The Ethics of the Innate Immortality of the Soul

For more than a week now I’ve almost ceaselessly been contemplating this whole “soul”-issue. I’m still far from a perfect understanding of the topic. No human knows perfectly and I guess it will take me still a long time to chisel out my own believes. It is for this reason that I rely on Inspiration as it is in Scripture, on philosophical logic, on science even, to try and appreciate what the “soul” is, and what is wishful thinking.

White strikes me is how our understanding of the soul will influence our ethical basis.

The following are the basic soul-views which I can now quickly think of:

1. The soul is innately immortal.

2. The soul is innately mortal, but may receive Eternal Life as a gift.

3. The soul is innately mortal and that’s the end, or put less esoterically, there is no soul.

For ease of explanation let’s call the proponent of #1 Jack and the proponent of #3 John and let’s use abortion as a vehicle of ethical discussion.

Jack, a typical Religious Right Christian, believes in the innate immortality of the soul. Therefore, he must believe that if a baby is killed (or to put it less emotive – if a foetus is aborted) it will go directly to heaven. I have to ask then, what’s the issue? Why is Jack against abortion?

That child will now experience bliss everlasting. Aren’t you in fact sparing it from lots of pain here on earth? If its soul is innately immortal then you are actually doing it a favour, rather than having it be born as a bastard child; with a mother that is still a child herself; as the spawn of a rapist. What kind of life will such a child have?

In this context, Jack’s pro-life propaganda doesn’t make sense. His argument is that the child is deprived of the opportunity to life. But if the soul is innately immortal then it cannot die, and is really not deprived of life at all. Instead, as discussed above, it will actually have a better “life” in heaven, than here on this sin-stained Earth.

Even if Jack is not a Christian, and doesn’t believe in Heaven, but still insists on the innate immortality of the soul, it doesn’t matter. The fact is, that killing the foetus isn’t an issue, since from Jack’s paradigm physical death isn’t real death.

Jack’s only real argument is not that the child be deprived of the opportunity to life, but rather that it is wrong to kill. This is a different argument altogether, and one that he will only be able to make from an external moral framework. I mention an external morality, because Jack will have a hard time philosophically qualifying why it is wrong to kill if the soul is innately immortal. Jack’s argument must be substantiated by some external morality. Killing must be wrong for some other reason, such as God saying: “Thou shall not kill.” But even this sounds like an arbitrary reason at best.

John, on the other hand, has the right to advocate the pro-life argument. Since John doesn’t believe in the innate immortality of the soul, then aborting the foetus will deprive it of the opportunity at life – since this is the only opportunity at life it has.

John can much more strongly argue against abortion than Jack can, because to John the pro-life argument is sensible. Also, John has stronger motives for agreeing that it is wrong to kill. For John, one’s life is of utmost importance, because there is no other.

James, representing #2, which says that the soul is innately mortal, but may receive Eternal Life as a gift, can adopt similarly strong ethical arguments as John, but can also keep sound spiritual motivations as well.

…ooOoo…

This blog-entry is not really about abortion. I’m still in the process of trying to come to terms with the abortion dilemma myself. Therefore I won’t now box myself in as a proponent of either “pro-life” or “pro-choice”.

What this entry is about, though, is the ethical implications of the innate immortality of the soul. How you understand the nature of the soul has severe implications on your ethical expression.

Is it all just interpretation?

In a previous post I stressed my reluctance to get involved in an argument against someone that is convinced by experience. We ultimately believe what we have experienced. If I have experienced Korea first hand, and afterwards you come to me and try to convince me that Korea does not exist, there is probably no amount of persuasion you can try that would convince me otherwise.

But the Bible warns us against experiences. Apparently experience can also fool us into believing a deception. Christ cautions: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). People will experience “signs and wonders”, and will be fooled into believing the truths that they propagate.

Where is the line between trusting our experience, in other words trusting our senses, and being skeptical of our senses? How can we know what is truth and what is deception?

The scientific community would propagate that one should only trust measurable experimentally-replicatable facts. But this leaves out of equation all those things that cannot be tested in a laboratory. And it is precisely those metaphysical things that concern me at present.

On the other hand the Christian community would push that the Bible, the Word of God, is our measure of things to trust.

But this is presented as an argument against Christian objectivity. Christians are accused of seeing the world through a specific Biblical paradigm, which disallow most to see anything beyond that paradigm’s framework. That is why a minority of Christians even refuse to believe in the existence of dinosaurs, because according to their narrow understanding there is no room for dinosaurs – and they are therefore unable to conceive of such creatures, even when presented with proof, such as dinosaur bones. Conversely, other Christian who believes that God also created these creatures can more easily fit the extinct beasts into their mindset.

Having had countless providential experiences myself it would be almost impossible for me to conceive a reality without God. Even though I may try and be as objective as possible, it is almost unattainable for me to interpret Life, the Universe and Everything purely materialistically, i.e. atheistically. My experiences stain my understanding.

I can imagine a reality without religion, and definitely without an innate immortal soul, but not one without God. My paradigm doesn’t allow it. And why not? Because of philosophical arguments for God’s existence, yes, but more so, because of experiences; experiences of God providence.

The only way for me to believe otherwise, is if the experiences could be interpreted differently. At the moment, there is no way I can imagine those experiences as just mere random accidental events. They were to consistently accurate to be accidents – for instance receiving exact amounts of monetary donations for pressing needs. My only interpretation is Providence. And if so, I have to believe in something behind such Providence – i.e. God.

Again, my question: Where is the line between trusting our experience, in other words trusting our senses, and being skeptical of our senses? Is there any real objectivity – or is everything merely interpretations of experiences?

I experience random favourable events as providence; you experience it as accidents – as good luck. Does everything just water down to personal interpretation?

I don't have a soul, I am a soul.

A Time Magazine article, in July 1995 – “Glimpses of the Mind”, reduced the mind to processes of the brain. This is to the chagrin of most Christians who belief that if there is no metaphysical mind, then there is also no metaphysical soul. And to them, it means the end of the Christian religion.

One reader replied in the next August issue as follows: “You do not mention the profound religious consequences of the scientific investigation of consciousness. If it turns out to be true that consciousness, the soul, is not a separate reality, but a consequential phenomenon of the material world, then a fundamental truth of Christianity is shown not to be true because the concepts of heaven, and hell, and eternal life are based on the immateriality and indestructibility of the soul. The scientific demonstration of the material basis of consciousness would seem to mean the end of Christianity.”

