"Christianity - Does it Depreciate the Natural World?"

Christians Depreciating the Natural Word

Although this is the title of the article (see background below), there is a break down between the title and the article.  What the article really postulates is that because of the Christian’s belief that there is a future beyond this life, they have little concern about the natural world.

Of course even a cursory view of the history of scientific study, inquiry, and discovery will reveal a very different story.  The reality is that with the coming of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation, the theological groundwork was laid for there to be magnificent scientific discoveries. (See articles at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-opposed-to-science.html along with two accompanying articles).  

Truth of the Matter

In sum, the truth of the matter, genuine Christians deprecate the world as presented by the naturalist who presents either a less than complete verifiable scientific narrative or an unverifiable scientific narrative born of bias.  Because genuine Christians give truth an unequalled priority, they indeed cannot be comfortable with the secular naturalists views of the science.

Generalizations Abound

Those who hold this position must resort to anecdotal example and generalization to make the point.  The reality is that any argument that relies heavily upon these two sources for information is certainly to be suspect.  Even if the conclusion were true, the lack of factual data and the innuendo discredit the notion and especially so in this case.  Of course such characterizes much of the material that this and other postings call into question.

Fact Check

The problem with the anecdotal evidence presented in this argument is that the writer is presenting out of bias and not out of fact.  For example he wrongly attributes a quote to former Interior Secretary James Watt which if he would have fact checked would reveal it was wrongly attributed to him (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339686/posts).  As well the fact that there are Christians who are involved, rightly or wrongly, in the environmental movement is not mentioned.  Such is the behavior of one who writes out of bias and not fact.

Reality, Science, and Theoretical Conjecture

There is a basic process to be considered.  One becomes more and more convinced of that with which one feeds one’s minds.  That is to say if one fills their thinking with the theoretical it soon becomes reality. 

The problem that the secularist brings to the science table is that they are so filled with the notions of secular naturalism that they cannot see other possibilities for reality.  Consider the following quote.

Dinesh D’Souza in a debate with Christopher Hitchens regarding the notion that everything has a cause observes, “…In the weird world of the quantum, we can find exceptions to that rule.  But quantum effects cancel out when you come to macroscopic objects and whenever you hear someone say ‘consciousness I really don’t know what that is but perhaps it is a quantum thing’ what he is basically saying is that he does not know.  …The quantum is invoked to explain things that are unexplained.” (see debate at  www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8&feature=g-hist).

Such suggests that there are dead ends in naturalism.

Dead End Science

The point is that because genuine science constantly runs into naturalistic dead ends they have created a whole field of theoretical conjecture to include quantum physics, theoretical mathematics, etc.  Sometimes it is just plan difficult to do science in a closed system scenario when there are constant signs pointing to the fact that genuine science must include. 

The whole area of first causes is an example of such a scientific dead end.  The question that mystifies secular science is what precipitated the “Big Bang?”   Since it is not possible to postulate that nature big banged nature into existence and since it is an inconvenient truth to acknowledge the supernatural, science then resorts to quantum physics in which there is much speculation and theoretical conjecture.

Biases Exposed

The reality is that most of what passes for secular science today is an atheist bias or philosophy which then calls upon other more empirical studies to support the position.  This is not science, this is simply bias which grasps at science, physics, mathematics, etc. for support.  Of course genuine science cannot provide such support so we arrive back at the theoretical.

Faith in Fact or Theory

Now before one runs to the conclusion that one places faith in God, Religion, and Creation as a fact, consider the following.

Not one person alive today was there when it all began.  So no one really knows for sure so the prudent person is left with a choice.  It is as follows.  Should one place their faith in a closed system theory which constantly leads to dead ends or should one place their faith in an open system theory that answers many of the questions posed by the previous theory?

Should one place their faith in a closed system that is founded more upon the mores of a particular social system that proposes relative, secular, humanistic truth or in an open system that postulates transcendent, universal, and objective truth?  While one can make that choice the outcomes of that choice are beyond one’s control and should be considered very carefully.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"Setting a Heading for the 'Truth'"

Note:  Somehow I deleted the original post.  What follows is an attempt to rewrite the post.  If you should have a copy of the original post, please forward to arobbfam@yahoo.com.  Thank you.

