I think in about 65-75 years from now (2008), (note: 1860’s to 1960’s bridged 100 years as 1970’s to 2070’s is about 65-76 years from now and a total of about 100 years), the years of abortion on-demand will be seen as a bleak period of human history. Therefore, in relation to both the black and pre-born human person populations, the Democratic Party will be seen as the Pestilent Party that didn’t get it right on either issue.
Track back to Ana29 March 2008
Will the Democrats Ever Really Get It Right?
I recently found out that it was the Democratic Party around the American Civil War that was the party of pro-slavery (How is it that most Blacks are now Democrat?). Now it’s the party platform that abortion should be legal. When will history see the Democratic Party get it right on life issues? First, blacks were not considered a human person and then were considered 2/3 of a person (as a compromise) at a critical time in American history. Now, the human offspring of a man and a woman may not be counted among the human race that is to be protected from murder.
28 March 2008
God in Prison
Consider this. Dawkins and his homeys walk into prison where an auditorium full of convicts (of any record) is waiting. The Militant Atheists give a talk that summarizes their Atheism. What will happen after the talk?
Consider the same auditorium where a Christian gives a talk about Jesus and his own personal hope. What will happen after the talk?
I don’t really know what will happen. Believe me, I wouldn’t want to test the former.
What do you think?
27 March 2008
What is Freedom?
I used to think that freedom was defined as the ability to choose to what or whom one would desire to be a slave. Some choose to serve their desire for money, women, or fancy cars. Others choose to serve God. But after someone I know (say, Adam) left his wife and shacked up with another woman all in the name of freedom, I came to rethink my definition.
My new definition is that freedom is the ability to do what is right. It came out that Adam desired “freedom” above all else. It came before his family, his integrity, and his soul. Like others I know or have heard about, he just left his wife and his legitimate family for a woman that wasn’t his wife (and moved in with her). He said that he needed to be free, to do what he wanted because it would make him happy.
But was it right? In the wake of Adam’s decision, his children are confused and his wife is betrayed. His children will have a warped idea about what love and freedom means. They will grow up with the idea that as long as some thing or action makes you happy, you have the freedom to do whatever you want. Also, love is now for them something of a commodity. The cycle of self-centeredness and misery will probably continue with the next generation through the example of their father.
If Adam viewed freedom as the ability to do what is right in the first place, he might not have enticed the other woman toward the relationship they have now. His idea of freedom, the idea that he can do whatever he wants as long as it makes him happy further degrades the moral fiber of the our country and world.
This general view of freedom is destroying our country. Fathers, especially of African decent statistically, are leaving their families for their reasons. This is not freedom; it is false freedom. It is not right to for a man to leave his wife and kids for his own selfish ambitions. Therefore, he is a slave to his desires when he leaves. Fathers need to be the men they vowed to be and stay with their wives and children.
I will probably get the response that in some circumstances, men need to leave their families. Yes, this is true due to abuse, etc, but in those cases, they need to be removed for the good of the family. They shouldn’t be abusing anyone else either.
Another point is that men need to marry women before they have intercourse with them. In other words, men should use their freedom to enter into a relationship under the right terms. Men should court woman in an honorable manner and then marry her if an honorable desire presents itself.
We need to build up our culture from its current state of disrepair. It starts with the family. If the families of our culture remain strong and intact through true freedom, our country and world will be a much better place.
I pray that God will give us strength on our journey.
Update: Since I wrote this post a couple of weeks ago (just didn’t post it), the scandals with the State Governors came out. They’re just another example of the need for true freedom in this world so that we can all live honorable and just lives.
My new definition is that freedom is the ability to do what is right. It came out that Adam desired “freedom” above all else. It came before his family, his integrity, and his soul. Like others I know or have heard about, he just left his wife and his legitimate family for a woman that wasn’t his wife (and moved in with her). He said that he needed to be free, to do what he wanted because it would make him happy.
But was it right? In the wake of Adam’s decision, his children are confused and his wife is betrayed. His children will have a warped idea about what love and freedom means. They will grow up with the idea that as long as some thing or action makes you happy, you have the freedom to do whatever you want. Also, love is now for them something of a commodity. The cycle of self-centeredness and misery will probably continue with the next generation through the example of their father.
If Adam viewed freedom as the ability to do what is right in the first place, he might not have enticed the other woman toward the relationship they have now. His idea of freedom, the idea that he can do whatever he wants as long as it makes him happy further degrades the moral fiber of the our country and world.
