Time (a short, incomplete thought)
Currently, the term has a rather negative connotation being associated with aging, wrinkles, nose hair, baldness, sickness, and eventually a face-to-face realization that yes, we are all going to die. Depressing, is it not...? Think really hard. Is it really depressing? Why is it so depressing? We westerners spend the better part of our days ignoring the fact that we are mortal in a technopoly that attempts to 'butter us up' into believing that technology will one day spare us this fate. And when we finally own up to the fact that we will die, there are often-times regrets, confessions to our actions that we chose conciously ignorant of what it means to live. Is this how it should be? Taking an Epicurean outlook on life, indulging in life's pleasures knowing that our pleasures are another's pain, and then later recanting for hope of more life, more time. It is life in time that we know, that we use and abuse, that we measure, that we base our scientific inquiries on, that we worship in. Can we assume that what comes after death is in any way in time? Or perhaps a merger of the temporal with the atemporal?
What does it mean to live in time? It means to live as a limited being obtaining limited knowledge in limited time with limited answers with others. In other words, it means that we must live dependently rather than independently of each other for support.
If scientists do 'cure' the death disease, I fear true individualism and independence will rip apart the social world...with a taste of immortality, there is more of a chance for self-destruction in the end when time loses its credibility and transcendence moves in. How might this look? I have some theories, but I'll spare them for now...
What does it mean to live in time? It means to live as a limited being obtaining limited knowledge in limited time with limited answers with others. In other words, it means that we must live dependently rather than independently of each other for support.
If scientists do 'cure' the death disease, I fear true individualism and independence will rip apart the social world...with a taste of immortality, there is more of a chance for self-destruction in the end when time loses its credibility and transcendence moves in. How might this look? I have some theories, but I'll spare them for now...
posted by Timcom at 3:02 PM
7 Comments:
Guns, Germs and Steal is a very good read...in fact, finished it in two days...couldn't put it down...Collapse was also very good...in fact used some of his arguments in a paper I wrote a few weeks ago, but here I'm touching on some issues he didn't quite flesh out...
I think you've hit my indirect point on the nose...technology is not 'the' problem...absolutely right...but it is our faith in the technology, devoid of the creativity behind the workings of it that should be feared...
...However, you have chosen to categorize and ascribe certain modes of rationality to certain spheres of learning...in my experience, not necessarily the safest function...
We all have bias worldviews my friend...time and inculturation lends us that...we can thank our parents and those whom we come in contact with during our lives along with our studies, experiences...
Also under your argument it must be assumed that human rationality has a denotation -- though, I think scientists would not necessarily be able to arrive at such a definitive answer given our individual biases. Objectivity, the forethought undercurrent as the basis for rational thought is merely idealistic rather than some sort of scientific prolegomena.
Christians interpret the world, time, animals from a specific lens, like scientists, like Jews, like us...
to be silent on such matters that play a big part in what it means to live seems a bit impossible perhaps. Scientists may like to admit that they are objectively 'doing' science without imposing a worldview of sorts...do you buy that? Completely categorizing things is an idealistic notion that, don't get me wrong, works in predictions, in organization, in structuring, but overall falls short in being completely attainable by human beings because we are just that, human beings.
It seems like telling a science fiction writer to stop writing about science because it couldn't possibly be true...but then later that category is fudged a bit by scientists who model discovery on creative minds in literature later on...
This is why I think you would be great at creating science fiction my friend...who knows...your ideas may be next on scientist achievement lists.
My point is that these categories you speak of always SEEM to be in conflict...why the conflict? why does there have to be a conflict? Most of my Jewish friends have no problem with scientific discoveries (though as you pointed our Christians have and probably always will be slow on the uptake where discovery is concerned). But I might add that the conflict is usually hyped up by the liberal media and then conservative outlets...Behind this quasi-conflict that is relayed to us, we only get the brunt of a feud that has been going on long before our time...we see conflict because that's what we're told to see, that's what we are inculturated to see. I have not drawn a line on categories just yet after having that inculturated line destroyed for myself and thus I cannot be in support of your point of view...it is a long (life-long) process that in the end has no definitive finality, but is interrupted by physical expiration.