Maybe you saw the YouTube video of a military aircraft, a C-17 landing at the wrong airport.  If not  you may view it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuqsd_tRHw.

Did the aircrew fly a perfect downwind, base, and final?  Yes they did.
Did the aircrew turnout on the correct final heading?  Yes they did.
Did the aircrew execute a flawless landing?  Yes they did.
Did the aircrew execute a flawless roll out, tactical as it was?  Yes they did.

The problem was that both airports were on the same heading and although they did everything right, they ended up landing at the wrong airport!  Why?  Because the aircrew did not validate the decision of the pilot, assuming that he had made a correct decision.  Thus, they ended up in the wrong place on the wrong runway.

So it is with many of the decisions of our lives and as well those things which we have come to believe.  Some beliefs have consistency, integrity, even believability and yet because the underlying assumption is faulty the outcome is faulty as well.  That which appears to be true in reality is anything but so.

If you view the landing you will see that the aircrew and the airplane survived.  Not so when one lands on the wrong runways in one's life and in doing so misses the truth or reality as some choose to term it.  The consequences will be dire.

Simply said, what may sound so very good at first hearing and accepted on that level may not alert the believer in that "truth" to the difficulties in that particular belief system.  However, when one devotes effort to a deeper examination of the "truth" and one looks into the presuppositions and assumptions that underpin it then the belief breaks down.

Fortunately with the skill of the pilot, the C-17 was stopped before the end of the runway.  At some point the aircrew seeing how short the runway was, realized they had a problem.  So too with beliefs.  If one is to push them out to their logical conclusions, their failed veracity will be seen.  However, many become so caught up in the initial relationship with truth that they fail to see the eventual outcomes.

What are some of the outcomes of belief systems build on faulty assumptions?  First there is the question of validity.  Just know that a valid belief cannot be deduced based upon a faulty assumption.  In addition there can be other outcomes such as incorrect biases, chaotic relationships, deception, denial of conflicting truths (these may in fact be reality), imposition, intolerance, crisis of truth, and much, much more.

As to outcome for the C-17, you may view the take off at the following site.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=805M1svwp_8.  It is interesting as you view the various videos available at YouTube the reactions of the people.  Indeed their view of the landing and take off and their reactions were once again based upon their assumptions about the airplane's capability.

We must exercise great caution in the matter of what we accept as truth and/or reality.  Such should begin with a careful examination of such presuppositions and assumptions that underpin our beliefs.

"Truth or Consequences"

There is no safety in truth that is not genuine!  However, falsehood in its very degrees leads to destruction.  Beware of that which is not genuine truth.

We do well to remember that "genuine truth" does not change! No matter how ones spins it, rejects it, seeks to destroy it, and/or compromise it, genuine truth will in the end be there when the false has failed.  Genuine truth is not at the mercy of polls, opinions, the media, nor is it at the mercy of academia.

Not so with man's unproven opinions.  Take for example the matter Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the whole notion of "global warming."  It was not too long ago that the climatologist were proposing "global cooling" and a coming ice age.  Then came "global warming."  Now we have "climate change."  The only inconvenient truth here is that the whole notion of man caused climate change is "junk science" to be sure.  How can I say that?  Consider the following.

Science--true science is built upon the idea that a discovery is characterized by at least two basic qualities.

First, it is stable, that is the scientific discovery does not change.  It can be a gateway to deeper understandings and truths but the basic theorem is stable and thus does not change.  

Second, the outcome can be validated by any scientist or laymen who cares to replicate the conditions of the original experiment.  

 "Climate change" meets neither criterion as when you remove "interpretation and opinion" from the discussion, there is little factual data.  Oh, I know, drilling through the strata of Antarctic ice, looking at tree rings etc. gives data, however such data is open to interpretation and thus is not purely factual.  Therefore it is not "genuine science" and in fact qualifies as "junk science."

