TheGroundworks

Aesthetic of Photography

2012-01-15T18:59:00.000-06:00

There are snapshots,

...and there are artful photographs.

Snapshots - quick, abrupt, given without artistic intent. They capture a moment but not necessarily anything more. They can be fun, encapsulating a sliver of time....yet still self-limiting.

Artful Photographs... ones with merit inhabit a life that a snapshot cannot. An artful photograph is a moment that broadcasts an aesthetic, a mood, a time and place. The photograph calls you into to experience this place that has been captured in analogue or digital. Such photographs transition between a moment and timelessness.

The artful photograph is the culmination of acute observation and positioning. But there is more.

It is about perception.

It is about seeing what others don’t see and capturing that essence - that ambiance.

It is about framing the world from an angle that tells a story - old or new.

What is left out is as important as what remains.

The fullness thereof, is a mechanically rendered piece of art painted by light. The mechanization (or electronic) rendering does not take away from the art piece any more than a paintbrush, pencil or marker.

Upon completion is art.

Aesthetic.

Beauty.

Re-thinking reality,

The Groundworks

For more photos link here D'Ania Foto+

2011-12-03T22:35:00.001-06:00

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. ‘Jesus

Apologetics & Planks

Apologetics is based on the premise that we are going to be asked questions and we are able to give a forthright answer that is both respectful and humble. The axis for apologetics hinges on being asked rather than spouting answers. Moreover, the answers to be given are to come with a reverence for the person seeking answers, and a certain sense of regard of another persons viewpoint. This point too must be taken whether we give an answer verbally, or attempt to explain a particular worldview in pen. So then... is there a problem?

The internet has aided and abetted a type of drive-by shooting apologetics that buttresses quotes, soundbites and two minute analysis of persons, groups, religions, and ministries. I’ve seen more than one shrill, and undeserved posting on facebook and blogs that bill themselves as “biblical” but yet slander, stereotype, apply straw man attacks, overgeneralize and even misquote to prove their points. In these reviews of all things “unbiblical” there is typically some sort of chest thumping to explain why the “discerners” are biblical, and hold to a very high biblical authority and then in the next breath deny it by the way the apologetics is executed (ie the fruit of the spirit tends to be quite barren indeed). They intend to tell you why and how you fall short; and you better listen and come up straight and conform - or else.

If...we truly want to claim to be BIBLICAL then we ought to think biblically and apply biblical ideas to our discernment, apologetics or whatever you want to call it.

Think biblically....hmms sounds so pious. So uppity....

So then what could that mean....

Jesus says that before you can take the speck (ie analyze the problems of others, judge, discern) out of your brother’s eye, you need to investigate the plank in your own.

But why?

Jesus knows we have planks. Do you? To help our brother we first need to see clearly. True, authentic apologetics means self awareness, self analysis to cut away those bits, parts, appendages and planks that blind us to our own spiritual decrepitness. It is easy to point out the errors of everyone else.

How would that look if we were to reverse our Orwellian attacks of defense?

From “Islam is a violent religion!” how about thinking “what has my faith, and my country done on the name of violence that I need to confess, that I have often excused, or defended?” (Think our defense of current wars, or the Reformation for that matter!)

Or how about “Ministry X is teaching something false!” Instead...how about “what have I done falsely in my faith that I need to contend with that is horribly lacking, and bent?” And finally what measure of mercy can I offer? In what way can I get into the shoes of another person...understand where they are coming from before attempting to "discern," if it really is discernment at all. Perhaps it is just shooting someone else down to feel superior, smart...right. We need plank checking. Loads of it.

This of course does not negate true and proper discernment but rather builds on authentic discernment that jettisons a haughty, self-righteous and arrogant attitude that betrays those who claim to be defenders of scripture. Our starting point then is one of humility. Our trajectory for correction is not one of crushing condemnation but restoration. We have come to the realization that we too want to be restored gently, carefully and thoughtfully rather than through overzealous proclamations. Why? Because Jesus says insightfully (and biblically) “Do to others as you want them to do to you.”

Re-thinking reality
The Groundworks

what’s your name?

2011-09-05T15:27:00.014-05:00

MY NAME IS GOSSIP

I have no respect for justice.

I maim without killing. I break hearts and ruin lives.

I am cunning, malicious and gather strength with age.

The more I am quoted, the more I am believed.

I flourish at every level of society.

My victims are helpless.

They cannot protect themselves against me because I have no name and no face.

To track me down is impossible. The harder you try, the more elusive I become.

I am nobody’s friend.

Once I tarnish a reputation, it is never that same.

I topple governments and wreck marriages.

I ruin careers and cause sleepless nights, heartaches and indigestion.

I spawn suspicion and generate grief.

I make headlines and headaches.

Remember, before you repeat a story, ask yourself:

Is it true? Is it fair? Is it necessary??

If not, do not repeat it,

KEEP QUIET!

Reposted from http://brucefong.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/6238/

Stop Your Whining

2010-10-28T22:02:00.005-05:00

Many conservative Christians today act like complaining about our culture is a fruit of the Spirit. We whine about how bad things are now, and how difficult it is to follow Jesus in this decadent world. We stoop to fear-mongering about our rights and freedoms and Judeo- Christian societal norms being taken away. The church in Antioch rebukes us for our lazy, faithless, asinine attitudes. Our brothers and sisters from the past challenge us to move forward with a sense of purpose and possibility, no matter how bad we think things are – Jesus is Lord, even in our own 21st Century Antioch.

Bruxy Cavey / the Meeting House

Living by the Sword 1

2010-07-09T22:18:00.006-05:00

It is no odd thing that we still trip over the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps it is because they are not so neat a tidy. It may be that he phrases them in a way that we must wrestle, stretch our minds and prompt us from our slumber. The very teachings of Jesus attack the very core of our assumptions. To read Jesus is to be gotten “in the mind” with a mental screw driver. He is apt to play havoc with ideas, notions and ways of life. One of the most common assumptions we as evangelicals have in clinging to the kingdoms of this world is that some how the fight for freedom, democracy and our way of life - is a righteous struggle. We use the bible to endorse our worldview, suggesting that we take up arms to spread peace.

The use of violence to further the Kingdom of God (or the kingdoms of this world) is to mimic the ways of the world. Jesus demonstrated that His way was through sacrifice, humility...to the cross. We insist that we can fight for the kingdoms of this world through power, and violence. Peter used his sword in the defense of Jesus when under the cloak of darkness chief priests, captains of the temple and elders had him arrested. Jesus said to live by the sword one will also die by the sword. In other words violence has consequences; if one is engaged in violent behaviour one will also suffer the results. Better is it to suffer for doing good (without provoking violence through our own use of violence) than to bring it on under our own carelessness. If we lay claim to the name of Jesus – and promote or endorse violence we are acting in strict contradiction to his teachings. In other words we become very poor ambassadors of the one who was willing went to the cross and called us to do the same.

