Paging through a textbook in preparation for a class I’m teaching my eye caught a reference. I froze. Can this really be true? Is this really allowed in a textbook? The source is Wikipedia! Now don’t get me wrong, Wikipedia is a great quick reference and I use it often, but it is certainly not trustworthy source. No self-respecting scholar would be caught dead quoting Wikipedia.
Or have trustworthiness and factuality and truth so deteriorated in our postmodern zeitgeist that any source would do. Have facts just become opinions, and all opinions equal? Is the professor speaking about his field of expertise and the freshman speaking about the same field equally quotable sources?
Don’t get me wrong, I am a child of postmodernity, a Generation Xer par excellence; I feel strangely at home in this fragmented zeitgeist, but I also value the knowledgeable over the laity. All narratives are not equal.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Conservatives and Liberals
So Adam is slowly convincing me that I am not as liberal as I thought. Of course my blogging-friend is being selective of what he reveals about the general darftness of the Democrats, but that is okay. We are all selective about how we present information. Even supposed objective journalist do their profession from an inevitable paradigm. That is why it is so important to get as many different perspectives on important news as possible.
But back to American politics… Here’s my cop-out: I am not a U.S. citizen, so I don’t have to cast my vote to either the Conservatives or the Liberals. However, I believe I ought to have an opinion and although it will not make any difference to America, it will make a difference within me. Since I’m not American I’m allowing myself the courtesy to keep it general.
Conservatives:
Many of the conservative values I value. I believe in the sanctity of the family and similar sentiments. But I fear the Religious Right that is trying to use politics to enforce their religious agenda. This movement towards bridging the gap between State and Church is disturbing.
Christ showed a deliberate avoidance of political involvement. He shied away from attempts to get himself involved in any of the governmental politics of the day. He showed no interest in over throwing the Roman Empire. Even though a rebellion under His command would have been invincible, with him feeding them, healing them, raising them from the dead.
The serious privacy infringements under the Bush-administration are also a cause for solemn concern. It is my opinion that Americans have lost their freedom. Such atrocities as the “Spy Bill” of which I posted before, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism, are awful manipulations of the public’s fear, towards an Orwellian Big-Brother State.
Liberals:
What I like about the Liberals are their inclination away from Church and State and appreciation of freedom of speech.
Apart from the many inconsistencies Adam has made me aware of, I have another fear. In their offensiveness against the Religious Right, the Democrats are leaning themselves towards an equally fearsome extreme. A kind of Communist downplay (and sometimes even uprooting) of anything religious or traditionally sanctimonious. This has the potential to lead to a type of witch-hunt, or forced transformation of traditions and culture. My question is then, where does that leave those inalienable freedoms that made the United States the great nation it became? Such freedoms as the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience. Freedoms that the Liberals are supposed to value.
Indeed, the religious right scares me, the liberal left frightens me. It is as one evangelist described: You have a choice between voting for the Devil in Pink or the Devil in Blue.
O, and by the way, the world is coming to an end!
But back to American politics… Here’s my cop-out: I am not a U.S. citizen, so I don’t have to cast my vote to either the Conservatives or the Liberals. However, I believe I ought to have an opinion and although it will not make any difference to America, it will make a difference within me. Since I’m not American I’m allowing myself the courtesy to keep it general.
Conservatives:
Many of the conservative values I value. I believe in the sanctity of the family and similar sentiments. But I fear the Religious Right that is trying to use politics to enforce their religious agenda. This movement towards bridging the gap between State and Church is disturbing.
Christ showed a deliberate avoidance of political involvement. He shied away from attempts to get himself involved in any of the governmental politics of the day. He showed no interest in over throwing the Roman Empire. Even though a rebellion under His command would have been invincible, with him feeding them, healing them, raising them from the dead.
The serious privacy infringements under the Bush-administration are also a cause for solemn concern. It is my opinion that Americans have lost their freedom. Such atrocities as the “Spy Bill” of which I posted before, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism, are awful manipulations of the public’s fear, towards an Orwellian Big-Brother State.
Liberals:
What I like about the Liberals are their inclination away from Church and State and appreciation of freedom of speech.
Apart from the many inconsistencies Adam has made me aware of, I have another fear. In their offensiveness against the Religious Right, the Democrats are leaning themselves towards an equally fearsome extreme. A kind of Communist downplay (and sometimes even uprooting) of anything religious or traditionally sanctimonious. This has the potential to lead to a type of witch-hunt, or forced transformation of traditions and culture. My question is then, where does that leave those inalienable freedoms that made the United States the great nation it became? Such freedoms as the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience. Freedoms that the Liberals are supposed to value.
Indeed, the religious right scares me, the liberal left frightens me. It is as one evangelist described: You have a choice between voting for the Devil in Pink or the Devil in Blue.
O, and by the way, the world is coming to an end!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Hell of Heaven
"The sinner could not be happy in God's presence; he would shrink from the companionship of holy beings. Could he be permitted to enter heaven, it would have no joy for him. The spirit of unselfish love that reigns there--every heart responding to the heart of Infinite Love--would touch no answering chord in his soul. His thoughts, his interests, his motives, would be alien to those that actuate sinless dwellers there. He would be a discordant note in the melody of heaven. Heaven would be to him a place of torture; he would long to be hidden from Him who is its light, and the center of its joy. It is no arbitrary decree on the part of God that excludes the wicked from heaven; they are shut out by their own unfitness for its companionship. The glory of God would be to them a consuming fire. They would welcome destruction..."