To 'ask someone how it REALLY IS' is like asking one person what the truth is...be prepared for a load of answers that are tainted in some way by belief, bias, whatever...This statement reflects the sort of plurality and ambiguity that I'm talking about...There is no denying that there are ethics councils, morality conferences that assess technology as most know...that is not in debate...but who elects these people? Who are these people? Do we know their bias? If you ask me, I think there is a danger here of a larger socioeconomic gap when new technology is available.
You seem to waver on whether or not you trust the system or whether or not you disagree with the system in the U.S...which is it?
Furthermore, I didn't actually say the word "technocracy" given its connotative dimensions currently referring to a system controlled by scientists and technology savvy experts. "Technopoly" was the word I used, referring to a faith in technology, thus in the men pumping it out and approving it...so I think we are having as much a language disagreement here as on our ideas...
This particular segment of the blog is making the point of our transcendence-like escapism that we veil ourselves in until the veil is removed by cancer or whatever and we're on our deathbed. Technology is an example of many that have been used and abused in order to accomplish this 'morale' tool it might be enfranchised by those in power. 'If we're vulnerable lets make people think we're not so we can keep our power, ratings and prestige as a good policy maker.' Maybe we should own up to our vulnerability and humble ourselves in the world...
Forgive me if you think I'm completely attacking technology...that is no where near what I was intending to suggest with that comment...merely offer an example...
Lastly, as much as I admired Neil's book (Guns), I still couldn't help reading into his polemic as well...thus, though it was very informative, some gaps were left unanswered which I thought could have been addressed in his book quite relevantly...more on this later...i'll probably blog about it or write something up and send it to you via email or something, if ever I find time...
I meant Jared Diamond...not Neil!! Oops...HA!!
Language is just that, words that encompass some sort of meaning in which we comprehend what another is saying...to suggest the linguistic canon is closed and one is not able to incorporate new meaning into a word is really to denounce what language is all about...this is why I like poetry so much...I have given a term a connotation that exhibits a little bit of meaning...as all terms do. What you have hit on his yet another topic pertinent to any discussion -- linguistic relevance and its barriers...there are those...in order to semi-understand a term it is always significant to look at its root and stem...what can the two refer to...of course, as you know, words do not always have connotations along the same lines as the root and stem...language is thus very fluid -- as long as one defines his or her concept lending it some meaning that I one can understand, it is perfectly natural to add to the vocabulary. Obviously, this is a blog and so I wasn't going to go into some sort of explanation of terms too deeply.
You hit another point...the Bible and gaps...everything and gaps...this is where, don't quote me on this, I think Christians would look Scripture first and if a solid answer does not present itself, balance what it has to say with tradition and contemporary experience. And definitely I would go as far as to say the Bible is full of polemic...that is why Christians adamantly never rest on one interpretation of the text...of course I'm speaking from the more liberal Reformed outlook, and cannot speak for all evangelicals...but the rule of thumb is reformed yet always reforming, which suggests that the Bible devoid of new interpretation for any given time is sacreligious and irresponsible. So my point is, that read interpretively into everything...everything is interpretation from specific points of view.
You suggest that religion is never open to scientific inquiry, but I would firmly disagree with this statement...it depends on which religious segment you are looking at at any given time...you speak to generally...everyone relies on faith whether you realize it or not. The questions are what or who do you have faith in, why, and how does one come to that point. Do you have faith that 'gravity' exists or that something is causing things to go what we would call 'down.' Again, Christians balance what Scripture has to say with tradition and experience -- when one of those is out of whack with the other, there is a problem that must be reconciled. So based on your statements I might infer that your faith lies in falsification? Karl Popper is responsible for this in part...though I think Thomas Kuhn goes a bit further with paradigms, taking falsification as what is rational and stretching it a bit more...the scientific method is a wonderful tool for prediction, but not categorical in terms of truth. Science looks for the HOW, religion the WHY, but as I stated before, the two overlap at times...this barrier you speak of is superficial...
