Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Tip-Toe Effect
How do we open the line of conversation about faith and logic in religious thought?
When the subject of religious thought is brought up (as uncommon and unpopular as it may be), its like fingernails on the chalkboard for me to hear: "Well, my opinion is that I have faith. You are entitled to your opinion." Why is this acceptable? You are entitled to your own opinion, because its in your head and nobody can control what thoughts come into your head. But, when the subject is brought into the world of dialog, your opinion becomes reality. Its your brain-child; your opinion takes on life! I do not find it acceptable to make a claim about the purpose of life without the ability to justify your reasoning.
Further, I do not find it acceptable for society to take a sensitive stance on debate/conversation on this subject. It has become the status quo to allow for an arching truth claim, and protect it under the umbrella of opinion. We all realize that there is no way to prove a position on the subject of religion at this point in the game. It would be delusional to suggest such. What not all of us realize, however, is that your level of confidence in your worldview is plain to all when we witness your desire or ability to charge your case. Beyond the topic of religion, I can't think of a claim that does not require evidence. One's comfort in supporting a claim is based on this idea. It can be regarded as insanity to claim something without reason.
Why, then, is it the trend to be supportive of another's opinions if they are not backed with reason? I'm not talking about the bumper sticker that reads "COEXIST" with the symbolic inlay. This is not meant to spark a roadside debate with the driver of the dawning vehicle. In this case, its simply meant to offer religious tolerance as an alternative to religious intolerance; the debate remains, peacefully. When opening the topic of the purpose of life, why is it not standard to state your belief (innately understood as an opinion) and provide evidence for it.
The argument has been presented that our purpose on earth is too "elite" for our understanding, and thus it is acceptable to have faith, and it will all become clear to us upon entering the realm that we are yet to experience. I'm willing to bet that this same ineffability was applied to many concepts that we have today rationalized. For example, imagine if there was not the dedication to the art of flying. Is it right to say that 200-300 years ago, flying was beyond our concept of reality? Was it fantasy? Yet today, it has become a complex and ever-adapting world necessity.
This is not to say that flying and eternal purpose can be deducted along the same path. But, it is to say that we have witnessed the embrace of one formally incomprehensible concept, and yet refuse to make an attempt at the rational sense of another. I refer back to a previous blog of mine that compares the American justice system and religious thought. One is founded on logic and reason, and the other on faith
and mysticism.
Focusing again, this alternate realm of existence (Heaven, etc) is held in the highest regard because it is the Emerald City to our yellow-brick road. Well, to open up the line of conversation between faith and logic, we need rationalize our yellow-brick road. We need to stop thinking of the Emerald City as an unimaginable reality, and start translating it into our pragmatic existence. If you are going to "walk with Christ" to the gates of Heaven, I want to see your footsteps. I don't want to hear that you conceptualize your footsteps with faith and hope. You owe us a breakdown of your daily steps if you are willing to claim allegiance to his path. You owe us a peek at the reality of your claim. Spread the word with reason, not with fluffy claims. If your path is not tangible, if you cannot show me your footsteps, if you cannot put your faith into reality, you are no more justified than someone who sits in their room and "prays" about music, and once a week goes to a band shell or bar to "worship" music by playing it aloud. Life is tangible whether you like it or not, and its not acceptable to pull the reality of life into your cloud of irrationality.
When the subject of religious thought is brought up (as uncommon and unpopular as it may be), its like fingernails on the chalkboard for me to hear: "Well, my opinion is that I have faith. You are entitled to your opinion." Why is this acceptable? You are entitled to your own opinion, because its in your head and nobody can control what thoughts come into your head. But, when the subject is brought into the world of dialog, your opinion becomes reality. Its your brain-child; your opinion takes on life! I do not find it acceptable to make a claim about the purpose of life without the ability to justify your reasoning.
