Falsifiability. Try saying that 5 times fast. It's a word that it is often used in scientific discussions. Essentially it means a proposition or hypothesis or theory is capable of being proven to be false. For science to consider something to be true it must be able to proven false. Which is why science doesn't deal with the "why?" questions in life. It leaves such questions to preachers, priests, prophets, philosophers, poets and parents. Science deals with observable phenomena not with unprovable speculations.
There are various worldviews that people believe. HERE is a good definition of what a worldview is. Generally speaking a worldview isn't falsifiable, at least not in terms of the scientific method.
What I want to do is to present a hypothetical scenario and ask the following, if this happened would (fill in the blank) still be true?. Insert any worldview where it says (fill in the blank).
Here is the scenario. A large meteor is traveling at a fast speed toward planet earth. It hits earth and makes such an impact as to throw earth out of its orbit and spiraling toward the sun. What humans didn't die in the impact will die as a result of the heat and of course eventually the earth will plunge into the sun and there will be no trace that the earth (or anything on it) every existed. Furthermore, this scenario happened for no purpose at all.
So, if that happened could your worldview still be true? Now, one could say that under the stated scenario it wouldn't much matter whether or not one's worldview is true or not as one would no longer be around to hold to it anyway. That's true enough, but would the worldview be true, whether or not anyone still existed to believe in it? Well, it would depend on several things of course. But answering one question could help determine whether or not it could be true. That question is.......Are human beings important? If humanity isn't important, then their total purposeless annihilation isn't a problem for the correct worldview. It would however be a problem for any worldview in which humankind has ultimate value.
For metaphysical naturalism and philosophical materialism the above scenario creates no problem at all. In fact, most of those who adhere to these worldviews say that humanity will one day cease to exist, perhaps via the scenario described or perhaps a slower more gradual process, but humanity (and the universe itself) will one day be no more.
For any worldview rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition the above scenario would prove it to be false as humanity has value and importance in those worldviews. In such a view humanity could not be destroyed for no purpose. So, if it were they would be shown not to be true.
So let me go back to the naturalist and materialist for the moment. Consider the title of this post. "Is it still true? And is that a problem?" To the first question, as I've shown, they could easily answer yes. Humanity's potential (and in fact probable) destruction proves to be no falsification to their worldview. What about the second question? Is that a problem? It's not a problem for their worldview, but is it a problem that it's not a problem? Perhaps it is. It creates a problem if one holds to these worldviews while at the same time considering human beings to be important.
The total annihilation of humanity creates a problem for a worldview that holds that humanity is important. It doesn't if humanity is not important.
So the rather obvious question is "Is humanity important?" If the answer to that is yes, then naturalism and materialism aren't true. If the answer to that is no, then the Judeo-Christian traditions aren't true.
I say all this to point out that many people who hold to naturalism and materialism hold humanity to be important (others admit humans are not important). However, to hold to both ideas is an absurdity as both can not be true. Anyone who holds to one idea will have to logically reject the other.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Monday, June 16, 2014
Complaint Time...........or not
Another Monday, another day sitting, eating breakfast and writing a blog post on here. This morning I'm not at McDonald's. I'm sitting in a Chick-Fil-A just outside of Atlanta.
I thought I'd take this time to issue some complaints. But now I think I won't. Well, except for this, I'll complain about complainers.
Who doesn't? Everyone hates to be around complainers. They can turn a good day into a bad one with very little effort. Generally I try to avoid them. If I can't avoid them I don't comment on their complaints, as that just feeds the beast and makes them complain more. It wouldn't be so bad if what they were complaining about was really something deserving of complaint, but it rarely is (at least not as much as they do it).
A couple of thoughts on the matter.
1. Complaining is natural. No one has to be taught how to do it. Babies know that squalling will get them the attention they desire. No one has to work at complaining. There are no schools necessary to teach you to do it. We know how and we often do it without realizing it. This is one of the reasons that the feel good sentiment of 'be true to yourself' is devoid of wisdom.
