Does it make you "ill" when people that are adults believe in "Providence"? It does me. I think all meaning or interpretation is a matter of correlation in one's mind to past memories and present preception of oneself, as well as past perceptions of oneself.
Humanists and scientists are trying to understand what makes for alturistic concern. They have found alturism in animal behavior and wonder what makes some people compassionate, and others, not so much. Some reasearch has revealed that children that were not nurtured as infants tend to not be as compassionate. There is information that suggests there are differences between the sexes. And, then, there is the chemical imbalances in the brain that make for mental illnesses. What does compassion have to do with "Providence", you ask?
"Providence" understands or interprets happenings as "God's intervention" in the world. These "happenings" are the result of people who experience "God" through others' acts of compassion. And science it seeking to understand if compassion can be "learned" behavior, as well. Can the physical properties of the brain and one's perception be changed over time with "conditioning"? Obviously, animals respond to discipline and learn how to behave. Authoritarian religions, as well as Totalitarian States believe that "discipline" is needed to bring about the 'salvation of mankind".
Atheistic States and authoritarian Religions believe that social conditioning is needed to protect against 'savagery" and can provide a "better society". This is the reason for propaganda and manipulation of the public or indoctrination in relgious climates. There is no real reverence for an individual's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. We are a collective, so "individuality" is a threat to progress and conformity! Scientific materialism or religious conformity is much too important. Some scientists believe that even our experience of art and beauty is a result of stimuli to our physical properties, while religions see these "expressions' to be "useful" for "glorifying God". What makes for an artist's imagination? And is the artist's imagination as productive in a regimented and oppressive environment?
Religions have brought solace and comfort to those under authoritarian regimes, because of the need for the human to experience their own "reality". But, religions have also oppressed as much as any absolute State. The sense of "self" and one's own control of their life, is an important aspect of "feeling free". None of us are totally free, as we live under governments, and societies, and if not, we all live under the constraints of natural resources.
Natural resources are seen as limited unless science provides new ways or making them or limiting our use of them. And the environmental consequences to such use is also of concern. The question, then becomes who, what, and how will the policy decisions be made , how will they be prioritized, when there are so many variables? These are the conflicts within an open and free society. Those that hold the power make the determinations about policy and this is where "Providence" is an absurd understanding about life and what happens.
Unless one wants to affirm and confirm a Totalitarian State, where there is not "representation", then one must understand and see that it is "the people" who will vote, petition and make the differences to "outcomes" in their government, which isn't about "Providence", but about responsibility and concern.
"Providence" is a term useful for those that believe in authoritarianism! And good government is NOT authoritarian, not at all.
Showing posts with label God's Providence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God's Providence. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Economically Savy and Religiously Biased Breed a Culture of Mis-Guided "Interests"
Yesterday, I listened to a presentation on economics, and heard about a religious incident. Both concerned me, in where our country is "going".
The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.
Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.
The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.
Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.
The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?
The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.
What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.
A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.
Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.
The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.
Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.
The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.
Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.
The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?
The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.
What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.
A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.
Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
What is Wrong with Providence?
Providence has been understood to be "God's rule" or "over-ruling" of life in all its aspects. But, what is wrong with this view and providence?
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Power Corrupts
It has been said, "Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely". Why is this so? Power gives a sense of being above the frey of "common man". Power is exillerating because one can choose and "make things happen". World events and history can be changed due to the use of power. But, history has also understood what absolute power does in any position. This is the brillance of our Founding Fathers in establishing our three branches of government. The executive branch was not considered to be the "rule of a King". The people had a voice in their government through their vote for Congressional candidates and the judicial branch has granted individual liberties to those that were persecuted or discriminated against.
It used to be believed that power was given by God and therefore, rulers ruled under the authority of God-given power. The peasant classes were to submit and deter to what "God had ordained". Heridatary power was understood to be the priviledged and empowered classes and Kings made treaties based on marriage contracts.
But, our Founders understood that all people were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These rights were natural rights, not supernaturally given or sanctioned. Men were to recognize and respect another's right to life and liberty and their pursuit of happiness. This was the basis of our Constitution and has been the fodder of the human rights movement.
