Last night I had the priviledge of attending a talk by Lawrence Krauss on Richard Feynman! I was impressed with Richard Feynman's personality and his curiosity! He was a true genius and a scientist at heart! Some of these quotes give a glimpse into a mind that was "open" and curious, not set and determined !!! He was "all over the place" in his lectures and his thinking, unlike other methodical scientists that lecture from a beginning and come to a conclusive end!
Here are some of his quotes!
"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."
— Richard P. Feynman
"Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."
— Richard P. Feynman
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."
— Richard P. Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
I wonder how many people really think like this? I think it is refreshing! It is certainly engaging. And wouldn't one feel that one could "be" in that kind of "Presence"? YES!
Showing posts with label experimental science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label experimental science. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Can Science Be Just as Oppressive as Religion
Religion is well-known to bring about oppression. It describes the world in "old ways", using "god language". Such "god language" is "theology speak". Natural real world experiences are interpreted by rational explainations about theodicity. God is present, just not understood. Faith is trust irregardless of pain and suffering, as "God is in control". Such thinking leaves one cold from the "rational". There is "no heart" there.
On the other hand, science can be just as heartless. Science is useful to bring about new discoveries and create new realities that help humankind. But, science is just as blind as religion sometimes in its universalizing what can't be understood readily without experimentation. But, even with experimentation, who is to know how to gauge whether a particular human being will respond as all human beings given particular stimuli? How does one understand a "human universal", even when experience is common?
Sciene seeks to describe reality in uniform and monistic ways, as this helps science to formulate "natural laws". But, when human persons are put within a framework of uniformity, conformity and monistic understanding of reality, then, science has become just as oppressive as religion.
Somewhere between absolute scientific materialism and religious idealism is a new understanding for the "human". I think our Founders came close to granting that in our form of government, where individual liberty is appreciated within the boundaries of an ordered society and leaders being accountable to the people they are to serve. Then, there is no empowered "vision" for mankind through uniformity, that is granted primary status over society, either through scienctific investigation and technological advances, or religious idealism/abolutism and confomity.
On the other hand, science can be just as heartless. Science is useful to bring about new discoveries and create new realities that help humankind. But, science is just as blind as religion sometimes in its universalizing what can't be understood readily without experimentation. But, even with experimentation, who is to know how to gauge whether a particular human being will respond as all human beings given particular stimuli? How does one understand a "human universal", even when experience is common?
Sciene seeks to describe reality in uniform and monistic ways, as this helps science to formulate "natural laws". But, when human persons are put within a framework of uniformity, conformity and monistic understanding of reality, then, science has become just as oppressive as religion.
Somewhere between absolute scientific materialism and religious idealism is a new understanding for the "human". I think our Founders came close to granting that in our form of government, where individual liberty is appreciated within the boundaries of an ordered society and leaders being accountable to the people they are to serve. Then, there is no empowered "vision" for mankind through uniformity, that is granted primary status over society, either through scienctific investigation and technological advances, or religious idealism/abolutism and confomity.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Irrational Faith and a Reasoned Frame
Some believe in irrational faith. These believe that our actions 'prove" the validity of our faith, not by reason, itself,, but within the framework of an archetype. Reason is not "rational", or understood, except within a certain "paradigm". Such thinking is not 'universal' but culture specific.
Culture is an environment that adheres to certain standards, beliefs, norms, and values. Religious cultures are framed by religious authorities, inspired texts, doctrines, or 'accepted' moral models. These do not allow liberty because of their specific framing/paradigm. Reason in this sense is not 'free' to understand anything apart from the "affirmed culture" or accepted norm. Science, as well as religion frames understanding by accepted "rules" of understanding nature, or society. The difference, is that science is open to new information, at least in theory. Religion is not as open.
