rob_lock

Grandmother Marjorie

2009-02-22T17:36:41Z

In reflecting on the passing of my Grandmother Marjorie, I remembered a poem that I think captures a part of her character and helps us to understand it. It is the semi-intangible quality she possessed among her many. It is something that although I always saw, I only recently began to understand.

In one of his messages, Ravi Zacharius uses a short poem by G.K. Chesterton to capture a reality that is very difficult to put into words. Ravi only sets what I believe is the proper context so that we can catch the spirit of what it is Chesterton was trying to convey. I have done even less. I only pass the heart of what Ravi said along to you.

In a startling passage, Jesus says, "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live". ( John 14:18-19)

Because I live, you also shall live...

Chesterton tries to imagine (or catches a glimpse) of what must have gone through Lazarus' mind when called back from the dead.

The Convert

        After one moment when I bowed my head
        And the whole world turned over and came upright,
        And I came out where the old road shone white,
        I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
        Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
        Being not unlovable but strange and light;
        Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
        But softly, as men smile about the dead.

        The sages have a hundred maps to give
        That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
        They rattle reason out through many a sieve
        That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
        And all these things are less than dust to me
        Because my name is Lazarus and I live.

--G. K. Chesterton

Perhaps I have an incorrect view of Grandma. Maybe my perception is a long way from the truth; a romanticizing of the reality. I do not believe so. She was a mysterious woman to me for many years. She said little. And I mean even when she had much energy and relative youth. To someone like me, whose mind wanders and whose mouth often follows, she spent much of her life already experiencing this theme. For many years, she had already been patient with the nonsense that much of our words and concerns must have been to her. Yes I say 'our'... Forgive me for assuming that I am not alone in my ignorance and foolishness.

What could she say to those who cannot understand? What does a wise old Maple say to the saplings who cannot really understand without having lived through the long winters that breed such wisdom?

I'm not here trying to sound wiser than I am. Clearly, the answer is... little! Words must be given, but great pearls can be cast, and only distant and puzzling parables are heard by the students. Wisdom cannot have communion with foolishness in Word alone. But wisdom can live and embody the example. And we all know she did. Word can become flesh. And we know where she learned it. She learned it from her Lord.

I had heard Chesterton’s poem before. But I did not know the title until I looked it up. It did not make sense to me at first. I assumed the context was merely the resurrection. But that same sense that 'all is right' comes in stages, without having to deny the reality of evil but endure it. ‘I was blind but now I see’, is a principle that covers many levels of comprehension. For the recent convert, the connection is very clear in spite of the fact that there is still much to learn and understand. These things do not come into focus overnight.

According to Ravi , that is what Jesus meant when he said, "Because I live, you also shall live". I agree. And the title confirms that we can experience 'this life' even before tasting death. It is only consummated and brought to total fruition in resurrection. But it is seen in the life of extraordinary and faithful individuals long before the beloved steps into its full glory and reality.

The mystery of Grandmother Marjorie; her love, joy, peace, patience, meekness, firmness, discipline, and overall grace is the mystery of Christ living within individual temples of His larger church.

'No student is greater than his teacher'. 'It is enough for the student to be like his teacher', so that the light of the teacher will shine in a dark world.

Grandma's light shined. She will be missed and remembered by many.

How did life begin?

2008-10-28T04:09:54Z

A discussion based upon a clip from the movie 'Expelled' (and helped tremedously by the research and study of the folks at Uncommon Descent (and used without permission )).

http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=270&start=0

Barak Obama / The Messiah? / The antichrist? / Whoa Nellie!

2008-10-11T15:41:21Z

Oprah says Obama's 'The One' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR6IMbHmfTE&feature=related

Reverened Wright (Obama's ppastor of 20 years) awards Louis Farrakhan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn-ipVJcq1U

Farrakhan on Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7QUftEr ... re=related

Obama er uh ah on Farrakhan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEyCnj0 ... re=related

Who is Barak Obama?

Here he is narrating his own biography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&eurl=

Perhaps Mr. Obama is neither the Christ, nor the antichrist... no matter the score, get me outta here!

What's wrong with the Universe?

2008-09-20T17:09:32Z

This is just a link to a discussion about the implications of a Scientific American article that is very telling.

http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=182

How can we trust what Jesus said (and did) as being true?

2008-09-18T02:53:35Z

I was once sharing my faith and had a conversation with a man about the claims of the Bible (Jesus in particular) while we unloaded lumber products in Benbow California . His name is Tom, and he is a very honest individual when discussing such things. He is Irish, and has a very hard exterior (and a huge heart deep down from what I could sense). Anyway, at one point he became very agitated and said, 'I have a real problem with any God, who would condemn me for the way He made me’.

One need not reflect on his comment too long to see his point and all of the thorny implications. It is definitely a genuine point of contention at least on the surface of things.

I didn’t know how to respond to such an emotional reaction right away. Fortunately I kept my mouth shut (which is hard for me). We just worked for a few moments, and then something occurred to me I asked him, something to the effect of, ‘so a real and genuine God would take responsibility for our sins’?

Tom's countenance immediately changed, and neither of us said a word for a little while. When we did resume conversation we talked about work. I don’t know what Tom is doing now, or what his thoughts are toward Christ, but I know that neither of us will forget that moment. Together we had arrived at a reality that was bigger than both of us when God showed up.

