Pillar of Salt

Pillar of Salt -- Some Unfiltered Thoughts on God

2011-11-25T07:59:00.001-07:00

I am looking out the window at my work as the sun rises. I can't see the sun but can only see it's light hitting the golf course just out side. I feel like, although I've worked here for a year and a half, I have never look like it does now. To the north, up near where I live there are grey clouds. All low to the ground. The orange sun reflects and lightens a tree near the window and the back drop of grey is breath-taking. There are buildings of red brick that shine with such a deep orange I feel like I've never seen them before. And maybe I haven't. Maybe there are a lot of things I haven't seen before.

I wonder often who God is. What is his relationship to us? Does he laugh at me when I do something dumb like not un-clipping my bike pedals and fall in the driveway as I try to step off my clipless pedals? It's funny to me. Does he sometimes look at sunrises, sunrises that he has seen over and over all throughout this universe and still, sometimes, look at it with such new eyes? Or is he beyond that? Is God jaded? After seeing super novae, and blackholes a simple sunset couldn't be as beautiful or awe inspiring? What is it that keeps him going? Is it learning? Growing? Us? I have a hard time believing that it would be us.

Love is strong, I work two jobs (one full time) and go to school full time for my family whom I love. I love them more than anything. But does that mean that I am happy at work? I would gladly quit and go to school full-er time, if I could. But I can't. Does God sometimes, when seeing the pain in the world feel such sorrow that he wishes he could leave?

Who is God that he should magnify man?

I've grown beyond questioning these things. I feel one thing, I feel that he is a father figure to me. It's hard to be close to him like I am to my own Dad, but still, I can feel that it is there. I can feel that he cares for me and have felt it deep within me in times when I've asked or have needed to hear it. But who is he? Who am I to him? Am I one of billions? of trillions? How could i be special with a daunting number as that? What could make me special? All I am in all this vastness of eternity is a speck on a pale blue dot.

I named this blog for these reasons. Perhaps it was because at the time, over a year ago, I wan't too comfortable with questioning the very nature of God. I compared my self to Lots wife, looking back to that place where all their friends and possessions were and doubted or questioned for only a second. There are somethings that I questions that I don't think there is an answer to. There can't be, because we are all different and I can't believe there is only one road to God. I can't believe the straight and narrow is only one direction in which we line up one by one and walk. It must be different. God is a father and will do all he can to help us and be with us.

I think this is a secret beyond so many others. God needs us. And God wants us to be with him. I think we're lucky. I think we are luckier than we could ever know. And I think there are some among us (maybe me) that take advantage of what luck we feel we understand. Or maybe we disregard this, telling our selves that we need to follow the letter of the law to exactness. That leaders of the church are never wrong and that all answers to life are found in the scriptures. I think we can understand God through the leaders and scriptures. But I think we need to look outward.

I think God still, occasionally, see's a sunset or sunrise and smiles. I think he, like us, needs something simple like that to remind him of some kind of beauty. Some type of beginning or ending. I think that if he saw me fall in my drive way he laughed. He laughed that I forgot to do something so simple and routine as un-clipping my shoes. He laughed at my shock or surprise. And he laughed at me while I too laughed at me.

Mistakes

2011-11-15T15:08:00.001-07:00

Why is it that people make mistakes? In my life I have done so many things I regret. Many I have not admitted for shame and fear. I watched, because of anger at the mission, the fourth Harry Potter with my companion, on my mission. It may not seem like a big thing now, and admittedly, it isn't. But while on my mission I felt a great sense of shame because of that one simple thing. When I was eight or nine my brother and I made fires in the woods, threw trash in rivers and broke windows, all mistakes, all because we were being children and were trying to figure things out. I've lied to my parents and friends, needlessly grown upset at my wife and kids, and crashed my parents van. I once stole a crystal-like thing while in elementary school and sense then have never stolen again. And through these experiences and many other like them I have learned something on what it means to be human.

I don't write these things as some form of penance, but merely because I feel that most everyone is going to have the same experiences. People grow and learn and mistakes push us to learn in ways uncomfortable, but most likely are the most effective. I feel as is a mistake can be categorized more along the lines of repeated folly rather than one accident. How is it that we so willfully are blind to our reactions to others? There are times when I am upset with my wife, or am struggling with my kids not wanting to go to bed when something carnal in me wants out. I think it is this was for everyone and part of being human is learning to overcome those things. To overcome those urges and grow from them. When they succeed in escaping my soul, my humanity can feel it. Like some creeping thing worming its way to my skin. Why do I let this happen?

Maybe that is another part of being humane, or rather, being ethical, moral. Seeing the worse we can become, having even a small taste and coming away from it a whole, and still good, person. You see a version of yourself, something ancient, something easy and still choose the higher road.

In this we should be proud of our mistakes. Take joy that it is a mistake and that we have come back from it to recognize it as such. We are beings of mistakes. They build and enlighten us as long as we allow them to. Never forget this.

I love my kids and my wife and family and friends. They are important to me. I think of things I've done and still, years and years later I regret them. I drug my little brother, Nate, out of my room where me and some friends (his included) were hanging out. It was my room and I didn't want him in there. Why? I don't know. I may never know. But I did it. I have felt so sorry for that, but through it, and others, I have learned to be more loving and patient and accepting of others. Once, through excitement I grabbed my wife in a bear hug, while she was pregnant, and lifted her off the ground. I cannot express the sorrow I felt in being so careless as to jeopardize the health of that 7 month embryo. I still regret it.

I am still unsure as to why I am admitting these things. Maybe it is to prove a point. Most of you reading this know my, and most of you have probably not known about most of these. (Maybe except the fire one, that ones pretty popular). I am a man of mistakes, but through them I have not become a bad person, or an immoral man. I feel that I am a pretty good person, trying my hardest to overcome any hard things, (mistakes or challenges), and trying to find joy in life that is worth celebrating and remembering. Nate and I are close. Extremely close. The same goes for all of my family. We all get along all the time. I've seen many families that don't but we are not one of them. I love my kids and I do everything I can for them. I am patient and loving towards my wife. I love her and will always love her. I do not steal, I help others, strangers, when I can, and I do not catch forests of fire. These and many other things are a result of my mistakes.

Take joy in them--in over coming them--I am trying.

The Second Coming

2011-10-21T08:32:00.000-06:00

Recently, I was called to be one of the Elders Quorum teachers. My first lesson (as an official teacher) is this Sunday and it is on the signs of the second coming. However, I am having a hard time thinking of something to teach.

Having a teaching calling in church is something I've always wanted. I want to teach as a career, I enjoy having a discussion and I like being able to bring up topics that are generally not addressed in church. Needless to say, I very rarely take anymore than just the topic from the manual. So I've been thinking of something that I could talk about that wouldn't be the same old information that we always hear. I enjoy--the few times I have taught at church--bringing up different issues or different ways of seeing things, because really, that is the only way in which we can learn.

And so now, I am trying to figure out something worth talking about, dealing with the second coming. This is a topic that I have some issues with because I feel that people take them too literally, also, it is a topic that deals with a lot of topics of sin, and war, and evil. While these are important to understand, I want the quorum to come away feeling uplifted rather than despair. I want them to see the good in knowing and understanding the signs. I want them to know why we need to know this even though the likely hood of us being alive during the second coming is slim.

So why is it important? Despite all the signs we will never know exactly when it will be. While pretty bad things are going to happen, right now, we are not doing to bad.

What does knowledge of the second coming do for us?

Prepare us. However, I don't think it prepares us in that it makes us good people. I don't think the Lord would want us to follow him out of fear of the second coming, but rather prepares us in a way that will make us stronger. When we see the world getting worse, i.e., wars, global warming, anti-christ's, hatred, etc. we are given hope. I look at the human condition and wonder how anybody could make it through what we are suppose to have to face. Not necessarily that we will fall to temptation, but that we will lose hope in humanity, in ourselves and in God. Without a reassurance that these things are going to happen and that we can endure, I feel we would not be able to get through it.

I believe the second coming is going to be here not when there is no hope for humanity, because I think humanity could lead its self into endless cycles of progress and digression. War's and peace. But I feel that Christ will come again when Christianity is at stake. When his church--the LDS church--is seriously at stake of being lost. Whether there is opposition against the church, or the members are failing and falling away, I feel he will say it is time. We look at cycles in the Book of Mormon and see that their societies go in the circles of war and peace, etc., But, inevitably, it seems the members fall away.

I feel that this is an important idea, and a slightly different way at looking at the reasons that we must be prepared. We should be ready to face hard times but find hope in our knowledge that Christ will come again and that we . . . no, and that humanity will be redeemed at the last days. It's something worth our fighting for.

Speculations . . .

2011-09-19T09:48:00.000-06:00

There are several things I questions. And to be honest they are not big deals but are things that I wonder from time to time. I thought I should write them (type them) down. Here are just two for now.

1. Was Judas Iscariot forgiven? I first ran across this on my mission when reading D&C 29:12, "that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness . . ." I found this scripture odd as it refers to the 12 that were with him in his ministry. In Matthew we learn that he was forgiven and we also understand that he felt remorse because he killed himself. So, could he be one of the 12, or would we understand it as Matthias? The hard thing with this issue is that it is easy to see it both ways. (For more of what I've written on this go here).

2. How will Christ come during the second coming? How literally should we take the scriptures when they say that he will come as a thief in the night? How should we interpret this? Especially if we believe that many will fall away. Should we look at how it was done before? Who is to say that Christ will not come as he did to the Jews? I feel like these questions need to be asked. Are we going to suddenly have a man claim he is the messiah, showing the world miracles and proclaiming what we know to be the gospel? How many will have the strength to follow such a man as Christ was before? (Even if this is far off base it is still an interesting question on where your faith can stretch).

How Do We Determine Global Warming?

2011-08-25T07:14:00.000-06:00

It seems that, regardless of how you feel about the subject, the issue of global warming is very strongly tied to religion. Why is that? It is because religion is a source of moral growth, it is something that can bring about change in massive levels and can help people to grow morally. These morals affect us in our daily aspects and in what we constantly deal with. When it comes to daily issues we are able to make better decisions according to our moral character. Global warming has become a major concern and topic, thus calls on us to act as we see morally fit.

I wish to briefly describe how it is that science can show that global warming is indeed happening at an exponential rate, and how we can see that it is human caused rather than by the Earths natural cycles.

There is a simple method to see what CO2 levels were throughout Earths history. In glaciers we can take samples of air which has been trapped in the ice, (air bubbles). With these we can measure the amount of CO2 in the air at the time the bubble was formed. We can see rises and falls from roughly 150-280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) CO2. This greatly depends on Earths orbit. The orbit of our planet fluctuates, as well as pivots on its axis much like a top, causing the earths temperature to rise and fall, thus giving us ice-ages and warm periods: low amounts of CO2 create a cooling, and give us an ice-age. The opposite happens with high measurements of CO2. However, since the industrial revolution the level of CO2 has gone from the average of 280 up to 360-380 ppmv. An unprecedented amount. The more CO2 the more heat.

However, there is still doubt that this increase is caused by human interaction. How do we know it is human caused? We can record the types of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are three major CO2 bases we record: CO2 4, CO2 13, CO2 14. CO2 base 4 comes from very old and dead plants. CO2 base 13 comes from volcanoes, etc. CO2 base 14 comes from newer plants. We can see that in our atmosphere ther eis mostly and high concentrations of CO2 4. CO2 4 comes from fossil fuels, or very old plants.

This shows not only is there much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere, but that it is human caused.

There needs to be a change. A change that our government can hardly take on. It requires a sense of moral obligation at large levels for any effects to be seen. Moral obligations that should be strongly held and encouraged by our LDS faith as well as many other or all faiths. We are taught that we are stewards of the Earth and it is under our charge.

Simple Meeting

2011-08-15T08:01:00.000-06:00

In your machine, you fly
and breath
and you call it life
Like God you see through
the use of legs.
Trust is
letting me pay for you
letting me look into your bag
allowing me, or another approach
when your hands can't
understand your brain.
And like a God who knows
pain and suffering
like I have
like you have
I close your bad on your chair
walk back behind the counter
and make you a meal.

On Empathy

2011-08-01T07:54:00.000-06:00

I wrote this the other day while at one of my jobs.

Today I saw a man in a wheel chair who could barely use his arms. He ordered a sandwich and then asked me if I could take his wallet out of a side pouch so he could pay. I got it and paid for the meal, he even told me to leave a tip.

At first, I felt pity or maybe sympathy for this kind and trusting man, but realized that this is not what he needs or would probably want. He needed my empathy, just like I needed his. I've been through a lot of hard times with my Ulcerative Colitis, and Pyoderma Gangrenosum, as well as the problems I've had with my lungs, and on some level I know how he feels and on some level he knows how I feel.

I think, more that fire, the wheel, the understanding of deaths inevitability, or a belief in a God, what makes us human is our ability to have empathy for one another and to allow that empathy, on some level, guide our actions, thoughts and our lives. We, as humans need to know that although we are for a great part alone, we can never be forgotten and we can always be understood.

I'm amazed at Christ's atonement. Isn't empathy one of the most important things we learn Christ did in his life. Not only did he show it to those he met, but he took upon himself all of the pains and sufferings of everyone that would ever live. It is an all encompassing atonement where Christ was given the gift of perfect empathy. Although it is something we will never fully obtain in this life, his example is a wonderful reminder why I can smile and help out a fellow human being without pity, but with understanding and compassion, because I know others have looked at me at my worst, lying on my back with large open wounds covering it, unable to move for weeks, and had shown compassion and empathy towards me.

Nature

2011-07-20T09:44:00.000-06:00

I love nature.

I guess I could leave the whole blog with just that, but maybe I should elaborate. After all, anyone who is reading and commenting on this I am probably paying off, and those of you not getting a weekly check are missing out.

I love nature. I love being in it, I love experiencing it and sharing it with my kids. It's wonderful. I suspect I got this from my parents. We would go on hikes in Schenck Forest when I grew up in North Carolina and my Dad would take my brother and me on "Journey's of Discovery" where we would hike down rivers, bike in the rain and explore the many forests in NC. We learned about bugs and trees and more bugs and other animals and we learned to appreciate what nature has to offer. We learned the importance of preserving it. We learned that our awareness of God grows and is determined through our interactions with nature.

We need nature.

Through this appreciation of nature I have become very strong in my opinions in regards to global warming. I feel, and have learned through careful reading and studying that it is our moral obligation to treat this planet with respect and to do all we can to make sure our stewardship over this planet is taken seriously. It is discouraging to me that there is little I can personally do. But I still feel morally obligated to do what I can. I now bike to work (and school when it isn't summer), my wife and I have started a garden to become more self sufficient, and there are other things. It's little, but honestly it makes me feel better.

The morality of global warming has become and important issue . . . or rather, should be an important issue. However, still there are so many who simply refuse to "believe" in it, or decide that they do not care. They disregard the fact that through the scriptures our stewardship over the Earth is apparent and emphasized. In fact, "much of what can be done to fight climate change is consistent with traditional Christian values of good stewardship and modest living." (Hadley, Faith and Ethics of Climate Change, Dialogue 2011).

There is uncertainty, there will need to be some level of faith involved. Although the science is accurate and nearly unanimous, there is still faith needed. And this is exactly why it is an issue of morality, because there is that uncertainty, but with that comes our obligation to do what is ethically right to prevent something that could (and will) happen. It is important that we understand that we can make changes and we should do all we can in order to make the world a better place for our children and their children

"The complexity of the problem requires that the solutions we offer must meet the depth and range of the problems; the must be global, the must reach into the very marrow of how we define ourselves as human beings, into what we believe to be our plave on this planet, and what, ultimately is the meaning and nature of death, of dying, and of our biology. This is certainly too much to ask of capitalism, politics, science, and technology, but it certainly shouldn't be too much to ask of religion." (Hadley)

What Freedom Means to Me

2011-07-04T05:00:00.001-06:00

This means so much more to me in regards to Freedom than any speech, sermon, talk, address, etc. has ever meant. It is simple, different and correct. I wish/hope that as a country we can view lived like this, and view freedom like this. Freedom doesn't need to be about wars fought or us leaving England's rule. It could be about so much more.

I hope we can all remember this on the 4th of July. It is important.

***

(This is from Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan).

"You come and tell me the big news," said Boaz. "'Boaz — ' you say, 'we're going to be free!' And I get all excited, and I drop everthing I'm doin', and I get set to be free.

"And I keep saying it over to myself about how I'm going to be free," said Boaz, "and then I try to think what that's going to be like, and all I can see is people. They push me this way, then they push me that — and nothing pleases 'em, and they get madder and madder, on account of nothing makes 'em happy. And they holler at me on account of I ain't made 'em happy, and we all push and pull some more.

"And then, all of a sudden," said Boaz, "I remember all the crazy little animals I been making so happy so easy with music. And I go find thousands of 'em lying around dead, on account of Boaz forgot all about 'em, he was so excited about being free. And ever' one of them lost lives I could have saved, if I'd have just kept my mind on what I was doing.

"And then I say to myself," said Boaz, "'I ain't never been nothing good to people, and people never been nothing good to me. So what I want to be free in crowds of people for?'

"And then I knew what I was going to say to you, Unk, when I got back here," said Boaz.

Boaz now said it:

"I found me a place where I can do good without doing any harm, and I can see I'm doing good, and them I'm doing good for know I'm doing it, and they love me, Unk, as best they can. I found me a home.

"And when I die down here some day," said Boaz, "I'm going to be able to say to myself, 'Boaz — you made millions of lives worth living. Ain't nobody ever spread more joy. You ain't got an enemy in the Universe.'"

On Questioning What We Know

2011-06-10T05:55:00.003-06:00

I have to admit something. I have not always thought the same way I do now. (Big shocker, I know). But in all seriousness, there was a time when I would tell people that I believed in questioning truth, or even seeking truth, and maybe I did on some level, but I never really questioned. I never really sought truth. I just accepted what I learned in seminary or at church and never really questioned it.

There is a letter I wrote home after being on my mission for about four or five months that I still regret. You see, I would hear something that people would say, and I would accept it and rarely question its validity, and this was a major downfall for me. I served my mission in Florida from '05-'07. In the summer of 2007 Hurricane Katrina hit. It was a big deal at the time because there were only a few directions it could possible go. One of which was directly over the area I was serving. After the devastation and destruction it brought there were a lot of members, and sadly missionaries, as well, who began to think that New Orleans deserved what it got. That it was a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. And sadly, (I still get a little upset about how ignorant I was) I started to think it too. Enough to even write home about it.

I want to say, that questioning everything is not a sin. Even well founded doctrinal beliefs such as "did Christ atone for our sins and weaknesses" should be questioned. Since that time I have changed. I feel I understand the nature of God better because I am not willing to accept things without first understanding them and seeking out the truth. And if I cannot see how it can be true, of if it doesn't make sense with how I have found God to be, than I cannot accept it. I cannot accept that God would ever cause destruction like that of Katrina. He cannot have anything to do with such a disaster. I cannot accept that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. I cannot accept that Judas is a "Son of Perdition."

Truth is everywhere. D&C 88:118 says, Seek ye out of the best books. To me, this is saying that we need to seek out truth at all costs. This is now an important part of my life. I regret thinking something so horrible and demeaning about those that suffered in Katrina, but I have changed. I have grown from that time, and I feel that there will be a lot more growing in my life. That is something that I am excited for.

Who Deserves Death

2011-05-23T05:00:00.003-06:00

I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee.
-Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-five

For a good portion of my adult life, (probably starting around the age of twenty) I was against capital punishment. I felt that no body, regardless of their actions deserved death and despite the person or the reasons one would feel justified in killing someone I felt it was wrong. In fact, I had a hard time with any killing. This was a big reason I never even join the military. I felt at the time that killing on any level was wrong.

It wasn't until recently that I began revisiting these belief's and examining what I really believed. And, came to the conclusion that there really are some people that deserve to die.

Take, for instance, the genocide in Rwanda. In one instance, school children were told to place their heads on their desks and one by one they were decapitated. I think that a person like that should not live in the world. There is nothing noble or religious about this. There is no backing reason, other than, as one of the Rwanda cabinet members stated that she said she was personally in favor of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi all of Rwanda's problems would be over. I feel reluctant in saying it, almost filthy, but I am beginning to think that people who commit genocide truly deserve to die. To really die and be out of this world. Death is not something to celebrate, but it is, at times necessary.

What of the major ethical question on committing genocide to prevent it. I find that this is one of the best distinctions between utilitarianism and deontology. On the one had, as the person committing genocide would be doing it for greater purposes and helping the greatest amount of people, it is justifiable and ethical. However, the later example says that no genocide is ethical. Ever. Utilitarianism states that if the actions taken are for the greater good, or provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Deontology, however sets up basic ethical rules that cannot, at any time, be broken. (i/e., killing is wrong, therefore one can never kill under any circumstances). My answer . . . I would take a life to prevent the killing of hundreds of others. It is similar to torture. It is wrong, plain and simple. But if there was a man holding my son hostage and torturing him and I was in the same room as someone who knew where he was I would have no hesitation in torturing that man to find out where my son was.

