courage and abandon her grand gesture, she stepped away from the edge of the courtyard and prepared to approach his feet. What a shame they had not been better cared for! Here was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! He should be given the greatest of hospitality. His very head should be anointed and his entire body exalted; it is shameful that they would neglect his feet. Never mind that. She would express gratitude not in respect to the one who saves the world, but in submission to the One who brought forgiveness for her. Never mind that many had repented and come to be cleansed; it was her victory over condemnation that moved her. She who had much to forgive could not suppress her desire to worship.
Before she realized it she was standing behind Jesus. Tears were flowing so she could hardly see. She looked down for the target of her activity. Blinking she realized she had already begun anointing his feet with her tears. She felt audacious and overly bold, but her heart was moved. She was torn between feeling she had gone too far and knowing she had not gone nearly far enough. Her focus collapsed to those feet. Those beautiful feet that had traveled so far. Those beautiful feet that had brought the Good News of God Almighty. Elohim’s Messenger, his Lamb, the Messiah. She was now on her knees, framing his feet with her hands, oblivious to the stares and the silencing banquet. Her savior’s feet were now wet with her tears. She had bowed so close that her hair hung near. Without thinking she wiped the feet with her hair. Later she would realize how insane she looked. She would hear the stories and the whispers about the scandal she had created. She may have never heard that her story would one day be written down and that others would worship this same man because of her.
She wiped his tear-muddied feet with her long, scandalous hair and remembered the task for which she had come. She pulled the precious white vial from her robe, unsealed it and wasted it upon those feet. Its value was great in the eyes of men, but she held it as too small a sacrifice for this man who had changed her life. Perfume -- an extravagance for those who could afford luxury and were unconcerned with mere survival. Even for the wealthy it was used with discretion and reserved for occasions of full effect. But for this man she would hold nothing back. She poured until empty. The last drop fell and the bottle was satisfied, but her heart was still full. So, she poured forth kisses upon his feet, a further anointing with the sacred perfume of her heart. Unlike the bottle, her heart would never run dry.
His head could not be reached. All the better, for what right did she have to approach his head? His feet would do. Yes, it would be fitting that she would exalt the humblest part of him. It would illustrate perfectly how much she valued, honored, loved him. The humblest and filthiest part of his body is worthy of her anointing and tears and more!
She stood observing for perhaps half a moment. Afraid to tarry lest she loose courage and abandon her grand gesture, she stepped away from the edge of the courtyard and prepared to approach his feet. What a shame they had not been better cared for! Here was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! He should be given the greatest of hospitality. His very head should be anointed and his entire body exalted; it is shameful that they would neglect his feet. Never mind that. She would express gratitude not in respect to the one who saves the world, but in submission to the One who brought forgiveness for her. Never mind that many had repented and come to be cleansed; it was her victory over condemnation that moved her. She who had much to forgive could not suppress her desire to worship.
Before she realized it she was standing behind Jesus. Tears were flowing so she could hardly see. She looked down for the target of her activity. Blinking she realized she had already begun anointing his feet with her tears. She felt audacious and overly bold, but her heart was moved. She was torn between feeling she had gone too far and knowing she had not gone nearly far enough. Her focus collapsed to those feet. Those beautiful feet that had traveled so far. Those beautiful feet that had brought the Good News of God Almighty. Elohim’s Messenger, his Lamb, the Messiah. She was now on her knees, framing his feet with her hands, oblivious to the stares and the silencing banquet. Her savior’s feet were now wet with her tears. She had bowed so close that her hair hung near. Without thinking she wiped the feet with her hair. Later she would realize how insane she looked. She would hear the stories and the whispers about the scandal she had created. She may have never heard that her story would one day be written down and that others would worship this same man because of her.
She wiped his tear-muddied feet with her long, scandalous hair and remembered the task for which she had come. She pulled the precious white vial from her robe, unsealed it and wasted it upon those feet. Its value was great in the eyes of men, but she held it as too small a sacrifice for this man who had changed her life. Perfume -- an extravagance for those who could afford luxury and were unconcerned with mere survival. Even for the wealthy it was used with discretion and reserved for occasions of full effect. But for this man she would hold nothing back. She poured until empty. The last drop fell and the bottle was satisfied, but her heart was still full. So, she poured forth kisses upon his feet, a further anointing with the sacred perfume of her heart. Unlike the bottle, her heart would never run dry.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Not A Post Entirely About Phil
I'm not going to blog about Phil. That's being handled by others.