Some attempt to cite the exploits of David, Caleb and Joshua as a way to excuse violence within the Christian context (often used to excuse national aggression too). There appears to be at least two little understood points that go amiss. First, the kingdom was essentially a segue, or compromise set there temporarily by God. Second, King David was a political figure, Jewish and tied to land promises (i.e. Earthly kingdom). To draw analogies today that we can use to justify our earthly kingdoms is untenable, outrageous and unbiblical. If Jesus would NOT fight for His kingdom (in this way) how can we justify fighting for our own? Moreover simply to press the point Caleb and Joshua were also tied to the land promises. We have no such relationship. Moreover, we are also NOT followers of David (unless we insist on the use of violence), nor connected to temple worship. In contradistinction we are followers of Jesus. His Kingdom is not of this world, our calling is a heavenly calling (infused and imbibed with earthly kingdom responsibilities). One of the kingdom qualities we are too embody (commanded by Jesus) is to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. Jesus even goes so far as to say that to do these things that we are sons of the Father. One must ask if we don’t obey Jesus’ admonition to love our enemies….whose children are we? Indeed Jesus further states that we fool ourselves by calling Him Lord if we are NOT willing to obey what he says.

In conclusion the disciples wanted to call fire down from the sky & destroy a village! Here is how it played out “But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them...” I guess we need to ask ourselves the same question: what kind of spirit are you of? I hope gives us all something to meditate on.

Re-thinking reality

The Groundworks

2010-02-25T22:43:00.006-06:00

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions - Agent Brown (The Matrix)

A Subdued Reality

In the movie The Matrix, we have a world re-created by machines that have subdued humankind into a dream-like stupor. Those within the Matrix are subjugated and convinced that the world they perceive and everything in it IS “the world.” They live in the world without asking questions about the way it is. It is assumed that there is nothing better. There is nothing to ask if this is all there is. What IF this movie has a parallel to our world? What if..... some of us have perceived that not all is well with the Matrix?

The world in which we live teaches a narrative or story about the way we are supposed to exist. It is a plot that we abide by and live it without question. To question the story in which we inhabit by will be silenced through name calling or even labeling; the system does not like being probed or questioned. Like the Matrix, examination and inquiry with regards to the grand narrative is avoided. What is this story that we supposed to embrace?

We have a plot that we expected to abide by, that our world embraces in diverse forms; power, money and sex. We may know them as idols or as the Gods of Zeus-Mars (power-war), Mammon (money) and Aphrodite (sex). These are the shrines we honour within the story we find ourselves. Our society builds cathedrals of power & consumerism (office towers/malls) to these gods. In symbiosis with Zeus, we are encouraged to embrace Mammon. Mammon says that we need to acquire and horde wealth, hold it tightly and consume. Consuming brings worth and meaning. Worship of these two powers comes through repetitive attendance at shopping malls, acquiring & wearing of brands marketed to us through sophisticated media. Many suffer in other parts of the world though toil and economic degradation so that Mammon can be appeased and enforced through Mars. Aphrodite is used to market the stuff we consume. Where Zeus and Mammon cannot fulfill, Aphrodite offers temporary relief. Logos that we embrace, and identify with are like a corporate denominational affiliation. Our brand becomes our religious identity interconnected with the three gods of our Matrix. The corporation behind the branding expects unlimited growth; the cost of which may be a dead planet. They promise infinity within a finite world. However, this is offset because we believe that by NOT acquiring we are less; therefore deprived, and by default live a shallow existence without. More is better. Our life and its pleasures are derived from feeding at the trough of these gods. We want more, regardless of need.

Zeus and Mammon always feel threatened; they are paranoid gods. They teach us that through power, they can enforce goodness, peace and promote the best possible ideas and views - typically through various marketing schemes, government thoughtspeak. The idols set the boundaries how our discussions. We cannot waiver from the controlled dialogue without fearing a label or being censored. When the idols of power and money are threatened we invoke Mars to do our bidding; violence and bloodshed are acceptable methods to enforce Zeus and Mammon. The powerless are not allowed to acquire power, and what they have is taken away through deception & propaganda. Zeus refuses to be challenged and basks in power and aggression. Its adherence glory in it. When Mammon is challenged it invokes Mars. Mars, wages deception, turns friends into enemies to protect earthly kingdoms in the name of nationalism, capitalism, communism, democracy and peace. Mars lulls us into militarism and barbarity in the guise of peace and security. We serve him well.

This is the narrative of our world. We live it, imbibe it, justify it and religious conservatives & liberals write various apologetics treatises to support it. What IF like the Matrix there were agents at work to pierce through our Matrix and present a story line that contradicts this worldview in every way? That is, a narrative that inverts, flips and exposes these gods as empty?

There IS an agent at work. Are you prepared to ask questions?

The Groundworks

2010-01-31T20:14:00.008-06:00

“Welcome to the real world.” Morpheus

Reality - Closer to the Truth

In a previous posting I suggested that the movie The Matrix was a metaphor for a way of seeing. Seeing is more than the ability to use our optical sense to view our surroundings. It is about perception, understanding and discovery. It is akin to the New Testament reference to being “born again” or “born anew” - to see life, and to live it out entirely different from the past. This way of seeing is to discern something different. Some cannot perceive, they do not wish to see, others are unable. Still others cannot quite get their head around the notion that there is MORE. Finally, there is always a remnant, a small number who ask the hard questions; they seek or wait to receive. They sense that there is something more, that ultimate truth resides somewhere. By such endeavours it is to ask questions about God and ultimate reality. It is a discovery of the real world.

There are many methods of attempting to prove the existence of God. Is this seeing? We come up with myriads of ways of “proving God” or showing that the universe was created by God. Conversely we can come up with numerous ways to undo what others attempt to prove. I think though it boils down to our posture. An ancient proverb once stated “A fool says in his heart there is no God.” Therefore, depending on our standpoint we either say or recognize the presence of God or we don’t. Its a way of seeing, rather than a series of proofs that bend our intellect this way or that way. To me proving that God exists makes as much sense as using a scientific formula or a series of logical statements to assert that my mother loves me. We are attempting to use abstracts and pointers to show that something is real. But I don’t think it works that way. Depending on our standpoint or frame of mind we will either see it or not; it is not an intellectual thing. For those who have “eyes to see” they will see it.

Switching gears...

For those who see it.... we must admit that God is the pivotal source; and therefore infers ultimate reality. Certainty and absolutes as much as moderns want to grasp hold of such things do not ultimately exist outside of the being of God. No, I’m not declaring, nor attempting to quietly insert relativism into this conversation. All that can be grasped, explained or understood can only be completely (ie entirely accurate without error) known by the very being in whose essence created all. Therefore, complete knowledge, absolute knowledge lies with God and God alone. When we speak of absolutes and certainty we must be careful applying humility and caution since we begin to tread within the realm of God - ie to speak on His terms as if claiming His insight. Therefore, we can only have partial knowledge of certain things at best- language, culture, perception and intellect are all limiting factors to our understanding of spiritual things - in fact all things.

Finally, we are limited to understanding God from our four dimensional universe (maybe more according to string theory!) It would appear that in the heavens (whatever or wherever that is) is where God exists as himself. When we pray, according to an ancient book called Hebrews, we can approach this God in some strange, baffling way. We enter into another dimension - into a reality far more real than we can fathom. We may not know it, but we may enter the “real” in prayer more so than the world we now experience in everyday life (unfortunately not tangible, viewable or explainable). Wherever that dimension is, in essence is the centre of the THE universe only because where God is (even though he is non-local) is the axis point of all. The fundamental of whatever “real” is somehow (I think) governed by our closeness to God (and how God must be revealed) rather than the basic properties of the universe. But what if the essence of what is real, what is most important could be brought to us?