I disagree with the reader on two major points. Firstly, Christianity is not centred on the innate immortality of the soul (and heaven, hell and eternal life do not hang on this idea) and secondly, the innate immortality of the soul is not truly Christian. The innate immortality of the soul is not of Scriptural origin, but of pagan origin – or worse yet, of Satanic origin! It was the Snake that said: “You shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4).

The Scriptural view of the soul is one that is not innately immortal.

Body + Breath = Living Soul

The Bible teaches that God formed man from the dust, breathed life into him, and he became a living soul: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).

God did not implant him with an immortal soul. No, the body plus the breath-of-life became a living soul. A living soul is therefore the combination of a body, plus life.

A Soul Can Die

This entity (a living soul) is not innately immortal. The Bible is very clear that a soul can die.

“The soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4, 20).

“And the second angel poured out his vial on the sea. And it became like the blood of a dead one, and every living soul died in the sea” (Revelation 16:3).

A soul is not innately immortal. If it were, it would not be able to die.

When the person dies, his life energy (breath) returns to the Life-Giver, and the body returns to the earth, and his consciousness cease: “His breath goes forth; he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psalms: 146:4).

Scripture and science agrees that there is no separate soul, apart from the living body. This idea of an innate immortal soul that survives the deceased body is unbiblical. God alone is innately immortal (1 Titus 6:16). Everlasting life in the Bible is a conditional gift, given to people only at the Second Coming of Christ.

Immortality is only imparted at the Second Coming

“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him should have everlasting life. And I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall ever be with the Lord” (1 Th 4:16-17).

“Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep [die], but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:51-53).

The Bible is very clear on this teaching – immortality is a conditional gift: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). This gift of everlasting life, though we can accept it now in faith, is only truly received at the Second Coming of Christ. In the meantime those that die, stay dead (or symbolically asleep) until that day when the “trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible…[with] immortality”.

Heaven and Hell

Mainstream Christianity erroneously holds on to the unbiblical doctrines that when a person dies his or her soul immediately transcends from this physical plain to another metaphysical plain – either heaven or hell (or limbo / purgatory).

The Bible teaches that the person stays dead (or “asleep” as the Bible refers to it), until the Second Coming of Christ. My dead mother is not at this moment being tortured in hell, or pampered in heaven. On the day she died her breath went forth, her thoughts perished and a few days later we returned her body to the earth.

Those that are dead “in Christ” will stay dead and unconscious, soulless as it were, until the Second Coming, when the dead in Christ will be raised with incorruptible bodies and with the gift of eternal life (immortality). God will again form their bodies and breathe the breath of life into them as he did with the very first man. And God whom knows everything and remember perfectly will reinstall into them their characters – network of synapses.

The doctrines of Heaven and Hell do not falter before the truth that we do not have an soul, but that we are a soul – and a soul that is not innately immortal. Instead the clear Biblical teaching of Heaven and Hell comes to the fore with this understanding of the human soul.

Science and Scripture in Agreement

Science is confirming Scripture. We are, in fact, bodies that are alive. This does not diminish us, nor does it take away the mystery and wonder of life and consciousness. Rather it enforces that we are holistic beings. Unlike the unbiblical teaching of Dualism, that tries to separate body and soul.

Science and Scripture are in agreement that I do not have a soul, I am a soul, and when I die, I’ll be a corpse.

Ultimates

There is probably a fear that if we do not have some separate soul, then all metaphysical truths will disappear. Whether or not I have a separate immaterial soul does not affect true metaphysical phenomena. “1 + 1 = 2” is still just as logically sound, and philosophically viable as ever. The great morals of not stealing, killing, and so on are still just as sensible as before. These “truths” are true regardless of humanities soulfulness or soullessness. These truths are seated not in the human soul, but in God.

Can a mind exist without a brain?

Scientifically speaking, a mind cannot exist without a brain, because a mind needs the matter of the brain to act as the hardware, whereupon the mind can run like software. The mind is the network of electric pulses acting according to a program. Once the electricity is cut, the program ceases – so too, once life is cut, the mind ceases.

The greatest problem with this understanding does not really involve how our minds work, but how God’s mind work. Are we to understand that God has a physical brain? And if not, does God have a mind? The question is liken to ask if God needs to eat, or sleep?

The answers are “no”. God does not need to function in the same way as we do. God does not need a brain as we do. His mind is different from ours. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah” (Isaiah 55:8). God is self-sufficient and not limited to our physical limitations. We, on the other hand, are not self-sufficient. For instance we need to eat and drink to live.

Just because we are physical does not mean God needs to be physical as well. Similarly, just because we are not metaphysical, does not mean that God has to be similarly reduced from supernatural to natural. He is the Creator and we are the creatures. Pretending that we are of the same stuff as God is pagan – not Christian.

Talking about the Dead over Pizza

“I don’t believe in death” she said. “Shortly after my father’s death I had a dream in which we strolled on the beach and talked.” My friend and I were walking towards a pizza parlour for dinner when she shared with me this intimate experience she had.

In response I recounted a similar experience. “Just after my girlfriend died in a car accident I also dreamed of having a conversation with her. We were discussing how to plan for her funeral. It felt very real.”

The difference between my friend and I is that that dream about her father confirmed for her that the soul survives death. I on the other hand do not read any supernatural meaning into my dream even though it was extremely vivid and tremendously emotionally touching. If I had to impose spiritual significance on my dream, at most I can believe that God evoked such thoughts in me, as an artificial way for me to say goodbye to someone I loved deeply. I do not believe that I actually spoke to the spirit of my girlfriend, even though the idea might be appealing.

“I don’t believe in the immortality of the soul.” I added.

We kept walking in silence for quite a while. Clearly we were in disagreement. We both had similar experiences, but our interpretations of those experiences differ greatly. The soul survives death and is therefore innately immortal, or the soul does not survive death and is not innately immortal. Those are the two camps.

I thought about sharing with my friend some Scriptural reasons, or even philosophical motivations, as to why I do not believe in the innate immortality of the soul. But almost instantaneously I decided against it.

Her reason for believing what she believes is based on personal experience. The conversation she had with her departed father was overwhelming proof for her and certainly had some therapeutic benefit. I doubt any amount of theological or philosophical discussion, abstract as they are, could easily persuade the subjective conviction of a personal experience.

For me, in contrast, my personal experience did not convince me. If souls are innately immortal, then from my Christocentric paradigm an everlasting hell must exist at this very moment, with loved ones being tortured there at present.

While my friend finds comfort in the idea of the soul surviving death, I’m absolutely horrified by it. I explained in a previous post that the concept of hell, a place where people are burned for ever and ever, requires that the soul be innately immortal.