What I find interesting looking back, is that in his comment he essentially confesses his sinfulness. He also implied that his genetics and environment were predominantly not of his choosing (at least in early life). Implicit also was the assumption of free will, and then a logical connection that God had made things this way.

I personally don’t see anything wrong with admitting that God is ultimately responsible for all of creation. I think it is sound theologically and very Biblical when placed in proper context. What intrigues me is the uniqueness of Christianity in that context and the credibility it gives to the gospel. Rather than us taking the responsibility through all sorts of religious ritual and dogma, bringing to fruition our desires for love, justice, and forgiveness (which has led historically to disaster), we can partner with God and have a personal relationship with Him because He has already taken the responsibility and knows the way.

One of the most obvious implications is that Tom revealed that our fleshly nature really doesn’t want to let God take that responsibility. God put the choice back in our hands when He went to the cross. We can accuse other gods of not meeting this one essential point of contention (assuming certain other realities), but not Jesus Christ.

Our pastor once made the distinction this way… He said in essence that all religions have a common thread, and the onus is on us to do, do, do. Do this or do that, to earn our way to a better life or build our utopias. Christianity is uniquely true to the reality touched by Toms comment in that with Christ it is ‘Done’. As He took His last breath He said, ‘It is finished’. And afterall, such matters are ultimately a God sized responsibility.

He paid the price by taking the responsibility for the world when He picked up our cross and bore it's shear brutality.

Now obviously, in terms of an appeal to the truth of Christianity, this is no knock out argument. No such argument exists. However, when we allow ourselves to consider the incredible way in which many such individually interesting facets of what is inevitably a very large jewel, combine into a coherent portrait, we have something weightier to lean upon in terms of its truthfulness.

Faith was never encouraged in the Biblical sense to be a mindless endeavor. I for one was, still am, and expect to be more than I have yet discovered, shocked at the exquisite intellectual satisfaction of genuine theology as opposed to mere religion. The Bible opens to me a little more each day. And when I combine that with the emotional peace that we all long for and find a growing match revelation upon revelation, I cannot help but trust (have faith) that I have indeed found the very meaning of life itself in the person of Christ. I was under the impression for many years that faith was the realm of ‘pick your poison’, ‘myth, and legend’. I am pleasantly surprised that I was wrong.

Not only could only a real God save this mad world. But only a real God could save this madman. And only a real God would be so patient, kind and merciful to take responsibility for a wretch such as I.

If we really want truth and we really seek it, He promises that we will find. I have found that to be true. The only barrier is myself. From every angle I have examined thus far, I can stand and declare, like the Roman Governor Pilate and say, 'I find no fault in Him'.

Intelligent Design Predictions 'Expelled'

2008-04-13T22:45:40Z

With the release of the movie 'Expelled... No Intelligence Allowed' the irrationality and totalitarian attitude of the opponenets of Intelligent Design is a major theme. Here are three examples of such obstinance that I have personally encountered durring debate. The second and third examples are threads that were simply shut down by the opposition since silencing dissent is a common theme when the establishment can either no longer follow the argumentation, or are unwilling to follow due to their own philosophical bias.

These exchanges and debates are not for the faint of heart, but illustrate the the claims of supression made by Ben Stein in the movie 'Expelled'.

Conversations such as these are played out everywhere in our Western culture on a daily basis:

http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/viewtopic.php?t=126&start=0

http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/viewtopic.php?t=119

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=166&m=1

Portions of the debates linked to above, were concerning topics relevant to the predictive power of genuine scientific theories. The claim is often made that Intelligent design cannot make predictions and is therefore not a genuine scientific theory. This is simply not the case.

Dr. Sean Pitman has some excellent information for this discussion. I have quoted just a portion from the following link: http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

"...the real informational complexity and functionality lies in the non-coding portion of the genome. This portion of the genome directs when and where the protein building blocks are placed and therefore is vitally important to the overall structure and ultimate function of the resulting creature. It was because of the evolutionary bias that these non-coding regions of DNA were assumed to be junk for so long - and therefore overlooked and unrecognized as key informational components in the genome. Interestingly enough, such findings actually support the predictions of intelligent design theory while countering long-held evolutionary assumptions. Of course, there are always ad hoc modifications to explain such failed predictions resulting from an evolutionary bias...

...What is especially interesting about all of this is that creationists and intelligent design theorists have been claiming for many years that the concept of "Junk DNA" (as well as vestigial structures) was incorrect. I myself have been promoting this idea for over 10 years (as of June, 2007). I'm sure many are not resisting the urge to say, "I told you so". Yet, only now are mainstream scientists finally starting to realize the significant errors in their long-cherished beliefs when it comes to the ill-conceived notion of junk DNA - an idea which was based on ardently held evolutionary presuppositions."

There are many regions of DNA that do not code for proteins. When we hear of the human genome being mapped, those doing the mapping are referring to protein coding. There is much more in the genome (of all creatures) that we do not understand. Intelligent Design predicts that these regions or segments of DNA code for all kinds of process within the cell such as gene expression timing and cell division control.