2. There is a cure to complaining, but it doesn't come natural. It involves the cultivating of several virtues that requires the spiritual and emotional equivalent of swimming upstream. One of these virtues is humility. Humility takes the focus off of oneself, complainers are self-centered. Another virtue running counter to complaining is contentment. Contentment runs counter to greed, that consuming desire for more, more, more. You'll meet precious few complainers complaining that they have too much. A third virtue that works as an antidote to complaining is gratitude. To state it mathematically your level of gratitude is inversely proportional to your level of complaint. The more you have of one, the less you'll have of the other.
I'll add a third point. When one develops the 3 virtues mentioned above, it helps one develop a fourth virtue, one called generosity. Generous people are giving and forgiving, and such people are pleasant to be around.
Just remember though that humility, contentment, gratitude and generosity don't come natural. Ask the LORD to cultivate them within you and practice them even if you don't feel like it.
Have a blessed, complaint free, day.
I thought I'd take this time to issue some complaints. But now I think I won't. Well, except for this, I'll complain about complainers.
Who doesn't? Everyone hates to be around complainers. They can turn a good day into a bad one with very little effort. Generally I try to avoid them. If I can't avoid them I don't comment on their complaints, as that just feeds the beast and makes them complain more. It wouldn't be so bad if what they were complaining about was really something deserving of complaint, but it rarely is (at least not as much as they do it).
A couple of thoughts on the matter.
1. Complaining is natural. No one has to be taught how to do it. Babies know that squalling will get them the attention they desire. No one has to work at complaining. There are no schools necessary to teach you to do it. We know how and we often do it without realizing it. This is one of the reasons that the feel good sentiment of 'be true to yourself' is devoid of wisdom.
2. There is a cure to complaining, but it doesn't come natural. It involves the cultivating of several virtues that requires the spiritual and emotional equivalent of swimming upstream. One of these virtues is humility. Humility takes the focus off of oneself, complainers are self-centered. Another virtue running counter to complaining is contentment. Contentment runs counter to greed, that consuming desire for more, more, more. You'll meet precious few complainers complaining that they have too much. A third virtue that works as an antidote to complaining is gratitude. To state it mathematically your level of gratitude is inversely proportional to your level of complaint. The more you have of one, the less you'll have of the other.
I'll add a third point. When one develops the 3 virtues mentioned above, it helps one develop a fourth virtue, one called generosity. Generous people are giving and forgiving, and such people are pleasant to be around.
Just remember though that humility, contentment, gratitude and generosity don't come natural. Ask the LORD to cultivate them within you and practice them even if you don't feel like it.
Have a blessed, complaint free, day.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Quotes about the Bible
I thought it would be interesting to post a few quotes about the Bible from some famous people.
The Bible has been the Magna Carta of the poor and of the oppressed. -Thomas Huxley-
The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity. -Immanuel Kant-
It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a Bible-reading people. -Horace Greeley-
I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen. -John Adams-
What is notable about these 4 men is that none of them could be described as holding to orthodoxy in terms of Christianity. Huxley was an agnostic. Kant is difficult to describe, he could be described as a Theist who didn't believe in organized religion. Greeley was an American newspaper publisher famous for the quote "Go West Young Man" and his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in 1872. He seems to have been a Unitarian, but may have been somewhat eclectic in his religious views. John Adams, America's first Vice President and second President, was definitely a Unitarian. Yet all recognized the greatness of the Bible. Sadly, many sitting in church every Sunday don't have the same recognition that these men had.
The Bible has been the Magna Carta of the poor and of the oppressed. -Thomas Huxley-
The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity. -Immanuel Kant-
It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a Bible-reading people. -Horace Greeley-
I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen. -John Adams-
What is notable about these 4 men is that none of them could be described as holding to orthodoxy in terms of Christianity. Huxley was an agnostic. Kant is difficult to describe, he could be described as a Theist who didn't believe in organized religion. Greeley was an American newspaper publisher famous for the quote "Go West Young Man" and his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in 1872. He seems to have been a Unitarian, but may have been somewhat eclectic in his religious views. John Adams, America's first Vice President and second President, was definitely a Unitarian. Yet all recognized the greatness of the Bible. Sadly, many sitting in church every Sunday don't have the same recognition that these men had.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Perfect, does it exist?