I would like to point out that all the controversy boils down to an old man telling an old dirty joke. I mean he didn't tell it the usual way, but at it's root it is the same as hundreds of other gay vs. hetero dude jokes. I heard them all in middle school. The underlying humor is more about mechanics than morality.
It is a lame joke that, judging by the writing of the GQ journalist, would go over well with their target readers. It is politically incorrect and irreverent. The journalist makes it clear he would never say such a thing, but he doesn't go so far as to say he wouldn't laugh at it. Way to play it safe.
Actually, I think the most interesting part of this story is Magary's extensive self-referencing in the story. It comes across to me as his attempt to brag about the time he met the legendary man of the swamp and got to shoot his guns and ogle the old man's bare feet on the recliner. It switches schizophrenically between admiring the manly, adventurous life of a rags-to-riches pioneer and snickering behind his back because the preacher talks a lot. There are moments where the journalist shows his skill as a writer describing landscapes and characters. Then, just in case his readers had lost interest or started to think him uppity, he awkwardly drops profanity like a nerd trying to earn street cred. My guess is that Magary is potentially a good writer but is inclined to lower his standards to appeal to his readers (or editors, judging by the crude pun of a headline).
The reaction to all this should cause Christians to check themselves. Are we willing to listen enough to understand why his remarks are offensive to some? Sure, this is mostly media blow out and headline seekers looking to cash in to gain some political capital or perhaps a few more mouse clicks. But there is a percentage of people who are shocked and hurt that a "nice guy" could say such a thing. Honesty is a good thing, but it doesn't keep people from getting hurt. Phil wasn't given the luxury of a face-to-face conversation with the people he was talking about. If he had been, perhaps he would have pointed out that we are not only the perpetrators of sin, but also its victim. What sounds to the world like condemnation from a self-righteous fundamentalist, is more likely meant to be a wake-up call from someone who knows and has experienced the power sin can have over us. If the world isn't hearing the message about grace then we have to speak it more clearly. They can't get past the "you're a sinner going to Hell" part to hear the whole "But God who is rich in mercy..." part of it.
We are in danger of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. It is probably good for so many to come to the defense of Phil, but I would argue that we don't need to do so to protect the rights of Christians. It's not really about free speech. If we are going to stand with Phil then let it be on the part of the interview that isn't being talked about. I'm talking about the part that is truly offensive where he shares the Gospel with his interviewer. My prayer is that people are offended at the interview, but not because of a lame dirty joke. I pray they are offended by the Gospel because then I know they have heard the truth. Remember, friends, the Gospel is an offence to those in rebellion against it. At one time that included all of us.
"BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ro 9:33.
I would like to point out that all the controversy boils down to an old man telling an old dirty joke. I mean he didn't tell it the usual way, but at it's root it is the same as hundreds of other gay vs. hetero dude jokes. I heard them all in middle school. The underlying humor is more about mechanics than morality.
It is a lame joke that, judging by the writing of the GQ journalist, would go over well with their target readers. It is politically incorrect and irreverent. The journalist makes it clear he would never say such a thing, but he doesn't go so far as to say he wouldn't laugh at it. Way to play it safe.
Actually, I think the most interesting part of this story is Magary's extensive self-referencing in the story. It comes across to me as his attempt to brag about the time he met the legendary man of the swamp and got to shoot his guns and ogle the old man's bare feet on the recliner. It switches schizophrenically between admiring the manly, adventurous life of a rags-to-riches pioneer and snickering behind his back because the preacher talks a lot. There are moments where the journalist shows his skill as a writer describing landscapes and characters. Then, just in case his readers had lost interest or started to think him uppity, he awkwardly drops profanity like a nerd trying to earn street cred. My guess is that Magary is potentially a good writer but is inclined to lower his standards to appeal to his readers (or editors, judging by the crude pun of a headline).
