...

Absolutes
Does absolute right and wrong exist? Yes. Does absolute good and bad exist? Yes. Are we morally obliged to do what is absolutely best? Yes.

God is good. The ways of God are right. God is absolute. Therefore, an absolute right and wrong exist. Not everyone accepts this truth, but that is irrelevant; the absolute standard is set whether we choose to adhere to them. One day we’ll be judged according to that standard.

If there is an absolute right and good, then it makes sense that the opposites of these would be absolute bad and wrong. That is to turn from the ways of God and disobey Him. That would be sin, and it is sin that separates us from the absolute good and truth.

As Christians and beings created in the image of God, we are morally obliged to do what is absolutely best. Unfortunately, we fail often. Since we are a fallen race we can’t reach the absolute standard that has been set for us on our own. We have to have an intercessor on our behalf. We can’t be perfect. We can’t achieve the absolute good and right. That’s why we’ve been redeemed by the blood of Christ.

I think our fallen nature can explain the gray areas of life – those times when there doesn’t seem to be a clear right or wrong. I think there is still good and bad – an intended clear right and wrong. Sometimes there may be multiple right answers, and the choice is ours to decide which to take; this situation could result in a gray area. More likely though, I’m going to contend that the gray areas are a result of our justification for our guilt and our own sinfulness.

NASA
How can an organization that put a man on the moon, inspired hundreds of children at space camp, and gave the public Tang have fallen so far in the public’s eye? Has something about NASA changed over the past two decades? I would argue that NASA hasn’t changed at all since its days of glory, but the public and times it serves have changed a lot.

Consider: NASA was founded in 1958 by the National Aeronautics and Space Act signed by President Eisenhower, nine months after the Russians put Sputnik I into space. The American population was terrified of the potential destructive power and advantage Russia now had, and the United States couldn’t be left behind. We were in a race - a race not only for control of space but also for national and personal security. It was the Cold War – full of espionage, subterfuge, and huge technological advances. In a war with few direct physical battles, science and technology offered a way for the brilliant minds to serve their country.

The time was ripe for technological advances because it was so important to the people to win the tech and space wars. We had to stay one step ahead of the Communists as long as there was a perceived threat to our security. As a whole populace, I doubt many had considered space exploration possible to the point it was being discussed. It was an exciting time, and the competitive nature of Americans probably fueled the excitement and respect for NASA and the scientists that worked there.

I have a feeling that the cause for the public’s disdain and mistrust of NASA has more to do with the end of the Cold War than disasters like Challenger and Columbia. There had been disasters before, and, although horrible, the public was able to stomach them and move on (Apollo 1 and 13). That leads me to believe that the drop in interest is due more to the world stage than the program itself.

The space program isn’t exciting anymore for the American population. We’ve been spaced out in many ways. The space program has become mundane; it doesn’t hold the publics attention. Instead of competing with the Soviets, we are partners with the Russians. There isn’t a huge competition, and although the stakes are arguably as high (with China especially) the battle has not been in the headlines. The program has become routine for the people; it’s not as exotic as it once was. Add to that lack of excitement the accidents and failures that have occurred over the past two decades, it is little wonder the public has lowered their view of NASA.

How does can NASA improve their image? That is a tough question to answer because what is best for the nation may not be the most exciting avenue. Missions to Saturn and Pluto don’t have the same effect as landing a man on the moon. Pictures aren’t the same as walking on it. We want tangible proof and evidence; we want the movies. This is the plan I would propose to get people interested in NASA again. Bring back Reagan’s SDI or start working on moon bases. These two things are somewhat exotic and would bring refreshed attention to the programs.

Technology’s Morality
Are technics designed and created for the sole intention of doing something immoral inherently immoral themselves? I’ve wrestled with this question since we first addressed it a couple of weeks ago, and I’ve finally come to a conclusion: In brief, my answer is yes, but a further explanation is needed. I do not think a technic has the self-awareness to make decisions or decide for itself between right and wrong. Obviously, a constructed technic doesn’t have the ability to reason freely. So in that way a technic is not moral or immoral or even amoral – it simply exists. However, I think a technic, any created thing, has the nature of the creator within it – whether that be moral or immoral, right or wrong. Therefore, I accept the idea that a technic created for the sole intention of immoral purposes has an inherent immoral nature.