Further, I do not find it acceptable for society to take a sensitive stance on debate/conversation on this subject. It has become the status quo to allow for an arching truth claim, and protect it under the umbrella of opinion. We all realize that there is no way to prove a position on the subject of religion at this point in the game. It would be delusional to suggest such. What not all of us realize, however, is that your level of confidence in your worldview is plain to all when we witness your desire or ability to charge your case. Beyond the topic of religion, I can't think of a claim that does not require evidence. One's comfort in supporting a claim is based on this idea. It can be regarded as insanity to claim something without reason.
Why, then, is it the trend to be supportive of another's opinions if they are not backed with reason? I'm not talking about the bumper sticker that reads "COEXIST" with the symbolic inlay. This is not meant to spark a roadside debate with the driver of the dawning vehicle. In this case, its simply meant to offer religious tolerance as an alternative to religious intolerance; the debate remains, peacefully. When opening the topic of the purpose of life, why is it not standard to state your belief (innately understood as an opinion) and provide evidence for it.
The argument has been presented that our purpose on earth is too "elite" for our understanding, and thus it is acceptable to have faith, and it will all become clear to us upon entering the realm that we are yet to experience. I'm willing to bet that this same ineffability was applied to many concepts that we have today rationalized. For example, imagine if there was not the dedication to the art of flying. Is it right to say that 200-300 years ago, flying was beyond our concept of reality? Was it fantasy? Yet today, it has become a complex and ever-adapting world necessity.
This is not to say that flying and eternal purpose can be deducted along the same path. But, it is to say that we have witnessed the embrace of one formally incomprehensible concept, and yet refuse to make an attempt at the rational sense of another. I refer back to a previous blog of mine that compares the American justice system and religious thought. One is founded on logic and reason, and the other on faith
and mysticism.Focusing again, this alternate realm of existence (Heaven, etc) is held in the highest regard because it is the Emerald City to our yellow-brick road. Well, to open up the line of conversation between faith and logic, we need rationalize our yellow-brick road. We need to stop thinking of the Emerald City as an unimaginable reality, and start translating it into our pragmatic existence. If you are going to "walk with Christ" to the gates of Heaven, I want to see your footsteps. I don't want to hear that you conceptualize your footsteps with faith and hope. You owe us a breakdown of your daily steps if you are willing to claim allegiance to his path. You owe us a peek at the reality of your claim. Spread the word with reason, not with fluffy claims. If your path is not tangible, if you cannot show me your footsteps, if you cannot put your faith into reality, you are no more justified than someone who sits in their room and "prays" about music, and once a week goes to a band shell or bar to "worship" music by playing it aloud. Life is tangible whether you like it or not, and its not acceptable to pull the reality of life into your cloud of irrationality.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Spoiled Oysters
The general population at the college at which I attended was and is very liberal-minded. Green-lifestyles, intolerance of intolerance, etc. For the sake of simplicity, it could be described as a real time Politically Correct University (PCU).
Additionally, throughout my college stint, I visited other college campuses and thus was fortunate enough to experience a wide spectrum of environments (state-school anonymity, pretentious indifference, etc.). As I look back, I am thrilled that I received the education and experience I did at my college, while being afforded the highlights of other schools.
The purpose of me setting the stage like this is to acknowledge that the window through which my worldview and ethos blend into my opinion is not hinged solely on my own campus bubble, or even my own hometown rituals (if you dig further). I pivot from an able-minded perspective, in terms of American culture.
This brings me to my rant. I see a parallel smugness within sects of today's green-living idealists, that is both alienating and hypocritical. Here are a pair of examples...
A)
In college, it was (and probably still is) often the case that the most unkempt and non-conformist students were also the most financially stable. They could have their hair professionally dread-locked in order to speed up the development of the persona that they were trying to become. Living green meant driving the beamer to the Cities to buy the best weed and most expensive "cheap" t-shirt.