America believes that religious freedom is about individual conscience. The individual is free to choose where they will or will not associate. American values are determined by the "rule of law" defined in our Constitution. And our Constitution respects and protects individual liberty from government intrusion, but does it protect from "irrational faith' claims? This is what our nation faces in "irrational faith"s demand for equal protections under our Constitutional government. Equality under law means that irregardless of one's faith or lack thereof, there must be protections under law. Therefore, our nation is just.
Irrational faith is about speicified behavior, and beliefs that motivate such behavior. It cannot be reasoned with because of its commitment to the paradigm of choice. Defensiveness is the stance to "outside" attempts to re-frame one's life. Knowledge itself can be threatening because it brings cognitive challenges to one's chosen paradigm. Defensiveness to change protects "identity" itself.
"Life" is lived within these cultural frames, without realizing or reflecting on why these frames have any power to continue over one's life. Reasoned framing of life conflicts with foundational understandings about life and is too threatening to one's identity to "let go", or escape. Science, too attempts to understand 'new information' based upon past "frames" (accepted theories). But, whenever the paradigm shifts in scienctific understanding, there is also resistance. Science attempts to evaluate nature upon foundational physical/mathmatical undestandings.
I believe our brains encapsulate our memories. And memories are about emotions, as much as experience itself. The "feeling" of belonging to family, tribe or nation is too "human" to dismiss lightly. Our self-understanding is dependent on such connections and networking. A re-framing of one's identity is what happens whenever one discovers that their frame has lost "meaning" or significance for/to "self", as "self" is defined by these frames of reference. A re-defining of scientific understanding also challenges science's "identity", as science is a "culture", too.
Irrational believers don't stop to consider these aspects of "framing one's reality", because they are too "committed to their cause", thinking that the radical nature of their commitment confirms the "truth" of their irrational claims. And this kind of thinking thinks that everyone should believe and commit as they do, otherwise, there is "no faith".
Irrational faith is a limited way of thinking and being in the world. And it hinders "peace", because it limits diversity.
Culture is an environment that adheres to certain standards, beliefs, norms, and values. Religious cultures are framed by religious authorities, inspired texts, doctrines, or 'accepted' moral models. These do not allow liberty because of their specific framing/paradigm. Reason in this sense is not 'free' to understand anything apart from the "affirmed culture" or accepted norm. Science, as well as religion frames understanding by accepted "rules" of understanding nature, or society. The difference, is that science is open to new information, at least in theory. Religion is not as open.
America believes that religious freedom is about individual conscience. The individual is free to choose where they will or will not associate. American values are determined by the "rule of law" defined in our Constitution. And our Constitution respects and protects individual liberty from government intrusion, but does it protect from "irrational faith' claims? This is what our nation faces in "irrational faith"s demand for equal protections under our Constitutional government. Equality under law means that irregardless of one's faith or lack thereof, there must be protections under law. Therefore, our nation is just.
Irrational faith is about speicified behavior, and beliefs that motivate such behavior. It cannot be reasoned with because of its commitment to the paradigm of choice. Defensiveness is the stance to "outside" attempts to re-frame one's life. Knowledge itself can be threatening because it brings cognitive challenges to one's chosen paradigm. Defensiveness to change protects "identity" itself.
"Life" is lived within these cultural frames, without realizing or reflecting on why these frames have any power to continue over one's life. Reasoned framing of life conflicts with foundational understandings about life and is too threatening to one's identity to "let go", or escape. Science, too attempts to understand 'new information' based upon past "frames" (accepted theories). But, whenever the paradigm shifts in scienctific understanding, there is also resistance. Science attempts to evaluate nature upon foundational physical/mathmatical undestandings.
I believe our brains encapsulate our memories. And memories are about emotions, as much as experience itself. The "feeling" of belonging to family, tribe or nation is too "human" to dismiss lightly. Our self-understanding is dependent on such connections and networking. A re-framing of one's identity is what happens whenever one discovers that their frame has lost "meaning" or significance for/to "self", as "self" is defined by these frames of reference. A re-defining of scientific understanding also challenges science's "identity", as science is a "culture", too.
