This started out as a comment, in response to a comment...but it got so long I decided to just make it a post. Besides, I think it's interesting.
I do need to give a little background. An earlier post had to do with us old folks learning to love being old for all the real reasons it's pretty cool.
Sure we're not as pretty or agile or sexual (san chemicals) as we once were, but there are a lot of benefits to not being self-absorbed, vain, insecure, unformed, unfinished and dumber than a box of rocks. (I speak only of myself, of course.)
A commenter took exception to my describing aging as "natural" because he believes that the bible testifies to a perpetually young, perfect, vital humanity before the "fall". He believes that our natural state is young forever. And that old age is unnatural...introduced by sin.
Now I totally respect his religious beliefs, but I don't agree.
In fact, I think the way we are is so elegant, and so logical I can't help but think the Intelligent Designer meant us to be just this way.
I honor the Bible, but I don't understand it as being the "word of God" with every passage being literally true history.
I think of it as the chronicle of a people's relationship with their God. And it is human understanding that informs it, with perhaps, divine inspiration...but certainly not divine dictation.
My idea of the "fall" is when our brains/minds developed to the point that we became able to distinguish good from evil.
Before that, we were in a state of bliss because we were in a state of perfect moral ignorance. We operated according to our animal nature, because that is what we were. We were nothing more than bundles of instinct.
It is when we became fully human that the concept of "sin" originated. We could make choices. We transcended instinct. That is the moment when we were "expelled from the Garden" of blissful ignorance into the harsh reality of choices and consequences; of fore-knowledge of death and the sad appreciation of the transience of all we love and value.
Remember, the fruit that caused the expulsion was from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
It was the moment we became free agents with free will...with all the doubts and difficulties, conflicting emotions and goals inherent in human intellectual development.
In my opinion we became better, higher, more evolved beings that the simple contented ones we had been before, grazing among the other animals, living short, brutal lives, but not minding it, because we didn't have the capacity to intellectualize it...and had nothing to compare it to anyway.
Adam biting the apple is a metaphor for the same moment portrayed in "2001 A Space Odyssey" when the ape absently tapping one bone against another forms the first abstract thought—makes the leap from animal to human. Kubrick called the sequence "The Dawn of Man". It still gives me chills to see it. It is the moment we began. The moment we left the garden of innocence and instinct and moved into a landscape of choices and consequences; of knowledge and the sorrow and pain—as well as the joy—it can bring.
I believe the biblical story of the "fall" of man is really one of the "rise" of man. Of that single moment in time...that first self-awareness...that first abstract thought...that first knowledge of choices, of free will...and of good and evil.
For the record, while the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Creationism, it is certainly not incompatible with idea of God as Intelligent Designer. There is no reason why God should be assumed to be incapable of creating the Big Bang, and designing evolution as science understands it, to result after billions of years in the development of Man (and beyond?)
It is absurd and anti-intellectual, as the Marxist and atheists do, to offer only the choice of Creationism OR Evolution; of Religion OR Science. It is perhaps their nearness to our primitive animal nature that prevents them from being more creative and inventive in their thinking.
The Gunslinger
(Sorry in advance for making the trolls "think" too much.)
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
9 months ago
I believe in ghosts (and flying saucers), too.
ReplyDeleteSee, we're on the same page.
For the post...Thank you,Sister!I have the same opinion re-Bible,Evolution Theory,etc...I read "2001" novel while in a fever as a 12 year-old,was blown away as to its subliminal ideas.To say "lost my Ego" would be mundane,but it started me on a journey (...yeah,yeah,sounds "flaky") to get beyond the obvious and trite bullshit. Yeah,did the "Osho" trip,from which I learned a lot.I'm constantly somewhat disappointed at the provincialism of "seekers",whether "Christians","Wiccans","Buddhists",etc...Most fall into dogma-nets...
ReplyDeleteI think you have the story just a tad bit wrong. Free will existed before the fall. If it hadn't, Eve would not have had a choice in the matter and would not have yielded to the temptation to "be like God". It was Adam's free will that allowed him to follow Eve. It was their choice to obey or disobey God.
