Language is a reflection of culture. "Civilization" can be measured by the degree of respect and protection extended to all members of society, especially the weakest among them. Ordinary discourse in our society has progressively incorporated the language patterns of the coarsest elements within it. Words like "gangster" and "pimp" are now used to indicate admiration when they actually have root meanings that are anything but admirable. Gangster refers to one who uses violence to get what he wants. Pimp refers to one who sexually enslaves women, and throws them away when they are no longer profitable. OK, I'm "old-fashioned" and opinionated. But I have lived through the changes briefly noted above, and the trend does not promote optimism about the survival of civilization.

Ryan just sent me the following message. Caution: Those of you who have endured my Graphic Design class may have flashbacks.

A student I haven't know for very long sent in this question:


hey mr blocher.
if you believe in spirits and/or ghosts but you don't believe in god then would that be agnostic?


That's a good question.

It's common these days for people to want to be "spiritual" without being religious, but, in fact it's hard to separate the two.

The problem is that if there is nothing outside the universe that created it, then all that exists is "matter, energy, space, and time" as the scientific materialist claims. If humans evolved from animals, which evolved from single-celled organisms, which evolved from non-living chemicals in a chance process, then it's hard to see how a non-material spirit or ghost could have evolved from the material world. How could matter create something that is not matter?

On the other hand, if there are non-material entities (ghosts or spirits) in the universe, this suggests that whatever caused the universe to come into existence must also be non-material in some way similar to a spirit. If that which caused the universe to come into existence is a powerful spirit, then you've just reasoned your way to the existence of God.

Otherwise, you could adopt a polytheistic or pantheistic worldview, but both of those depend on the claim that the universe had no beginning; they assert that matter is eternal, along with various spirits, gods, goddesses, etc. It seems to me that this is the only explanation that allows the existence of ghosts or spirits without a creator. Modern science has put this view in jeopardy, however, because now we know that the universe had a beginning, commonly (but inaccurately) called "The Big Bang." I will be showing how we know that in class near the end of the third quarter, but if you want to know more sooner, I have some information that you could take a look at.

Can any of you find a flaw in my logic? I really want to hear about it.

I made a new profile picture this morning, and was wondering if anyone could be offended by it. Click on it to see the full-size image; it's the last image in the "MY ART" album. If it does offend you, can you please explain why it bothers you?

Thanks!

Mr. B

Joe made me aware of this.

I don't even know how to respond. Apparently our culture has sunk to a new low, if hundreds of people can watch this and do nothing to help.

A recent column by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson contained the following two paragraphs:

'Recently (on Oct. 17, to be exact) radio talk-show host Sean Hannity asked callers to say why they favored Obama for president. What followed was a depressing succession of people saying that Obama would give them more money, free health care, and other goodies. Totally forgotten was Democratic President Kennedy's appeal, "Ask not what your country can do for you …" In its place was the piggish attitude, "I want it. Promise to give it to me and my vote is yours."

'As pathetic and demoralized as such me-first attitudes may be, individuals like those aren't the crux of the problem. The real culprits are their enablers: educators who fill their minds with the notion that political taking, rather than economic service to one's fellow man, is a legitimate way to profit; "intellectuals" who scorn property rights and define "justice" as government redistribution of wealth; clergymen who confuse socialism with Christianity; and especially the demagogic politicians who pander to them. The pied pipers of this ethical plague, not the mice they mislead, bear the primary responsibility for the culture of thievery that is corroding the fabric of our republic.'

No matter who you voted for president, the reasons given by the callers to Hannity's program should concern you. They are voting for candidates who will take the money you earn away from you and give it to them.

What do you think? Is education the problem? What can we do to fix it?

Mark left this comment on my last blog:

It still makes me wonder how God came to be (obviously another debated topic in itself but let's look over that for now) the way God is. How did God become to be this that is, that God is showing in his self actualization?

Also, are we assuming that God's self actualization is "good" because it is the most powerful way of being that there is?
I understand that this could be against the beliefs of some that read this, but if this upsets anyone, understand that I engage into these thoughts for the thought and discussion experience itself rather than to say what I believe is right or wrong/is or isn't.

Here is my reply to Mark:

I don't find your questions offensive. I wonder the same things, and apparently so did Socrates; your questions sound a lot like some of the questions Socrates asked Euthyphro.

We are creatures bound by time. For us time only moves in one direction: Our future is constantly becoming our present, and then just as quickly it becomes our past. We experience time in a linear fashion: each event has a beginning, a middle, and an end. So it is hard for us to conceptualize or imagine anything that is not bound by time. Everything we observe, including ourselves, is in a constant state of change. This prompted some of the pre-Socratic thinkers to proclaim that the essential nature of every object is the state of "becoming," that is, every thing is always in the process of becoming something else; for example, an acorn is becoming an oak, a rock is eroding into dissolved minerals, and each one of us is in the process of becoming worm food.

However, Einstein showed us that time is an aspect of space (hence the common phrase "space/time continuum"). Since space came into existence at the time of the Big Bang (or "Big Bounce" if you want to be trendy), then time came into existence along with it--at least, time as we know it. Since whatever caused the universe to come into existence cannot be contained solely within its own creation, the First Cause is outside of the space/time continuum. That is to say, it is transcendent and eternal. So it's natural state is not one of "becoming," since it is not captive to the processes of growth, change, or decay, as we are. The First Cause is not turning into something else, as we are. Instead its natural state is "being," not becoming.

An entity of Pure Being is what it is, what it has always been, and always will be.

