A couple of experiences recently caused me to think about weaknesses. Yesterday a young missionary came to my office because she had headaches the week before and felt weak and dizzy, which we determined to be low blood sugar. Upon questioning, I found that she had many other problems since starting the mission: weight gain, acne, bloating, sleep problems, depression, fatigue, and irregular, painful, menses. We discussed how all of these point to an adrenal hormone imbalance, and how it happened from all of the changes of being a missionary. She had lots of stress, poor diet, and many other changes that brought on this weakness. I explained that she would struggle with this all of her life, which she could control only by maintaining a strict diet, and stress-reduction techniques. If not, she would have all of the same problems she was experiencing, and would gradually get worse.
The other was a friend who called me the other day because she needed help with her faith in God. "I have never had a prayer answered," she sobbed. I have known her long enough to know that isn't true so I told her some things where she had a witness, but she said, "I don't see it." Immediately I understood that she had a spiritual blindness and deafness. She couldn't see the hand of the Lord in her life, nor could she hear His voice. I asked her about it, and she said this has been a problem since childhood. "I want it to be true, but I don't believe it," she said. "As a child I prayed, but the answers never came." She didn't have evidence in her mind, or rather, didn't see the evidence she had. She just couldn't see that every prayer she ever prayed was answered.
A blind person will always be missing experiences that are common to those who see. Color, light, and the ability to sense distant objects are not going to be a part of their lives. They must live without them, and rely on others to help them through life. The concept of a rainbow will not have a lot of meaning, no matter which metaphors or language is used. In the same sense, one who is spiritually blind requires the help of those around them to keep them going, but they may never actually have a personal experience and therefore may never really understand.
We need weaknesses
The Lord said, "And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them." (Ether 12:27)
The first part of this scripture is interesting. It is about "why bad things happen to good people," or why we have weaknesses. The conditional statement reads: "...if men come unto me [then] I will show unto them their weakness." Before we come to the Lord, we are ignorant of any weakness. This is why when people turn to the Lord they get more hardship, trauma, and problems in their lives. Humility is a requirement for salvation so when people begin to seek the Lord, He first gives them situations that brings out their weaknesses. He shows them what they already have, but weren't aware of.
Some people have so much pride they quit. They cannot bear to see the truth of what they are. They need to feel like they are in power. They say it's too hard, and God isn't answering prayers, feeling they are worse off since coming to the Lord. It was better to be ignorant because you get a "pass" and don't have to suffer through a broken heart. While this is not exactly true, many use this reasoning to reject the help of God.
Others turn to the Lord in word only, and assume God will make them strong so they will have no weakness -- every ill will be healed by Him. They feel they can do no wrong, keeping their pride, and remaining ignorant of their weaknesses. They don't really want to know God so He doesn't show them their weaknesses.
Clearly, our weaknesses are a gift from a loving, kind, and perfect Father in Heaven to help us to come to Him. He gives them to us for our benefit, and shows them to those who desire to know Him. Without weakness, we may not have the humility to seek His help in our lives.
Healing our weaknesses
The last part of the Scripture above explains that we may never, in this life, overcome our weaknesses, but persist in trying anyway. Moroni, the prophet who wrote it, saw his weakness in writing and was worried that we would mock him because he was not a good writer. He knew he could speak with power that would carry the words to the heart of all who hear, but he could not write because the language he was using had odd word placement. He saw his weakness in writing and complained to the Lord.
The amazing thing about this is that Moroni continued to see his weakness throughout his life. God did not make him mighty in writing, or heal the weakness in him. What I find most interesting is that his writing is some of the most powerful and easily understood in all of scripture! He kept the weakness, but God turned it into a strength when the language was translated into English.
I had assumed that God helps us to overcome our weaknesses and makes us strong. However, that is not the case with all infirmities. I thought that if I was humble, then God would make me strong where I was weak. That's not what He says: "...then will I make weak things become strong unto them." In fact, the Apostle Paul says he was trying to overcome a "thorn in his side" and was told that it would keep him humble so the Lord could save him. Moses never overcame a speech impediment, but his writings are powerful. Some weaknesses are to be maintained for our good. Perhaps my weakness, my blindness, my issues, my problems, and the things I lack will not be healed or resolved, but rather I will persist in spite of them, and trust in the Lord that He will make up for what is missing.
Repenting of sins
One bumper sticker reads, "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven." Christians, and others who believe in a loving God, often believe that the persistence of weakness throughout life includes sins. We are told that Christ suffered for our sins, and that we are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. We then believe that since Christ can forgive sins that we will continue to sin all of our lives. We even lump them together in prayers: "...forgive our sins and weaknesses." Many feel that they will always be sinners, assuming that Christ will forgive them of their continuing sinfulness. However, this is not the truth.
While He makes weaknesses strong, He most assuredly does not make sins into strengths. We can be forgiven of sins, but only as fast as we repent, or change, and give up the sin entirely. "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them." (D&C 58:43) We actually have to repent of all our sins and have a mighty change of heart so that we no longer have any disposition to do evil, but to do good continually. Sins are acts of disobedience to the Holy Ghost. We cannot be saved in sin. We cannot return to God in our disobedient state. Repentance is a requirement. We must repent of all our sins until our "garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white." (Alma 5:24) There is no pass for sins.
While we have to give up all sins, the weaknesses we may have to keep. Moses, Paul, and Moroni repented of all their sins, but still had weaknesses in the flesh. The missionary will need to repent of all her sins, and still may have an abnormal adrenal gland. My friend must turn from her sinful ways, but she may still be spiritually deaf and blind, needing others to tell her when her prayers are answered. When we repent, our sins are forgiven, "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." (Isaiah 1:18) However, the weaknesses of the flesh may persist throughout our lives to keep us humble. Humility brings salvation. Salvation is strength. So, strength comes from humility. This is how the Lord makes our weaknesses into strengths.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Sunday, August 23, 2015
The Few
Yesterday my daughter called and wanted to know how she could feel better about being obedient to the will of the Lord. She wanted to want to do God's will, instead of just doing it because she had to. She explained how hard it was to move forward in the Spirit because there were so many things she wanted to do that she knew she shouldn't. She didn't do them because she had to remain obedient, it's her nature, but she wanted to want to be obedient. She wanted others to know how hard it was to be her, to change, to submit to the will of the Spirit, instead of doing what she wanted to do. There is nobody to share it with, to commiserate with, who would understand the deepest feelings of her heart, and know her pain and heartbreak. She felt so alone. It feels so hard.
Faith is persistence and steadfastness not because of how we feel, but rather in spite of it. The greatest miracle in the world is not healing the sick, causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, or even raising the dead. No, the greatest miracle is a single change of heart. When we submit to the will of God, through thick and thin, pain and suffering, against our own desires, our heart is changed. The process of going through this change is the greatest work of man. People make the promise left and right, starting on the path, but faint by the way and fall because they cannot do it. "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41)
The heart, as defined by the Scriptures, refers to our desires, or what we want. We are all different, but there are a few common desires among us. We want ease, comfort, and things we like. We also want a connection with our Father in Heaven. We want the things of the Earth, and the corruptibleness thereof, as well as the things of Eternity. It's not that we have a heart that only wants evil, but rather we are divided and have to choose to sacrifice one or the other.
Satan promises to give us what we want, but never can fulfill the promise. So many people go for that promise like the poor to a gambling hall. It is so enticing to have our dreams come true, to have all we want, and fulfill our deepest desires. We put our whole heart into acquiring what we want in the world because it is so immediate and present. Chemicals such as drugs, alcohol, and tobacco can give us comfort. Money can buy anything in this world. Intimate relations can seem like having a connection. He even promises that we can have both the things of the world and the things of Eternity. Few can resist a fruit that is so delicious to the taste, and so desirable!
On the other hand, God promises comfort in the strife, and Eternal Life in the world to come. There is no immediate gratification of desires. We have to put off the natural desires and sacrifice all we want of the world on the altars. There is no exchange here, it is a very real and true sacrifice. Everything of our heart must be burned up and entirely consumed to ashes. Everything we love, want, need, or desire that isn't Eternal must be willingly placed on that altar of the Lord. We can hold nothing back, or we cannot have the blessings of Eternity, and we will die, like Ananias and Sapphira. (See Acts 5)
This is why it is so hard to continue in the Spirit to Eternal Life. It's all about what we believe. If we only believe what we can see, feel, smell, taste, and hear then we will seek comfort in the things of the world. Many deny the part of their hearts that desires a connection with Eternity, spending their entire lives seeking the next thrill or sensual gratification. They get fat and lazy if they aren't forced to work. Few are willing to sacrifice all they want and desire in the world, including "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands," (Matthew 19:29) and so forth. As long as we are in mortality, there is no end to the sacrifices we must make. Few are willing because they don't believe that it's possible. They live by the adage, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." However, this leads to death.