I'm sitting at the Golden Arches (if you're one of the few who doesn't know to what that refers consider yourself blessed) again. It's one of the few places I know that has WiFi at every location, at least at every one of which I am knowledgeable. I have down time on the job again, so I spend some time on the net. The biggest problem with that right now is this computer I'm using. If I had unlimited funds I'd build a huge bonfire and throw this computer in it. OK, I probably wouldn't do it even if I were a billionaire, but the temptation is definitely there. Right now, it's operating in Safe Mode because I have encountered the infamous BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) as computer geeks call it. Hopefully this afternoon, if I get home in time, I'll be carrying it to the computer hospital for some surgery. I plan on getting a new one soon. To say the least this computer isn't perfect.
Perfect. Perfection. There's an interesting concept. How many times do we find ourselves using those words. It's perfect weather today. Aaron Harang pitched a perfect game today (He's a pitcher for the Atlanta Braves, starting later today against the Red Sox. I'll settle for just a win though.). I got a perfect score on my Algebra test. 28 is a perfect number. Fred is the perfect employee. You can add many other examples. Some of the examples have a definite definition in which the word perfect can be objectively used. A perfect game in baseball means the pitcher gives up no hits, no walks, no hit batters and no batter reaches base on an error (basically 27 batters up, 27 batters down). A perfect score on a test means no questions were answered incorrectly. A perfect number is one in which all the factors of a number (except for the number itself) added together equal that number. 28's factors are 1x28, 2x14 and 4x7. If we drop 28 from that list and add the rest we have 1+2+4+7+14, which equals 28, therefore 28 by definition is a perfect number. Perfect weather and a perfect employee are a bit more subjective in nature.
There's one use of the word perfect on which I want to focus. How often have you heard the statement, or something similar to it, WE DON'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD? You've probably heard it, you've probably said it. It is an interesting thought to be sure. There's an assumption hidden in the statement, or maybe it isn't hidden it's just not expressed directly but it is there. That assumption is that there is such an entity as a perfect world.
Let me posit three possibilities, if you can think of another feel free to share in the comments.
1. There is such an entity as a perfect world and we are in it.
2. There is such an entity as a perfect world and we are not in it.
3. There is no such entity as a perfect world.
I guess another option could be that the world (the physical world we observe) isn't real, it's only an illusion. This is a rare view, but there are some who believe it and it doesn't fit very well into any of the above three possibilities.
Let's examine the three possibilities.
Number 1 may sound odd to you. Who looks at this world and thinks it is perfect? Modern technology allows us to create computer generated virtual realities. Is that what these people have done? Have they created a virtual world where everything is perfect? Are they taking some sort of hallucinating drug? No, well maybe some are, but no this is a philosophical position. In reality there aren't many who hold to this view, but a few do. The most common group that would hold this view are those who would call themselves Deists. For those unfamiliar with Deism, it is the belief that there is a creator of the universe, the earth and humanity that can (or who can) be called God. However, one shouldn't confuse the God of Deism with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Deism is pretty much uninterested in His/Its creation. He created the physical universe exactly the way He intended it to be and it runs exactly the way He intended it to run. So, He has no need to intervene in its workings. Deists historically said that their view of God was higher than that of Jews and Christians. The Abrahamic God, they contended, was constantly having to intervene in the inner workings of His creation because He didn't get it right the first time. The God of Deism however got it right the first time and has no need to make adjustments in it. So, in their view the world is perfect as it runs exactly the way it was designed and intended to run.
Group 2 would be the group that many fall into (including myself in the interest of full disclosure). This group believes that there is an ideal way that the world should operate and it isn't operating in that way. Of course there are differences among those within this group. They don't all agree on what the ideal way is, in fact sometimes their opinions of what it is are almost 180 degrees opposite of one another. One also sholdn't think that all in this group are religious or even theists (though most would be). Some would hold to the Greek Philosopher Plato's idea of the Forms. This will be a way oversimplification of Plato's idea but it held that everything on earth (and the material universe for that matter) are imperfect representations of the real Forms. The Forms according to Plato are not material. A later philosophy known as Idealism was based in part on Plato, though some Idealists hold that the physical world is an illusion (like the 4th possibility above). Most in this group would say that the world isn't perfect because it isn't the way God created it to be. Sin, evil, wickedness, iniquity or whatever other word you want to use for it has entered the world. The reason given for why imperfection has entered God's perfect world is because God gave humans the ability to choose to obey him or rebel against him. This concept is usually called free will or free agency. There is also the belief that one day God will put the world to rights, it will be perfect.
