On page 198 of Robert Kiyosaki’s book Retire Young, Retire Rich, the fifth in the Rich Dad Poor Dad series of financial guides, he is talking about constant growth: “Too many people are falling behind because the information in their head is ancient history or they cling to answers that were right yesterday, but wrong today.”
Too many of us prefer the comfort and security of the past to the excitement and discovery that forges the future. To maintain allegiance to the past in the face of contrary trends leaves us behind in a changing world. Humans are natural explorers. While many are content to remain on shore in sheltered surroundings there are those who need to know what lies beyond the horizon. From the African diaspora of our hominid ancestors to the launch of the Sputnik spacecraft humans have continued to expand our frontiers. We have landed spacecraft on Mars and smashed them into comets to learn more about our universe. We don’t stop. We won’t stop. Sometimes the information gathered challenges old beliefs about our world. In science, we are quick to change our view to fit the facts.
In other areas of human activity some of us reject new knowledge because it conflicts with cherished beliefs. We would rather be tied to and defend erroneous creeds rather than to admit that the considered wisdom of the past has been mistaken. It is unfortunate that the false certainty of belief has not been replaced by the attitude of the explorer. The explorer is not afraid of what will be found and accepts as a hazard of the discovery process that past learning may need to be revised in the face of fresh findings. To survive as relevant, religion must learn to toss dogma when it is confronted with conflicting evidence. We must better learn to recognize mythology.
Religion has been slow and loathe to adopt the explorers’ outlook because it is restrained by ancient books that are supposed to report the word of a venerable, omniscient god. Contrary evidence must be explained away or a new spin must be put on a patriarchal story in order to save the revered deity from a trip to oblivion. Given the deadly religious fanaticism that we are witnessing in modern times would it not be prudent for the pious to raise their heads, get off their knees and recognize the mythology contained in the books of the Lord’s favorites.
Fanatics cling to messages of righteous indignation on the part of their deity and seek to earn brownie points as they carry out his wrath against earth bound transgressors. They are misguided by the irrational hatreds of a being created to control the behaviour of members of a common tradition. This is the way WE do things and there are plenty of eager people around to police the word of god. Unfortunately, in the process of enforcement, our humanity is lost. In a rude ruse that exposes their underlying faithlessness some feared leaders encourage the young to demonstrate their loyalty to the deity by sending pieces of themselves and the enemy hurtling His way. Notice that the feared leaders do not make the same sacrifice. They prefer to joke about their success as suicide brokers, plan the next attack and recruit the next victim. Idealistic youth are happy to be the prey. The world is absurd.
Isn’t it better to banish the banshee and pay allegiance to the scientific method as a guide to human action.?When we recognize that nature creates us on a continuum of physical and mental qualities and not as morally superior/inferior beings we can begin to behave in a humane manner toward those whom NATURE has deposited on the fringes of the bell curve of human traits.
Biblical literalists are forced to defend some inane beliefs and inhumane practices. The earth is flat. Slavery is OK. Women are second class citizens. Witches should be burned at the stake. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun goes around the earth. Homosexuality is an abomination.
People who believe(d) those things are being left behind. The modern world will consider them irrelevant and pass them by. Some of those who are ignored will blow up the innocent and themselves to try to grab some attention and futilely try to stop the progress. We brake for Bible
literacy.
But, as Yoda might put it: explorers we are. Modern science presents the literalist and the not so literal theist with an additional list of conundrums for her belief system. Stem cells, genetically modified food and cloning are areas of study that spring to mind. What would a god say about those? We have the internet, PDAs, cell phones and MP3 players. We have no time for ancient mythology. Modern superheroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Laura Croft are more exciting. At least they arrive in the nick of time once in a while. When we would like God to show up He always seems to be on vacation...
Women demand equal rights, gays follow suit. Harry Potter books sell millions of copies. It is a nightmare for theists. They can barely keep up. The reinterpretations fly around the internet. Fundamentalists put their foot down and say Stop! Liberal theologians continually redefine their god to accept what is perceived to be the humane thing to do. It is practical to have such a malleable deity. What He really meant was...
How does a theist deal with a putty god that can change His nature to suit the contemporary challenge of the moment? Homosexuals are abominable. Well, maybe they aren’t so bad after all. After all, God did create the mechanism for their creation. Why does God need homosexuals?
This question seems inappropriate so perhaps a better inference is that there is no god and that evolution produces that bell curve of human traits that land some people in the homosexual category just as some other people land in the males with breasts category. Nature is not neat; the human family is diverse.
Re-read paragraph one.
Contrary to Timothy LeHaye it is not the wrong believer who will be left behind with the advent of the rapture; it is the disciple who will be left behind with the progress of human civilisation. Modern ideas will rupture the rapture and good-bye we won’t wave.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Endorsing Atheism
The following letter appeared in USA Today online for June 30, 2005 after the US
Supreme Court decisions regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas and
Kentucky.