Because I believe that God is infinitely good, I cannot believe that God would be torturing souls in hell at present. And of course if souls are immortal they have to go one of two places, hell or heaven. Since not everyone will be going to heaven, some must go to hell and must therefore be tormented right now. If you are Catholic you have a third option, which is not that much better either. The soul could instead be in purgatory where it is also tortured for thousands of years until it is cleansed enough for heaven.

Life and Death in a Nutshell

Sin is selfishness (inward focussed). God is Love (always outward focussed). Because Sin is selfishness, it separates us from God. (We are to selfish to trust God.)

Since God is also the Source of Life, and we are separated from God through our sin, we are also separated from the Source of Life. The result is death.

Death is not strictly the punishment of sin. It is rather the natural consequence of being separated from the Source of Life - God. One can just as well say that death is the punishment for not eating. Or the wages of not breathing is death. Separation from the life-giving elements results in death. God is the ultimate life-giving Element. Separation from God results in ultimate death.

The Shaky Pillars of Hell

The idea of hell, where sinners burn through all eternity, balances on two pillars: the immortality of the soul and a vindictive God. Both doctrines are shaky, yet the majority of Christians believe in such a concept of hell, where an angry God keeps people alive for the sole purpose of torturing their souls without ceasing.

A closer look at these pillars foils the problem with this common belief.

We do not have immortal souls. Only God is immortal.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that people have an immortal soul. God, alone, is said to possess immortality: “…the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality…” (1 Timothy 6:15, 16).

There’s no talk of an innate immortal soul that survives death, accept in hyperbolic parables. Immortality is a gift, which is received not at death, but at Jesus’ Second Coming, when Christ returns to pay the wages. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The Bible teaches us to strife for eternal life (1 Timothy 6:12), to hope for it (Titus 1:2), and to accept it as a promise (1 John 2:25) – a gift we are to receive, which we do not innately posses.

If immortality was inherent, we would not need to strife for it, hope for it, or receive it as a gift later at Christ’s return. It therefore makes sense that the wages of sin should be “death”, not eternal life in hell.

By means of Hebraic parallelism the Bible frequently equates hell with death, for example:

“The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me.”
“Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell…”
“The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me…”
“Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.”
“Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.”
“But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.”
“Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement…”
(Psalm 18:5; Psalm 55:15; Psalm 116:3; Proverbs 5:5; Proverbs 7:27; Proverbs 9:18; Isaiah 28:15.)

Hell is not eternal life while tortured, but eternal death. The final end for the unsaved is complete annihilation, called the second death: “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Revelation 20:14).

Even Jesus said that hell is not a torture chamber where souls are kept alive, but a place where “both soul and body” are destroyed (Matthew 10:28): “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The dead are not conscious in some other dimension, either heaven or hell. “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence” (Psalm 115:17); “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing…” Ecclesiastes 9:5).

The followers of God that already passed away (also known as the “dead in Christ”) will one day be raised from the dead to receive the gift of eternal life. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:52).

God is not vindictive.

The second pillar is the idea that God is a vindictive, arbitrary deity that believes it is just to torture people for thousands upon thousands of years, even though they only sinned for a short lifetime. And this counts for both the adult that sinned for seventy years, as for the child that sinned for ten years. Clearly this does not make sense!

No, Jesus came to show us that God is not vindictive and arbitrary. He said: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). At the cross, Jesus was spat upon and cursed, tortured and beaten, yet he forgave his aggressors. This is also the character of the Father who forgives our sins for His name’s sake (1 John 2:12).

God does not now, nor will He in the future, keep souls alive in hell in order to torture them. That is a sick doctrine that brings shame to a loving God.

The Good News

A couple of years ago (and not even that many years) I had this idea that we had a certain measure of righteousness (goodness in less theological terms), which Christ added to in order to make us perfect. Imagine that in order to be perfect you had to have a score of 100 for every virtue. Let’s pretend that under the heading of Patience I have a score of 65. When I accept Christ as my Saviour, he fills my Patience bar with the extra 35 I need to be perfect, i.e. to be saved. And he does that to all the virtues, so that I can become perfect and acceptable for heaven.

This, I now believe, is heresy.

It pretends that salvation (justification) and perfection (sanctification), is part me and part Christ. I am now convinced that it is all Christ. Scripture says: “Because of God, you are in Christ Jesus, who is made for us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” [1 Corinthians 1:30] We have no merit that is worthy of contributions before a perfect God. We are all sinful. Even our best actions (all our righteousness / goodness) are “as filthy rags” [Romans, 3:10; Isaiah 64:6].

We contribute nothing to our salvation. We have nothing to boast about. “Therefore, as it is written, he that wants to boast should boast in the Lord.” [1 Corinthians 1:30, 31] For our salvation is all God’s doing from beginning to end. It is He that supplies the righteousness, it is He that paid the price, and it is He that will complete it in our lives. If ever we are to become perfect it is because He that started this good work in us will finish it also.

There’s one thing that we do – we accept the invitation and trust in God. And even this “faith”, is a gift from God.

This is, simplistically, the great difference between true Christianity and all other religions. In other religions the person has to bring something to his or her Deity, or do something for the Deity, or become a better person before the Deity can accept him or her. In Christianity, it is the Deity that supplies the sacrifice, it is the Deity that does the work, and it is the Deity that makes the believer a better person. It the Deity that reconciles the person with Itself.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” [2 Corinthians 5:17-19]

This message of reconciliation is called, the gospel – the Good News – that if we trust in Him, we will have eternal life [John 3:16]. Full stop.

God-spots

It seems that the search for the “God-Spot” is in the media again. Some weeks ago I stumbled across an article on the “God-Spot” and a few days ago someone send me a link to another article on the same topic.

The idea of a “God-Spot”, or cluster in the brain that is responsible for religious experiences is not new. I have read something about it already a couple of years ago. At that time a single spot in the brain was identified as the culprit behind encounters with the divine. This recent study disproves the previous, instead claiming that there are not a single God-Spot, but rather a bunch of God-Spots spread over various parts of the brain and interacting with each other during a religious experience.

It would seem that science can now explain the religious experiences of the devoted. (Much like a connoisseur can guess the ingredients in a dish of exquisite food.) And scientists are also quick to add that religious experiences are therefore nothing more than “misfirings” in the brains neurological pathways – similar to epilepsy.