Does this make me a bad person? No, I don't think it does. I think it shows that I would be willing to destroy my soul and my life to save my son. I would be willing to go to jail for murder if it meant hundreds or thousands would then live.

Finally, what of celebrating death? My wife and I both felt sick watching the people celebrate in the streets upon finding out about Osama's death. I think the death of someone, even if they are evil should never be celebrated but met with contemplation. It makes me sad that we had to kill him. It is sad that we have a death row and that some of the people who have received the death penalty should be killed. It is sad that their lives went so wrong that they killed ans murdered. It is not something to be proud of. It is something to morn and the acknowledge and meet with (when the occasion calls for it) gratitude and relief, but not gleeful celebration, not with rejoicing.

Is God Omnipotent?

2011-05-18T12:10:00.001-06:00

Some time ago I read an essay by philosopher Dennis Potter discussing God's omnipotence, or rather, how God cannot and is not omnipotent. He rather argued that God is a finite creature who experiences time, and has a physical body, he is, as well, not omniscient nor omnibenevolent. (Although, compared to us and our mortality he might as well be.

Before I continue, I should state that it is the theistic view that God is omnipotent -- having all power and being limitless. This is also widely believed as well in the Mormon religion, adhering to this belief because of scriptural references stating Gods omnipotence. (Mosiah 3:17, 21, 18, are a few). However, the question I ask is, 'how literally should we take those statements?'

There are several big problems with believing in a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. In fact just believing that God's attributes contain those three things is (debatable) impossible, and has brought about much controversy as to why it is. (See my earlier posts here and here). Regardless of those three main attributes there are still many contradictions that arise. There are many paradoxes that come about because of them.

One of my favorite paradoxes involves infinite nesting. Here is an example. Say God is omniscient. If we are to say that infinite nesting is possible, that is to say that one cannot perfectly know themselves, and as God is omniscient, this would fit, then he would be able to look at his own make up of atoms and see -- knowing himself perfectly - -that his is going to raise his right hand, and after knowing perfectly that this is his fate he raises his left, he has brought about a paradox, going against his own knowledge. God being omnipotent, he surly could do this without thinking or pre-meditation. If we say infinite nesting is impossible, or that God cannot know himself perfectly, and (as Mormons) believe there are other great beings or Gods, than all he need to is know the other God (God2) perfectly. In him knowing God2 perfectly, and in God2 knowing God1 perfectly, he therefore knows his self perfectly, therefore, the same paradox can come about from the former example. If God is omniscient he is a living paradox and cannot be omniscient, and still, yet is.

As far as ruling omnibenevolent out, you can simply read another article I've written on the logical problem of evil, here. This simply states that if God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, what then is the reason for evil in the world? If he knows about it, is perfectly good, and has the power to stop it, would he not just stop it? The leading theories argue that either he allows it because through evil our souls will build and we will become greater, more moral beings, (soul-building theodicy). Or, that because of our freewill he allows the evil deeds of men do go, (freewill defense). I will not, however, go into these theories here, and you can read about them in one of my linked posts above).

However, there is one ultimate solution to all of these problems. God is not omnipotent but rather a finite being. He is not one of the omni's but rather none of them.

What does this do to Mormonism? Very little, actually. We essentially interpret 'omnipotent' to mean, 'more powerful than we could imagine' but not 'all-powerful'. In doing this we are able to more fully embrace our gospel. Eternal progression is a very large part of the gospel. We progressed in the pre-mortal life, and we progress here on earth. Once dead we will eventually progress into God-hood and further. Our God is still progressing to a higher god-hood, etc. We know this from teaching of Joseph Smith in the King Follett address as well as from others. "Improvement and progression, have one eternal round."

This is not demoting our God, but rather better understanding his nature and our potential.

Equality . . . We Need More of It

2011-05-05T09:26:00.002-06:00

In March of 2004 I turned eighteen. Before then I had very little political views, and had never really cared about politics. I remember that summer working at Gandolfo's Deli where a great friend hired me to work there. Brian was a Democrat and so where my parents and I had a lot of influences to volt for John Cary at the time. I heard both sides, but I definitely found the democrat's to be more sound and the better choice. However, there were some issues that no body seemed to really want to talk about. The one issue that I felt very strongly about. (And much more strong now than then). Gay Rights/Marriage.

I'm not sure what sparked my interest, but if I were to guess, at the time, the idea of it made sense to me generally, they are people too. But I think a big part came from some underlying desire to be different and even controversial. I never talked about it, though. Maybe I was embarrassed or ashamed or, not knowing how my friends and family felt about it and not being at all good at arguing a point back then I kept it quiet.

Still being impressionable and from influences from my best friend Tyler I (to my eternal shame) voted for Bush. But I distinctly remember not hesitating when voting on the issue of Gay Marriage. I voted for it. Of course it should be allowed. It just made sense.

Now, almost seven years later I know why I support gay rights, marriage and feel that they should be more accepted in this country. I feel very strong on the matter and am not not ashamed or embarrassed by the fact that I support these things. My heart breaks when I hear people talking about their blatant sinning, talk about how disgusting homosexuals are and even how God hates them. I hate hearing about the bullying that goes on in schools towards those brave teenagers who are open about who they love. It is sad that as a society we require things like the Trevor Project because people are so cruel that they would lead another person to kill themselves.

Institutions like the Trevor Project or It Gets Better Project should not be needed. It is simple. These things are only around because of the hatred that is out there. They are only out there because a certain type of person is hated and "spit upon" . . . because they are different.

I wish that we, as a country, as religious people, as scholars and athletes, students, employees and employers, as human beings could realize the damage that we are causing these wonderful individuals as well as the damage we are causing to ourselves. It is sickening and sad.

Please, take a step back and realize what you are condemning. You are forbidding someone to have the same rights that you have with your loved one because they love someone of the same sex. They still love them. How can we be so quick to determine what love is. We can't. We cannot forbid it and we cannot control it, we need to accept it and all of its forms.

Again, please. Let's strive to be open minded and accepting. Let us be kind and loving. Let us see these people as they really are. People. Just as important and real and precious as anyone else could be. Give them the respect that they deserve.

Please. Treat everyone as equals, because we all are equal.

Forgotten Goodness of Humanity

2011-04-30T10:22:00.003-06:00

This is not something I generally will tell people. It is not something I profess to really anyone but close friends and close family members, but I am going to say it today for the sake of this blog post. I am not a patriot. In fact, I do not like where I see this country is going. (This has nothing to do with Obama, this is not a political post, but rather humanity).

I find myself having a hard time with a lot of things that I see going on in society. Minutes before I started writing this my wife and I were talking about the poor education system, but also the poor outlook towards education in America. It is merely something to make you more money, rather than the view in the 60's and 70's an opportunity to learn and grow and gain great knowledge. There are such horrible accidents because of peoples uncaring attitudes while on the road. Road rage is growing. I remember reading a quote from someone who said he did not care about the lives of the people in other cars. If they are in his way they better watch out.

I feel sad often times with how I see humanity.

However, times like today remind me that humans can be caring and loving and kind. Often times the most unexpected people are the ones that surprise me the most.

Every Sunday, driving home from work I listen to NPR's "On Being". The last story today was told by a man who lived in Portland Oregon who was down on his luck because of the economy. He had the general attitude that I just voiced in the above paragraphs. A bad outlook on humanity, in particular America.

On one occasion, a car he was borrowing had a blow out. He waited on the side of the road for over three hours as cars and tow tow trucks drove by. He had signs hung in his back windows--large signs--saying he needed a car jack and still, no one stopped. Finally, after three hours of waiting a van pulled off the side of the road to help. A Mexican man stepped out and and walked over to him. Not able to speak English, he walked back and brought his daughter to translate for him. The man had a jack, but it was too small and they would need to prop it on something in order for it to work. And so, the Mexican man went back to his van, grabbed a saw and sawed a piece of a fallen tree, the wood to go on the ground and support the jack. As they were taking the wheel off, the tire iron broke. But the man, instead of getting frustrated simply had his wife drive out to get one. Finally, she returned and they were able to switch the tire.

This man offered to pay him twenty dollars for him time, feeling overwhelmingly grateful but the Mexican man would not accept. He slipped it to the wife, and found out that they were seasonal workers from Mexico to work on a farm to puck cherries and peaches. As he walked back to his Jeep the daughter ran back, asking if he had eaten and hanged him a tostada , wrapped in tin foil. Gratefully, he accepted. As he opened it, he noticed that his twenty was in the foil. Returning to he car he spoke with the man, pleading "Por favor, pro favor," but the man would not accept it. He finally said, in broken English, wanting to speak to this man he had helped, "Today you, tomorrow me."

From that time on this man who had been helped never turned down the opportunity to help another. Even going so far as to take a lady, whose car had broken down, fifty miles out of his way to the airport.

I think of times in my own life, and wonder what would have happened if I had not stopped to help, or an individual had helped me.

In a similar experience, while on my mission, my companion and I pulled over to help a family that had their hazards on, on the side of the road. We learned that they were out of gas and so we both pitched in and bought a two gallon gas can and filled it with gas, finally bring it back to them. They were so grateful, and it meant something to me.

There are few precious moments in my life when something like this has happened. Where I have helped someone, or they have helped me. I feel that what the man who took hours out of his day to help a stranger said is more relevant than any political talk, more important than many of the same messages that we go over and over in church. It is simple and beautiful and Christ-like. It is what his message is about and an example of how he lived his life and a great reminder for me to have during Easter.

"Today you, tomorrow me."

*Originally written on Easter and posted today.

Examining Zeno's Paradox on Motion: The Arrow -- Part 3 of 3

2011-04-27T05:00:00.001-06:00

Motion Through Time and Consciousness
I would like to make yet another argument for motion, in a sense, relating it to spacetime. Aristotle said that time is the measure of motion. What he meant was that any change was motion. Movement can be defined as an objects change through time. Time passes; therefore, any change can be categorized as movement. We experience time or we are conscious of time therefore we must assume that it exists. In this we can assume the premise that movement can be categorized as an objects experience through time.

Furthermore, in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the rate of a clock as well as material change is lowered within a fast moving system. The closer the object moves to the speed of light the slower time moves. Motion effects time. In fact, time is merely a by-product of motion. Essentially clocks "clock up" motion, not time.

Again, motion can be described as an objects, (the arrow) physical change from one state to another. Because of our own human consciousness we are able to observe the changes in time brought about by motion of that object. I believe that because of our notion of time and as we continually experience progressing time we can postulate that there is motion.

And so, if we incorporate what we know about motion, (or even the belief that there is not motion): that motion brings about change in time, that results from velocity of an object include kinetic energy, and also what we observe through quantum mechanics. Objects move like we see movement on a movie reel, (single frames seen in quick succession) we must then reevaluate what we perceive as motion. I say this because of mainly the results we see from motion. Objects in motion effect too much to conclude that there is no motion. In fact there are results that you can only observer because of motion. If there was no motion and all was essentially an object “strobing” through space, than the simplest results we see from motion, (every action will cause an equal and opposite reaction) could not come about from motion.

I argue that motion cannot be defined as an object physically moving through space consecutively – even at a quantum level – but we can define motion by the results that we see come from an object moving through space or spacetime, or the time distortion we observer as an object moving through space, via relativity.

Conclusion
Over two thousand years after Zeno first introduced the world to his ideas of motion we still cannot determine a definitive conclusion to the paradox. Still, philosophers, mathematicians and scientists cannot find an all inclusive answer to the question, “is there motion?” Though, it is hard to say for sure the results of this paper, I feel that redefining our view of motion, I feel, is the most conclusive resolution. When science can no longer, (or so far) give an answer to a question seemingly so simple, maybe it is time to redefine the original problem – motion.

Regardless, it is important to understand what these things imply. Our knowledge of the “now” is dependent on our experience through time. However, are definition differs when we understand more about motion. If Zeno was right, then the “now” can be understood differently. We can see a universe divided into moments – essentially frozen – and understand that we never really move. Our understanding of being changes as motion implies consciousness to initiate it. (Oderberg) This consciousness is then in question. We are no longer objects in motion, or objects that experience through time. I feel this paradox is important to understand and to seek a further understanding of motion.

Notes (for all 3 parts)
Aristotle, Physica, Z, 239B5-7

Lear, Jonathan, A Note on Zeno's Arrow, Brill, Phronesis, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1981), pp. 99-100

Mazur, Joseph, The Motion Paradox, Penguin (USA) Inc., (2007), pp. 35.

Oderberg, I.M., Space, Motion, Time, and Substance, Sunrise Magazine, Theosophical University Press, 1978.

Poundstone, William, Labyrinths of Reason, Anchor Books, (1988), pp145-146.

Sjoerd Hasper, Pieter, The Metaphysics of Continuity: Zeno, Democritus & Aristotle, Pieter Sjoerd Hasper, (2003), pp. 1-18.

Wayne M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger and D. J. Wineland, Comment to Quantum Zeno Effect, The American Physics Society, Phys. Rev. A 43, 5168-5169 (1991).

Examining Zeno's Paradox on Motion: The Arrow -- Part 2 of 3

2011-04-24T05:00:00.002-06:00

Velocity, Kinetic Energy and Motion
In the book, Labyrinths of Reason,the following questions are addressed: “It would seem there must be some information attached to a moving arrow that identifies it. Otherwise, how does it “know” to jerk forward in the next instant?” (Poundstone 145) Here, Poundstone brings up the issue that if we were too look at any instance of time how would we be able to tell that the arrow was “moving” or would continue to move. However, there are measurable ways to see if an object is in motion. As we are not treating the observed movement of the arrow as a “freeze-frame” image, but simply taking an instance of time we should be able to measure velocity, and it's potential energy through space-time. Calculations in air disruption and force as well as the “compactedness” of the arrow, (the arrow would be shorter as it traveled than when it was stationary just before being released from the bow because of the force of friction working against an arrow).

If we were able to measure its velocity, we would be able to tell that because of a change in the arrows velocity, or the rate and direction of the change in the position of the object, that there is motion.

“One cannot think of motion as occurring only over periods of time. For if one considers an object that is constantly accelerating, the most natural way to express this phenomenon is to say that at every moment the object is moving at a different velocity.” (Lear 100) The difference in velocity means a measurable difference in kinetic energy.

Velocity, or motion, (any motion) brings about kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that an object in motion can bring about work on anything it hits. It limits the amount of work an object could do as a result of that objects motion. To determine the kinetic energey of an object we would use the following formula:

E_k= ½mv²

First we determine the mass of an object, multiplying that by the speed of the object squared. To find the kinetic energy of an arrow we would use:

E_k= ½ x 0.002(kg) x 91.46(meters/sec)² = J(joules)=33.45 kJ

Therefore, the kinetic energy of an arrow traveling at about 90 meters per second is 33.45 joules. This is all created because of motion.

Because of observable motion, when that object stops – the arrow hits a tree – we can measure and see the results of the kinetic energy that was given to the arrow because of the potential energy that was built up in flight. This measurable kinetic energy, as well as the velocity show that the object must have had motion at some point in order to bring about change through kinetic energy.

As an example we can take the story of William Tell. He, was made to shoot a bolt (arrow) at an apple balanced on the head of his son proving his marksmanship. I would like to examine further the results of the bolt hitting the apple and tree adjacent to the boy with apple resting on head. Picture it in your mind. You don't quite see the bolts release as the speed is too great for the eye to follow accurately, but you can see the results. After release, a split second later you see the apple cleaved in two and the bolt stuck in the tree.

What caused the apple to split? Kinetic energy. As the bolt lay in the crossbow it held potential energy, indicated from the drawback, length, etc. Upon release that energy turned into kinetic energy – the energy of motion. That energy, or part of which was then released as the bolt struck the apple, splintering it in two, (the energy being so great it did not cause the arrow to simply go through the apple, but rather split it). Then, as it struck the tree splinters flew off, the bolt dug into the hard bark and finally stopped, it's kinetic energy depleted.

Now, how does this prove motion? If we are to take one instance of time and examine it, say the moment the arrow splits the apple we can see that there are consequences and results from the arrow that is, in the instance, still. What caused the apple to split? Are we to assume that it has always been split because of this moment we are examining? No. We can tell that there was some force that acted on the apple causing it to break in half. We are able to examine this further to see that there is a measurable force that would need to interact with each object in order for such a result to come about. What caused that force or energy? Motion. Observable motion through the results it brings about.

Examining Zeno's Paradox on Motion: The Arrow -- Part 1 of 3

2011-04-21T13:03:00.003-06:00

*This is the final paper I wrote for a philosophy class I took which focused on Paradoxes.

In Zeno's paradox of motion, in which he states that there is no motion, he gives an example of an arrow being shot, indicating that from the time the arrow is released to the point in which it hits its target, (let's say a tree) there is no actual motion that takes place. Zeno pictures an arrow in flight and considers it frozen at a single point in time. He argues that at that instant it is stationary, and because it is stationary at that moment it is stationary at all moments in time. Therefore, there is no motion.

The argument is as follows: (1) when the arrow is in a place just its own size, it's at rest; (2) at every moment of its flight, the arrow is in a place just its own size; (3) therefore, at every moment of its flight, the arrow is at rest. (Aristotle 239B5-7) Our understanding of reality and the now rests on Zeno's conceptualization of motion.

For when does the arrow move otherwise if not in the now? If it is only over a period as a whole that it can move, motion is not a real phenomenon, since reality is enclosed in the now, that is, in each of the nows separately. Conversely, if the arrow does not move in the now, it does not really move over a period either. (Hasper 13)

Our understanding of time and space can be greatly affected by and has been widely discussed because of Zeno's arrow paradox, making it a very important and interesting topic, even today.

There are many theories, experiments and debate still today, regarding this paradox. These differing opinions argue at even a quantum scale and reach from the quantum to consciousness and experience. Zeno's paradox has brought about a great number of speculation as to what motion really is, if anything at all.

I will be focusing on two views discussing the issue: the first, the Quantum Zeno Effect, or the notion that at a quantum level there is no motion, supporting the ancient philosophers idea's of a lack of motion in all objects. The second stance will be discussing ways in which we can see that in any instant the arrow is in fact moving. Finally, after discussing the above views, I will give my own thoughts on the matter, discussing the belief that through human consciousness and observation we see objects moving through space, therefore supporting the belief that there is motion, going against Zeno's paradox.

The Quantum Zeno Effect
The concept of motion is hard to define, in fact, in regards to Zeno's argument saying what is wrong exactly can be difficult because by theory we can disprove the idea of motion, or that is to say, by theories in quantum mechanics we are able to see that objects move like pictures move in a 64 bit game—there is no motion, only changing of pixels to give the illusion of motion. Another example can be given with a movie reel: the human eye can comprehend, on average 24 frames per second, however we cannot see the black between each of the frames that slide through during a movie. When you look at the individual frames you see only frozen moments. Quantum mechanics has shown that this is how motion acts at the quantum level and is called the Quantum Zeno Effect.

The quantum Zeno effect is the inhibition of transitions between quantum states by frequent measurements of the state. The inhibition arises because the measurement causes a collapse (reduction) of the wave function. If the time between measurements is short enough, the wave function usually collapses back to the initial state. (Wayne, et al 5168)
This is the general idea behind the quantum Zeno effect. That an object moving through time, in quantum states, does not in fact move, but rather shifts between each collapsing wave function.

“Tobias Dantzig, the twentieth-century author of several popular books on mathematics, put it beautifully: 'When we see a ball in flight we perceive the motion as a whole and not as a succession of infinitesimal jumps. But neither is a mathematical line the true, or even the fair, representation of a wire.'” (Mazur 35) He, by example, shows that although we cannot see the jumps that are being made at a quantum level to give the illusion of motion does not mean that there is in fact motion. We cannot make assumptions through mere physical observation alone on physical examples of motion. That is to say that what the naked eye sees does not prove or indicate what is actually, physically, taking place.

Rather, by direct experiment and mathematics it seems as though we can prove motion does not exist using the Quantum Zeno Effect. I find this troubling as Quantum Mechanics is quickly overtaking classical physics and in this it is evident that what we discover in quantum mechanics must be correct, (or very near the truth). However there are other methods of measuring or observing motion other than at a quantum level and still using scientific means.

Evolution in Regards to the Creation Account in Genesis: Part II

2011-03-31T05:00:00.006-06:00

Adam and Eve, the Garden and the Fall.