The reaction to all this should cause Christians to check themselves. Are we willing to listen enough to understand why his remarks are offensive to some? Sure, this is mostly media blow out and headline seekers looking to cash in to gain some political capital or perhaps a few more mouse clicks. But there is a percentage of people who are shocked and hurt that a "nice guy" could say such a thing. Honesty is a good thing, but it doesn't keep people from getting hurt. Phil wasn't given the luxury of a face-to-face conversation with the people he was talking about. If he had been, perhaps he would have pointed out that we are not only the perpetrators of sin, but also its victim. What sounds to the world like condemnation from a self-righteous fundamentalist, is more likely meant to be a wake-up call from someone who knows and has experienced the power sin can have over us. If the world isn't hearing the message about grace then we have to speak it more clearly. They can't get past the "you're a sinner going to Hell" part to hear the whole "But God who is rich in mercy..." part of it.
We are in danger of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. It is probably good for so many to come to the defense of Phil, but I would argue that we don't need to do so to protect the rights of Christians. It's not really about free speech. If we are going to stand with Phil then let it be on the part of the interview that isn't being talked about. I'm talking about the part that is truly offensive where he shares the Gospel with his interviewer. My prayer is that people are offended at the interview, but not because of a lame dirty joke. I pray they are offended by the Gospel because then I know they have heard the truth. Remember, friends, the Gospel is an offence to those in rebellion against it. At one time that included all of us.
"BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ro 9:33.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Advice to Myself
Put your hand over your heart. Beneath your hand there is a heartbeat. There is breath going in and out. Feel it! That means something. You know it is true when I say it. The staunchest naturalist will deny it, but deep down you know it is true that there is meaning to what is happening beneath your hand this moment. That meaning may be inexpressible to you, it may seem tragically indecipherable, but a strong and yearning feeling tells you that it is there.
And what if I’m wrong? Are we afraid to ask that? What if the naturalists are right and all that is currently happening inside our heads and chests are the mechanical and chemical interactions of matter randomly existing under the inexplicable yet unflagging influence of natural laws that, beyond the probability of each moment, continue to apply without cause or influence from any source? Many have resolved in themselves that this must be true. Though it leaves the questions of life unanswered they admit defeat and claim that there is no meaning or purpose to life. No one except the criminal and the lunatic lives out the full implications of this admission, and even criminals and lunatics cannot claim to live a life fully without meaning. So even those who claim to believe in the meaninglessness of life cannot help but seek to discover truth and purpose long after they have admitted that they do not exist. Some suppose this is a quirk of human nature, a vestigial remnant of an evolutionary advantage, produced naturally and randomly in humankind, that helped humanity develop into an advanced society. They see it as a weakness in themselves that can be tolerated and even accepted in order to have a pleasurable existence. Yet, they see themselves as “playing along” with inferior minds so as not to upset the order of things. They believe that all is vanity and existence itself is basically a joke against humanity--an illusion. When they feel a twinge of the desire for meaning they laugh it off like the boogey man and congratulate themselves on having the courage to admit something (even if only to themselves) that their fellow men cannot. They may even, at times, venture down a path toward exploring the meaning of life, but sooner or later they recoil and abandon the search because, they tell themselves, it only leads to make believe and nothingness. If they do happen to stay on such a path for long (most likely out of boredom) they only do so with half a heart. They see it as a scientific undertaking to learn more about how humans act rather than a chance to learn what it means to be human. They see themselves as undercover. They are only pretending to believe there is purpose and meaning to life so they can see what it is like. After they have gathered the experience they know, in the end, it too will be meaningless.