Individuals are respected in our country's very "ideals" and power is limited by "the rule of law". Therefore, I am thankful that I live in a country that respects the "rule of law" and wants to pursue justice, stand against injustice and resist those that think thier power is absolute.
It used to be believed that power was given by God and therefore, rulers ruled under the authority of God-given power. The peasant classes were to submit and deter to what "God had ordained". Heridatary power was understood to be the priviledged and empowered classes and Kings made treaties based on marriage contracts.
But, our Founders understood that all people were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These rights were natural rights, not supernaturally given or sanctioned. Men were to recognize and respect another's right to life and liberty and their pursuit of happiness. This was the basis of our Constitution and has been the fodder of the human rights movement.
Individuals are respected in our country's very "ideals" and power is limited by "the rule of law". Therefore, I am thankful that I live in a country that respects the "rule of law" and wants to pursue justice, stand against injustice and resist those that think thier power is absolute.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
On "Knowing" and Government
We all like to think our opinion "matters" to someone and that our choices have impact and influence. That is, if we care to engage the world we live in. But, last night's movie, "Knowing", did not have that "take".
"Knowing" presented a world whose "accidents" were "pre-determined" and known by a troubled young girl. Nothing anyone seemed to do to stop these "predictions" helped as the "course was set".
Americans and those who live in free societies do not believe that "the course is set"in the details, but that there is a more or less "way to live and be in the world". We call the "ordered liberty". We believe that our vote "counts" and that our leaders "listen". And that we can choose our "own course" and our "own story" for our lives. We live in a free society.
The movie presented horrifying situations that "played out" before the main character, even when he was "trying to make a difference". This was just as de-humanizing as the former belief that the world was chaotic and things happened by "chance". Now, he was faced with a "world" that was computorized or "Calvinized".
The message, at least to me, was that the world is the way it is and our understanding of it is limited, though we attempt to "label" and understand the world. We live in paradigmic understandings and when these do not "work" we are baffled, as we cannot function without an understanding of some kind. Scientists have made their discoveries based on these "common physical laws".
But, higher mathmatics, and quantum theory stretches the imagination to understand one formula, as it seems to say that what we choose determines reality. That is different from theology's "foreknowledge of a Sovereign".
Our government does not intrude into its citizens private lives, and allows the individual the right to "live at peace", as long as he is "law-abiding". Some American Christians term this "God's Povidence", but do so without understanding the larger implications of that belief.
Those who live under dire circumstances, face horrendous tragedy, and unforseeable evil are not to be "pacified" with platitudes of "God's control and knowledge". The suffering do not nned theology, but solutions to their problems. And these solutions are political, as we live in a politicized world.
"Knowing" presented a world whose "accidents" were "pre-determined" and known by a troubled young girl. Nothing anyone seemed to do to stop these "predictions" helped as the "course was set".
Americans and those who live in free societies do not believe that "the course is set"in the details, but that there is a more or less "way to live and be in the world". We call the "ordered liberty". We believe that our vote "counts" and that our leaders "listen". And that we can choose our "own course" and our "own story" for our lives. We live in a free society.
The movie presented horrifying situations that "played out" before the main character, even when he was "trying to make a difference". This was just as de-humanizing as the former belief that the world was chaotic and things happened by "chance". Now, he was faced with a "world" that was computorized or "Calvinized".
The message, at least to me, was that the world is the way it is and our understanding of it is limited, though we attempt to "label" and understand the world. We live in paradigmic understandings and when these do not "work" we are baffled, as we cannot function without an understanding of some kind. Scientists have made their discoveries based on these "common physical laws".
But, higher mathmatics, and quantum theory stretches the imagination to understand one formula, as it seems to say that what we choose determines reality. That is different from theology's "foreknowledge of a Sovereign".
Our government does not intrude into its citizens private lives, and allows the individual the right to "live at peace", as long as he is "law-abiding". Some American Christians term this "God's Povidence", but do so without understanding the larger implications of that belief.
Those who live under dire circumstances, face horrendous tragedy, and unforseeable evil are not to be "pacified" with platitudes of "God's control and knowledge". The suffering do not nned theology, but solutions to their problems. And these solutions are political, as we live in a politicized world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
