Friday, September 18, 2009

Save the environment, don't have kids!

At least if you are in a developing country. That seems to be the message of the "climate change" folks. It's only a matter of time before this becomes mandatory in the name of "saving the planet." And of course it is only poor people who will have to, those darn 'breeders.'

This is at the heart the biggest problem with the environmentalists. They view humans as a cancer on the earth rather than as part of nature. As such they will seek to inflict this ideology on the rest of the world (oftentimes it is the 'other' countries that are the problem, not the people who are advocating these policies).

As Christians we have two things we must continue to defend and watch out for. The dignity of all human life (abortion and contraception must go) and defense of the poor (the developing countries will be targeted for these anti-life policies). We must take care of the environment sure, but with humanity as a part of nature, not the cancer that the environmental movements sees.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Atheism and the abuse of the scientific method

A curious phenomenon I've noticed when seeing athiest arguments against the existence of God. Specifically one would hear the phrase "There is no evidence for the existence of God." The Chrisitian apologist would then go on to offer events such as miracles and such, and go on back and forth and such.

The problem I've always had with this is that both sides engage in an abuse of the scientific method. In order to see the problem let's review the scientific method.

1. A hypothesis is formed concerning a property of the universe.

2. An experiment is constructed based on the hypothesis to test said hypothesis.

3. A result is expected. If the experiment's results match the expected result, the hypothesis is proven.

4. The experiment is performed.

To illustrate by way of example, consider the following:

1. I propose a force exists, called "grabity", that pulls everything down toward the ground.

2. To test such a theory I will hold a ball above the ground. I will then remove my hand from beetween the ball and the ground.

3. If my theory is correct, the ball will "fall" toward the ground.

4. I drop the ball, and sure enough, the ball "falls" to the ground.

The problem with the dialogue mentioned in the first paragraph is that steps 2 and 3 are never really defined. When asked "What are you looking for" when it comes to evidence this is often accused as being a dodge. It is not. It is simply the correct progression of establishing a scientific test for the existence of God.

I think at some level there is a recognition that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job. A process to test for the properties of the physical universe being used to determine the existence of an immaterial being is like using a metal detector to find your socks. And at some level I think the atheists recognize this but fail to come to grips with it.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Sotomayor Saga

The nomiation and installment of Sotomayor appears to be all but certain. Her confirmation hearings have pretty much followed normal, and aside from her having a complete meltdown it looks like she will become a Supreme Court justice.

The net effect basically is that she is replacing a liberal and abortion supporter on the court. Therefore in the numbers game the pro-life movement hasn't lost any ground. She may be more supportive of abortion than her predecessor, but this doesn't matter much in the long run I believe.

This is not to say that this isn't a travesty. Abortion is such an abhorent crime that I have trouble believing that we even have to have a discussion about why it should be illegal. My only point is that those who fight for the lives of the unborn seem to have resigned themselves and are saving for the next fight, which I think is wise.

A minor point. I have often heard Obama and Sotomayor referred to as "baby-killers." I think this is a mistake. Neither of them have actually forced the death of unborn children. They simply fight to allow mothers to slaughter their children. They are not the ones killing children. It is the average American citizen who is doing the killing. Call a spade a spade, but make sure the label applies.

Writing as a chore

What I find most difficult about writing is that my mind seems to stray when I finally have time to write. I spend all day trying to force myself to find time to write down what I've thought about during the day. But then when I actually succeed in finding time I have nothing to say.

I have found in my writing project that it has been very difficult to put together the first story since there are a variety of goals that have to be accomplished.

1. Describing the world
2. Introducing the characters
3. Reveal a main plot for the first story
4. Foreshadowing the events to come

The biggest challenge in these goals is not accomplishing them (although each goal has unique challenges) but making sure that one goal does not take away from the others. The proper balance is necessary.

I have no idea if my story is worth writing. But it has been stuck in my head for years now. I hope to have the work done sometime before I die. :-).

I try to write for the greater glory of God. I hope and pray that my writing does some good. I have no idea if it is worth anything. But when something sits in your head for years on end, it is a good idea to at least try to get it on paper.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Douglas Kemic picked as Ambassador

Douglas Kmiec, the "controversial" pro life supporter of Barack Obama has recently been appointed to the position of Ambassador to Malta.

I have attempted to defend his position in the spirit of charity as required by my Faith. His position has always seemed to me to be one of resignation to the current pro-death culture with regard to abortion, and as such to meet it on its terms in order to slow down the decay. His advocacy for working with the current administration to "reduce abortions" IMO is one of defeat, yet I tried to take his statements at face value.

His recent appointment however throws that whole analysis into turmoil. Now it appears that he may have simply sold us Obama in order to get a cushy Ambassadorship. (No idea if Malta fits this category). I hope for the sake of his soul this is not the case.

My initial thought is that he should reject the post. But given that the announcement has been made it is all but done.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Hope is a Virtue

It's an odd thing these days but people (like me) seem to forget that hope is a virtue. That means that it must be something that is cultivated. Sure we may be presented with a sign that things are getting better and that helps. But also hope is an act of will, much like charity and faith. It requires a conscious act on our part to cling to hope.

Another odd thing about hope is that it is so logical if one believes in God. The creator of the universe. The all powerful. He who made everything. His victory is assured and His will invariably will carry the day in the end. Duh. And yet it seems all too easy to forget. We are so easily frightened. We cling instead to money, sex, power. Or just yield up into despair.

