Thursday, October 18, 2012

“View from Altitude - I”



“Conflict at Rotate!”
It was a cold almost snowing South Dakota wintry morning as I walked toward Base Operations.  The temperature had dropped overnight well below freezing.  Though it had warmed up some, still in all it was cold and the wind.  Oh, the wind. It was howling and gusting out of the north—the north of Canada that is.  It blew south as if it had made its journey with me in its sights.  My flight suit and jacket did little to stop it—forget the flight gloves.
“Hoser 54, taxi and hold short of the active for traffic on final.”  It was now three hours after I had arrived at base ops.  As I sat there in the jump seat watching, it always fascinated me to watch the pilots as we had taxied and now were waiting for takeoff.
Pre-flight
I had joined the aircrew at the weather brief.  Weather had reported “Temperature is 35, with winds out of the North at 15.  Snow is in the forecast but should not get here until 2000 this evening.  It may be a bit bumpy as you climb out as there are winds aloft.  No weather at altitude in route or on the refueling track.” The sergeant continued, “Any questions?”  There were none.
The pilot that had the takeoff, in this case the aircraft commander gave a quick brief that included take off speeds, mission, refueling track, etc.  It concluded with, “…if we have problems after pickle we will rotate and work our problems in the air.”  Then we boarded the crew bus and headed out to the airframe.  It was a KC 135 R Model.
As we exited the crew bus into the cold wind, we were met with the sound of the AGE equipment as it had been supplying power to the airplane so maintenance could do their pre-flight checks.  It was cold and so once the airplane was loaded, it was a relief to climb the crew entry ladder and get out of the wind.  Soon there was engine start, the crew ladder was pulled up, the crew entry door closed and sealed, and the grate over the entryway dropped into place.  We were as they say, "Buttoned up."  There I was center and back of the two pilots where I had a clear view of the panel.
Taxiing
After a short while we taxied out of our parking spot and bumped our way down the taxiway toward the active runway.  If there ever was anything that said an airplane is built for the air and not the ground, taxing proved the point.  Then came the radios call, “Hoser 54, hold short of the active for traffic on final.”
We taxied off of the taxiway, made the turn onto the hammer head and held there waiting for clearance.  The four CFM-56 engines are now at idle.  We waited for the traffic to land and clear the active runway.  I sat feeling privileged to be sitting on the cold wood of the jump seat.  The cushion had long ago been lost.  I listened on the inner-phone as there was the normal chit-chat banter and talk of the mission.  It was a great day to be a “blue suited” chaplain in “jet jammies” riding along with an aircrew on an aerial refueling mission.
Take Off!!
Soon the call came, “Hoser 54 cleared for takeoff.”  The aircraft commander acknowledged the call, kicked off the brakes, and advanced the throttles.  The sound of the engines spindling up was noticeable.  The flight deck grew quiet except for the creaks and cracks of an airframe built before the aircrew had been born.  We made the turn onto center line of the active runway and began our takeoff roll.
Soon the aircraft commander would further advanced the throttles and the airframe gathered more and more speed.  The pilot in the right seat called out speeds.  “S1,” “Pickle,” then it came, “Rotate.”   It was then that the aircraft commander pulled back on the yoke and….
Abort, Abort, Abort
No, the takeoff was not aborted.  It was too late for that anyhow as we had passed, “pickle.”  However, for a minute let us abort the story and consider that in the moment of rotate there came a conflict.  Not among the air crew, though I have seen such happen.  There came a conflict between two warriors, each of whom would contend with the other in order to win the battle for the airplane.
On one side was a warrior, her name was Gravity.  At her disposal were all of her laws and physics.  Now she was quite happy when we went through all the crew briefings, road the crew bus, started engines, taxied, and rolled out onto the active.  She had absolutely no problem with any of what we had done because she was in complete control.  However when we achieved “rotate” and the aircraft commander pulled back on the yoke, she suddenly came alive because another warrior showed up to try to take control.
The other warrior was named Aeronautics.  At her disposal were all of her laws and physics.  Now she too did not care much when we were on the ground but when we hit “rotate” she decided to take charge.  Problem was that that the two warriors, Gravity and Aeronautics were each trying to be in control. 
Both warriors were determined to win the conflict.  Both fought their battle valiantly, one to maintain control and the other to gain control.  Only one could win.
Life’s Conflicts
Such is so with many of the dichotomies of life.  There is the difference and even conflict between,
What we want and what we know is right.
What was done and what should have been done.
What we find pleasurable and what we find productive.
What is in the immediate and what is in the long-term.
What we understanding by reason and what we understand by faith.
This also is the difficulty with coming to faith in Jesus Christ.  There is one who seeks to keep control of each of us usually with incorrect thoughts, weak resolve, sometimes with appetites run rampant, emotions that inflame, and so much more but control none the less.  He does not give up easily. 
However, there is another who comes only by invitation and with permission.  It is He who seeks to come into one’s life to provide healing, help, and hope.  The conflict between the two is the conflict of the ages.  It has lasted longer than any other conflict in history.  It is the battle for the soul of man and mankind.  No one is exempted from the conflict.
View from Altitude – II
The second post is forthcoming in a day or two.  It poses the question, “Pain with Purpose” or “Pain without Purpose?”