Well, you might ask, "How is it that you are qualified to render this conclusion?"  The answer is quite simple.  When you look at the scientists that signed on to "climate change," you will notice that not many of them are any more qualified that I am since this is not their area of expertise.  Said another way, I am as qualified as they to discuss the veracity of this theory and I with as much expertise as they say that this is an illegitimate theory!

There is an underlying issue as well.  Consider the first part of the term, "man made."  Does it not speak to an arrogant view of man and his influence upon God's creation?  Does it not tacitly say that man's actions are greater in power than God's capacity to keep and maintain creation?

Well, you respond, I am an evolutionary atheist.  Then consider this.  The basic notions of evolutionary science (again "junk science") should encourage "climate change" since it creates an environment in which only the fit survive and thus progress further up the theorized evolutionary ladder.  Makes no sense to me why the evolutionist would not want this supposed "climate change."

"Climate change does make a difference.  There is an economic effect upon the individual and upon the economy in general.  Sure we should all be for clean air and clean water but this has gone way too far.  That brings us to this final point!

There is safety in genuine truth! Maybe that is the Genuine Inconvenient Truth!  When man individually and as a nation turns from God, there is a price to be paid and that price is that the view of God becomes distorted or all together absent.  Without the "God view" all truth becomes subjective and subject to the influences of prejudice, societal mores, bias, and results in chaos.

"Love Your Enemies and Others"

The normal "give and take" of a group of cops was running high.  The bantering turned to a class they had taken having to do with sensitivity and diversity.  As the subject began to shift as happens with people such as these I overheard  something that perked up my ears and I listened to hear all I could.

One officer said something to the effect, I do not have to like nor do I have to respect the person I deal with, but what I do have to do is to treat them with respect.  In the practical world of these cops when contacting the public, it matters little who the person is, their criminal history, their attitude, the officer's bias, how they treat the officer, and/or their demeanor etc.!  What matters is that they be treated with respect.

That overheard conversation along with a blog which spoke to loving your enemies, occasions the following thought.  When the one who follows Christ is commanded to love people such as one's neighbor, one's enemies, etc. such love may include any of a variety of feelings but it must go beyond those feelings to how a person acts and how the other is treated.  There was no indication that faith played much of a part in any of the officers at that table yet they spoke words people of faith needed and need to hear.  So here is the question.

Does love not require the one who would love to go beyond feelings in how he treats his neighbor and even his enemy?

The story of the Good Samaritan is a case in point.  The Samaritan man was an outcast, thought to be an inferior person of an inferior "mixed breed" race.  The person he helped was in all likelihood opposed to the Samaritans.  In fact that very day he could have chosen to not associate himself with the man, said something to defame the man, and most certainly seen him as unclean and undesirable.  The divide between the two races in general and if they conformed to those divides, between the two men ran as deep as the social mores of the two cultures.  There clearly was potential for discrimination.  There was precious little that would have united them--especially emotionally.

However, the Good Samaritan did love the victim, not in emotion but in his ethical actions--in his sacrificial actions.  That is the whole notion behind "doing good to those who take advantage of you!"   It is a volitional action not because of how one reacts emotionally but despite that reaction.  Love is an action not because of an emotion but despite the emotion.

With that understanding then love is an action born of volition and those decisions includes but not limited to the following.  It is...

To be patient toward and with the impatient person as well as being tolerant with the intolerant.  

To be gentle with those who speak and act in an hurtful and harsh manner.  

To not be resentful in reaction another's successes.

To patiently listen when tempted to boast and thus best another's achievements.

To demonstrate the highest ideals of character no matter the situation.

To be unselfish, not seeking one's own way in situations that would justify same.  

To be one who interacts not reacts to adverse treatment.  

To turn a blind eye and thus look beyond some mistreatment by another.

 ...and the list goes on and on.

This to say the least is greatly misunderstood by many.  So the sum of the matter is this.

To love is a volitional action and if emotional attachment is involved so much the better.

May we go forth as did the Good Samaritan and love in action not just in attitude and word!

"Contemporary Religious Pluralism" CT7

In today's culture, instead of religion in general and Christian religion in particular influencing the culture in which it is to serve, in reality, it is influenced by culture.  The whole notion of contemporary religious pluralism is an example of such influencing.

HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Looking back, historic religious pluralism could be roughly defined as "believe" and "cooperate."  Of course there have always been exceptions and those who did not want to "play."  The point was that no one was asked to violate their own belief system and so no common belief was exacted from its members.  Then too there was an emphasis upon cooperation.  Such lead many of the Mainline Denominations to participate in the Ecumenical Movements of the 50's and 60's.  

But there was a change forthcoming.  Just as notions like sensitivity, diversity, tolerance, etc. gained traction in the culture so too they gained traction in the church and there became a certain preoccupation with being non-offensive.  That non-offensive doctrine became so pronounced that it was no long "believe" and "cooperate" but now "what can we all believe together."  

The importance of Historical Religious Pluralism is that it allowed for one to maintain his belief system and even gave room to personal convictions, that is personal theological conviction.  There was no demand for universal truth and one might even embrace subjective truth.  One might sum up the position in the notion of unity not uniformity.

The unity of "believe" and "cooperate" was how historic or classic Religious Pluralism. However, there was a change and it now placed stress on the notion of "unity" but now it is based on "commonly held belief."  

CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions, thus Contemporary Religious Pluralism.  In many ways Contemporary Religious Pluralism is a reflection of the post modern mindset in that it dismisses all that might mitigate against difference and disagreement.

The primary doctrine of the position is contained in the question, "What are the things upon which there is no disagreement?"  Of course there is very little, even among those who claim the title, "Christian."  Add in those of other major religions and the list grows ever shorter with the greater the inclusion.

The outcome is that cardinal doctrinal differences compromised, set aside, negated, etc.It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions.
In extreme cases divergent religions are called upon to cooperate.

As with most any position that is largely indefensible, the arguments tendered are not based upon ethical principles but the mores of that particular religious sub-culture.  The likely arguments are

• Reactionary in that they react against those who have an exclusionary doctrine, e.g. the eternal outcomes of the saved differing from those of the unsaved.
• Generalizing in that they move from a specific example to a general belief.
• Discriminating in that it embraces all except those of deep conviction which would include those with ethical truth claims and those with exclusive truth claims, etc.
• Devaluing in that those who hold to ethical truth are often named as uneducated, without compassion, irrelevant, and intolerant.
• Universal in that all religions contain elements of truth
• Inconsistent in that tolerance is one of the mantras, however as already noted, such belief allows for "correct" discrimination.

THE TENSION

The culture including the sub-culture of religion is in a state of tension.  Such tension occasions the opportunity for the individual to choose.  One can choose the Contemporary Religious Pluralism track or one can choose the more traditional approach.  One is untenable unless one is willing to give up almost all of what one believes for the sake of "unity."  Then based upon that foundation of "unity" one's belief system is built back.  The problem is that the outcome of course is some kind of a "group think" theology.

The other choice in terms of religious pluralism is the more tradition approach.  Such says that each believes as he will, each allows the other to believe as he will, but we join together in what we can, accept our differences, and move forward in what we can jointly support.  In this kind of relationship there is no "Mush God" for each serves Him as they understand Him to be!

"Discrimination and Imposition" CT5

Overview:  In this section of material, consideration will be given to the background and processes which underpin Discrimination and Imposition.  Within the following there is a comparison / contrast of the influence of ethics and morals.  If you have not read the comparison in a previous blog, it would be well to do so at this time.

The material covered will be in terms of Background Word, Attitude Words, and Expression Words (the actions that one takes based upon background and attitude).

BACKGROUND WORDS

As in any behavior, be it words or actions, there are antecedent processes which precede and give foundation to those things.  It is not different with words and actions with improperly discriminate and/or impose upon another.  

We begin with a quick look at the very basic elements that begin to set the stage for these actions.  This first section on Background Words is further divided into Unchangeable and Changeable.  That is there are some things over which one has no control and thus one cannot change those things.  They are Unchangeable.  On the other hand, there are those things over which one had control and thus they are Changeable.  There is an additional category which is a combination of both.

The Unchangeable is the category that contains those elements which a person cannot control or change.

