God v Dog

You knew I would have to blog about this; it is just too good of an opportunity to let pass. It is almost the quintessential debate between Religion and Science.

I say almost because this was only about one aspect of Religion, and only one aspect of Science; where did we come from, and how long ago?

If you watched the video one commenter noted that his debate had not become heated, like so many others of this type. Why do they become heated?

Because both are a belief system. It isn't impossible to believe in both books- The Bible and On The Origin of Species- although it does require you to take The Old Testament of The Bible as allegorical, and not literal.

My problem with Science can best be illustrated by the (you guessed it) Global Warming debacle. Scientists lied, and belief in Science died. Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.

Like it or not, only a percentage of Science can be proven. Most of modern science is built on the sands of Theory. Logical, but unproven, theory. The math for Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be reproduced, but that doesn't prove the theory correct; only proves his math was correct.

The same with Darwin. Examining his evidence and coming to the same conclusion only proves that his theory is logical, not that it is correct.

And we have become accustomed to accepting the truth of what we are told by science; because they should know. How do feel about believing not in the Facts of Science, but the Guesses of Science?

We have all seen the drawings of what "our" ancient ancestors looked like. Did you know that most of those images are not based on a full skeleton, or even a collection of individual bones from several individuals, but usually on one or two bones and a few fragments? Some digger finds a jawbone and a fibula in the guano of a cave and the next thing you know we have a new, 1.5 million year old 'ancestor'.
The image is a guess, based on the few things they do know; The age is also a guess, based on the assumed age of where they were found.

This is not to say that all of the theories and guesses are incorrect; there not. It just that we are taught the is a proven fact, when all it really is is a very logical, probably well supported, guess.

Carbon dating is at best another guess, based on observable science extrapolated out over several centuries. We have nothing that is proven by other methods to be 'X' thousands of years old to test and prove the theory; it is based on the observable difference in a few years- even a lifetime isn't a significant portion of the history of the Earth, no matter who's figures you believe.

I also have a hard time believing the physical laws are not some grand design. Look at Water. Snow; Ice; Steam and Water all have the same chemical makeup; H2O- two hydrogen atoms bonded to a single  oxygen atom. Yet, unlike almost any other substance, it EXPANDS when chilled. Which means bodies of water ice over, protecting the fish in the water below. When frozen as a vapor it forms Snow, which when it falls insulates the earth beneath it,  protecting the plants and animals from a freeze. And the cycle of evaporation and rain; providing water to plants far from a source water on a regular basis; plants that the animals need for sustenance.

To me, those features of Water are proofs of a Theory; a Theory that we aren't here by some accidental failure or accidental coupling millions of years ago.

We live in a world designed for us. Now; Science- prove me wrong.

Sometimes a Book is Just a Book

I recently read Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. I am still trying to make my mind up about the novel in some respects.

Parts were a fascinating read; others parts I found less interesting, particularly the parts that seemed cribbed from a Penthouse Forum Magazine. Every chapter seemed to have a part that should have begun “I really never thought it would happen to me, but…”  The worst part was the end.  It literally felt like the author ran out of enthusiasm for the book and just wrapped it up somehow. Through a thousand pages a given character would act a certain way, with certain motivations. In the last 80 pages all of that went out the window.

Am I glad I read it? Yes. But I won’t bother with the sequel and I won’t bother to read it again. How’s that for a ringing endorsement?

As briefly as the plot of a 1,087 page novel can be described; a small, fictional medieval English Monastery and its village build a cathedral. The book chronicles the arrival of the master-builder to the site and the various political and financial maneuverings that both enable and stymie the construction. That also includes the personal lives of the various characters; the Prior of the Monastery, Prior Phillip; the builder, Tom; his family-children, step-child and wives; the local Bishop and the local Earl. 

This is where I found my first fault; only one or two of the characters were well rounded, even the essential ones. If they were evil; they were never nice to anyone. If they were good, they never had a bad moment. Until the last chapter.

The second fault was the lack of detail on the construction of the Cathedral. For a book about the building, you would think a few of the 1087 pages could be spared for a few details on the actual construction or maybe a description of the various trades involved. But then the author would have had to drop one of the forty or fifty sex scenes that seemed to plague the story. I was beginning to think someone had actually slipped me a copy of 50 Shades of Grey. Based on this book every Cathedral in Europe physically went up without a hitch.

Well, until they fell down. Which, of course, this one did. The primary crux of the story was the change between round and pointed arches; a discussion that took place with minimal interruption of the characters lives and even less explanation of why this was such a sea change in public building. They did discuss how the pointed arch allowed for taller churches with more windows, but more history of development between the round and pointed arch would have been apropos, especially given the pivotal place in the story given to the pointed arch.