Friday, October 12, 2012

TRUTH SYSTEMS COMPARED AND CONTRASTED




The two previous essays asked three questions.  What is the foundation upon which one's truth paradigm is constructed?  Is it solid enough that it cannot be destructed?  If the foundation of one's truth paradigm is destructed, what will that do to the truth paradigm?
Then two different theories were explored, though not comprehensively.  The purpose was not to completely exhaust all argument appropriate to each but to provoke the reader to make two examinations.
First, the challenge was to examine the veracity of the foundation upon which one’s truth paradigm is constructed.
Second, the challenge was to examine the validity of the truth paradigm itself.
As you read the following may you make these two assessments of your truth paradigm.

ASSUMPTIONS

Life is filled with assumption both known and unknown. These essays are no different, thus there are at least three assumptions present herein. 
Theories:  The first assumption is that these are theories.  Of course those who embrace a particular position would argue against such being so.  However, for the sake of the argument the term was employed.
Two systems:  The second assumption is that there are only two truth systems.  Of course post-modernism was referenced which some might argue is a third category but since in its simplest form it is both skeptical of and rejecting of there being truth, it was not considered.
Truth and Reality:  The third assumption is that truth could be employed to describe both truth and reality.  As was noted the discussion which would compare and contrast truth and reality will be left for another essay.
LIMITATION
The limitation of the discussion may present a problem for some but it lies upon the line between supernaturalism[1] as opposed to naturalism[2].  Although the discussion has implications for same, it is beyond the purview of this essay to argue theism or atheism and related notions. 
Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, they are not the primary focus of what follows.  Again that is left for other discussions.
CLOSED SYSTEM VS. OPEN SYSTEM
In the interest of expedience, instead of compare and contrast the abbreviation “vs.” will be employed in the discussion.
Material vs. Non-Material
The major difference in the two systems is the existence of a non-material or supernatural element in truth.  The proponents of the Open System may argue over the character and qualities of the truth system but do agree that there is truth that has its existence beyond the material world.  Those who embrace Closed System suggest that if there is any such thing as non-material truth, it is simply something logic, science, or theoretical science has yet to explain.
Danger for Both!
In both camps there is a danger which though different must be considered.  Among those who embrace Open System it is the danger of ascribing that which cannot be explained to some supernatural element or another.  In the extreme, this short circuits scientific inquiry.  Said another way, before some phenomena is labeled supernatural, one does well to must make honest scientific inquiry.
On the part of the Closed System proponent the danger is twofold.  First, it is to ascribe some unexplained phenomena as the substance of the superstitious or the ill informed and thus discount the experience.  This is not uncommon in the previously referenced writing of Hitchens and Dawkins.
The second is to assume that logic, science, or theoretical science can or will explain all that remains unknown or unexplained.
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism
The Weight of History
To consider the argument in light of history let us begin with two assumptions.  First, assume for the sake of comparison that man’s mental capacities have remained about the same over the eras of his existence. 
Second, those who postulate a young age earth argue for an existence of between 6,000 and 10,000 years.  Assume then for the sake of argument the time period at the low end of a young earth age or 6,000 years.  Then add into the discussion that the science that underpins materialism has a “coming of age” date of AD 1500.