To suggest that 'religious people' are the only ones caught up in transcendent-like escapism is not to see it in the secular world as well -- movies are a prime example...though I won't go in depth on this issue here...but liken a movie-going experience to a modern-day ritual and you might see what I'm talking about. Again, it all goes back to coping with who we are as human beings with our big brains...we all do this in different ways...
Am I going to have a problem with artificial DNA, probably not...does that violate my moral code...no...slap an artifical X-ray eye on me and I'd be fine...the point I was making again, was not against technology in and of itself but the inculturated mindset that policy makers want us to have and in the ignorance we all indulge in to comfort us...
To suggest that only the religious are vulnerable is perhaps to misunderstand what it means to be alive...it takes a stronger person to own up to his or her vulnerability as we find in relationships with others...relationships do not grow unless some vulnerability is exhibited...again, I think the 'macho man' syndrome has probably contributed to this misunderstanding...
Your paragraph speaking of 'climbing a new tree' is very good...I have no beef with that...it makes it clear that we all and all of our categories have limits...the more we try to understand the more we only understand from a particular point of view or within certain paradigms that radically change in the future when another idea is more widely accepted. Religion and science both do this...I ask these very rhetorical questions you mention...and have come to a more existentialist conclusion -- What are my limits as a human being? Contending this to be seemingly postmodern, I find it useful...
God is more or less studied because (trust me this is a lengthy debate among theologians), well, let me give one person's answer: Christians study God because God became flesh in Jesus Christ thus entering into the spatiotemporal realm of categories...thus primary revelation of God is in the person and work of Jesus...Scripture only attests to that primary Word, so in essence Scripture is the only witness Christians today have to that primary revelation...Scripture is only secondary to Jesus (though I think that gets lost). Because Scripture is polemic, it is metaphorical, analogical, and paradigmatic, it requires constant interpretation...where it is silent on issues, then the Christian community has a bit of fluidity and room for creativity within the tradition in line with the biblical witness and tradition...thus contemporary experience of issues that those who wrote the canonical books did not experience or address are open to interpretation.
This is why Christians won't die off...because of the analogical language of the Bible leaving room for a vast amount of interpretation and adaptation...of course this is a very simplistic interpretation and I'm neglecting an important factor in their doctrine, which speaks of the Holy Spirit illumining humanity to rightly interpret Scripture and to live properly. Without the Spirit, humanity is thought to be incapable of really knowing their God.
This is perhaps a bit more theology than you wanted, but as you point out, Christians always start with Scripture...
As I mentioned early, the scientific method is great for prediction, but I would not claim it to be categorical in terms of truth...Because Christians start with the Bible (revelation), they are making a truth claim and placing their faith in that claim. To suggest that another course of action is more rational is to put limits on the concept of rationality. Placing what the Christians refer to as the inconceivability of God under the microscope seems impossible. Here again, we find ourselves at a discussion between right and wrong orientation and practice, again which I have not yet come to a decisive conclusion on which takes the cake...I find both useful (perhaps for selfish reasons) and perhaps both relevant in revealing things...the other point is that the Bible does exist, and I arguing from a 'what if' stance would only be conjecture on my part.