But most people do not go so far as to accept the meaninglessness of life. Most people are willing to believe that there is some greater purpose even if it does seem to be against all odds. Scientists tell us (though Science does not) that we are an accident of the Universe. Our hearts tell us that we have a reason to live even though, at times, it sounds like the most foolish thing imaginable. If for no other reason than this shared foolish feeling we have, we must press on. The fact that all of us share the awkwardness of humanity, that feeling that we are both powerful and ridiculous, should encourage us to keep trying. Yes, the awkwardness of humanity. It is the paradoxical nature of life that shows creation to be a great joke, and yet, makes us feel most alive. When we are lonely, afraid, rejected, dissatisfied, bored--it is in those moments when we often share most fully with the rest of humanity. When we are severely rational, sufficiently satisfied, merely entertained, distracted; it is then we forget our awkwardness. We experience neither joy nor mourning. In those moments, human beings as merely natural creatures make sense. Then un-looked-for, reality comes. We have irrational feelings. The loneliness creeps in. Perhaps we are stirred to love or to seek adventure or to desire revenge. Suddenly, life feels incomplete. In our joy we feel a hope for better things. In our sorrow feel a loss of how things should be. Behind all these feelings is a sense that life does have meaning if only we can find it.
You, dear reader, should chase that feeling. Here’s why. If it is all just a joke, the only way to know will be to enter into the joke fully. No one can make a joke funny by explaining it. All they can really do is tell the joke again. If you don’t get it from the telling you won’t “get it” from the explaining. The meaning of life can be put into words perhaps, but hearing those words will not help you “get it.” The only way to find the purpose in life is to experience it. If you think you are watching a magic trick then by all means seek to discover the trick, but not by ripping away the curtain. To really enjoy an illusion you must observe it on its own terms. If you can, you will then discover that the meaning of the illusion is not how it was achieved but the effect on the audience. In the same way the meaning of life will not be discovered by understanding with greater and greater detail the mechanisms that produce our existence; rather, it is by observing the effect that our existence has on us that we can begin to see our purpose and what this life means.
So when you are tempted to give up seeking purpose, do not retreat into distraction. Do not recluse yourself into a world of shallow relationships and frivolous entertainment. Do not close the door to meaning by scoffing at the paradox of our existence. I challenge you. Venture out onto the stage of life. Perhaps you are the butt of a cosmic joke. If so, play the fool to the fullest. You have nothing to lose. Perhaps your seeking will never lead to satisfaction in this life, but at least you won’t be ignoring your desire. If life is a comedy then earn the right to laugh all the harder. If a tragedy, set yourself up to wail the louder. If a romance, strive for the passion to love most deeply. In any case, I believe this is what we were made for. The desire for Truth and Beauty is built into our hearts so that one day--That Day--we may be satisfied. All the better if we spend our days hungry in anticipation.
And what if I’m wrong? Are we afraid to ask that? What if the naturalists are right and all that is currently happening inside our heads and chests are the mechanical and chemical interactions of matter randomly existing under the inexplicable yet unflagging influence of natural laws that, beyond the probability of each moment, continue to apply without cause or influence from any source? Many have resolved in themselves that this must be true. Though it leaves the questions of life unanswered they admit defeat and claim that there is no meaning or purpose to life. No one except the criminal and the lunatic lives out the full implications of this admission, and even criminals and lunatics cannot claim to live a life fully without meaning. So even those who claim to believe in the meaninglessness of life cannot help but seek to discover truth and purpose long after they have admitted that they do not exist. Some suppose this is a quirk of human nature, a vestigial remnant of an evolutionary advantage, produced naturally and randomly in humankind, that helped humanity develop into an advanced society. They see it as a weakness in themselves that can be tolerated and even accepted in order to have a pleasurable existence. Yet, they see themselves as “playing along” with inferior minds so as not to upset the order of things. They believe that all is vanity and existence itself is basically a joke against humanity--an illusion. When they feel a twinge of the desire for meaning they laugh it off like the boogey man and congratulate themselves on having the courage to admit something (even if only to themselves) that their fellow men cannot. They may even, at times, venture down a path toward exploring the meaning of life, but sooner or later they recoil and abandon the search because, they tell themselves, it only leads to make believe and nothingness. If they do happen to stay on such a path for long (most likely out of boredom) they only do so with half a heart. They see it as a scientific undertaking to learn more about how humans act rather than a chance to learn what it means to be human. They see themselves as undercover. They are only pretending to believe there is purpose and meaning to life so they can see what it is like. After they have gathered the experience they know, in the end, it too will be meaningless.