The Garden and existence of an Adam and Eve who lived there is fundamental in Christianity and Mormonism. In Mormonism it is a foundational point in history where humanity entered into sin thus, requiring an atonement, a sacrifice to alleviate the results from the fall. However, there is a great amount of symbolism in the account. In fact, I argue that the story is merely a tool used to teach the creation and pre-mortal life. It was not a historical event or place in where two individuals dwelt in a perfect garden until being thrown out because of their disobedience to God's laws.

I have found the reasons interesting, regarding Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden. It seems as though the main reason was not for their transgression of God's law, but that, having knowledge they then could partake of the tree of life and be kept in their sinful state forever. And so were cast out so that they may gain redemption. James Barr gives this incite, “the problem that Adam's disobedience created – a problem for God himself above all – was not that he brought death into the world, but that he brought near to himself the distant possibility of immortality. This alone is the reason why he and his wife have to be expelled from the Garden of Eden.”^¹

Looking at this story from a Mormon perspective there are many parts that do not make sense. There are many contradictions when compared to Mormon theology and there are many issues that seem to conflict with the bases of our understanding of the Plan of Salvation. For instance, there are issues of Satan's roll, in the physical fall of the world. Satan had fallen and was cast out, therefore would have no place in the garden of Eden with a body (snake or man). Neither can we assume that he would be allowed to tempt Eve. However, when incorporating evolution into God's plan we can see that the creation narrative can be altered. I propose that the narrative seems to be explaining the conditions and events during our pre-mortal sojourn as well as a way for us to understand the world and the way it was created. We can understand the pre-mortal life and our decisions to gain a physical body and live on Earth. Our desire for knowledge and the opportunity we have to learn and gain knowledge on this Earth is representative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We were tempted by Lucifer in the pre-mortal life to gain knowledge and immortality, but we chose to “leave the garden” forgoing immortality, or rather postponing it so that we may gain pure knowledge, receive a body and be tested on our willingness to follow God's commandments, doing all of this outside of God's presence.

Knowledge, or the gaining of knowledge, is an important part of the Adam and Eve narrative. It is seen as God-like and of the utmost importance. This was a typical view from early humans. Carl Sagan, writes in his attempt to understand the story of the garden that at the time the narrative was written, knowledge was seen as a God-like power.^² “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”^³ Knowledge was empowering and important. Its emphases is not surprising and is typical in ancient writings.

Who were Adam and Eve, then, if not the first two humans on the Earth? Steven Peck, in an attempt to give an ecological account of Mormon theology writes,

“Like an island ecosystem, which begins with the invasive seeds of grasses that prepare the soil in order for it to receive more complex biological communities after a long process of multiple ecological successional stages culminating in a climax community type, the human body is now ready to receive the S-agent “mycelium” until later successional stages.”^⁴

S-agent is a reverence to our spirit, or, more specifically, one of the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. He then adds that, “The first bodies to receive S- agents where called Adam and Eve.” And so, from this we can understand that in the involvement of evolutionary thinking with the Adam and Eve narrative we can come to understand that while there may not have been a literal garden of Eden there could have been a literal Adam and Eve, or rather, the first humans whose brain activity was sufficient enough, and who were themselves evolved enough to receive an s-agent; one of those spirit children of God. They could be the first with conscious thought. “For man is spirit.”^⁵

We are able to incorporate a belief in evolution easily to this account, however there are beliefs that must be viewed very differently than the traditional Mormon understanding. The Adam and Even Narrative is now a beautiful story with multiple meaning behind it. There is in fact, more meaning gained from leaving the literal interpretation behind and seeing it as a teaching myth.

One of the major results from the fall was the introduction to death into the world. The Fall brought about pain and suffering and hardship. But if we take a closer look at the narrative we can see a new view to this. Carl Sagan says on the Fall, “It is not that death was absent . . . before the excile from Eden; it is only that, until then, no one had ever noticed that death would be his destiny.”^⁶

Man is the only animal aware of the inevitability of his own death. Possibly part of the fall is not the introduction of death to the world, but rather the realization of death. Or as B.H. Roberts discusses, that human consciousness is self-consciousness.^⁷ This is the consciousness which is attributed to our, as humans, being awake and perceiving our surroundings. It interprets surroundings. The Fall teaches a gaining of knowledge as well as an awakening of sorts. This is an important step in our evolution into Godhood. It is possible that there was, in human evolution a point in which our bodies gained their spirits (s-agent) Knowing of the creation story, I would say that it is safe to assume that those humans that (in this instance of the creation) first were aware of not just death, but their own death were “Adam” and “Eve”.

Conclusion

Through an evolutionary perspective we are able to understand the creation story in depth. We are able to understand it in a way that incorporates God into the science of nature and physics of the universe. Through complexities we are able to understand God's powers in creation. We are able to see a glimpse of what it means to be a God and to understand the workings of the universe so completely to bring about the existence of a species that can house souls. Doing all of this through evolution and not, like ID teaches, by continually stirring the mixing pot of his creation.

We are able to understand the Adam and Eve narrative and where our heritage comes from. We are able to understand the scriptures meaning to a greater extent and understand God's plan more fully through acceptance of the stories figurativeness.

Evolution and the Mormon understanding of the creation have the potential to work together to unify a broader understanding of God's creations and powers.

“I contend that these questions of science verses creation and history versus myth . . . obscure the real meaning of the Genesis text,”^⁸ Keith Norman explains that these views do not need to be at odds and that, “if the scientific theory of evolution over eons of time is accurate, then the Genesis account of the origins of man cannot be true.” He, however is not discounting its validity as something important, as it is [correctly] very relevant. Rather, the literalism that is associated with it should be questioned and addressed. There is great meaning that can come from the Adam and Eve narrative while still incorporating evolution and the complexities that come from such a belief.

Notes for Part II

1Barr, James, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, Fortress Press, 1992, pp. 5-6.

2Sagan, Carl, The Dragons of Eden, Ballantine Books, 1986.

3Genesis chapter 3, verse 22, King James Bible.

4Peck, Steven, Tractatus de Corpore et Mundo Naturali. bycommonconcent.com/2011/03/05tracatus-de-corpore-et-mundo-naturali/ 2011.

5D&C 93: 33

6Sagan, Carl, The Dragons of Eden, Ballantine Books, 1986.

7Roberts, B.H. Seventy Course in Theology, 5 vol. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907-12) 4:2.

8Norman, Keith, Adam's Navel, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 21 No 2, pp 81-97

Evolution in Regards to the Creation Account in Genesis: Part I

2011-03-28T08:24:00.007-06:00

I had been asked by one of the sister missionaries in my mission on one P-Day if I could write down my thoughts on evolution and the creation, (as well as in regards to Noah's Ark). They, having an investigator with questions concerning evolutions roll in the forming of this world, did not have an answer for his questions. This seemed to be a major hang up for him and the sister missionaries felt that I would be able to explain it to him. I'm not sure if that was the best choice, but I was nonetheless flattered and did my best to explain my humble and (at the time) weak understanding of such things.

In the six years from that experience questions have plagued my mind in regards to the creation. How did Adam and Eve fit into the creation? Could there be a literal garden they lived in? Was Satan really a part of God's plan to redeem us; he having such a large part that, without Satan, there could be no plan of salvation? I searched for answers to these questions and more and feel that I have a much greater understanding of the complexities in which God works through. I wish, in this paper, to discuss the roll evolution plays in the Creation Account and attempt to help shed some light on the issue that has become very opinionated and controversial in the Mormon church today.

One of the biggest concerns in the church, today, in regards to evolution, is that it not only discounts the account of the creation given in the Bible – specifying that it took 6 days and nights to create the universe – but that if evolution were true, were they in a garden? Did they evolve from a common ape ancestor? If so, how could this relate to the creation story? I would like to tackle this issue in two tiers: (1) God's roll in the creation. (2) Adam and Eve's and the garden's existence. Who were Adam and Eve? How does evolution effect or explain the Fall? I feel that there are many other important concerns and issues regarding this topic, but for the sake of this paper I wish to stick within the realm of the afore mentioned topics.

God's Roll in the Creation

There has been some debate in what God's roll in the creation has been. Or rather, how He had gone about creating the world, or for that matter, the universe. Two major and opposing sides have come about because of the multitude of views within the Christian community. The first of which, Intelligent Design (ID) and the other being evolution by natural selection.

Intelligent Design came about in the early days of American fundamentalism where, after being rejected time and time again, wanted “equal rights” for their ideas and their involvement in science. They coined the term Intelligent Design because of the disagreement in evolution regarding natural selection or random occurrence.. “In His [God's] creation of the world God implemented His “intelligent design,” and random occurrence [evolution] conflicted with “intelligent design.”^¹

William Paley, in his paper, Natural Theology, compares life – or the complexities within life – to a watch. He shows the reader how each part of the watch is in tune and created specifically for a purpose and reason. If one part were to become out of sync then the entire thing would not work. Or if one part had not been added the same effect would be found. However, he points out that in the watch, each part is specifically there for a reason, and that each has a specific function, saying, “its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose . . . If the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are . . . no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine.”^² Here, we have a definition showing us that all functioning in nature is a direct result from God's specific creation. Essentially, God created complexities exactly how there are now. And how they are not is the same as they have always been. However, there are problems with this way of thinking which will be addressed later on.

Evolution, through complexities, however differs greatly in its definition of what complexities are and how they are brought about. Steven Peck, argues that evolution proves a designer and “enhances and expands our view of God,”^³ explaining that Darwin had read Paley and agreed that to explain complexities one would need to incorporate an ultimate designer. “Most scientists agree that evolution provides a sufficient explanation of design.” Design, indicating that there was someone behind complexities. Evolution, Peck explains, is an empowering idea because it is the only way to create complexity. Evolution makes available important concepts and adds to doctrinal concepts.

This debate has been ongoing over many fields. Sir Isaac Newton even embrassed the ancient idea, “argument from design”, (similar in idea to ID) that proof of a creator ca be seen through the natural world. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”⁴ Newton believed in a God who was constantly active, intervening in the laws of nature when necessary. Leibniz disagreed with Newton. He asked how could God, the absolute embodiment of a perfect being, be so clumsy as to create a reality which needed regular maintenance?⁵

To illustrate the differences between the two concepts of creation/complexity consider the following:

In a room you have two computer programmers given the task to design a brand new, state of the art operating system (OS). The first goes about writing the program. He is experienced and writes a beautiful program in new imaginative and innovative digital objects. However, through time, the OS becomes outdated, needs upgrades, needs patched and fixes an occasional bug may appear and need fixing. The OS is still reliable, but but no more than any other program. The programmer must continually update his work. Although his operating system is continually updating and patching, it is still state of the art. The other programmer who had been hired to design the best operating system also builds a complex program. He is just as experienced as the first and programs something just and beautiful and imaginative and innovative. However, there is a difference. The second programmers OS is self fixing and self updating. If an error occurs it updates itself in the best possible way to accommodate any change. Any error, change, upgrade ever needed would be handled by the program itself. The OS is built around the complexities of the code.

With this example, it is easy to determine which of the two programs is greater and which of the programmers is greater. It is easy to pick out which of the two programs is more advanced. It is important to understand evolution and the creation. God, using evolution as his catalyst for creation only elevates our understanding of the creation. Evolution, or complexity, in creation is no longer an event, as James McLauchlan explains, calling on Howison's ten-point outline of his personal idealism. Creation rather than an event happening at one single instance is ongoing.⁶

But how do we account for the rest of the creation story. In accepting evolution we can rule out the six days of creation. Instead, understanding that it is an indication that God is the creator. But what about the garden, Adam and Eve, or the Fall. How does this view of evolution change those things?

Notes for Part I:

1M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe, Part 3, DOI 10.1117/978-3-642-02103-9_20, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009, pp. 106.

2Paley, William, Natural Theology, (Edinburgh 1837), pp. 1-2.

3Peck, Steven, Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step towards the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 43 No.1, 2010, pp. 1-36.

4 Cihen and Whitman, (1999) pp 940-941

5 Dan Falk, In Search of Time, (2006) pp. 134,

6 James M. McLauchlan, The Modernism Controversy, Discourses in Mormon Theology, (2007) pp. 53

Faith and Truth

2011-03-19T06:49:00.001-06:00

I feel as though faith is something hard to write about. The idea of faith is beautiful, but it is more complicated than I once thought. I use to think faith was merely the backbone to belief. That it was there to prove to God that I believed in him. And I guess in some ways it is that. In some ways my definition of faith has stayed the same. Having faith in the atonement, for example, is necessary. This is a basic belief but a very in depth concept. Having faith in the restoration of Christ's gospel is another basic but in depth belief. But what about the faith we must have to change ourselves.

We are told to question the truth of all things. This includes not just scripture, but what our leaders say, what our friends or family says, what we hear on the news, what we read or watch. All things. This is something I took to heart about five years ago, while on my mission. There are things that I was teaching that I did not understand. Things that seemingly went against what the Mormon church told me. While I was discouraged I began to read. I read the Bible, (mostly New Testament). I will admit that up until this point, (about the last six months of my mission), I had not read the New Testament all the way through.

I was determined to do it, and so I began reading and then studying, and then researching. I devoured not only the scriptures but the history, the meaning, the influence. I think it was then that I wanted to not only have an understanding of the gospel according to Mormonism, but an understanding on a scholarly aspect.

I realize now that I still knew very little, but there were certain things that I believed, through studying, praying, and seeking out the truth that founded a certain way of thinking that I kept with me and still keep with me. It is that all things can be either true or false and ultimately it is up to me to determine what is truth. The hard part about this was that I started to question basics of the gospel that I had known. I started to see holes and pitfalls and things that I still am scared to bring up or think about. Issues like evolution and global warming are easy. Those are simple and straight forward and (if I may be so bold) correct. But there are other things that are so founded in Mormonism and many religions and are so widely accepted that I have a hard time talking about them or discussing them. Some of these issues I feel tend to go directly against what is generally taught in our church. Issues like taking the Bible as a work of mostly myth rather than fact, gay marriage, war, religious experience and many others.

So how does one know if they are choosing rightly? This is one of my biggest hang up's. For example, our leaders tell us to not support laws being passed to allow homosexuals to marry. I cannot bring myself to agree with that. And my feelings are so mixed up with feelings of what is ethical or moral, what is limiting to human rights and what is not, what freedom means and should mean that I am not even able to talk about such issues openly (except with a very very select individuals). It is not that I am embarrassed. It is that I don't fully know how I feel about all aspects of it. I feel, however that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and should be treated with equality and respect. However, this is not the blog post to get into that.

The point is, I feel that I am a very liberal thinker. I feel that this does not fit to the general view of Mormonism. I still I am a firm believer in God and the Mormon church. I think that its teachings will bring a person back to God. My faith now is based off of only few principles. The atonement, the restoration, the value of the scriptures and the importance of questioning and learning from any source, not just scripture but anything and everything.

I have faith in knowledge and understanding and in seeking out as much knowledge in this life as possible. I think there needs to be more liberal thinking, more questioning in the church. If there is not, than how will we ever progress? Progression is a key idea in Mormonism. It is what we base much of our beliefs around. A promise of further and continual progression. We are in this process of self improvement now and have been for countless years. This spirit of progression must pertain to all things and I feel the best way to bring about radical change/progression is the question the truth of all things and build our faith off of that.

A Plea to the Evangelicals Out There

2011-03-07T05:18:00.003-07:00

When I say the word Evangelicals I am not referring only to Christians. (Evangelical Christians), although they are included. I am also referring to, as philosopher Dennis Potter calls, Evangelical Atheists. This post comes out of my frustration towards about half of the Paradox class that I am taking currently as a part of my philosophy minor requirements. I feel that any moral paradoxes slowly turns into a bash on religion which is pointless and absurd.

Now, I want to refine what my quarrel is with these ten or so people that harp on religion constantly. It is not that they do not agree with religion or are not religious themselves, it is because they are ignorant as to the importance of religion and argue from a stance of ignorance having no knowledge of theology or religious experience and choose rather than studying about religion and then arguing against concerns they have they simple state, (and I quote), "can we not all agree that all religions are retarded?"

It is that type of attitude that promotes ignorance and intolerance in the world. I have argued in that class that religion matters that it affects the entire world for good and bad and to deny its affects is to proclaim your own stupidity.

One of my best friends is an Agnostic. I have had more meaningful discussions with him than almost anyone. He is open minded, tolerant, respectful and willing to learn and change his opinion. This is something we have in common. It is a mutual understanding of where the other stands and an understanding that we can learn from each other. Obviously we differ on some of our beliefs, (surprisingly few things other than the belief in God from me, and non-belief from him) but because of his willingness to learn and desire to learn about religion, theology, science, etc. he has valid and meaningful opinions that I regard as important.

However, that is the difference between him and an evangelical atheist, like those in my class; there is no merit to what they are saying except that they have some unfounded grudge against religion.

I will admit that many within religion do the same thing. That is, they argue through ignorance--not seeing the bigger picture. They attack atheists and others who are religious alike.

We need more tolerance and understanding in this world. We need more empathy. We need to understand where each other is coming from and understand how they got there and why they are there--why they believe what they believe. To rule off religion or non-religion as retarded (not my word), is bringing us as humanity further down and benefiting no one. We need to decide to look at others belief systems--whether religiously based or not--and take it to heart and not belittle it into something we despise and continuously attempt to tare down.

Questioning the Purpose of Life: Guest blog by Jeffrey Dean Root

2011-02-28T05:00:00.008-07:00

Jeffrey Dean Root, a student at Utah Valley University is studying English, and hoped to teach in the future. You can find other blog posts of his at his own blog at jeffreyroot.blogspot.com. Jeff talks about his experience and views of life and the meaning(s) of life, our existence, and of understanding our place in the world and cosmos; all from the perspective of an ex-Mormon Agnostic.

When you tell people that you feel there is something greater than the idea of God they see you differently. Parents wonder where they went wrong, brothers and sisters feel sorry for you and friends stop calling because they are afraid of your influence. Conversations with people you once admired are now discouraged because someone hates the questions you ask. Who do you talk to when you want to clear things up? If those in religion do not want to hear your questions or give better answers other than, "Because it's God's will," you end up having to look else where, something else they discourage. The longer you stay silent the more lonely the world gets. You've already lost what you were taught was the purpose to life and you do not know what to do next.

So how does one find a purpose to life when God is out of the equation? As a Mormon, I used to ask myself,"If there isn't a God, what is the point of living through all of the good and bad times if you wont exist after this life?" I used to think that all an Atheist did was persecute religion and only for their hatred towards God. I did not realize that the harshest attacks came from other religions against my own and I did not see how my own religious beliefs negatively affected the lives of others. As a missionary I asked people to question their own faith, it was only a matter of time that I would do the same thing out of fairness to those whom I left behind in Mexico.

Religion has always found a way to keep its influence in authority. When the Pope comes to Mexico his visit is nationally televised. He is showered with gifts and the streets are shut down as he drives by in his Pope Mobile. Now that's power. Islamic law is written into some of the governments in the Middle east and in the United States there is freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. Religious beliefs are written into our laws and those who do not believe are forced to abide by them. There is progress being made. Kids are no longer forced to say the words, "One Nation under God," while saying the pledge of allegiance and teachers cannot lead a class in prayer unless it is a private school. Prayer is different to all religions.

To question authority is what helps humanity progress. Ideas will continue to change and we constantly learn new things. When Martin Luther wrote the 95 theses, he challenged the interpretation of the Bible. He brought it into the public domain for all to read and understand in a totally different way than the Catholic Church did. Was he wrong for questioning the religious authority? The many protestant churches of today praise his efforts and are thankful for making their cause possible. Galileo challenged the church's scientific authority by confirming the Sun Centered model of the universe and he was put on house arrest. And then along came Charles Darwin. Through scientific research he proved that all life on Earth is the result of evolution and that it continues to do so even today. He held off on releasing his work because he didn't want to create controversy, he only wanted to show people this incredible evidence. Religion was quick to judge him and he suffered much persecution for it.

So what purpose can an Atheist find in living through life? As Carl Sagan would point out, "The beauty of a living is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together." There is so much life on this planet; plant, animal, bacteria, etc. and the variety of life is astounding! Look at the shapes these atoms form. The shape of a human, a bird, a rose, a bug and even a single cell. The years of natural selection from the first cell continue to give us more variety.

"We are all connected, to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically" (Niel Tyson). As Carl Sagan said, "We are star stuff." The atoms in our body were formed in stars that died out in the universe long ago. It is important to trace our origins to understand where we came from because we are a way for the universe to know itself. We are intelligent and one day we may find other intelligent life out there. We may even find a way to record our own consciousness into a computer, allowing us to live on forever.

Why is it so hard for me to believe in religion? For as long as humans have lived they have searched for their place in the universe, wondering how they came about. Stories turned into legend, legend became myth and soon myth would become religion. People felt comfortable knowing that they were being watched over. Some religious stories were passed on and altered to take shape in a new religion such as the flood myth. When I see the bones of a 3 million year old primate like Lucy, I wonder what things she had to worry about. I wonder what she thought of when she looked up at the moon. Was it just out of her reach or was it watching over her, keeping her safe at night? We see gorillas like Ambam walking on two legs as they Carry objects in their arms. What is their place in the cosmic perspective of life? Do hey also have a God they worship?