They are also working towards artificially duplicating religious experiences chemically. The supposition, by some, is that if we can create religious feelings artificially then the Real McCoy must be fake too. What a strange supposition? I offer four examples to highlight the illogic in this way of thinking. (1) It’s like saying our ability to make artificial light disproves the validity of sunlight. (2) We have known for a long time now that all our emotions are seated in the brain, and caused by neuro-chemisty, but does that make love unreal. Just because I can explain love in chemical terms, does not mean that real Love, in a platonian sense, does not exist. (3) Explaining life as a biochemical phenomenon does not diminishes the wonder of Life. (4) Our understanding of mathematical laws and our harnessing of numbers did not make the logical validity of “1 + 1 = 2” any less true.

From an atheist-scientific model religious experiences must be seen as “misfirings”. Clearly one cannot interpret them to be real spiritual encounters, because the basic premise is that that there is no divine. Hence divine experiences cannot be caused by anything supernatural.

This shows again the problem with science trying to explain anything metaphysical. If the basic premise starts with the assumption that God does not exist, all researched conclusions have to leave a metaphysical impetus out of the equation.

The real problem is that one science is trying to give answers in another science. It’s like a mathematician trying to explain the richness of Shakespearean poetry. The mathematician plainly does not have the correct set of tools to do so. Mathematical laws cannot explain the aesthetics of good metaphor. Neither can a literary scholar truly extrapolate metaphoric value from a scientific equation. The two sciences should be appreciated within their own fields. There’s room for overlapping, of course. But one should tread softly where there be dragons.

However, science is proving now that a religious experience is a complex event, involving many parts of the brain – not just a single spot. A religious experience, like many other complex experiences cannot be shot off (excuse the pun) as misfirings, just as little as sentience can be diminished to “misfirings” or singled-out spots.

Tailor-made Spam

Just now I received an email from John Johnson. I’m friends with a John Johnson. Yahoo! has 316,000,000 search results for John Johnson and Wikipedia refers to at least twenty John Johnsons.

The email I received was not from my friend but from a “Nigerian” pretending to be John Johnson number 316,000,001 and hoping that I would help him with getting millions of dollars out of some deceased guy’s account, pretending to be a next of kin or something to that effect. You know those kinds of emails.

But that is not what’s bothering me. What’s freaking me out is how did “they” know to tailor the email by using the name of an acquaintance, ensuring that I would eagerly open the email? Who’s been reading my correspondences?

Who wrote the Bible?

Most scholars view the Bible as just a normal (historic) book. Most Christians believe that it is perfect, with no human flaw to it. In other words the one group belief in “Biblical errancy” (the Bible is full of errors) and the other group believe in “Biblical inerrancy” (the Bible is without any errors). Both are wrong.

The dictating God

About 30 years ago a few hundred (approximately 300) conservative evangelical scholars came together and announced The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Basically they affirmed that the Bible is devoid of any errors. For instance the statement declares: “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. . .” In other words, the Bible is not only infallible or without error as far as spiritual matters is concerned, but also regarding historic and scientific facts. This is known as “absolute inerrancy”.

For many Christian scholars the claim of “absolute inerrancy” is necessary, because they believe that if the Bible is not accurate and true regarding non-spiritual things, then it cannot be trusted with spiritual truths. The reasoning runs something like this: The Bible is God’s Word. God cannot error. Therefore the Bible is without error.

All things considered, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is beautifully drafted and has much truth to it.

But a simple scanning of the variety in writing styles, grammatical differences, etc. quickly shows that the Bible writers kept their own distinct personalities when penning the passages and books they authored.

Furthermore, there are a number of discrepancies in the Bible. Consider Hobab who is said to be Moses’ brother-in-law in Numbers 10:29, but his father-in-law in Judges 4:11. Was David the 7^th (I Chronicles 2:15) or 8^th (I Samuel 16:10, 11) son of Jesse?

Infallible but not inerrant

A less stringent claim is known as “limited errancy”, which basically says that the Bible is inspired and without error as far as the themes of salvation, faith and ethics are concerned, but may include errors in the realms of science and history. The Bible is therefore infallible in the sense that it does not mislead in matters of faith and practice, but it is not inerrant, as far as secular subjects are concerned.

If this is the case what does the Bible mean when it says that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim 3:16)? Clearly God inspired all of it. The problem is probably with the common understanding (or misunderstanding) of what inspiration means.

Inspiration or possession?

Inspiration does not mean the same as demonic possession, leaving the possessed helpless under the control of God, controlling their hands in the writing process, as one find in cases of Spiritism, where spirits write “through” the mediums they possess.

God’s rule is one of freedom of choice – He does not coerce.

Instead divine inspiration means that God inspired the Bible writers mostly with thoughts. These writers expressed such thoughts in their own words. “The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several authors. The truths revealed are all ‘given by inspiration of God’ (2 Tim 3:16); yet they are all expressed in the words of men. The infinite One by His Holy Spirit has shed light into the minds and hearts of His servants,” explains one commentator.

Like the mystery of Jesus who was both God and human combined, so the Bible is God’s Word expressed in man’s tongue. The Bible is God’s Word, conveyed through the shortcomings of the human agent.

The Bible can only rightly be understood with the clarifying aid of the Holy Spirit and within the paradigm of the character of God as expressed in the life and example of the God-Man, Jesus the Christ.

Just another secular book?

The non-believing scholar would like to use discrepancies in the Bible as proof that the Bible is not a divinely inspired book, but merely a compilation of human writings and myth.

Such a claim has to ignore the continuous confirmation of archaeology, the veracity of fulfilled prophecies and the witness of changed lives.

Confirmation of archaeology

Many things once dismissed as Biblical myth has in the meantime been proved facts, by archaeological findings. Extra-biblical sources confirm events described in the Bible.

The Hittites were thought a myth, until their capital was discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. The Assyrian king Sargon, referred to in Isaiah 20:1, was thought a myth, until his palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq, with recordings on the palace walls describing his capture of Ashdod.

Likenesses have been found of many high figure people mentioned in the Bible, such as Jehu, king of Israel (II Kings 9, 10); Hazael, king of Aram (I King 19:15); Darius I, king of Persia (Ezra 4:24); and Roman emperors Augustus (Luke 2:1), Tiberius (Mark 12:1), Claudius (Acts 11:28) and Nero Caesar (Acts 25:11).

Not to mention the palaces (Judges 3:15-30; I Kings 20:43; Ester 1:2; Acts 23:33-35), temples (Judges 9:4), gates (Judges 9:34-38; Esther 2:19) and pools (I Kings 22:29-39; John 5:1-14) referred to in Scripture and then excavated later by archaeologists.

The archaeological findings mentioned here are far from an exhausted list, and new findings are every so often added to the bulk of evidence.