The few take the hard path. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14) The few persist and carry-on despite heartbreak and pain. They don't seek deliverance from their trials, or gratification of worldly desires, but rather understand that God gives comfort in their sorrows. They grieve. They go hungry. They have pain. They mourn the loss of all they wanted in life, but put their trust in the Lord. He gives them comfort in knowing Eternity. He tells them the end of the journey is more than worth all of the sacrifices made -- in fact, the more sacrifices are made now, the better it is in Eternity. Moreover, he gives tender mercies along the way -- beautiful vistas, knowledge, loving friends and family, and the good things of the Earth to help us on our way. He assures us we are not alone, sending the Holy Ghost to be our guide and constant companion. Certainly the straight and narrow path is hard, but the blessings are real, and worth every sacrifice of all that is temporal, temporary, and fleeting.
I know my daughter to be one of "the few;" she will not settle for less than the best. She will not make exceptions, but will persist in the path in spite of how she feels. The calling of God is rarely an "OH BOY!" experience; it's more commonly an "OH CRAP!" experience. The early Saints didn't want to trek across the United States to live in the desert. The prophets didn't want to be stoned, beaten, imprisoned, and killed. Jonah didn't want to preach to Nineveh. And, most of all, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, didn't want to drink the bitter cup. Nevertheless, He did what He was commanded, giving up what He wanted, suffering the will of the Father in all things, allowing all of us to be saved, in every sense of the word. I pray for my daughter, that she will follow Him.
Faith is persistence and steadfastness not because of how we feel, but rather in spite of it. The greatest miracle in the world is not healing the sick, causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, or even raising the dead. No, the greatest miracle is a single change of heart. When we submit to the will of God, through thick and thin, pain and suffering, against our own desires, our heart is changed. The process of going through this change is the greatest work of man. People make the promise left and right, starting on the path, but faint by the way and fall because they cannot do it. "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41)
The heart, as defined by the Scriptures, refers to our desires, or what we want. We are all different, but there are a few common desires among us. We want ease, comfort, and things we like. We also want a connection with our Father in Heaven. We want the things of the Earth, and the corruptibleness thereof, as well as the things of Eternity. It's not that we have a heart that only wants evil, but rather we are divided and have to choose to sacrifice one or the other.
Satan promises to give us what we want, but never can fulfill the promise. So many people go for that promise like the poor to a gambling hall. It is so enticing to have our dreams come true, to have all we want, and fulfill our deepest desires. We put our whole heart into acquiring what we want in the world because it is so immediate and present. Chemicals such as drugs, alcohol, and tobacco can give us comfort. Money can buy anything in this world. Intimate relations can seem like having a connection. He even promises that we can have both the things of the world and the things of Eternity. Few can resist a fruit that is so delicious to the taste, and so desirable!
On the other hand, God promises comfort in the strife, and Eternal Life in the world to come. There is no immediate gratification of desires. We have to put off the natural desires and sacrifice all we want of the world on the altars. There is no exchange here, it is a very real and true sacrifice. Everything of our heart must be burned up and entirely consumed to ashes. Everything we love, want, need, or desire that isn't Eternal must be willingly placed on that altar of the Lord. We can hold nothing back, or we cannot have the blessings of Eternity, and we will die, like Ananias and Sapphira. (See Acts 5)
This is why it is so hard to continue in the Spirit to Eternal Life. It's all about what we believe. If we only believe what we can see, feel, smell, taste, and hear then we will seek comfort in the things of the world. Many deny the part of their hearts that desires a connection with Eternity, spending their entire lives seeking the next thrill or sensual gratification. They get fat and lazy if they aren't forced to work. Few are willing to sacrifice all they want and desire in the world, including "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands," (Matthew 19:29) and so forth. As long as we are in mortality, there is no end to the sacrifices we must make. Few are willing because they don't believe that it's possible. They live by the adage, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." However, this leads to death.
The few take the hard path. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14) The few persist and carry-on despite heartbreak and pain. They don't seek deliverance from their trials, or gratification of worldly desires, but rather understand that God gives comfort in their sorrows. They grieve. They go hungry. They have pain. They mourn the loss of all they wanted in life, but put their trust in the Lord. He gives them comfort in knowing Eternity. He tells them the end of the journey is more than worth all of the sacrifices made -- in fact, the more sacrifices are made now, the better it is in Eternity. Moreover, he gives tender mercies along the way -- beautiful vistas, knowledge, loving friends and family, and the good things of the Earth to help us on our way. He assures us we are not alone, sending the Holy Ghost to be our guide and constant companion. Certainly the straight and narrow path is hard, but the blessings are real, and worth every sacrifice of all that is temporal, temporary, and fleeting.
I know my daughter to be one of "the few;" she will not settle for less than the best. She will not make exceptions, but will persist in the path in spite of how she feels. The calling of God is rarely an "OH BOY!" experience; it's more commonly an "OH CRAP!" experience. The early Saints didn't want to trek across the United States to live in the desert. The prophets didn't want to be stoned, beaten, imprisoned, and killed. Jonah didn't want to preach to Nineveh. And, most of all, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, didn't want to drink the bitter cup. Nevertheless, He did what He was commanded, giving up what He wanted, suffering the will of the Father in all things, allowing all of us to be saved, in every sense of the word. I pray for my daughter, that she will follow Him.
Monday, August 17, 2015
The Naked Athiest
The God Delusion by the atheist apologist, Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor, reader, thinker, and prolific writer of atheist literature, should go down in history with all other religious texts. He's not just an avowed atheist, but a man who believes it is the "right" way to be. Therefore, the stated purpose of the book is to sway people to atheism. He's very persuasive, I found myself leaning towards conversion several times as I was reading. "Almost thou persuadest me to be a[n atheist]" (see Acts 26:28, With apologies to King Agrippa)
In this purpose he develops an interesting dilemma. Having defined atheism as a belief system, and not just another belief system, but actually "the correct" one to which he can create converts, he transforms what was before just "not religious" into an equivalent religion. He now has a doctrine, dogma, and, most importantly, us and them, dividing the world into two groups: 1) those who are ignorant and primitive because they believe in some sort of supernatural creator, and 2) those who are enlightened and have come to the conclusion that there is no God. Thus, the book is filled to the brim with irony and logical fallacy.
Ignorance
The irony is that he has to come from a position of ignorance to prove his point. For example, as a "monist" he can conveniently ignore, and thus remain blind to, the existence of a spiritual nature in man. The physical mind likes the idea of atheism because it can rationalize, explain everything, and be freed from the tyranny of the spiritual mind. Thus, it is very tempting to ignore the spiritual and pass it off as "hallucinations" or "hysteria." Using a metaphor to generalize this argument it would sound like, "since I'm blind, light doesn't exist." This doesn't work for those who see. The blind can argue all day with any sort of sophistry to explain why those whose eyes work are deluded, but those who see will just laugh. The atheist argues that all the seeing people in the world can become enlightened by giving up on the idea of the existence of light (no pun intended). After all, there are so many blind people who contradict each other about the nature of light. The personal evidence of the existence of light to a blind person is never forthcoming; he must have faith, which means garnering evidence from those who have vision. Whether he is actually blind, or just closing his eyes doesn't change his ignorance.
The problem in the context of God is that less than one in a thousand actually see, and since there are so many who profess to know the Light because they've learned the terminology but don't really see, it's hard to know who can be relied-on to give good information. The answer, according to the enlightened atheist, is to throw the baby out with the bath water; it seems easier to deny light exists than to do the work required to understand it. The ultimate ignorance is to ignore a whole part of our own existence. As Søren Kierkegaard said, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Like Plato's cave, the atheist sits in a darkened room with a small window to the huge, beautiful and enlightened world outside, out of which he refuses to look; the window is high and it would take some effort to see out of it. He will only believe what is in that room, immediately in front of him. He denies that the window exists, "the light just filters in by itself," he reasons. But rather than look he argues over the various rational theories that explain its existence. Outside of this little room lies an infinite world of wonder, of life, of creation, of connection, and of beauty. The atheist states that he has enough to deal with in his little room and spends his whole life trying to understand what he sees. He is going to pontificate and argue about theories and ideas endlessly when just outside is the Light that makes everything immediately clear and obvious. He sees no rational reason to believe in the world outside, it makes no sense because it's so different from his little room, and those who do believe are misguided, irrational, mistaken, uneducated, simple, and delusional.
The Holy Bible
The Bible is just a collection of some of the writings of prophets and is by no means comprehensive; there are many prophets referred to or quoted within it whose writings are not currently available. Nevertheless, it has spiritual value. The word "Holy" is added to the title for good reason. "Holy" means "set apart" or "separate." Why is it separate, and what is it separate from? -- all the other books in the world. Since all human words are filtered through the authors' perceptions, beliefs and experiences it could be said that we only write what we know -- autobiography. Mr. Dawkins' book is his autobiography; he tells us that he created this religion because he has a problem with the law of chastity -- it's all about him. In fact, in this sense the entire corpus of the written word is autobiography -- except for the writings of prophets. The prophets speak or write in allegory, and only spiritual maturity can tell us what is to be taken at face value. Just as you cannot give your gift of eyesight to one who is blind, the prophet cannot give his gift of spiritual vision to another. Just as you had to use metaphors to describe a rainbow to the blind man, the prophet has to use metaphors to describe God, Heaven, and the infinitude of life. If ninety-nine percent of the people misinterpret the metaphors, it doesn't mean they aren't valid; even if one hundred percent don't understand them it doesn't mean the prophets are wrong.