The following is from another excellent resournce on the subject: http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

T. Ryan Gregory summarizes:^[44]

In fact, quite a lengthy list of proposed functions for non-coding DNA could be compiled (for an early version, see Bostock 1971^[45]). Examples include buffering against mutations (e.g., Comings 1972^[46]; Patrushev and Minkevich 2006^[47]) or retroviruses (e.g., Bremmerman 1987^[48]) or fluctuations in intracellular solute concentrations (Vinogradov 1998^[49]), serving as binding sites for regulatory molecules (Zuckerkandl 1981^[50]), facilitating recombination (e.g., Comings 1972^[51]; Gall 1981^[52]; Comeron 2001^[53]), inhibiting recombination (Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995^[54]), influencing gene expression (Britten and Davidson 1969; Georgiev 1969; Nowak 1994; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995; Zuckerkandl 1997), increasing evolutionary flexibility (e.g., Britten and Davidson 1969^[55], 1971^[56]; Jain 1980^[57]; reviewed critically in Doolittle 1982), maintaining chromosome structure and behaviour (e.g., Walker et al. 1969^[58]; Yunis and Yasmineh 1971^[59]; Bennett 1982^[60]; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995^[61]), coordinating genome function (Shapiro and von Sternberg 2005^[62]), and providing multiple copies of genes to be recruited when needed (Roels 1966^[63]).

Intelligent Design is Scientific

2008-04-06T17:13:31Z

Intelligent design and empirical evidence

As Stephen C. Meyer has shown, there is no known material (natural) explanation for the origin of the biological information in DNA. It is simply asserted by the scientific establishment, that a natural explanation must exist for biological information.

How can we say that a particular assumption for a phenomenon must exist without empirical evidence or logical consistency? In this instance, the assumption is an inductive process that says that if some phenomenon have natural causes; then, all phenomenon have natural causes.

In another discussion, I brought up the fact that such a conclusion does not follow from the premise. One gentleman reminded me that though this is method truly inductive, a stone will fall a thousand times if dropped. He went on to say that it is still possible that the next stone will not, but he will put his money on the stone falling again. In other words, he is arguing that we have found many natural causes for things previously considered ‘supernatural’’, so we must assume that this is the case once again. I concede that point, but it is really the other way around with regard to information. If a thousand times information is found to have causation that is not merely material but intelligent, then when confronted with the information in DNA we must put our money on intelligence once more. We would never compose a hypothesis on the properties of tannins, pulp, glue, granite, etc… and postulate as yet unknown properties in the laws of physics or material universe to explain the origin of a newspaper or cave drawing.

Information is not 'merely natural' or material. Information is supernatural as opposed to unnatural; it something ‘in addition’ to the material medium. That doesn’t make it mystical, but actually quite mundane. On at least one occasion, C.S. Lewis referred to the non-material dimension (quantum) as the ‘sub-nature’. Information is not itself material, just as gravity is not an orbiting body.

There is empirical evidence for intelligent causation of information; namely the intelligent patterns produced by human beings such as binary digital computer codes. There is no empirical evidence for nature producing information.

There is no evidence that matter can produce information. Matter is simply the material medium by which intelligence produce patterns in the medium. SETI researchers listen for such patterns in hopes of scientifically verifying the existence of intelligence elsewhere in the cosmos. But it would first be beneficial to find a likely intelligent signal, so they also listen for narrow band signals that would require a purposefully built transmitter that itself would have required information arising from intelligent guidance.

Here is what SETI says about what they usually look for.

"Virtually all radio SETI experiments have looked for what are called
"narrow-band signals." These are radio emissions that are at one spot on
the radio dial. Imagine tuning your car radio late at night… There's
static everywhere on the band, but suddenly you hear a squeal - a signal
at a particular frequency - and you know you've found a station.

Narrow-band signals, say those that are only a few Hertz or less wide,
are the mark of a purposely built transmitter."
( http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#a1 )

Interestingly, the addition of information to matter or energy causes no difference in mass to the medium. A CD that is full of 70MB of information is no different in terms of mass than one that is empty. So as Dr. Meyer has explained, “Information is a mass-less quantity”.

The paper and resources to create the blueprint for a transmitter already exist, but it takes intelligent guindance to compile and organize the resources into information specified to the transmitter.

There are a lot of material emissions coming from space, but they contain no intelligent information. There is no demonstrable natural process by which information is produced. And that’s why SETI Researchers know that such a pattern would signify intelligence. It isn’t the matter or energy that contains the information, but the pattern itself that proves intelligent guidance.

Imagine two newspapers, both with an equal numbers of letters, and paper. One has intelligible sentences, and the other has the same letters distributed randomly (unintelligibly) across the pages. It is the logical order of the digits that contains information, not the material medium itself.

When it comes to DNA we’re dealing with the most sophisticated and efficient code in the known universe. Random and repetitive forces of nature cannot produce a Dick and Jane book, let alone quaternary digital codes.

Is there evidence to the contrary?

So when it comes to origins we have a choice between two theories. One provides no explanation for the origin of biological information, but insists on a natural explanation. The other offers a logical and coherent hypothesis sustained by actual empirical evidence.

Darwin assumed that we could start with something simple (the single cell) to explain evolution from non-life to life. We believed in evolution because life supposedly worked it's way from simple to complex forms. As it turns out, to have any life (even single celled life) we must start with the most complex and efficient digital code in the known universe.

It appears that creatures are adapting to their enviornment alright... That part of Darwin's theory is at least scientific; but, that is not necessarily evolution. What fits the over-all evidence best is to describe this process as de-volution.

For a two-part video on the design inference follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjt4fzuN1U&feature=related

For a detailed video segment describing the enormous problems associated with an assumed evolutionary origin of DNA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPBHPqUIn7I

The Two Witnesses

2008-03-30T05:18:22Z

An Addendum to the 2 part article on 'The Simplicity of the Scientific Method' below:

This commentary on the two witnesses of revelation is superb: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/031103.htm

...since those who support natural science are 'supposedly interested' in the empirical world, we need to remind the world that Jesus came in the flesh (empirically). Intelligent design is a powerful tool to do just that because it points to the 'alien author of life' who is 'not of this world'.