An insightful and interesting quote.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Christian God
“Christians,” writes my friend recently, “can never grasp how great God really is.”
And for a moment I wanted to take offence at his blanket statement. If not Christians, who? Buddhists? They are historically atheists and therefore teaches nothing about God. Pantheists? They limit God to this creation; I can learn more from mathematicians and physicists about God’s greatness than I can from pantheism. Where should I turn if I want learn about God’s greatness? Honestly, there is no greater God than the one that created everything out of nothing - ex nihilo. And which other religion can teach me about true unselfishness - true love - if not Christianity as demonstrated in the life and teachings of Christ?
But then I remembered again where my friend is coming from. His idea of “Christians” is the same one I feel distanced from. That nominal mainstream Christianity of today, founded more on cultural preference and political disposition than on divine inspiration. It is because of them that I feel uncomfortable calling myself a Christian.
That god - the one proclaimed by nominal mainstream Christianity - the one that tortures people throughout eternity, that arbitrary deity, that is not my god. Thank God (literally), that there are more views of God.
And for a moment I wanted to take offence at his blanket statement. If not Christians, who? Buddhists? They are historically atheists and therefore teaches nothing about God. Pantheists? They limit God to this creation; I can learn more from mathematicians and physicists about God’s greatness than I can from pantheism. Where should I turn if I want learn about God’s greatness? Honestly, there is no greater God than the one that created everything out of nothing - ex nihilo. And which other religion can teach me about true unselfishness - true love - if not Christianity as demonstrated in the life and teachings of Christ?
But then I remembered again where my friend is coming from. His idea of “Christians” is the same one I feel distanced from. That nominal mainstream Christianity of today, founded more on cultural preference and political disposition than on divine inspiration. It is because of them that I feel uncomfortable calling myself a Christian.
That god - the one proclaimed by nominal mainstream Christianity - the one that tortures people throughout eternity, that arbitrary deity, that is not my god. Thank God (literally), that there are more views of God.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11
I was reading MorbidNeko's blog and was shocked when she mentioned it being the 7th anniversary of 9/11 today. The date didn't register at all with me.
So was 9/11 a conspiracy by the US-government? More and more experts (or are they just loony conspiracy theorists?) are suggesting that the WTC-towers collapsed onto themselves exactly like buildings in controlled demolitions. See for instance this YouTube-video.
A new movie that reconsiders the events in the light of American architecture, controlled demolitions, etc. can be watched at this website: http://www.911revisited.com/video.html . And did any of you see the documentary film Loose Change? (Loose Change blog, Online Google Video.) And there is of course many websites such as Conspiracy Planet and 911Truth that feels strongly about the US government's involvement in these sinister events.
On the other hand are the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, such as this Special Report by Popular Mechanics or this website.
So who do we believe?
Being the Paranoid Prophet that I am, I'm inclined to lean towards the conspiracy theorists. To the total dismay of this terrorist interviewed on the Onion News Network:
So was 9/11 a conspiracy by the US-government? More and more experts (or are they just loony conspiracy theorists?) are suggesting that the WTC-towers collapsed onto themselves exactly like buildings in controlled demolitions. See for instance this YouTube-video.
A new movie that reconsiders the events in the light of American architecture, controlled demolitions, etc. can be watched at this website: http://www.911revisited.com/video.html . And did any of you see the documentary film Loose Change? (Loose Change blog, Online Google Video.) And there is of course many websites such as Conspiracy Planet and 911Truth that feels strongly about the US government's involvement in these sinister events.
On the other hand are the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, such as this Special Report by Popular Mechanics or this website.
So who do we believe?
Being the Paranoid Prophet that I am, I'm inclined to lean towards the conspiracy theorists. To the total dismay of this terrorist interviewed on the Onion News Network:
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
What's the world coming too?
You know the world is wacky when:
- the Pope embraces Martin Luther;
- Catholics take over from the Protestants to identify the current (RC) Church as the “Whore of Babylon” (This "traditional" Catholic website just blew my socks off: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/);
- Churches woo for members by opening up wine bars;
- and the latest fad is religious candy!
Assumptions
A fellow blogger (Adam) recently pointed out how skewed scientific observations can be. For instance he pointed to two news articles. The first blames the serious melting of the arctic icecaps to global warming. And then the other report recounts the recent underwater volcanic activity in the arctic. (And although the latter article does not say it, it is obvious - and inferred to by Adam - that the arctic might be heating, not because of global warming, but because of localized volcanic activity.) What this tells us is that the scientific data on which the first article is based is making assumptions as to the reasons for the melting of the ice.
While I believe in the value of scientific study, I think that the scientific community is often ignorant of the many assumptions their findings are built on.
And not only the scientific community, but us all have assumptions from which we interpret the world. I doubt such assumptions are inescapably – we need a paradigm to work from. But our assumptions often prevent us from seeing other possibilities, solutions, alternatives.
Thus my challenge: Identify assumptions and evaluate alternatives.
While I believe in the value of scientific study, I think that the scientific community is often ignorant of the many assumptions their findings are built on.
And not only the scientific community, but us all have assumptions from which we interpret the world. I doubt such assumptions are inescapably – we need a paradigm to work from. But our assumptions often prevent us from seeing other possibilities, solutions, alternatives.
Thus my challenge: Identify assumptions and evaluate alternatives.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)