Displays should stand
I'm disappointed with the Supreme Court's rulings that ban the Ten Commandments from
courthouses in some circumstances ("Court to politicians: Thou shalt not promote religion," Our view, The Ten Commandments debate, Tuesday).
In popularizing the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1802, Thomas Jefferson didn't intend that social and political issues be divorced from codes of morality. He merely meant that government is prevented from establishing one church as the "official" religion.
The Ten Commandments are not the private domain of any one church. On the contrary, they are universal principles that already existed in the first democracy of ancient Greece, albeit in a primitive form, according to what the ancients called the "unwritten law."
The U.S. government would not, therefore, be endorsing one religion were it to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses and on public property. In fact, it would be endorsing atheism were it to outlaw the public display of the Ten Commandments. Such an endorsement of one belief system — in this case, atheism — is what the Founding Fathers were really against.
Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario
The reasoning in the above letter does not allow for a position of state neutrality on the question of religion. It tries to equate neutrality on the part of the government with the advocacy of the position opposed to that of the writer. It is if the writer is not aware of the concept of a referee who takes neither side but tries to adjudicate fairly according to the rules of the game.
Some theists would like to tilt the rules in their favor and then have the government umpire the laws. This is like declaring that the Toronto Blue Jays must score two runs for every one that the New York Yankees score before they can be declared the winner of the game. Now, play ball!
If the Swiss are neutral it means that they do not pick sides.
If the State were to endorse atheism it would mean that they would ban all forms of religion or open State proceedings with a saying that mocked God or actively take other steps to make it difficult for religious people to practise their beliefs. In a democracy, they do not nor should they.
Supreme Court decisions regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas and
Kentucky.
Displays should stand
I'm disappointed with the Supreme Court's rulings that ban the Ten Commandments from
courthouses in some circumstances ("Court to politicians: Thou shalt not promote religion," Our view, The Ten Commandments debate, Tuesday).
In popularizing the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1802, Thomas Jefferson didn't intend that social and political issues be divorced from codes of morality. He merely meant that government is prevented from establishing one church as the "official" religion.
The Ten Commandments are not the private domain of any one church. On the contrary, they are universal principles that already existed in the first democracy of ancient Greece, albeit in a primitive form, according to what the ancients called the "unwritten law."
The U.S. government would not, therefore, be endorsing one religion were it to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses and on public property. In fact, it would be endorsing atheism were it to outlaw the public display of the Ten Commandments. Such an endorsement of one belief system — in this case, atheism — is what the Founding Fathers were really against.
Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario
The reasoning in the above letter does not allow for a position of state neutrality on the question of religion. It tries to equate neutrality on the part of the government with the advocacy of the position opposed to that of the writer. It is if the writer is not aware of the concept of a referee who takes neither side but tries to adjudicate fairly according to the rules of the game.
Some theists would like to tilt the rules in their favor and then have the government umpire the laws. This is like declaring that the Toronto Blue Jays must score two runs for every one that the New York Yankees score before they can be declared the winner of the game. Now, play ball!
If the Swiss are neutral it means that they do not pick sides.
If the State were to endorse atheism it would mean that they would ban all forms of religion or open State proceedings with a saying that mocked God or actively take other steps to make it difficult for religious people to practise their beliefs. In a democracy, they do not nor should they.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
PKU
PKU
Begun: Saturday, June 4, 2005
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, describes PKU as a human genetic disorder caused by a defective gene for the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase. If undetected this condition can impede infant brain development that leads to mental retardation. Phenylketonuria (PKU) occurs in about 1 in 15000 births.
Evolution accommodates genetic anomalies such as PKU within its well established framework. Evolution is not a perfect mechanism of replication. Disease is sometimes the product of imperfection. Human engineers would try to eliminate such foibles in their designs.
What use does a creator have for PKU? Why would a designer include a mechanism that would sometimes lead to a defective product? What would we say about a human designer who did that? Comments would not be complementary.
Is it easier to live in an undesigned universe and accept the imperfections that sometimes inconvenience or even harm us or to try to explain why the divine designer devised nefarious processes that result in damaged goods?
If we wish to maintain that there is a divine designer in our midst are we not drawn to the conclusion that He must be either clueless or a monster?
PKU is evidence for an imperfect evolution that operates without knowledge of our preferences. We are at its mercy and must act to correct the results that we do not like. If we envision a deity behind this cold mechanism of development then we spit in the face of His creation as we seek cures for His afflictions. This would not be a deity of love but a dirty devil.
Last: June 25, 2005
Begun: Saturday, June 4, 2005
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, describes PKU as a human genetic disorder caused by a defective gene for the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase. If undetected this condition can impede infant brain development that leads to mental retardation. Phenylketonuria (PKU) occurs in about 1 in 15000 births.
Evolution accommodates genetic anomalies such as PKU within its well established framework. Evolution is not a perfect mechanism of replication. Disease is sometimes the product of imperfection. Human engineers would try to eliminate such foibles in their designs.
What use does a creator have for PKU? Why would a designer include a mechanism that would sometimes lead to a defective product? What would we say about a human designer who did that? Comments would not be complementary.