 |
| He's not seeking meaning. He is experiencing it. |
But most people do not go so far as to accept the meaninglessness of life. Most people are willing to believe that there is some greater purpose even if it does seem to be against all odds. Scientists tell us (though Science does not) that we are an accident of the Universe. Our hearts tell us that we have a reason to live even though, at times, it sounds like the most foolish thing imaginable. If for no other reason than this shared foolish feeling we have, we must press on. The fact that all of us share the awkwardness of humanity, that feeling that we are both powerful and ridiculous, should encourage us to keep trying. Yes, the awkwardness of humanity. It is the paradoxical nature of life that shows creation to be a great joke, and yet, makes us feel most alive. When we are lonely, afraid, rejected, dissatisfied, bored--it is in those moments when we often share most fully with the rest of humanity. When we are severely rational, sufficiently satisfied, merely entertained, distracted; it is then we forget our awkwardness. We experience neither joy nor mourning. In those moments, human beings as merely natural creatures make sense. Then un-looked-for, reality comes. We have irrational feelings. The loneliness creeps in. Perhaps we are stirred to love or to seek adventure or to desire revenge. Suddenly, life feels incomplete. In our joy we feel a hope for better things. In our sorrow feel a loss of how things should be. Behind all these feelings is a sense that life does have meaning if only we can find it.
You, dear reader, should chase that feeling. Here’s why. If it is all just a joke, the only way to know will be to enter into the joke fully. No one can make a joke funny by explaining it. All they can really do is tell the joke again. If you don’t get it from the telling you won’t “get it” from the explaining. The meaning of life can be put into words perhaps, but hearing those words will not help you “get it.” The only way to find the purpose in life is to experience it. If you think you are watching a magic trick then by all means seek to discover the trick, but not by ripping away the curtain. To really enjoy an illusion you must observe it on its own terms. If you can, you will then discover that the meaning of the illusion is not how it was achieved but the effect on the audience. In the same way the meaning of life will not be discovered by understanding with greater and greater detail the mechanisms that produce our existence; rather, it is by observing the effect that our existence has on us that we can begin to see our purpose and what this life means.
So when you are tempted to give up seeking purpose, do not retreat into distraction. Do not recluse yourself into a world of shallow relationships and frivolous entertainment. Do not close the door to meaning by scoffing at the paradox of our existence. I challenge you. Venture out onto the stage of life. Perhaps you are the butt of a cosmic joke. If so, play the fool to the fullest. You have nothing to lose. Perhaps your seeking will never lead to satisfaction in this life, but at least you won’t be ignoring your desire. If life is a comedy then earn the right to laugh all the harder. If a tragedy, set yourself up to wail the louder. If a romance, strive for the passion to love most deeply. In any case, I believe this is what we were made for. The desire for Truth and Beauty is built into our hearts so that one day--That Day--we may be satisfied. All the better if we spend our days hungry in anticipation.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Beyond Evolution v Creationism
I grew tired of the evolution vs. creationism debate sometime during college. Mainly this was due to my realization that the vast majority (close to 100%) of people who embark on this debate have very little clue exactly what it is they are talking about. Creationists tend to attempt to debunk the science of evolutionary theory without fully understanding the claims or the evidence or the processes involved. Evolutionists tend to dismiss the deeper concerns of Creationists without offering tangible evidence or allowing any room for doubt or listening. I feel like the people who are willing to debate these things are forgetting an important aspect of humanity. We are limited.
Seems obvious, I know, but I believe that this simple fact is effectively ignored when it comes to debates about origins. You see, we are limited in many ways. Most of them are easy to see and demonstrate. We are limited in size. We are limited in how high we can jump, how high we can sing, and how many marshmallows we can fit in our mouths. There are some ways we are limited that are harder to understand. Why can't I remember my 11th grade teacher's name? Why can't I find my keys? Why can't I reach that itch on my back? Our self-perception makes us think all these things are achievable. The limitation that bears weight on this topic is in regards to our knowledge. We can easily understand that our knowledge is limited. To prove it we simply think of something that we don't know. What is the height of the Eiffel Tower? I have no idea; therefore, my knowledge is limited.