Fulfilled prophecies

More than any other religious compilation, the Bible is filled with numerous fulfilled prophecies that prove the divine foresight which was active in the production of the Scriptures.

It is estimated that there are about 2500 prophecies in the Bible of which most have already been fulfilled. The probability of many of these prophecies being fulfilled by chance is so staggeringly minute that only the most obstinate disbeliever could still cling to doubt as to the divine origin of Scripture.

The prophecies in the book of Daniel predicted the whole development of the Middle-Eastern and Western world, up until the time of the end. Think of chapters two and seven of Daniel where the Bible perfectly predicted that Babylonia was to be overthrown by the combined kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, Medo-Persia was to be conquered by swift Alexander’s Greece (which itself would divide into four), Greece was to be followed by the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire would eventually crumble into ten smaller kingdoms, some of which we still have today.

Just the prophecies regarding the life of the Messiah are so accurate that you need to be stubbornly blind not to admit that this is divine providence, if not supernatural coincidence. For instance, that Christ would die by crucifixion is itself a wondrous claim. The prophecy was made 500 years before death-by-crucifixion was even invented! Some of the prophecies about Jesus’ life preceded him a 1000 years. Most of the prophecies regarding his life Jesus had no control over. In other words he could not manipulate events to fulfil the prophecies in his favour.

Biblical wisdom and secular science

To many it is surprising that this Book focussing on religious themes is also filled with scientific truths that were centuries ahead of the science of the time. For instance the Bible refers to ocean currents (“paths of the seas”, Ps 8:8), and wind currents: “The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

Though most people of the ancient world (and even the Church at some point) believed that the Earth is flat, the Bible states that it is circle (Isaiah 40:22). Some might argue that the Bible writers did not mean spherical but a flat disc. The Bible also says that the Earth hangs in nothing (i.e. space) (Job 26:7).

Conclusion

The Bible is definitely not a “normal” book. It is a continuous best-seller; the most translated of any book and has changed the lives of millions of people for centuries.

It is not always the dictated words of God, although it was inspired by God. As one commentator puts it: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” [Emphasis added.]

I've been robbed

It’s a nice day. The sky is a rich blue foiled with cheerful puffy clouds. Although sunny, it is not too hot. Everywhere hangs the sweet pheromones of flowers.

Cycling back from the university where I work on an ad hoc basis, half way to my house in an alley, I’m stopped by a man. I expect him to smell of alcohol, but he doesn’t. (My prejudice is rebuked.) There’s a tinge of sweat on his black brow.

I’m not in the mood to chitchat – this is the n^th time today that I’m cycling to and fro between the institute and my home. I’ve been in a bad mood the last couple of days and don’t feel sociable. And, I wasn’t looking forward to cycling back home again, but I did look forward to spending time thinking stuff over. Not life changing subjects, nonetheless, they are my subjects.

And now I’m interrupted. He waves me to a stop from afar. There’s no way I can ignore him. I’m clearly not the Good Samaritan my religion expects of me.

“Hmmm?”

“Hello,” he says. “Ek’s nie snaaks nie.” It’s a peculiar introduction even in Afrikaans. Directly translated: I’m not strange, although a better translation would be: Don’t think me strange.

I’m not thinking him strange. I know the type all too well. I know he is going to beg for money. He will start by first telling me some sad story. Then he willthen make some emotional appeal to help him out. Some would agree that the rich have an obligation to support the poor. Does the same rule apply for the poor to supply for the poorer? Even before he begins I interrupt with “I don’t have any money”. It’s a lie. I do have some money. And so does he. It’s all relative. He assumes I have more money than he has and so I am morally obligated to give him some of mine. He tells me about how he came from somewhere far, and it is already late. He makes it a bit personal by asking me the time. “It’s four o’clock.” He continuous with how far he still has to go. He says he needs money for a taxi.

I’m on a bicycle, I think. I don’t have money myself for transportation. What makes you think that I have money for you?

I remember a nightmare I had years back. I’m in my house. The house is empty of furniture. I’ve probably sold everything for rent or food, or I’ve given it away to beggars. Outside more beggars are banging against the doors and windows. I’m terrified. What else do they want? The clothes of my back? The meat of my bones?

“Net ’n paar sente.” / Just a few cents. It is a straight lie. He doesn’t just want a few cents. A few cents will not be able to pay for a taxi.

“Sorry I don’t have any.” I add to our untruthful discourse. I do have a few cents. There are coins in my pocket. A could have given it to him, just to have him beg for more. He would tell me that it is not enough, even though he did ask for a few cents. It will never be enough. The more you give the greater their need.

“Sorry I can’t,” I repeat and I ride away. I feel guilty.

As I’m already a few yards away I hear him shout from the back: “Yeah, fuck off! Go!”

There’s no retaliation. It’s not in my nature to retaliate. But even if I wanted to it would be to my disadvantage. The law do not allow violence against provocation. I can’t even verbally retaliate. He is a black man and I am a white man in South Africa. A verbal retaliation would be seen as a racist attack – especially because I’m white and his black. It doesn’t matter that we both are probably both living under the breadline. That I don have a fixed job is of no relevance. It’s not about in-come. The court will see my skin colour and assume that I’m racist.

It’s an unfair harassment. I try to think what would have made it better. If I gave him money? I wouldn’t have been happy about that either. I don’t have money to share.

[What would Jesus do?]

It’s robbery, I suddenly realise. Had I given him money, money that I did not wish to give, it would have been the same as robbery. He coerced me into giving up something that I didn’t want to give up. Since he did not succeed in his emotional manipulation, he abuses me verbally.

And I am left with no options but leave it be. As I said, I’m not the type of person to retaliate, but at least I want that option. There’s no freedom without the option to do otherwise. As one radio commentator said, “South Africa is a democracy, but not a liberal democracy.”

The sky is not saturated with a beautiful blue anymore. The once puffy clouds have turned into cancerous ulcers. The sweet summer fragrances smell of deceit.

No less money, yet I have been robbed.

Mumblings over Myanmar, monks and monkeyspheres

So when should religion get involved in politics and how? At this very moment Burma, or now formally known as Myanmar, is in uproar with pro-democracy protesters calling for reform from the military-government.

Hundreds of thousands of the protesters involved are Buddhist monks. The Buddhist clergy are very revered in Burma and their protest send a very strong message. So much so that the military which at first left the protesters be, had in the meantime retaliated with curfews, protest break-ups, arrests and confining the monks to their monasteries.

Apart from their protest rallies, the Buddhist monks further react by refusing the military religious rites.