Included are such things as one is born with to include race, gender, genetic qualities, etc.  Then too there are those processes over which one has no control such as aging, illness, or injury.

The Combination category contains the Comprehendable which is the category that contains those thing of which one become aware of with aging.

The infant without a great deal of choice gradually becomes aware of the world beyond his mother.   Thus in the infant years there is a low realization and low control over what to do with that realization.  As the child progresses through the various stages to adulthood there is more and more realization and control.  

Though one may have a high "intuitive" and thus realize on a spiritual-intuitive, social-intuitive, rational-intuitive, or some other intuitive level, there yet remains the matter of one's choice.  That is with realization comes the responsibility for making choices as to what one accepts and incorporates into his paradigms of life.  At this point the question of whether one makes those choices based on ethics or morals enters the decision making processes.

The Changeable category contains a two section breakout.  Included is Ethnicity and Culture.

Another way of looking at Ethnicity is that of identity.  The ethnic situation into which one is born is by no means ever unchangeable.  It may so in the early years when one is dependent upon family and/or sub-culture but with maturity comes the power to choose one's ethnic proclivities.  So as life progresses one's ethnicity is a matter of choosing what particular religious, racial, social, or national group one chooses for their identity.  It may include customs, language, idioms, mores, racial views, social views, and other elements of a social group to which one belongs or with which one wishes to identify.

The other element in the changeable category is that of Culture.  Again this category is in the control of the individual as they in the course of life make choices as to which thoughts to think, words and word combinations to use in communication, what actions are acceptable, what customs to observe, what beliefs to hold, what values to embrace and live out, and what social institutions to enter.  

An overall principle to keep inmind is that as a person matures, is educated, and matures the awareness of these things becomes greater and with increasing awareness comes the opportunity to make choices and those choices are the basis of change.  Attendant to that point is that as one matriculates through those processes, one becomes more and more responsible for the choices made.  Thus the importance of an ethical framework.

THE CORRECT OR INCORRECT ATTITUDES, WHY?

Now return to the question, by what values does one judge an attitude and attendant action to be correct or incorrect?  Consider the following chart and look to the central column.  There are two types of correct attitudes.  One is correct positive attitudes, that correctness is then based upon a value.  

The choice one has to make is which item in the right column is foundational to the establishment of the value?  The second question one must ask is how durable is that foundation?  As you by now, assuming you have at the very least perused previous submissions that the only durable foundation for a value is found in ethics.

ATTITUDE WORDS

It is at this level that we encounter words which indicate attitudes.  When those attitudes of the heart are based upon faulty information, less complete information, wrong information, and/or incorrect  values it leaves one in very precarious position as we shall later see.

What then are the attitudes of the heart which one must carefully keep consistent with right ethical values?  Remember, emotionally laden thoughts become emotionally laden attitudes.  Those attitudes then become expressed in the words one speaks and the actions one takes.  Those words spoken are not only heard by others if verbalized but also whether verbal or non-verbal act to keep one in those thought processes.  

It is therefore crucial that ethical standards be the banks within which those processes flow.  As well it is crucial that those same ethics function within those processes.  In other words, there must be an ethical underpinning, an ethical restraint, and an ethical content in the processes associated with attitudes.  

Remembering the question, What determines the standard for correct or incorrect? consider three words germane to the attitudes under study.  Also keep clearly in mind that these words are changeable and throughout one's life they do change!  Hopefully the change will always be guided by and toward an ethical foundation and process.

Conviction:  A firm belief held as proven.  Conviction can be rational but often there is emotion involved.


Ethical convictions are those convictions held based upon ethical truth.  Though they may be out of syn with the surrounding culture, sub-culture, and social situation, etc. they are those things that have stood the tests of universality, objectiveness, and transcendency and thus are considered to be durable.   These are those truths which are found to be revealed in the writings of Moses and elucidated throughout the remainder of Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

Moral convictions are those convictions held based upon one's understanding of the mores of the particular culture, sub-culture, and social situation, etc.  These are those things that may be but do not have to be held to be universal, objective, or transcendent.  This position holds that truth is not durable but ever in flux since social mores are always in flux.  It is the kind of truth that flexes with the addition of change.