Bear in mind, in most communities the Church was THE public building. There were no public halls or municipal buildings like town halls. The Church was the town hall; it was the center of the community and the gathering place for every purpose.

Pillars does reflect that, and in some ways is a fascinating look into Medieval England, in the years immediately following the Norman Invasion and during the period of Anarchy after Henry I death. The history seems to be correct, albeit with our fictional characters thrown into the mix. And one of the fictional characters being thrown into the mix suffers a non-historical fate. But, since he really wasn’t a part of the history, and his fate is almost required by the story, so, no harm, no foul. At least in this case.

But there were a lot of other fouls; illiterate builders use multi-syllabic words; the language itself is not even remotely like Norman English and the characters seem to be able to speak both native English- akin to German- as well as Norman English- very French-like- with equal ease and without fault. There also seemed to be an acceptance of quite a few cultural items without comment, almost as if we should be as familiar with the methods of Medieval Dress and Buildings as we are with modern ones.

These can be written off as poetic license; liberties taken to insure a smooth flow and readability of the story. And I would be willing to agree; if elements of the story itself didn’t constantly remind me of a Harlequin dime romance.

Let’s take the character of Waleran Bigod. When we first meet him he is an archdeacon to the Bishop of Kingsbridge, the fictional location of the Cathedral. His first act in the book is to scheme with the hero of our story, Prior Phillip, maneuvering Phillip into agreeing to support Bigod to replace the current Bishop. Later it becomes evident that the Bishop was already dead, a fact Bigod was hiding from the world. This is just the beginning. Bigod is constantly scheming, lying and dealing, not only as an arch-deacon, but as a Bishop as well. His scheming never lets up, and includes the ordering of the murder of members of his diocese, with absolution granted prior to the act itself.

And then in the last few pages he repents and becomes, almost literally, a kind, saintly old man. Which in itself is not a problem; entire books are based on the reasons behind a character’s motivations for changing himself. But here the motivation is lacking. Maybe it’s there, and I just missed it. But the change is similar to Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, without the intervention of the Lord’s lightning.

Set in an era when The Church ran everything, and being ex-communicated was almost a death sentence, only Prior Phillip seems to be truly devout. Monks in the Monastery do their best to avoid devotionals or anything relating to their religious duties and most of the main characters, most of them deeply involved with building a Cathedral, the highest concrete form of worship, seem agnostic at best, and atheist at worst.

As I said early on; it was a fascinating read in parts, and I am glad I read it.

I am also equally glad I didn’t buy it.

‘Nuff said.

Christmas Day is Here!

I have spent the last couple of weeks crabbing about my lack of Christmas Spirit and the over commercialization of the Christmas Holiday.

Today is the Day; the reason for the Season.

Merry Christmas!

Christians all over the world look forward to today. A birth forecast by the prophets for a thousand years; the arrival on Earth of God and the beginning of a new period of revival. A gift promised to the Jewish people, the birth of Christ did little for them, and instead created an entirely new religion that has spread and splintered into dozens of sects around the globe and 2.1 billion followers; the largest religion in the modern world, with 33% of the world's inhabitants as followers.

Hard to believe it all began with the birth of a small child in a stable on this day 2,012 years ago.

Well; there are questions, both about the actual date and the year. Some even doubt the birth itself.

Considering how easily information gets confused in just a few short years, I would think it would be easy to lose track of an exact date that happened, in our case, over 2000 years ago.

The creation of a Liturgical Holy Day to coincide with an existing pagan holiday is logical as well. After all even today the Queen of England has both an actual birthday and an Official Birthday.

None of which should detract from the Celebration itself; we are celebrating the Birth of Christ; not Christ's Birthday.

That may seem like a semantic difference, but its not. We aren't concerned so much with when Christ was born as much as we are concerned that he was born at all.

Think about the concept; especially 2000 years ago. Gods demanded tribute and worship; gods were vindictive and destructive when they were not properly honored.

But here was a God that loved the people who worshiped Him to the point that he would send His Son- His only Son- to live on Earth with us; to suffer for our sins and to suffer the ultimate punishment for us; to die in our stead.

We aren't celebrating the day He came to Earth, but the concept that He did.

And that, my friends, is quite a concept.

Once Again, Ahead of the Curve

I ran into this article on my BING home page this morning. I normally don't read the bottom feeding Huffington Post, but I did find this article timely and interesting.