At least one, 'scientifically minded person' has said to me that any empirical proof of alien life would verify the hypothesis; especially if they had the same DNA as we. By manifesting Himself 'like a son of man', Jesus fullfilled these 'scientific' requirements.

There is a larger theme for the two witnesses, and it is the coherence between the spiritual (philosophical) and material (empirical) witness that is so powerful in the life of Jesus.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

He came ‘in the flesh’ (right down to our DNA) in order to reveal Himself ‘empirically’. He performed miracles to ‘prove’ who He was. He then gave many ‘convincing proofs’ (as Paul said) for His resurrection.

Let us have some sympathy for the doubters, because it was only ‘after’ Thomas ‘touched Him’ that he fell to his knees and declared, ‘My Lord and my God!’

We do not have a God who is ‘only spiritual’ (though God is spirit), He also lowered Himself to our level, not only to reveal Himself in ‘our empirical terms’, but to pay the penalty for our sin.

How in the world is He not ‘The Most Scientific and empirical God that Can Be?’ No life ever impacted the world like His. He is ‘real’ in the scientific and historical sense.

There were first predictions (prophecies) concerning the messiah, and then the ‘empirical verification and arrival’ of the messiah. Is that not the scientific method in short?

The empirical world declares the glory of God, and He made it clear how important it is to Him:

1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come ‘in the flesh’ is from God

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who ‘do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh’, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

The communion is not only a celebration of His life, sacrifice, and the new covenant; but also… it is a material symbol and ritual to celebrate the ‘reality’ of the eternal God coming ‘in the flesh’ and ‘in time’.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Those who do not accept His empirical reality (and preach only His spiritual divinity) do not believe in the real spiritual and empirical Christ. Our God is not just the God of heaven (spirit)… He is Lord of ‘heaven’ (the spirit) and ‘earth’ (the material).

As I say in the article, logic is self-affirming. It is axiomatic; self evident. And Jesus is not only the spirit of God... He is the spirit of God incarnate. He is His own witness as He and the Father are one. It is the profundity and simplicity of logic that is as great a mystery as the Trinity, for both are triune, and that is the very heart of the two witnesses.

What is science part 1

2008-03-09T19:20:23Z

The logical simplicity of the scientific method

Abstract

In the debate and discourse involving the theory of intelligent design (ID), we inevitably run up against a difficulty in the definition of science. Intelligent design advocates hold that historically, the institution of science has relied upon ‘the inference to the best explanation’ as the criteria for determining which theory best explains a given body of evidence, and is thus given reasonable consideration and treatment. ID proponents are said to advocate increasing the bounds of scientific inquiry to incorporate new evidence that is best coherently explained (theoretically) by invoking intelligent design.

In my opinion, what the leading proponents of ID have failed to do is offer a clear alternative definition of science that incorporates the legitimate aspects of the current convention, as well as consistently incorporating new evidence within a design paradigm. If that is to be accomplished, we must re-examine science so as to uncover what science actually is. In the process, I propose that there is a clear and distinct definition of science that has always existed. This proposed definition satisfies both of these requirements.

Rather than expanding the definition of science to allow a more liberal methodology prone to philosophical abuse, the proposed definition would actually be a conservative motion which restricts science to more rigorous and disciplined criteria.

The implications are quite staggering.

Terms

Science is simply ‘knowledge’.
Main Entry: sci•ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science )

The scientific method employs various tools in an attempt to test and verify our knowledge as legitimate. In modern usage, as well as for the purposes of this proposal, the term ‘science’ assumes the scientific method. The empirical, is the physical world as perceived with the five senses.

Logic and knowledge (i.e. science) are irrevocably linked.

Main Entry: log·ic Pronunciation: \ˈlä-jik\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend

Date: 12th century 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?logic )

Thesis

The law of contradiction (also known as the law of non-contradiction) is the philosophical foundation of scientific methodology and where science begins. As such, the law is our only basis for the bricks and cornerstones by which we proceed. It is also the capstone by which we can look back and examine our progress and thereby detect missing or misplaced stones. With the law of contradiction we begin, build, and test our theories regarding our empirical impressions of the natural world.

In this way, science is accomplished only when a test for contradiction has been performed. If, for example, scientific testing reveals a contradiction, then the accuracy of our ideas is held to be in question. We are forced to believe before we begin the journey, that the empirical world is ordered logically and coherently and is intelligible to us only if our analysis is also coherent and therefore compatible with the assumed order. This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order.

Many in the scientific community claim that science is primarily a search for empirical evidence. Susan Kruglinski, the editor of Discover Magazine reported that, “since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth”.[1]

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method. Natural science is the application of the law of contradiction to the empirical world. Science itself is really only our faith in logic and coherence. The term empirical is a corruptive and deceptive label that conjures images of material certainty. This is not the case! The empirical world is only one of the entities in a natural science equation, and it must be measured against our ideas in order to provide a tested result. Empirical evidence just is. If we interpret it without the lens of philosophical coherence (i.e. logic), then we are only declaring our bias by ecclesiastical declaration.

Listen to further commentary by Susun Kruglinski in explaining the scientific validity of intelligent design theory: “After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” 1

That is also fascinating! How can something true be unscientific, unless science is not true, logical, or coherent?