We trust in our feelings for love, faith, trust, and judgment. We see how those things can be an influence on others. We debate about who's God is real and who's God is false yet none can say, "Here he or she is." Only a few claim to have physically seen a diety but do not come back with any tangible evidence of their visit, just some tablets, a shield or a cup. On the other hand I can go outside with my telescope as Galileo did and look up at the planets and observe their orbits. I can jump up and know that I will fall back down to Earth. I can take my blood sample and compare it to that of a gorilla and have a hard time finding the genetic difference. This is why I have such trust in science. It gives answers with evidence to back those answers up. When there is speculation a scientist understands that they should not be married to their theory because someone may clarify their results giving us a new direction to go in.

I do believe in miracles but not from mysticism. Humans create miracles every day in the science lab. Vaccinations have saved millions and so have heart surgeries. If it helps for someone to believe that they are lead by the hand of God to perform such operations then that's a good thing. It keeps them more confident in what they are doing. Lets just not forget to be thankful that the doctor spent years in medical school and hours serving as an apprentice to perform in such a manner. Lets not also forget about the bacteria that works in a symbiotic relationship with our body to fight viruses. Yes there is bacteria in your yogurt and lots of it.

So my purpose to life is to question why things are the way they are. I want to see humanity progress into something so much greater than just prideful nationalities. I want us to explore the stars to search for our real past. Did life originate from an icy comet that smashed into earth? Was it lighting that struck a puddle? Did our DNA come from a planet with life that was destroyed billions of years ago? There are so many questions and I cannot settle with the easy answer. We can know if we only question. When we are discouraged from asking questions we undermine our own intelligence for the sake of keeping an idea alive. This is not an attack on religion, it is only an attempt to present the question why I should believe in one single idea when there are so many wonderful ideas out there?

Stewards of the Earth

2011-02-23T08:34:00.002-07:00

In recent years the idea of being a steward of the Earth, (a once old idea) has cropped its way back up among some in the Christian faiths; Mormonism being included. It is a shift from the still widely followed idea that the Earth is here for our use. However, stewardship over the Earth is the opposite of that way of thinking, it is the idea that we are tenders of the Earth: it is our responsibility to look over and improve the Earth when at all possible.

There are an unlimited amount of ways for us to improve the Earth. Global warming is growing exponentially each year. Each year we pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Transportation, (America being especially bad as well as many Asian cities) has grown out of control. Hundreds of millions of cars each day increase the carbon dioxide in great amounts every day. To make things worse, we deplete the rain forests that provide 28% (just over 1/4) of the Earth oxygen. And there is little being done about it. Rather than spending the countries budget on war and national defense we could use a small percentage of that money to further the progression in finding alternate, clean fuel sources.

Today, despite scientific evidences -- significant evidences -- and plea's, as well as some urging from religious leaders, politicians and government officials still do not act, (sadly, mostly conservatives). They refuse to act and many say that evidence isn't conclusive or plainly that they do not believe in science. The evidence is conclusive. Science is real, it is accurate. If we follow scientific method, if we publish works and allow them to go through rigorous test and critiques and they still hold up time and time again we can see that the evidence is correct and conclusive.

Still, little is done. How, as the most advanced species on the Earth could we ever consider allowing this? Sure, the greater affects will more than likely not affect us directly or greatly, bit it will be our children who suffer. The world is not ours, but our children's, from whom we are borrowing it. Let us treat it like this. Let us do everything in our power, and more, to provide our offspring with a planet worth living on. The time to act is now. We cannot afford to stand aside any longer and allow our planet to get any worse. We are steward of the Earth. It is up to us to take care of it. For us and our children, and generations to come.

The time to act is now!

The Bible and Literalism

2011-02-18T11:37:00.002-07:00

"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [non-believer] to hear a Christian, presumable giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all meaning to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn . . ."
-St. Augustine

A common mistake I see many members make, and Christians as well, is to take what is written in the Bible literally. In particular (for this discussion) the Adam and Eve narrative.

I feel that, because of a lack of information that has been presented to us from church sources most do not question this and instead believe that there was a literal garden where a literal Adam and Eve lived for some time. While I have no doubt that there was a first man and woman, or men and women who were the first to have a body as well as a spirit (one of the spirit -children of our Heavenly Father), I do not think we need to take the narrative literally.

If we are to believe in a literal garden we must then believe in the creation story as it is written. This is not what I wish to focus on at this time, however. I wish to focus on the meaning in which we can gain from believing in a figurative garden.

One of the powerful things we can see through this story is our decision to gain bodies and exert our freewill. We chose, like Adam and Ever, to leave God's presence, gain knowledge, live in the harsh world and to eventually die. Like Adam and Eve we were not able to gain eternal life right away, (could not, or rather chose not to partake of the tree of life). We were tempted by Lucifer to gain bodies (knowledge) and eternal life, however we would lose our freewill : Adam and Ever were told to leave the garden so that they may not live in their sins for all eternity.

Obviously, there's a lot of symbolism in regards to our Pre-mortal existence and our decisions to come down here.

In not believing in a literal garden we can gain meaning in the way that God works. We can see that he works through complexities and evolution. We can see that he works within means that we can observer and see and learn about. Through evolution we can see that he understands creation. We can eliminate the God of the Gaps that comes with too literal an interpretation of the Bible. But there is a greater meaning, and a view of a greater God in this belief.

Through a figurative (non-literal) translation or understanding of the Adam and Eve Narrative there, I feel, is so much more meaning behind the story. We can understand God's plan and our purpose much better and in more detail. I feel that it greatly outweighs a literal interpretation and that it is time for us to leave our old views and look for more meaning and accurate answers through the scriptures.

The Freedom of Freewill

2011-02-07T06:38:00.000-07:00

Recently I have been learning and reading more and more in regards to the notion of freewill, it's meanings and implications. The idea of freewill, I believe, is greatly taken advantage of. Its purposes and meanings lost in the day to day events until eventually, now, the most we ever are to say about freewill, or agency, is that we fought for it in the pre-mortal life and now we have it; or rather, the notion that has more recently become popular: It isn't free-agency, we had to fight for it. (Or something along those lines.

I would first like to go to the beginning--before this life--to our pre-mortal state. A common oversight, is that part of God's plan was that we would be given freewill once we entered our mortal life. This, however, cannot be true. In order for us to come down we must choose, and we did, and Satan's followers did--each used their own freewill, which they have had for all eternity, to decide whose plan they would follow, Christs or Satan's. Freewill is an institution that has always been around which makes Satan's plan all the more heinous. He wanted to stop something that has been a core part of our existence before time. There was no risk of losing our agency, ever. This isn't something Satan could have taken away. God would not, or perhaps could not take our agency away.

Now because of this radical idea of Satan's, he, along with all those that eventually followed him were cast out of God's presence. No, there is a hang up that I have with this next part . . . Jedediah Grant (I think), said (and I know many agree on some level with him) that Satan was cast out of God's presence and then given a "mission" by God to come down and temp us.

I picture the Iliad, by Homer. On the battlefield Troy fought against the Greeks, but it was not only men who fought. The Gods had their favorites and would alter the battle by influencing one person or another, changing things in the battle to help the side that they favored. They prevented death of some, caused it for others, altered event so that things would play out how they preferred. I am reminded of this anytime I hear talk regarding the "tempter" or that the evil in the world is brought about by Satan and his Devils. Wilfred Woodruff calculated, (incorrectly) that there were 100 of Satan's devils tempting each of us. His calculations don't matter because it was his point that was to be understood. There are, at all times, devils that tempt us.

C.S. Lewis also played on this idea that there are devils tempting each person in his book The Screwtape Letters. There is, however, greater understanding in the book to be had when we realize that it is us falling into temptation on our own accord, and we see the method of our falling into or rising out of sin.

I believe that there is no pulling and pushing to get us to be someone who follows God or does not. Like the idea of Satan and his devils tempting us, there is the belief that God is the one behind our trials and hard ships and that he causes them to help test us and grow. This coincides with the idea of Satan tempting us. God persuades us to become one way or another personally, or through the Holy Ghost. (Now, I'm not saying that we cannot feel the Holy Ghost or the Spirit, he is there to guide us when we need and will confirm things that we question. I am talking about trials and often times, blessings).

This, I feel is an extreme view, saying that God has little to do directly with out lives. I agree that he blesses those who are faithful, who pray for help or forgiveness, showing faith in him, but I don't believe he sends trials to anyone. He understands the world, and what agency means, leaving little reason for him to put things on us personally. The reason for my extreme view is because I feel that freewill requires it. In order for an individual to have freewill means that we do not have outside influences forcefully effecting out ideas and beliefs. We must be in charge of our activities and decisions without supernatural influence, basing them off of what we learn. Whether that be through scriptures, other people, meditation, or anything else. The knowledge we are allowed to obtain brings about our decisions. Much of that knowledge comes from what God has given us, but ultimately it is our decision whether or not we accept it.

Now, this gets tricky in regards to blessings and the influence of the Holy Ghost (and admittedly I am not sure how I'd fit this in, yet). I feel those things act as a confirmation that we are doing what is right in God's eye or acts and a guide only when we ask. I feel it comforts when we are in need of comfort, but there is no direct "tempting" for lack of a better word.

Likewise with Satan. God, first off would never put him in charge of anything. He rebelled against God and was cast out, I doubt God would then give him a cushy desk job, running Hell and tempting those who chose to follow God. Also, because of our freewill we have the ability to cause pain in our own lives and others, but we need not blame Satan but only look at our own decisions, and unfortunately other's as well to see how sin and trials come about.

To me, it is a liberating thought knowing that God has given us total and absolute freedom. That he gives us the ability to become who we wish to become without direct outside influences like the ancient Greek God's pulling us in many directions, helping those against their will's, to win the war. Rather he gives guidance through scripture, others and the Holy Ghost to help us know what he would have us do so we can learn and grow in the way we feel best.

*Just a note on freewill. I was speaking with a friend on this topic and he posed two important and scary questions.

1. Would you willingly die to have freewill?
2. Would you willingly allow murder to have freewill?

The Earths Creation

2011-02-03T06:23:00.003-07:00

My wife and I had a discussion the other day because of a thread on a forum she is a part of. It involved evolution and our gospel (or religion in general, I'm not sure). Someone had brought up the idea that the world was created by a bunch of other worlds smashed together. There were good arguments to show that this is not the case; showing that the dinosaur bones are all in the crust, typically a certain depth and age, or the cast that they weren't completely obliterated upon this rather violent event.

I, however, want to take a different approach and swing for the side of our planet being formed from other planets. My approach still coincides with evolution and science and is rather an appeal to those who believe that the Earth came from other planets.

About 4.5 billion years ago, in what scientists have believed to be a molecular cloud caused by a planetary nebula our solar system began to form. A planetary nebula is formed by first, a star leaving its main sequence life and becoming a red giant (much like our sun will eventually do). This could cause several planets to be consumed by the expanding shell of the stars outer layer. As time progresses the gravitational pull of the star weakens and slowly the outer shell, made up of hydrogen atoms, begin to be cast off, leaving only the core (a white dwarf) behind.

The expanding hydrogen from the shell can reach many many light years from the core. Many planetary nebula's can be hundreds of light years across.

Through time the nebula's molecules begin to condense forming what is called a molecular cloud. The molecules, mostly hydrogen, but some others (0.6% others, such as carbon) begin to pull together, the largest mass and center-most will be our sun. Whatever is left over will form the planets, asteroids and essentially anything in our solar system. From the sun stretching out to the Kuiper belt. The closer planets taking up most of the 0.6% of molecules with high melting points, (iron, nickel, etc.). Because of how little compounds were there these planets had to be smaller. After some time, finally, the solar system was formed.

Looking at a cosmic perspective and seeing how our solar system was built out of the essence of another solar system which could have been built out of an even more previous one can help us understand or make sense of this belief that the Earth came from other planets. It did... because of the recycling power of our universe.

The Mormon Organon -- First Three Years

2011-01-31T09:34:00.001-07:00

You can now order the book, The Mormon Organon which covers the first three years of the Science/Religion blog sciencebysteve.net by SteveP. (I had the pleasure of editing the edition).

You can order yourself a copy here.

The Falls Gnostic Story in Comparison to Mormonism

2011-01-22T05:35:00.001-07:00

I continue to be amazed at how Gnostic Mormonism really is. Maybe we don't believe or read or trust a lot of the Gnostic doctrine, (Gospel of Mary, Judas, Thomas, etc.), but we do hold the same basic ideals as those seekers of knowledge.

The word Gnostic is the Greek root where we get our modern day work knowledge. And so, essentially, to be a Gnostic individual, at it's most primitive level you are one who seeks knowledge. Knowledge is an important part of our beliefs and gospel and we have been told to seek out knowledge wherever we can. This is a fundamental belief. To have knowledge is to be like God. With knowledge we determine what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, and through gaining knowledge we discover ourselves.

In reading Milton's Paradise Lost we get the idea, (and I still am not sure if this was even done intentionally), that Satan was the protagonist. His only flaw was pride. However, he was promised glory, by God, and then was rejected that glory after giving man knowledge. To be honest, in Milton's tale God is, in many ways, the antagonist. Even in our modern day, Mormon version of the Fall we view it as a good thing--something that was necessary for our salvation. There must be a fall, without it we could never have gained knowledge, and the beautiful thing about this plan is basically that knowledge means everything. God himself is still progressing as we will after this life. And after this life we will still, and always will be gaining knowledge.

The story of the Fall of Man, of Adam and Eve, in the Gnostic's eye is a good thing. It is good that they partook of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because if they hadn't, then we would not have been here.

Now, I must admit, some time ago I came to my own conclusion that there was no Garden of Eden. There was, at some certain point, an Adam and Eve. That is to say there were first of the homo sapiens that were embodies spirits of our Heavenly Fathers spirit children, but was there a dwelling place for them, safe from all the world? No.

The Fall is a story. A beautiful story with multiple meaning behind it. One that I compare it to often is the story of our pre-mortal life and our decisions to gain a physical body and to learn and be tested according to what it is we learn during our sojourn here on Earth.

Continually gaining knowledge is something I strongly believe in. We need to understand as much as we can. Maybe that is why I chose Physics as my major and Philosophy as my minor--learn how the universe works and why, and its relation to us. I am happy to embrace my Gnostic underlining beliefs.

A Very Short Poem for my Son

2011-01-13T05:00:00.000-07:00

I am scared of the
day that you fall asleep on your own,
because you're growing
and you may not always be my baby
but you're my buddy and best friend.

That will never change.

Intelligent Design: Bad For Science and Faith, Guest Blog by SteveP

2011-01-10T05:00:00.004-07:00

I am pleased to introduce Steve Peck,

Steven L. Peck is a high school dropout from Moab, Utah and Associate Professor of Biology at Brigham Young University where he teaches The History and Philosophy of Biology and Bioethics. His does research in theoretical mathematical ecology, philosophy of biology, and insect stuff. When he grows up he wants to be a novelist or a poet or create sentient robots (all about equally likely). Until then he blogs at ByCommonConsent, and runs a Faith/Science blog (sciencebysteve.net) where he extols the virtues of mixing theology and Darwinian evolution. He lives in Pleasant Grove, Utah with his wife Lori. They have five children and 2.95 grandchildren.

I am a biology professor and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am committed to its teachings and beliefs. I take particular delight in being raised a ‘Mormon’ who was taught that education and knowledge are among our highest ideals. Many are surprised to find that I am also an evolutionary biologist. I am also a member of the Society for the Study of Evolution the United States’ leading evolutionary science organization and have published papers in its journal Evolution. I have published numerous scientific papers on the topic of evolution believe that it is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see around us. Evolution is at the heart of the biological revolution that has transformed everything from genetics, and medicine, to drug discovery and managing antibiotic resistance. As the great 20th Century biologist Dobzhansky said, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.’ As a biologist, I could not agree more. Few people realize that BYU, the university sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, has a number of faithful evolutionary biologists. As a point of fact, evolutionary science is taught at Brigham Young University just as it is at any other accredited university. Intelligent Design has no place in BYU’s science curriculum. And I do not want it to be a part of my children’s science education. I would not mind it if were taught as part of a course in comparative religion, but as a science? Never. Let me be clear about something else. Intelligent Design is not about an Intelligent Designer, it is a fundamentalist Christian (largely) make to get fundamentalist beliefs taught in the schools.

Let me be blunt. I find nothing of value in Intelligent Design for both scientific and religious reasons. First, why it is bad for religion. Intelligent Design posits that evolution cannot explain the origin of biological complexity. This is nonsense. Evolution is the best explanation for complexity. The purveyors of intelligent design argue that complex structures like the eye cannot be explained by bouts of mutation and selection, they calls this irreproducible complexity, however, the truth is the eye has been explained exactly in those terms, by many evolutionary thinkers. The argument is tantamount to saying that skyscrapers are impossible to build because there is no crane large enough to construct one. The truth is the crane was part of the building as it was raised and finally dismantled when it was no longer needed. In the evolutionary history of life, this happened again and again. We see the remnants of these ‘cranes’ all over the place. The history of life is full of things being used and retooled, then lost. A whale’s leg being turned into flippers. Or consider bird feathers from hair, first being used in thermal regulation then being co-opted for flight. So set aside the notion that evolution cannot explain complexity. It does so magnificently.

However, this is not what bothers me about the Intelligent Designers’ designer. Recall that intelligent design makes no religious claims about a God (mostly, to distance itself from young-earth creationists), it claims only that the universe has an intelligent designer. But let’s look a little more closely at the designer they are proclaiming. The designer they envision is really quite a bumbling ner-do-well—a limited dabbler who has to keep sticking is finger into the pot to get things going. The designer in Intelligent Design is more like a grand tinkerer. No grand designer here who can create a universe that unfolds, develops and grows. No, the designer in Intelligent Design cannot seem to manage that. He has to keep nudging things in the directions he needs them to go, making course corrections here and there, fixing errant processes that can’t seem to stay on task, backing up and starting over when things go astray. The designer in Intelligent design seems more reminiscent of one of Harry Potter’s classmates in a potions class, who has to keep adding a bit of this and a dab of that trying to keep the potion just so. I find this version of the designer unappealing and nothing like the God who I envision. I often ask my students which of the two computer programmers is the greatest: The one who creates many video games, but which require constant intervention and fixes, endless updates, and repeated patches, or the programmer who has created a program from which the command ‘Go’ creates spontaneously a myriad of video games of infinite variety and depth? You pick.

Am I talking about a deistic god who set things in motion and then steps back to leave it alone? Heavens no, I think God enters into the world often and directly, but mostly by influencing his children through their consciousness, inspiring and directing them to fulfill his purposes, sending messages and messengers when needed.

My next complaint about the Intelligent Design fiasco is its pretense to science. Exactly, what makes it a science is not clear. It offers no testable hypotheses. It has established no research program. The theory of evolution has offered testable hypotheses that have been confirmed again and again. The theory of evolution says that we should find certain things in the fossil record, the genetic code of our genes, the distribution of plants and animals on the earth. We find those things (Do not be detracted by supposed missing transitional forms. Fossilization is a rare process and we expect to find few transitional forms.) What is amazing is evolution’s prediction that life unfolds in a process of change and development. Consider the recent lovely fossils coming out of China detailing the evolution of flight in birds from bird-like reptiles. It follows just as evolution says it should.

My last complaint about Intelligent Design is it sets religion and science against each other. It puts forward a false dichotomy in students’ minds that suggests that evolution and faith are incompatible. It makes people of religious faith suspicious of science. When students genuinely think that science and religion are incompatible, one of two things typically happens. One is they embrace science and since it is incompatible to religion, religion is abandoned. The other is that they maintain their faith but remain suspicious of science and cast doubt upon its methods and findings, inclining themselves to superstition and pseudoscience. I have to wonder if the reason science education in the United States is falling behind other countries is because misinformed people of faith have been dissing science to the point that many students are choosing other paths. Faith and science need not be enemies. I embrace both fully and without reservation. My religious convictions are part of who I am. My science and faith reciprocate and inform one another. They are part of the way I understand my place in the universe. Intelligent Design does nothing to promote the search for understanding and cooperation between these two vital ways of knowing. It is a darkening of the mind on every level, both religiously and scientifically. Please do not let it be taught to my children as a science. It is bad for both religion and science.

Something About Human Connections

2011-01-06T06:56:00.001-07:00

This happened some time ago, but I feel that I need to talk about it as it has been on my mind for some time.