Truth and reality have a strange way of getting personal....stay tuned.

Re-thinking reality

The Groundworks

2010-01-11T22:30:00.009-06:00

Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. Morpheus (The Matrix)

You Have to See For Yourself....

The 1999 movie The Matrix is in essence a sci-fi drama about the nature of reality. Trying to define reality can be difficult! Fundamentally I believe this movie is about learning to see; and a choice as to whether indeed we want to perceive. Seeing undoubtedly came with cost. The point is that those in the Matrix are in the dark.

For those who have not seen the movie, The Matrix is a sophisticated computer simulation where human beings unknowingly spend their entire lives in the system. From the time they are born and die, they live in a world that appears every bit as real, but it is simply a replication of the concrete world. Every sight, sensation, taste and touch is not real….it only feels that way. In the movie "missionaries" were sent into The Matrix to provide opportunities for certain people to “see.”

The journey into The Matrix was not an easy one and fraught with danger. You see there were agents and sleeper agents whose job it was to stop anyone from The Matrix way of life. Generally, if one submitted to the status quo, lived their lives without asking questions they were left unharmed, unscathed, unbothered. Anyone trying to awake those “asleep” in The Matrix would find their mortal lives in grave danger; and mercilessly destroyed. Of course those on their way out of the Matrix were in equal jeopardy. Moreover, those who could now “see” were both enlightened and burdened by their new perspective, reality and way of being. By default now they knew all was not right with The Matrix.

So it is with our lives. We go day to day assuming all is okay often not giving thought to the greater picture. We are encouraged to accumulate goods and amass wealth to amuse ourselves into a restless stupor. We are kept busy. We are encouraged to climb the corporate ladder. We seek religion to satisfy what employment and family cannot; our spiritual hunger and thirst. We worry, strive, and stress. Our lives are repetitive, our bodies break down. We are trapped in The Matrix.

What would your take be if there was a way through this (not out!)? I don’t mean to say that you can leave this “Matrix” but if you were given the ability and tools to see the world around us – as it is. The world around you and I would have a different meaning. Would you receive it?

There IS a way to see….please join me again.

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

Wisdom - Grasping a Glimpse of Reality

2009-11-30T15:19:00.009-06:00

There are many qualities that culture desires; but wisdom strangely does not make the top of the list. We desire courage, happiness, success, status among other things but I’m not necessarily inclined to think culture aspires for wisdom. Those that have it do not boast in it, rather mine it, live it, delight in it and I think are often misunderstood. It is embedded in the words spoken and the life lead.

If I had to distill the word into its very essence, I would describe the quality of wisdom as the wise use of knowledge. The ancient Jews spoke of wisdom often in the Hebrew Scriptures. The starting point for knowledge begins with the acknowledgement and reverence for something that is greater than us and at work in the world; some would reference this as God, creator or super-mind. Faithful Jews would assuredly refer to the substance of this source as linked to and emanating from the living G_D.

Wisdom though cannot be birthed by itself, but must begin to imbibe other qualities. Wisdom that is not coupled with humility is anything but wisdom – it is a form of arrogant knowledge. Understanding without the application of humility is grotesque. It seeks to self aggrandize, indeed to embarrass others out of the need to flaunt knowledge. A person who lacks wisdom resists pointing the finger at himself (or his group/tribe), all the while freely using it to point out the fault of others. Think back to our teenage years when we “knew everything”; consider what you know now! Did I catch you smiling or laughing to yourself?

Humility must always piggyback wisdom. In contrast, one can be humble and have little wisdom; conversely one can have great knowledge and little humility. The quality of meekness provides the possibility of growing in fruitful understanding – they are teachable. Growing in knowledge however should not be equated with wisdom. One can possess facts, figures and data and still apply them erroneously, or mistakenly. Moreover, facts, figures etc is NOT the kind of knowledge we seek to grow in in the first place! That is merely information. We moderns love information! Indeed knowledge in the wrong hands can cause division and quarrels. Pride will stumble and blind us to those things that really matter. Arrogance breeds hypocrisy and dissension. As long as self-importance keeps us in the driver’s seat (ie I want to be right) our gaze will never reach beyond the horizon; our eyes will always be ever reflecting back on ourselves. Conceit will short change ourselves by not allowing us to see beyond our point of view. We will have set ourselves in the wrong direction. Having built a foundation on the wrong type of knowledge, we will have therefore limited our minds to a small world, with smaller ideas. The knowledge I speak of here is personal rather than bare facts. Fear, speculation and alienation will emerged out of the wrong kind of knowledge...bearing little wisdom. Barren knowledge cannot replace wisdom.

When we choose wisdom it is hard work, it is the hard way. It is to realize we have much to learn and God may take us to diverse people to disciple us. Wisdom is not immediate, but something we must ask for and pursue as if we are digging for a pearl of indescribable worth. Wisdom is that step to something deeper, something outside of us that can never be fully plumbed. It is to see reality different than today.

Stay tuned….it is worth going deeper.

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

Posting

2009-11-16T20:12:00.001-06:00

Posts are slow...but they are coming!

Reality – A Challenge

2009-09-29T22:30:00.006-05:00

It has been a great and difficult challenge to ascertain the “what of reality.” My ability to write on the subject has stunted my attempts to blog weekly. Still I do not shy away from the subject, yet remain humbled by the complex task to explain it. I may eventually divert attention to another subject, and as I read and explore ideas of others on the subject come back to it at a later time.

Nevertheless, as I try to understand the nature of what all that is, I realize that it can only be immediately measured by my own perception. My 5 senses are both freeing (they allow me to experience a slice of reality) and yet enslaving (I am freed by these senses and still yet ruled and limited by them.) All that I see is encumbered by my fixed ability to see in a particular wavelength. I cannot readily observe radio or infrared without instruments.

My sense of touch is hampered by the limited clusters of nerves at the ends of my fingers. Moreover, I cannot grasp objects of absolute zero or intense heat that would render these instruments of sensation damaged. Even while my 5 sense allow me to move, act, function and so on my perspective of reality again is limited to my geographic location both locally here in Canada, and the greater viewpoint of being on the third planet of an average star on the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy. My sense of place in Canada is quite limited, and infinitely more so my place in the universe.

Language is one particular way to explain and convey our world (collecting what we have experienced using our five senses) using sounds and symbols to represent ideas, objects and thoughts. Language is a method to convey what we know of our universe and to share our commonalities, questions and observations. Still language has boundaries and each human language provides differing insights into the universe but still we are limited by a finite number of sound symbols and ways that use them…we cannot go beyond them.

As I think on this I ponder the folks who trudge their way through life – not thinking much beyond themselves or the sports or the entertainment that keeps them (me) preoccupied and far from engaging such thoughts. Indeed, our distractions and current obsessions can limit, and arrest our ability to ponder such things. Again, these can be serious factors that imperil our imaginations, our wonder and ability to think beyond ourselves and to imagine more than our little world. I fear though that not many do so.

I wonder too, what goes on in the minds of other people? Are they experiencing thoughts, sensations, and ideas that same way that I do – or are they understanding in a different way? My assumption is that we do share similarities at least in sensation, but our thoughts (while focusing of different things) mechanically operate the same way but differ in how each of us stretch our minds.