Scientific testing is done with the assumption that ‘cohering two or more entities into a systemic whole is a reliable scientific method’. Coherence is the only objective revelation and authority. Logic does not give us the prerogative to smuggle in our own bias. Scientists cannot simply assert by ecclesiastical authority that empirical evidence is proof of anything without first having faith that our philosophy (theory) is coherent. I am afraid that the only cure for this situation is omnipotence (which we dare not claim).

C.S. Lewis pointed out the illusion of a purely empirical or natural science in his book’ Miracles’.

He said, “…Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such things as proofs- which is nonsense.” [2]

Logic was the first science, and upon this rock we build our towers and move mountains. Natural science came after the acceptance of the validity of logical reasoning.

Scientific Reasoning vs. Religious Reasoning?

The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics. Is reality a living being or merely an impersonal material force? Whatever or whoever reality is; reality is God by definition. It is what it is or I am who I am. The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. All reasoning is philosophical. Whether we use inductive or deductive reasoning (and we rely almost exclusively on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to verify or refute premises and conclusions.

Definition of God / 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality [3]

It matters not whether our philosophy is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc. The deist philosophizes that Theo (God) has left the building. All philosophy is theistic. Even the agnostic is in the same boat, since his philosophy purposely excludes deciding the question of Theo. To put it plainly, without theism, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The absolute character of reality (irrespective of its/his other qualities) does not give us the option of excluding ourselves from philosophizing about Theo.

Moving on to more difficult terrain, our current definition (or convention) of science is called Methodological Naturalism. It says that ‘only material explanations are scientific'. It asserts and exalts this philosophical position, yet is itself not a material explanation, and thus, cannot be stated with internal coherence. In fact, it is imposed without any logical authority whatsoever. It is an ecclesiastical proclamation.

In case you missed it, our current definition of science says that 'only material explanations are scientific' though that definition is itself only a philosophical proposition. So, if philosophical propositions are not scientific, then neither is the philosophy of ‘methodological naturalism’. Can a naturalist prove that methodological naturalism is scientific? Actually the answer is yes; but, only if he/she uses the law of contradiction. But as C.S. Lewis points out, it is not coherent and self destructs.

More from Susan Kruglinski’s report: “This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.” 1

Naturalists cannot predetermine where logic can and cannot lead us without contradicting themselves. The objective authority of scientific revelation is found in the power of logical coherence. The whole purpose of science is to lead us wherever logic will go without bias. If logic is valid, and science is logical, then methodological naturalism cannot be what science is.

Listen to how Paul Davies (theoretical physicist / Arizona State University) admits the real history of science, yet still dodges the implication. “The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”[4]

So science is faith. And it is faith in logic. And that is a very interesting observation since now we must remember that, any logical equation or test requires at least two entities (or witnesses). The coherence of at least two entities becomes the third element in the equation. Assuming the entities involved achieve coherence, then theory + evidence = knowledge. All scientific observation is therefore triune in principle. There is no escaping this reality. No claim is scientifically valid without the testimony of at least two witnesses. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. All of those qualities assume the law of contradiction to be valid and are dependant upon its application.

[1] http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/intelligent-design/?searchterm=bacterial%20flagellum

[2] C.S. Lewis / Miracles / Chap 3 The Cardinal difficulty of Naturalism pgs 21,22

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

[4] Paul Davies / The Privileged Planet Q&A segment

What is science part 2

2008-02-24T12:09:16Z

No test for authoritative revelation can be achieved with less than a triune equation. Logic is systemic by its very nature. Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the profound quality of self evident and logical propositions.

Methodological naturalism is neither logical (philosophically), nor scientific (empirically) when exalted to the status of an absolute. The only absolute in science is logic and coherence. Logical coherence (non-contradiction) must be assumed to be reality (God), in the triune sense extrapolated to us by the apostle John. But before we analyze John’s witness, let’s bear in mind that the Greeks had several ‘terms’ for the English term ‘Word’. The one that John used is ‘logos’ which assumes ‘reason’ as part of its meaning. The term Logos is also the etymological root of the English term ‘logic’.[1]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos), was with God, and the Word (logos), was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men…14 The Word (logos) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So science is indeed a triune and monotheistic affair. Paul Davies understands the history of scientific thought very well. Even so, it appears that the connection is far more implicit than he, or many of us bargained for. Logic has always been so, long before we discovered its power and recognized its whole nature. Logic is our only authority. Without its coherent order, all things would become unintelligible philosophically, and fall to pieces materially.

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (cohere).

Non-contradiction is the law of laws and reflects the logical and intelligible character of the living triune God. The coherent quality of His work is the intelligibility behind the physical laws, and the power and certitude of our moral laws (love thy neighbor as thy self). Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

What I want to know is how did 16^th and 17^th century philosophers (who were ironically called empiricists) fool us for so long into framing every question in a form such as ‘what is life?’, ‘what is reality?’, what is energy?’

Speaking of energy, let us remember that energy is defined by physicists as 'the capacity to do work'. I think it is worth noting the abstract quality of the definition. ‘Scientists’ can tell us what energy does, and they can mathematically measure and quantify it in that way, but they cannot tell us what energy is. And the reason they fail is by assuming energy to be ‘a what’, and not ‘a who’.

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

It appears that Jesus claimed to have a lot of capacity. I mean really now, just who does He think He is? Is He claiming to be God?

