The Rain

As I woke up this morning I peered through my window shade only to find out that it was raining. Usually I get disappointed whenever it rains, and in fact when the hard times come it appears that things keep hitting us from different directions—sort of like rain drops falling all over the ground. Sometimes, life throws us unexpected contingencies that are not in our plans; thus, at times we feel the phrase "when it rains it pours." My life has definitely been a rollercoaster ride, but life is so special sometimes I miss the very essence of life. We take some many things for granted, because we fail to understand our mortality until it sets in to lead us into the reality of things, but some people do not even get that chance. I have found that when it does rain it most likely will pour, but out of the pouring I would like to think that I have become better—though I fall at times. We fail to see that our lives are guided by the invisible hands of God. Though bad things may have happened we do not and may never understand how these bad experiences could perhaps be the seeds for the better in the future. It is either that everything has a purpose including the bad, or that life is a meaningless endeavor and we must accept some illusionary mechanism to attain meaning. So then, after the rain the sun will come up, but what matters is what you do after the rain, because the things that you do affect other people especially yourself.

The Sky Above

I came home the other day, and because the change of season darkness had already set in. To my amazement as I looked up there were so many stars that made me do a retake. The stars lit up the sky, which ignited a sense of awe and wonder in my inner being. Then I went on to ponder, how much more is out there that I will never get to see? Whether you believe in God or not; one ought to admit the apparent mystery wrapped in the universe...

Fundamentalism

One of the favorite recipes of the post-modern era is to invent or change the meaning of words. Take for example the word “fundamentalism,” which is viewed to have derogatory attachments. In reality fundamentalism should mean one who adheres to a fundamental source. In fact, fundamental means:

1 a: serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY (a discovery fundamental to modern computers) b: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC2 a: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL (fundamental change); also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application (fundamental science) b: adhering to fundamentalism3: of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration4: of central importance : PRINCIPAL (fundamental purpose)5: belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED (her fundamental good humor)[1]

In other words, it is sort of like a foundation that supports or gives basis to the intended idea and so forth. A house for example, needs to have a stable foundation in order to be efficient and to accomplish the whole premise of “building a house.” To have a house buckle and have weak foundations is counter productive to the concept of having a house in the first place. A house is used for shelter and protection from nature for example. It would be useless to live in a house that will not live up to the intended purpose (to provide shelter or protection). It is imperative that the house’s foundations be of solid structure, otherwise the foundation is of no ultimate use to the house. Just the same, one who clings to fundamental basis is taking logical steps in the realm of rationality.

I am not asserting that there are no bad ideas, rather positing derogatory terms to one who uses a fundamental basis as support for their ideas is in fact absurd. Logically, one should have a “basic foundation,” which is the term or word “fundamental” to support the intended idea. Where am I going with this? It is time to reclaim the word fundamentalism and perhaps use the word hyper-fundamentalism for those who pervert truth.

_______________________
[1] Fundamental

God and Nature

The claim of what nature is and what God is has become a battlefield that the believer and the unbeliever face when inquiring about what is around us and why/how. As we consider the certain claims let us keep in mind that truth cannot change, for if it did, the essence of what made something true could evolve to an entirely different “thing.” By necessity, something that is true MUST be true. For example, we assume nature inherently predisposes something to certain characteristics. It should not astound us then that when studying animals or humans in an empirical model, the model ought to highlight the native attributes of what is being studied.

Keeping this line of thinking in our process of examination let’s look at the following premises:

It may come as a surprise that belief in a beginning does not requite belief in a Beginner. The laws of nature allow the creation of the universe without the need for a creator. Quantum uncertainty, an aspect of physics known as quantum mechanics, allows the small but finite possibility of something coming into being from nothing.[1]

It very well could be that the universe came to be from nothing, but we must note that it is implied that the laws of nature were the cause of something coming out of nothing. So, before I proceed, let us establish the fact that there is no claim that something came out of nothing by nothing; for if it did, it would be an absurd universe. In an absurd universe it would be hard to find answers with an empirical system, because one would have to yield to the reality that the universe is of an absurd nature. It then logically follows that anything is possible including non-ordered/irrational events which would be almost impossible to follow or analyze. I also would like to point out that the writer talks about a finite possibility. If the possibility is finite then it is a possibility with limitations, but what are those limitations?

Can we consider the following?