As is the case with so many countries where atrocities occurred (think of Rwanda), the rest of the world hardly raises a finger, although they do raise many eyebrows and opinions.

The fact is countries without invested interested will not act. It is purely not to their benefit. They will publicly denounce it. Even China, Burma’s biggest trade partner, has called on the Myanmar-government for reform. But, in the end, nobody is really willing to put their money where their mounts are.

Speaking of money, many countries are getting involved in Burma, but for selfish reasons only. Last Sunday, while pro-democracy marches screamed outside, India’s Oil Minister, Murli Deora, was in Burma’s capital on official (energy resources) business. Other better-off countries such as China and South Korea are also hoping to exploit Burma’s natural (energy) resources.

Although the United States and the EU has in place economic sanctions against Burma, corporations giants like Total and Chevron Corp is still in business in Burma, and “funding the dictatorship”.

The question is, what can one do? Launch an attack like Bush did on Iraq? Some would argue that Bush’s assault to “free” Iraqis from a dictator is Biblically justified. The Buddhist monks in Burma clearly see themselves correct in protesting against the military dictatorship.

I cannot help to wonder what Jesus’ approach would have been? Active pacifism like that of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi (both admitted to be inspired by the life of Jesus). When Christ walked in Judea, Israel was under a Roman dictatorship. During all His teaching He didn’t once propagate the idea of revolting against the current regime. Although He did make allusions to justification of self-defence, He clearly did not intend to get involved with any political matters. Of course man’s politics was not His mission, but man’s eternal salvation.

I ask again, when should religion get involved in politics and how? Or doesn't it matter, since we are all too cozy in our own Monkeysphere. But isn't that the whole purpose of religion - trying to save us from the apathy of the Monkeysphere? Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is case in point.

I don’t know if this is one of the reasons for the Buddhist monks’ protesting (the thing that really instigated their uproar was a sudden increase in fuel prices, not religious freedom!), but if the monk’s protest bears fruit, other religious communities will also benefit. The Muslim community in Burma have practically all been driven out of the country.

Brother’s (time)keeper

O terrible turkey, how time flies! Ten days ago since the last post and I hardly had time to wakeup and smell my coffee … uhm … chicory.

My brother has a theory that Time has speeded up. The actual units of time are moving faster – everywhere. He says that intuitively we can feel that time moved much slower two decades back.

Now you might think that such an idea is silly, but just ponder it a moment. Don’t you feel it too? We all had much more time twenty years ago, didn’t we?

Of course we still have the same amount of time – twenty four hours a day (give or take a few thousands of a second). But what if the actual time units are moving by faster? What if a second used to last a second, but now it lasts less that what a second used to be?

You may consider it far fetched, but keep in mind Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the phenomena of Gravitational Time Dilation. Basically Gravitational Time Dilation entails that space-time is “curved” the closer it gets to a strong gravitational pull, which results in time passing slower.

Is it possible that decades ago the Earth had a stronger gravitational pull; in the meantime it had enigmatically weakened, thus space-time is less distorted, and so time is now passing faster?

Of course we cannot test it with atomic clocks, which is the way Gravitational Time Dilation was proved in the first place. The reason for this is that we cannot communicate with scientists from the past with access to atomic clocks in order to calibrate it with our own atomic clocks here in the present.

An easier method than communicating with the long dead is to check if the Earth lost some of its gravitational pull through the years. This would happen if Mother Earth lost some mass.

That doesn’t seem to be the case. Geophysics claim that the Earth has a dynamic energy equilibrium, which means the mass it loses (maybe through radiation) it also receives back from other sources such as radiation from the sun and other space debris. The Earth receives energy from the sun. Energy = matter, said Einstein, and matter has mass.

However there is something that had been happening in the last twenty years – Global Warming. Or is it Global Cooling? (The former caused the latter.)

It comes down to lots of air pollution. All these extra dirt particles floating in the air, apart from being smoggy, also create more clouds. Rain form when moisture condensates on particles and once attaining enough weight they fall to the ground. The problem is, if there are too many such particles in the air the condensational buildup on such a particle are less, because there is not enough moisture to go around. (There are just too many smog-particles!) The result is more cloudiness. In turn this extra blanket of clouds and smog reflect more sunlight away. Even though more heat is trapped inside the Earth’s atmosphere due to the Green House Effect (i.e. Global Warming), there is actually less sunlight penetrating the Earth’s atmosphere (i.e. Global Cooling), resulting in less energy, which in turn means less matter, and therefore less accumulation of mass.

So, the Earth is not in a dynamic energy equilibrium anymore for probably at least the last approximate twenty years, and may indeed be losing mass, so it’s gravitational pull may actually be decreasing, which means that space-time may be less distorted, which results in time moving faster!

But now for the paranoia: Who is behind Global Warming, which in turn causes Global Cooling, and why do they want Time to move faster? Mmmm?

Whether my hypothesis above is scientifically sound I don’t know. I’m not a physicist, and I do not have visions – I’m merely paranoid. Verifiable tests about the Earth’s gravitational pull is possible, but even if such tests should prove that the Earth has not diminished in gravitational exertion over the past two decades it does not mean that our time is not influenced by other fluctuations in space-time. We know that the universe is expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other, which mean that the relative gravitational pulls that the galaxies had on each other are weakening.

And that is why my brother is not silly.

Strange Obama and stranger Omaha

I’m committing the ultimate social sin. I’m talking politics, and I’m doing so as an outsider look into American politics, pretending that I have an idea what’s going on in that country.

Allow me a moment. If I were an American and if I had to vote I would probably vote for the Democrats. My reason is purely based on the principle that it is more likely that Church and State will remain separate under a liberal government. Unfortunately there seems to be a strangeness about the Democrats that will make me think a little longer about who gets my vote.

The favorite democrat candidate is probably Senator Barak Obama. However let me share some quotes by Sen. Obama from a recent online debate on Yahoo! that had me frowning.

“And we've got to unify the American people, getting them to come together around a long-term national security strategy in which stabilizing Iraq is only a part. It also has to include going aggressively after al-Qaida…”

I thought the Democrats are pursuing an anti-war policy. Or does “going aggressively after al-Qaida” mean something other than war?

“And so it is an imperfect system. As you know, Charlie, money is the original sin of politics, and when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money because otherwise you can't compete.”

So in a Democratic paradigm doing “some sinning” is okay as long as the end justifies the means? So that was what Bill Clinton was thinking when he sinned with his secretary.