The Bible, for example, is used by atheists as evidence that there is no God because it doesn't teach in a way that is expected. This wrongly assumes that the Bible is primarily a book about "how to live a moral life." If God does something we don't expect or agree with, like kill one or a group of people, can we then logically conclude that He doesn't exist? This reasoning is based on assumptions of an anthropomorphic god created in ones own head, not the true God. Arrogance enters into the logical fallacy, "If I were God, I would do such and such, and since He didn't do that, there is no God." Spiritually immature mortals understand no more of the mind of God than the suckling infant does of its mother. The prophet clearly stated this, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 55:8) The human brain is not capable of understanding something it has not experienced. Back to the blind man: It's impossible for the blind man to understand the stars in the night sky. You can use words like light, twinkling, hue, points, billions, Milky Way, and so forth, but he's going to get a very different understanding from the one that you intend to relate. To assume that, "if I don't understand it then it's wrong" is too tempting for the immature mind. On the other hand, those who seek enlightenment assume their own ignorance and seek to understand why God acts as He does, thus producing spiritual growth, and coming to understand God.
Both believers and non-believers alike use to the Bible to bolster their positions. Believers assume that if the Bible could be corroborated by historical records or archeology they would be in a better position while atheists assume that if it is all just mythology it could be ignored as untrue. Both are false. The Bible isn't history. It isn't meant to be history. Moses wasn't writing a history, and neither were the other prophets. It's a spiritual work using images, people and events of the world as metaphors to explain spiritual things. Spiritual immaturity is manifested by the need to prove or disprove the Bible by physical means. It is as inane to use archeology to prove the Bible as to use tensor calculus to prove the Declaration of Independence. It's equally vain to try to say it's false based on lack of evidence. Evidence for what? Spiritual information? Those who try to prove the Bible to be false are using irrelevant arguments - using intellectual arguments to try to disprove spiritual things. It's like dismissing Aristotle's Politics because it doesn't contain any information about quantum physics.
Dualist believers
When one is blind to the existence of the spiritual it's very convenient to lump all those who have spiritual understanding and/or desires into one category. The reasoning then becomes much less complicated. There are so many different concepts of god that it would take a lifetime to sort them out. It's easier to put them together and prove a couple of them wrong so we can throw them all away -- the "straw-man" fallacy. If Zeus and Thor are false gods then they all must be false. Besides being illogical, this is just laziness. It's easy to give up after a couple of tries. My children often use this same reasoning after a brief attempt to find a lost article of clothing, "I've looked everywhere, but I can't find it -- it doesn't exist." Mr. Dawkins is perplexed at the idea of groups of primitive people forming a religion to explain the miracles of modern technology; they needed an explanation for these "miracles" and their hypothesis was wrong. Using the same reasoning he generalizes this example to explain away the existence of all religion as just a primitive way to explicate our ignorance -- the god of the gaps. It follows, then, that when we fully understand our physical world, there will be no need for religion. This argument has two big problems: 1) understanding how God works does not make him cease to exist anymore than the plummer ceases to exist when we understand how pumps and pipes magically bring an endless stream of clean water to the faucet; and 2) it is simply denial of what the real need is. When we can explain every bit of our physical world (which is unlikely to be soon) there will still be a void deep in the heart of every person. If it isn't filled with the true God, people will look for false gods to fill it. Nothing will change.
One argument for atheism is that a belief in gods is destructive, bringing wars and atrocities of all kinds upon mankind over all of known history. This is accepted as prima facie evidence that religion is wrong, therefore there is no God. This is a very weak argument (though it's really not even an argument), "if false religion exists then there is no true religion, and no true God." The fact that false religions exist everywhere in every time and place is not even remotely related to the existence of God. Anyone can make up a religion. For example, the communists in the USSR had to replace the Church with heroes for the people to worship, who immediately gave them up when the USSR fell and the Church was reinstated. Moreover, it doesn't take belief in a god to be violent or bloodthirsty. Karl Marx defined communism as an enlightened, atheistic system of economy and government, and more people have died in its name than under any other, including all the religious wars ever fought in history. Somehow that doesn't sway the atheists or the communists that their belief system is wrong. Besides, most, if not all, religious wars are really political wars (fought for power) in the name of religion; the belief system is just a tool to motivate the people to take sides, and not the reason for the war.
Though they are the only way to begin to understand God, personal religious experiences are easily rejected, "If you see something that I don't then you are having a hallucination." I do this with schizophrenic patients. One in particular who is very articulate can tell me that he sees things that I can't see. I explain how this happens: the problem in his brain is like dreaming during the day. His dreams are vivid and very real just exactly the way people dream at night and wake up in a cold sweat from a very real and scary nightmare. To the body it's real in every sense of the word. However, a personal religious experience is not the same, and must be personally experienced; the essence of it cannot be transmitted by words. Once one person sees, he can help others, but only to show them how they can see for themselves - thus the need for missionaries. How can we know the difference? Personal spiritual experiences bring growth. Growth never happens without effort. Hallucinations create dependence. Besides, anyone can experience God by going through the same steps, but this is not an option with hallucinations.
The question of "the Ultimate 747" puts a smug smile on the face of every atheist: who created God? This is simply another anthropomorphic assumption of God. The reality is, God isn't exactly like us, in fact, He has given His own origins -- Yahweh. This means "self-existent" indicating his eternal nature; He has always existed. What is time to a being not limited by the dimension of time? Because of our existence within the fourth dimension, humans aren't endowed with the ability to think in infinite terms, we automatically want beginnings and endings. We are therefore blind to the possibilities that exist outside of our "box" of time and can't understand eternity. To assume that if we can't understand something it isn't possible is not only arrogant; it flies in the face of reason. The evidence shows that there are many things that cannot be understood that exist. Return to the blind man who cannot understand light except in metaphor, or a deaf person who cannot understand a Beethoven sonata. Why don't we insist that our five-year-olds begin math by learning calculus? Mr. Dawkins' own admission that he (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot understand quantum physics, yet accepts it on faith based on the evidence of its predictive value, indicates that truth may, at times, be difficult or impossible to understand while we are yet untutored. If indeed God does exist outside of the fourth dimension as He has stated, the "Ultimate 747" argument falls apart.
Defining truth
What is truth? Maybe truth is what everybody believes; if everyone agrees that something is true then it is. This isn't reasonable because even the things that everyone has agreed-on in the past have turned out to be wrong. Then maybe truth is what predicts future events. If I have a theory that predicts what will happen in the future it can be taken as fact. The Greek model of the Universe predicted accurately the position of the stars at future dates, but was really not true at all. Then maybe truth is whatever is logical and rational, as Mr. Dawkins seems to imply. This would be very dangerous to assume because philosophers have tried for thousands of years to arrive at truth by this means. No. Truth cannot be proven to another. We can only seek and find it ourselves. When the atheist ignores the duality of existence he is limiting himself to only what his physical senses can perceive. Any truths outside of the physical will then be out of his reach. He is left to be perplexed, as Mr. Dawkins stated he is, at the words of the prophets and the spiritual senses of the rest of humanity.
Truth is things as they are, independent of our senses, ideas, feelings, or interpretations. It cannot be given to another in any realm, intellectual or spiritual; all we really transfer is belief. We are therefore only able to seek truth and find it for ourselves. All truth is arrived at in the same way. It starts with belief (hypothesis), which may be based on experience or not. After one has a belief he seeks evidence for it. As he gathers evidence, the belief may be modified or even changed completely, and thus eventually arrives at truth. (Ideally, but as Socrates lamented at the end of his life, "I only know that I know nothing.") Without belief evidence is meaningless, which is why only individuals who believe and seek for themselves find truth - it cannot be given to another.
All we can ever pass on to others is our autobiography - our own experience through filters. We can state our own experience, and if others believe it, they may just hold on to the belief based on our word, or, if they want to know for themselves they would have to corroborate it by gaining their own experience. However, another may study the same evidence and find a different conclusion. For example, Mr. Dawkins gives his testimony of the theory of Evolution - God almost certainly doesn't exist because "Natural Selection" can explain our self-existent state (the Anthropic Principle) - a belief he holds based on concepts he has acquired through observation, the thoughts and ideas of others, and his own rational thinking. He presents natural selection as a simple, rational, gentle slope up the backside to the peak of the evolutionary cliff. However, a critical look at the theories presented with the same material evidence could produce a different conclusion.
Empirical evidence for Evolution isn't in any way proof of why it exists. If I can find a theory that seems explain what I can see, such as the existence and diversity of life, it is in no way evidence that it's spontaneous. We explain what we already see, assuming we see everything. The Greeks had a model of the Universe that explained everything they saw, until Copernicus formed a competing theory, and Galileo produced the evidence for it by seeing more. Mr. Dawkins specifically stretches excessively the idea of natural selection to explain away the existence of the spiritual nature of mankind. It's a big stretch, but all it has to be is reasonable and he can accept it. So, how do we swallow an elephant? one bite at a time. The problem here, as we've just seen, that the bites we try to take become as big as the elephant. There's no evidence for it. However, if you just believe hard enough, you can imagine the slope up the back of the mountain to be level enough to walk up, but even that takes both planning and energy. All order in the Universe requires both planning and focused energy. Without these we are left with a passive system such water. Water will not climb up the face of Mr. Dawkins' cliff, but neither will it flow up the back side, no matter how gentle the slope. In fact, like everything else in the Universe it takes planning and exactly the same amount of energy to perform either task. There is much more evidence for a self-existent God than a self-existent Universe.