Now we may examine the creation and try to formulate some picture of what that First Cause must be like. Some will conclude from that examination that the First Cause must be evil, since each living creature can only sustain itself if some other living creature dies. Plants and animals must die if you are to eat. This is true of every other living being: its continued life depends on the death of some other living organism.

Others will see the amazing interlocking systems of life and conclude that the First Cause must be very tender and compassionate to design a place suitable for human habitation.

Since every creation reflects the personality of its maker to some extent, others will look inward and find within themselves a code of justice that seems to be largely shared by all humanity. This could lead them to conclude that the First Cause must also have a code of justice, which must be as eternal and unchanging the Pure Being that possesses it.

So, my friends, what do you conclude about the First Cause by looking at what the First Cause caused to become?

Mark wrote the following comment on my last blog, and I thought the reply should get its own blog. Here's Mark:

Kind of going off of this, I would like to know Mr. B's and anyone else's opinion on, "Does God follow right and wrong or did God create right and wrong?"

We got into this debate in class the other day when a philosopher stated that "God had to choose the best world possible due to his nature." Therefore, some suggested that God did not have the freedom to choose other, which would limit his omnipotence.

Here are my thoughts on that subject:

People sometimes ask, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" When I say, "No" they retort, "But I thought God could do anything!" Nonsense. There are an infinite number of things God cannot do; for example, He can't make a square circle. Why not? Because that is a contradiction in terms. As C.S. Lewis remarked, "Nonsense is still nonsense even when you put the words 'God can' in front of it." In fact, God cannot do anything that is contrary to His own nature or character. Does that mean that there are limits on His freedom?

Let's think about what we mean by freedom as we apply the term to ourselves. When asked what freedom is, most students say something like, "The ability to do whatever you want." That's not a bad starting point. What I think we mean by that is the ability to act in ways that please us.

In that sense we know that none of us is completely free. We are limited by physical constraints, legal & social constraints, and even by our own internal moral compass. I'd like to be able to fly or teleport, but I lack the power to do so. I'd like to take things that don't belong to me, but my freedom is limited by law and conscience. So I am not free in an absolute sense.

But on a deeper level what really pleases us is "self-actualization," that is, the full realization of the potentialities within each of us (look it up on wikipedia if you want a fuller description). In other words, true freedom is to be able to take all my inner potential and make it real or actual in the world. To the extent this is attainable, we are free. But we know that in this world we never get all the way there.

When we apply that concept to God we realize that He is the only fully self-actualized individual in the universe. He has the ability to actualize every potential in His character, and so is the only person who is completely free.

Mark's first question was, "Does God follow right and wrong or did God create right and wrong?" The answer is, "Yes." We could say that He created morality in the sense that it is a reflection of His own character and righteousness. And of course, since it is a reflection of His character, and He always acts in conformity with His own character, since He is a fully self-actualized person, then His actions will always conform to that standard of righteousness. So looked at in a certain way, both statements are true. Again, it turns out that God is the only individual who is, at present, completely free.

But it occurs to me that there is a corollary to the above that Mark didn't ask about. Anyone who has seen my calligraphic art and the art of Tim Botts would immediately recognize the artist behind a piece of art they see for the first time, since Tim and I have such different styles and approaches to art. Each work of art reflects the personality of the artist that created it. In a similar way, the universe reflects the personality of its creator. Since we are part of that creation, our own personalities are small reflections of His personality. It then follows that for us to be self-actualized, our own moral choices must reflect His moral character. To rebel against His morality is in a way to rebel against your own nature, and leads to less self-actualization rather than more. You become less of yourself while you are trying to become more yourself. This leads to a lot of unnecessary frustration, as many people who have spent a lifetime of rebellion have learned the hard way (take Oscar Wilde, for example, or read his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray*). I'm not suggesting that the creator wants a bunch of mindless robots that can't think for themselves. Rather He desires to fill the universe with a nearly infinite variety of fully-actualized individuals who each uniquely contribute to the glory of the whole.

So ironically, the way to become the most free, the most self-actualized individual is not to be found in trying to be an individual at all. It is in reflecting back to your creator the one-of-a-kind glory He built into you.



(*A tip of the hat to my nephew Jonathan for suggesting that I read The Picture of Dorian Gray)

Ryan sent the following question:

Is it wrong not to believe in anything?

Here is my reply:

Everyone believes in something. Some people believe in the supernatural, some people believe only in the "natural" (that is, that which can be perceived with our five natural senses). Some believe in a Higher Power who cares about us, and offers help and comfort in time of need. Some believe that we are on our own. Some people believe that they can live after death in a better place. Some believe that this life is all you've got.

When you use the word "wrong" in your question, that implies that belief or non-belief is a moral issue. But concepts of right and wrong are grounded in what you believe. If you believe that a creator built a moral order into the fabric of the universe, then you are obliged to align your beliefs with what that creator requires. But if you believe that we evolved by a long series of chance events, then there is no moral order in the universe, and there is no reason to think that anything you choose is either "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense. A universe without a moral order renders the terms right and wrong completely meaningless. The choice you make may be only convenient or inconvenient, advantageous or disadvantageous. Nothing you can choose is right or wrong.

Societies may impose categories of right and wrong on us in order to preserve their own peace and prosperity, but those societies often differ with one another as to what constitutes moral behavior (for example, naziism, slavery, suttee, imperialism, etc.). But without a creator, they have no authority higher than themselves upon which to found their systems of morality. So whenever power changes hands, the moral requirements can change as quickly. One day we value individual human rights, the next day we value the glory of the emperor.

So, Ryan, which sort of universe would you rather live in? One that has a moral order, or one in which right and wrong are matters of each person's own preferences?