From one senator to another – Sen. Ernie Chambers, the “Maverick of Omaha”, recently sued God. Sen. Chambers filed the lawsuit, seeking an injuction to order God to “cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic [sic] threats…” Apparently the suit requests the court waive personal service, since God is Omnipresent, the plaintiff is of the opinion that God has knowledge of it.

“Chambers asks for the court to grant him a summary judgement. He says as an alternative, he wants the judge to set a date for a hearing as ‘expeditiously’ as possible and enter a permanent injunction enjoining God from engaging in the types of deleterious actions and the making of terroristic threats described in the lawsuit.” (MSNBC)

So who're you gonna vote for? The scary conservatives or the crazy liberals?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20823832

The Scary Right

I recently watched CNN’s third installment of their documentary series “God’s Warriors” [http://www.hvc-inc.com/clients/cnn/warriors/index.html]. The third installment, “God’s Christian Warriors” centered on the Religious Right in America.

My blood chilled.

Although many of these people are most sincere in their purpose and convictions, they are moving the country away from separation of Church and State. The strong emphasis on political rallying is scary, to say the least.

Has it been so long? Is it already forgotten that one of the great causes for the “New World” was the fleeing from religious persecution by government? Doesn’t the First Amendment stand as a grand testimony to the terrifying past that infringed religious freedom?

The only Christian on the “God’s Christian Warriors” installment that I could associate with was Greg Boyd, and a little bit with Richard Cizik. The latter is an environmental activist, saying that we are stewards of God’s creation and that this should get just as much attention as other worthy causes, like prayer in schools.

Greg Boyd is a controversial pastor that denounced the Religious Right’s political agenda. Although Boyd is conservative in his moral views (e.g. disagrees with abortion and Gay marriages), he is paradoxically critical of the Christian Right movement. Last year he authored the book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church as a theological response to the Christian Right agenda.

Boyd is considered a heretic by some for adhering to the idea of “open theism”. I’m yet to read up enough on the topic, but as for Boyd’s focus on Jesus Christ as our model, and condemning the marriage of Church and State, I passionately agree.

Fearful will be the day when the United States of America becomes the Religious States of America. Persecution of those (including other Christian denominations) that do not believe exactly as the church-backed government dictates will follow closely behind. If ever there was a time to learn from history, now is such a time.

The problem is of course much more complex than the Christian Right wanting control of government. The reason for their power hunger is because they are experiencing an infringement on their constitutional rights themselves. In a secular society where Christian values and beliefs are frowned upon, and the slightest mention of one’s beliefs are considered hate-speech, it is no wonder that they feel the need to fight .

I sympathize. It is crucial for me to be allowed the freedom to worship freely, to live out my convictions proudly, to share my faith openly. Permit me also the choice to learn and appreciate various models of origin, not only one state approved hypothesis. These are all civil liberties we all should have access to.

However, if I want this freedom of choice for myself, I must also allow it for others. Not only now, but even in times to come. Throwing religion and politics into the same pot is sure to bring a gloomy future.

After all, did Jesus not say that His Kingdom is not of this world?!

Trashy sensibilities

I took out the trash.

I feel empowered. I have accomplished something. Of course I accomplished a lot of other things during the week, but nothing as tangible as taking out the trash. Disposing of filth is very evidential. There was a bag of things both dirty and questionable in nature, but now it is gone. Dirty – Clean. Bad – Good.

I’ve made the world a better place!

The Scary Right and the Frightening Left

In the previous post I flayed the idea of Darwinian Evolution. That must make me a Religious Right fanatic, right? Nope, definitely not. There are few things in this universe that scares me as much as the Religious Right. If not one of the “Righteous Right” then I must be a Liberal Lefty, isn’t that so? Wrong again. The Liberal Left, although slightly less scary, is still a terrifying monster in my books.

So where does the Paranoid Prophet stand? Well, basically I’m torn into a terrible side split like Van Damme in Bloodsport (in picture), with my left foot dangling limb on one side and my right foot in a spasm on the other.

God’s government is based on Love. Love cannot exist without the freedom of choice. What I’m seeing in both the extreme Left and far Right, each of course with their own slant, is a peculiar movement towards taking away our freedom to choose.

The Religious Right is moving towards the integration of Church and State. This has proven to be disastrous in every historical case, leading to persecution of those that do not believe like the State Religion dictates. I vehemently disassociate myself with such a movement, which is, by the way, contrary to the First Amendment of the United State’s Bill of Rights. Also can I not, for the life of everything that enjoys Häagen-Dazs ice-cream, associate myself with those (rather big) fringe movements in the Religious Right that claims Global Warming is a farce invented by the socialists, or at least irrelevant because the End is nigh!

On the other hand, the Liberal’s attack on religion, Christianity in particular, frightens me too. The strong emphasis on down playing ones religion and claiming that witnessing is equal to proselytism (i.e. unethical means of religious persuasion) and akin to a Human Right violation is worrisome.

In the end, it doesn’t matter which side is ruling. With fanatical Republicans ruling religious freedom will have to be state approved. And with fanatical Democrats in government religion (especially denominational Christianity) will become ostracized as an enemy of Human Rights.

Either way, Freedom of Religion (as prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 18) will become a relic of the New World, unwelcome within the New World Order.

Man, don’t listen to me. Prophet Kangnamgu is gifted with the spirit of paranoia, not the Spirit of Prophecy.

Finding God in an untidy room

It is hardly the middle of the week yet and my apartment is already in a state of high alert. I’m just waiting for some terrible sequence of events to occur. The elements are all there: open computer boxes; a tangled web of power, USB, network and other miscellaneous cables that will make the ARPANET suffer from performance anxiety and pull back its spawning tentacles like a frightened amoeba; way too many power sockets draining from one power source always screaming “Feed me!”; all kinds of flammables, including ESL-notes, books ranging from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” to a mini Bible library; enough CDs and DVDs to fill a section at a music store; half empty cups, dishes and cutlery, each breading a unique bacteria, of which one or two colonies have already invented the wheel and another is experimenting with creating fire; partnered shoes and separated socks; deodorant canisters and me.

And this leads me to believe that God exists. Not due to my providential safety in such a hostile environment (although it does help), but rather what it reminds me of.

Entropy: A spontaneous tendency towards disorder in a system, where differences (e.g. in temperature, pressure, the tidiness of an apartment, etc.) are smoothed out, as potential energy is released. (See also the Second Law of Thermodynamics.)

Or to put it simply – if you want order, you have to put in energy. Without effort your room (desk, marriage, business – you choose the noun) will decay into a heap of dust, or a den of chaotic atrocities. The latter not being the lively kind of atrocities you find in your local pub, but rather the fluidy kind you find splattered on the pavement outside of the pub.