Basically because I said the same thing a couple of days ago.

The money quote, in my opinion:

A significant majority of the nones also believe that religious institutions are too focused on money, power, rules and politics.


Ain't that what I said?

Yeah; It's Been That Kind of a Day

Yesterday was a day of complete rest. I guess I still hadn't recovered from the long weekend I had last weekend.

Or maybe I'm coming down with something. Half the people in this house are sneezing and the other half have a hacking cough. I don't have either.

Yet.

I did mange to get a bit of writing done, so that's something. Not that I was really happy with it. What I wrote is very workman like; it gets the story across, but not the emotion I want. It is good enough for a first draft, but now I need to go back and make the words dance. I can do it; I have faith in myself.

Speaking of faith, I saw a sign tonight on the way home advertising a Tent Revival. I just wonder how many folks will show up, and what the age range will be. I would guess the audience (congregation?) will be 90% women; 75% over the age of 60 and 100% devout, or at least intending to look that way. A church I pass on the way home had a sign up at one point that said "Church isn't a museum for saints; its a hospital for sinners". I have to agree.

The problem any more is too many people don't recognize they are sick I guess. I suppose I could be defined as one of them. I have never lost my faith in God, but I sure have lost my faith in Religion. I don't believe the selling of indulgences has ended; just taken a different form; almost like your faith in God has something to do with your dedication to the Religion.

That might be the other part of it. Religion is a Community, and a Community is made up of people. You can't just pray on your own; you have to become a part of the Community. Sorry; not a big fan.

Kind of like working from home; you are just as productive, or more so, but nobody can verify that you actually worked as hard and long as they did, so it doesn't count. To them anyway.

And the same folks that will smile, nod and shake you hand in the Pews, will run you over in the parking lot.

But such has it always been so, right?

But then an organized religion does have benefits. Time honored rituals and practices; ancient prayers murmured countless times by countless generations; the same procedure as old as time itself, provided you are using the Roman calendar, and the idea of Anno Domini.

I forget what book I was reading, but a couple of characters were talking about the concept of magic, and the idea that previous generations may have been able to perform spells; something the current folks can only dream about. The second character responded that each age gains a little knowledge, and loses a little knowledge; who can say what we have gained can equal what we have lost.

I say that knowing I am not the only one of my generation to have lost a faith in religion. The problem is now how to pass on the faith in God, without the rituals.

More Garbage From Washington

Really? Are they serious about this?

First it was a YouTube Movie Trailer that nobdy saw; now it's this.

Can you believe that we are having such a hard time in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the serial numbers on US Rifle scopes?

I am also stunned that there is an organization that exists solely to seperate the US Military from God? I hate to link to them, but would have sworn this was an article on the Duffel Blog without proof that they realy existed.

November 6 can't come soon enough.

4 Dead in Libya

People have always held differing opinions. Cain and Abel came to blows- and death- over their differing opinions, and that was, depending on you point of view, around 3,500 years ago. But civilized people have learned to argue differing points of view without bloodshed or injury, even during contested elections.

Not that we are completely blameless.We have had a Civil War and deadly riots in this country, and may have them again.

But for the most part, and most of the time, we accept one another as we are and peacefully coexist. Sometimes our feelings get hurt. We have government funded artists creating images that are disrespectful of religion, or of a particular faith. We express our outrage in blog posts, calls to radio shows and Letters to the Editor of the local paper.

But we don't determine that the artist was an atheist and go on a violent rampage against every atheist we can find.

Our currency of exchange in disputes is verbal, not physical.

After September 11th, both this week and 11 years ago, radical Moslems have clearly defined what their currency of exchange for discussion is.

It is violence and death.

As long as we fail to negotiate in the same currency we are seen as weak.

It is time to start being seen as strong, not weak.

They kill 4, we kill 40; or 400, or 4000.

Since violence and death are the currency they understand and seem to prefer, it is time to start talking in a way they will understand.

The problem is we can't. Our history; our culture, our religions, won't allow us to retaliate wholesale against a people for the actions of a few.

And it shouldn't.

But that restraint puts us in a terrible position for an exchange of ideas with the Middle East. Bluntly, I am no expert. I haven't spent years living in the area, or even studying the various cultures and sects. All I know is what I read in the papers and on the internet.

And I see a culture that believes the only way to deal with an issue that you don't like is to kill it.

James Lileks had a great column up yesterday, discussing this same thing. I guess it is on a lot of people's minds.