Go ahead. I'll wait...
Now that you are back from your internet search you know that the Eiffel Tower is 324 m tall. So we've proved that our knowledge is limited, but we've reinforced another idea that I'd like to challenge. By doing a quick internet search and discovering a new truth we help ourselves believe that even though we don't know everything at least everything is knowable. To state it more simply, we are under the impression that our knowledge is only limited by our experience. Given enough time and resources we think there is nothing that we could not know. Even when we come across concepts we don't understand our experience tells us that we may one day understand. Once upon a time I had no idea how cars were made. I would repeatedly ask my grandad to tell me. Each time he would obediently launch into a discussion of assembly lines while I zoned out and finally sighed disappointedly. I had no clue what he was talking about. Much later in life as I learned about all that goes into manufacturing I finally gained enough knowledge to have somewhat of a grasp on how cars are made. Episodes like this make me think that eventually, everything will be understandable to me. So we believe the only limiting factor on our understanding of the universe is Time.
Still with me? I'll cut to the chase. I believe that we ARE limited in our ability to know things. Specifically, I believe that we are limited in our ability to scientifically know our origins. That's right. I believe it is impossible by scientific means to discover the nature and circumstances of humanity's creation.
Here's why. The nature of time itself is unexplainable. Observation, memory, existence are all dependent on time, yet there is no real way of explaining why time is what it is. Time is something all humans experience more or less the same way, yet none of us really knows why. Yes, we try, but it always amounts to nothing. I believe it always will.
At this point I would point you to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I would, that is, if I felt like I understood it. Suffice it to say that in quantum physics there is a very clear understanding that our knowledge is fundamentally limited. In overly simplified terms, it appears that it is impossible to observe both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. Moreover, it is theorized that a particle does not have a position and momentum a the same time. This is why quantum mechanics offers to predict the statistical probabilities of a particle's location rather than simply a precise location.
If you've skimmed down to this point, I don't blame you. Here's your reward. A thought experiment. How old was Adam on day seven of Creation? About a day old? How old would he appear to a scientist? We always imagine him in his 20-30's. My point is, for us to believe in a "literal" interpretation of Genesis, we would have to believe that God suspended or amended the rules of the universe in order to create a man who appeared older than he actually was. This isn't just true for Adam. It is true for the trees, the rocks, the stars, beams of light, butterflies and everything. So this kind of understanding of our world automatically tells us that our scientific observations cannot show us the truth about our origins with certainty. The Bible suggests that God miraculously created everything. Miraculously created things look old the moment they are created.
Take one of Jesus' most famous miracles--water to wine. Wine cannot be created in a moment. It takes time, yet it is reported that Jesus took what appeared to be water one moment and turned it into what appeared to be wine the next moment. In fact it seemed to the steward that it was really good wine! He didn't have to be a scientist to observe that this stuff had been around for a while. His observation, however, was incorrect. That wine had just been created. It was a fact without scientific explanation.
In the same way, the search for the origin of Adam or the universe is ultimately a dead end. In the face of claims about miracles there will always be reason to doubt the science. It seems to me that if we are looking for scientific evidence of Biblical creation it is like trying to see the back of your head with your own eyes. You are literally looking for scientific evidence of something there can be no scientific evidence for.
On the other hand scientific theories make assumptions about the fundamental nature of the universe and time that beg the question, "Where do these things come from?" Those who use science as an excuse for non-belief in God are using a method based on existence to prove that there is no real basis for existence. To say that God is impossible itself implies that "possibility" is a real thing. If there is a such thing as possibility and impossibility then where did the rules for such come from?
We have scientist arguing that we should only believe the things that we can "know." Then we have creationist arguing that belief is more important than observation when seeking to arrive at Truth. With such a fundamental difference of opinion about what Truth is, why do these people bother arguing over evidence, science, scripture, etc. They have a philosophical difference from the very beginning that makes it a forgone conclusion that there will be no agreement. It boils down to the fact that we are limited.
So that's why I don't like the debate. It feels a lot like beating a dead horse shaped piece of Jello. I vote we move beyond the debate and just learn as much as we can about what each other believes. Maybe then we can at least appreciate and respect people even if we disagree.