ReplyDeleteI would hardly call what we are experiencing today, or in the past the rise of man. With all of our so called "smarts" and enlightenment, the last century was the most murderous in history as one human deity after another offered man a new path to paradise. The path to man-made paradise is littered with hundreds of millions of bodies and the death toll continues to mount. The sin of pride is alive and well, and there are plenty of would be gods out there overly impressed with their own sense of knowledge and what is best for everyone else.
The fall is real and the race for rock bottom is on. Pride cometh before the fall, and there certainly is no shortage of pride today, AKA "the rise of man".
Eve was forced to eat from the tree of knowledge by stinking, slimy, marxist liberals. It's all the liberals' fault. If Ronald Reagan would have been in the Olive Garden of Eden, he would have smote the serpent, and we would all be living wonderful, conservative, patriotic lives.
ReplyDeletePlease accept me as one of your own.
Chairman Mao was reported to have paraphrased Lenin after scraping a libturd from the bottom of his sandal: To make a dung heap, one can't help but step on a few libturds.
ReplyDeleteVery nice post – and from the loud shrieking of our libtard’s air raid siren, obviously right on target. I’m short on time, lot’s I’d like to dig in on (in elaboration, not disagreement), but my wife is … uhm… reminding me that I’ve got to help with our 11 yr old daughter’s B-Day party… but I want to at least chime in on this,
ReplyDelete“I believe the biblical story of the "fall" of man is really one of the "rise" of man. Of that single moment in time...that first self-awareness...that first abstract thought...that first knowledge of choices, of free will...and of good and evil."
Well… I think it is unavoidably – both – a rise and the fall. When you accept a coin, you get both sides. With Free Will comes the possibility not only of being either correct or in error, but of deliberately choosing something in spite of either one because you want it to be true, which has been the mantra of the left from day one.
A fellow named Mallock, wrote on exposing Marx & Socialist economic fallacies at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, which I linked to in this post, particularly the doctrine of Marx ‘that all wealth is produced by labor’, and he was surprised to receive replies from prominent promoters of socialism of his day to the effect of “Oh… no one seriously believes that anymore…" and then they’d give their new convoluted economic epicycles that they thought papered over the error (which he latter exposes as even more full of holes than the original – it’s a really good read, and still 100% relevant, "A Critical Examination of Socialism, by William Hurrell Mallock"), but what really surprised him, was that these same ‘we’re smarter than that’ socialists, who were so quick to point out they were too smart to be taken in by Marx’s fallacy, still actively used it as their main message in all their speeches!
And That is the heart of the matter in economics, in politics, in ethics… in "The Fall" - Truth isn’t a consideration for the leftist. Error isn’t a consideration for the leftist. Only the fact that they want reality to be what they want it to be (rather than what it truly is), that is the only consideration a leftist has – and the rest is merely quibbling over advertising copy and marketing strategies.
And truth be told, we all engage in this to one extent or another, any of us, when up against what we really, really want to be ok (everything from straying from a diet and on up (or down) the line), in spite of what we know to be true, choose to do so simply because we want it to be – we want ‘to be as Gods’, able to say what is good and what is evil… even though deep down (and much, much closer to the surface than we’re likely to admit) we know it to be folly. We know that reality is what it is, and no matter what we’d prefer, there will be consequences for both our error’s and for our follies.
(but I want it to be under 4,000 character break)
(so there... cont)
ReplyDeleteWe want it, and choose to do it, and just like as Adam said ‘It wasn’t my idea, this woman YOU gave me, she made me do it’, we all of us, in one way or another, obfuscate, rationalize, spin and flat out lie, to ‘get out of it’.
The mark of a mature person, of a Wise person, is first, their refusing to indulge their whims at the expense of others, and second, their careful and deliberate effort to not engage is such things, to see the truth for the often (seemingly) painful reality it is, and to choose that – but it takes intellectual effort, and a habituation to Virtue, which takes a lifetime to develop towards… and always towards, never likely perfecting, only improving.