It is this limiting factor, that no matter how sophisticated our instruments, bodies or minds become they are still in some way a barrier to reality; we cannot transcend them. We have to admit our limitations and hope for a better way.

More to come....

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

Reality and Coherence

2009-09-07T17:52:00.004-05:00

When defining reality all sorts of things may be flittering through our minds as we conjure what it is, its not an easy subject! While pondering the universe it does not seem apparent that something like coherence would be one of those things that come to thought. Perhaps topics such as the fabric of the universe, the stuff it is made of, age, size or something else….but probably not coherence.

Coherence appears to be built into our universe. It is that mechanism, a logic system interwoven into the universe. In order to understand the universe it must be understandable in the first place - a given. Incidentally not only this but it seems to necessitate creatures to understand it to complete the circle of reason. It is as IF it is one of the basics for the fabric of the universe. Therefore, no consistency no longstanding reality, it would likely collapse or simply not exist. No of us would be present at the time being.

A universe that was logical or consistent can allow itself time to birth creatures that can comprehend it. Conversely, one that is unreasonable would reasonably not exist, at least not for long. The question is what would drive the universe to consistency? Or why is it reasonable? Experiments that are repeated reveal that the world we live in is testable, quantifiable, measurable… it makes sense. Of course we should argue that the universe is MORE than what we can measure…but that is for another posting.

Therefore, we have a universe where we can contemplate it. Parameters for this universe allow us to reason, deduce, observe and ponder. We have a universe where there are systems, and repetitions, in other words rhythms and cycles that are ongoing; it’s predictable at least in some sense. It is as if the universe has been governed or programmed in a certain way to act, respond to perpetuate itself. Moreover, we in kind set forth (for better or worse) to seek to be reasonable and to think…..we are the responders. We are in a sense mimicking the universe from which we come. Here I am converting my thoughts into words and transposing them through the keyboard. Whereupon these ideas are converted to binary code and placed on an information network where it is decoded (ie read) and pondered by you. Things make sense both at the grand scale, even down to my little world as I interact with my PC. The point is generally we can make some sense of the universe.

The universe is almost crying out with logic, reason and cause. To say “it’s just the way it is,” is simply not a good answer. It is to sidestep the hard questions by throwing up your hands. Such a world provokes only more wonder, questions….and seems to suggest MIND, or MIND behind such a thing.

Just pondering…and re-thinking reality

The Groundworks

Reality and Skepticism

2009-08-04T11:13:00.005-05:00

When we are attempting to discern reality we are in effect trying to decide what is real and what is not. We can ask ourselves how we know whether we are dreaming, or experiencing an illusion. At some point skepticism must give way to belief. One who is skeptical of everything must have a basis for what she is skeptical of. In other words even the person who distrusts must rest their beliefs on something real, something they trust in order to disbelieve. Therefore, to deny something one must also affirm what they believe in order reject that other thing. To refute all things as if to be completely doubtful would to reduce language and thought to meaninglessness – even my words in digital form would in essence be pointless.

Here is an example of skepticism that must premise itself on some beliefs.

Example 1 “Ships from another planet do not visit earth.”

In order for the skeptic to believe that such a thing does not exist believes that other things do exist in order to assert their assumption. The skeptic can affirm that Earth and other planets exist. It is not that other planets do not exist, but that they do exist, and even be inhabitable but their inhabitants do not visit our orb. Indeed, the doubter can avow that spaceships do exist, and that space travel is possible; in this case she doubts any travel outside the human race or interstellar travel.

Example 2 “God does not exist.”

The skeptic here may choose to believe that God does not exist based on a set of…beliefs. But their belief is based on belief just as a non-skeptic believes in God. The skeptic may believe that the evidence of the universe appears to be naturalistic. A quantum vacuum, chance and given enough time have given way to a very complicated universe and it just so happens that a very intelligent race of beings are lucky enough to be its end result. The doubter must still premise their belief on things like a quantum vacuum, chance and time. They are indeed standing on these ideas, trusting in them to buttress their faith in an accidental universe.

The point I’m attempting to make here is that it is not just one kind of person or persons that have to have faith. We all ALL have faith, trust or belief. It is simply a matter of what will we rest our faith on.

Reality…First Thoughts

2009-04-13T19:47:00.002-05:00

Philip K. Dick "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Reality is one of those difficult things to define which is odd simply because we swim in this “reality” our entire lives. Is reality simply what we can see, hear, taste and touch? Can scientific observation via calibrated instruments allow us to perceive a greater depth of reality?

Have you ever considered what reality is?

I have been contemplating that it and proved to be a difficult one to tackle. How does one exactly discern or define reality; all things that exist are real? Is mankind the measure of all that is real? How do we come to terms with reality?

Objective Reality can only be ascertained if the universe is intelligible. If the universe was created out of randomness and chance it should be unknowable, and therefore incoherent. One would simply not know. If the universe is disjointed than we should not be able to ask the question in the first place. Language, logic, thought, even life it would seem would simply not emerge due to this confused and disjointed universe. Yet, we are here, I’m writing this blog entry and thinking and questioning the nature of reality. This is what I would suggest is coherence (even if you think my entry does a less than stellar job of describing reality.)

If the universe is knowable it must mean that we can make sense of it. This does not suggest that it is entirely understandable but that we can know certain things. To be able to discern aspects of our universe allows us to draw conclusions about the place that we live in. In other words we have certain expectations about the world we live in; we realize that the universe behaves in a certain way. Using reason, our senses and coherence from others we can determine to a degree – reality. We have therefore first hand information or experience to describe certain events in reality.

We know that mountains exist and objects fall to the ground. There are things in the external world that are testable even if often we do not get a chance to experience them. I know that Mt. Fuji exists but I have not actually visited Japan to encounter the world famous mountain. I can test the validity of the mountain in several ways. First, I can seek out eye witnesses and they can give me an accounts and experiences (i.e. oral). Second, I can gather maps and test this information against what the witnesses have seen (i.e. mechanical description). Third, I can gather photographs of the phenomenon from a variety of sources (snap shots, aerial and space – visual representations). Fourth, I can also gather written information (personal journals, newspaper clippings, tourist pamphlets, history books) regarding the subject (i.e. written documentation). By correlating the four points of data I am certain that the mountain does exist. In other words we have an agreement regarding reality – a coherence of things. It also means that metaphors of reality can be transmitted in a variety of ways that allow us to conjure up a model of our world.

Reality therefore can be encountered, through the transmission of our senses and second hand information, given to us by different people at different times. The diverse ways of describing the world appear to drive us closer to understand reality.

Stay tuned for more since this is not the end of the story.

Re-thinking reality

The Groundworlds

Cosmology’s Theology

2009-03-15T22:39:00.001-05:00

Cottagers and campers alike, under the stars speak of the awe regarding the majestic twinkling lights. On any given night we can see approximately 3000 stars. Not many considering the milky band in the inky background of the night sky holds back some 100 billion. Compare that against the trillions of galaxies that contain billions of stars. It is no wonder that comprehending the night sky is almost a spiritual event; perhaps it should be. The complexity of the night sky is brought into focus under the radio and optical telescopes of our day. I’m still exhilarated when I view the photos given to us by the orbiting Hubble Observatory. I’m still puzzled though that the complexity of the stars, radiation, light, gravity, nuclear forces are all thought to be the result of a pointless birth from nothingness and a progression from randomness to order. As scientists comprehend and behold the universe it appears to further the idea that cosmology exhibits theology. Beginnings demand an explanation, and the universe beckons inquiry.