He references some recent occurrences, talking about the killing of gay young men in Iraq, and the incident in Afghanistan where a group of people were sentenced to death- a sentence that was carried out- for dancing.

I recall back in the late 1999 the Taliban were shelling with artillery fire an image of Buddha-  one that was thousands of years old and rather large, carved into the side of a cliff- because their religion didn't allow images like that. No discussion of what the culture that created it believed. They didn't like it, and they destroyed it.

The riots the other day in Egypt and Libya were allegedly caused by a movie available on YouTube that cast aspersions on the prophet Mohammed. They couldn't destroy the movie; they couldn't kill the men who made it, but they did ransack two US embassies and kill 4 Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya.

As long as we are using words as our currency, and they are using violence, we can never come to any agreement. Its like trying to make a deal with a culture that prizes cow chips, while we are trading in gold; neither medium of exchange has any value in the other culture.

True, this is a subset of Islam, and only a certain number of people believe that jihad is the way to deal with the world. But it doesn't appear to me to be a Westboro Baptist Church situation and the balance of Christianity, or even the Baptist religion. Every time Westboro crawls out from under their rock they are soundly criticized. A verbal display, and a verbal chastisement.

When is balance of Islam going to chastise the violent segment of their religion?

Are they unable to, or just unwilling?

Egypt: Now What?

As I mentioned in this post, we have an interest in what goes in the rest of the world. I may not be my brother's keeper, but I sure should be his helper.

The problem in Egypt is the disconnect between the people and their government. On the radio today there was a report from Cairo where the reporter repeated what he had heard from some of the protesters in the square. Apparently there was at least one protester who felt the American government should have done more for the people of Egypt, and less for the government in the form of Mubarak.

Great Idea!

Now, how do we implement it?

Governments have to deal with governments. The folks in charge may not have a legitimate claim to being in charge, but they are the legally constituted folks what be in charge. And damn the bad luck we can't do anything about that.

Take North Korea. Other that the Chinese and Iran (talk about your strange bedfellows), there probably isn't a country on the face of this Earth that wouldn't love to see a regime change in North Korea. How do we go about it?

Declare war on North Koreans? Have our army fight their army? Would China join in? On who's side? And the end game would be what?

Thousands or more dead on both sides, wanton destruction of the Korean peninsula and eventually freedom and reunification.

Would that be best for the North Koreans? Set them free, but destroy the population and the landscape?

And who knows the cost for the South Koreans? Remember, North Korea has at least one nuclear weapon, and probably wouldn't hesitate to use it on Seoul, if it could, or Pyongyang if it couldn't.

Would that be better or worse for the North Koreans than living under the current regime?

Tough call, ain't it?

And Pyongyang is on our ENEMIES list. Egypt isn't.

Maybe the best way we can help the Egyptian people is by trying to modify their government, by bribing them to cooperate, a process sometimes called foreign aid.

The trouble is, to those on the bottom, it doesn't look like we're helping them, it looks like we're supporting the crooked regime.

And we are. Change is glacially slow, and the more we spend to try and get some reform, the tighter the nets are drawn, the more the people suffer and the more power the top man consolidates to himself.

And the US Dollars keep flowing in.

Rand Paul has a plan that drastically cuts this bribery. And we should. But maybe we should make sure we are completely self sustaining and isolated first, like we were in Washington's day.

I found this chart that in some ways asks more questions than it answers. Did you know ONE THIRD of all foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel?

And we have no real idea how much we are spending in total.

Damn.

So back to the original question: What do we now do in Egypt?

The military is now in charge; we'll have to see if that is temporary, until the next election, or if this is just step one in a military coup. Elections in September. Free and Fair? Who wins?

And then what? What if the Free and Fair election votes in another Muslim theocracy? Then how do support the Egyptian people? Like we did the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? Like the Iranians under the Ayatollah? Like the North Koreans?

It all looks so easy, doesn't it?

Until you start looking at the possible options, and the most likely results.

And no matter what happens, we're affected. The region is oil rich- damn the bad luck- Egypt is next to (and has a peace treaty with) our strongest ally in the area, Israel. What happens if the new, freely and fairly elected Egyptian government reneges on the treaty?

We are already fighting wars on two fronts in the area; are we ready for a third?

More importantly; are we ready for the consequences of our actions/inactions?

I wish I had more faith in the Democrats to handle this crisis. As is, I think were doomed.

California's Prop. 8

You all probably know the basics; California passed a law banning same sex marriage; the gays had it overturned in the California Courts as against the California Constitution.

So the voters amended the California Constitution to ban same sex marriage.