This general view of freedom is destroying our country. Fathers, especially of African decent statistically, are leaving their families for their reasons. This is not freedom; it is false freedom. It is not right to for a man to leave his wife and kids for his own selfish ambitions. Therefore, he is a slave to his desires when he leaves. Fathers need to be the men they vowed to be and stay with their wives and children.
I will probably get the response that in some circumstances, men need to leave their families. Yes, this is true due to abuse, etc, but in those cases, they need to be removed for the good of the family. They shouldn’t be abusing anyone else either.
Another point is that men need to marry women before they have intercourse with them. In other words, men should use their freedom to enter into a relationship under the right terms. Men should court woman in an honorable manner and then marry her if an honorable desire presents itself.
We need to build up our culture from its current state of disrepair. It starts with the family. If the families of our culture remain strong and intact through true freedom, our country and world will be a much better place.
I pray that God will give us strength on our journey.
Update: Since I wrote this post a couple of weeks ago (just didn’t post it), the scandals with the State Governors came out. They’re just another example of the need for true freedom in this world so that we can all live honorable and just lives.
13 March 2008
What do Pro-lifers Want?
On a webpage somewhere (sorry, I can’t remember where) someone asked, “What do pro-lifers really want?” He was skeptical that pro-lifers (PL’s) really knew what they wanted.
This struck me as strange. I would think it odd that the actions of PL’s (the sane ones, you know, the non-bombers) don’t speak for themselves. We silently protest with prayers outside abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood (usually the same thing). We vote for pro-life politicians. We march on Washington (DC) every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
PL’s want abortion, just like murder, to be made illegal. PL’s don’t want anyone to be able to eliminate zygotes, embryos, fetus, or babies. PL’s don’t want embryos from test tubes to be destroyed (ones from IVF and laboratories). PL’s want women to be given choices of how they are to bear and raise their children, not how to destroy their children.
Yes, abortions will still take place. However, murder and rape are also illegal and still happen everyday. PL’s also don’t want hit men to be permitted to have a room into which they lure their victims for blood-cash.
Ultimately, what PL’s want is for society to view all people as precious and sacred and to be safeguarded in the fact that all human people are to be defended. What abortion does (in addition to euthanasia) is to make society as a whole accept that some people are to be used or eliminated for other’s benefit.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver puts it very well.
This struck me as strange. I would think it odd that the actions of PL’s (the sane ones, you know, the non-bombers) don’t speak for themselves. We silently protest with prayers outside abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood (usually the same thing). We vote for pro-life politicians. We march on Washington (DC) every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
PL’s want abortion, just like murder, to be made illegal. PL’s don’t want anyone to be able to eliminate zygotes, embryos, fetus, or babies. PL’s don’t want embryos from test tubes to be destroyed (ones from IVF and laboratories). PL’s want women to be given choices of how they are to bear and raise their children, not how to destroy their children.
Yes, abortions will still take place. However, murder and rape are also illegal and still happen everyday. PL’s also don’t want hit men to be permitted to have a room into which they lure their victims for blood-cash.
Ultimately, what PL’s want is for society to view all people as precious and sacred and to be safeguarded in the fact that all human people are to be defended. What abortion does (in addition to euthanasia) is to make society as a whole accept that some people are to be used or eliminated for other’s benefit.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver puts it very well.
The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies—although we certainly do—but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.
11 March 2008
Religion Beyond Dawkins
As was said in previous posts, Dawkins does not venture past superficial explanations or observations that cannot be necessarily proved (since he is using data outside of his empirical domain). As a consequence of this impedance, C. Hitchens has said in debates that there is one question that is not apparent to him and his Master, “Why do we exist rather than not exist?” Dawkins cannot answer this question since it is a question that science cannot answer. It requires answers that are not provable with 100% certainty. However, there must exist an answer that only religion can answer. (I won’t go on to attempt to address the answer to that in this post.)
I define religion as a group of people that believe in a creed. Some creeds are rigid, some are flexible because the creed allows for flexibility, and many vary in between. Each religion’s creed is developed -- as each one believes -- from a revelation; revelation’s origin is from the believer, another person, created things, the creator of all things himself, or a combination of the above.