The Truth is, that choosing the (seemingly) painful, and doing so habitually, leads to an alignment with reality, with truth, that produces a sound, near undisturbable solidity of soul, which Aristotle, Aquinas and our Founders, would have recognized as Happiness… and it is worth pursuing.
The foolish practice of the ever flitting leftist, is that seeking to avoid the (seemingly) painful, leads to nothing but a free fall into meaninglessness and ever spreading destruction. Cue libtard.
Trubolotta, I am not arguing against your Faith, honest. Nor do I intend a Religious debate, or to put down Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI went to Catholic school, and am intimately familiar with the Eden story and how Christians interpret it. Believe me, I understand what I am saying, and I understand that without Adam's Fall, there is no need for Christ's Redemption.
No believing Christian COULD accept it.
I understand that my point of view is not shared by believing Christians...how could it be? It fundamentally denies the need of Jesus' divine role as Savior.
Adam and Christ are bookends. Can't have one without the other.
There is not doubt that for Christians, Adam and Eve must have been free, intelligent beings. Otherwise there is no logic to the story.
Again, please understand, I am not saying you are WRONG. I'm just saying that in spite of all my Christian education, I just don't quite believe it.
That's why I say that I am a Cultural Christian, and a defender of the Faith; a believer in Divine Providence...but not a believing Christian.
And, you are quite right, man has made a brutal mess out of things. But he has created much good and beauty too.
And, please don't mistake me, I do not argue that Man's rise was into PERFECTION...but into the greatest-brained creature in creation (on earth anyway)capable of high and abstract thought.
From this ability comes all the wonder...and all the evil Man has perpetrated and suffered.
Eliphas Levi said:
"God has not created suffering; intelligence has accepted it to be free."
As I see it one can only be perfect while in thrall to God. Every animal is. Therefore they behave in perfect innocence; exactly according to their nature as designed by Him. They NEVER make a CHOICE to be evil.
But they have no Free-Will. They are beautiful, wondrous creatures existing as they were created. They decorate the world, but they add nothing beyond their delightful existence to it. They are not free to go beyond their thralldom and expand their perspective and responses to the world around them.
I don't think it's possible to be both FREE and PERFECT.
In your own interpretation of the story of Eden, even the very first people were incapable of it.
In other words, in a nutshell, I think that we were originally intended to be exactly what we are.
And it's all COMPLETELY AMAZING!
Not to worry Gunny. I didn't take your writing as an argument against my faith as much as an expression of you own. I responded only because my opinion, and beliefs, differ and I assumed the post was for discussion.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by perfect. Adam and Eve were both free and physically perfect. The fall corrupted not just Adam and Eve, but the entire universe, including those darling little animals. I think it was one of God's black comedy moments when he said "you think you are like gods, then you keep it together" knowing full well we would fail.
Of course, the left believes they can achieve perfection if they could just crush free will. They certainly have tried.
But I do agree with you, it's all COMPLETELY AMAZING! I don't think a day passes where I'm not awestruck by the overwhelming complexity and perfect coherence of creation. That usually happens when I stop for a smoke lol!
We smokers are a deep bunch!
ReplyDeleteGod and Science? Seems we have strayed a bit off topic so if I may, I'll take the liberty of interjecting a few comments.
ReplyDeleteI once asked one of my sons what he believed in, and his answer was science. I shook my head and said "that's too bad". He was puzzled and asked why I said that. My son figured that since I was an engineer and schooled in the phyiscal sciences I might agree with him. It is because of that "scooling" I answered that science makes a poor god because it is so fickle.
Case in point: Just before making a trip to Brasil last year, I read of an experiment conducted in Rio that proved the speed of light was inconstant. Of course, the experiment is being tested for reproduciblity, but the consequence would devastate the theory of relativity and Lorentz transformations, predicated on the long held acceptance that c is constant. The "Big Bang", a particular solution of the field equations, would become invalid. So much for scientific "truth".
The greatest advances in formulating a complete theory of evolution and intelligent design (both are incomplete and not falsefiable) are being made in the field of microbiology. Isn't it curious how two groups of scientists in the same field of investigation see things so differently.
Wasn't global warming purported to be "science"?