And the gays went to the Federal Court, where a Federal Court in California just used ONE judge to over throw the votes of MILLIONS of Californians.

AS long as you are for Gay marriage and against state's rights this decision looks pretty good.

But for the other 95% percent of the country, we just got hammered.

I was reading this post over at Althouse and as usual the comments are great.

I especially liked this one:

dbp said...
Denying same-sex marriage is like denying blind people driver's licenses; it is just not fair since nobody chooses to be blind.

I don't see how blind drivers will have any impact on sighted motorist's ability to navigate our roads.

8/5/10 10:32 AM

Quipping aside, the basis of this judges decision- is the same as in the US Supreme Court case that made oral sex legal in Texas, the Lawrence decision. Basically, local morality has no place in law.

As a States Rights originalist, I have a problem with that.

But one point that keeps being made is that why is the state involved in promoting traditional marriage, but not same sex marriage?

Here I'll tie into my last post.

50,000 years- or more- of evolution has gotten us where we are. 90% of the world- and ALL of the Western World- traditionally has supported the One Man/One Woman concept of a nuclear family. Man and Wife join together and create a new generation. The children that have a mother to nurture them and a father to support them traditionally have done the best, and gone on to create the next generation.

Once again, the new age idiots, who know more than the 15,000 generations that have gone before us, are out to prove how smart they aren't.

Is it fair that Adam and Steve are in a committed relationship, but can't get married?

Eh; maybe not.

But life's not fair. Get over it. Either live in sin with your boyfriend or get with the program and find a nice girl to settle down with.

If you don't like that move to a country that will accept your version of morality and be happy there.

Wrong Religions Keep to the Left, Please

I hope you can read this cartoon; because it has a great punchline. In case you can't, it says: "Funny thing is, they never get the joke".

Religion is an interesting topic. Occasionally it includes God, but usually very seldom. Most discussions about religion usually center on the differences, instead of the similarities. You would think the Methodists and the Pentecostals worshiped different Gods, instead of merely having different ways of worshiping the same one.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I have absolutely no trouble with the idea that you may have a different method of worship. Your tastes in music, libations and food are different than mine; why would I expect you to have the same tastes in religious rites as I do?

Do you really think it matters to God whether you worship him as a Baptist or an Episcopalian? Do you think he cares if you read the King James version or the New American Version of the Bible?

Then why do we?

The old schisms are fading, not because the religions are getting along, but because people are dropping religion. Fewer and fewer Lutherans care if you are Church of God or not; because there are fewer Lutherans, and the Church as a community means less to them as a whole.

I was born and raised (and still consider myself) Roman Catholic, although I am not a regular church goer anymore. I remember the old days of the transition from pre- to post-Vatican II. Most congregations still have a Ladies Altar Society, I assume. But what is the average age of the group? 60? Younger people are not as defined by their church as people were 30 or 40 years ago. They don't have the same need for the community as we did in the days before Television, Computer games and the Internet.

As usual I am drifting a little off topic. How much does religion still matter? Not a belief in God, or even a belief in a Christian God, mean to us in our daily interpersonal relationships? Do you personally shun non-fellow (FILL IN YOUR SECT HERE)? Non-Christians? Non-Believers?

I know there are still people- and sects- out there that are 'my way or the road to Hell'; do they still have any real validity in the modern world of non-sectarian believers in God?

I don't know for sure (the Lord and I haven't actually sat down and discussed it over a beer {What? The only reason they don't mention beer in The Bible is because they left the recipe in Egypt}), but I have always been taught God is merciful and forgiving. I believe he would be happier with me for keeping His laws than some random man-made regulation governing the type of worship I am allowed to do.

I could be wrong. God could be 100% behind the Presbyterian method of worship, and everybody else is scheduled to wail in Purgatory for most of eternity.

If He is, then the merciful and just God I was taught to worship doesn't exist, and I am scheduled to burn a little anyway.

Damn the bad luck.

Interesting News

I found this through Instapundit.

I have read other articles on The Anchoress in the past; she is a very thoughtful and clear writer.

I just have to question the validity of this idea. Basically they are creating what amounts to Anglican diocese that will report to the Pope instead of the Queen.

What next? Southern Baptists with their own dioceses reporting to Rome?

Admittedly the Anglican Church is very similar to the Roman one- especially since Vatican II (which some put forth as the SOLE reason for Vatican II), but still the two churches have some differences of opinion and apparently Rome is now willing to allow them full communion with the Roman Church while they maintain those differences.

I'll have to cognate on this a bit more.