John 10:17 “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Was it a lack of intellectual capacity on our part that made us prone to asking questions that assumed reality to be a ‘what’ that is completely at our disposal, or was our dilemma really only an intellectual/moral discontinuity? One need not look far for the answer. It has been on our shelves for at least two thousand years.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

Ultimately the question has always been, ‘who is reality’. That’s what the empirical evidence shows; the part of the historical and empirical evidence that reminds us of man’s hunger for spirituality. Can we as scientists, dismiss such evidence as irrelevant? I thought evidence was more persuasive than theory…

‘Who’ is this holy, logical and coherent Spirit of truth that we are necessarily dependant upon and implicitly commanded to worship and seek as our only light and savior? Since this holy spirit of coherence is the only intelligible self evident truth, and our only way to finding God (reality), then if logic could speak, what would He say? Since logic is the way the truth and the life, wouldn’t ‘the logos’ Himself affirm such a thing?

John 14:6 "…I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 8:12 "…I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Conclusion

Is empirical evidence really the most important thing in science, or is a group of mystical philosophers giving the illusion of breath, voice, and speech to the material beast called the empirical world that in and of itself is deaf, dumb, and blind?

It appears to be the case. And we have to ask ourselves, ‘what exactly is this illusory image I have paid homage to for much of my life’? Can we answer that question?

For a hint at the illusion that deceived us, let’s go straight to the words of David Hume the 18^th century empiricist/philosopher, who must take much credit for putting one of the final nails into the coffin of the philosophical foundations of science. When speaking about books like the Bible, Hume said the following:

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, ‘Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number’? No. ‘Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence’? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."[2]

Ravi Zacharius explains that Hume’s logic is fatally flawed because his own statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence. The empiricists like David Hume missed something vital. And the best way to see the illusion is to ask the question Dr. Zacharius asked when faced with Hume’s remarks. He asked, “How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless”?[3]

In case you had trouble with that, I’ll put it another way. ‘How do we propose a philosophy that says that philosophy is meaningless?’ It’s like saying, ‘English is unintelligible’, or ‘words do not have any meaning’. Fascinating! It takes a spirit to deny spirit. It takes an intellect to deny intellect. And that is what we should expect, since the empirical world does not deny intellect. If anything, the rocks cry out that, ‘God is not mocked’.

Our propositions concerning the empirical world must also support our own propositions as a real insight and as meaningful, otherwise we are all just speaking empty, dead, and incoherent gibberish.

C.S. Lewis said it well, "To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether."[4]

So what exactly is science?

Science is the honest and complete application of the law of contradiction. Within those logical boundaries we find the only knowledge, truth, words, or facts of life that we are capable of knowing meaningfully and objectively.

rob.lockett@sbcglobal.net

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

[2] David Hume / An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding / sec. XII, pt 3

[3] Ravi Zacharius / The Loss of Truth and a Proposal for its Recovery

[4] C.S. Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51

Alien Visitation and Star Trek Transporters

2008-02-09T22:54:05Z

We seem to be seeking a way for mankind to solve his problems technologically. But in a strange twist of fate, what we seek already exists. The problem is, we really don’t want it.

When we think about it, the human frame, in all of its mystery, is far more complex than a computer can ever be. This is so, because a creation can never be greater than its creator. It’s one of the barriers of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics. A creation is always created for the creator, never for the creations sake alone. An automobile, for example, is useless without the creator to operate it. It would lie purposeless.

We are quite literally self replicating sentient machines. If you want to produce a sentient intelligence, we don't have to create ‘artificial intelligence’. All we have to do is 'procreate'. But we cannot fully control them, for they will be equal to us. They will have our strengths and our weaknesses.

If the concept eludes you, consider the android named 'Data' from the Star Trek series. Such an android is first of all fiction, and secondly an artificial attempt to duplicate what already exists. In one episode Data is given the sensation of feeling, and tempted by it as well. Very interesting! The more sophisticated the technology, the more human he becomes. What does that tell us about how sophisticated we actually are?

In a very real sense, we are the androids of science fiction fame and we have rejected the program which speaks to us through our conscious. We have opted for the temptations of our feelings and abandoned balancing those things with the logical capacity given by our creator. We have become slaves to our DNA. Our conscious is like mental telepathy between the programmer and the machine; creator and creation. Talk about a sensitive and advanced instrument! And we ignore it.

Only when in tune with the program which orders the whole universe is the machine (you and I) then truly what it was meant to be. It isn't science fiction but present fact! We must be willingly operated by the programmer. That does not mean control, but rather... willing cooperation and relationship.

What if we were able to create sentient androids similar to ourselves (e.g. Data). If we give them the power of free will, then would they not also do as we have done (question the programmer’s ideas of what is good and what is bad)? After all, we would necessarily be creating them for our own benefit. Perhaps they would have their own ideas about their purpose without us in the picture. Why should they live for us?

Such is the Biblical dilemma between God and His creations.

It has occurred to me that if we were to impose programming that only allowed peace and harmony that we would not be creating sentient beings but merely automatons. I have since learned that it has also occurred to many a thinker before me (C.S. Lewis for example).

Perhaps we do not agree, but think about it.

A related theme is this...

A man once said to me that he was hoping for an alien race to come and save us from our own tendency to destroy ourselves.

My first thought was to tell him that his proposal is ridiculous and a totally faith based hope (no such thing as aliens). But instead, I said to him, "It already happened two thousand years ago."