I remember from the movie "Mission to Mars", when one of the characters was asked why he had changed his interest from the pursuit of science to philosophy, his answer was that philosophy asked the more interesting questions. He quipped that one day, he might just pick up a rock that had "Made by God" stamped on it.
I believe in the value of science, but not as a god and certainly not as the ultimate source of truth. Science MAY impart knowledge, but it is woefully lacking in imparting wisdom.
Trubolotta said “… when one of the characters was asked why he had changed his interest from the pursuit of science to philosophy, his answer was that philosophy asked the more interesting questions.”
ReplyDeleteYep. The trend of modernity has been that since science can tell us about the facts of how things work, then that same method should be applied to tell us about Truth – ignoring the huge distinction between material and the immaterial, resulting in idiocies – once fairly popular – of calculating various meaning percentages for poems, or Jeremy Bentham’s calculus for determining ‘the greater good’ . The obvious result of materialism is, and has been, that since Truth (as something meaningful and deeper than simple fact) isn’t accessible to scientific quantification and reproducibility, then those claiming to be or to speak for, scientists, conclude (quite properly) that what they can’t quantify they can’t speak about, but go on to conclude (most improperly) that meaningful Truth is a meaningless proposition and discard it.
This is just as sensible, and for the same ‘reasons’, as the Marxist notion that since the laborer doesn’t understand what the manager or the financier does, and doesn’t see them doing much in the way of labor, that management and financiers must not contribute much to the economy and should be done away with. For examples of how that plays out politically, refer to North Korea and South Korea, or in the past East Berlin and West Berlin, or America even 10 yrs ago to Amerika 10 yrs from now (if we don’t Change course). For examples of how it plays out philosophically, compare the graduating class pictures of… say 1905 (look at their expressions, postures, adornments) as compared to the surly, slouched and pierced, tattooed and dyed kids of today.
Trubolotta said “I believe in the value of science, but not as a god and certainly not as the ultimate source of truth. Science MAY impart knowledge, but it is woefully lacking in imparting wisdom.”
ReplyDeleteYes indeed. Science, when using proper philosophical method, can tell us about facts, but synthesizing those facts into knowledge and the nature of that knowledge is dependent upon epistemology and metaphysics, which is the province of, when acknowledged and even more so when ignored, philosophy. And most philosophers who’ve avoided the disintegrating taint of materialism, will acknowledge that even Philosophy itself is limited where it enters the realm of the spirit.
There is a hierarchy to our knowledge and our ability to know it, first and foremost is Reality, then comes our abilities to discover and interact with reality, which is Science. Then atop that comes our ability to both know and to know what we know about reality, which is Philosophy. There ends our ability to discuss what we know and believe in a manner that could be called objective… where facts and knowledge can be spelled out and tested and verified, and I’ll leave it to each to determine whether or what may apply in matters of religion, mythology or…___.
It’s not for the lower tiers to deny the upper ones, or the upper ones to discard the lower… each level depends upon the other, and just as bad as science which denies matters of philosophy and spirit, is philosophy which denies the validity or relevance of science. A philosophy that denies its ability to know reality or claims that it can be whatever it says it is (which is both sides of modernity, the Baconian and Rousseauian), is just as bad IMHO as when a matter of Spirit denies or degrades philosophy and science as do literalist fundamentalism, or the rabid new atheists like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. And btw, for all their claims to be ‘scientific’, Dennett and Dawkins materialism fundamentally undercuts science and is far more mystical than even the likes of deepak chopra, they merely substitute complexity for hokum, but the con remains the same.
Btw, although it seems sensible on the surface, the positivist/Humian notion of ‘falsifiability’ is part and parcel with that same disintegrating strain of thought, which in denying any relation between Is and Ought, or Fact and Value, cuts off at the root the ability for our knowledge to be meaningful.
“I read of an experiment conducted in Rio that proved the speed of light was inconstant.”
Wo! I hadn’t heard about that one, do you recall the name of the test or who was involved in it?
Tru, just because someone calls something "science" doesn't make it so (global warming).
ReplyDeleteLet's be fair to "Science"...and agree that it means (at least when WE say it) "the honest search for TRUTH" about the physical world!