What divides the two positions is found in the question, Just what assumptions or presuppositions does one bring to the discussion?  The implications of that question will be seen in some of the discussion that follows.  Another area of concern would be the validity of the information that one takes to be true.  As well there could be a question of the completeness of such information of which one is in possession.


Bias:  A bent or inclination to a direction of thinking.  Again there is a rational content but bias may contain more and greater emotional content.

The previous development of Ethical convictions versus Moral convictions would also apply here except that since this is a great deal less firm than a conviction, those things when applied to bias serve to guide as one processes and moves forward toward conviction.

Here again there is a dividing line.  Those beliefs and attitude--those biases that are being held and processed based upon ethics, would be more durable than those biases that are held and processed based upon morals.  Thus they would share some of the characteristics of and some of the durability of an ethical conviction.


Prejudice:  A premature and preconceived attitude or opinion usually negative based upon wrong assumptions, false information, or before all information is collected.  Since there tends to be less rational involvement, prejudices tend to possess a high emotional content.

Note that prejudice as is being discussed here is not possible if viewed from an ethical position.  That is to say that ethical truth deals a death blow to the whole notion of prejudice!  Not so moral truth.  Take for example the racial discrimination that was so prevalent in the 50s and 60s.  In particular take the South.  Such prejudice was correct according to the mores of that time and culture.  However, such was and continues to be ethically wrong and those of strong ethical character have always considered it to be so.

Should one have a prejudice that survives the ethical process it would then at the very least move that prejudice to being a bias.  As one processes bias based upon ethical truth then that which survives the process moves to become an ethical conviction.

EXPRESSION WORDS

While the outcome of unethical conviction, bias, and prejudice may be expressed in words, thus the title, the reality is that these things can be expressed in behaviors.  Consider the following.

Discrimination:  Any action that hinders equal access equal access to economic resources, educational systems, and/or leisure opportunities.

Each person every day makes decisions and those decisions call upon the decision-maker to make choices.  Most of those choices are rooted in some kind of discrimination.  The problem comes when such discrimination is based upon the unchangeable elements of one's life.  For example if one makes choices about another based upon that person's race, skin color, gender, or some other physical quality that is out of that person's span of control such discrimination is not acceptable.

On the other hand, if one makes choices that discriminate based upon an ethical position then, if you accept that ethical standards are durable and apply equally to all, such a decision though it discriminates and hardly be labeled, "discrimination."

That being the case discrimination founded upon universal objective ethical truth is a discrimination that is based upon truth and as long as it is applied equally and fairly in reality cannot be labelled discrimination.  However, should that same ethical truth be applied unfairly, applied based not upon behavior but according to race and gender, etc., such application would be discrimination.

The real problem for the moralist is using mores as the basis for discrimination.  This is so because of the non-universality of mores and thus the difficulty in objectivity.  Another problem in what has been termed reverse discrimination, that is making choices in favor of one person based upon that persons unchangeable elements, when such a choice excludes others.  Again, such may be morally correct but in fact is ethically wrong.

Imposition: Any word or action that thrusts one's will, opinion, etc. upon another without invitation to do so.

The question must be asked, what is the basis of one's assuming a right or even a responsibility to impose upon another.  For example, if one does so for ethical reason such as requiring honesty in the work place, such an imposition would be based upon durable truth.  However, that same imposition upon moral grounds could in fact create difficulties.

THE PROCESS

To this point consideration has been given to the basis and process that lead to discrimination and imposition.  From the diagram below, one can see that when the foundation and actions involved in these processes are based upon a foundation of ethical truth, there is a validity of such actions as result.  At times the term durable truth has been included in the discussion.

Also included in the discussion has been those trues which are based upon cultural or societal mores.  Since such can be unique to the social situation and has not stood the test of time, these values are much less likely to survive over the long-term.  As well, since ethical truth transcends the uncertainties of man's existence, such truth if properly understood, embraced, and practiced can provide a certain sense of confidence and hope in the uncertain moral environment of today's moral confusion.