Seems obvious, I know, but I believe that this simple fact is effectively ignored when it comes to debates about origins. You see, we are limited in many ways. Most of them are easy to see and demonstrate. We are limited in size. We are limited in how high we can jump, how high we can sing, and how many marshmallows we can fit in our mouths. There are some ways we are limited that are harder to understand. Why can't I remember my 11th grade teacher's name? Why can't I find my keys? Why can't I reach that itch on my back? Our self-perception makes us think all these things are achievable. The limitation that bears weight on this topic is in regards to our knowledge. We can easily understand that our knowledge is limited. To prove it we simply think of something that we don't know. What is the height of the Eiffel Tower? I have no idea; therefore, my knowledge is limited.
Go ahead. I'll wait...
Now that you are back from your internet search you know that the Eiffel Tower is 324 m tall. So we've proved that our knowledge is limited, but we've reinforced another idea that I'd like to challenge. By doing a quick internet search and discovering a new truth we help ourselves believe that even though we don't know everything at least everything is knowable. To state it more simply, we are under the impression that our knowledge is only limited by our experience. Given enough time and resources we think there is nothing that we could not know. Even when we come across concepts we don't understand our experience tells us that we may one day understand. Once upon a time I had no idea how cars were made. I would repeatedly ask my grandad to tell me. Each time he would obediently launch into a discussion of assembly lines while I zoned out and finally sighed disappointedly. I had no clue what he was talking about. Much later in life as I learned about all that goes into manufacturing I finally gained enough knowledge to have somewhat of a grasp on how cars are made. Episodes like this make me think that eventually, everything will be understandable to me. So we believe the only limiting factor on our understanding of the universe is Time.
Still with me? I'll cut to the chase. I believe that we ARE limited in our ability to know things. Specifically, I believe that we are limited in our ability to scientifically know our origins. That's right. I believe it is impossible by scientific means to discover the nature and circumstances of humanity's creation.
Here's why. The nature of time itself is unexplainable. Observation, memory, existence are all dependent on time, yet there is no real way of explaining why time is what it is. Time is something all humans experience more or less the same way, yet none of us really knows why. Yes, we try, but it always amounts to nothing. I believe it always will.
At this point I would point you to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I would, that is, if I felt like I understood it. Suffice it to say that in quantum physics there is a very clear understanding that our knowledge is fundamentally limited. In overly simplified terms, it appears that it is impossible to observe both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. Moreover, it is theorized that a particle does not have a position and momentum a the same time. This is why quantum mechanics offers to predict the statistical probabilities of a particle's location rather than simply a precise location.
If you've skimmed down to this point, I don't blame you. Here's your reward. A thought experiment. How old was Adam on day seven of Creation? About a day old? How old would he appear to a scientist? We always imagine him in his 20-30's. My point is, for us to believe in a "literal" interpretation of Genesis, we would have to believe that God suspended or amended the rules of the universe in order to create a man who appeared older than he actually was. This isn't just true for Adam. It is true for the trees, the rocks, the stars, beams of light, butterflies and everything. So this kind of understanding of our world automatically tells us that our scientific observations cannot show us the truth about our origins with certainty. The Bible suggests that God miraculously created everything. Miraculously created things look old the moment they are created.
Take one of Jesus' most famous miracles--water to wine. Wine cannot be created in a moment. It takes time, yet it is reported that Jesus took what appeared to be water one moment and turned it into what appeared to be wine the next moment. In fact it seemed to the steward that it was really good wine! He didn't have to be a scientist to observe that this stuff had been around for a while. His observation, however, was incorrect. That wine had just been created. It was a fact without scientific explanation.
In the same way, the search for the origin of Adam or the universe is ultimately a dead end. In the face of claims about miracles there will always be reason to doubt the science. It seems to me that if we are looking for scientific evidence of Biblical creation it is like trying to see the back of your head with your own eyes. You are literally looking for scientific evidence of something there can be no scientific evidence for.