The creed itself has consequences. The study of the creeds and consequences is theology (assuming each creed has a god component). Assuming the creed is correct, theology is of great importance since understanding the consequences brings about further wisdom.
06 March 2008
Explàrrogance and the Modified Toddler Theory
The next thing on my to-do list is to read four books in this order: (1) Your God is Too Small by J.B. Phillips, (2) The God Delusion by R. Dawkins, (3) What’s So Great About Christianity by D. D’Souza, and (4) God is Not Great by C. Hitchens. I have already listened to the debate between D’Souza and C. Hitchens and would like to see more of the nitty gritty details of the sides in order to get a better picture of the current state of popular religious affairs.
However, I have read much on the Internet about the Atheist books, and, of course, I already have an opinion on the overall subject. I just wonder if my opinion will change after I read the books. I hope you will join me along the way. Let me know if I make sense or not.
The first opinions I have are about Militant Atheist Richard Dawkins et al (hereinafter Dawkins). I have made up two terms to help me in my understanding of his and his minion’s position. The terms are explàrrogance and the Modified Toddler Theory.
First, it seems that in explaining why something exists or came to exist at a superficial, or materialistic level, he puts on arrogance that is inexplicable. That is, in his explanations of scientific causalities, he is very haughty in the confidence upon which he puts his scientific conclusions as if they were sufficient in explaining the causes. He has much explàrrogance.
Second, for one to gain the most understanding of the world, one must continue to ask how. This is the Modified Toddler Theory. Since Dawkins does not continue to ask how, but instead stops his search at superficial materialistic explanations, he doesn’t have complete explanations of anything.
To say something exists because of its evolutionary journey does not ultimately explain how it exists. Just as a toddler asks, “why, why, why” to get the best answer, a scientist must ask, “how, how, how”. Eventually, we won’t know how something came to be; we just say it is. This leads us to God who just is. However, science may not venture to the end of the how’s since this inquiry is out of the empirical domain.
Dawkins tries to say that the only required and sufficient explanations come via science. However, not even science has all the answers. It would need to rely on data outside the empirical domain of inquiry, which is not in its nature (see above post). Only in Dawkins’ explàrrogance and inaction within the Modified Toddler Theory (he doesn’t continue to ask how) can he confidently say that science killed God with his shallow explanations.
However, I have read much on the Internet about the Atheist books, and, of course, I already have an opinion on the overall subject. I just wonder if my opinion will change after I read the books. I hope you will join me along the way. Let me know if I make sense or not.
The first opinions I have are about Militant Atheist Richard Dawkins et al (hereinafter Dawkins). I have made up two terms to help me in my understanding of his and his minion’s position. The terms are explàrrogance and the Modified Toddler Theory.
First, it seems that in explaining why something exists or came to exist at a superficial, or materialistic level, he puts on arrogance that is inexplicable. That is, in his explanations of scientific causalities, he is very haughty in the confidence upon which he puts his scientific conclusions as if they were sufficient in explaining the causes. He has much explàrrogance.
Second, for one to gain the most understanding of the world, one must continue to ask how. This is the Modified Toddler Theory. Since Dawkins does not continue to ask how, but instead stops his search at superficial materialistic explanations, he doesn’t have complete explanations of anything.
To say something exists because of its evolutionary journey does not ultimately explain how it exists. Just as a toddler asks, “why, why, why” to get the best answer, a scientist must ask, “how, how, how”. Eventually, we won’t know how something came to be; we just say it is. This leads us to God who just is. However, science may not venture to the end of the how’s since this inquiry is out of the empirical domain.
Dawkins tries to say that the only required and sufficient explanations come via science. However, not even science has all the answers. It would need to rely on data outside the empirical domain of inquiry, which is not in its nature (see above post). Only in Dawkins’ explàrrogance and inaction within the Modified Toddler Theory (he doesn’t continue to ask how) can he confidently say that science killed God with his shallow explanations.
05 March 2008
Science Does Have Limits
(Sorry I haven't posted for a while. I've been sick in bed.)
In the process of learning science throughout my life and teaching physics formally for a short time, I have come to appreciate scientists’ ability to help society explore the natural world. However, I am dismayed that many in society are using science in ways that it was never meant to be used.
One of the first things I learned on the path to teach science (at a liberal university with a liberal pedagogy teacher) was that only within a limited scope could science be used in our understanding of nature. Scientists can pose theories that can be shot down. Scientists can use mathematical models to describe laws. However, scientists must test and formulate these laws through experimentation within their respective empirical domain.