For those of you that do not know my (funny saying that since there is basically no one reading, or at least commenting, on this blog), I have Ulcerative Colitis, Pyoderma Gangenosum, and Pulmonary Eosinophilia. (Not sure on some of the spelling). The later two are caused because of Ulcerative Colitis and are extremely rare. About three years ago I had a very bad flair up that caused me to be hospitalized for about a week and a half. It was one of the worst times of my life and if it wasn't for my wife I don't know how I would have gotten through it. However, I did have family there for me, and there was one night that Lesa, (my wife) was working late and I was home alone.

I was watching TV, late and in a lot of pain, just before I went into the hospital when I got a text message from Lesa's Dad, Wade. He was checking up on me and seeing how I was doing. Wade also has Ulcerative Colitis and if there was anyone that could relate to how I was feeling and what I was going through it was him. We chatted for about an hour, during that time he reassured me that everything would work out and be OK. I don't remember exactly what was said, but I do remember how I felt while reading those texts and responding. I was so grateful for the kind uplifting words he wrote me. It is something that has stuck with me for three years and will most likely never be forgotten.

I find that connections like this are entirely important and relevant in life. The connections that Humans can have are probably stronger than any other. Empathy, that ability to understand what another is going though is, in my opinion, on of the more powerful and honorable trait's one can have. It promotes kindness and love and forgiveness.

I am so grateful to Wade and his sudden and random desire to text me and chat with me and make sure that I was OK.

A Short Stay in Hell, Review

2011-01-01T07:26:00.004-07:00

   “Look at these. It will answer your question. Look at them and weep, because they are going to tell you exactly what it means to be in this Hell. Look! Look!”
   I was frightened for a minute that he was going to get violent and I backed away, but he just sat down on the bed and put his head in his hands.
   I picked up the paper stared blankly at the calculations, but I could not make heads or tails of them.

...

“What are they, if you don’t mind me asking?”

He let out a sigh, “I calculated the number of books in the library,” He stopped, and looked at the papers he had thrown at me.

“How many are there?” I asked curiously, “Is there a finite number?”

...

“95 raised to the 1312000th power.

“That’s a lot. Right?”

“You don’t understand. In our old universe there were only 10 raised to the 78th electrons.

“You mean there are more books in this library than there were electrons in our whole previous universe?”

“Way more!” Then he added with a more evilly mischievous look. “In fact I’ve calculated the dimensions of the library. You say you’re from 30,000 miles up? Did you wonder when you would hit the bottom?”

I nodded slowly.

He laughed bitterly. Well if you were somewhere near the middle of Hell. You only have 10 to the 1,297,377th light years to go. I’ll never forget his cold laugh. “You have about over a million more orders of magnitude light-years to fall then there were electrons in our old universe.”

I fell back, “Rachel!” I cried out. “I’ll never get to the bottom.”

There are only several books that I have read twice. It is a very few select books that I have gotten some greater sense of value out of than most others. Those books are: the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Hyperion, Slaughterhouse-Five, and A Short Stay in Hell. All of these books, in my opinion are worthy of multiple reads, (as are some others I haven't gotten to). However, only one of them have I read more than twice. That one is A Short Stay in Hell.

Easily one of the best books I have ever read. I have recommended it to at least 10 people, have gotten multiple individuals to buy a copy of the book and feel that it is about time that I write up an official review of the story.

I have read A Short Stay in Hell eight times, and with each read feel the chill and realization on what exactly eternity is. The book, cleverly titled, follows Soren after he has died and find out that his religion (Mormonism) is not the correct religion after all. He is sent to Hell. A Hell that is framed after the short story by Jorge Luis Borges, The Library of Babel. Essentially, this Hell (as there are multiple versions of Hell for different people) has every book that can possibly be written and in order to leave Hell, and live in Heaven one must find the book or books that describe their life perfectly.

The book has deep roots in the philosophy of eternity and the after life and God. One of the biggest questions that Peck tackles is the length of eternity or what eternity really is. And as the protagonist realizes the dimensions of Hell, and the task which he has been given he see and feel the anguish and emotion he feels. Peck has done such a phenomenally well interpretation of the human condition and spirit in this poetic rendition of Hell.

The tale, being in first person, (and, in actuality, according to Soren, it is a book he found in the library) is intimate and very personal. You see who the man Soren is, how he can define love, longing, ambition, despair, loneliness, joy, belonging, and so many other important attributes associated with this Hell, and with life as we know it now.

The book is chilling, with an ending leaving you to want more while wanting to deny the horrific view of eternity.

The book is well written, poetic and haunting. There is a level of sophistication that the author expects. A Short Stay in Hell does not rely on mystery or action to entertain the reader. It is interesting on it's own--it will grab your attention without fail.

This is a book you cannot afford not to read.

If you are interested in reading this book go here to purchase a copy, or here to purchase it for Kindle.

Astronomy Proves Evolution

2010-12-26T12:24:00.004-07:00

Alma 30:44, and all these things denote there is a God: yea, even the earth and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

My computer's screensaver ran while my wife and I made caramel popcorn on Christmas day. The screensaver is titled "Cosmos". I had obviously chosen it because of my field of study, Astrophysics/Astronomy. The screensaver panned through different images taken by the Hubble Telescope. The ranged from images of the earth to Jupiter, and comets . . . then there were some of other galaxies--the Magellanic clouds, and Andromeda--and several wide field images of multiple galaxies.

As these panned through I talked with my wife on how amazing it was that we are able to see these galaxies. In a simple screensaver I am seeing a vast amount of space. My eyes are taking in many hundreds of thousands of light years. Some of these galaxies are, like ours, 450,000+ light years across. I think it is astounding that our eye's can take in such a scene.

The galaxies that my wife and I, and millions of other, scientists, etc. are all thousands, hundreds of thousands of years old. We are in every way possible, looking into the past.

Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s. This is fast. Unfathomably fast. It takes light to get from our Sun to our planet about 8 minutes. In that time it travels nearly 93 million miles (1 AU). It takes the suns light to get to Neptune, the outer most planet, just over 4 hours, and to reach the Oort cloud, where the suns gravitational pull is finally petered out, it takes light about 1 year. So when we look at the Oort cloud we are seeing it as it was 1 year ago.

Likewise, when we see the Large Magellanic cloud we see it as it was 160,000 years ago. About the same time when modern Homo Sapiens developed in Africa.

So what I am getting at with this, is that these things, these basic beliefs--the belief or knowledge of the speed of light, its constant and the belief that there are stars and galaxies, etc.--prove the evolution of our planet, and the forming of it as well as the evolution of our universe. Thus proving the evolution of all things on our planet. All things brought through the same complexities we see through astronomy.

In Regards to the Analogical Teleological Argument: Complexities Through Design

2010-12-19T06:59:00.009-07:00

*Fourth (and last) Final Paper for my Philosophy of Religion class.

I sit and stare at the watch, strapped to my wrist by a leather band, ticking away the time in such a precise way. I watch as the second hand rotates around the analogous numbers. When it is quiet I can hear as it ticks each second. I know that this watch has a designer, and that it has been created with purpose and intents. I can tell by the precise way in which it moves, and in which the gears move. And I know that it is imperfect and will constantly need to be readjusted, tweaked, and fine tuned. It will slowly lose track of time if not tended constantly. It is a watch, designed as all are, by a imperfect being, a creator who, despite best efforts, could not create a perfect thing.

William Paley, in his paper, Natural Theology, compares life – or the complexities within life – to a watch. He shows the reader how each part of the watch is in tune and created specifically for a purpose and reason. If one part were to become out of sync then the entire thing would not work. Or if one part had not been added the same effect would be found. However, he points out that in the watch, each part is specifically there for a reason, and that each has a purpose, saying, “its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose.” (Paley, 1)

Paley's argument is meant to find purpose to complexities found in nature and in life. To find a reason behind the difference in animals and plants, etc. And how these complexities could have come about through a creator, or, in his words, designer. He determines that the best way to explain how such complex structures could exist would be that a creator designed the world and all of its 'parts' specifically to act in certain and calculated ways.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze Paley's argument and determine what best he could have meant in writing his arguments. Questions I would like to address and answer would include whether or not Paley was, in many ways, an early founder of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, or, if perhaps he only sought a way to explain complexities in relation to a creator. Not discounting evolution, (which was not even an idea at the time), but basically attributing complexities with God. I will first show the arguments supporting the idea that Paley was bringing about his own ideas of ID; explaining and showing that through his arguments one could easily see that he was touching on many key elements supporting ID. I will then attempt to show how, given evidences within the paper as well as taking into account the time period, he only wished to help people understand complexities and relate them to God. In an attempt to explain complexities within life, and understand Paley better I will put a stronger emphasis on the later argument.

“If the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are . . . no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine.” (Paley, 1). Paley has, in recent decades gained in popularity with the rise of the ID movement and the controversy it brings in regards to evolution through natural selection. Clearly, many of the arguments made in his paper point to an ID way of thinking; that God created complexities and that these complexities are the same as they had been when God had first designed them. An intelligent creator designed life exactly how it currently is. There has been no change.

Paley compares the watch with a stone. The stone in ordinary, not out of place and there are no complexities to be seen. There is, he says, no reason for us to assume that there was some sort of design involved. A watch, however, upon quick examination we can see that there are complexities and design. We also assume that there is a creator of the watch and we know that the watch could not have come about by any other means than by a creator. This argument agrees with what most ID would consider the way in which God works. However, there are several serious flaws in this belief. One of the largest, and one that is outlined in the analogy of the watch perfectly is The God of the Gaps. The designer in Intelligent Design is more like a grand tinkerer. There is no room for a grand designer here who can create a universe that unfolds, develops and grows. No, the designer in Intelligent Design cannot seem to manage that. He has to keep nudging things in the directions he needs them to go. Refer back to the watch. Although it can be made to perfectly tell time there are still requirements. Take the fact that the watch needs to be wound. Or that through time some parts may wear out, or break, causing this designer to have to repair the watch.

To compare ID, (or more narrowed, the God of the Gaps), with a more modern day approach I would like to propose the analogy as a question: which of the two computer programmers is the greatest: The one who creates many video games, but which require constant intervention and fixes, endless updates, and repeated patches; or the programmer who has created a program from which the command ‘Go’ creates spontaneously a myriad of video games of infinite variety and depth?

It is easy to see why supporters of the Intelligent Design movement would agree with Paley's arguments. Seeing complexity, especially from a nineteenth century stand point can show that God creates things and designs things in a complex manner.

However, and going back to the computer programmer analogy, would not, or could not the two programmers arrive at the same destination at or near the same time? Only one had to fix a lot of things. So could not complexities arise through a creator, but incorporated into the design an evolutionary view, one that shows that there is a creator, still, and that he works through complexities and does not create complexities.

Steven Peck, argues that evolution proves a designer and “enhances and expands our view of God,” (Peck, 1), explaining that Darwin had read Paley and agreed that to explain complexities one would need to incorporate an ultimate designer. “Most scientists agree that evolution provides a sufficient explanation of design.” (Peck, 6). Design, indicating that there was someone behind complexities. Evolution, Peck explains, is an empowering idea because it is the only way to create complexity. With this view, we can move forward to find what Paley seemed to intend to say through his analogy of the watch.

Adam R. Shapiro argued that “Paley's intelligent design has almost nothing in common with the present day movement and, in facet, suggests theological arguments against the type of reasoning used by the modern movement.” (Shapiro, 55). He argues that Paley was not trying to indicate that there was an ultimate designer that had created complexities in one instant, (like that of a watch), but that Paley had attempted to find the presence of “purpose” within the world without knowledge on what those purposes were. By seeing complexities we can assume there is a creator. The creator did not make complexities, but essentially worked through them.

At the end of Paley's paper he back's up his analogy of the watch with an example of an eye. At the time of his writing this part the workings of an eye were greatly unknown and to support Paley's arguments we will assume that the workings are still unknown as the arguments will make more sense. He compares an eye with a telescope, showing how the eye is complex much like a refracting telescope, picking up light waves differently as the refraction of light is picked up by the pupil. He says the telescope and eye are made off of the same principles, “both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission and refraction of the rays of light are regulated.” (Paley, 2).

He then outlines differences in the eyes of a human and that of a fish when light is viewed from water. The light would be refracted by a convex surface, different then that of when light travels through air or vacuum. However, the difference in the eye of a fish, that part of the eye called the crystalline lens helps prevent refracting and causes the eye to be much rounder, shows Paley's understanding of diversity and complexity. He says, “What plainer manifestation of design can there be in their difference?”

The science behind how an eye works is lost in his statement following, showing that for reasons he, at the time could not explain, different animals have different parts specifically for their own needs. Granted, Paley had never understood evolution – and how could he – but he did understand complexities and their importance in understanding a designer, or the creator. He, as well, understood that there is a reason for the differences in species.

This indicates an original designer, like the computer programmer who said “Go”, through this we can assume that Paley could have meant that he understood an original designer, who created and began complexities which, in turn, brought about a multitude of difference within creatures.

Through his example of the eye we can also see that he understood the importance of incorporating science into his beliefs, something that ID obviously seems to work around. St. Augustine warns on this in his discourse The Literal Meaning of Genesis:

“It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [nonbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all meaning to prevent such and embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and to it to scorn . . .” (Augustine).

Paley, could have easily understood a God of complexities through evolution, and as Shapiro argued, he in fact had a far different version of what is now known as Intelligent Design. A version more akin to evolution only with it's terms, as we see them now, pointing to ID, when in reality Paley had clearly understood that there was a designer who had given them life complexities. Like the watch, found on the beach, the gears all turning in sync, and the springs and catches obviously designed to provide the hand with the means to rotate Paley's observations showed a designer, something evolutionists can easily believe.

Shapiro says, in regards to why Paley wrote the paper, “Paley's narrowly-argued theology relies upon the ability to detect the presence of “purpose” in nature without relying upon knowing what those purposes are.” (Shapiro, 1). In an attempt to show why there is purpose and complexity and structure within nature, I feel that Paley simply attempted to incorporate a belief in a designer, explaining it as best he could by the comparison of a watch. And I feel that he would not have agreed with todays modern version of intelligent design, but would have seen that it's faults, (god of the gaps, etc), do not explain complexities but weaken a view of God. Complexity, it is obvious, is by design, and through evolution those complexities grew into what we now see and what I feel Paley explained in his analogy of the watch.

Notes
1.Paley, William, Natural Theology, (Edinburgh, 1837), pg. 1, 2.
2.Peck, Steven, Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step towards the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (2010), pg. 1-36.
3.Shapiro, Adam R., William Paley's Lost “Intelligent Design”, Hist. Phil. Life Sci., 31 (2009), pg. 55-78.
4.St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.

The Problems and Responses for Religious Diversity

2010-12-15T05:53:00.003-07:00

*Third Final Paper for my Philosophy of Religion class.

There seems to be some major concerns as to how we are to approach the issues or fact that there is a great plurality of religions and religious views. The differences are great and many, from Zoroastrianism, to one who attaches herself to the Methodist faith. There are three general ways to view the issue, and resolve the issues of religious diversity and these are: (1) The exclusivist belief: or the belief that one's religion is the only true religion; (2) pluralism: the belief that each religion has some truth that can bring souls to salvation; and (3) Inclusivism: this is the belief that one's religion is truer than others.

Within this realm of study and though come some major questions. (1) What are the epistemological implications of the fact that there's a plurality of different and competing religious view points? We will call this the Epistemic Question. (2) What does diversity imply for salvation? We will call this the Soteriological Question.

Throughout this paper I wish to underline the basic diversity claims of Exclusivism and Pluralism, their arguments and criticisms, as well as explore viewpoints and arguments concerning issues pointed out by Plantinga and Hick. I will also attempt to give some answer to the Epistemic and Soteriological questions.

Alvin Plantinga, in his paper, Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism,1 sets an argument for the exclusivist's belief. There are several moral criticisms against this viewpoint, namely, that those who attest to the exclusivist belief are narrowminded, arrogant, unintelligent, and simpleminded, etc. Because exclusivism seems to bring about this way of thinking it is generally associated with
oppression. However, Plantinga argues that only because of differing beliefs, he himself is not offended and does not feel oppressed. He says, “It is conceivable that exclusivism might in some way contribute
to oppression, but it isn't in itself oppressive.”2

Some of his main arguments are that religions are not only just different, but that the different beliefs in God are incompatible. For instance, Christians and Jews do not believe the same, at all, about the nature of God.

Plantinga also argues that exclusivism is logical. “It must be conceded immediately that if she believed (1) or (2), then she must also believe that those who believe something incompatible with them are mistaken and believe what is false. That's no more than simple logic.”3 He argues, essentially asking the question, How could one person say devoutly that they believe in God type (A), and another believe in God type (B) with both having a different believed or perceived nature. Logic says only one can be right.

Pluralism, however rejects the idea that one religion can bring you salvation and all else are false. Propositional claims are viewed as pointless. Instead, it is stressed that we need to understand how religion effects our lives. That fact is viewed as what is truly important; the value is placed in the transformation that is received or in the moral values that are a result of religion. John Hick argues that the moral values are what really are important, not whether or not Christ was God in human form or his son, but what morality can come from that.

Jalalu'lDin Rumi, said, “The lamps are different, but the Light is the same,”4 Likewise, Nicholson [1914] said, “The colour of the water is the same as that of the container.” These two quotes, both support the idea that like the waters color being changes and views see the water—although it is the same—in different ways, God is the same, but viewed in many different and still yet, valid ways. Could it not be said, however—and in using this same analogy—that the only true way of seeing or understanding God would be to see the water in a clear container?

Underhill said, “there often comes an awareness that 'To say that God is Infinite is to say that He may be apprehended and described in an infinity of ways.'”6 Or, because God is infinite he can be viewed, described, understood and worshiped in an infinite number of ways. Hick says, “God, Brahman, the Dharmakaya, is unlimited and therefore may not be equated without remainder with anything that can be humanly experienced and defined.”

One of the biggest concerns with religious diversity is that of religious experience. Exclusivism would claim that the only true religious experience would come from or lead to a belief in that particular “one true” religion. Through exclusivism this problem is more difficult to get around. How would one be able to prove their own religious experiences over others when they differ?

However, Hick argues that all religious experiences must be viewed equally.7 His argument against the exclusivist indicates that, “the only reason for treating one's tradition differently from others is the very human, but not very cogent, reason that it is one's own!” Augustine said, “God transcends even the mind,”8 giving the argument that God is beyond our comprehension, therefore the problem of
experience is resolved.

The arguments for both beliefs are solid and hard to dispute in regards to certain beliefs. For instance, I feel that exclusivism explains diversity better, and that—in regards to what we know about the nature of God—we must accept that not all views can possibly be valid. In using the “colored jar”
analogy, there is only on true way of seeing and understanding God's nature.

From my understanding, it also seems that the moral arguments against exclusivism are more akin to ad hominem, than valid arguments against the belief or stance. I feel that Plantinga was able to give valid conclusions in regards to such arguments that religious exclusivism is an arrogant way of thinking as indicated above.

However, in regards to solving the issues of religious experience, I feel pluralism defines and explains the multitude of differing experiences much more effectively than that of exclusivism. Through exclusivism there is only room enough for on group of peoples religious experiences to be right and no way of knowing whose was actually true or which experience is valid. However, with pluralism, which indicates that the moral results are what matter, all religious experience can be valid. Again, going back to the colored jar analogy, although the water viewed through the jar differs, the quality or the water and substance, etc. is still the same. All views are still views of the same thing. Kant indicated that because of our ability to experience sensory information, we can use that for epistemological incites. This gives room for the variety of experiences, allowing them to all be valid.

Both arguments have valid points, and both support understandable issues and give conclusions. While there are faults in both, I feel that—as indicated above—I cannot believe either view is fully correct but that both exclusivism and pluralism must somehow be incorporated to fully understand religious experience and religious diversity.

   Notes
   1. Plantinga, Alvin, Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism, The Rationality of Belief and Plurality of Faith, 1995, 172192.
   2. Plantinga, Alvin, Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism, The Rationality of Belief and Plurality of Faith, 1995, 176.
   3. Plantinga, Alvin, Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism, The Rationality of Belief and Plurality of Faith, 1995, 176.
   4. Hick, John, The Pluralistic Hypothesis, Religious Pluralism, (Jalalu'lDin Rumi [13th century]), 233.
   5. Hick, John, The Pluralistic Hypothesis, Religious Pluralism, (Nicholson [1914] 1963, 88), 241.
   6. Hick, John, The Pluralistic Hypothesis, Religious Pluralism, (Underhill 1955, 238), 238.
   7. Hick, John, The Pluralistic Hypothesis, Religious Pluralism, 235.
   8. Hick, John, The Pluralistic Hypothesis, Religious Pluralism, (De Vera Religione, 36:67), 238.

The Logical Problem of Evil

2010-12-10T08:59:00.011-07:00

* Second Final Paper for my Philosophy of Religion class.