The third option is that perfection does not exist. Hence a perfect world not only does not exist, but it cannot exist. Perfection is merely a man made artificial idea with no basis in reality. The primary holders of this view are naturalists. By naturalists I mean philosophical naturalists. Philosophical naturalism holds that everything that is in the universe is the result of natural processes. Generally speaking that means all that is follows the laws of science and nature. In some ways those who hold this opinion are very similar to those who hold the first opinion. Both would agree that the world/universe is what it is and was never going to be anything different. The rather obvious difference being that group 1 believes it was intentional and group 3 believes it was not as the laws of science are not sentient or rational entities. Since there was no intention to make it the way it is, it would be absurd to call it perfect. To say something has gone wrong with the world would also be absurd for a couple of reasons. First, it was and is impossible for it to be any other way than the way it has been, is and for that matter will be. Second, to say something has gone wrong is to assume there was a design and purpose for it which it is not accomplishing (as I've said about this computer). Sometimes a naturalist will say that something is wrong with the world, but if he's intellectually honest he will admit what he means is that there is something about the world that he doesn't like not that anything is actually wrong with it. After all I may say something is wrong with my computer because it won't refill my cup of coffee and that statement would be met with laughter, at least I'd hope it would. That's obviously absurd as my computer wasn't designed to do that, hence it's not its purpose to do that.
So, does perfect exist? Yes, otherwise to quote the wise Solomon all we are doing is vanity and striving after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:14).
update......Aaron Harang didn't get the perfect game, or even the win. Oh well, such is life as a Braves' fan.
Perfect. Perfection. There's an interesting concept. How many times do we find ourselves using those words. It's perfect weather today. Aaron Harang pitched a perfect game today (He's a pitcher for the Atlanta Braves, starting later today against the Red Sox. I'll settle for just a win though.). I got a perfect score on my Algebra test. 28 is a perfect number. Fred is the perfect employee. You can add many other examples. Some of the examples have a definite definition in which the word perfect can be objectively used. A perfect game in baseball means the pitcher gives up no hits, no walks, no hit batters and no batter reaches base on an error (basically 27 batters up, 27 batters down). A perfect score on a test means no questions were answered incorrectly. A perfect number is one in which all the factors of a number (except for the number itself) added together equal that number. 28's factors are 1x28, 2x14 and 4x7. If we drop 28 from that list and add the rest we have 1+2+4+7+14, which equals 28, therefore 28 by definition is a perfect number. Perfect weather and a perfect employee are a bit more subjective in nature.
There's one use of the word perfect on which I want to focus. How often have you heard the statement, or something similar to it, WE DON'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD? You've probably heard it, you've probably said it. It is an interesting thought to be sure. There's an assumption hidden in the statement, or maybe it isn't hidden it's just not expressed directly but it is there. That assumption is that there is such an entity as a perfect world.
Let me posit three possibilities, if you can think of another feel free to share in the comments.
1. There is such an entity as a perfect world and we are in it.
2. There is such an entity as a perfect world and we are not in it.
3. There is no such entity as a perfect world.
I guess another option could be that the world (the physical world we observe) isn't real, it's only an illusion. This is a rare view, but there are some who believe it and it doesn't fit very well into any of the above three possibilities.
Let's examine the three possibilities.