A simple example of entropy is to drink your coffee shortly after it is prepared, unless you like it cold. The temperature of the hot cup of mocha smoothes out until it is in equilibrium with its environment. That’s entropy. To keep it from happening you would need to give your coffee an external heat source.

However, regardless of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the entropy-principle, there is still so much order, variety and vibrancy in the world. Go think this over. It is case in point for the existence of God.

The great preacher Morris Venden so eloquently argues the existence of God by means of one word: “Life!”

…ooOoo…

Now what a great closing it would have been if I could have ended this post just there. However, that would not give the scientific community an opportunity to counter. So allow me to do it on their behalf.

To all the geeky ones out there – did you know that entropy can produce order? This is according to the Law of Maximum Entropy Production, which basically says that the system will choose the path (or assembly of paths) that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints.

Think of it this way. Imagine you had a tank of water with two draining pipes, a big one and a small one. The “system” would “choose” to use the bigger pipe over the smaller one to drain the water. This Law of Maximum Entropy Production produces a predictable orderliness. The claim is that the planetary entropy (entropy on our planet and within the context of our solar system) are using an assembly of paths “that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints.” And according to the Law it is argued that Life and biological, psychological and sociological order are such paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate.

Seeing how quickly we humans are destroying the Earth, rushing it towards a once more state of being void and without form, I can almost agree with such a fanciful interpretation of Life, the Universe and Everything.

However, even this rationalization far from adequately explain the original impetus, une poussée formidable, as the French philosopher – of Polish, Jewish, English and Irish descent (don’t ask!) – Henri-Louis Bergson exclaimed; the seemingly continuous sustenance; the fantastic variety* and complexity of everything; the wonder of Life and the witness of Providence – generally, but also as experienced subjectively in individual lives.

...ooOoo...

* Some would have you believe that Evolution is the cause for all the variety we see. Stop and think about this. Darwinian evolution is based upon natural selection. Natural selection do not encourage variety, instead it weeds out variety. A creature with any mutation that is “less fit” goes instinct. What we see in nature is more adherent to an entropic model (increasingly fewer species are surviving), than a survival-of-the-fittest-produces-more-variety-model. The entropy principle is one of many death-strokes for traditional Darwinian Evolution. Practically no self-respecting Scientist would still admit to being a traditional Darwinist.

Real victories start at home. Real defeats too.

It happened on Friday. I slugged out of bed at around 10am. The demigod Chaos had made nest in my apartment again. Socks and other smelly objects mingled with notes, unmarked papers, trash, half read books, unsorted DVDs, dirty dishes, and I lay strewn about.

“It’s Friday.” Fridays are supposed to be preparation day. I’m supposed to use it to exorcise Chaos from my space and prepare for the blessed peace and orderliness of Sabbath. But on this Friday there is an important post-graduate workshop which I need to attend. The topic is “boundaries and liminality”. And since I am planning to commence with a PhD I guess it would be good to show my face.

I dress up: White button-up shirt with striking blue tie, enveloped by a black waistcoat to hide the creased shirt, formal pants, black shoes, and black framed glasses to match. The effect will work. It will say “young, smart and confident”. It’s a lie. Today I do not feel confident. I feel like a loser, unsure about my future and my place in it.

I pad myself with sun block, mount my bicycle and leave Chaos home alone. Maybe he will have mercy on me, get bored and leave before I get back.

The workshop started hours ago. I try to sneak in, but everyone is too happy at the disturbance. It gives them something to do. It breaks the monotony of listening to one academic blah-blah after another. They all look at me. Wait for me to find a seat. Some pretentiously frown at my complete disregard for timeliness or disrespect at unsettling a highly qualified scholar in the middle of her highly academic discourse.

The literary professor seems untouched by my fashionable entrance. She quotes someone: “Die dood spreuk tog vanself.” [Death speaks for itself.] The title of her presentation is “Still lives and the still life of death; voices and silences in Memorandum by Marlene van Niekerk and Adriaan van Zyl”. If death speaks for itself why such a long discourse about it, I ponder.

Next up is an old classmate. She reports on her PhD. It is about Oliver Schreiner’s The Story of an African Farm. (Schreiner is probably best known for his quote: "There was never a great man who had not a great mother.") She quotes passages from the book and I’m struck by “only the milk bushes, like old hags, pointed their shrivelled fingers heavenward, praying for the rain that never came.”

And so it goes.

Hours go by.

We are fed.

More hours go by.

We listeners are confronted with death, nostalgia, vengeance, banality, gender issues, Apartheid. . .

“What does it all mean?” I ask myself. “In the greater scheme of things, what does this matter?” I’m frustrated with the futility of it all. “Are we changing the world? Does this help anyone? Is this of value to anybody, except us handful scholars sitting like mythological gods on a mountain, removed from reality – our only interaction with it is through the arts.”

And then, everyone is finished. There is actually some time left and I’m put on the spot. I have nothing to say about my own future studies. “Tell us about your master’s degree.”

I stand up, armed with a white board marker.

I start by explaining the difference between Literature and Creative Writing. “Literary scholars are like connoisseurs,” I flatter them. “They taste the food, dissect the flavours, discuss the qualities and write critical reviews.” I smile. “Creative Writers are like the chefs. Both the connoisseurs and the chefs work with food. They just approach it from different sides.” They nod their heads in understanding. The analogy has caught its prey.

“The creation and representation of a postmodern character identity in prose” – the title of my dissertation. I explain my research and methodology on the white board and begin a flamboyant discussion concerning the creation and representation of character, postmodernity and pop culture. I answer questions eloquently and at length. I throw my knowledge of Postmodern Identity and Creative Writing around like candy to a crowd. I make references to Nobel prize winner, J M Coetzee, to Frank Miller’s film adaptation of his comic books, to the imago’s in Dogville, to the stereotypes in The Simpsons and American Dad, to the blend of classical and contemporary music in The Matrix, to postmodern subcultures, to narrative layers, to E M Forster.

And I hear my alter-ego cry out: “What does it all mean?!”

I return home, uplifted with the endorphin rush of academic acknowledgment.

Chaos awaits me. Valiantly I put up a fight. I start in the kitchen. I wash the dishes and wipe the stove. But Chaos’ martial experience outwits me long before I reach my room.

“You think your small victory can dissuade me?” He asks. “I’m not a scholar persuaded by rhetoric. I’m not overcome by white board markers. I’m not subdued by analogies. I’m not awed by your knowledge of Postmodernism. I am the Cause of Postmodernism.”

And that . . . that was Friday.