The war between science and religion isn't true. Those who are "religious" who fear to look at scientific theories because they think any evidence could ever disprove God are hypocrites - their beliefs are more important than the truth. Likewise, atheists who think that they have found proof that there is no Creator are fooling themselves. Science attempts to answer questions of "what?" and "how?" but doesn't have the tools to answer "who?" or "why?" Isn't it ironic that just as science is discovering the relativity of space and time the growing atheist movement is denying the possibility of a being that exists outside of our space and time? Synchronicity is relative to the frame of reference. Quantum physics insists that there be more than one frame of reference for matter, space, and time. Clearly, the existence of a being that exists outside of our frame of reference, that isn't limited by time - a higher dimension, perhaps - falls within both our theoretical and experimental evidence. Thus, the "scientists" who ascribe to atheism commit the same error of hypocrisy, their beliefs are more important than the evidence.
Old is new
The religion of Nature has been around for thousands of years and is therefore probably the most primitive of all religions. The sun, moon, and stars, and every person are self-existent; humans are created from Gaia out of nothing, or without direction or planning. When we die we go back to our Mother Earth and join in "the circle of life." This ancient religion now has a new face of "science" to put on called "Atheism," not as an organization, but a belief system. Albert Einstein is regarded as a prophet in this religion on the same level as Moses for the Jews (ironically). Mr. Dawkins even names the religion after him - "Einsteinian religion." Charles Darwin is also posthumously recruited as a prophet, who wrote the most important scripture elucidating the doctrine. It's easy to resurrect intellectually mature people who never fully elucidated their spiritual maturity. Atheism could be viewed as a sect of the "New Age" religion (which acknowledges its primitive roots). Both believe in nature, rejecting a personal god. Both are existentialist. Both are belief systems without organization.
The naturalist religions, including atheism, carry the same weaknesses as all the competing religions as attested by competition itself; presenting an argument that "I'm right and you're wrong" indicates a lack of security in your own knowledge. Humans like to believe we have arrived. Whenever we're in the car on a long trip the children ask "are we there yet?" every five minutes! People who join a religion like to believe they have arrived at truth so they refuse to look at other possibilities. This is the very reason why religions fight against each other -- insecurity. Now, Mr. Dawkins has joined in the fray. He wants recognition for his beliefs. He is right, enlightened, and progressive, while all others are ignorant and immature infidels. Why wouldn't everyone want to convert to rationalism, naturalism, and atheism? It's so logical and obviously enlightened. Everyone feels the same way about their own beliefs -- we are there!
Propaganda tools are used to support Atheism just like any other religion, such as "bandwagon," that everyone important and intelligent was, is, or is becoming atheist; they're coming out of the closet. Moreover, he uses selective comments from great historical figures such as Einstein and Darwin to make them appear to ascribe to this religion. This is the same tactic used by the personal-god-believer religionists to try to bolster their own faith. For example, both sides use the Founding Fathers of the United States of America to bolster their opinions, and both misquote them because they can see only that which supports their beliefs. People who aren't strong in their own knowledge need to bring in others for support.
The accusations brought against all the other religions of the world apply equally to atheism. Most religions have a self-existent god just as the atheist god of random. Ignorance forms the foundation, ignoring the spiritual nature of man. Belief without evidence is required of all who are going to accept that everything is self-existent. Though spontaneous generation flies in the face of reason and evidence, you must believe that some day science will progress enough to understand. They believe their god is in the gaps of their knowledge, that some day they will figure it out. Hypocrisy permeates the religion that says science is its ally, but denies the evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Laziness is the essence of explaining away or brushing off the experiences of most of humanity throughout history rather than trying to understand them. Thus, atheism attempts to replace one set of immature belief systems with another. It's really just the old nature religion, with a twist they call "science." As Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Carr so aptly stated, "plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."
In this purpose he develops an interesting dilemma. Having defined atheism as a belief system, and not just another belief system, but actually "the correct" one to which he can create converts, he transforms what was before just "not religious" into an equivalent religion. He now has a doctrine, dogma, and, most importantly, us and them, dividing the world into two groups: 1) those who are ignorant and primitive because they believe in some sort of supernatural creator, and 2) those who are enlightened and have come to the conclusion that there is no God. Thus, the book is filled to the brim with irony and logical fallacy.
Ignorance
The irony is that he has to come from a position of ignorance to prove his point. For example, as a "monist" he can conveniently ignore, and thus remain blind to, the existence of a spiritual nature in man. The physical mind likes the idea of atheism because it can rationalize, explain everything, and be freed from the tyranny of the spiritual mind. Thus, it is very tempting to ignore the spiritual and pass it off as "hallucinations" or "hysteria." Using a metaphor to generalize this argument it would sound like, "since I'm blind, light doesn't exist." This doesn't work for those who see. The blind can argue all day with any sort of sophistry to explain why those whose eyes work are deluded, but those who see will just laugh. The atheist argues that all the seeing people in the world can become enlightened by giving up on the idea of the existence of light (no pun intended). After all, there are so many blind people who contradict each other about the nature of light. The personal evidence of the existence of light to a blind person is never forthcoming; he must have faith, which means garnering evidence from those who have vision. Whether he is actually blind, or just closing his eyes doesn't change his ignorance.
The problem in the context of God is that less than one in a thousand actually see, and since there are so many who profess to know the Light because they've learned the terminology but don't really see, it's hard to know who can be relied-on to give good information. The answer, according to the enlightened atheist, is to throw the baby out with the bath water; it seems easier to deny light exists than to do the work required to understand it. The ultimate ignorance is to ignore a whole part of our own existence. As Søren Kierkegaard said, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Like Plato's cave, the atheist sits in a darkened room with a small window to the huge, beautiful and enlightened world outside, out of which he refuses to look; the window is high and it would take some effort to see out of it. He will only believe what is in that room, immediately in front of him. He denies that the window exists, "the light just filters in by itself," he reasons. But rather than look he argues over the various rational theories that explain its existence. Outside of this little room lies an infinite world of wonder, of life, of creation, of connection, and of beauty. The atheist states that he has enough to deal with in his little room and spends his whole life trying to understand what he sees. He is going to pontificate and argue about theories and ideas endlessly when just outside is the Light that makes everything immediately clear and obvious. He sees no rational reason to believe in the world outside, it makes no sense because it's so different from his little room, and those who do believe are misguided, irrational, mistaken, uneducated, simple, and delusional.
The Holy Bible
The Bible is just a collection of some of the writings of prophets and is by no means comprehensive; there are many prophets referred to or quoted within it whose writings are not currently available. Nevertheless, it has spiritual value. The word "Holy" is added to the title for good reason. "Holy" means "set apart" or "separate." Why is it separate, and what is it separate from? -- all the other books in the world. Since all human words are filtered through the authors' perceptions, beliefs and experiences it could be said that we only write what we know -- autobiography. Mr. Dawkins' book is his autobiography; he tells us that he created this religion because he has a problem with the law of chastity -- it's all about him. In fact, in this sense the entire corpus of the written word is autobiography -- except for the writings of prophets. The prophets speak or write in allegory, and only spiritual maturity can tell us what is to be taken at face value. Just as you cannot give your gift of eyesight to one who is blind, the prophet cannot give his gift of spiritual vision to another. Just as you had to use metaphors to describe a rainbow to the blind man, the prophet has to use metaphors to describe God, Heaven, and the infinitude of life. If ninety-nine percent of the people misinterpret the metaphors, it doesn't mean they aren't valid; even if one hundred percent don't understand them it doesn't mean the prophets are wrong.
The Bible, for example, is used by atheists as evidence that there is no God because it doesn't teach in a way that is expected. This wrongly assumes that the Bible is primarily a book about "how to live a moral life." If God does something we don't expect or agree with, like kill one or a group of people, can we then logically conclude that He doesn't exist? This reasoning is based on assumptions of an anthropomorphic god created in ones own head, not the true God. Arrogance enters into the logical fallacy, "If I were God, I would do such and such, and since He didn't do that, there is no God." Spiritually immature mortals understand no more of the mind of God than the suckling infant does of its mother. The prophet clearly stated this, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 55:8) The human brain is not capable of understanding something it has not experienced. Back to the blind man: It's impossible for the blind man to understand the stars in the night sky. You can use words like light, twinkling, hue, points, billions, Milky Way, and so forth, but he's going to get a very different understanding from the one that you intend to relate. To assume that, "if I don't understand it then it's wrong" is too tempting for the immature mind. On the other hand, those who seek enlightenment assume their own ignorance and seek to understand why God acts as He does, thus producing spiritual growth, and coming to understand God.