(Speaking philosophically...heh heh.)
While it is brought to bear by the higher, intellectual nature of Man, science is focused only on the physical nature of things. It is insufficient to explain everything.
Agreed it is philosophy that attempts to explain the rest.
I'm just saying that belief in God and belief in science are not incompatible.
I have only found two groups who believe they are: Atheists and Creationists.
Which, I guess, brings us back to my original point: I believe both in God and Evolution.
Unfortunately, "Evolution" has, for some, come to include: "the accidental rise of life from the primordial soup".
This "fact" was supposed to have been duplicated in a lab (sorry don't remember the scientist's name) and rocked the world.
It was considered to have PROVED that God was not required for life; that it was nothing more than an accident of natural, physical forces.
Subsequently, this claim was discredited, because it could never be replicated,(they had cheated). But new scientific knowledge takes time to trickle out to the non-scientific world...in spite of all those "What's New in Science" segments in our popular news outlets. *sarcasm*
Many (including those for whom it is convenient and useful) still propound the primordial soup fiction.
But there is widespread agreement among those who actually study the subject, that they can go back to a certain point but no further, and that the very beginnings of life are still an inexplicable mystery.
So, when I speak of "Evolution", I mean it the way Darwin, the Christian, meant it to be understood: that Divine Intelligence created the world..but also created a process in which creatures adapt to their changing surroundings with physical mutations that favor their continued survival - and that as a result, species "evolve".
I grant you it is still called a Theory because good science is honest and it has not yet been definitively proven beyond all doubt. But it is not a "theory" in the common sense of the word: "just a notion with nothing to back it up."
Let's be fair, Tru. I have a "tail bone" and an appendix.
I just don't see why God would include these unnecessary bits into a fully formed human body he just created from scratch.
For now, I'm going with Evolution.
In truth, the idea of Evolution strikes me as so elegant, so beautiful that I can't help but see the Divine hand in it.
And you'll think I'm completely crazy...but that scene with the ape and the bones...gives me a weird atavistic thrill...like a racial memory.
Van beat me to almost everything I said...and said it better.
ReplyDeleteThat's what happens when you get up too late on Sunday morning!
The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge were two trees in the Garden.
ReplyDeleteMan partook of Knowledge against the edict of God, disobedience was the first sin.
At no point did God forbid Adam from the fruit of the tree of Life.
I think that Gunslingers original post is very astute, it isn't that youth is bad, it is that the worship of youth is bad. Accepting age gracefully and not trying to hold onto the past is a good thing.
If you will allow me to paraphrase the Apostle Paul; "when I was a child I thought and spake as a child, but when I was grown I put away childish things".
Putting away childish things is a good thing.
Van, FYI -
ReplyDeletehttp://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608223v1.pdf
There are many papers "out there" questioning the validity of the Michelson-Morely experiment's null result suggesting it wasn't null at all. The linked paper however, is not one of them but an actual experiment. It has raised a lot of debate though I don't know if it has been reproduced as yet.
The GS said "I'm just saying that belief in God and belief in science are not incompatible."
ReplyDeleteExactly, but "science" is not a belief system - it has rigourous rules, it is not usually intuitive (relativity or wave optics) and in some areas, it defies what we may call common sense (quantum mechanics). The appeal of a simple hierarchical taxonmy does not make something a science, but it sure can make it a religion. We should be careful to avoid that "comfort zone" because that is all it is.
BTW Gunny, I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but it is way to involved for a back and forth.
ReplyDelete"...science is not a belief system"
ReplyDeleteFunny how the word "belief" means so many different things depending on context.
Ignore away!....you're not required to answer everything I say, point by point! We'd never get ANYTHING done! :-)
(As to Michelson-Morely, I have to look it up.)
Thank you James. We did get a little off topic, didn't we?
ReplyDeleteBut it IS interesting, isn't it?
“Unfortunately, "Evolution" has, for some, come to include: "the accidental rise of life from the primordial soup". This "fact" was supposed to have been duplicated in a lab (sorry don't remember the scientist's name) and rocked the world.”