Asking question about the universe assumes that it is indeed understandable, observable, reasonable and rational. Therefore I think that the cosmos lends itself to being understood, as opposed to a random accident in which case it would be expected that we would know little or nothing (i.e. lack of coherence, discontinuity). In the book The Universe: From Chaos to Consciousness it notes “The universe is much more complex and profound than our finite minds can ever comprehend…The complexity of its evolution flows inevitably from its initial physical conditions and the few basic rules that govern the universe.” It is intriguing to note that the universe is governed at all (if random). But how could something so intricate, replete with laws that govern it emerges out of nothing?

Scientific observations demonstrate that it is certainly understandable (we can draw conclusions by examining our surroundings) and that it had a beginning. For instance through measurements, calculations and observation, the universe’s age can be measured at approximately 13.7 billion years. The current scientific model outlines the formation of the cosmos to 10−34 seconds old.

A universe with a beginning, places some scientists in a troubling situation, yet with a few very interesting insights.

Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and atheist commented "Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." The idea greatly disturbed him because it did not fit his world view (i.e. there is no God) “Instead of following the escalating scientific evidence he rejected it for the Steady State Theory (i.e. eternal universe). The irony is that he is the originator of the phrase “Big Bang.”

Some have formulated other theories for cosmic origins including multi-verses (i.e could it be that perhaps the alternative infers a theistic world view?) Yet this (i.e. multi-verse) simply moves the question back one – where did the multi-verse come from? Still scientists are puzzled over a universe that appears designed. Heinz Pagels, theoretical physicist is mystified that out of a void came physical laws, and second where are they written too? John Archibald Wheeler, American theoretical physicist asked "How does something arise from nothing?" Moreover Astrophysicist George Smoot commenting on radiation patterns that may mark the beginning commented "If you're religious, it's like looking at God. The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it." Commenting in Maclean's Magazine in 1992 George Smoot astrophysicist and cosmologist notes the rapid expansion of the universe starting from the Big-Bang that "God might be the designer." Again the universe appears to be both rational, coherent and with a master-mind behind it all…even if the ‘starting point’ was from nothing. Paul Davies physicist, writer and broadcaster comments "By this, I do not mean that there was a state of nothingness, pregnant with creative power. There was nothing before the Big Bang because there was no such epoch as "before." As Stephen Hawking has remarked, asking what happened before the Big Bang is rather like asking what lies north of the North Pole."

Paul Davies further comments "Can science give any credibility to such a notion? Mostly, scientists either are atheists or keep God in a separate mental compartment. However, there is a strong parallel in the scientific concept of the laws of nature. Like the theologians' God, these laws enjoy an abstract, timeless existence and are capable of bringing the universe into being from nothing." He also makes a point that the argument is best furthered by examining the laws of nature, rather than origins!

Leaving the door open to a super-mind, intelligence or a God does not in any way hinder cosmology (or science in general); one does not have to invoke a particular religion, God or dogma. Instead it allows science to pursue the question of origins with a mind open to all possibilities (i.e. there could be a mind, divine being or a God) rather than simply being straight jacketed by naturalism (i.e. supernatural beings etc do not exist). Science still must pursue explanations of the mechanics of the universe even if an extra-cosmic mind is hinted at or discovered. If the evidence leans to a designed universe (which I think it does) than scientists should be able to speak freely on those terms. I think that more scientists will speak out just as some have.

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

2009-02-28T10:54:00.006-06:00

Check out this thought provoking interview - Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford on the topic "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

"When we think of why there is anything....There is nothing more astonishing...nothing!.. then there is something...that nothing would have been the the most logical possibility....where do we go from here?"

Planets and stars size in scale

2009-02-27T22:56:00.000-06:00

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2009-02-23T22:00:00.011-06:00

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein is a 2008 documentary on Intelligent Design (ID). The movie website suggests that “The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.”

Why the documentary? The issue at hand is academic freedom “The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution.” Ben Stein using his dry humour and wit interviews several scientists and philosophers including Dawkins on competing worldviews. In addition, he interviews a few scientists who have lost positions for either assenting to Intelligent Design, or simply through inference in their studies and research. The controversy is over the fact that Neo-Darwinian theory is the only game in town - and according to this documentary will allow no competing world views.

I found it striking that America, being one of the most religious countries in the world appealed to a government sanctioned and entrenched scientific theory that strictly ruled out a purposeful, directed worldview. It appears that Europe (although normally more secular) was at least more open to these types of scientific questions. As a word of caution, the documentary spent a little too much time covering the Holocaust and its relationship with Evolutionary theory. I think it would have been better to avoid an appeal to emotion, and over emphasis on that connection. I think Stein could have better used his time on an additional interview or two.

Still, the documentary is worth your while as you wade into the Intelligent Design Controversy.

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

Design in the Details: A Look at the Miller Experiment

2009-02-15T22:51:00.002-06:00

Science and scientific investigation is and should be a vital endeavour in the human pursuit of truth. Without it, we would not have the life saving medical procedures, the ability to explore other planets or even view the Lilliputian world of atoms and molecules. Asking questions is an instrumental aspect of science that is crucial to how we think and perceive the world. How we think about the world (i.e. preconceived notions or worldview) will affect our reading of experiments. The Miller Experiment produced half a century ago is something I want to revisit.

I would like to point out that though I am not a creationist per se I am open to a variety of view points when it comes to origins. I have for some time leaned towards a long “creation” time period (i.e. billions of years.) It does not mean that I am not open to alternative points of view. As a matter of fact, I did at one point in time hold onto a more naturalistic world view at an earlier point in time. While in university I began to question and think about some of the ideas that were being planted in my head.

In the 1950’s a few scientists began some rather interesting experiments to demonstrate chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is the production of complex molecules from simpler ones in the presence of an energy source….During these experiments scientists demonstrated through experiments key biological molecules such as amino acids and nucleic acids have been formed (The Universe: From Chaos to Consciousness p342).

First, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey combined several chemicals (including water) in a sterilized glass container and exposed these materials to electricity (spark discharge). Upon analyzing the experiment they discovered important organic molecules.

Second, the experiments were repeated numerous times using other initial conditions (ibid. p 342), producing more compounds.

Third, several biological molecules have been produced via experiments whereby the building blocks are dried and heated (they link up forming long chains similar to the most complex biological molecules) (ibid. p342).

The book states “We do not know that either of these specific mechanisms brought about life on earth. The importance of these experiments is not that they tell us exactly how life arose but that they demonstrate the tendency of chemical evolution to produce cell-like structures. We may never know exactly how nature accomplished the transition from chemical to biological evolution, but the experimental evidence that this transition represents a natural development is compelling.”

Is this compelling or misleading?

The experiments did NOT create life, just cell-like structures. Moreover, Few textbooks acknowledge that most scientists now consider Miller’s experiments to be flawed (Dr. Hugh Ross, Nancy R. Pearcey).