Both believers and non-believers alike use to the Bible to bolster their positions. Believers assume that if the Bible could be corroborated by historical records or archeology they would be in a better position while atheists assume that if it is all just mythology it could be ignored as untrue. Both are false. The Bible isn't history. It isn't meant to be history. Moses wasn't writing a history, and neither were the other prophets. It's a spiritual work using images, people and events of the world as metaphors to explain spiritual things. Spiritual immaturity is manifested by the need to prove or disprove the Bible by physical means. It is as inane to use archeology to prove the Bible as to use tensor calculus to prove the Declaration of Independence. It's equally vain to try to say it's false based on lack of evidence. Evidence for what? Spiritual information? Those who try to prove the Bible to be false are using irrelevant arguments - using intellectual arguments to try to disprove spiritual things. It's like dismissing Aristotle's Politics because it doesn't contain any information about quantum physics.
Dualist believers
When one is blind to the existence of the spiritual it's very convenient to lump all those who have spiritual understanding and/or desires into one category. The reasoning then becomes much less complicated. There are so many different concepts of god that it would take a lifetime to sort them out. It's easier to put them together and prove a couple of them wrong so we can throw them all away -- the "straw-man" fallacy. If Zeus and Thor are false gods then they all must be false. Besides being illogical, this is just laziness. It's easy to give up after a couple of tries. My children often use this same reasoning after a brief attempt to find a lost article of clothing, "I've looked everywhere, but I can't find it -- it doesn't exist." Mr. Dawkins is perplexed at the idea of groups of primitive people forming a religion to explain the miracles of modern technology; they needed an explanation for these "miracles" and their hypothesis was wrong. Using the same reasoning he generalizes this example to explain away the existence of all religion as just a primitive way to explicate our ignorance -- the god of the gaps. It follows, then, that when we fully understand our physical world, there will be no need for religion. This argument has two big problems: 1) understanding how God works does not make him cease to exist anymore than the plummer ceases to exist when we understand how pumps and pipes magically bring an endless stream of clean water to the faucet; and 2) it is simply denial of what the real need is. When we can explain every bit of our physical world (which is unlikely to be soon) there will still be a void deep in the heart of every person. If it isn't filled with the true God, people will look for false gods to fill it. Nothing will change.
One argument for atheism is that a belief in gods is destructive, bringing wars and atrocities of all kinds upon mankind over all of known history. This is accepted as prima facie evidence that religion is wrong, therefore there is no God. This is a very weak argument (though it's really not even an argument), "if false religion exists then there is no true religion, and no true God." The fact that false religions exist everywhere in every time and place is not even remotely related to the existence of God. Anyone can make up a religion. For example, the communists in the USSR had to replace the Church with heroes for the people to worship, who immediately gave them up when the USSR fell and the Church was reinstated. Moreover, it doesn't take belief in a god to be violent or bloodthirsty. Karl Marx defined communism as an enlightened, atheistic system of economy and government, and more people have died in its name than under any other, including all the religious wars ever fought in history. Somehow that doesn't sway the atheists or the communists that their belief system is wrong. Besides, most, if not all, religious wars are really political wars (fought for power) in the name of religion; the belief system is just a tool to motivate the people to take sides, and not the reason for the war.
Though they are the only way to begin to understand God, personal religious experiences are easily rejected, "If you see something that I don't then you are having a hallucination." I do this with schizophrenic patients. One in particular who is very articulate can tell me that he sees things that I can't see. I explain how this happens: the problem in his brain is like dreaming during the day. His dreams are vivid and very real just exactly the way people dream at night and wake up in a cold sweat from a very real and scary nightmare. To the body it's real in every sense of the word. However, a personal religious experience is not the same, and must be personally experienced; the essence of it cannot be transmitted by words. Once one person sees, he can help others, but only to show them how they can see for themselves - thus the need for missionaries. How can we know the difference? Personal spiritual experiences bring growth. Growth never happens without effort. Hallucinations create dependence. Besides, anyone can experience God by going through the same steps, but this is not an option with hallucinations.
The question of "the Ultimate 747" puts a smug smile on the face of every atheist: who created God? This is simply another anthropomorphic assumption of God. The reality is, God isn't exactly like us, in fact, He has given His own origins -- Yahweh. This means "self-existent" indicating his eternal nature; He has always existed. What is time to a being not limited by the dimension of time? Because of our existence within the fourth dimension, humans aren't endowed with the ability to think in infinite terms, we automatically want beginnings and endings. We are therefore blind to the possibilities that exist outside of our "box" of time and can't understand eternity. To assume that if we can't understand something it isn't possible is not only arrogant; it flies in the face of reason. The evidence shows that there are many things that cannot be understood that exist. Return to the blind man who cannot understand light except in metaphor, or a deaf person who cannot understand a Beethoven sonata. Why don't we insist that our five-year-olds begin math by learning calculus? Mr. Dawkins' own admission that he (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot understand quantum physics, yet accepts it on faith based on the evidence of its predictive value, indicates that truth may, at times, be difficult or impossible to understand while we are yet untutored. If indeed God does exist outside of the fourth dimension as He has stated, the "Ultimate 747" argument falls apart.
Defining truth
What is truth? Maybe truth is what everybody believes; if everyone agrees that something is true then it is. This isn't reasonable because even the things that everyone has agreed-on in the past have turned out to be wrong. Then maybe truth is what predicts future events. If I have a theory that predicts what will happen in the future it can be taken as fact. The Greek model of the Universe predicted accurately the position of the stars at future dates, but was really not true at all. Then maybe truth is whatever is logical and rational, as Mr. Dawkins seems to imply. This would be very dangerous to assume because philosophers have tried for thousands of years to arrive at truth by this means. No. Truth cannot be proven to another. We can only seek and find it ourselves. When the atheist ignores the duality of existence he is limiting himself to only what his physical senses can perceive. Any truths outside of the physical will then be out of his reach. He is left to be perplexed, as Mr. Dawkins stated he is, at the words of the prophets and the spiritual senses of the rest of humanity.
Truth is things as they are, independent of our senses, ideas, feelings, or interpretations. It cannot be given to another in any realm, intellectual or spiritual; all we really transfer is belief. We are therefore only able to seek truth and find it for ourselves. All truth is arrived at in the same way. It starts with belief (hypothesis), which may be based on experience or not. After one has a belief he seeks evidence for it. As he gathers evidence, the belief may be modified or even changed completely, and thus eventually arrives at truth. (Ideally, but as Socrates lamented at the end of his life, "I only know that I know nothing.") Without belief evidence is meaningless, which is why only individuals who believe and seek for themselves find truth - it cannot be given to another.
All we can ever pass on to others is our autobiography - our own experience through filters. We can state our own experience, and if others believe it, they may just hold on to the belief based on our word, or, if they want to know for themselves they would have to corroborate it by gaining their own experience. However, another may study the same evidence and find a different conclusion. For example, Mr. Dawkins gives his testimony of the theory of Evolution - God almost certainly doesn't exist because "Natural Selection" can explain our self-existent state (the Anthropic Principle) - a belief he holds based on concepts he has acquired through observation, the thoughts and ideas of others, and his own rational thinking. He presents natural selection as a simple, rational, gentle slope up the backside to the peak of the evolutionary cliff. However, a critical look at the theories presented with the same material evidence could produce a different conclusion.
Empirical evidence for Evolution isn't in any way proof of why it exists. If I can find a theory that seems explain what I can see, such as the existence and diversity of life, it is in no way evidence that it's spontaneous. We explain what we already see, assuming we see everything. The Greeks had a model of the Universe that explained everything they saw, until Copernicus formed a competing theory, and Galileo produced the evidence for it by seeing more. Mr. Dawkins specifically stretches excessively the idea of natural selection to explain away the existence of the spiritual nature of mankind. It's a big stretch, but all it has to be is reasonable and he can accept it. So, how do we swallow an elephant? one bite at a time. The problem here, as we've just seen, that the bites we try to take become as big as the elephant. There's no evidence for it. However, if you just believe hard enough, you can imagine the slope up the back of the mountain to be level enough to walk up, but even that takes both planning and energy. All order in the Universe requires both planning and focused energy. Without these we are left with a passive system such water. Water will not climb up the face of Mr. Dawkins' cliff, but neither will it flow up the back side, no matter how gentle the slope. In fact, like everything else in the Universe it takes planning and exactly the same amount of energy to perform either task. There is much more evidence for a self-existent God than a self-existent Universe.
The war between science and religion isn't true. Those who are "religious" who fear to look at scientific theories because they think any evidence could ever disprove God are hypocrites - their beliefs are more important than the truth. Likewise, atheists who think that they have found proof that there is no Creator are fooling themselves. Science attempts to answer questions of "what?" and "how?" but doesn't have the tools to answer "who?" or "why?" Isn't it ironic that just as science is discovering the relativity of space and time the growing atheist movement is denying the possibility of a being that exists outside of our space and time? Synchronicity is relative to the frame of reference. Quantum physics insists that there be more than one frame of reference for matter, space, and time. Clearly, the existence of a being that exists outside of our frame of reference, that isn't limited by time - a higher dimension, perhaps - falls within both our theoretical and experimental evidence. Thus, the "scientists" who ascribe to atheism commit the same error of hypocrisy, their beliefs are more important than the evidence.