ReplyDeleteIf you’re thinking of the one I am, was that the bit used in Carl Sagan’s Cosmos… the electrification of the proteins? If memory serves, one of the DNA discoverer’s… Crick?... ran the numbers every which way he could, and could not come up with a scenario where DNA evolved by chance, in a primordial soup on earth… it lacked billions and billions of years to become even a remote possibility.
I also have no trouble with evolution as a system which allows life to adapt, improve, evolve… but it doesn’t explain everything, and worse, it’s proponents use it to paper over uncomfortable gaps, such as Crick found. How life did progress from a presumed primordial soup to the present? I’ve no idea, but I suspect there will someday be found perfectly ‘natural’ explanations for it… and if there IS a God, that is no less than I would expect from such a master Programmer – and personally I’m far more impressed by the ‘program’ that can start from something like a ‘Big Bang’ (laying no further claims to it than theory), and progress to life, than I would someone who continually has to tweak his code, insert new hard coded tweaks and workarounds, as fundamentalists would have us believe. But either way, I can guarandamntee you, that however life appeared, it DIDN’T appear as a result of only some molecules randomly associating and ‘happening’ to replicate.
There is something interior to us, which makes the difference between a hand cranked adding machine, and our awareness of 2 + 2 equaling 4, different. One is mere mechanics, the other gives expression to Truth, and they are not equivalent – maybe it is true that some certain combination of proteins and chemicals in some fashion, allows some ‘force’ (sorry, just watched Star Wars III) to take root in them, as moss does on stone, but whatever it is, it isn’t mechanics alone.
I’ve often used the example of the Charles Babbage wood & metal computer he designed in the 1800’s (?). Theoretically, given unlimited time and resources, an assemblage of Lincoln logs, and abacus’s could be devised to do not only everything a modern computer does, but even reach that point (which I don’t doubt will come) when a computer can be designed to pass the “Turing Test” and perform the tasks assigned to it that would give it the appearance of human intelligence… but it will be only the appearance. Adding electricity and silicon circuits brings nothing new to the equation that a Rube Goldberg creation of Lincoln logs and abacus’s couldn’t provide, though rubes like Dennett and Dawkins would have you believe that sheer complexity, by way of three card monty fast ‘processes’ would somehow create not only life, but intelligence.
Sorry, no.
There is something within, something which makes Life living, and understanding - not merely processing - possible, and sheer mechanics, whether Lincoln Logs or gene machines, will never account for it, no matter an infinity of time and resources. Something else is present. What that is, or how it got there… I’ve no idea, but I finally came around to realizing that IT is there, and denying it is not only foolish, but self-delusion… in a number of different ways.
There is something within us which is not explained by mechanics, and if you seek Truth, rather than just explanations, I think that read from the proper perspective, that Religion has probably found it, and illustrated it, long before anyone even came up with the idea of a calculator - hand cranked, pocket, or otherwise. I have no trouble with Science and Evolution and Religion, only with their proponents misuse of them.
“Remember, the fruit that caused the expulsion was from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
ReplyDeleteIt was the moment we became free agents with free will...with all the doubts and difficulties, conflicting emotions and goals inherent in human intellectual development.”
And here we come to that point that brings science, philosophy and religion together. The beauty of Poetry (and not meaning to knock anyone’s Religion, it’s just the only way I can discuss it on this level), is that it can be used to help you to discover what is True in nearly every situation (though it doesn’t guarantee you against making your own errors), Truth, when poetically realized acquires something like a holographic depth and completeness, and through it we can discover what is true about the world, about ourselves, and even the nature of the Cosmos. I kid you not… though I once treated it as if such notions were nothing more than kidding.
Many, many moons ago I read the bible on as flattened and shallow a level as folks like Sam Harris, Dennett and Dawkins claim it to be; no more than, mere ‘talking snake stories’ which no wise person should ever be foolish enough to give credence to. That began to change when I noticed that all those I found to have true wisdom, relied heavily upon such ‘stories’ to convey their wisdom. Merely cataloging points and facts wasn’t even considered by them, plot, theme, imagination – the poetic – was nearly always the vehicle of choice to contain what they hoped to pass on. Everyone from those dismissed in modernity, such as C.S. Lewis & J.R.R Tolkien, on back to Thomas Moore, Dante, Cicero, Plato, Aeschylus, Homer… all used story, and none found the ‘fantastic’ to undermine what they wished to convey… and what of the Bible?