J.L. Mackie, in his paper, Evil and Omnipotence(1), argues that the traditional theistic claims of Gods omnipotence, omniscience as well as omnibenevolence do not coincide with the theistic claim that there is evil in the world. His main argument being that in order for there to be evil in the world, at least one of the afore mentioned conditions to Godhood must be abandoned or at the very least severely modified. This, of course would cause the traditional theistic view, that God is omnipotent, to be altered, his main argument being that it not possible for there to be a being that is both omnipotent as well as wholly good while still evils exist in the world.

Mackie argues against several different theological views, (1) that good cannot exist without evil, or that evil is necessary as a counterpart to good; (2) that evil is necessary as a means to good; (3) that the universe is better with some evil in it, than it could be if there were no evil; (4) and lastly, that evil exists because of human freewill.

Two of the main arguments, or theological/philosophical beliefs to explain the logical problem of evil are both numbers three and four, that there is a purpose in evil to increase or push human progression, or that because of freewill evil is brought into the world purely because of our actions. I will be referring to the former argument as soul-building theodicy, and the latter as, freewill defense.

Mackie's arguments against the possible explanation that the universe is better with some evil in it, or the soul-building theodicy, mainly focused on the type of evil that was being referred to, saying the argument was inadequate to attribute itself for all evil. He underlined several versions of good(2), (i/e., version 1 (V1), happyness, (V2), benevolence, etc.), saying that the more important type of good would have to be benevolence because it leads to the first version which is the ultimate goal. However there are as well versions of evil, (i/e., V1, pain/misery, V2, cruelty, etc). He argues that, “some might argue that such qualities as benevolence . . . have a merely derivative value, that they are not higher sorts of good, but merely means to good.” He says that it would not make sense for God to allow misery to exist only in order to provide the virtues of benevolence or heroism, etc. Because the kind of good which God promotes is benevolence, heroism, etc. (which leads to happiness) it would seem that the important evil (malevolence, cruelty, etc.), which lead to pain and misery is what God would want to eliminate, because, again “it would be absurd for God to keep misery in existence in order to make possible the virtues of benevolence, heroism, etc.”

He also argues that through natural evil comes heroism, sympathy and slowly success in eliminating such evils through doctors or reformers, etc. We overcome or eliminate evil, the evil that God put on the earth to bring about good. This evil we should not be able to rid ourselves of, but still, we obviously are able to, (i/e., small pox, etc.).

His argument, essentially says that God would not introduce evil into this world wholly to promote good. One of Mackie's main arguments against the freewill defense is “why could He [God] not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?”(3) God, not being able to do this, is inconsistent, (as Mackie says) with his nature to be omnipotent as well as wholly good. He also argues that the only consistent way for freewill to explain the cause of evil is that the actions would have to be random. Our choices and actions can only be labeled as “free” as long as they are not determined by our or character. Therefore, he argues, there would be no value in the freewill.

He argues as well that freewill defense does not keep Gods omnipotence and support it in a theistic view, but rather limits God's power. He says, “if men's wills are really free this must mean that even God cannot control them, that is, that God is no longer omnipotent.” He admits to the fact that God may choose to give us freedom, therefore, not limiting our freedom, however, he asks, “why . . . should God refrain from controlling evil wills?”

John Hick, in his paper Evil and the God of Love, argues against Mackie in regards to the soul-building theodicy, disagreeing with him in regards to the issue that with the belief in a God that is omnipotent there is no way of explaining the reason for evil being in the world.

Hick's explanation, and argument for the traditional theistic God whilst incorporating or acknowledging that there is evil in the world that cannot be explained is that all evil is placed on the Earth, or allowed by God in order for our souls to be built. (Hence the name for this argument, soul-building theodicy). Through the scriptures, (the Holy Bible), Hick gives examples of evil, explaining that these things were brought on by God in order to give discipline to his people.(4)

He argues that man, in order to return with God, and put in this stage or continual progression, saying, “the minority report sees man as still in process of creation.”(5) He backs the ideas up through the Bible, quoting St. Paul, “And we all, with unveiled faces, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another.”(6)

He then argues that there are stages to humanity. For instance, the first being the slow process of evolution, allowing us to (humanity) to become “rational and responsible persons” eventually becoming persons that are conscious. The second stage, the one in relation to soul-building is the evolution of the soul.

Hick's main argument is that God allows evil purposefully in order for humans souls to build, or that evil is essential in bringing about the greater good of turning us into 'children of God'. The purpose being that, “man, created as a personal being in the image of God, is only the raw material for a further and more difficult stage of God's creative work.”(7) This portion of our progression is only here to prepare us for the next, and more difficult journey, or life, after our current life.

While John Hicks arguments do explain the Problem of Evil in a way that does not limit God's omnipotence, there are several key points that are unmentioned or addressed. Hick, gives examples of God “trying” his people to bring them to become disciplined. I feel, however, that this is a wrong way of going about this. It is a view that is only in relation to Christians as they are the only ones receiving the “evils” and seemingly the only ones whose souls are built. If God is the one true God than the examples given throughout Christian experience should work with any setting. This is showing a God of favoritism and extreme religious pluralism, not a being that is omnibenevolent.

Furthermore, although it is relatively easy to see that soul-building would be supported through the Bible, it is not always the case. An argument that could oppose this belief is that the “evils” God allows do not build the soul but that the soul is ruined because of evil. Take any of the following instances: David, Solomon or Judas. All of these are prime examples of God's allowance of evil, only for the purpose of ones soul to be built not working. Souls were not built but lowered. This is what Dennis Potter argued to be the soul-building minimum problem, where he expounds that, “not all evil in the world really contributes to soul-building,”(8)

Alvin Plantinga as well gives a response to Mackie, arguing that because of humanities freewill, given to us by God, he is uncountable for the evils in the world. Or that the presence of evil in the world can be explained through free will. He argues that God believes that a world in which humanities has free choice is better than that which does not incorporate freewill. If God were to eliminate evil from the world, he would essentially and inadvertently eliminate freewill.

He argues that the only logical possibility is in our ability to not only make right choices, but wrong ones as well. This argument Mackie, along with many other philosophers criticize. If God is omnipotent than he surely would be able to create the best possible world in which we are able to choose freely, and still only choose right choices. However, the question arises, How could we understand moral choice? If we always choose good than with no opposite, and nothing to compare it with there would logically be no good choice, but rather, there would simply only be choice. The argument could then state that what we perceive as evil is really good. This would then seem to fit in Mackie's first argument that good cannot exist without evil, or that evil is necessary as a counterpart to good.

Plantinga's arguments for freewill defense, however do no give an adequate explanation for natural evil. Although freewill can eliminate the problem of moral evil, it cannot explain the problem of natural evil, (i/e., natural disasters, disease, etc.). Human free will does not prevent a tornado from ripping through a trailer park in Kansas. This type of evil cannot, I feel, explain this type of evil.

Mackie's willingness to disregard omnipotence in order to solve the problem of evil, I feel, is the only logical way to deal with all facets of the logical problem of evil. There are many views of God, such as Finitism, which support this decision. No argument, and it is shown with both Hick and Plantinga's defenses, can fully explain the problem of evil except that of a God that is not omnipotent, but rather finite, and just a little less omnipotent then the traditional theistic view of the supreme being.

Notes
1. Mackie, J.L., Evil and Omnipotence, From Mind 64 (1955)L 200—212, Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press, 304-314.
2. Mackie, J.L., Evil and Omnipotence, From Mind 64 (1955)L 200—212, Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press, 309.
3. Mackie, J.L., Evil and Omnipotence, From Mind 64 (1955)L 200—212, Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press, 311.
4. Hick, John, Evil and the God of Love, Harper Row, Publishers, 243, (1978).
5. Hick, John, Evil and the God of Love, Harper Row, Publishers, 254, (1978).
6. Romans 8:17
7. Hick, John, Evil and the God of Love, Harper Row, Publishers, 254, (1978).
8. Potter, Dennis, Finitism and the Problem of Evil, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, pg. 86, 2000.

Concerns Regarding Divine Attributes According to Traditional Theism

2010-12-03T08:44:00.004-07:00

*First Final Paper for my Philosophy of Religion class.

Traditional Theism indicated three main attributes that are attained or are a part of the being God. Those attributes are: Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent; or, God must be, according to the Judaical, Christian and Islamic all knowing, all powerful, and all good. These attributes, basic though they are, have many concerns and criticisms in regards to the meaning of each, and their relation to different beliefs in God. The arguments that I would like to introduce and discuss will deal in regards to will questions mainly omnipotence and its potential and possible boundaries or limitations. While, many aspects of omniscience and omnibenevolence are dealt with through these concerns I will not be addressing them as directly.

William Hasker gives this definition as to what he believes omnipotence is: “To say that God is omnipotent meant that God can perform any action that performance of which is logically possible and consistent with God's perfect nature.”(1)

This means that God's omnipotence stretches to any reaches, however, he cannot preform actions that are against his own nature, are self-contradictory, or illogical. One of the more popular examples of this is the question, can God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift? However, this statement, or paradox, is considered widely to be invalid as it is self contradictory. The very existence, some have argued, such as Mavrodes, is impossible because there is a God who is omnipotent and it is not within his nature to do anything contradictory.(2) This is similar to the argument which says that God cannot create a square circle. The idea does not make logical sense and therefore is not even an argument.

In regards to this, St. Augustine of Hippo says, “For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.”(3)

Other philosophers, such as Descartes have argued that God can do all things; and by saying this the attest to endorse the idea that God could create a square circle or create a rock so heavy that He himself could not lift it, ignoring the many paradoxes this presents.

Other paradoxes have come from the belief that God is omnipotent and are in relation to Hasker's view which again states that God can perform any action that is within his nature. Therefore, the problem in regards to God's embodiment is resolved. This problem, regarding with God has a body or not, brings about some obvious limitations to God, which Hasker as well as many others are able to work around.

God, in having a body, would imply that he has limitations as any being with a physical body would be finite and could only be in one place at one time. This is a major limitation to God's omnipotence. However, the altering view, that God does not have a body limits Him as well. Could God, for example, eat an ice cream cone. It is simple, and something humans—which are obviously insignificant to an omnipotent being—are able to do. By saying God has no body, we essentially limit him in his ability to do simple things that lesser beings are able.

Hasker, however argues that this would be against God's own nature and therefore does not involve any weakness on Gods part. He gives the example of Gods inability to climb Mount Everest. He cannot, because an omnipotent being would have to only be a being in spirit.

Other theories have worked around the issues of omnipotence saying that in fact God in not omnipotent. Process Theory, for example, indicated that God is in process or progression; therefore he is, in a sense, all powerful, but limited. Most adhere to the idea that he has a physical body as well. Dennis Potter defines this as saying, “if God is embodied, he is located in a particular space time region. Let us take any given time, and God will be at one and only one location at that time.”(4) This, I feel, would also give him many different abilities that the traditional view of an omnipotent God would otherwise be unable to do; such as eating an ice cream cone, or climbing Mount Everest.

In regards to omniscience there are some concerns as to the nature of man in regards to God. More specifically, issues of God's Divine Foreknowledge, and Freewill.

In regards to Divine Foreknowledge there are several arguments for and against. Divine Foreknowledge says that God has all knowledge. Knowledge of the past present or future, however, in regards to mans free will, this would indicate that God already knows what our actions are before we are to ever know them. However, Hasker, along with others propose that there is an alternate way of viewing this, which is in obtaining the belief that God has all possible knowledge.(5) All possible knowledge is the belief that God is omniscient in regards to all available knowledge. As the linear future has not happened yet, God has no knowledge of the actual events that are to take place. His knowledge of the past and present will enable Him to have an understanding on what could happen in the future but in regards to specific events he does not have that knowledge; because there is not to have. This, essentially, resolves the issues of free will.

The belief that God is in the same time period as we and all things, objects and persons are is contrasted with the idea of the Eternal Now, or the belief that God experiences all moments at once. In this, however there are certain requirements that bring about specific paradoxes, an impersonal God and a lack of freewill. God would be without a body in this belief, but the largest concern is the termination of human free will. We, in God, the creator to experience all things at one, would indicate that we have no freedom in our choices and all was predetermined through this one single instance of God's life.

Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are painstakingly added into traditional theism in order to keep an old view of God. From the arguments it is more logically sound to understand God's all-power in a finite or progressing way. This seems to eliminate all paradox's in regards to Gods power, and provides and easy understanding in regards to the nature of God.

Notes
1.Hasker, William, The Openness of God, Inter Varsity Press, pg 135, 2004.
2.Mavrodes, Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 1963), pp. 222.
3.Augustin, City of God, Book 5, Chapter 10
4.Potter, Dennis, Finitism and the Problem of Evil, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, pg. 95, 2000.
5.Hasker, William, The Openness of God, Inter Varsity Press, pg. 136, 2004.

Bringing in the Killer God

2010-11-27T05:27:00.003-07:00

There is a phrase within the church often said when a loved one dies in a freak accident or dies suddenly without evident cause. The phrase is:

“He died because God needed him.”

It is one thing to say that, but another to believe it. I understand that it brings some comfort to the person grieving. I think it would be smarter to say, “he is in a better place or is with God.” I have a problem with the first phrase. That is, in believing that people are taken from this earth—killed—because God wanted them with him is saying that God would do several sever things; things he has said we should not do, and things he has said he would never do.

The first, God has told us not to kill. In saying that he needed someone enough to take their life is essentially telling us that God is willing to kill in order to get a soul that he feels he needs more than all of the other souls he already has with him at that current time. Surprisingly, in hashing this all out I have determined that, in relation to God, the death is not the worst part, but the effects the death would cause to others.

Take an extreme example, a drunk driver driving on the wrong side of the freeway and smashing into the only car in sight, killing the person inside. The odds against this ever happening are very few and so I feel that this would qualify as an acceptable example of God killing someone or causing someone to die because he needed him.

Now take the case of the drunk driver—say it was a teen who simply made a bad decision—he, for the rest of his life would have guilt over the fact that because of his decisions he had killed a person. He life could easily be ruined, he'd be placed in jail, he'd have major issues with depression most likely. It would be a life waisted that could have otherwise have been saved. This would need to be caused by God if the phrase above was true. (More on that in a bit).

Also, what about the family that now has to suffer through the grief of losing a loved one? Is it just that their loved one be taken from them in order to help God, or Christ in the spirit world? I feel that this would be a hard lesson to learn if it were true. But at the same time give the loved ones some comfort in knowing that this individual was needed. The grief alone, I feel is a bit too much for God to ask us, or the pain the man who had accidentally killed this person to great if it was something caused by God. The key here is that the grief was directly caused by God.

This leads to the second issue; the issue of something God said he would never do. Something that is essential in His plan, and the greater issue here: It is the issue of agency; our freewill.

This, I think is important to understand. In believing that God killed someone because he needed that person one is admitting that God caused the person to drink underage enough to get drunk persuaded him to get into a car and to drive up an on ramp onto the freeway and to aim for the headlights coming towards him. All else is consequence of those actions. However, because God intervened he would be held accountable for all of the damage done.

Breaking his promises for our own agency I feel would put many things in jeopardy. It would mean that God lets us have our agency unless it is convenience for him to take it away for a short time. This, is a God that I could not believe in and is a God I do not believe in. I would have to questions everything I know. I would have to questions what freewill really is, (something we already know little about its extents and power). Our consciousness already understands little in regards to our own freedoms, this would put a definite stamp on the argument against having freewill.

As I said. This is not a God that I believe in. I believe in a God that has given us complete agency. With everything that is entailed. We have the ability to make good and bad decisions with no intervention from God. He will, (and this is a confusing fact to work out), influence us for the good, but does not force us to follow him. (The case of his intervention with Joseph Smith). This ability to make choices place the consequences on our heads and help us to deal with hard things which is a large part of our test here on Earth.

I cannot believe in a God that would take souls from the earth, but I do believe in a loving and kind God who will rejoice as souls enter death and come to him, but will also feel sorrow for the Earths loss of a good soul. He is completely empathetic.

* * * * * * * * * *

I am proud of this view I have grown into. These questions (and many others) had never crossed my mind, not until I really started studying for truth, (which was some time on my mission). I feel as if I need to explain my reasoning behind this blog and many others. I feel sometimes I dwell too much on topics I have a problem with and write about them . . . well I guess it is true. But I feel that in doing so, in bringing up hard topics that aren't thought of or addressed I am able to open up doors to understanding the nature of God that would have otherwise been closed. I feel with each topic I come to grips with and gain a deeper understanding of God and who he is, and of his gospel.

Most things I bring up are things I have thought up on my own and was not influenced by someone who I disagree with. If you have different views I would love to hear them and discuss them. I am searching for truth and this blog is a way to get my thoughts out of my head and share them with others to get closer to some truth, whatever it may be.

O Night, O Spider, O Heroin

2010-11-18T06:13:00.003-07:00

O Night, O unrelenting rain, O heroin
Is my dancing storm cloud spraying the Earth?
This land, I have seen dying
It trembles in no other way than that
of a dying man of thirst

O Spider, O great forgotten whales, O God,
do their spirits count as deaths in thine eye?
When I step on the battling sidewalk ants
do I become the atomic bomb?
When I die will you pace impatiently?

Old Testament Earth lives and dies accordingly
Evolution brings about God-like change
Who makes my mouth fire and brimstone
and when I die will I watch who I was
when protesting and when saving?

Religious Experience

2010-11-12T11:07:00.002-07:00

Once you open up the door to religious experience, how do you close it? How do you stop someone from having such an experience leading them to fly a plane into a building? And how does your belief or disbelief work against, or in regards to theirs?

How can we limit what religious experience gives us? Where do we draw the line? This is an interesting question to take on, I feel; because it disproves everything anyone believes. Dr. Brian Birch, a philosopher specializing in epistemology tells a story of his mission. He and his companion were teaching and going over the Joseph Smith experience. When they had finished the woman turned to them and said, in all earnestness, "That happened to me," saying that she had had an experience similar to Joseph Smiths. Dr. Birch's companion, not understanding the stalemate that had taken place replied, "no you haven't."

My question is not where do you draw the line on religious experiences, but how? Who are we to say that that lady did not have that experience and that God had revealed his self to her and instruct her. We cannot. All we are going off of is our own experiences. We can easily say, (some what ignorantly, albeit) that we know that what we believe is true and all else is not the full truth. But we base these belief's on experiences that we have had in feeling the Holy Ghost, in reading the scriptures, or in coming to know the validity of the Book of Mormon. Our experiences counter those of others and there seems as if there is little that we can possibly do to counteract those beliefs without getting the individual who has different beliefs to feel experiences that lead them towards what we feel experiences should lead to. But who is right?

And so, existentially, we much all view things and come to the knowledge of things with an agnostic viewpoint. Unsure of whether our own experiences are valid. Our own consciousness screams to us that what we are experiencing is true and real and from God but somehow we need to take a step back and find a definite way to determine what experiences are real and what are not. Or what religious experiences are from God and which are caused by our brains reaction to specific stimulation.

To be quite honest. I went into this post not knowing where it would be going. Not sure if I would be writing in circles as I tried to figure this thing out, or if some sort of answer would present itself.

As for now. I am going to leave it open for discussion. Hopefully there is someone with another idea on how we can determine a way to limit the door to religious experience. Another post on this is sure to come.

I Apologize . . .

2010-11-03T09:43:00.003-06:00

I apologize, but I will not be posting most of this month. I am currently competing in the contest NaNoWriMo. Basically writing a 50,000 word novel in one month. I'll be back once I reach 50,000.

Again. Sorry.

You can keep track of my progress:

Moral Differences to the Opposition of War

2010-10-29T11:37:00.002-06:00

I was surprised that in one week I had read all three books of the hunger games trilogy. It was phenomenal--better than I could have imagined. There were such deep incites and meanings behind the writing and characters. I enjoyed them greatly.

One of the things that captured me was Suzanne Collins ability to show such an incredible contrast between ways to oppose wars or evil nations, namely a moral and immoral view of bringing down an evil leader and nation.

**SPOILERS**

There are two opposing characters, both with the same goals and same causes, but the way that they go about bring about good is terrible different. The first is Peeta. He makes his decisions putting what is morally good first, always. His moral stature is not shaken (at least in his right mind). He chooses to oppose the Capitol by the use of his words and (his own) actions. He, because of his words, was ultimately the cause of the rebellion, not Katness. Through his words he was able to bring people to fight for their freedoms and rights. This is how Peeta is portrayed throughout the books.

Peeta represents the moral opposition to the Capitol.

Gayle, is the opposite. He will do anything and everything to destroy the Capitol and bring it down. In this he begins to think like them. He and Beety are the ones who come up with the idea (snare) to blow up the bombs and wait for people to rush in and help and then explode the rest. This type of fighting is damaging, reckless and uncaring about humanity.