Maybe I bought it when I was in college, because my mind was a mixing bowl of ideas and personal maturation, unable decide if I wanted to join or dissolve such groups. Maybe I am being a hypocrite because I am not acknowledging what persona I was taking on through said years, or how I have changed since. Nonetheless, from my point of view today, I recall a smug level of provocation from said factions. Maybe it wasn't smug; maybe it was just the presentation that provoked me. There was very little middle-ground in his or her being. He or she came from a wealthy family on the Upper East side of NYC, but adopted the idea of being a struggling proletariat. Can you do that? Were said individuals moderate versions of Chris McCandless, claiming financial indifference at school but vacationing in Long Island during the summer?
In this example, I may be unfairly judging them by claiming that they smugly provoke judgement. But, the truth is, I felt provoked! I remember feeling a distinct gap in my ability to relate and interact with some of the "filthy" rich and those of more moderate upbringing. It was a gap that I could not be overcome with conversation. I was not rich, and I did not choose to be a hippy. Thus, I just didn't understand. This provoked me, because I saw it as a smug and uneducated jab at my character.
----------------
B)
The second incendiary example is actually the one that got me started on this soapbox in the first place: Whale Wars. Now, THIS is a prime case of smug provocation. Those aboard the Sea Shepherd truly believe that they are justified in their claims that they are peaceful beacons of wildlife preservation. While their cause may be noble, their tactics are subject to question. They throw stink bombs on Japanese whaling decks to irritate the crew and spoil the whale meat. They board said ships with stern notes detailing how distasteful their agendas are and how they are subject to international sanctions if they do not high-tail it back to Japan. In their most recent debacle, they got t-boned by one of the ships by steering their exclusive "bat-boat" into the path of a moving whaler ship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodmAuN7R3U). In adjoining interviews, the captain and members of the crew describe their role in the interactions as "unprovoked aggression."
Reflect on that.
??!!?!?!
Unprovoked? Am I missing something? The issue of right and wrong is not at play here. I am not commenting on the justice of such actions. The Sea Shepherd crew may very well be conducting some sort of vigilante goodwill. The issue here is the delusion that accompanies entry onto the Sea Shepherd, believing that these actions are peaceful and unprovoking. They are hippy pirates! Like Timothy Treadwell, they live in an idealistic euphoria with wildlife, and they let it guide reality. The reality is, they are resting on their haunches of world preservation in order to justify their attacks.
The congruence here is the lack of temperance. In college, it was the rich embodying the life of the poor. With Whale Wars, it is the peaceful waging war. Both scenarios demonstrate a reliance on polar opposites to define their perspective. Did the rich kids not see the hypocrisy in their ways? Do the whale activists not see the hypocrisy in their ways? This concept can permeate into other realms. Can Democrats ever adopt a Republican policy, or does it have to immoderately split down party lines? To put it boldy, think in moderation.
I don't' know.
Additionally, throughout my college stint, I visited other college campuses and thus was fortunate enough to experience a wide spectrum of environments (state-school anonymity, pretentious indifference, etc.). As I look back, I am thrilled that I received the education and experience I did at my college, while being afforded the highlights of other schools.
The purpose of me setting the stage like this is to acknowledge that the window through which my worldview and ethos blend into my opinion is not hinged solely on my own campus bubble, or even my own hometown rituals (if you dig further). I pivot from an able-minded perspective, in terms of American culture.
This brings me to my rant. I see a parallel smugness within sects of today's green-living idealists, that is both alienating and hypocritical. Here are a pair of examples...
A)
In college, it was (and probably still is) often the case that the most unkempt and non-conformist students were also the most financially stable. They could have their hair professionally dread-locked in order to speed up the development of the persona that they were trying to become. Living green meant driving the beamer to the Cities to buy the best weed and most expensive "cheap" t-shirt.