Number 1 may sound odd to you. Who looks at this world and thinks it is perfect? Modern technology allows us to create computer generated virtual realities. Is that what these people have done? Have they created a virtual world where everything is perfect? Are they taking some sort of hallucinating drug? No, well maybe some are, but no this is a philosophical position. In reality there aren't many who hold to this view, but a few do. The most common group that would hold this view are those who would call themselves Deists. For those unfamiliar with Deism, it is the belief that there is a creator of the universe, the earth and humanity that can (or who can) be called God. However, one shouldn't confuse the God of Deism with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Deism is pretty much uninterested in His/Its creation. He created the physical universe exactly the way He intended it to be and it runs exactly the way He intended it to run. So, He has no need to intervene in its workings. Deists historically said that their view of God was higher than that of Jews and Christians. The Abrahamic God, they contended, was constantly having to intervene in the inner workings of His creation because He didn't get it right the first time. The God of Deism however got it right the first time and has no need to make adjustments in it. So, in their view the world is perfect as it runs exactly the way it was designed and intended to run.
Group 2 would be the group that many fall into (including myself in the interest of full disclosure). This group believes that there is an ideal way that the world should operate and it isn't operating in that way. Of course there are differences among those within this group. They don't all agree on what the ideal way is, in fact sometimes their opinions of what it is are almost 180 degrees opposite of one another. One also sholdn't think that all in this group are religious or even theists (though most would be). Some would hold to the Greek Philosopher Plato's idea of the Forms. This will be a way oversimplification of Plato's idea but it held that everything on earth (and the material universe for that matter) are imperfect representations of the real Forms. The Forms according to Plato are not material. A later philosophy known as Idealism was based in part on Plato, though some Idealists hold that the physical world is an illusion (like the 4th possibility above). Most in this group would say that the world isn't perfect because it isn't the way God created it to be. Sin, evil, wickedness, iniquity or whatever other word you want to use for it has entered the world. The reason given for why imperfection has entered God's perfect world is because God gave humans the ability to choose to obey him or rebel against him. This concept is usually called free will or free agency. There is also the belief that one day God will put the world to rights, it will be perfect.
The third option is that perfection does not exist. Hence a perfect world not only does not exist, but it cannot exist. Perfection is merely a man made artificial idea with no basis in reality. The primary holders of this view are naturalists. By naturalists I mean philosophical naturalists. Philosophical naturalism holds that everything that is in the universe is the result of natural processes. Generally speaking that means all that is follows the laws of science and nature. In some ways those who hold this opinion are very similar to those who hold the first opinion. Both would agree that the world/universe is what it is and was never going to be anything different. The rather obvious difference being that group 1 believes it was intentional and group 3 believes it was not as the laws of science are not sentient or rational entities. Since there was no intention to make it the way it is, it would be absurd to call it perfect. To say something has gone wrong with the world would also be absurd for a couple of reasons. First, it was and is impossible for it to be any other way than the way it has been, is and for that matter will be. Second, to say something has gone wrong is to assume there was a design and purpose for it which it is not accomplishing (as I've said about this computer). Sometimes a naturalist will say that something is wrong with the world, but if he's intellectually honest he will admit what he means is that there is something about the world that he doesn't like not that anything is actually wrong with it. After all I may say something is wrong with my computer because it won't refill my cup of coffee and that statement would be met with laughter, at least I'd hope it would. That's obviously absurd as my computer wasn't designed to do that, hence it's not its purpose to do that.
So, does perfect exist? Yes, otherwise to quote the wise Solomon all we are doing is vanity and striving after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:14).
update......Aaron Harang didn't get the perfect game, or even the win. Oh well, such is life as a Braves' fan.
Monday, May 19, 2014
If I were GOD I would do this.
Most of us have said those 8 words (or some variation thereof) at some point in our lives. They come from the lips of the most devoted church attenders as well as the most vocal of skeptics. From the believer those words usually express some sort of frustration at how his life situation has gone. From the skeptic they usually express his rationale for why he doesn't believe God exists (at least not the way believers describe Him).
What I'd like to ask those who make such a statement (including myself when I start thinking those thoughts) is "What do you mean by GOD?" That seems like a rather elementary question. In the Western World, influenced by both the Abrahamic religions and Greek philosophy we would probably answer that God is that being who is both all-knowing and all-powerful. One may or may not believe such a being exist, but that is how we would define Him. I agree with that assessment by the way, but I would add two more descriptions (or attributes to use a theological word). I would add all-just and all-wise as attributes of God. Of course the 'problem of evil' arises when you attribute perfect power and perfect justice to a being. If, the skeptic says and the believer wonders, this being had all power and were perfectly just then why is there evil in the world. Addressing that issue isn't the purpose of this blog entry but I am certain most who are reading this have heard that issue brought up before, maybe even brought it themselves.