But Easter is the time of renewal of hope. God has conquered death. Death no longer has power over us. Hope wins out.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Why become a Man (part 3)

In order to understand why one should get married, we must first go back to the original definition stated in part 2 of this series.

Marriage is a divine calling by God to a man and a woman to permanently unite as one to give life and care for children and to grow more into love with children and each other.

The core tenant of this is sacrificial love. Without this marriage doesn't have the maturing affects on men that women hope for. The problem is that sacrificial love has been scrubbed from society. It is "celebrated" in empty platitudes of well wishing and a "niceness" devoid of real content. Marriage for the spouses is about themselves, not each other. Even children are a commodity, rather than the goal of marriage.

The problem is that in order for sacrificial love to occur we need to know "why" we should be sacrificial and loving. Without God there is little objective reason to devote one's life to such a vocation.

But there is hope. We see signs of this knowledge, this truth, coming back into focus. I'm remined of Sarah Palin, mother of five and a devoted Christian (from all accounts). The vile and disgusting attacks on her person (apart from any legitimate criticism about her capacity for Vice President) show a culture that deep down knows that there is something really wrong with our current culture and our views, so much so that we must lash out against those who live out the real meaning of marriage.

But that Palin is a viable cadidate for the future of politics shows that a waking up of our culture is rising. One hopes that such people as her have the courage to lead our culture bakc to God and life.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Why become a Man (part 2)

The original defintion of marriage before the turn of the 20th went something like this roughly:

Marriage is a divine calling by God to a man and a woman to permanently unite as one to give life and care for children and to grow more into love with children and each other.

Now astoundingly enough, modern society has managed to strip away just about everything from this definition. First we got rid of the permanent part (divorce). Then we got rid of the children part (contraception). Then we got rid of the God part (atheism/agnosticism). Now we are on the verge of getting rid of the man/woman union (homosexual "marriage, a contradiction in terms).

Finally when we introduce sex outside of marriage, we get the following:

Marriage is a "contract" between two consenting adults together and share property. The state recognizes them as an entity an treats them as such.

With this new definition there appears to be very little reason to get married. Why take on unnecessary responsibility (if any exists left) and go through the trouble? A Single Young Male can have all the fun without any of the responsibility. Why leave the state of adolescence?

We will examine this in the next post...

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Why become a Man?

A while ago I saw an article (vulgarity warning) posted by a Kay S. Hymowitz about the limbo that single men (if they can be called "men") exist in today's society. All in all I think that her analysis of men at this stage in life (speaking as a Single Young Male, or SYM hereafter) is fairly accurate. SYMs are in a perpetual adolescence. Addicted to Maxim, video games, and reality shows, we/they seem ambivalent to responsibility and to be quite frank, growing up. Surely the ideal of "Man" seems to have disappeared altogether.

However my endorsement of her analysis falls short when she begins to examine the cause of this. And apparently I'm not alone. My question, and that of others (again vulgarity warning) that apparently have written her ask, why should we?

My question is not motivated by spite or sour grapes, but really a question about what is a "Man" and where do they fit into society today? Feminism essentially told gentlemen to take a hike because such behaviour degraded women (like opening a door is supposed to reflect physical weakness of women), so men reverted to more "baser" instincts. Men were told that they are sex crazed idiots by feminists, media, schools, etc. So men decided that if that is the way society expects them to act, why not follow suit?

There is nothing worse than a deadbeat Dad, but up until the minute the child is born the man has no say if the child in the womb lives or dies. Anything that a man can do a woman can do...better. Even in the Christian Churches the Church militant is replaced with softer, less offending "witness." Today men seem to be nothing more than an extra source of income. With the state of marriage as it is (50% ending in divorce), the possibility of responsibility without rights (see the child in the womb sentence), and yielding of "freedom" (to be the SYM he was), men really don't have any incentive today to "tie-the-knot."

So to modern society I ask, why?

Follow up to be posted tomorrow...

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Conversion: The aftermath

While trolling the various web blogs I found that a rather famous athiest blogger has converted (or reverted) to the Faith. I had known very little about him save for anything that had been mentioned at Dawn Eden's blog.

Perhaps the most curious thing (to me at least) is just the rather juvenile responses from the athiests that have turned on him. The vulgarity and condesencion that the convert has met with is nothing less than breathtaking. But perhaps more than that is the tendency to shout from the rooftops "Me rational, you not!" type of responses. It might be true, but having to reiterate it over and over again seems to me a kind of weakness. Perhaps an inability to perceive the mind of the other side. Sadly too often people of all creeds (or lacking one) seem to write off an opinion contrary to our favorite positions as nonsense. It may be true, but to call something nonsense you have to at least be able to demonstrate that you understand what it is you are rejecting.

The New Athiests (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al) demonstrate time and again that they do not understand what it is they are attacking. They are so far removed from what it is they assail over and over again, demonstrating that they simply don't underestand what it is they are railing against, thus making their arguments ineffective.

This I believe stems from two problems that they suffer from. Breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of religious subjects (usually Christianity). The latter comes from the former. The arrogance comes as a personal vice. This can only be remedied by them (God's corrective grace can only be accepted by them). The ignorance comes from a lack of respect for Christianity. They do not respect it enough to learn about it. Thus they dismiss it with a wave of the hand and bombast that they pass off as rational argument.

This is not an attempt to pass judgement on them. I have no idea about their moral failings or such. But until they sit down and actually learn more about what it is they despise so much, their arguments can be met with only "that's not what we teach." You cannot convert someone from something they don't believe in.