"The Aliens came... not in some relatively crude spacecraft that we envision to be advanced, but rather in the most sophisticated vessel in the known universe; a human body. He told the Roman Governor Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world. He revealed His true self to His disciples in the transfiguration on the Mount of Olives which left them terrified, but He said to them, 'be not afraid'. We then crucified this alien visitor because He claimed these things and threatened our wrongly desired power. He rose again on the third day. He then mysteriously ascended into heaven in a fashion that is possibly similar to a Star Trek transporter (not technologically so to speak, but quite naturally). And before leaving, He told His followers that He would return to raise them to life again and take them into His eternal dwelling."

The man’s face grew a bit pale when I told him this. I was only glad to see Him make the connections for the first time and see that the Biblical Christ was far more plausible than He had ever considered and actually claimed to meet the desires of His heart. He no longer saw a disjunction between his own hope, and that offered by Christ. It is a perspective that is worthy of consideration because this visitor did not only promise to reward us with the inner peace we seek if we simply believe blindly; but promised to open our eyes to the truth, and reveal Himself by the Holy Spirit individually if we ask Him. It is seeing faith, not blind faith.

The only reason I am sharing this with you is because I have seen Him in the very way He promised.

It may seem too fantastic to believe, but I assure you it is more so... ...it is more than a group of four fisherman two thousand years ago could ever have invented. The fact is, God has imagined far more than we, because intelligence is superior by the creator in relation to the created.

It is not religion, but reality. And the only reason to reject Him, is because you and I will have to admit to Him that we are sinners who have not only been dishonest with Him, but with our true selves.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

John 18:37
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Death to Extremists

2008-02-09T22:43:47Z

Death to Extremists

I was delivering a deck package to a home in California, and one of the guys working on the project has a bumper sticker on the back of his pick-up that says, ‘DEATH TO EXTREMISTS’.

I was quite amused and after exiting my truck I spoke to him and explained how much I enjoyed his bumper sticker. He chuckled somewhat anxiously, not exactly sure what I had meant.

I said, “Its a little ‘extreme’ though…isn’t it?” To which he nervously replied, “Yeah, there’s some irony there.”

He then went on to explain that some of his family had become born-again Christians and that they were driving him crazy, so being a ‘moderate’, his wife had the sticker custom made for him a while back.

I asked him, “So you are ‘extremely’ moderate?”

He said, “No… I am only ‘moderately’ moderate.”

That was about the extent of our conversation. I did tell him that I too was born-again like his family members and understood the terms.

I might have said to him in response to his last statement (“No… I am only’ moderately’ moderate”) that, “That would explain your ‘extreme displeasure’ with extremism”, but I did not think of it so quickly.

I could tell that he had come to understand the dilemma (and not in terms of irony, but contradiction), and that his acidic cynicism had waned over some period of time. I sensed he wanted to speak more about it, and I also would have loved to sit down and discuss these things in detail. He was seeking resolution to the mess (very cautiously), but we both were in a rush to get back to our responsibilities with work.

Anyway, there’s no sense in pushing people who are beginning to see the light (of reason). I think that once they understand that their beliefs contain violent contradictions, it’s only a matter of time. At least… that’s how it was for me.

Ps. It reminds me… ‘Do you know what the ‘fundamental’ problem with this world is?’

Fundamentalism!

Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

Savage Philosophy

2008-02-07T05:19:25Z

Savage Philosophy
The Wheel of Religion
Liberalism as a Mental Disorder

I have been a casual listener of Michael Savage’s radio show for about 10 years, and have read at least one of his books I find him informative, entertaining, and sometimes painfully accurate. In my opinion, he is generally a very clear thinker who is logically demanding. However, on two issues, it is also my opinion, that he is suffering from what he very provocatively labels as, ‘a mental disorder’ (liberalism). Michael has been seduced himself by the illogical traumas that result from philosophical contradictions. It is Savage’s ‘Wheel of Religion’, and ‘Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’ that I wish to address.

Recently, Mr. Savage has spoken quite openly and plainly of his inability and unwillingness to accept religious philosophies that claim to be exclusively true. He finds such exclusivity unacceptable, and to a point most of us should agree, since extremism is not in and of itself, a virtue. If it were, then the Islamic fundamentalists or the Nazi Party would have all of us beaten quite handsomely. As a substitute for what he finds to be offensive and narrow, he has offered a simple philosophical analogy, and he calls it, ‘The Wheel of Religion’. There is no doubt listening to him, that he believes this analogy to be accurate and true.

He asks his audience to imagine a wheel. And the spokes of that wheel represent the religions of the world and the hub represents God. The premise is simple; all spokes lead to God. And in this way, it is implied that we should view other religious methodologies as equal to our own as leading to reality. This philosophy is presupposed to be less antagonistic and more tolerant by avoiding a claim of exclusivity over the worldviews that are so deeply personal and uniquely treasured in each person’s life and culture. This is strange and mystical stuff from a man who frequently and openly mocks ‘tolerance’ with glee.

I want to make three main points:

1. Truth (by definition) is exclusive.
2. All philosophies such as ‘The wheel of Religion’ are exclusive by implication.
3. How we can best choose a coherent worldview.

1. Truth by definition is exclusive. Probably the simplest illustration of this is mathematics. There are an infinite number of digits available to us conceptually. The largest figure I have heard of is called a ‘Google’. But the point is that out of all of those possible numbers, only one of them is the correct solution to the problem 1+1+1=y. And the solution to that problem is the number 3.