Note that the experiments scientists combined (i.e. mixed, added) chemicals in sterilized containers, and then they provided an electric charge. This smells like design! Charles Colson comments “But all the Urey-Miller experiment really demonstrated was that an atmosphere designed for life could be carefully guided to produce one of life’s building blocks. In other words, while attempting to verify evolution by unguided, materialistic means, Urey and Miller merely confirmed the need for an intelligent agent to create and control the conditions necessary for life.”

In other words the experiments were manipulated, and adjusted to produce cell-like structures, overseen by scientists. The end result was to produce an environment intended for life….but we can’t call that intelligently designed?

If educated, knowledgeable scientists could produce only cell-like structures (but not the real thing) how can we suppose that nature could produce life out of randomness and happenstance?

Is it any wonder that in his book Why Darwinism is Doomed, Jonathan Wells, notes “A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think? “

Re-thinking reality

The Groundworks

Inferences from an Intelligible Universe

2009-02-09T15:30:00.002-06:00

Naturalists would argue that the universe is not designed at all rather it only appears that way. The argument is that over long periods of time (ie billions of years), things can naturally coalesce (given enough time they assume that probability is on our side) in such a way to give the illusion of design. Random and blind, the universe unfolds into things that only appear designed. Through the use of carefully calibrated instruments we observe certain things about the universe and draw conclusions from it. Del Ratzsch notes in his book The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspectives that “it is has been historically assumed that nature is understandable. Were there no prospect of understanding nature, we would have les motivation to study it. This faith in the intelligibility of reality goes back at least to ancient Greek thinkers.” An intelligible universe infers certain things about it.

Some cosmologists have argued that the universe has not been around long enough to produce anything (argument is that we require quadrillions of years or more to evolve into intelligent beings). Overall, most cosmologists have fixed the age of the universe at around 13 billion years (give or take a few hundred million years). Scientists have a sense that the universe emerged from an almost infinitely dense point. It still does not answer where all the stuff in the universe came from or why it is so highly ordered.

Cosmologists observe that the universe moved from infinite density to highly structured and ordered one. Biologists suggest at some point the universe gave way to life giving organisms. Rules to govern the order at some point must have been written into the fabric of the universe to provide such sophistication. Even still, the magnitude of complexity between inanimate order and a life giving one are vastly different. Without these instruction sets order and life could not manifest. It is as if a base code or program was weaved into the universe to govern its operation. Without an intelligible base code, we at the other end of the universal spectrum could not decipher the universe whatsoever; we would not exist since the universe would obey no laws producing no purposeful byproducts.

What if the universe is blind and without purpose? One would presume that it would offer no viable function, nor would it be understandable. We could not even devise a set of questions to ask about these questions. This of course would suggest that it is unintelligible which appears to be nonsensical. Just the fact that we observe the universe and think about it suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye.

Here is an analogy of a blind / random universe that produces an observable one.

"Cars are a result of random, blind processes. We know this because car factories blasted into existence some 13 billion years ago. While we understand that factories have no intent, they have produced cars (jeeps, mini-bikes, motorbikes, trains) for a very long time. We understand the intricacies of vehicles, while they appear designed; it is only a metaphor and a result of blind chance. We will eventually explain how the factories came to being and produced cars. It is apparent though that given enough time cars would simply evolve."

Would you accept the following at face value if someone explained the following to you?

Would it not suffice to say that a mind was behind the building of the factories, and that science will allow us a way of explaining the process? Note that there are no God-in-the-gaps thrust into the argument. Science is the vehicle in which we peruse the investigation and set up our models of the universe. Wings, feet, eyes, fingers, feathers, ears etc all are endowed with function and purpose. We all intuitively know that they serve a task. If they appear that way, I do not think it is by accident – it is simply that we recognize that they serve in the survivability of a creature. Science serves to explain the mechanics while God is simply the ultimate source.

If science is based on observation, we have to trust that what we observe is valid, true and sensible until we can prove it is otherwise. If it is not, then we can not know anything since our knowing is undermined by a blind universe; we ourselves are blinded too. We might as well be in the Matrix. I highly doubt that human kind will become masters of the universe, yet the universe is there for us to grapple with and make some attempts at trying to understand it.

I have a better idea in mind. Before the physical universe existed, by its very nature an Intelligent Being (ie God, Intelligent Mind) existed. The universe had a purposeful, intentional beginning. Some would refer to this as the Big Bang. An intelligent being purposefully created an information rich, structured, and highly ordered universe governed by laws to be understood and discerned. It has the appearance that it was designed because it IS designed. The universe is open to investigation by beings fashioned with intelligence, wonder and creativity to discover it. Therefore, let the mysteries of the universe unfold…and let science discover and explain them.

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

A Creative Universe – Intelligence Applied

2009-02-02T17:23:00.001-06:00

Creativity is the process of being imaginative, inventive and visionary. Creativity suggests intent and purpose. A child is creative in the sense that they often recreate what they observe and add through their fresh imaginations. As adults our creativity is often at odds with childhood; our thoughts are sometimes hedged in by what we believe to be realistic and possible. Thankfully, there are still adults that are quite visionary and therefore offer up solutions and ideas that once we thought were impossible. While observing the world around us it strikes me that the universe also offers up striking creativity. Indeed, universe appears to lends itself to three types of creativity. I think though that if one assumes the universe is here by accident that this creativity is simply hard to explain.

First, the natural universe is strikingly complex, governed by laws and astoundingly beautiful. The universe has a natural creativity, look no further than the billions of animal species on Earth. Moreover, the flowers, plants and trees also have an amazing aesthetic as if this beauty had some form of intent. A view of the Milky Way Galaxy at night is hauntingly beautiful and exotic. All the while everything is made up of highly ordered atoms and molecules that dictate whether something is a tree or a star. Each plant, animal, star, molecule and element has a distinct function and place in the universe.

Second, the cosmos lends itself to human ingenuity. Strange that an unintelligent universe would provide just the right materials to allow us to build computers, space ships, tools, automobiles, hammers, radios, nails, cabinets and sky scrapers. The universe appears to be built in a precise way to allow us to formulate a myriad of inventions and creations.

Third, as human beings we have a sense of wonderment, an extension of our creativity. No greater example of awe can be made other than a child experiencing first hand new things each day. If it is assumed we are simply the result of natural processes, at what point did we become self aware; and why? Why would we be awe inspired when we observe this universe? What drives us to worship? Why do we intuitively perceive that there is something out there greater than ourselves? What particles were rearranged to give us a consciousness, conscience, awareness and a sense that there is someone behind the universe? We paint, sculpt, draw, sketch as a result of our wonderment of the universe. Surely, this does not make sense in any sort of blind evolutionary process.

Randomness does not explain the universe. Chance does not elucidate why we can intelligently survey our world, or better yet be conscious of it in the first place. We must contend with the position that chance does to seem to explain why the universe provides for creativity. It is as if the stuff on planet Earth is bursting forth with almost unlimited potential. Who knows that other planets have to offer? The reality is that we can observe, create, think and ask questions. We can build machinery and things only limited by our imaginations; and use these tools to further our observations about the universe. It simply seems unreasonable to assume that this is all by accident.

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

An Intelligible Universe

2009-01-28T19:46:00.005-06:00

The distant possibility of an intelligent being that created the universe according to the materialist’s mindset must be discounted. There can be NO room for any type of intelligent mind in science; or for any being that tinkered with the universe. It is argued that to have a mind behind the universe is to fill it in with the “God of the gaps.” In other words, every time science is up against a scientific riddle we insert God to answer the question, robbing science of the will to further investigate. Not so.