Biblically, the creation account of Genesis tells us that God created the whole universe. After every day of creation, God acknowledged his work as good. He spoke light into existence, and it was good. A separation between the expanses…good. Plant life…good. Animals…also good. Man was good, and man was created in God’s image. God is good and what He creates is good. Since we are created by God, we are good and have the full potential to be good. That was his original plan. A creator can instill his qualities in his creations. Now, the creation can and may fall away and become imperfect, bad, and immoral, but the potential for good is always there.

If the creator can instill qualities on the created thing, then it makes sense that those qualities can go either way – moral or immoral, right or wrong. Two of the qualities man has from God are creativity and ingenuity. We can create things as well, but we can create good and bad things. Staying in the Bible, the Israelites would create idols from time to time. The point of an idol is to worship the image and not God. That is immoral. I think we would agree idols are immoral. The people were acting in their sinful nature and immorality and they created something with like characteristics. I would say the form is immoral because of the function it serves.

Secularly, I’m thinking about chemical and biological weapons. The technology and science of chemistry may be neutral, but the refinement into weapons seems to be immoral. There is no positive justification for mustard gas in shells to be fired. The same would go with biological agents designed and altered to attack a specific genetic code or to kill a certain type of people. I think those technics are purely evil. They were created with the intent to kill, but more than that, they were created with the intent to kill viciously and widespread. That seems like evil to me.

The Manhattan Project was devised to create an atomic bomb. The United States and allies were afraid the Germans were well on their way to create their own nuclear weapons, which would be detrimental. This bomb wasn’t intended to take down old buildings or create mines or railway tunnels; it was made to kill and destroy. I understand that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took fewer lives than an invasion would have. I understand that it was the least bad of bad options. But the intent of the bomb was to kill, and killing is immoral. I feel comfortable saying the atomic bomb is bad.

Is killing always immoral? What about self-defense or the military? After all, God only speaks against murder, right? I’ve come to conclude that all killing is wrong – immoral – but God gave us some exceptions because we are flawed. I think God created us perfectly in the beginning; we were good. Then we fell, and killing and hatred and anger entered the picture. Just like I don’t think God wants us to divorce – ever; I think he permits it in some situations. I can’t see God enjoying a being created in his image take the life of another being created in his image. He permits it, but I don’t think he would call it moral.

Redemption. Just as a fallen, evil person can be redeemed, I think inherently immoral technics can be redeemed for positive use. The technology gone into creating nuclear weapons can also be used to make nuclear power. Viruses created to kill can be used to make antidotes. Even the technology behind radar detectors can be used for moral purposes.

dr joe

Scientific Presuppositions and Method
When I was growing up, I had a good friend named Joe. This kid wanted to be a scientist; in fact, he was a scientist by the time we were eighth graders. Joe would talk about the laboratory he had in his basement and the experiments he ran there. He would wear a white lab coat to school. He always told us he was making bombs in his basement and a list of people that picked on him. I’m still not sure if there was a correlation between those two things. One of my favorite memories of Joe is when he brought his Geiger counter in for a demonstration speech. Yes, this junior high student in rural Indiana had his own personal Geiger counter. Joe wasn’t the guy you wanted on your basketball team, but he did make an excellent lab partner in physics and chemistry.

Working with Joe on science experiments didn’t teach me the presuppositions of science or how the scientific method worked. I learned those things from a book or maybe subconsciously through society and our culture. Working with Joe, though, gave me first hand experience of how important those presuppositions are to science and scientists. I think the most essential presupposition is that all things can be explained by natural laws. There is a rational, natural explanation for everything, and science is the method of finding this explanation.