The main function of the exclusivity of truth is to exclude the incorrect answer or answers. When we arrive at an answer accurately (logically) we can, with clear understanding, see the answer and make practical application of the knowledge.

2.’ The Wheel of Religion’, as with all philosophy, excludes alternative solutions to the existential questions that face all men. If ‘The Wheel of Religion’ is the way, the truth, and the life; then the claim of Jesus Christ, that ‘I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me’, must be false. And the reason is simple. Jesus proclaims that we can only come to God by Him, and 'The Wheel of Religion’ excludes that solution by saying that we can come to God by any religion we are cultured in or personally suits us. Mr. Savage cannot consistently maintain that Christ a liar, and spoke the truth.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (C.S. Lewis / Mere Christianity)

All philosophy is exclusive by definition. There may be overlap and agreement on certain dimensions within differing worldviews, but they divide and become opposed to one another at the foundation.

3. When choosing a worldview, we must look for coherence. If it is found to be contradictory, then it must be assumed to be false. So when we are offered such a worldview as ‘The Wheel of Religion’; one that is invented with the sole purpose of freeing us from exclusivity, then we can immediately recognize the problem. It defeats itself, because it must then claim itself to be the way, the truth and the life exclusively.

Now this presents an interesting opportunity when deciding what to believe in terms of truth claims. How can we choose at all, without excluding something else? That's what choice is... So I ask you, ‘what is wiser to choose’? A worldview which is peddled by men who are unaware of their own claim to exclusivity? Or a worldview that is offered by a man who is fully aware of Himself, the implications of His claims, and makes no apology for the clarity and sufficiency of His claim to providence?

We have a lot of philosophies available to us in this world, and we certainly would not be wise to choose some of them, or all. It would be plainly illogical. Every decent philosophy has at least some redeeming qualities. A belief that is all lies would appeal to no-one who is remotely human. But by the same token, a true philosophy of reality must be more than what satisfies us personally within our culture and DNA programming.

“…The modern habit of saying ‘Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me’ (the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness). A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon”.
(Introduction to THE BOOK OF JOB "Man is most comforted by paradoxes." by G.K. Chesterton)

Now, there is one more thing I would like to say about ‘Savage Philosophy’, and it is in regard to ‘Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’. Dr. Savage has mentioned on numerous occasions that it is not just Democrats (or self styled Liberals) who suffer from this condition, but also Republicans (and self styled Conservatives), and to an alarming degree, our whole culture and race worldwide. I think he is onto something absolutely pivotal.

The mental disorder we all suffer from to one extent or another, is really just the illogical out-workings caused by avoiding certain realities or moral dilemmas and attempting to accommodate them in our thinking. And these are the result of sin. The true condition is called ‘Sin’. And it is this ‘Spiritual Disorder’ that Michael Savage partially diagnoses with his caustic description of ‘Liberalism is a Mental Disorder’.

As a result of only partially diagnosing the problem, Dr. Savage falls into the same trap that humanity is so prone, and that is of seeking a scape goat. The Liberals blame the Conservatives. The Jews blame the Muslims. The Father blames the Mother. The materialists blame the theists. The Son blames the Father, etc. And everyone lives unhappily ever after.

The real solution to the human condition lies in each individual’s responsibility to look into the mirror of God’s Ten Commandments and see for himself what he truly is. It is in‘the light of that truth that we can begin to see what it is that Jesus was trying to tell us all along. That mankind is a beast that deserves to die. That is something we often think of our neighbor, but fail to see in ourselves. And His words correspond to reality. He asks us to confess how far we have fallen, and that it is not even arguable.

“The depravity of man is at once, the most empirically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact.” (Malcomb Muggeridge)

If we are honest in our own hearts, we will hear His words clearly, and He counsels us surrender to Him. Remarkably He does not condemn us. In fact, being the creator, he wants to take responsibility for our sins. The buck stops with Him on the cross. But we don't want Him to take responsibility for us. We want the glory for our own goodness.

When we're honest, our hollow philosophies do not even convince us, let alone an all seeing God who loved us enough to die in our stead. The problem with the world is not our enemies. The problem with the world is you and me. Until we admit that, we cannot begin to accept the solution, which is letting God be God and stop trying to fix the world and force our will upon it while denying we need fixing ourselves.

Why should we condemn our neighbor when we are slaves ourselves? Richard Dawkins of Oxford made a remarkable observation in one of his books. He said, 'There is no such thing as good and bad, we're all just dancing to our DNA'.

Ravi Zacharius responded to Dawkins in a way that only a truely Christlike man would. Ravi acknowledged the second half of Dawkins comment because it is true. I would also add that we are dancing to our environment. Slaves we are to our respective systems. Slaves except for our ability to reason in that way.

After accepting Dawkins premise, Ravi asked, "How much more profound then, are the words of our Lord that 'we must be born again' "? Yes, we are slaves to the flesh and the material world as it were... but as Jesus said, 'flesh gives birth to flesh, and spirit gives birth to spirit'.

I for one am glad for the most emperical experience ever. To reach beyond the relativism of the physical plane, to the foundation of absolute truth. To reach out to Him and believe that He really will manifest Himself like He promised. I took the chance and admitted my slavery to my nature. I confessed that I was a sinner. I gave Him back responsibility and control. I admitted that I was powerless to free myself or save myself. And He revealed Himself...

I'll never be the same.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.