Your 'or' question concerning God is easy...both...I think the people create God and then hold God to be a religious truth; then God takes up a life of his own...On the other hand I think God is first truth, then constructed..............Guess we will never fully know will we given our limited tools of analysis on spatiotemporal objects...no matter how I choose to attempt an explanation of God, the explanation falls short, limited...But if I were a pastor (which I may or may not pursue) then God would not be interpreted in terms of substance, but in terms of personhood...God is what God does (and of course this eventually points back to the witness in Scripture) but includes the current work of the third part of the Christian godhead, in the Spirit that acts in the world not just among Christians (as is mistakingly thought) but among all. Yeah, I know this is very heavily based in theology, but as a Christian leader it would be my responsibility to give an answer concerning God in terms of revelation in light of his inconceivability...Again, the ambiguity is still ripe and plentiful, but the point would be that we cannot fully know God...then on my free time I would argue myself into dead-ends with my friends, colleagues, etc...Of course, as of now, pastorship may not be the best place for me, though I think theology has definitely given me fresh insight into our world...nothing definitive of course...in fact Amy has encouraged me to resume my interest in engineering after seminary, or perhaps psychology...we'll see...
Right now, we're more trying to buy a car than anything else...
As far as your last concern, I've been reading up on the second law of thermodynamics for a rationality paper and if this theory is a good forecaster for what will eventually happen, immortality seems unrealistic...though not completely impossible. Being immortal would probably yield very different thinking, lead to very different paradigms, perhaps lead to slow progress...dunno...
I'll try to write more later...I have some prep to do for a presentation...
You somehow think that what I am talking about is spreading Christianity with frontier revival encounters...I think you've missed the base there...this is not the sort of missional techniques you can expect from future Christians....
In response to the previous comments, checks and balances are ways in which we organize our social systems without which society would ultimately fall apart...no contention there...
Again you are also generalizing Christianity where a plurality of opinion rests, which is in itself dangerous in coming to sound conclusions...
Language is very powerful...good observation...[The Dinka tribe find language to be what is transcendent in the world and understand the need for language to be checked so that we don't destroy each other]...here is where you contradict yourself supporting a secular society that encourages freedom of speech and yet take the opposite stance of needing to filter that speech.
The method you put your faith in is very similar to the religious method you refute. Christians have faith as well, but that faith is, not to sound to cliche 'ish', 'faith seeking understanding' -- I would contend scientists follow the same path even if they are merely problem-solving. We are always constantly critiquing each other, falsifying in light of new information, false conclusions, etc. Science very much is exploring the HOW questions as I stated -- how does the universe work, etc, while religion deals more with WHY questions -- why do we exist? why does the universe work? But as I also stated before, they overlap at times...one can perhaps can inform the other -- to suggest otherwise seems more a bias in a linear course of thought rather than encompassing a much broader picture, thinking more inclusively. In fact, the very exclusivity you pin on Christians is practiced by non-Christians who cannot think aside from their own religion of sorts.
Advocating religion as a de facto standard did not come from my comments...perhaps that is an inference drawn from them...though I think seeing it as a de facto standard would ultimately de-value what it means to live in a plural and ambiguous world. Religion and the State are not the same thing and should never be the same thing...I completely agree...but perhaps for different reasons...though the law of the state is not the only law by which Christians should adhere to given their Scriptural tenets...their responsibility is to God first and foremost before the State. Though I think perhaps George Bush, the Crusaders, and these others you speak of have lost sight of the tenets they believe they are upholding...and might add that they only represent perhaps a group of nominal Christians present in the West. But I think until you stop generalizing Religion or Christianity, your argument is moot.
Referring back to something you said once before, for a theologian not to be informed on current science, on mathematics, on philosophy, and other categories, and for him or her not to participate in debates seems a bit irresponsible since Christians take a more holistic view of life. To study science devoid of anything else in one's life seems a bit unrealistic, or to study engineering, whatever...science as a way of forecasting and prediction is a tool...there are no grounds to suggest otherwise...
If you have faith in science as such, perhaps latch onto sociology or anthropology, which understands the need to study religion, the ambiguity in answers, the plurality of the phenomena...to just ignore it is irresponsible when wanting to refute it.