The idea that an explanation for everything exists is what drives the scientific method of discovery. However, hypothesizing, testing, theorizing, retesting, and on and on until an answer is found is a method that has its limits. There is a flaw in the scientific method, and in the presuppositions of mainstream science, which limits the process to only explain (discover, research, etc.) those things which are measurable or observable. It’s a great way for explaining the “physical,” but I think it fails explaining beyond that.

A controversial advertisement campaign claims to have found a missing piece from the periodic table of elements – the human element. I don’t think science or the scientific method can factor in the human element of life. I think science leaves us lacking when it comes to the spiritual and eternal things in life, and I’m not necessarily referring strictly to things of God. Although, I don’t think science can explain God or eternity because these are things our intellect can’t understand. Have you ever tried to wrap your mind around eternity? I can’t do it; I try sometimes, but it gives me a headache.

Science can theorize about how the universe came about to such perfect balance, but it can’t provide an absolute answer. Science often tries to explain medical miracles and the power of God through prayer, but even those explanations can be superficial and unsatisfying. I think God planned to leave some things unexplainable so that we would have faith in him. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be curious or continue to use these methods, but like everything else in life, science can’t be our sole focus or existence.

Why?

Since Valentine’s Day is approaching and I’ve already mentioned Joe, I’ll relate another story. One day in high school as Valentine’s was approaching, my friends and I were sitting around the lunch table discussing their plans for the big day. Joe told us his plan. (Note: Joe had yet to actually ask this girl “out,” so this would have been their first date.) Joe wanted to rent out an entire movie theater and take this girl to watch a movie on Valentine’s Day. I don’t know, maybe girls would think that is really special and romantic, but to me, I think it’s creepy, awkward, and quite expensive. I asked the first thing that came to mind: “Why?” I don’t remember his answer, but I remember the expression on his face – reddening and full of uncertainty.

I’ve been in that spot before; I thought I had an outstanding idea, only to have someone question my moment of brilliance. How did my favorite childhood game turn into the one question I want to avoid and makes me sweat like a scientist in a social setting (ha…stereotyping from prompt seven). As I considered my discomfort, I came up with four reasons.

First and maybe the least likely reason is because we don’t want to offend anyone anymore. Nowadays we are so careful to be politically correct and inoffensive to any person, plant, or particle that we fear explaining our reasoning for our beliefs. What if they don’t agree? What if we offend them with our explanation? This would obviously be unbearable in such a day and age as ours.

Secondly, thirdly, and finally all tie together. I think we are uncomfortable with this question because it makes us think. I’m not sure we always like thinking and reasoning with ourselves. It’s much easier to accept what has been ingrained in our minds from childhood. Why question what we know?

Then when we start thinking about why we believe what we believe or do what we do we may discover the unthinkable: we don’t have a reason! That would be terrifying. It would be as if our lives were based on a false foundation.

Even worse, if we examine our beliefs too closely, we may find out that they are wrong. That would be…I can’t even think of a word to describe that experience.

I’m not sure those are the reasons why everyone fears Socrates’ favorite question, but that is why I fear it. It’s so much easier for me to simply believe what I’ve always been taught than to discover what I believe and why. That has been my great project over the past three years – to figure all “that” out before I enter the “real world.” It’s hard to step up to the precipice of personal faith and maturity, to say, “Okay, God, I’m going to let go of everything I believe and have ever been taught, whether it has been right or wrong. I’m going to need you to piece it back together for me. I’m probably going to fight it some of the time. And I’m definitely going to need to grow in some places to be able to handle it all. But this is something I need to do, something I want to do. So let’s do it. Here I am.” That’s a scary place to stand because it requires letting go of everything I’ve held so dearly – “my” faith. But in reality, it was never my faith; it was my parents’ and my preacher’s, my youth minister’s and my friend’s. Whatever it was, it wasn’t completely mine. But it is becoming that way.

math

Okay, I have to admit that I haven’t done much math since high school. With the exception of balancing my checkbook and the grocery store, I haven’t practiced the mathematical skills in about three years. I apologize for the math vocabulary I’ll probably abuse in my explanations; I’ve forgotten a lot of the terms, but I think I remember how to apply them.