There are, however, basic problems with the concept. First of all, quantum fluctuations are phenomena that relate to the laws of nature within our universe. The beginning of our universe marks the beginning of time, space, and matter. There is every indication that the big bang also marks the beginning of the laws of nature. If this is true, then prior to the existence of the universe there was no nature and therefore there were no laws of quantum mechanics by which to engender the needed quantum fluctuation.[2]

If this theory is correct then logic demands that the possibility of God is likely. If I were to presuppose that the laws of nature existed prior to the big bang (before matter, space, and time) I would still have to yield to the theory that there is something that transcends the current state of the universe. It may very well be that we will never know such a truth within our limited understanding. Even if we cannot know we should still attempt to know what we can know, and use the tools that we have at our disposal. It is my opinion that theology can give a reasonable complement to science, as well as provide life to teleology. Even if I was able to harmonize the certain transcendent makeup of nature I would have no basis in assuming that we are here out of purpose. Rather, the laws of nature existed prior to the big bang and somehow proceeded to predispose the state of our universe. But even if this is true, it behooves the inquirer to wonder how laws were “just there.” Here, those who adhere to naturalism should yield to the certain fact that they have no purpose. Indeed, nature to my knowledge has never been observed and tested to show any elements of emotional/rational attachment to those things that are made from it (nature). On the other hand the Christian has Jesus Christ who shows us how much we matter to God. I am sure this is not a satisfying answer to some, but it might be a possible and reasonable answer none the less.


_________________________
[1] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God (New York, Broadway Books, 1998), pp. 23-24.
[2] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God (New York, Broadway Books, 1998), p. 24.

Morality

The exploration of morality is a very interesting endeavor. It shows the complexity of the challenges we face as a human race. My focus will mostly be on the ontological aspect of morality. The ontology of morality can be defined as:

Ontological: Moral knowledge is about moral reality. How is that reality constituted? Three general possibilities present themselves. (a) Moral reality might be theological in nature, pertaining to (say) the will of God. (b) It might be a non-natural realm that is neither theological nor natural, but sui generis. (c) It might be comprehensible as a part of the natural world studied by science. Each of these possibilities, however, is beset with difficulties, and no viable fourth alternative has been conceived.[1]

Upon reflection on what has been stated one has to realize the predicament of the being of morality. However, it is important to note or understand that if (a) is not true then morality in the final analysis has no meaning. To have a relativistic worldview and give morality some sort of meaning without the concept of God is pure nonsense. For if there is no God then you have no ultimate judge that is incorruptible, omnipresent, omnipotent, and thus true justice will never prevail. So, then we are left with suppositions that are relativistic to specific individuals and situations. If moral knowledge is possible how can it be known under a relativistic worldview? It would be impossible, let us consider the following:

An argument of David Hume provides a more direct threat to the possibility of moral knowledge based on the fact that morals excite our passions and motivate us to act. If morals are based on reason so that they consist in true or false ideas, they would have to be in themselves incapable of having this direct influence on our actions (Hume, Treatise, Book III, Part I, Section I, Paragraph 6.) As he famously said, it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of a finger (Book II, Part III, Section III, Paragraph 6). The argument can be rendered for our purposes as a valid deductive argument from three premises: (1) If moral knowledge is possible, then some moral judgments are beliefs. (2) Our moral judgments by themselves necessarily give us some motivation to act, even without the accompaniment of already existing desires. (3) A belief by itself, unaided by already existing desires, can never give us any motivation to act. Therefore, moral judgments are not beliefs. Therefore, moral knowledge is impossible.[2]

So, Hume leaves us in a world of skepticism and seemingly in a void with no way out. Interestingly enough one cannot have it both ways. If moral knowledge is not possible then, how can it have value? How can the significance of moral knowledge be defined? If moral knowledge is possible and is of importance then surely the oughtness that is part of our being has value. What drives our desires? Nothing? What is guilt? Is guilt a mechanism of mere cultural experiences? These are weighty questions that ultimately define whether human existence has meaning or is insignificant.

If morality is meaningless then why should I try to attain perfection? For morality to be a rational endeavor it must have value. If it has no value it should not be pursued. In order for morality to have significance there must be Ultimate Righteousness. For a more in depth analysis of the significance or the insignificance of morality see the following:

The Moral Argument(s) For God's Existence

Only God gives meaning to morality, and thus I remain rational in believing that there is a God that gives meaning to the being of my moral existence.

_______________________
[1] Ontology
[2] Hume

Life

Life is beautiful yet it passes us by too quickly. It is imperative that we enjoy life not because we must but because we should. Destiny has a habit of bringing us back to reality. The dilemma arises when every so often it is too late to fully appreciate that which was laid before us. It appears that humanity takes for granted what makes up their very being and what environs them. Weather one has or lacks material possessions I believe it is better to have life than death. Until death stretches its hands on your loved ones you will not realize how precious life is. Does it take death to realize the importance of life? Life is now, live free and abstain from pride, ignorance, vindication, hate, intolerance, injustice, and conformity since your fate will end in the death of your current state.