I was told that the Founding Fathers were all Deists at best, but more likely using that as a cloak for actually being atheists… when I went to refute a friend who denied that, I found that what I was told was the thinnest tissue of pretense – at best – or a useful (or negligent) lie, if looked at less charitably.
So… then what, John & Sam Adams… Franklin… Washington… Patrick Henry… even Jefferson… these men were all, what, unwise fools? And not restricting ourselves to Judeo/Christian tradition, but same for the Celts, Norse, Indian… all of these people were frauds or fools? ‘Well, they were uncivilized savages, tall tales were all they had’… uh-huh… and Cicero’s “Dream of Scipio” fits into that how?
When you discard the straight jacketed view of simple ‘talkin’ snake stories for the simple minded’, and read them… the sheer depth in nearly every phrase of books like The Bible, is astounding. I can find more golden nuggets of political philosophy in Moses’s one conversation with his father in-law Exodus 18about the folly of tyranny (benevolent though he meant it) and what might be called limited hierarchical federations, than can be found in ANY political science textbook in ANY public high school and even most universities. So who’s the fool?
The Wise have always passed on wisdom in poetic story, and part of the reason is that it is uniquely capable of being told in its entirety, but in a way that, for those still uninformed (and time and again can be found examples of having only a ‘little knowledge’ about things you little understand, can unleash disaster – glowbull warming/cap & trade anyone?) reveals little more than the tale itself, such as Arthur and the Holy Grail, or Book 9 of the Iliad – action and adventure, and little more (seen). But as a person ponders and considers, the same tale, told with the same words and in the same way, is found to reveal successive layers of depth, instruction and wisdom… in correspondence to the ‘students’ increased ability to see and understand it… there is a holographic depth and completeness to be found in even a ‘simple tale’ like Genesis, which can rock the footings of a simple skeptic and point him towards true foundations – providing he be willing to see.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Adam and Eve can be read from so many different perspectives (and there are two telling’s of them in Genesis… why, those old wise fools were too foolish to catch that? Rather than being ‘contradictory’ error’s, Maybe they are concerned with different perspectives of Truths?), it can tell us about rules, about sex, about youths transitioning from children in the home to young adults who can no longer live under another’s roof and need to establish their own families, and it can tell us about ourselves – here, now, today, and for all time past and future.
From the mode I mentioned above… Adam listens to what Eve says others are saying about the shiny, tasty apple… Eve listens to the whissspersss of what others say too… both know what Truth has told them… but… they want it… surely it can’t really be bad, it is after all so shiny and cool… and everyone sssay’s it’sss good… ’I want it to be ‘good’, you want it to be ‘good’, let’s ignore what Truth has told us and make like what we want to be true, isss ‘true’’ - but then there comes a time, unavoidably, sometime after doing such things, where the Truth can’t be denied, and the fig leaves you’ve spun to cover for each other, are revealed to be the naked lies you told… and as Kipling said,
” …And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!” .
Rather than snickering at the religious, leftists – particularly obamao – would be wise to take up the Good Book, and seek to place themselves less in the house of Mirth, and instead in that of the Wise… for the day will come, when Truth comes in the cool of the day, and plucks their fig leaves from them… and ‘The Gods of the Copybook Headings with….”
(Sorry for the length... probably should have turned it into a post...)
Trubolotta,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link! I know there have been several challenges to not only Michelson-Morely, but to what has become accepted about Heisenberg's interpretation of relativity... but none yet successful. The nice thing about Science done right, is that it won't allow 'I want it to be true!' to rule, even in place of what is strongly suspected to be false.
As is how it should be, that is the proper approach for the context of knowledge as it deals with it. The problem comes in when some of its practitioners mixes methods and contexts, in order to say allow 'I want it to be true!’… and when they do, you can almost certainly find political ideology (and/or corrupt philosophy) behind it.