First of all, the odd and even numbers. I think the easiest way to prove that the product of two odd numbers is odd and the sum of two odd numbers is even is by factoring out numbers. Here’s the process I used:

2n = even
2n + 1 = odd

odd + odd = even
2n + 1 + 2n + 1 = even
4n + 2 = 2n
2(2n + 1) = 2n [factor out a 2 and you get 2 times an integer]

odd * odd = odd
(2n + 1)(2n + 1) = odd
4n² + 4n + 1 = 2n + 1
2(2n² + 2n) + 1 = odd [factor out a 2 and you get 2 times an integer, which is an even number, plus one, which makes an odd number]


Now, I’ll try to tackle geometric angles. The two angles on the straight line will always come to 180 degrees. So angle A plus angle B equals 180. Equally, Angle B plus angle C equals 180. Since this is true we can say angle B plus angle C equals angles B plus A. When you subtract angle B from both sides you get angle A equals angle C. Therefore, vertical angles are congruent:
line E = 180º
line F = 180º
angle A + angle B = 180º
angle B + angle C = 180º

angle A + angle B = angleB + angleC
- angle B - angle B
angle A = angle C


Statistics. I don’t think we place too much value on statistics, but I do think we can trust them too much – if that is a distinction I can make. Statistics allow researchers, the public, etc. to quickly estimate current preferences, feelings, opinions, and trends of a population. I don't think they should be taken as definitive findings, but statistics provide a strong first step in beginning to understand a topic or focus research. Of course, there are a lot of problems that make statistics fallible. There will always be outliers in the data - unaccounted extremes on either end of the spectrum. Margins of error and varying confidence levels reveal that statistics can be wrong or misleading. Researchers must avoid attributing causation to correlation. Statistics can't account for the human nature of a topic - the social and psychological side of things. The nature of percentages usually means there is a chance - however small it may be - that things can go the "other way." Statistics are far from perfect, but I think they have value when used carefully.

Robert Browning

The first week of class is in the books, and cross-curriculum connections are already being created. As Mary noted in class the other day, in Nature and History of Language we recently read Plato's thoughts on names, words, and the reality that surrounds these symbols. Our discussion in class the other day helped me better understand Plato's thoughts. The ideal reality, whatever that may be, is in our minds or subcounscious and the manifestations of that ideal are what we experience. Apparently, some manifestations are more like the ideal than others. That's all starting to make sense.

We talked the other day about how the ideal-manifestation idea can be found in Scripture. My mind went to a passage like I Corinthians 13 - the love chapter. My brothers and I used to have to write this chapter out when we got in trouble in our childhood years, so it is near and dear to me. I've come to realize though that the love, or charity, described in these verses is a perfect love that I don't think we, as fallen beings, can fully and perfectly achieve. It's an ideal form of love - like the love God exhibits towards us - that we work toward. As we mature, our manifestations of this love may become closer and closer to the ideal, but I don't think we will ever nail it down.

That strive for personal betterment in love can be applied to all sorts of Biblical themes and aspects of our lives. The 19th century British poet Robert Browning had an interesting view of this strive for perfection. His dramatic monologue "Andrea del Sarto" is about a Renaissance artist who has mastered technique; he is a perfect painter, as far as mechanics go. However, he lacks the spiritual touch to his artwork; he has no soul - so to speak. Browning implies that if we could create an ideal world, then we would have nothing to strive for - we would become stagnant. This concept is the philosophy of the imperfect, and it makes a lot of since. If we could create the ideal reality then we wouldn't need God or his salvation. It's the gap between the ideal and the manifestation that reminds us there is a perfection to strive for; it's why we need the Savior to bridge that gap. It's why the Word became flesh.

That's cool. See you in class...

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?"
- Robert Browning

new beginning

the exchange of ideas, postulations, and information can now commence. why mile markers? i run a lot and that is when i do some of my best and deepest thinking.