Irrational believers don't stop to consider these aspects of "framing one's reality", because they are too "committed to their cause", thinking that the radical nature of their commitment confirms the "truth" of their irrational claims. And this kind of thinking thinks that everyone should believe and commit as they do, otherwise, there is "no faith".
Irrational faith is a limited way of thinking and being in the world. And it hinders "peace", because it limits diversity.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Why I Think Believing Iis Dangerous in the World of Science and Scientists
Belief in the supernatural realm is dangerous, because it denies the real world and tries to blame "the devil" or accepts passivly such things as tyranny, abuse, and evil. Such thinking does not lead one to learn, grow or expand, becuase "God will take care of you". Whenever suffering or injustice happens, it is chalked up to "God's training ground, because God doesn't allow anything to happen unless it is in his Divine Purpose, Plan and Will. Tyranny, abuse and evil in the world is not challenged, it is accepted as "God's rule on earth", whereas, each person deserves the right to exist, be respected and given opportunity.
Today, science frames our reality and understanding differently than in the past. Science is showing us more and more how the world works and what probably happened from the beginning. Humans may not be the only life in the universe. We just don't know for sure...
Where the Church used to teach man as the center of the universe, science undermined that understanding where it became known that the Sun was the center of our solar system and we are only one solar system in the universe. This fact alone is humbling to man, as he is not the ultimate focus of all things.
Man becomes responsible in this "universe" because he no longer depends upon a God out there, but takes on responsibility for himself. People do disagree as to what is the responsibility of man toward himself, the environment and others will be. And these differences are not easy black and white solutions in a world that is filled with diverse ways of understanding and thinking.
So, believeing is dangerous because it limits, defines and dismisses the greater questions about life, and the world we live.
Today, science frames our reality and understanding differently than in the past. Science is showing us more and more how the world works and what probably happened from the beginning. Humans may not be the only life in the universe. We just don't know for sure...
Where the Church used to teach man as the center of the universe, science undermined that understanding where it became known that the Sun was the center of our solar system and we are only one solar system in the universe. This fact alone is humbling to man, as he is not the ultimate focus of all things.
Man becomes responsible in this "universe" because he no longer depends upon a God out there, but takes on responsibility for himself. People do disagree as to what is the responsibility of man toward himself, the environment and others will be. And these differences are not easy black and white solutions in a world that is filled with diverse ways of understanding and thinking.
So, believeing is dangerous because it limits, defines and dismisses the greater questions about life, and the world we live.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Liberty FOR Expression
The ARTS are a universal language, and I am committed to "free speech". The two complement one another in individual expressions of gifting. Free and open government is a needed environment for such development. It is the devleopment of creativity. Religion does not lend itself to liberal expression, as things are labeled as "holy" or defiled, etc.
The Reformation's destruction of many art works is a case in point. Because the Reformers believed in a literal "Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image....", they believed that they had an obligation to destroy works of art that symbolized the transcendent world. How sad.
Science invents new ways of understanding reality which also challenges the religious world, because God isn't seen as the absolute cause.
Both the humanities and science have brought untold advantages and benefit to society. We must continue to protect and advance these areas of knowledge.
The Reformation's destruction of many art works is a case in point. Because the Reformers believed in a literal "Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image....", they believed that they had an obligation to destroy works of art that symbolized the transcendent world. How sad.
Science invents new ways of understanding reality which also challenges the religious world, because God isn't seen as the absolute cause.
Both the humanities and science have brought untold advantages and benefit to society. We must continue to protect and advance these areas of knowledge.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The ARTS, As a Universal Language
Tonight, we went with friends to our church to see an organ concert. But, it was more than the organ, it was also a Chamber orchestra, and solos on the violin, trumpet, and saxophone. All of these musicians were professionals, hired by local orchestras. And the concert was Free!
The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.
This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.
Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.