Both portray the differences--extreme differences--between utilitarianism and deotology. One will fight for the greater good even if it means being almost as bad as the opposing forces' badness, the other always taking the moral high road. Both having valid arguments, both can get the job done, however in this argument I point out the moral differences in the two ways.

Agree, disagree?

Damnation, Torment and Feeling Terrible

2010-10-22T06:46:00.002-06:00

I sat in Elders Quorum this last Sunday listening to a lesson on baptism being given by someone randomly called to give the lesson the previous week. He stood up there, reading from the manual and giving very little input of his own. I have had some issues with this recently. Lessons from the manual that is. They've seemed dry, encouraging simple thought in Elders Quorum and RS. We went over the lesson material outlining why we needed baptism, what we promise and what the lord promises in return. Good stuff to know, but pretty repetitive at the age of twenty-four.

The teacher continually mentioned damnation. If we are not baptized you will be damned. If you do not uphold your covenants you will be damned. Sure, all valid points. Baptism is important in the eternal (avoiding damnation) scheme of things, I get that. But why is this one of the only things being emphasized?

Earlier this week I was speaking with one of my very good friends--we've been friends since we were both in Junior High, (about 9 years). We often speak on religious things and it was interesting that this topic got brought up. That the Church, and even most/all of Christianity focuses too much on the negative aspects of Repentance, and things related to them. He relayed to me a lesson he, himself, gave in Sunday School in his ward recently. I'd like to touch on what was said.

He, in his class, asked the first counselor of the Bishopric the following questions: What would be the consequences of my actions if I came to you and told you that I had an affair--being extremely and obviously penitent, and truly wanting to repent and be forgiven? The first counselor thought and said that if the person was really penitent, feeling sorrow and having a strong desire to make things right then they would most likely need to skip the sacrament several times and meet with the bishopric routinely to make sure that he was on the right path.

There was a reason he chose to bring up adultery. There are few sins in our minds that are worse than this. He then spoke to the class asking how many of them had felt so down because of a sin that they felt there was no escaping God's Justice. Although (for tactful reasons) no one rose their hand it was clear that all have felt like this.

How amazing it is that we have the blessing and opportunity for repentance. We have all felt weighed down because of sin and things that we regret, but this view that my good friend gave gives hope. It gives people a light to find and follow.

I have found that as a church we need to separate ourselves from the standard Christian thinking in regards to sin and repentance. The negative aspects are important. They are. We must feel sorrow--but this is four our benefit. There is a reason that we would feel sorrowful for sins. It is important to remember why it is that sin and wrong choice is not acceptable in God's eyes. However, we need a greater focus on the positive and uplifting aspects of repentance. We need to paint God in a truer and more father figure role in order to understand why it is that he will always forgive us and delight in that truth.

I see people weighed down because of sin. It eats at them. They feel continual and strong guilt--even after the fact. I feel this needs to be said, That guilt is not of God. God will allow it, but wants us to be happy. I feel that by focusing in our lessons and talks and teachings on the negative aspects of repentance, of the consequences of not repenting we bring each other down. We do not feel the spirit uplifting us but our own selves tearing us apart slowly.

Remember, repentance is a gift and a great thing. We need to be more uplifted when speaking of it, focusing on it's importance and power--its power to bring about happiness and eternal life. To help us overcome ourselves and to become more and more Christ-like. We must follow Him and learn of ourselves to become a greater, more loving, accepting and forgiving people.

The Twelfth Apostle

2010-10-16T08:51:00.002-06:00

While on my mission, I came upon a scripture that caused me to think of the status of Judas. Judas is painted as this bad guy, he is associated with the worst of sins -- the unpardonable sin of denying the holy ghost. But how much of this is accurate? Could we go so far to say that he was or is a son of perdition?

The scripture that first got me thinking about this was D&C 29:12, which reads,

"And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, but the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else."

The line that caught my eye was, "the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem . . ." Now, there are several possibilities to explain this (among other) scripture. I would first like to point out that the scripture itself could be flawed. There are other's (few others) to support the claim that essentially Judas will be one of those to come down with Christ in the last days, however there are also scriptures condemning Judas for betraying Christ. I propose that Judas very well could be one of the twelve, and will show alternatives to this as well.

In Matthew 27: 3-5, there is a different perspective as to Judas' death and final hours,

"3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

This scripture indicates that Judas "repented himself". This very well could explain why the scripture indicates who will be with Christ. This also takes away any belief that Judas committed the unpardonable sin. (Remember that to commit the unpardonable sin one would have to deny the Holy Ghost after having a perfect knowledge). Judas, I do not think, committed this sin. It was impossible, I feel, for the apostles to have a perfect knowledge of Christs messiahship--we have the example of Peter denying that he knew Christ three times and Thomas doubting saying that he must see Christ having resurrected to believe it. So it is perfectly possible that Judas repented of his sins. In fact, I would say that it is more plausible that he had a moment of weakness and betrayed Christ and upon seeing the results of that betrayal he repented and because of his sorrow killed himself.

I feel that this explanation--Judas repenting himself--is logical and plausible. However, there is another that (maybe) could fit the profile of the twelfth apostle. This is Matthias.

In Acts we learn that in order for the man who was to replace Judas to be considered for apostleship he would need to have been with Christ during his ministry, and followed him an his teachings those three years. There were two who the apostles chose. Matthias was ordained. This, in a round about way, would give us our twelfth apostle who was with Christ in his ministry--however he was not an apostle during his ministry. However, it is a logical and acceptable answer.

There are several reasons to believe either way, however, we must consider the vagueness of the scripture(s) that indicate this. We do not know why the scripture was worded the way it was and how literally accurate we should acknowledge its worth. It could be very figuratively written.

I feel that these explanations will suffice and are both very likely. I have been grappling for some time as to why Judas betrayed Christ. There are a lot of different theories; he was evil, he was close to Christ and was asked to do this, he was weak. I find that the most logical answer fits well with us. He was weak. He saw an opportunity--an evil one, but still there is that weakness--and he took it. He, like us, showed great remorse because of his decision--his being so great it lead to him killing himself.

I feel that we should be less quick to judge Judas and try to see that maybe, just maybe, he was more human than we see him. And although his actions were horrible he eventually recognized his savior and (we can hope) repented.

Holding the Door Open

2010-10-12T05:00:00.001-06:00

I am constantly reminded that there are people in worse conditions than I--people who have will have a harder time getting through life than I. I have also found that many times the case that those people are more humble, more kind, and more thankful than I.

Today I held the door open for a man greater than I. I had seen him walk past me as I sat waiting for my biology class to start. Later, I saw him in light conversation with another student. He left the conversation soon after I past and followed me to the school library where I held the door open for him.

This man was deformed. I cannot put it any other way. He had obviously been burned severely. His face had scars and scar tissue covering it, obvious skin graphs covered his smooth face. He had nubs for fingers and no hair. His eyes were slits--barely enough to see through. He wore a hat, button up-black shirt, and skinny jeans--much the same as one would see me, or countless others wear.

When I saw him, I will admit I felt hurt (if I can use that word). To think of life in his condition make my heart hurt for him. I cannot empathize with him, my worst experiences in having pyoderma gangrenosum, giving me huge ulcers on my back can't touch this. His is visible and more than likely painful. He will likely never be in the position I am in. Married, with kids. I can sympathize and wish him the best. I would like to think that there would be someone to look past that. I hope he finds that person.

He is better than me. I can see it in the way he smiled in passing and as I held the door open for him. I held it open and he replied, "thanks! Thank you so much, you didn't have to do that. Thanks!" He then went through and opened with his weak hands the following door still thanking me and saying, "let me get this one for you. Thank you! You didn't have to do that." He smiled as I passed and I thanked him looking into his grateful and wonderfully happy eyes.

It has stuck with me the rest of the day. I need to be more happy and more grateful, like he was. I will be grateful for this day and I will be grateful for each day to come.

Still A Good Thing

2010-10-09T05:00:00.004-06:00

The sun on my face . . .

I can feel it through my closed eye lids.

The same flesh that has kept me safe at night.

The same that has blinked away tears

of joy at my sons birth,

The same that closed as I prayed silently

to my God

The same . . . at such times when they fade into red sun

and my wife's face appears.

Clouds roll as I open them

A glimpse of blue sky, sun and rain.

It will rain again I think.

And when it does the grass will then be greener than

before

And soon, oh, so very soon

It will rain again. To cleanse the earths hurtfulness

And hateful hands.

We will begin and we will start over again.

I can see it in the way I cannot look

at the sun.

In the glass protection's reflection.

In the reflective Coke can beside me

Resting on the window seal

uncaring, and unwatchful

and still a good thing.

What the Stars Can Teach

2010-10-06T06:16:00.003-06:00

For nearly 1000 years the star we know as Sol and call the sun was a highly concentrated glob of hydrogen molecules called a protostar. This title is somewhat odd as it is technically not a star yet. In fact, if the hydrogen molecules in that protostar did not fuse about 4.5 billion years ago it would be known as a brown dwarf--a star where there is no hydrogen burning, nuclear fusion. Lucky for us, hydrogen did fuse, starting in the core--fusing to helium--and are star began its life as a Main Sequence star. The surrounding molecules and rocky debris around the now full G-type star began it's long process of gathering together to create planets and moons that we know.

I find it fascinating that everything--from the sun and stars to atoms--have mass, and everything an anything that has mass has a gravitational pull. That small hydrogen molecules that came from a planetary nebula--hydrogen that was expelled from a dying star billions of years ago--had enough of a gravitational pull to squeeze together, fuse and ignite a star.

On of the fields in astronomy and astrophysics that I particularly enjoy is Star Evolution. The full birth, life and death of a star fascinate me. It fills me with wonder. How many stars have formed and died, or never started fusing, or supernova'd or maybe turned into a black hole, falling past the schwarzschild radius? The universe is somewhere around 13.75 billion years old. That's a lot of stars!

Understanding the evolution of stars shows me a kind of God that is different than the classical God of the Christians, or theist religions, (Christian, Islam, and Judaism). A God that works within boundaries. A God that understands physics and works with and through those methods. This changes the type of God we can see. It now leads us to believe in a God that uses not only evolution on a cosmic perspective but a more local view.

God, by understanding the complexity of life, I believe, was able to create a universe that, over 9 billion years after it's birth, brought about our planet that through a long time formed into something recognizable. And through a much longer time a single cell was formed in the sea--a few million years and we have our common ancestors. 200,000 years ago (I think) we have the first humans.

This is complexity at its finest. To believe in a God that works by these laws and scientific facts is to believe in a God who understands the universe in detail. In a way we can only glimpse. A God that is more attainable to the human mind to understand. A God that I feel has a deeper and greater meaning to me than one who works in a direct and almost meaningless design.

God works through science to achieve beautiful and grand things. I can look out into the vast emptiness of space and understand, if but only for a moment, how beautiful and godlike it truly is.

Memory

2010-10-03T08:10:00.002-06:00

I remember the red
My brain tells me, makes me
into a memory of the juice
hitting my finger tips,
   as I bite into the apple,

My experience says
delicious, awake, red, smooth.
Likewise, with all things
through memory I become
   art through falsehood.

Remember this:
I am a lie, with holes
I am a biological product.
No, I am art of conscious
   I am a hook in castings.

The Myth of Natural Evil

2010-09-30T05:00:00.012-06:00

In having a free will theist's view of God, moral evil is easy to get around. God wants us to be free, therefore with that freedom comes the possibility of wrong action. This wrong action brings about suffering and evil. The logos of the argument is sound and easily defended. But what of the problem of natural evil—that is, evil which is caused by natural causes, (i/e. natural disasters, disease, etc.). The main questions being why does God allow human suffering through disaster? If God is all-powerful would he not protect his creations? And there are many more. Dennis Potter, in his paper Finitism and the Problem of Evil says, defining natural evil,

"we cured small pox because we believed small pox to be a bad thing. Moreover, most people would think it would be a bad thing for a comet to hit the earth, but a comet is certainly not an agent. So there are very good reasons to believe in both natural evil and moral evil."

The words used that I would like to refer to are "bad thing." What makes something evil? Is it intent? Moral decisions? Or can we say that everything that is "bad" is evil? I feel that this definition of evil is off. I feel that not all bad things are or can be evil.

Because we are given our freewill we live in a world where that freewill is whole. A free world per-say—created with laws of nature—giving us a functional and necessary Eco-system. A "bad thing" as I see it is anything that is negative or has a negative impact on our person, (whether multiple persons, or one). Getting a bad grade is a “bad thing” and can greatly affect a person, but it is not (or rather, should not be) classified as an evil thing. Getting hit on the head with an apple is a “bad thing” fore it brings about pain, however, without such an even taking place Newton would not have theorized about gravity. So could such a simple act be categorized as “bad” or evil? Moral evil is the only thing that can be related back to God; not because he brings it about but he is the giver of our freewill. For natural evil to exist it would imply that God controls or mettles with nature—he is the cause of the earthquake.

With this notion of God controlling nature (or all natural bad things) there must be a reason behind it. Is God punishing those who are evil or do not believe in him? This seems to be a common belief, especially within Christian societies. “Hurricane Katrina his New Orleans because of their wicked ways.” However, this clearly cannot be the case for the righteous suffer as well. Tom Honey, in his address given for Ted.com regarding the Tsunami in South Asia addresses the possibility of a God who saves the righteous,

"So the next question is about partiality. Can we earn God’s favor by worshiping him or believing in him? Does God demand loyalty like any medieval tyrant? A god who looks after his own, so that Christians are OK, while the others perish. A cosmic us and them, and a god who is guilty of the worst kind of favoritism. That would be appalling, and I would have to hand back my membership. Such a god would be morally inferior to the highest ideals of humanity."

These thoughts bring about a God that is morally below our humane ideals. We understand God to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. In order to believe in a natural evil—caused by God—one of these characteristics must be lost. God is all knowing and all good, but has not the power to stop the disasters and disease. Or, God is all powerful, and all good, but does not have the sufficient knowledge of the events. Belief in a supreme being, having the above traits of God does not work with natural evil.

St. Augustine argues that there is no natural evil but that disease and disasters are directly related to the acts of Satan and his cohorts. And so, because these acts of natural evil are caused by agents it is an issue rather with moral evils. However, how are we to believe that God would allow such mischievous behavior to happen. Robert Francis Allen, in his article St. Augustine's Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil says, "The answer that parallels AFWT would be that preventing natural evil entails eliminating the free will of Satan and his cohorts. It is only by destroying their capacity for doing evil that we could be spared natural disasters." He later retorts this by addressing the issue of Satan's free will. "It does not appear that we would be `out of anything' were the assumed cause of natural evil not to exist. If preventing its existence means circumscribing the wills of non-human creatures, well, no big deal."

Allen goes on to ask the question, "would a world devoid of Satan and his cohorts' power to effect evil involve lessening what is most valuable to us?" He argues that it would bringing about a world with less freewill. I feel that St. Augustine, and Allen both are giving Satan and his followers too much credit. To say that the have the ability to change and manipulate the weather is giving them great powers—and to what end.

In C.S. Lewis' novel, The Screwtape Letters, the demon uncle says, "Indeed the safest road to hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts." I find, that this statement true. It is not great acts of so-called evil that lead us away but in the gentle slope. There are several failing facts in St. Augustine's argument. If Satan and his others had the power to effect the weather, would we not see more disasters and more diseases? The fact that we do not means one of two things. God has limited their power—caused their batteries to wear out and need recharged, or limited their freewill. Or, the second option, Satan has nothing to do with Natural Evil. Satan wants us to be lead away from God, what purpose would him killing us give him. (I am reminded of Screwtapes furry upon finding out the man being tempted has died, saying that that does not give them an advantage).

Another popular explanation on why a God with the afore mentioned traits would allow natural evil to occur is simply to teach us. Tom Honey, again in his Ted.com address says the following,

“So who is God, if not the great puppet-master or the tribal protector of Christians? Perhaps God allows or permits terrible things to happen, so that heroism and compassion can be shown. Perhaps God is testing us, testing our charity or our faith . . . We are still left with a God who can do the tsunami and allow Auschwitz. Almighty God is just incompatible with loving God.”

For God to be God he must understand and empathize with human suffering as part of his all-knowing, or maybe all-understanding. And so, in allowing this he must understand that some turn away from him and disbelieve in God. So it must now be called a test. A test to the death?

I can understand a God who will test and try us to a certain extent, but cannot see justification for a God who would willfully and rather blatantly kill in order to test a person. An analogy of a father watching his five year old son die from leukemia comes to mind. Is the father being tested? Would God allow such a thing to take place. Can such an act be justified in saying that it is for the greater good of that man losing his child? My answer is simply, “I don't know.” However, I cannot see such a loving God being compatible with such actions.

The Brothers Karamazov, a novel by Dostoevsky, Ivan, addressed to his naive, devout younger brother Alyosha, gives these words,

“If the sufferings of children go to make up the sum of sufferings which is necessary for the purchase of truth, then I say beforehand that the entire truth is not worth such a price . . . we cannot afford to pay so much for admission . . . it is not God that I do not accept. I merely most respectfully return him the ticket.”

I feel that the only logical explanation is that God has nothing to do with so-named Natural Evil, or that natural evil is, essentially, a myth. God created a world in which mankind can live and grow, a world that will (and does) have it's own natural laws which will keep the world (for lack of a better word), regenerating. We can call it nature or the Eco-system or many other names. Part of that natural planet are disasters and disease, these things, having the ability to help us learn and grow closer to God as well as grow as individuals, but do not necessarily mean that it is "of God" or that God is behind every storm and disease.

I propose that Moral Evil is the only evil that can exist; because of mans God given freewill and with that brings the possibility of wrong choice and evil consequences on ourselves and others. That the world acts in accordance to the nature of the observable universe and within its own obvious nature. With these alteration of general theology an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God could exist while still disasters and diseases take part in our free lives. God is not to blame and has nothing to do with the suffering natural events can bring us. Rather he is the benevolent deity who will empathize with us and relate to us and help us through such terrible and hard events. He is a God in which we can trust and turn to when hard things happen. Because hard things happen—bad things happen—and although God is not directly related to these things, he is a God whom we can entrust our faith and trust that if we seek his help he will get us through the worst times.

The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore

2010-09-27T08:21:00.003-06:00

“The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive . . . All moments, past, present, and future, always have existed, always will exist . . . The can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follow another one . . .”
-Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut

Regarding time travel, can a person truly be dead? Billy Pilgrim brings an interesting idea to the philosophy of Time Travel. The Tralfamadore see their lives as individual moments and so, upon seeing the corps of a dead person they think that that person is not doing so well at that particular moment, but there are many other real moments that the person is going perfectly fine in. These moments can be visited and are tangible to the Tralfamadore’s.

So, if time travel was possible—going forward and backwards in time—would we see things the same way? Could we go back in time and prevent a death of someone? This belief of Vonnegut’s aliens I feel showed the fluidness and multidimensional aspects of time. Putting these principles into play brings many philosophical questions on moral behavior which I find fascinating.

Seeing like the Tralfamadore’s what could we learn? Going back in this fluid time that they seem to have, or going forward changes you perspective of death. Now, his life is not ended, but merely in a bad state—in another moment he is perfectly fine; and that moment is just as real and tangible as any.

It’s an interesting and important concept. Although we cannot time travel we can still see that when a person dies they do not have to be dead—they are still very much alive in time and that time is completely and forever there. Time and time travel make death impossible. It’s an interesting concept.

So it goes.

Furthermore, I have recently read a book entitled Time Traveler, by Ronald L. Mallett that follows his journey from boyhood to his current position in Conn. State as a professor of physics--his life goal and reason for going into physics or theoretical physics being to find a way to travel back in time.

The concept is interesting--through bending light in a funnel he has been able to show that there is a frame-dragging effect which causes closed time-loops. Frame dragging and time loops were first theorized to be around rapidly spinning black holes, but with the knowledge of light effecting spacetime Mallet was able to find a testable way to create the same effect. So basically, the time loop would be any time from when the machine was first turned on and turned off. Closed Time-loop.

I am very interested in this idea of being able to, (for the first time ever) travel backwards in time. I have a theory, though.

This could prevent all death, all murder, essentially all crime.--but would it be morally right to stop humanities natural progression? We could, like the Tralfamadore’s, in a way experience all time at once. (In a more linear fashion, but the theory still stands). What implications could this have on humanity? Would it be a better world? A utopia? Or could we cease to progress in sharing time with those more advanced that us?

The Death of Laban and the Morality of Death

2010-09-24T06:11:00.003-06:00

Recently I watch an episode of House which dealt strongly with the moral and ethical issues of killing an evil dictator, Dibala. Dibala, a dictator in an African country, is a man who sees himself as the only one who can protect his country from gurrelia rebels, and is massacring his own people to try and stop it. This creates controversy in the hospital.