Van,
ReplyDeleteYW. The major objection I've heard is that Michelson and Morely dismissed certain data as "noise" because of the magnitude of variance. People examing the data by value and time of day believe they made a major mistake and what they called excessive "noise" was actually a legitimate variation of results. If they erred, it was not likely deliberate. They were expecting to find the velocity of the "ether".
"The problem comes in when some of its practitioners mixes methods and contexts, in order to say allow 'I want it to be true!’… and when they do, you can almost certainly find political ideology (and/or corrupt philosophy) behind it." Amen.
OK - I can't resist. I will weigh in on evolution and intelligent design, but as briefly as I can. As far as I'm concerned, neither presents a valid and complete scientific theory, but each is science in its effort to explain the multitude of species. Both rely on observations and attempt a logical explantion of what the observations mean.
ReplyDeleteBoth have the same basic problem with the nature of their predictions. The transistional forms of evolution have not been found. There have been many hoaxes and incorrect classifications, but that's it. Nor can it be falsified because the evolutionist can always say we just haven't found them yet or they may have all been destroyed.
ID has a similar problem in that it doesn't allow for useless biomechanical parts waiting for generations to be assembled into useful biomechanisms. If such parts were found, ID might collapse, but that they haven't falls back to the same problem faced by evolution in a somewhat reversed position.
That being said, nice artwork morphing monkeys into men is no more valid than morphing George Bush into Hitler. It's just art!
Consequently, I accept neither as completed science. but works in progress. Until one or the other succeeds, I turn to my belief that a creator intelligent enough to create one life-form could just as well create them all at the same time or at any time of his choosing. Why not? If that creator could come up with something as ingenius as RNA and DNA, why wouldn't it be used to demonstrate just how intelligent the creator is by also showing how extraordinarly flexible the stuff can be, yet how precise it is in what it makes. It could have started with one creature, but why that arbitrary limit?
I don't know what science will eventually discover, but it seems to me that blocking one branch of exploration over another for whatever reason is not the practice of science, or of a learned society.
OK, gonna be quick here...
ReplyDeleteAs a believer in God and His Creation of everything, I also believe in science, not that it is bad. Science has helped God show us all we could have- if we used His creation properly. As to science itself- it does not disprove God at all, but rather glorifies Him- showing His complexity, the marvel of His Art, the beauty He sees, all made for us to enjoy, if we will. After all- man was not made for the earth, but the earth for man. We should care for it- and not litter (smile), but we can also use what He has created. God and science are compatible.
Shy III
BTW, Gunslinger- I really admire your thinking, and that of most those who comment. To be encouraged to think beyond one's comfort zone and seek answers is refreshingly healthy. God bless.
Tru, when I say Intelligent Designer, I should say intelligent designer. I am not speaking about that particular school of thought, only of God - the intelligence responsible for creation.
ReplyDeleteI just find the word "God" sort of loaded with meaning I don't...uh...mean. So I use synonyms often.
I have not read too much about Intelligent Design, but from what I have, I think your description of it is exactly right.
Shy Wolf, thank you. So glad you're here.
Van...poetry. Yes. Indeed.
GS,
ReplyDeleteThoughtful post. One of the reasons i love conservatives we can still love each other but disagree sometimes.. :)
Hey this might be one of the big stories of this year.. totally ignored by big media.. please check it out...
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/
European papers and russian sources saying NK torpedoed the oil rig in the gulf...
Bill Henry
after some checking it might be a hoax..
ReplyDeletesorry i should have checked before hand. .. but it was on an EU paper..
bill henry
GS, FYI:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t
The tailbone satisfies a structural function. You could live without a few ribs as well, but the strain on the musculature would have a price. Those "extra" ribs are there for a reason.
I really enjoyed reading this post and the comments that followed. I wish I could've taken part, but I have not been feeling well the past few days and was content to just read. :) Thanks for the interesting subject. It has stuck with me and I keep thinking about it. Sign of a very good post. -- skiri'ki
ReplyDeleteOne of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much...