The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.
Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!
I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!
And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!
I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.
The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.
This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.
Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.
The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.
Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!
I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!
And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!
I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
What Unites and Makes America Distinct? (or exceptional)
America was founded on liberty. This is what unifies us, not God. The problem today, is there is a global move to disintegrate American exceptionalism through unifying under God. And such moves are re-defining our Constitution, as well as our understanding of our nation-state.
America did not prescribe to a "one size fits all" religion.America was founded on Protestant "faith", not prescribed religion per se. This was our distinctiveness, religious liberty. But, today, it seems there is a move to define God, in montheism. This is going backwards, not forwards in our understanding of " the human" and "the humane". If God exists, He cannot be proved. But, this is the point to those of piestic faith. Lifestyle is the focus of such. But, whenever piestic faith is prescribed by law, we have a regimented faith, where people are no longer free, but in bondage to the prescription.
It becomes more and more evident that Islam is not going to be tolerant of others, but want tolerance toward their religious convictions/claims. This is dangerous territory, as humans have "been down this road" before. What are we to do? We should not respond or live in fear of terrorism, or the terrorists have "won".
Life is not of value, so how do we battle such, when our society values life and its diversity? We are a humane society and believe that human life is valuable above all other forms of life, at least this was the traditional understanding. Today, religion and science have undermined our basic value of life and liberty because of their various understanding of priorities. God is at the end of religion, while utility is at the other end, of scientific commitment.
What transpires to and in our society, when the basic values that have held us together, liberty, have become challenged? Liberty is the foundation and is ordered under law. Authoritarian regimes and ways of understanding the world (mathmatical) undermine this basic value.
Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me liberty, or give me death"!
America did not prescribe to a "one size fits all" religion.America was founded on Protestant "faith", not prescribed religion per se. This was our distinctiveness, religious liberty. But, today, it seems there is a move to define God, in montheism. This is going backwards, not forwards in our understanding of " the human" and "the humane". If God exists, He cannot be proved. But, this is the point to those of piestic faith. Lifestyle is the focus of such. But, whenever piestic faith is prescribed by law, we have a regimented faith, where people are no longer free, but in bondage to the prescription.
It becomes more and more evident that Islam is not going to be tolerant of others, but want tolerance toward their religious convictions/claims. This is dangerous territory, as humans have "been down this road" before. What are we to do? We should not respond or live in fear of terrorism, or the terrorists have "won".
Life is not of value, so how do we battle such, when our society values life and its diversity? We are a humane society and believe that human life is valuable above all other forms of life, at least this was the traditional understanding. Today, religion and science have undermined our basic value of life and liberty because of their various understanding of priorities. God is at the end of religion, while utility is at the other end, of scientific commitment.
What transpires to and in our society, when the basic values that have held us together, liberty, have become challenged? Liberty is the foundation and is ordered under law. Authoritarian regimes and ways of understanding the world (mathmatical) undermine this basic value.
Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me liberty, or give me death"!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Faith and The Quadralateral
As I have been thinking along the lines of what values are most important to individuals, on what basis do individuals maintain or uphold their values? This "foundation" or "beginning" is what gives definition to values.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Dominion and Stewardship
Christians believe in the "creation mandate". These believe that since God created all that is, humans are responsible to be responsible. It is no less true for the scientific materialists. These also believe that one must dominate and steward the earth's resources. Therefore, there has been an alliance of purpose, so that the world, or globalized efforts will "come into being". But, is 'one purpose' the best way or best option among options of "leading the world"?
Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.
Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).
"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?
With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?
It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.
This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.
I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.
Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.
Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).
"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?
With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?
It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.
This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.
I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.
Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Question of Why.and Which.....
I was talking to a couple of friends last night and something came up in the course of conversation that made me start thinking of why it was that an individual prefers one choice above another. Some have believed that the preference is due to cultural upbringing, which conditions the child to a certain "bent of mind". I adhere to the value and necessity of an affirming culture, but are all our choices due to cultural conditioning?