Let's go back to the original point, what I'd do different if I were God.
Consider the fact that most of us say that about other people also. How many times have you said to someone, or had someone say to you "If I were you I'd do this." Here's the problem with such statements, I have no idea what I'd do if I were that person. The person knows more about the situation he finds himself in than I do. The same concept is true of teenagers. There's a famous statement attributed to Mark Twain (though its origin is uncertain) that goes "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much he had learned in 7 years." How often has this happened to many people, we thought we had the answers only to discover we didn't.
I have come to the conclusion that when someone says what he would do if he were God, he means that's what he'd do if he were all-powerful (or at least powerful enough to do what he's saying he'd do). God, however, is more than just an all-powerful being. He also possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. So, what would you do if you had all knowledge and all wisdom to go along with all the power? Obviously none of us know what we would do in such a circumstance, at least not if we have the 21 year old maturity and not the 14 year old maturity. The 14 year old thinks he knows everything and is wiser than his elders, the 21 year old has been hit by reality and knows better.
So, perhaps we should show a little more humility and not presume to know what we have no way of knowing. I read a definition of a religious fanatic that defined it as a person who believes God would do what he is doing if only He knew the facts of the case. Perhaps we should gravitate a bit more toward humility and away from fanaticism.
What I'd like to ask those who make such a statement (including myself when I start thinking those thoughts) is "What do you mean by GOD?" That seems like a rather elementary question. In the Western World, influenced by both the Abrahamic religions and Greek philosophy we would probably answer that God is that being who is both all-knowing and all-powerful. One may or may not believe such a being exist, but that is how we would define Him. I agree with that assessment by the way, but I would add two more descriptions (or attributes to use a theological word). I would add all-just and all-wise as attributes of God. Of course the 'problem of evil' arises when you attribute perfect power and perfect justice to a being. If, the skeptic says and the believer wonders, this being had all power and were perfectly just then why is there evil in the world. Addressing that issue isn't the purpose of this blog entry but I am certain most who are reading this have heard that issue brought up before, maybe even brought it themselves.
Let's go back to the original point, what I'd do different if I were God.
Consider the fact that most of us say that about other people also. How many times have you said to someone, or had someone say to you "If I were you I'd do this." Here's the problem with such statements, I have no idea what I'd do if I were that person. The person knows more about the situation he finds himself in than I do. The same concept is true of teenagers. There's a famous statement attributed to Mark Twain (though its origin is uncertain) that goes "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much he had learned in 7 years." How often has this happened to many people, we thought we had the answers only to discover we didn't.
I have come to the conclusion that when someone says what he would do if he were God, he means that's what he'd do if he were all-powerful (or at least powerful enough to do what he's saying he'd do). God, however, is more than just an all-powerful being. He also possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. So, what would you do if you had all knowledge and all wisdom to go along with all the power? Obviously none of us know what we would do in such a circumstance, at least not if we have the 21 year old maturity and not the 14 year old maturity. The 14 year old thinks he knows everything and is wiser than his elders, the 21 year old has been hit by reality and knows better.
So, perhaps we should show a little more humility and not presume to know what we have no way of knowing. I read a definition of a religious fanatic that defined it as a person who believes God would do what he is doing if only He knew the facts of the case. Perhaps we should gravitate a bit more toward humility and away from fanaticism.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Monday Morning
It's Monday morning again. Ugh......it seems to come once a week.
I'm sitting at McDonald's this morning. I just ate my breakfast and am drinking some coffee. It's about 15 minutes till 10 am. You are no doubt wondering why I am at McDonald's at this time in the day. Well, for one thing it's one of the few restaurants in the immediate area that has free WiFi. Also I'm at work, strange as that may sound (and no I don't work for the Golden Arches). I'm not going to describe or name my job except to say that it allows me time to do this, so I take advantage of it.
