For Those Who Presuppose Experience...

Destiny is but a phrase of the weak human heart, the dark apology for every error. The strong and virtuous admit no destiny.

On earth conscience guides; in heaven God watches. And destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one and dethrone the other.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell



These two quotes are relevant to those that are so cocksure about their destiny and knowledge! Those that think they understand and know everything, whether the believer or unbeliever know not what they speak! We are all ignorant in areas, and we are all in the 'dark" no matter how "enlightened", OR how much "revelation" we can understand!

Experience should teach us that none of us are immune to any of the vices of heart, that we try to "win" at another's costs! And for what, and why? For "God" or for "Man"? For the "Greater Good"? Do you suppose the costs to another when you plan your destiny?

Destiny means an "ultimate end". It can be understood by the religous to be predestination, and to the unbeliever as the "work" of "gods" (men). Oligarchies are what are made from small groups of elite that design such plans. Our Founders were not impressed by oligarchies, because they sought to defend the right of all under the "rule of law"!

Is there an "ulitmate end"? The religous believe so, as these believe in rewards and punishment in eternity, but not all religous believe such. Some believe that we are rewarded or punished in the here and now. The unbeliever believes that by his "wisdom" or "shrewdness" he earns his "keep" and people should applaud his ability to "control the situation".

Experience is a teacher, all right. A teacher that Man is just man. And that despite man's noble qualities, man can't help but flounder, faulter and fail if he has not been reflecting on his life long enough to evaluate its values as to ends. Are all 'ends" equal? Or there more noble ends, than others? Do others have a right to choose their end, or is your end the only one to be promoted? Why? Who are you?

Some presuppose that humans identify through experience! These like to promote human experiments so their "end" will be verified! Empirical evidence in human form! Others like to use sacred texts to evaluate human history! And what will the knowledge bring mankind? Of what use is it?

How do we frame our lives? How do we understand our values? What are our priorities? Why do we prioritize the way we do? What do we want to accomplish? What do we ultimately desire? and Why?

Some questions I do not know how to answer. I cannot answer them until I study further as to my frame of reference, which is nature herself.  This is work that must be done. Otherwise, I will not know what I value and why? It is my life. I have only one to live and I don't believe in eternal life, heaven or hell.  "From dust we came, and from dust we will return". 

The Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom...

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. It is located in the books of wisdom. In the book of Job, there is a verse, "The Fear of God is the BEGINNING of WISDOM".

I used to read this verse as, " The Fear of God is the Beginning of wisdom"..

The emphasis on the former is that one has to fear God to even begin to understand. Such are the supernaturalists in their understanding of text and tradition and life, itself!

But, now, I understand that it means fearing "God" is Just the Beginning of Wisdom. Wisdom is practical knowledge about life throught experience, not knowledge about "God" and the supernatural.

This latter understanding is more in line with the original Jewish understanding. Wasn't it Job who suffered under the hands of those who thought they know what "God" wanted, and knew what God was doing in Job's life?

What did Job learn? Didn't Job learn that the whole creation was a mystery and that life was a gift to be lived in the present and be grasped by an awe inspiring worship?

Job's "answer" was not about a "how to", or answers the text has to offer, but life itself.

Life is hard, at times. It behooves all of us to understand that we shouldn't lay undue burdens upon others backs by being like Job's comforters.

(But, for the sake of balance, one cannot live without understanding what they will value, as this is the "stuff" where one's commitments will be. The Supernaturalists just believe that "God" should be their life commitment.)

What Questions Do You Ask?

I like to ask questions. Sometimes I try to connect answers to different questions, but this is not my subject today. The subject is do you ask questions? If so, what kind of questions? Questions reveal something about how we think and what we think is important.

What questions are factual and practical questions. What happened.? What can be done? What purpose does it serve?

How questions are investigative questions. How did this happen? How do we understand this? How do we fix this?

Why questions are causal/motivational questions. Why do you think this happened? Why do you think this is important? Why are you pursuing this course of action? These questions are questions of value and they reveal sometimes how a person thinks about 'life" and its overall "frame".

A naturalist frame understands what happened as a matter of course. But, sometimes "the course" is not completely understood, yet. This is where scientists, social scientists, help us to understand. This framing's "cause' is nature (man and his environment). These subjects help man to understand what is 'fact" about nature, but it doesn't address what to do with nature. It only reveals "what nature is" or how "nature works".

But, what of the humanities? Where do these fit into the questions abuot life? They fit by helping us to understand the "human", and "life", and "value". The answers to "life" is found in literature and other artistic expression. These are valuable to enlarge man's heart, reveal man's common experience, and suggest alternative views about "life".

I almost never read novels. I much prefer philosophical, thematic themes...possibly because it helps me answer questions.
Questions are important, as they help us to formulate our understanding and help us to frame our lives with the values that are most important to us.

"The Island", a Good Commentary on the Dangers in Science and Religion

Tonight my husband and I watched "The Island". It is a realistic sci-fi picture about clones. The main plot is to"control" the clones in their human characteristics, limiting their choice, questions and experiences and controlling the information to the outside world about their humanity. I found the movie spoke to both sides of the religion/science debate.

Science's danger in de-humaninzing the individual clones was seen in the way that the clones were treated and "named". The clones were termed "products" and named according to their "lot in life". Science determined their purpose and limited the clones in questioning or observing their environment, or experiencing the joys of human "connection"; the joy of parenthood, or joy of "love". These clones were made for specific purposes and could not be allowed to "become" other than their determined purpose, which was a fulfillment of another's purpose and plan. The clone was not unique, but was told they were "special", which was another way of deceiving the real intent of their "controllers".

While the scientific aspect of the movie was obvious, the religious implications were no less clear to me. These clones were not allowed to experience the "outside world". The clones had a standardized environment, which limited their choices and understanding of the world, while telling them that they were 'special". The religious aspect was the de-humanizing element of being called out and promised a visit to "the Island", when in reality, the promise was only a fabrication to give hope in a sterile and controlled environment. What the "promise" represented was the fulfillment of the 'controller's purposes, not the hopes of the clones. The clones were not allowed to hope or experience the common joys of bacon, or the touch of a hand.The clones were sub-human as their ultimate purpose was more important than their speicific desire.

Two clones escape and "fall in love". They are desparate to "live" and experience the "real world", have choices, and come to terms with themselves, not their "pre-determined purpose". I found the movie stimulating but, perplexing emotionally.

Humans are never to be treated with such disrespect and disregard. Psychologically the movie intensified my anxiety over such life situations. All humans want to think that they are self-determining agents, and not pre-determined "robots". Humans rebel against such treatment and they should.