Maybe I bought it when I was in college, because my mind was a mixing bowl of ideas and personal maturation, unable decide if I wanted to join or dissolve such groups. Maybe I am being a hypocrite because I am not acknowledging what persona I was taking on through said years, or how I have changed since. Nonetheless, from my point of view today, I recall a smug level of provocation from said factions. Maybe it wasn't smug; maybe it was just the presentation that provoked me. There was very little middle-ground in his or her being. He or she came from a wealthy family on the Upper East side of NYC, but adopted the idea of being a struggling proletariat. Can you do that? Were said individuals moderate versions of Chris McCandless, claiming financial indifference at school but vacationing in Long Island during the summer?
In this example, I may be unfairly judging them by claiming that they smugly provoke judgement. But, the truth is, I felt provoked! I remember feeling a distinct gap in my ability to relate and interact with some of the "filthy" rich and those of more moderate upbringing. It was a gap that I could not be overcome with conversation. I was not rich, and I did not choose to be a hippy. Thus, I just didn't understand. This provoked me, because I saw it as a smug and uneducated jab at my character.
----------------
B)
The second incendiary example is actually the one that got me started on this soapbox in the first place: Whale Wars. Now, THIS is a prime case of smug provocation. Those aboard the Sea Shepherd truly believe that they are justified in their claims that they are peaceful beacons of wildlife preservation. While their cause may be noble, their tactics are subject to question. They throw stink bombs on Japanese whaling decks to irritate the crew and spoil the whale meat. They board said ships with stern notes detailing how distasteful their agendas are and how they are subject to international sanctions if they do not high-tail it back to Japan. In their most recent debacle, they got t-boned by one of the ships by steering their exclusive "bat-boat" into the path of a moving whaler ship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodmAuN7R3U). In adjoining interviews, the captain and members of the crew describe their role in the interactions as "unprovoked aggression."
Reflect on that.
??!!?!?!
Unprovoked? Am I missing something? The issue of right and wrong is not at play here. I am not commenting on the justice of such actions. The Sea Shepherd crew may very well be conducting some sort of vigilante goodwill. The issue here is the delusion that accompanies entry onto the Sea Shepherd, believing that these actions are peaceful and unprovoking. They are hippy pirates! Like Timothy Treadwell, they live in an idealistic euphoria with wildlife, and they let it guide reality. The reality is, they are resting on their haunches of world preservation in order to justify their attacks.
The congruence here is the lack of temperance. In college, it was the rich embodying the life of the poor. With Whale Wars, it is the peaceful waging war. Both scenarios demonstrate a reliance on polar opposites to define their perspective. Did the rich kids not see the hypocrisy in their ways? Do the whale activists not see the hypocrisy in their ways? This concept can permeate into other realms. Can Democrats ever adopt a Republican policy, or does it have to immoderately split down party lines? To put it boldy, think in moderation.
I don't' know.
Monday, January 4, 2010
God for sale!
In a very Seinfield-esque vain, what's with this trend of college football players broadcasting their latest Bible read on their eye-black stickers and/or with magic-marker on their arm?
For instance, let's look at Tim Tebow. I realize that Tim Tebow is one of the most celebrated college football players of all-time, and he is using that platform to advertise his faith because he believes in its importance to eternal well-being. I mean, its not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the athletes or musicians, or any of a number of other entertain professionals hedge from their celebrity status.
My issue in the case of these college athletes lies in the fact that their religious faith and opinions are being broadcast with the perceived intent of spreading the gospel on one of the biggest stages available (televised sports). This is not a Coke billboard, or an All-State advertisement, where our American consumerism benefits. This is a matter of personal values. Why does he think its acceptable to broadcast God like one might broadcast an iHop? Is this the direction we are heading in sports?
Its a two-fold issue for me, Tim. First, how extensively have you tested your Christian faith? Is college football your litmus test? Have the successes and failures of your college football career been guided by Ephesians, for instance? When you post a Bible verse on your eye-stickers, for the world to see, you are grouping yourself with a Christian community. You are acknowledging fully that you believe in God, the Bible, and the spirit of faith. Its not as if you are saying that only that verse is operative in your life.