Everyting IS subject to review...couldn't have said it better myself...however again you are referring to matters in the HOW category devoid of WHY...you linearly suggest there is only one way to discover, one way to come to understanding while negating answers to other questions that your faithful system of falsification does not answer...this is not to suggest that Christianity has all the answers to other questions, but it is another way of thinking about the questions...
Qualifying what I said about George W. and others...although they have a responsibility inherent in their faith, they also do have a responsibility to the State in which they govern to govern accordingly within that system, promoting social justice, though not incontention with their faith...if the system is not in-line with their faith then perhaps they should give up their place of governance, or advocate their position without abusing their power in office...Christianity should not be the 'official religion' and should not forcibly imposed on others because a Christian is in the power of authority...to do so would violate Christian tenets...
First comment -- misinformation on your part perhaps due to unwillingness to gain an emic perspective on religion.
Second Comment -- conforming to societal epistemology -- too much of an etic interpretation that it does not stand without qualification.
Third Comment -- your argument contains the same religious connotations whether or not you realize it...again, do some emic research into religion and it may be insightful...
Fourth Comment -- to suggest something does not exist is to deny human ingenuity and creativity -- you're an artist my friend...this should be impossible for you...are you just playing devil's advocate here? Your starting point is with falsification, with problems as you stated once before...when there is no problem to falsify it shakes the faith a bit in your problem-solving method doesn't it? The problem you seem to see is the violation of your worldview...Religion need not start from your starting point, because that is only trying to categorically apply a method accross the board, when the method itself is ambiguous, changing...too narrow
Fifth Comment -- I'm not sure how the terrorist argument fits into the nature of your counter-argument since most of your argument has focused on Christianity in general in America rather than on other religions else where or in America...but I think here you are failing to acknowledge your own worldview that seaps into your argument giving an argument whose basis lies on the assumption that one worldview 'is holier than thou' which of course does not stand......so here the point is moot...you also make an assumption that my worldview is inherently comfortable...I beg to differ, and in fact must do so...the only world view that is comfortable is the conforming one...
Sixth Comment -- your categories will always limit what it is you have to say in this regard...and I think your argument is a bit ambiguous here. You infer that something is made up when of course you have no idea if it is or if it is not...so if your argument spawns from your faith in falsification, then perhaps this is more evidence of your worldview coming into play...
Seventh Comment -- I'm more up-to-date than most I can assure you...in fact I make it a priority...and to suggest otherwise is to try and convict me of the same restrictive categories you seem to support.
Eighth Comment -- Shall I give a book/article/magazine/editor list for the last question?
1)not emic, this method is etic you speak of
2)Societal epistemology yields interpretation of law according to inculturated values law-makers, advertisers, even family shove down your throat...
3)Exaggeration based on etic sociocentric bias...
4)Would you actually suggest there is no spark of something new within the art sphere, ever? Or would you suggest that art does not shape who we are as human beings?
5)Nice...
6)'The sky is blue' is rather something viewable given our senses and our perception of what 'color' the sky is, while a god on the other hand does not merely limit herself to the empirical world of problem-solving...and so this is trying to make an observation of something not necessarily observable.
7)I also have gone on to countless others, many of which have little merit, many of which do...my library only consists of perhaps a sixth religion books though I am in seminary...don't make the mistake of thinking I advocate Christianity above all other theories or apart from other theories...this is merely the target in which you have directed criticism...hence the devil's advocacy on my part...Christianity is very broadly misunderstood as I have begun to discover and mostly criticized by those who have never considered studying it or any other religion for that matter merely generalizing based on poor information...
8) Perhaps the sources you are reading are slanted one direction, though the comment I made concerning probem/solving sums up a little over 200 different books/articles read from various scientists, philosophers, doctors, mathematicians, anthropologists...very few of whom consider themselves religious. This view is not a minority one by any means, however not the only one...I've read others, but found them less convincing...
Post a Comment
<< Home