That would mean that for a period of 500 years or about 8.33 % of recorded history, naturalism has gained traction and become popular in some circles.  Before that time there is ample evidence for the dominance of the supernatural. One need not read far in Jewish history, the Quran, Greek Mythology, Hinduism, and Buddhism to find such to be so.
Of course the date of the invention of the original printing press is lost to history.  It may have been as early as the 13th Century.  However in the middle of the 15th Century the invention of moveable type printing made publishing far more efficient and thus books such as Charles Darwin’s 1859, Origin of the Species could with relative ease be widely disseminated.  Such things as this added to the traction that Naturalism was gaining.  Even so Supernaturalism has been by far the greater influence. 
The Weight of Data
Statistics having to do with current religious belief show that 82.2 % of the world’s 6.2 billion hold to there being a supernatural.  The sheer number of Judeo-Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus etc. that hold to supernaturalism cannot be easily dismissed.  While the naturalist looks with askance at those who have a high element of supernaturalism in their belief system, those of the orient have an equal view of those without.
Drawing the Line Between
Even among the 1.1 billion who hold to there not being a supernatural component to truth, one will often hear words that indicate and acknowledge the non-material.  For example, the notion of love, like, fear, care, and other similar concepts suggest that at the very least there are some elements of the closed truth paradigm that cannot be explained, much less measured.
May I hazard a guess?  Perhaps the line is drawn where it is because of the inconvenience of a non-material theistic element.  It would be of interest to hear an explanation of why the line is where it is.
The Argument from Example
It is true that there are lists of hundreds if not thousands of non-theists / non-supernaturalists who have lived during recorded history.  However, it must be remembered that while they certainly had followings, there was no way in which their influence could have had the impact it does today in our technological culture.  Yet they are there and are fielded as critical elements in the argument for the closed system.
However, on the other side of the argument are those who also lived throughout recorded history and who argued for the reverse.  In fact there were many more of them than the non-supernaturalists.
The Argument from Incident or Lack Thereof
In the course of the discussion one is likely to hear on both sides of one’s experience or lack thereof.  Such subjective truth is often generalized to be universal truth as opposed to being what it is, an isolated experience.  This is especially troubling for the one who builds his truth paradigm on some isolated experience or another.
The danger of this kind of a jump in logic cannot be over-estimated.  In reality it is not possible to move from subjective truth paradigms to objective truth paradigms.  It is just not logical nor is it legitimate. 

CLOSING THOUGHTS
The discussion has only begun, there is much, much more to be considered as one examines the foundation and structure of one’s truth paradigm.  However, this further discussion is much more than can be reasonably considered in this essay. 
The Curious Irony
However, there is a curious if not cruel irony that underpins and makes possible the discussion.  The irony is that the positions of those who are not just skeptical of but are opposed to Open System Truth Theory are not possible without the work and influence of those with whom they disagree. 
The foundation for much of the science that the skeptic claims as foundational to their thinking found its origin in and among those of Open System Truth Theory.  Other essays include an abbreviated list of the contributions of these men and women most of whom were people of deep faith.[3]  
Prominent among them are men such as Da Vinci, Mendel, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Ohm, Ampere, and the list goes on and on.  It is the order that these and others discovered and taught that allowed for the integrity of the closed system rationalists.   
Final Thought
The final thought is this.  Though at the outset of this essay the statement was made that, “Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, the outcomes of each system are not a focus of this comparison and contrast” please allow this one final observation.  
As with any idea, theory, or even unproven and highly speculative theory, there is an influence and that influence has one or more consequences.  One way to view the veracity of a truth theory is to push it out and view the logical outcomes.  I will leave it to the reader to push both theories out to their logical ends and then compare those outcomes. 
In an effort to do so one might benefit from a review of history.  There is a decided difference between those who embraced one theory and those who embrace the other.  Such a difference should say something about the veracity of each truth theory.


[1] Supernaturalism:  early 15c. "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799.  definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=76&allowed_in_frame=0
[2] Naturalism from Natural: …as "of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel "of nature, conforming to nature; by birth," and directly from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature). From late 15c. as "not miraculous, in conformity with nature." Meaning "easy, free from affectation" is attested from c.1600. Of things, "not artificially created,"… full definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=n&p=2&allowed_in_frame=0
[3] See Schmidt, Alvin  Under the Influence, republished under the title, How Christianity Changed the World