As I am the only one that knows and has experience my family, culture, and innate nature, I will "consult" my memory and share my questions.
I was brought up in the South; strong, and proud of its heritage. I have come to appreciate some of the pride I before distained. But, it makes me wonder why? Was my resistance, or "rebellion" of my Southern heritage because of my own innate preferences (biological determinism) or because of my nurture and its failures (self-concept)?
My family was conservative Baptist, but not fundamental in the true sense. I was "raised in the Church" and found friendships there. But, always longed to move to a large city (New York) and experience a larger frame of reference. Was this because I innately preferred large cities and a more liberal environment? Or was it because I didn't feel I "fit" or belonged in a provincial setting, due to family divorce and bad parenting?
In choosing friends in school, I didn't always choose those in the sororities or the popular bunch because I fear rejection and felt like tha "little guy" who couldn't "make the grade" was of value just as I had wanted to be. So, while grandparents chose the doctors, lawyers and "Indian chiefs", I chose the "little guy". And while cousins became debutantes and sorority sisters, I chose to distain such distinctions. Was it due to my self image and fear of rejection or was there something about me as a "person" that innately did not desire such position?
In school, I never excelled or valued education, except for two years that I attended an experimental school that "tracked" individual students based on their ability. Since this was a new type of school there was no way for adminstration to know where to "trac me", when I moved from another school. So they put me in the bottom level of each subject. I worked my way up to the top level of every subject, even though it meant a lot of "catch up work". I was proud, but no one else was. So, I moved on to junior high school interested in finding friends and boys to "give me value".
So, which is it; nature, or nurture? I can't seem to tease out which is of more importance. I only know that it matters that environments be conducive for the individual to excel as far as possible and that includes many social/political dimensions of life.
As I am the only one that knows and has experience my family, culture, and innate nature, I will "consult" my memory and share my questions.
I was brought up in the South; strong, and proud of its heritage. I have come to appreciate some of the pride I before distained. But, it makes me wonder why? Was my resistance, or "rebellion" of my Southern heritage because of my own innate preferences (biological determinism) or because of my nurture and its failures (self-concept)?
My family was conservative Baptist, but not fundamental in the true sense. I was "raised in the Church" and found friendships there. But, always longed to move to a large city (New York) and experience a larger frame of reference. Was this because I innately preferred large cities and a more liberal environment? Or was it because I didn't feel I "fit" or belonged in a provincial setting, due to family divorce and bad parenting?
In choosing friends in school, I didn't always choose those in the sororities or the popular bunch because I fear rejection and felt like tha "little guy" who couldn't "make the grade" was of value just as I had wanted to be. So, while grandparents chose the doctors, lawyers and "Indian chiefs", I chose the "little guy". And while cousins became debutantes and sorority sisters, I chose to distain such distinctions. Was it due to my self image and fear of rejection or was there something about me as a "person" that innately did not desire such position?
In school, I never excelled or valued education, except for two years that I attended an experimental school that "tracked" individual students based on their ability. Since this was a new type of school there was no way for adminstration to know where to "trac me", when I moved from another school. So they put me in the bottom level of each subject. I worked my way up to the top level of every subject, even though it meant a lot of "catch up work". I was proud, but no one else was. So, I moved on to junior high school interested in finding friends and boys to "give me value".
So, which is it; nature, or nurture? I can't seem to tease out which is of more importance. I only know that it matters that environments be conducive for the individual to excel as far as possible and that includes many social/political dimensions of life.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Question Is...
THE QUESTION IS:
Do human societies work like the latest scientific discovery, say in genetics/biology? That is what some think, and the human experiment may or may not work. And all of us will be prone to the outcome of such experiments...
Do human societies work like the latest scientific discovery, say in genetics/biology? That is what some think, and the human experiment may or may not work. And all of us will be prone to the outcome of such experiments...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