I actually have 2 jobs. The other job is more of a volunteer job that requires only a few hours a week, not totally volunteer as I get paid a small amount for it. For the most part I enjoy both jobs. My second job is a church staff position, the main requirement of which is "teaching" teenagers on Wednesday nights. I have teaching in quotes because teaching teenagers is a lot like herding cats. Several things amaze me about teenagers.
1. Their interest in learning is minimal at best.
Perhaps this is because it was so different from me when I was their age. I remember even before being a teenager I devoured the encyclopedias we had at home. I became an expert (as much as an 11 or 12 year old can be) on World War II. I wasn't the top student in school. I was a good student but never what one would consider gifted. I was just interested in learning. That passion has never left me. I would have loved to have had a tool such as the World Wide Web available to me when I was younger, it amazing how much it is used for the purposes of playing games, insulting people and causing drama on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and other questionable activities.
2. Their ignorance of the Bible is staggering.
I don't mean by this that they don't understand deep theological concepts that seminary students argue about in class. I mean they don't know basic facts about the Bible that everyone (believer and nonbeliever alike) knew in previous generations. Who was the third son of Adam and Eve (and it may be a leap of faith to assume they know the first two were Cain and Abel)? Who were the twin sons of Isaac? List the 10 Commandments. King David's son who became King was......? What was the Northern Kingdom called? What was the Southern Kingdom called? Name the 12 Apostles. If you can answer all of those you are way ahead of most teenagers, and I mean the ones who are in church on Wednesday nights. Keep in mind I live in the area of the United States generally referred to as the Bible Belt. The blame for this in my mind lies with both the church and the parents, neither of whom have placed a great value on this in recent years, but that's another ramble for another time.
3. Their sense of entitlement is unprecedented.
Teenagers have always had a sense of superiority to those who came before them. However, recent generations of teenagers have had their overinflated egos reinforced by the system. There are no losers, everyone gets a trophy. Anyone who says or does something that makes you feel inferior or that offends you must be punished. The self-esteem movement has done tremendous damage to the character development of teenagers.
Well, that's my Monday morning sauntering. Have a blessed day and week.
I'm sitting at McDonald's this morning. I just ate my breakfast and am drinking some coffee. It's about 15 minutes till 10 am. You are no doubt wondering why I am at McDonald's at this time in the day. Well, for one thing it's one of the few restaurants in the immediate area that has free WiFi. Also I'm at work, strange as that may sound (and no I don't work for the Golden Arches). I'm not going to describe or name my job except to say that it allows me time to do this, so I take advantage of it.
I actually have 2 jobs. The other job is more of a volunteer job that requires only a few hours a week, not totally volunteer as I get paid a small amount for it. For the most part I enjoy both jobs. My second job is a church staff position, the main requirement of which is "teaching" teenagers on Wednesday nights. I have teaching in quotes because teaching teenagers is a lot like herding cats. Several things amaze me about teenagers.
1. Their interest in learning is minimal at best.
Perhaps this is because it was so different from me when I was their age. I remember even before being a teenager I devoured the encyclopedias we had at home. I became an expert (as much as an 11 or 12 year old can be) on World War II. I wasn't the top student in school. I was a good student but never what one would consider gifted. I was just interested in learning. That passion has never left me. I would have loved to have had a tool such as the World Wide Web available to me when I was younger, it amazing how much it is used for the purposes of playing games, insulting people and causing drama on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and other questionable activities.
2. Their ignorance of the Bible is staggering.
I don't mean by this that they don't understand deep theological concepts that seminary students argue about in class. I mean they don't know basic facts about the Bible that everyone (believer and nonbeliever alike) knew in previous generations. Who was the third son of Adam and Eve (and it may be a leap of faith to assume they know the first two were Cain and Abel)? Who were the twin sons of Isaac? List the 10 Commandments. King David's son who became King was......? What was the Northern Kingdom called? What was the Southern Kingdom called? Name the 12 Apostles. If you can answer all of those you are way ahead of most teenagers, and I mean the ones who are in church on Wednesday nights. Keep in mind I live in the area of the United States generally referred to as the Bible Belt. The blame for this in my mind lies with both the church and the parents, neither of whom have placed a great value on this in recent years, but that's another ramble for another time.