ID is not implying that one should shunt an intelligent mind in where we have that which is unexplained, baffling or mysterious. Instead, it is argued that ID is simply a way of explaining the intricacy of the universe period. Science therefore would recognize intelligence behind the universe, but seek to explain cause in a scientific way. Yet, regardless of the complexity of stars and planets or the intricacies of cell life, design is not possible according to materialists. There is NO room at all for any mind, being, person, or intelligence that gave us the universe and its laws.

Follow the logic. The universe may appear to be designed but it all remains a figment of your imagination. Complex systems have only the appearance of intention. The naturalist assumption of the ‘creation’ of the universe goes something like this: Out of nothing, by accident, and by sheer chance the universe began. Blindly, without purpose or intent, it suddenly gave way to a highly ordered, structured, information rich universe.

The random universe, by astounding probability, without purpose, or plan produced human beings. We are a result of a great accident. Therefore there are no miracles, no afterlife, no supernatural, no God. Nothing exists outside of the natural universe. We are accidents that strangely understand the universe. Seem rational?

The question itself should be ABSURD if the universe is random, and purposeless. How can we begin to question if the universe is by its very nature unintelligible. Yet, we know intuitively that an unintelligent universe would NOT give way to intelligence. Only something intelligent can give the basis of intelligence. Humans can think about the universe precisely because there is order and consistency (because there is an order and consistency giver). We would expect the opposite in a universe that has produced accidents.

Re-thinking reality

The Groundworks

By The Numbers...

2009-01-16T12:56:00.003-06:00

GAZA

Population: 1.5 million

Refugees: 1.017 million

Total without water 500,000

Unemployment rate: 35%

Number of Israeli battletanks: 970

Number of warplanes: 875

Number of military helicopters: 286

Number killed since Israeli invasion: 940

Number of civilians wounded: 4,100

Number of rockets fired by Hamas into Israel: 565

Number of Israelis killed since 2000 by Hamas rockets and mortars: 38

Sources: CIA world Factbook, UN, Israeli Defence Force

Converse Not Edit…

2009-01-11T16:36:00.000-06:00

Most people are talkative. Some people seldom stop talking! Why is it then that our flow of speech so quickly dries up when our conversation drifts to religion? John Stott

Converse Not Edit…

Some people are rather peculiar especially when they come in contact with spiritual themes. They talk in general terms, never deep, by no means probing too far. The minute a topic of spiritual nature peaks its little head into the conversation; one of two things take place - glazed look and uncomfortable silence or “I never talk about religion.” This whole practice baffles me. Why is the topic of religious things so frightening that a grown man or woman coasts into silence or shuts a conversation down in a mumble of words?

Human beings are spiritual creatures at heart and therefore there is a great need to explore the things that we would deem divine. To deny that part of our humanity is to simply contradict who we are. Modernism, in its intent to analyze, measure, and place everything on a scale has forced religion into a box where it is marginalized and people are scared or embarrassed to talk about it in public. In an age that now considers it Post-Modern things are changing but still some hurdles persist. There are at least a few barriers that come to mind that give support to shutting down conversation.

Preconceived notions or bad experiences can have a powerful effect on any person. For instance, perhaps an over zealous Christian has tried to force his or her views at an in opportune moment. Maybe they have been cornered more than once; speaking relentlessly until the point is accepted. The topic is never dropped, and as a result we cringe every time that a person appears. It could be that a Jehovah’s Witness (not to be misconstrued with a Christian / follower of Jesus) who keeps appearing at your door step every Saturday morning. Perhaps they have been put off by the overexposure of a New Ager with rather weird behaviour and uncritical thinking. Conceivably the only exposure to religion is what has been gleaned from TV (heaven help you!)

If one has already had dire experiences from a religious discussion, it will likely be pre-empted with a few ideas already lodged in mind. Perchance the following are familiar? Here it goes again…”I will be talked to but not listened to. I’m a project to be conquered and won over (no thanks!)” Following this pattern, no doubt they do not want to be embarrassed and therefore avoid the whole thing.

Another possibility is the nominal Christian. The person goes to church almost every Sunday but their spiritual convictions do not lend themselves outside the doors of a worship service. The outlandish thought of speaking about or pondering deep spiritual issues does not cross their mind. Anything to do with that is for religious zealots. Spiritual duty is summed up in going to a service on the weekend. Their sense of “religiousness” takes them less than ninety minutes a week to complete. Towing the party line through Sunday observance is the limit to any spiritual exercise. Strange the many who claim to be part of the church speak so little of its founder among those who claim membership.

Of course there may be other reasons that the nominal Christian remains on the sidelines. Either out of disinterest, fear (maybe meeting one too many obnoxious religious people) or dearth of spiritual nourishment they do not know where to start. Indeed it could be simple unwillingness. Conceivably they are afraid that their worldview will be tested and shown to be lacking. They may simply have difficulty in framing their questions – or have already dealt with someone who was arrogant in how they answered. Conversely, they may need that right person to give them a push in the right direction. Therefore, any unknown territory is now off limits.

This brings us to the third possibility; that one may not know how to begin thinking about the BIG QUESTIONS. Maybe the questions are too painful; change is never easy. The questions themselves are scary. They BIG QUESTIONS make us squeamish – we face the reality that we will die some day.

To ask a question, forces us to think. Thinking requires effort and effort may result in change. Many of us including myself dislike change. Nevertheless we should ask questions. Here are a few pointers to build on that - There are three points that all humans must wrestle with; where did I come from (origins/creation), who am I now (purpose), and where am I going (life after death). Contemplating these questions can be a tough thing; but they matter. Therefore we should never shy away from asking them.

So in any event I believe that it comes down to only a handful of possibilities for shutting down conversation. But to do so is to force a large part of WHO we are OUT of our lives. To avoid speaking about spiritual matters is like a person who avoids meal times at all costs in case he or she runs into someone else who may not like our opinion about food. Let us not starve ourselves in matters of spirit.….so instead, keep the conversation going – let’s talk!

Re-thinking Reality

The Groundworks

Military Hoping Chat Bots Will Replace Deployed Parents

2009-01-07T23:03:00.002-06:00

A segue from my writing....here is something a bit disturbing...

In a solicitation for proposals posted on the department's Small Business Innovation Research Web site, the military says it's seeking to "develop a highly interactive PC- or Web-based application to allow family members to verbally interact with 'virtual' renditions of deployed Service Members."

"The child should be able to have a simulated conversation with a parent about generic, everyday topics," the solicitation says. "For instance, a child may get a response from saying, 'I love you,' or 'I miss you,' or 'Good night mommy/daddy.' This is a technologically challenging application because it relies on the ability to have convincing voice-recognition, artificial intelligence, and the ability to easily and inexpensively develop a customized application tailored to a specific parent."

for more: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212700457

There Is More to This World…

2009-01-02T12:05:00.001-06:00

I was out for breakfast with a friend the other day. In our discussion, he motioned with his hands as they spread out over the table "this is what we don't know," closing his fingers till then almost touched he said, "This is what we do know."