Old is new
The religion of Nature has been around for thousands of years and is therefore probably the most primitive of all religions. The sun, moon, and stars, and every person are self-existent; humans are created from Gaia out of nothing, or without direction or planning. When we die we go back to our Mother Earth and join in "the circle of life." This ancient religion now has a new face of "science" to put on called "Atheism," not as an organization, but a belief system. Albert Einstein is regarded as a prophet in this religion on the same level as Moses for the Jews (ironically). Mr. Dawkins even names the religion after him - "Einsteinian religion." Charles Darwin is also posthumously recruited as a prophet, who wrote the most important scripture elucidating the doctrine. It's easy to resurrect intellectually mature people who never fully elucidated their spiritual maturity. Atheism could be viewed as a sect of the "New Age" religion (which acknowledges its primitive roots). Both believe in nature, rejecting a personal god. Both are existentialist. Both are belief systems without organization.
The naturalist religions, including atheism, carry the same weaknesses as all the competing religions as attested by competition itself; presenting an argument that "I'm right and you're wrong" indicates a lack of security in your own knowledge. Humans like to believe we have arrived. Whenever we're in the car on a long trip the children ask "are we there yet?" every five minutes! People who join a religion like to believe they have arrived at truth so they refuse to look at other possibilities. This is the very reason why religions fight against each other -- insecurity. Now, Mr. Dawkins has joined in the fray. He wants recognition for his beliefs. He is right, enlightened, and progressive, while all others are ignorant and immature infidels. Why wouldn't everyone want to convert to rationalism, naturalism, and atheism? It's so logical and obviously enlightened. Everyone feels the same way about their own beliefs -- we are there!
Propaganda tools are used to support Atheism just like any other religion, such as "bandwagon," that everyone important and intelligent was, is, or is becoming atheist; they're coming out of the closet. Moreover, he uses selective comments from great historical figures such as Einstein and Darwin to make them appear to ascribe to this religion. This is the same tactic used by the personal-god-believer religionists to try to bolster their own faith. For example, both sides use the Founding Fathers of the United States of America to bolster their opinions, and both misquote them because they can see only that which supports their beliefs. People who aren't strong in their own knowledge need to bring in others for support.
The accusations brought against all the other religions of the world apply equally to atheism. Most religions have a self-existent god just as the atheist god of random. Ignorance forms the foundation, ignoring the spiritual nature of man. Belief without evidence is required of all who are going to accept that everything is self-existent. Though spontaneous generation flies in the face of reason and evidence, you must believe that some day science will progress enough to understand. They believe their god is in the gaps of their knowledge, that some day they will figure it out. Hypocrisy permeates the religion that says science is its ally, but denies the evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Laziness is the essence of explaining away or brushing off the experiences of most of humanity throughout history rather than trying to understand them. Thus, atheism attempts to replace one set of immature belief systems with another. It's really just the old nature religion, with a twist they call "science." As Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Carr so aptly stated, "plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Pilgrimage of Contrasts
I just spent the last week on my first pilgrimage, visiting all of the places on the Earth where I feel spiritual roots. These are things I have always wanted to do. They are the things of my soul. It's so good to see all of this in person, it makes the history I have previously only known through others come alive and be part of me. In spite of being in most of these places for the first time, they are in my heart and each was a spiritual experience.
At first it started as a trip down memory lane for my wife, Karyn. We went to her childhood home in North Carolina to visit the people and places she knew as a child. We slid down Sliding Rock in the Blue Ridge Mountains, admired the beautiful valleys, and went to the church that her father helped build. We also went to see her "adopted" mama from the South in a nursing home. She's still sharp as a tack, though she had just fallen and bruised some ribs.
From there, we went to our nation's capital. Washington D.C. was something of a spiritual experience. The Lincoln and Washington memorials, the White House, and so forth brought me back to the roots of our country, and our freedom. The monuments and memorials are important to help us remember these. There are a great many of leaders who have made freedom a reality for me, and I owe them a debt of gratitude because I really value the freedom I have.
We went to Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington. I would like to know him better because he truly was a great man. In many ways, he single-handedly defeated the British armies sent to put down the rebellion. He used intelligence to win, not might. As one English leader said, "Washington didn't out-fight us, he simply out-spied us." From the war to the Constitutional Convention, he did so much to bring about freedom, the Constitution, and the United States, he truly is the "Father of our Country."
At the Smithsonian air and space museum we were able to see the history of flight. Eight-year-old Ethan couldn't get enough. In the Wright Brothers exhibit he just wanted to see how everything worked, how they figured-out the mechanics of flight, not just to glide downward, but to power a plane that could be controlled. From there we saw all the flying machines in air and space. Ethan was full of questions on every one. I couldn't answer all of his questions, but we found people who could. It filled us with amazement that man is able to fly like birds and go into space. We truly have been blessed.
The Holocaust Museum was so intense that I was a little concerned that Shannon, who is only 12, went through with us. The messages include: "It happened" and "Don't let it happen again!" War normally includes killing for the sake of taking over control or property, or for defense, but this was just brutality and cruelty in its most efficient form. It is still amazing that a civilized people could become so un-civilized in such a small amount of time. How did one such as Hitler warp the humanity of so many of his countrymen? The museum reminds us because otherwise we will refuse to believe such a thing could happen. Another message is that it can, and does, still happen -- in Cambodia, Africa, and Kosovo, for example. The only way to prevent such tragedies is by remembering our own humanity, and not following leaders of destruction.
In Pennsylvania, we went to the Cyclorama at Gettysburg. I had often wondered how these battles worked, and to see that painting and listen to the explanation filled me with awe and wonder! The museum contained a lot about Abraham Lincoln's leadership in preserving the United States, his only objective. Abolishing slavery was the by-product that was required for the Union of the North and South because that was their primary division. He tried to avoid it in order to appease the people of the South, so they would want to remain in the Union, but it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation that the North truly began to prevail. The nation had to be free of slavery in order to fulfill its mission.
From there we went North to Western New York, and saw Niagara Falls. I've seen pictures, read stories, and heard a lot about this waterfall, but nothing compares to going there in person. The amount of water falling such a height, and feeling the power of it was amazing! We went down into the "Cave of the Winds" tour (there is no cave) at the bottom of the falls. It is truly something that must be experienced to appreciate.
Also in New York, in the Finger Lakes area, is a small town called Palmyra. I have always wanted to visit here. It is a fitting end to my pilgrimage because this area is where a series of events happened that have long been predicted by prophets, the story of our Savior. The reason George Washington and the rest were sent to create a free country is precisely to have a place for Christ to come. He came, to a 14-year-old boy, "as a thief in the night" as prophesied, to begin restoring the Gospel that was lost so many years before at the death of His Apostles. Most people still don't know it -- it seems to be the best-kept secret on Earth! As the Gospel spreads the whole world is being prepared for His millennial reign. The prophecies are being fulfilled; the signs of the times tell us it is close.
There is no real beginning to this story because it is an ongoing process of preparation. Some say it started during the Renaissance with the printing press and the ability to print the Bible in the common languages. Tyndall and others braved all manner of persecution and death so that all would be free to learn the word of God. The discovery of the New World soon brought many seeking religious freedom. But, over time, the Colonies became suppressed like they were in England, and a small number of them rebelled against British Rule, bringing freedom to the United States of America. Some thirty years after the Constitution was written, a boy in upstate New York went into a grove of trees to pray, asking God which church he should join, starting the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the world. The entire story was planned from the beginning, but the spiritual history is easily forgotten, or overlooked for the physical aspects.
We went to that grove of trees, The Sacred Grove, and walked through it. We were almost alone. I have heard about people having spiritual experiences there, and I expected to feel something different. It was very peaceful. The mosquitoes were biting my daughter, Charlotte and I. We sat and talked about what had taken place there in 1820, the most significant theophany in the history of the world, but nothing happened. No angel, no voice, not even a powerful influence. It occurred to me as we were walking out that I didn't need anything, I already had everything I needed. I have a sure knowledge, and witness of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith, Jr. really did see God and Jesus Christ there, and that he really did restore the fullness of the Gospel. I know what that means. I know what was lost, and what was restored. I didn't need a further witness while I was there. What I did get was another reference point of the physical location to add to my understanding.
The Hill Cumorah was also on my list. Here, a book written on gold plates was deposited in this hill from around 421 A.D. to 1825. The man who put them there came to Joseph Smith, Jr. as an angel to allow him to translate part of them into the Book of Mormon. The book is about a civilization that existed on this land that was completely destroyed in a battle near that hill around 400 A.D. where over 230,000 men were killed. The book also tells of another civilization completely destroyed here a thousand years previous to this, and over two million died. We climbed the hill, followed the trail down the backside of the hill. The view from the top of the hill was the same as all over. It isn't as large as I expected, but it is steep; it wasn't remarkable, except for the events that took place there, both joyous and sorrowful -- we see it, and remember.