3. Their sense of entitlement is unprecedented.
Teenagers have always had a sense of superiority to those who came before them. However, recent generations of teenagers have had their overinflated egos reinforced by the system. There are no losers, everyone gets a trophy. Anyone who says or does something that makes you feel inferior or that offends you must be punished. The self-esteem movement has done tremendous damage to the character development of teenagers.
Well, that's my Monday morning sauntering. Have a blessed day and week.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Pilot Post
The first post, and who knows maybe the last. What do you say in a first post. Introduce yourself? Something profound? Give a roadmap for the blog? All of the above? None of the above?
Permit me (as if you have a choice) to lay out what I expect this blog to be. I guess it would help to explain the title of Sophomoric Saunterings. Saunterings is apparently not a word as it is being underlined in red here. So I guess I have invented a word. Sophomoric of course comes from the same root as the word Sophomore. I'm not in the 10th grade, nor in my 2nd year of college. Those days are long gone for me. I use Sophomoric because of the etymology of the word. It comes from two Greek words, sophia and moria. Sophia means wisdom (philosophy means love of wisdom by the way). Moria means foolishness (we got our English word 'moron' form this Greek word). So a Sophomore is a wise fool. As a Sophomore is sort of in the middle of starting school and finishing school the word is meant to indicate that he (for the record I will use the masculine 3rd person pronoun when the gender isn't specific, if that offends anyone there are other blogs for you to read) is, hopefully, progressing from foolishness to wisdom. Hopefully I am as well. Saunterings (my invented word it seems) comes from the word saunter, which can mean to ramble (as I do in these parentheses) and in its origins meant to think. So the postings on this page will be the thoughts or ramblings of a wise fool.
So what about me? Well, I am a Christian probably best described as a baptist with great respect for the High Church Liturgical traditions as well as the Messianic movement. I live in the Deep South and have the accent to prove it. I teach youth at my church on Wednesdays. I'm also a bit of an introvert, so this blog gives me a chance to open up as it were. I enjoy hiking, football (Go Dawgs), driving in the country, doing crossword puzzles, studying Hebrew, visiting my Methodist pastor neighbor (and his Siberian Husky), watching reruns of old shows and generally wasting time on the internet.
Most of what I will write here will be about the Bible, Theology, Philosophy or anything else that happens to strike my fancy that day. I have political opinions but will do my best to not get into politics very often.
So hope you enjoy.
Permit me (as if you have a choice) to lay out what I expect this blog to be. I guess it would help to explain the title of Sophomoric Saunterings. Saunterings is apparently not a word as it is being underlined in red here. So I guess I have invented a word. Sophomoric of course comes from the same root as the word Sophomore. I'm not in the 10th grade, nor in my 2nd year of college. Those days are long gone for me. I use Sophomoric because of the etymology of the word. It comes from two Greek words, sophia and moria. Sophia means wisdom (philosophy means love of wisdom by the way). Moria means foolishness (we got our English word 'moron' form this Greek word). So a Sophomore is a wise fool. As a Sophomore is sort of in the middle of starting school and finishing school the word is meant to indicate that he (for the record I will use the masculine 3rd person pronoun when the gender isn't specific, if that offends anyone there are other blogs for you to read) is, hopefully, progressing from foolishness to wisdom. Hopefully I am as well. Saunterings (my invented word it seems) comes from the word saunter, which can mean to ramble (as I do in these parentheses) and in its origins meant to think. So the postings on this page will be the thoughts or ramblings of a wise fool.
So what about me? Well, I am a Christian probably best described as a baptist with great respect for the High Church Liturgical traditions as well as the Messianic movement. I live in the Deep South and have the accent to prove it. I teach youth at my church on Wednesdays. I'm also a bit of an introvert, so this blog gives me a chance to open up as it were. I enjoy hiking, football (Go Dawgs), driving in the country, doing crossword puzzles, studying Hebrew, visiting my Methodist pastor neighbor (and his Siberian Husky), watching reruns of old shows and generally wasting time on the internet.
Most of what I will write here will be about the Bible, Theology, Philosophy or anything else that happens to strike my fancy that day. I have political opinions but will do my best to not get into politics very often.
So hope you enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)