On the other hand scientific theories make assumptions about the fundamental nature of the universe and time that beg the question, "Where do these things come from?" Those who use science as an excuse for non-belief in God are using a method based on existence to prove that there is no real basis for existence. To say that God is impossible itself implies that "possibility" is a real thing. If there is a such thing as possibility and impossibility then where did the rules for such come from?
We have scientist arguing that we should only believe the things that we can "know." Then we have creationist arguing that belief is more important than observation when seeking to arrive at Truth. With such a fundamental difference of opinion about what Truth is, why do these people bother arguing over evidence, science, scripture, etc. They have a philosophical difference from the very beginning that makes it a forgone conclusion that there will be no agreement. It boils down to the fact that we are limited.
So that's why I don't like the debate. It feels a lot like beating a dead horse shaped piece of Jello. I vote we move beyond the debate and just learn as much as we can about what each other believes. Maybe then we can at least appreciate and respect people even if we disagree.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Something I wrote over a year ago
Originally written 2/23/2012
Two thoughts on
the innovation of technology came together in my head recently. One is the
impact of social networking on the amount of stored personal data available.
When one died a generation ago the amount of data generated by and about an
average person may be enough to fill a file drawer. Some pictures, some
letters, medical records and the like--enough to get a general idea, maybe
enough to write a respectable obituary or biography. The generations living
today have a vast and ever-increasing amount of data about them stored in the
cloud in the form of pictures, videos, blog posts, etc. The direction we are
going is ultimately to have a complete copy of our memories, personalities, and
more in digital form. As computers get better and better at processing large
amounts of data there are interesting ramifications. Ever thought about how
that info get’s used after you die?
The other
thought on innovation was sparked by Google’s latest news maker, a heads up
display that integrates the power of smart phones with augmented reality
technology. Basically, they want to put all the information available on the
internet directly on top of what you are looking at at the moment. Wearing
Google glasses you could, for example, look at the products in a store and see
product information floating above each item or price comparisons from other
stores. You could look at a restaurant sign and see reviews and
recommendations. The possibilities are endless.
When I put these
two thoughts together along with the fact that more and more social content is
becoming searchable and computers are getting better and better at interpreting
social content I begin to see a world that is hardly recognizable. A world in
which there are increasingly less secrets. The anonymity that comes with being
a face in the crowd diminishes greatly. Here’s what I mean. Let’s assume you
had some magical Facebook glasses that could bring up the Facebook profile of
any person you looked at. Instantly, you would have access to who this person
was friends with, where they worked, what they looked like in high school, what
they had for breakfast in 2007. Assuming everyone adopted the technology and
the glasses carried your id and location, as I’m sure they would, you would be
able to enter a crowded room and scan the room for “suggested friends”. The
social implications are mind-boggling.
Currently we
seem to have a large amount of control over our information though it is much less
than it was ten or even five years ago. At this point the rule of thumb is, if
you don’t want people to know about it, don’t put it on the internet. But the
direction of information technology and trends in marketing suggests that it
will get more and more difficult to keep corporations, government entities, and
even benign social networks out of your personal information. If you carry a
smartphone or even use a credit card there are a lot of steps you would have to
take to keep your location, purchase history, and other information to
yourself. If the people around you carry smartphones then there’s really
nothing you can do to keep your image off the internet. I received a text from
an acquaintance the other day with a picture he had taken of his son in a
restaurant. There I was in the background. We hadn’t noticed each other at the
time, but when he looked back at his pictures he noticed me there.
Is this bad? It
got me to thinking historically. Is this really such a huge shift for the human
race? A few generations ago most people lived in small communities or in a
rural setting where their family or tribe was the only social interaction they
had. Secrets were considered dangerous to the community. Privacy only existed
inside your head and even that wasn’t safe from the probing questions of your
elders. The result was social conformity and greater checks and balances over
morality. If a man abused his family, it would be found out, and he would be
dealt with. If a woman lied to her neighbor everyone would soon know about it
and she would face the consequences. What if the proliferation of widely
available personal information is actually bringing us to a state of greater
community and the ideal of a “global village”? Privacy groups assume a lack of
privacy is a bad thing, but what will it really lead to?
If history is a
guide then none of us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)