Overall, it was a week of incredible emotional contrast; from the horrors of the Holocaust, to the peace of the Sacred Grove; from visiting a old and weak grandmother to feeling the power of a huge waterfall; from cannon that can hit a target a mile away, to a rocket that put men on the moon. From evil leaders of destruction to great leaders of progress. Monuments of great warriors, wars, and battles marked the majority of the pilgrimage. In some cases right and truth prevailed, such as the Revolution and Gettysburg, and in others evil prevailed such as at Cumorah and in Germany. The difference is in the Lord. Those who sought the help of the Lord won their battles, whereas those who depended on their own strength lost everything. The contrast was remarkable.
Like all areas of life, spirituality depends on contrast. We cannot know the sweet if we don't know the bitter. Our intelligence comes from our experience, and if we never know sorrow, we cannot understand happiness. We come to know good and evil through experience. Reading about it, or hearing stories, isn't enough; we need to actually be there and feel it. Without experience we will always remain ignorant, and easily fooled. As Søren Kierkegaard said, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” We make museums, monuments, and memorials to remind us of what is true, where we have been, and how far we have come.
At first it started as a trip down memory lane for my wife, Karyn. We went to her childhood home in North Carolina to visit the people and places she knew as a child. We slid down Sliding Rock in the Blue Ridge Mountains, admired the beautiful valleys, and went to the church that her father helped build. We also went to see her "adopted" mama from the South in a nursing home. She's still sharp as a tack, though she had just fallen and bruised some ribs.
From there, we went to our nation's capital. Washington D.C. was something of a spiritual experience. The Lincoln and Washington memorials, the White House, and so forth brought me back to the roots of our country, and our freedom. The monuments and memorials are important to help us remember these. There are a great many of leaders who have made freedom a reality for me, and I owe them a debt of gratitude because I really value the freedom I have.
We went to Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington. I would like to know him better because he truly was a great man. In many ways, he single-handedly defeated the British armies sent to put down the rebellion. He used intelligence to win, not might. As one English leader said, "Washington didn't out-fight us, he simply out-spied us." From the war to the Constitutional Convention, he did so much to bring about freedom, the Constitution, and the United States, he truly is the "Father of our Country."
At the Smithsonian air and space museum we were able to see the history of flight. Eight-year-old Ethan couldn't get enough. In the Wright Brothers exhibit he just wanted to see how everything worked, how they figured-out the mechanics of flight, not just to glide downward, but to power a plane that could be controlled. From there we saw all the flying machines in air and space. Ethan was full of questions on every one. I couldn't answer all of his questions, but we found people who could. It filled us with amazement that man is able to fly like birds and go into space. We truly have been blessed.
The Holocaust Museum was so intense that I was a little concerned that Shannon, who is only 12, went through with us. The messages include: "It happened" and "Don't let it happen again!" War normally includes killing for the sake of taking over control or property, or for defense, but this was just brutality and cruelty in its most efficient form. It is still amazing that a civilized people could become so un-civilized in such a small amount of time. How did one such as Hitler warp the humanity of so many of his countrymen? The museum reminds us because otherwise we will refuse to believe such a thing could happen. Another message is that it can, and does, still happen -- in Cambodia, Africa, and Kosovo, for example. The only way to prevent such tragedies is by remembering our own humanity, and not following leaders of destruction.
In Pennsylvania, we went to the Cyclorama at Gettysburg. I had often wondered how these battles worked, and to see that painting and listen to the explanation filled me with awe and wonder! The museum contained a lot about Abraham Lincoln's leadership in preserving the United States, his only objective. Abolishing slavery was the by-product that was required for the Union of the North and South because that was their primary division. He tried to avoid it in order to appease the people of the South, so they would want to remain in the Union, but it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation that the North truly began to prevail. The nation had to be free of slavery in order to fulfill its mission.
From there we went North to Western New York, and saw Niagara Falls. I've seen pictures, read stories, and heard a lot about this waterfall, but nothing compares to going there in person. The amount of water falling such a height, and feeling the power of it was amazing! We went down into the "Cave of the Winds" tour (there is no cave) at the bottom of the falls. It is truly something that must be experienced to appreciate.
Also in New York, in the Finger Lakes area, is a small town called Palmyra. I have always wanted to visit here. It is a fitting end to my pilgrimage because this area is where a series of events happened that have long been predicted by prophets, the story of our Savior. The reason George Washington and the rest were sent to create a free country is precisely to have a place for Christ to come. He came, to a 14-year-old boy, "as a thief in the night" as prophesied, to begin restoring the Gospel that was lost so many years before at the death of His Apostles. Most people still don't know it -- it seems to be the best-kept secret on Earth! As the Gospel spreads the whole world is being prepared for His millennial reign. The prophecies are being fulfilled; the signs of the times tell us it is close.
There is no real beginning to this story because it is an ongoing process of preparation. Some say it started during the Renaissance with the printing press and the ability to print the Bible in the common languages. Tyndall and others braved all manner of persecution and death so that all would be free to learn the word of God. The discovery of the New World soon brought many seeking religious freedom. But, over time, the Colonies became suppressed like they were in England, and a small number of them rebelled against British Rule, bringing freedom to the United States of America. Some thirty years after the Constitution was written, a boy in upstate New York went into a grove of trees to pray, asking God which church he should join, starting the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the world. The entire story was planned from the beginning, but the spiritual history is easily forgotten, or overlooked for the physical aspects.
We went to that grove of trees, The Sacred Grove, and walked through it. We were almost alone. I have heard about people having spiritual experiences there, and I expected to feel something different. It was very peaceful. The mosquitoes were biting my daughter, Charlotte and I. We sat and talked about what had taken place there in 1820, the most significant theophany in the history of the world, but nothing happened. No angel, no voice, not even a powerful influence. It occurred to me as we were walking out that I didn't need anything, I already had everything I needed. I have a sure knowledge, and witness of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith, Jr. really did see God and Jesus Christ there, and that he really did restore the fullness of the Gospel. I know what that means. I know what was lost, and what was restored. I didn't need a further witness while I was there. What I did get was another reference point of the physical location to add to my understanding.
The Hill Cumorah was also on my list. Here, a book written on gold plates was deposited in this hill from around 421 A.D. to 1825. The man who put them there came to Joseph Smith, Jr. as an angel to allow him to translate part of them into the Book of Mormon. The book is about a civilization that existed on this land that was completely destroyed in a battle near that hill around 400 A.D. where over 230,000 men were killed. The book also tells of another civilization completely destroyed here a thousand years previous to this, and over two million died. We climbed the hill, followed the trail down the backside of the hill. The view from the top of the hill was the same as all over. It isn't as large as I expected, but it is steep; it wasn't remarkable, except for the events that took place there, both joyous and sorrowful -- we see it, and remember.
Overall, it was a week of incredible emotional contrast; from the horrors of the Holocaust, to the peace of the Sacred Grove; from visiting a old and weak grandmother to feeling the power of a huge waterfall; from cannon that can hit a target a mile away, to a rocket that put men on the moon. From evil leaders of destruction to great leaders of progress. Monuments of great warriors, wars, and battles marked the majority of the pilgrimage. In some cases right and truth prevailed, such as the Revolution and Gettysburg, and in others evil prevailed such as at Cumorah and in Germany. The difference is in the Lord. Those who sought the help of the Lord won their battles, whereas those who depended on their own strength lost everything. The contrast was remarkable.
Like all areas of life, spirituality depends on contrast. We cannot know the sweet if we don't know the bitter. Our intelligence comes from our experience, and if we never know sorrow, we cannot understand happiness. We come to know good and evil through experience. Reading about it, or hearing stories, isn't enough; we need to actually be there and feel it. Without experience we will always remain ignorant, and easily fooled. As Søren Kierkegaard said, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” We make museums, monuments, and memorials to remind us of what is true, where we have been, and how far we have come.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Historical Fiction
We consider our society and teachings to be enlightened, however, it would be wise to consider history. There is no society in history that got it right. The Greek philosophers, as smart as they were, were not correct about the Universe. The Romans didn't get religion or politics right. The Norse gods weren't real. The Chinese didn't get biology right. The Arabs didn't get math right, though we still are stuck with their system. In fact, there is no society anywhere on Earth in any time period that was right on in any field of knowledge. Yet, we consider that the teachings of our society today are correct, that we have true knowledge and understanding. In this thought we are standing on a very shaky foundation; we must consider that it is unlikely that we have anything right.
In cancer treatment, a thousand years from now people will be saying, "Can you believe how barbaric they were to use radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy to treat cancer? I'm sure glad I don't live in that time!" We now have a multitude of treatments that don't work, all of them are barbaric: cut, poison, burn -- just as barbaric as the medieval treatments for scurvy, kwashiorkor, beriberi, and all the diseases we cure now with a simple pill, shot, or diet change.
In physics we teach that space is a vacuum, and at the same time say that all nature abhors a vacuum. We think in oxymorons, that light is both a wave and a particle. We ignore those things that are right in front of us because we haven't yet learned how to see them. We don't understand gravity or other forms of energy. We're stuck using trash forms of energy -- heat, random radiation, and electricity running through wires. We don't even understand the basic principles of light. In a thousand years scientists will joke about how ignorant they were in the 21st century. "They used to think that light traveled by particles through a vacuum? Ha Ha, that's funny!"