There is more to this world than meets the mind. I believe that there are huge gaps in human understanding and because they do not fit the scientific worldview, they remain unstudied. The worldview that is embraced by science is a rather small one, it is "inside the box" and known as naturalism. Naturalism by its very nature insists that the supernatural cannot exist. God, the divine, ghosts cannot possibly exist. The only thing that does is what we detect with our senses or calibrated instruments. By extension naturalism and atheism go hand in hand. In the Medieval period people would study a painting for truth; with no concept of observing things like ants. In modern times we observe ants for science, and study paintings not for truth but technique. Science cannot ascertain the quality of an aesthetic, only the quantity and types of the paint used. Therefore both world views need to meet to have a more realistic view of the world.

Deborah Blum in an article in the LA Times commented "Despite a spike in curiosity of the supernatural, science has abandoned any meaningful experiments." The question is why? Are scientists afraid that naturalism may be turned on its head? I think so. If experiments began to point in a direction other than "in the box" and suggested that there is a world out there brimming with new possibilities (ie God, supernatural), science would have to reexamine itself (maybe even reinvent itself). New questions would arise, theories overturned and worldviews would crumble. Here I believe is the problem, naturalism that guides science may be unyielding in its parameters. The very guideposts that help explore and ask questions about our world may at the same time blind us to the possibility that there is something more. The very people who are called to investigate and study the intricacies of the universe have narrowed their vision. Things can't be simply because they believe they can't be. That is not science; that is merely belief. The 16th-17th Century Roman Catholic Church was not so different. They thought they had things figured out theologically.

Two people helped blow the hinges off the status-quo of cherished conventional truths. First, the scientist Galileo challenged the churches geocentric view of the universe. In addition, a German monk named Luther blew fresh winds of change through the European world. If salvation for Christians does not depend on the Roman church, then too perhaps we will find at some point in time that science will no longer rely on the crutches of naturalism. It is my hope that we will produce scientists that will hold onto the parts of modernism that are beneficial, but also move beyond it. As long as a naturalistic worldview remains a stranglehold I believe that science will remain hamstrung and stifled.

As a friend once commented “human nature seeks to find single answers that can explain everything. If they don't explain a phenomenon, then the latter is ignored in favor of sticking with the single answer which is safe, comforting, and reliable in an uncertain world. We all do this, myself included; it seems to be an ingrained aesthetic…. Seeking a single answer makes you reject other answers...”

We may in danger of seeking lone answers to questions that may require multiple responses. By trying to shoe-horn the universe into a single unified explanation we might just be missing the bigger picture. We need to admit our theology falls short, our science too. Humility may be the missing variable in many of our assumptions and assertions…but if applied it may aid in bridging many gaps.

Rethinking Reality

The Groundworks

A year of stupidity, from inane to insane

2008-12-31T14:30:00.001-06:00

Toronto's worst and weirdest news stories of 2008 – and the colourful characters behind them

Rectum? Almost killed him: Cops find a moaning, middle-aged man with his pants around his ankles, impaled on a metal stake, halfway up a tree in a schoolyard, bleeding from the anus.

Withdrawal complex: A man who works in the financial district turns himself in as the alleged Exchange Bandit – believed responsible for 26 bank heists since 2003.

Pot-pourri: The Kindred Café is busted for allegedly selling pot-laced milkshakes, hot chocolate and baked goods.

Stop the presses – newspapers increase circulation: The Salvation Army announces it will distribute jackets stuffed with newspapers to Toronto's homeless this winter.

read more: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/560001

PLAN “A” FROM OUTERSPACE

2008-12-16T21:51:00.000-06:00

The idea of landing on the moon or even traveling in space was pure science fiction in the early 20th century. By the 1960s JFK proposed to place man on the moon before the end of the decade. Buzz and Neil stepped out of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) July 1969 to vindicate him. Billions of dollars were spent in plans, designs, construction, flight & landing procedures, synthetic fibres, computers, instrumentation, safety, fuel and complex mathematics were invested so that people could walk on another celestial body. These men were foreigners to the moon, they had to travel by ship, track fuel, carefully oversee instruments, scout for a landing area within only seconds of fuel to spare. These men had specially crafted suits fashion so that they could survive the harsh elements. Not only did they have to contend with extremes of temperatures, harsh particulate (the ground was rougher than expected) and they faced an oxygen starved planetary surface. The astronauts appeared to be other than human with the large cumbersome suits to preserve their lives and allow them to live in a new environment. They had difficulty at times walking, and grasping objects; moreover, they had to fight against the balloon like suits that were ever chafing their bodies as it resisted their movements. The attempt at being a moon-man proved to be challenging, in such astonishing surroundings.

Traveling to the moon was certainly a marvelous event, probably one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Now imagine if you will something that outguns the moon landing, by an infinite magnitude. Envision a mission that was BEYOND the moon in every way. The incredible voyage is not fantastic because of distance, or the technology needed in the accomplishment, rather by the longer term planning and shear forethought. The project in scope was a one man invasion of another planet. No armies, no space ships, fuel, food, clothing or cumbersome equipment. This would involve covertly fitting in, appearing as everyone else. He would not be out of the ordinary that anyone would be drawn to him by his appearance. Food would not be brought with this ‘astronaut’ rather he would eat the food indigenous to the planet. He would leave all behind, and even inherit a new earthly family. He was willing to risk giving up everything; his family ties, titles, fame, distinction, and status would have to be left behind to secure the greater good. His life support was something so profound that some would outright reject him, while others would be astonishingly transformed. What is more astounding is that this plan had been slowing, methodically been set in motion for thousands and thousands of years. Bit by bit, agents had been planted century after century announcing that something extraordinary would take place.

Before his approach a secret messenger would appear to his ‘parents’ announcing an almost ridiculous assignment. This was no typical alien invasion. They had no idea what exactly to expect. Reputations were teetering on disaster, and family honour was surely at stake. Yet this would not stop this secret traveler who instead of reaching earth in space suit, assumed a human body. His overarching goal was to reclaim his far reaching empire that included this very backwater planet on the outer rim of the Milky Way Galaxy. Contrary to common empire builders His domain was not one that came by force, thereby confusing those who would oppose him and those who sought to embrace him. But yet he would come, not as a forceful invader, bulging with muscles and weapons of might but as a dependant, helpless baby. Prophesized by agent Isaiah “Unto us a child is born…” centuries later would be affirmed by agent Gabriel “Behold, a virgin woman shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (God with Us) .

Plan A from Outerspace had commenced.

Rethinking Reality

The Groundworks.....

Merry Christmas

Introduction

2008-12-08T16:09:00.002-06:00

The name “The Groundworks” came to mind as I began to consider my worldview (everyone has one - although it is not always very well informed). The ground is generally understood as a solid surface, commonly dependable and reliable. "To ground” is to set or place on a foundation, or to establish something (i.e. an idea). Furthermore, “to ground” is said to instruct in elements or first principles (world view, philosophy). Moreover, the term “works” is a physical or mental effort or activity directed towards the production or accomplishment of something. Therefore, the purpose of The Groundworks is to firmly establish a worldview; and to help you think about yours. More often than not we fail to ponder or establish what we believe and therefore get swept up in the "sprit of the age," rather than trying to stand on firm ground. What will The Groundworks cover? It will encompass critiques, commentaries, reviews, interviews and ideas that not only touch on Jesus, religion in general, atheism, origins, politics, urbanism, the strange and more.

Rethinking Reality!