It is Chase, on of the diagnosticians, who ultimately takes a stand against the dictator. When it comes down to two possible illnesses, the team has to retest Dibala's blood to determine which it is. Chase, however, takes blood from a deceased patient in the morgue instead, and Dibala is treated for the wrong disease leading to his death. When Foreman finds out he confronts Chase, who feels justified in his actions because Dibala was just going to go back and continue his genocide. In the end, Foreman keeps Chase's secret, and destroys the sign in sheet showing that Chase was in the morgue.

While this decision eats away at Chase throughout the season he stands by it, feeling that it was the right thing to do.

The question I have is was it? Premeditatedly taking a life is an act of murder, but what if taking that life will save thousands of others from suffering and dying. Dibala did not only wish to massacre his people, but had been a known to encourage those that followed him to torture and rape and teach the "cockroaches" who there betters were. Would it be better that this man should die than to let him live and watch the genocide?

I don't have an answer. I'd wrestled the issue for some time afterwards. I feel that it would be better if he was dead, however I know that I would not be able to kill another human being. I feel that in some sense Chase was justified in killing Dibala. He, although racked with guilt because of his decision, still believed that what he was doing was right.

------------------------

This got me thinking on Nephi killing Laban. I started having questions on why Laban needed to be killed. He was drunk, Nephi could have accomplished the same thing and not killed him. Was his death necessary. What effect would this have on Nephi. There are, however, a lot of angles to cover.

The article, Why Nephi Killed Laban, by Eugene England says, "The problem with this . . . lies in the justification offered for killing Laban,"It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."" He says, that Nephi, could possibly be writing a post justification for his actions, "he clames that [the] Spirit also makes the ethically troubling claim that God not only uses his divine ends to justify violence by God but also as the rationale for a demand that his children also use violent means."

This, goes directly against Christ's gospel. Christ is the perfect example of violence avoided and met with love.

I thought on this for some time but it set uneasy with me. If this was true of Nephi then all we know of him would be wrong. Not just of his character, but of what is written in his two books. If he had committed murder he, (I would assume) would no longer be worthy to receive revelation. But then, right after, (in the scriptures not really in a linear time line) Nephi receives revelation on his fathers dream.

There must be more to this.

There are scriptures, that I feel show that Nephi felt guilt at what he had done. The oddly overly descriptive verses where he kills Laban, and how. Also, I feel that there are aspects in 2 Nephi 4 where his lament hint towards guilty feelings.

But what if God truly did command Nephi to kill Laban and what if this was some sort of Abrahamic test. England says, "What if it is to tack us that genuine faith ultimately requires us to go beyond the rationally moral?"
Jeffery R. Holland says that the descriptions given in such intimate detail and personal detail forces the readers to focus "on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probably that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead."

This possibility shows that God may have been teaching and helping Nephi through his Abrahamic test. Shaping him into a leader who could and would be obedient. This seems to indicate that transgressions of Gods law in only excusable through exact commandment from God--if sure knowledge is given that God is commanding it.

While I feel that this is a possibility, I feel, still that there is post justification. Perhaps God knew that this act would rack Nephi's soul. That in doing this, Nephi would feel guilt--probably for the rest of his life. And we can see through multiple scriptures that he did. This, for me is the most logical answer.

These Things Are Real to Me

2010-09-22T05:05:00.001-06:00

It rained the night before
and I watched the sky this morning
Gentle and blue
The sun shines down on my face and arms
The leaves of the
apple trees and ferns catch my attention;
they blow in the wind from the west.

I have not sat here in a long time
In my white chair
behind the mountains

I look behind me to a place
well loved by my sister--
her childhood secret garden
it is quiet there
The damp hammock hangs solemnly
by the bench where we'd sit and talk
She had her safety there.

Since I have been home
I've looked at these trees--
They are taller than I remember
they are greener, darker;
and for the first time for a little while
I can feel my soul
I can feel God's creations lifting
something in me
that I had forgotten was ever there.

-Cap, Spring 2007

A Short Stay in Hell Teaches Eternity

2010-09-19T07:11:00.001-06:00

*Warning, this contains spoilers to A Short Stay in Hell.

". . . your Hell was not our short little correct-you-a-little Hell. This was Eternal Damnation. At least in the true Zoroastrianism system you eventually get out of Hell. Do you have any idea how long eternity is? My heavens, what an imagination you humans have."

In the prologue of A Short Stay in Hell, by Steven Peck, Xandern, a demon in charge of introducing the newcomers--who have died--to Hell. A seemingly pleasant and honest individual he, while scolding an irate Christian says the above quoted lines. The title of the book, after having finished the story becomes a haunting realization which Xandern hints at in the first few pages.

Now, to save the meat of the story for the reader, and--as this is not technically a review I can do this--skip to the end of the story.

But first, I should probably give a summary of the book. Soren Johanson--a mormon--finds that he has not chosen the correct religion and is sent to a hell based off of a short story by Borges entitled, The Library of Babel. Basically, the library houses all of the books that could ever possibly be written. Not novels, but books--all having the same dimensions but the content can range from Moby Dick to a book off all "A's". (There is a finite number it turns out). The library spans light years.

Now, back to the end of the book.

Soren, the main character ends the book with the's haunting words, allowing the title of the book and how long eternity really is to sink into the readers mind. And it is a chilling realization.

"I could tell you of my fall to the bottom—the starving and dying over and over in endless cycles of pain and forgetfulness. I could tell you of starting my search in earnest from the bottom floor. Of moving slowly up light years and light years of stairs. Of opening books beyond count . . . Now the search is all that matters. I know there will come a time when I find my book, but it is far in the future. And I know without doubt that it will not be today. Yet, a strange hope remains. A hope that somehow, something, God, the demon, Ahura Maza, someone, will see I’m trying. I’m really trying and that will be enough."

And so, how, with out finite human minds, can we understand how long eternity really is? I don't think we can. But this book at least gives us a haunting idea of the true length of eternity. It is not "a long time" it is not a million years, or a billion. It is not eons and eons of time. Countless universes will exist and cease to exist, big bang after big bang, dying suns and rebirth are only glimpses of eternity--a dot on a forever long string.

Soren, truly does or will have a short stay in Hell. And that is the haunting and yet beautiful truth--it is a short stay. In the book he says that there will be a day that his stay will be a short and small glimpse of time a far off memory, a fraction of his life. Eternity is a long, long time . . . eternity is no time at all.

*If you are interested in reading this book you can purchase a copy here. It touches on more than just eternity but the human condition, empathy, connections, despair, evil, love and many other things. It is truly one of the very best books I have ever read.

Science can answer moral questions

2010-09-17T06:00:00.001-06:00

Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

Da Jesus Book

2010-09-14T10:14:00.002-06:00

Almost three years ago my younger brother, Jaron, left for Hawaii on a mission. Before leaving my parents bought him a Bible, written in the slang island language of Pidgin. It was titled, Da Jesus Book. It was interesting to read--having lived in Hawaii for two and a half years--the slang brought back memories of school and church.

I read a passage in St. John, chapter twenty-one, (the "feed me sheep" scripture), and reading it in Pidgin, completely changed my view of how I read that scripture. Da Jesus Book reads,

Jesus an Peter

15 Afta dey pau eat, Jesus wen aks Simon Peter, “Eh Simon, John's boy. Tell me dis: You get mo plenny love an aloha fo me den dese guys get, o wat?” Peter tell um, “Eh, fo shua, Boss. You know I yoa friend.” An Jesus wen tell um, “Kay den. Feed my baby sheeps.”

16 Den Jesus aks um one mo time, “Eh Simon, John's boy. You get love an aloha fo me, o wat?” Peter tell um, “Eh, fo shua, Boss! You know I yoa friend.” An Jesus tell um, “Kay den. Take care my sheeps.”

17 An den one mo time, Jesus aks um, “Eh Simon, John's boy. You my friend, o wat?”
Den Peter wen come all hurt inside, cuz now three times awready Jesus go aks him. He wen say, “You my friend, o wat?” So Peter tell um, “Boss! You know everyting! You know I yoa friend.” Jesus tell um “Feed my sheeps."

18 You know wat I mean? Den I like tell you dis too: Befo time, wen you was one young guy, you used to put on yoa clotheses an tie yoa belt an go wea eva you like. Bumbye, you goin come one old guy. Den you goin stick out yoa hands an one nodda guy goin tie you up an take you one place you no like go.”

19(Jesus wen talk lidat fo tell Peter wat goin happen bumbye, how Peter goin mahke fo show how awesome God stay.) Den Jesus tell um, “Come on! Stay tight wit me an be my guy.”

This, unlike the KJV of the Bible outlined the difference between what Christ was saying and what Peter was saying in his reply.

Looking at the Greek translation, it clarifies more between the difference of how Christ refers to love when he says, "lovest thou me?" and when Peter says, "I love thee." Christ uses the word, agape (αγάπη)a love that is Godlike or similar to charity. And in response, Peter uses another form of love, a closer love akin to a friendship or brotherly love, filio, (φιλώ).

Finally, in verse 17, Christ uses the word filio, to which Peter replies, "Yes!"

Christ, is trying to help Peter understandf that Charity, or this Godlike love, is the pure love of Christ. he wants Peter to understand what he taught in Matt. 25:40, and showed through examples throughout his lifetime. Through the repetition, Christ helps make the connection between agape, and filio.

I find it fascinating that, although I had a general understanding of the meaning behind this scripture it was wonderful to see the deeper meaning out of it. Christ was not repeating himself so that Peter (or we) would remember, but rather trying to get Peter to understand the meaning of Agape in relation to Filio.

We Must Forgive

2010-09-12T07:00:00.001-06:00

We blame the Muslims for the 9/11 attack. Not extremists. Not terrorists. Muslim's. How could we, as a country and society fall into something so far from the truth that we are opposed to the building of a Mosque two blocks from ground zero. Is this who we are? Because if it is we need to take a hard step back and look at the direction we are going.

It saddens me to see the hatred and bigotry that is being presented in this recent debate. We need to be more accepting and forgiving.

I feel that forgiveness is an important thing that needs to be pressed more in todays society. We are so quick to point a finger at those that disagree or hold contempt for anyone that offends us. I want us to be willing to forgive the actions taken against us so that we might be a more loving people.

In 1 Sam. Ch. 25 David, because Nabal refuses to aid David in his war, marches to attack Belial, the city Nabal rules. However, Abigail--Nabals wife--rides out to meet David as he is marching towards the city. She apologizes for her husband's lack of support and says this beautiful line:

I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine handmaid . . .

Abigail had done nothing wrong. She was in the right and was only trying to protect her city and still she ask's David to forgive her.

I think there is an important message within this simple line of scripture. Through Christ we can be forgiven. Christ has suffered all that we have ever gone through or done and all that we will do. Christ has equally suffered for everything everyone else has done or gone through or will do. Therefore, I must draw the conclusion that if we are to not forgive those who have wronged us we are essentially not accepting Christs atonement on their behalf.

Whoa! Powerful accusation!

And so I ask, can we not have the same attitude that Abigail had. Can we move past what has happened to us years ago and fill our hearts with forgiveness. Can we forgive our Muslim brothers for what those claiming to be Muslim had done?

They are a good people and are innocent and deserve to build their religious buildings anywhere they feel they can--as goes for any religion.

Lets be more accepting and more forgiving.

Human Connections

2010-09-10T08:40:00.001-06:00

Today, I saw something so simple that to most people it went unnoticed. While sitting, at school, waiting for one of my classes to start, and while reading a book I heard someone yell out, "hey, man!" in a friendly tone as though speaking to a friend. I looked up.

The guy who had shouted nodded towards another who, I assumed, was his friend. Holding a ukulele, the same man said again, "hey!" The person being addressed looked confused, pointing to himself.

"I see you around, everywhere. What's your name?"

I was shocked. Here is a guy who has never spoken to this person before and has only seen him in the halls at school and he goes up to him, being very friendly, and asks his name.

The guy told him his name, "Kipoh."

"I'm Eli," the guy holding the Ukulele said.

They talked, Eli played a brief song on his Uk, and they stood and talked and sang for only a few minutes before going their separate ways. Shaking hands--briefly embracing as they did so. It was over.

Connections like those show me what being human, conscious--what empathy, love and friendship really mean. It made my day.

I read an article some time back about two college students who stood at a certain place on campus once a week and would complement people as they walked by. Genuine, honest and heartfelt complements.

They said on why they do this, Honestly, we do it because we want to do something nice, said Westcott. School's hard and we have friends who are seniors who haven't found jobs. If someone's having a bad day or it's raining, we give them something to smile about.

Acts like this have to make me and anyone else smile. I have to say that simple acts of kindness, these human connections are so important. I need to try and go out of my way to do this. We all should. It is so important.

Some other articles on this:
College Students Dish Out Free Flattery
In Praise of Bright Words
The Compliment Guy

God Our Father

2010-09-08T06:47:00.002-06:00

When I was eight years old my family lived in apartments in the city of Raleigh, North Carolina. The apartments were surrounded by forest and I have many fond memories from my childhood playing and exploring these woods. I do not remember whose idea it was originally, but my brother and I—along with a neighborhood friend—began to experiment with fire.We would go out into the woods with a small box of matches, gather wood, kindling and leaves and get to work on building a fire. I remember one instance, thinking that in order to hide what we were doing we would build the fire behind a very large and very dry hollowed out log. At the time this made perfect sense—it would block the flames from view from anyone approaching. Thinking on it now, I realize how dangerous this was. At the time, however, all we wanted—as I am sure many boys do—was to see the flames dance, and feel the heat they gave off. We felt like wild men—the smell of the fire, the freedom and rebelliousness in our actions—we lived for this. During this time in the woods I can say that I felt closest to those words I read so many years later by Henry David Thoreau:

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms . . .” (Thoreau, Henry David, Walden, Chapter 2)

Being eight, and my brother at nine, we did not think on the various causes from a fire; we were too excited, to free. Namely, that when we throw a bunch of dry leaves on the flames a lot of smoke would slowly rise above the trees. People could see this smoke; someone did, and they called the fire department.

We sat at dinner one evening, chatting about things I have long forgot. There was a knock at the door and my heart sank. I do not know if my brother had the same feeling as I did, but I knew beyond any doubt that the door was for me. No, because of me.

My mother answered while we all remained at the table, I sitting slightly out of sight eventually stood and walked closer to the door. Standing in the frame of the door, speaking with my Mom was my and my brothers friend who had help build the fires. He was accompanied with his mother. My heart sank further. I heard words such as “fire”, “woods”, “trouble” and finally “fire department”. By this time my Dad had come over and was listening, I could see the anger and shock in his face and quickly looked over to my brother, Tim for some support. There was none—we both knew that this was worse then bad. They finished speaking, thanked my friends mom and closed the door. I did not want them to turn around. I was dreading what was to come.

I do not have many memories of my mother and father getting very upset at us. There were times, which I think is the case for most if not all kids, but they were few and far between. This is one of the only memories that I have where it is clear to me why they were upset.

We were, needless to say, severely punished. They, to show us what would have happened if there had been a forest fire, took all of our toys away for a month and only left us with a blanket and pillow. We were grounded from going into the woods for several weeks and for that night, and the following day were grounded to our barren room. The worst part of the punishment, however, was having to go an confess out sins and apologize to the fire fighters at the fire department. We were terrified and devastated that we were made to do this horrible thing. Compared to this confession the other punishments were simple and bearable.

After nearly a week or horrible gut wrenching anticipation we visited the fire department near hour home and my brother, Tim and I explained what we had done, and apologized. I don't know if we were convincing, and I don't remember if we really felt bad about it. We were young, and lived for the outdoors. I believe we understood that we had done wrong, but I don't ever remember feeling guilty or sorry. Now, being many, many years older I understand the danger of what I and my older brother had done. I regret it and know the fear that went through my parents hearts when the found out about this.

I think about my own son, now only over a year and the type of upbringing I want him to have. I want him to experience the same things I was able to experience, have the same adventures and journeys of discovery that in many ways shaped me into the person I am today. I think of the dangerous things that I had done—never realizing the danger—and want my son to understand that, (for instance) building a fire in the middle of the summer near dry logs is bad and dangerous to his self, and many others. I want him to learn and grow through his childhood experiences as I had. I have no doubt that there will be times when harsh punishments are needed, but that is part of repentance and a way for my son, to learn that trust is earned through actions.

The God Who Allows the Child to Bump Their Head
I feel that through my experiences in my childhood, watching the way my father taught me and my brothers and sister, as well as becoming a father myself I have learned, on some level, why it is we call our God, our Heavenly Father. This title has opened my eyes into something I could never have know without various experiences and without learning what it is to be a father.

As I grow older I have grow interested in humanity. There have always been questions regarding suffering. What kind of God would allow suffering on the Earth? The Theologian, Eugene Borowitz Wrote, in regards to the Holocaust:

Any God who could permit the Holocaust, who could remain silent during it, who could “hide His face” while it dragged on, was not worth believing in. There might well be a limit to how much we could understand about Him . . . In the face of such great evil, God, the good and powerful, was too inexplicable, so men said “God is dead”. (Eugene Borowitz, The Mask Jews Wear I (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), p. 99.).

I have found that many things that happen in our lives have nothing to do with God. While this being is omnipotent we also must understand that he wants us to learn, like a father who allows his child to fall and bump his head while climbing up a shelf. He does not run over and stop the incident from happening, but rather allows a learning experience to occur. Contrary to this, William Rowe states that,

An omnipotent, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (William Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979):336.

God is our Heavenly Father, and like an Earthly father he allows us to learn and grow and become. However, he is not going to take our free choice, or agency away in order to keep us happy. While he is not directly related to evil in the world, he can help us get through those times.

Some years ago, while I was nearing the end of my mission I started to notice several sores on my back. Within a week these open wounds went from the size of a dime to nearly the size of my palm. My open raw back looked—for the most part—like a piece of tenderized meat. I was given antibiotics and sent home after a thorough and very painful cleaning. Later, after returning home I found that I had Pyoderma Gangrenosum—a disease caused because of Ulcerative Colitis. Placed on permanent medicine to fight the ulcers that form in my colon and on my back I began to feel better. A year later I was diagnosed with an additional autoimmune disease, Pulmonary Eosinophilia, which caused fluid, (over a liter) to fill up between the outside and inside layers of my lung. As a result I now only take in near eighty-three percent of the amount of Oxygen a person should have. (At 89% you are permanently put on a tube of oxygen; this did nothing for me and I was taken off).

I do not blame God. In fact, I don't believe he had anything to do with my suffering. I feel that the events because of my belief in God have brought me closer to him—however he did not say to my white blood cells, “become many and multiply and bring about a resistance to fight those things occupying this body.” No. Instead I think he let me go through it, aware of my pain, and allowed me to determine what type of person this could make me. (Much like the father allowing his son to bump his head).

Going back to Borowitz statement on the Holocaust; God did not prevent it, or stop it because to do so would have taken away our free will, sending us spiraling into Lucifer plan where we are told to do what is right. Instead he allows the agency of evil men to affect the lives of innocent people. This is not to say that he does not see our needs and give us comfort or prompt us through the Holy Ghost, but that he allows us to choose and allows the consequences of that choosing.

Gods Fatherhood Role's
God is my father. The father of my spirit—the thing that gives me meaning and life. Through him and his example and influence in my life I am able to understand how to become a good person. I am surprised, however, at the amount of fearful talk that I hear, even within the Mormon ranks. Do we not see what kind of God He is? I feel that a focus on his justice and that he “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” talk sends us down the wrong path. God is a being of love, or empathy and understanding.

He is our Father. I have recently been trying to see him as such. A being, no different than my dad. Someone who loves me, will help when I ask, ask questions, and will also allow me to learn from me mistakes. I think of the love that I have for my own son and find that there is nothing—nothing—that he could do that I would ever hate him for, or not forgive him for. I understand and will understand the things that he will go through in life, and with that understanding and through that empathy I can forgive and I can help and can give him assurance that if he is willing to change and work on his struggles he will grow, learn and will have my trust and respect.

Likewise, our Father in Heaven's relationship with us is the same. He wants us to succeed, and understands when we do not. He is there for us when we need to be lifted up but allows us to do our share of the lifting.

God does not hate. God does not look at us and say “you are no son of mine.” He is a God of love and patience and empathy. There are consequences to our actions, like the consequences when my brother and I were building fires. We are punished and taught a harsh lesson. There is repentance and reconciliation, but there is love behind this. And that love seems to be forgot when we look at sin. We forget that God, like our dad's, will always love us and help us through.

I have come to understand and make sense of suffering, of injustices and of mistakes. I see a Heavenly Father who is more alike me, and my Dad—a supreme being who loves his children regardless who allows us to make mistakes and to grow and become. He wants us to succeed and be like him. He stands as a fatherly figure much like my father did, and still does to me—someone I look up to and want to be more like. As a child I wanted to be an entomologist, just like my Dad—I want to be like my Heavenly Father, and see now that he wants the same for me.