Is it easier to live in an undesigned universe and accept the imperfections that sometimes inconvenience or even harm us or to try to explain why the divine designer devised nefarious processes that result in damaged goods?
If we wish to maintain that there is a divine designer in our midst are we not drawn to the conclusion that He must be either clueless or a monster?
PKU is evidence for an imperfect evolution that operates without knowledge of our preferences. We are at its mercy and must act to correct the results that we do not like. If we envision a deity behind this cold mechanism of development then we spit in the face of His creation as we seek cures for His afflictions. This would not be a deity of love but a dirty devil.
Last: June 25, 2005
Monday, February 28, 2005
February 28
A Poem in Honor of my Birthday
My birthday is a time to pause
Along life's busy way
And cherish golden memories of this aupicious day
A time to raise in gratitude
Life's overflowing cup
A time to blow your nose with this
In case you're all choked up
O happy day when I was born
Long ago on a sunny morn
The world rejoiced and the doctor said
Oops, I've dropped him on his head!
But How do I know my youth is all spent
My get up and go has got up and went
But in spite of it all I'm able to grin
And think of the places my get up has been.
My birthday is a time to pause
Along life's busy way
And cherish golden memories of this aupicious day
A time to raise in gratitude
Life's overflowing cup
A time to blow your nose with this
In case you're all choked up
O happy day when I was born
Long ago on a sunny morn
The world rejoiced and the doctor said
Oops, I've dropped him on his head!
But How do I know my youth is all spent
My get up and go has got up and went
But in spite of it all I'm able to grin
And think of the places my get up has been.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Cave Raves
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Sixty per cent of eligible voters turned out for the Iraqi election. These people spit in the face of those who tried to disrupt the expression of the will of the people. Despite threats of voter deaths and despite deadly incidents on election day most Iraqis understood the importance of the freedom that was being offered to them on January 30, 2005.
Osama Bin Laden and others like him urged the Iraqi people to boycott the election. The insurgents want to dictate how Iraqis will live rather than allow each citizen of Iraq to have a say in that decision. Suitably, Osama delivers his raves from caves. Caves were an ancient and primitive home for humans. Coercion, as a tool of dictators, is a primitive and abhorred method of rule. Osama and his ilk desire to return to more primitive times with themselves at the top of the power pyramid. Their bloody quest is futile because democracy is a more powerful and desirable form of government. This was demonstrated again on January 30, 2005 in Iraq. Listen to the comments of the voters as they left the polling stations. Each voter dipped a finger in ink to prevent double voting. The ink on their fingers became a badge of honour among voters. It was a time of celebration.
May the primitive ideas of Osama Bin Laden be buried in the caves from which he raves.
Sixty per cent of eligible voters turned out for the Iraqi election. These people spit in the face of those who tried to disrupt the expression of the will of the people. Despite threats of voter deaths and despite deadly incidents on election day most Iraqis understood the importance of the freedom that was being offered to them on January 30, 2005.
Osama Bin Laden and others like him urged the Iraqi people to boycott the election. The insurgents want to dictate how Iraqis will live rather than allow each citizen of Iraq to have a say in that decision. Suitably, Osama delivers his raves from caves. Caves were an ancient and primitive home for humans. Coercion, as a tool of dictators, is a primitive and abhorred method of rule. Osama and his ilk desire to return to more primitive times with themselves at the top of the power pyramid. Their bloody quest is futile because democracy is a more powerful and desirable form of government. This was demonstrated again on January 30, 2005 in Iraq. Listen to the comments of the voters as they left the polling stations. Each voter dipped a finger in ink to prevent double voting. The ink on their fingers became a badge of honour among voters. It was a time of celebration.
May the primitive ideas of Osama Bin Laden be buried in the caves from which he raves.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Why didn’t Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
The title provides a chuckle and makes you wonder how the members of Noah’s family
managed to restrain the natural reaction to a mosquito bite. Swat! Slap! Take that! Did the
female mosquito not eat for the duration of the voyage on the Ark?
Isn’t there a deeper philosophical point to the humour in the title? The story (aka Bible)
asks us to suspend our critical faculties and believe that it was possible for someone to build an
ark ample enough to contain two (Gen. 6:19) or was it seven (Gen 7:2) of every kind of animal
extant on the planet at that time. Who rounded them up? Who travelled to Australia and the
Americas to fetch the native animals who lived in the far reaches of the world? How long did it
take? Did Noah provide food for all the animals? Some of the animals are food for some of the
others. Perhaps this is why God changed His mind and told Noah to take seven of each creature.
Where did Noah store their excrement? Noah and his family (Gen. 7:11-13) must have been kept very busy
feeding and cleaning up after many of the animals as well as sailing the Ark.
The amusement in the title exposes the absurdity of the story and thereby the imaginary
nature of this Biblical offering. It calls into question the accuracy of the Word of God and
suggests a different genre for the supernatural stories in scriptural pages: mythology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