Many assumptions must be made in any experiment, including, inter alia, that the experiment can be duplicated in any space and time. In other words, the experiment that ran on Earth by scientist A (empirical domain of scientist A) should be able to be run by scientist B on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy when our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy collide in a couple of billion Earth years (empirical domain of scientist B).
The science of nature outside our empirical domain is much more limiting. The science disciplines that use data or specimens outside of our empirical domain such as paleontology, historical biology (in general), and similar sciences are extremely limiting: scientists must interpret data that cannot be positively confirmed. Unless one invents a time machine and is able to analyze or bring back samples for study and conduct experiments in that distant time, the conclusions of these scientists are not pure facts due to the required interpretation of limited records.
It is not being suggested that science is not useful in answering questions in our empirical domain (here on Earth now), but unless one conducts an experiment in 100% of the possible space and time domains, results from experiments are not to be relied upon as facts that carry over to all space and time.
Evolution is one theory (note: theory) that is not proven (full disclosure: I am not opposed to the theory of evolution. I am opposed to people applying the theory to subject matter to which it is not formulated to apply). There are many assumptions that must be made for the theory to be true for past developments (note: the theory does not predict future outcomes). A major assumption of evolution is that biological entities were able to gradually change in response to their environments and that through natural selection, the best entities survived. However, the theory breaks down if a quick, large, and/or catastrophic event takes place in the past that emanates from outside the biological system. If such an event would occur, the theory of evolution looses its explanative ability.
Further, in analyzing the fossil record, no scientist can claim that their interpretations of the limited data and specimens are 100% accurate. Therefore, scientists can only make reasonable conclusions based on reasonable analysis.
Finally, only in the experimental domain can scientists formulate theories, laws, and hypotheses. It is out of their area of expertise when they make theories, laws, and hypotheses outside of their empirical domain.
There are quite a lot of questions that scientists cannot answer. I’ll leave that for a later post.
In the process of learning science throughout my life and teaching physics formally for a short time, I have come to appreciate scientists’ ability to help society explore the natural world. However, I am dismayed that many in society are using science in ways that it was never meant to be used.
One of the first things I learned on the path to teach science (at a liberal university with a liberal pedagogy teacher) was that only within a limited scope could science be used in our understanding of nature. Scientists can pose theories that can be shot down. Scientists can use mathematical models to describe laws. However, scientists must test and formulate these laws through experimentation within their respective empirical domain.
Many assumptions must be made in any experiment, including, inter alia, that the experiment can be duplicated in any space and time. In other words, the experiment that ran on Earth by scientist A (empirical domain of scientist A) should be able to be run by scientist B on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy when our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy collide in a couple of billion Earth years (empirical domain of scientist B).
The science of nature outside our empirical domain is much more limiting. The science disciplines that use data or specimens outside of our empirical domain such as paleontology, historical biology (in general), and similar sciences are extremely limiting: scientists must interpret data that cannot be positively confirmed. Unless one invents a time machine and is able to analyze or bring back samples for study and conduct experiments in that distant time, the conclusions of these scientists are not pure facts due to the required interpretation of limited records.
It is not being suggested that science is not useful in answering questions in our empirical domain (here on Earth now), but unless one conducts an experiment in 100% of the possible space and time domains, results from experiments are not to be relied upon as facts that carry over to all space and time.
Evolution is one theory (note: theory) that is not proven (full disclosure: I am not opposed to the theory of evolution. I am opposed to people applying the theory to subject matter to which it is not formulated to apply). There are many assumptions that must be made for the theory to be true for past developments (note: the theory does not predict future outcomes). A major assumption of evolution is that biological entities were able to gradually change in response to their environments and that through natural selection, the best entities survived. However, the theory breaks down if a quick, large, and/or catastrophic event takes place in the past that emanates from outside the biological system. If such an event would occur, the theory of evolution looses its explanative ability.
Further, in analyzing the fossil record, no scientist can claim that their interpretations of the limited data and specimens are 100% accurate. Therefore, scientists can only make reasonable conclusions based on reasonable analysis.
Finally, only in the experimental domain can scientists formulate theories, laws, and hypotheses. It is out of their area of expertise when they make theories, laws, and hypotheses outside of their empirical domain.
There are quite a lot of questions that scientists cannot answer. I’ll leave that for a later post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)