Enter the recent Comedy Central viewing of "Borat." Recall the Christian church in Texas healing Borat from his agony from finding out that Pamela Anderson is not a virgin? Yeah, that is a Christian community...the one that you are tied to. If I got to sit down with you, and discuss your faith, you would likely separate yourself from this group. However, with your eye-stickers, you don't have that opportunity to specify your faith. Thus, until that point, you have grouped yourself with some version of the tongue-speaking "seizure" victims that feigned their way through that scene. Don't put it on us to dig deeper into what you mean when you advertise your Bible verse...we aren't looking to you for spiritual advice. By bolding wearing these stickers, you are volunteering information that allows us to tie your faith to whatever group we see fit.
Secondly, Tim, while you may think it noble to post your faith like a billboard, your efforts should concentrate on localized disciplining. Attend your Bible groups and your weekly church services. Blog your opinions and your thoughts about the social complexities of faith and service. Allow people to volunteer their time to listen to your cause, rather than choking us with Biblical piecemeal while we eat our wings and drink beer. Its not acceptable to make our college football viewing experience your own personal mission trip. We are already clouded with advertisements. Its NOT noble to bring more attention to yourself with the Bible verses, and then claim that you are simply trying to bring attention to God.
Its my opinion that God would be more impressed with you putting in work for the Holy Spirit via community and local groups. This affords you the ability to explain in detail why you believe what you do, and what effect it has on you.
I wonder if he will be sporting these stickers when he is playing slot for the Jaguars next year...??
For instance, let's look at Tim Tebow. I realize that Tim Tebow is one of the most celebrated college football players of all-time, and he is using that platform to advertise his faith because he believes in its importance to eternal well-being. I mean, its not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the athletes or musicians, or any of a number of other entertain professionals hedge from their celebrity status.
My issue in the case of these college athletes lies in the fact that their religious faith and opinions are being broadcast with the perceived intent of spreading the gospel on one of the biggest stages available (televised sports). This is not a Coke billboard, or an All-State advertisement, where our American consumerism benefits. This is a matter of personal values. Why does he think its acceptable to broadcast God like one might broadcast an iHop? Is this the direction we are heading in sports?
Its a two-fold issue for me, Tim. First, how extensively have you tested your Christian faith? Is college football your litmus test? Have the successes and failures of your college football career been guided by Ephesians, for instance? When you post a Bible verse on your eye-stickers, for the world to see, you are grouping yourself with a Christian community. You are acknowledging fully that you believe in God, the Bible, and the spirit of faith. Its not as if you are saying that only that verse is operative in your life.
Enter the recent Comedy Central viewing of "Borat." Recall the Christian church in Texas healing Borat from his agony from finding out that Pamela Anderson is not a virgin? Yeah, that is a Christian community...the one that you are tied to. If I got to sit down with you, and discuss your faith, you would likely separate yourself from this group. However, with your eye-stickers, you don't have that opportunity to specify your faith. Thus, until that point, you have grouped yourself with some version of the tongue-speaking "seizure" victims that feigned their way through that scene. Don't put it on us to dig deeper into what you mean when you advertise your Bible verse...we aren't looking to you for spiritual advice. By bolding wearing these stickers, you are volunteering information that allows us to tie your faith to whatever group we see fit.
Secondly, Tim, while you may think it noble to post your faith like a billboard, your efforts should concentrate on localized disciplining. Attend your Bible groups and your weekly church services. Blog your opinions and your thoughts about the social complexities of faith and service. Allow people to volunteer their time to listen to your cause, rather than choking us with Biblical piecemeal while we eat our wings and drink beer. Its not acceptable to make our college football viewing experience your own personal mission trip. We are already clouded with advertisements. Its NOT noble to bring more attention to yourself with the Bible verses, and then claim that you are simply trying to bring attention to God.
Its my opinion that God would be more impressed with you putting in work for the Holy Spirit via community and local groups. This affords you the ability to explain in detail why you believe what you do, and what effect it has on you.
I wonder if he will be sporting these stickers when he is playing slot for the Jaguars next year...??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)