In biology we will be the laughing stocks of some future society for believing that everything is random. Our god of random chance will be replaced by intelligent beings with choice. The incredible diversity in life will be understood to be planned by decision. They will wonder how we could be so ignorant as to think that stupidity reigns supreme and there is no choice or intelligence in life -- it's very essence!
In mathematics we will be thought of as completely ignorant of multi-dimensional math. We think we are so smart that we can add 1+1, using a single dimension to represent a multi-dimensional Universe. Future generations will be amazed that we were even able to create such amazing things as a computer with such primitive math skills. We look at real mathematics and call it "chaos theory." Future generations will know that it's not chaos at all, and will joke about us. "They didn't even know the reality of infinity -- that 1+1=infinity, and so does 2+2, and 3+3, and so forth, because they only looked in one dimension. They did have some two- and even a rudimentary three-dimensional math, but nothing like we know how to do today!"
In chemistry we will be thought of as we currently look at ancient alchemists. We put on white coats and mix chemicals to force reactions just to see what they will do. We create poisons to make our lives better, but find that our environment gets more toxic. We burn and oxidize hydrocarbons for energy, not knowing how to really use the energy of the molecule. We only have a rudimentary understanding of enzymes and amino acid polymers, and only use carbohydrate polymers for fuel. We use chemicals to poison our bodies in all sorts of ways. All of our medicines are poisons, blocking the normal metabolism of the body. Future generations will be amazed that we were even able to function with all these poisons in our brains and bodies.
We have changed health care to "medicine," which always refers to patent drugs. We consider our doctors to be gods who can heal the body with a pill. Seventy percent of our population takes these poisonous pills. In the future, people will wag their heads at the stupidity and ignorance the same way we look at the witch-doctors of primitive societies. They had potions, most of which were poisonous, they cut the body, and spoke their incantations, shaking their instruments exactly the same we we do today. Our "research" is little more than marketing programs for drugs put together by copywriters. In the future, people will actually use science to understand the root cause of disease and improve the health of the population, and will look at us as primitives.
In philosophy, our logic is illogical. Our politics is illogical. Our religion is illogical. Our scientific thought is illogical. Richard Dawkins, a biologist, wrote a best-selling book that was widely acclaimed by scientists and lay people alike called, The God Delusion, that is merely a long string of logical fallacies from the title to the final sentence. People today thought it was a good book, and set the author up as a smart guy, a true philosopher indicating that those who read it probably couldn't define "logical fallacy" much less find one in a sentence. Nobody in our world is trained in philosophy -- not even the philosophers!
We are instead taught that we can create a new reality by thinking differently, or teaching others to think differently. Rather than seeking to describe the external truth about a subject, the philosophers are trying to create a new, internal reality. We are taught that if we can get everyone to believe a concept, then it becomes truth. Future generations will wonder how we could have gone so far backwards from the philosophers before us who were actually dedicated to discovering truth.
Getting it right means understanding things the way they really are. Our current vision is so limited as to make us completely ignorant of reality. The problem is found in focus. When we believe what we are taught by our society, we can only see what we are given, and understand what we are taught. This will always lead to ignorance. The word "ignorance" comes from the same root as "ignore." I believe this is appropriate because it's exactly what happens. We automatically see the things we are taught to see, and ignore the reality that is right in front of us. It has happened throughout history, and continues unabated today. When we are history, our ignorance will be discovered.
Our only hope is freedom. If men are free to think and act and are not taught the dogma of the day, then we have a chance to continue to learn and grow. The only way we can get out of our trap of ignorance is to "think outside the box." If society allows, and even encourages children to push the envelope we will find that there are many Einsteins, Teslas, and Edisons who can help us to grow, learn, and gain knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Our lives will get better and better on a more rapid basis if we don't hold people down with our current beliefs.
Unfortunately, we are headed in the wrong direction. Government schools cannot teach freedom of thought, they instead teach "facts," which is just the dogmatic beliefs of the day. They are no different than the parochial schools of a thousand years ago. Children are taught to believe what they see, and then are taught what to see, ignoring what is right in front of them, and creating a whole world of ignorance. In a future history class they will hopefully understand that all our current dogma is really fiction, for now, we have to suffer in ignorance.
In cancer treatment, a thousand years from now people will be saying, "Can you believe how barbaric they were to use radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy to treat cancer? I'm sure glad I don't live in that time!" We now have a multitude of treatments that don't work, all of them are barbaric: cut, poison, burn -- just as barbaric as the medieval treatments for scurvy, kwashiorkor, beriberi, and all the diseases we cure now with a simple pill, shot, or diet change.
In physics we teach that space is a vacuum, and at the same time say that all nature abhors a vacuum. We think in oxymorons, that light is both a wave and a particle. We ignore those things that are right in front of us because we haven't yet learned how to see them. We don't understand gravity or other forms of energy. We're stuck using trash forms of energy -- heat, random radiation, and electricity running through wires. We don't even understand the basic principles of light. In a thousand years scientists will joke about how ignorant they were in the 21st century. "They used to think that light traveled by particles through a vacuum? Ha Ha, that's funny!"
In biology we will be the laughing stocks of some future society for believing that everything is random. Our god of random chance will be replaced by intelligent beings with choice. The incredible diversity in life will be understood to be planned by decision. They will wonder how we could be so ignorant as to think that stupidity reigns supreme and there is no choice or intelligence in life -- it's very essence!
In mathematics we will be thought of as completely ignorant of multi-dimensional math. We think we are so smart that we can add 1+1, using a single dimension to represent a multi-dimensional Universe. Future generations will be amazed that we were even able to create such amazing things as a computer with such primitive math skills. We look at real mathematics and call it "chaos theory." Future generations will know that it's not chaos at all, and will joke about us. "They didn't even know the reality of infinity -- that 1+1=infinity, and so does 2+2, and 3+3, and so forth, because they only looked in one dimension. They did have some two- and even a rudimentary three-dimensional math, but nothing like we know how to do today!"
In chemistry we will be thought of as we currently look at ancient alchemists. We put on white coats and mix chemicals to force reactions just to see what they will do. We create poisons to make our lives better, but find that our environment gets more toxic. We burn and oxidize hydrocarbons for energy, not knowing how to really use the energy of the molecule. We only have a rudimentary understanding of enzymes and amino acid polymers, and only use carbohydrate polymers for fuel. We use chemicals to poison our bodies in all sorts of ways. All of our medicines are poisons, blocking the normal metabolism of the body. Future generations will be amazed that we were even able to function with all these poisons in our brains and bodies.
We have changed health care to "medicine," which always refers to patent drugs. We consider our doctors to be gods who can heal the body with a pill. Seventy percent of our population takes these poisonous pills. In the future, people will wag their heads at the stupidity and ignorance the same way we look at the witch-doctors of primitive societies. They had potions, most of which were poisonous, they cut the body, and spoke their incantations, shaking their instruments exactly the same we we do today. Our "research" is little more than marketing programs for drugs put together by copywriters. In the future, people will actually use science to understand the root cause of disease and improve the health of the population, and will look at us as primitives.
In philosophy, our logic is illogical. Our politics is illogical. Our religion is illogical. Our scientific thought is illogical. Richard Dawkins, a biologist, wrote a best-selling book that was widely acclaimed by scientists and lay people alike called, The God Delusion, that is merely a long string of logical fallacies from the title to the final sentence. People today thought it was a good book, and set the author up as a smart guy, a true philosopher indicating that those who read it probably couldn't define "logical fallacy" much less find one in a sentence. Nobody in our world is trained in philosophy -- not even the philosophers!
We are instead taught that we can create a new reality by thinking differently, or teaching others to think differently. Rather than seeking to describe the external truth about a subject, the philosophers are trying to create a new, internal reality. We are taught that if we can get everyone to believe a concept, then it becomes truth. Future generations will wonder how we could have gone so far backwards from the philosophers before us who were actually dedicated to discovering truth.
Getting it right means understanding things the way they really are. Our current vision is so limited as to make us completely ignorant of reality. The problem is found in focus. When we believe what we are taught by our society, we can only see what we are given, and understand what we are taught. This will always lead to ignorance. The word "ignorance" comes from the same root as "ignore." I believe this is appropriate because it's exactly what happens. We automatically see the things we are taught to see, and ignore the reality that is right in front of us. It has happened throughout history, and continues unabated today. When we are history, our ignorance will be discovered.
Our only hope is freedom. If men are free to think and act and are not taught the dogma of the day, then we have a chance to continue to learn and grow. The only way we can get out of our trap of ignorance is to "think outside the box." If society allows, and even encourages children to push the envelope we will find that there are many Einsteins, Teslas, and Edisons who can help us to grow, learn, and gain knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Our lives will get better and better on a more rapid basis if we don't hold people down with our current beliefs.
Unfortunately, we are headed in the wrong direction. Government schools cannot teach freedom of thought, they instead teach "facts," which is just the dogmatic beliefs of the day. They are no different than the parochial schools of a thousand years ago. Children are taught to believe what they see, and then are taught what to see, ignoring what is right in front of them, and creating a whole world of ignorance. In a future history class they will hopefully understand that all our current dogma is really fiction, for now, we have to suffer in ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)